MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

Legislative Assembly of Singapore · 13 July 1962 · 2nd Legislative Assembly

Official Report, 13 July 1962, Vol 19, Issue 5 · Open in the reader (summaries, search, filters)

Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad AkibA. P. RajahChan Chee SengDavid MarshallG. KandasamyGoh Keng SweeK. M. ByrneLee Kuan YewLee Siew ChohLim Yew HockOng Eng GuanOng Pang BoonS. T. BaniToh Chin ChyeYong Nyuk Lin

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

*That this House expresses no confidence in the Government.

*The same motion also stood in the name of Mr David Marshall.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move this motion of no confidence in the Government because the political situation in Singapore has now come to a most critical stage.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: For the Barisan Sosialis.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The future of all Singapore is at stake and we cannot allow a discredited Government that cater only to the selfish interests of a few P.A.P. leaders to mar and destroy the lives of 1.7 million people of Singapore.

Sir, the last three years of P.A.P. misrule in Singapore -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - will be recorded in history as the tragedy -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Of the Barisan Sosialis.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - of the P.A.P. and Lee Kuan Yew's regime, but unlike the regimes of old, when the last artificial glow of the P.A.P. is gone and forgotten, there may not even be ruins and ashes left behind.

The Prime Minister: You are going to burn it all up, are you?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Today because of the P.A.P.'s broken promises, because of their dictatorial rule, because of their Fascist abuse of power, because of their play on communal politics, because of their constant invoking of the Communist bogey to threaten and intimidate the peace-loving people of Singapore -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: He loves peace!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - because of the self-centred arrogance of the Ministers, because of their blatant dishonesty, because of their placing party considerations above the national interests, because of their sell-out of the interests of the people of Singapore -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: By not arresting the Communists!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - and because of their unreasonably and desperately wanting to railroad the so-called merger arrangements that will bring only national disunity and unhappiness to the people of Singapore, the P.A.P. are no more a respected Government, no more a Government supported by the majority of the people, and no more a Government of the people. It is now a minority Government completely discredited in the eyes of the people, and everyone in Singapore is counting the days when the P.A.P. will finally be no more and gone for ever, never to return.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: For the P.A.P. it is such a short span of life - only three years - and indeed none of us would have foreseen that the life of the P.A.P. would be so short. The future of the people of a country cannot be decided by a Government that does not have the confidence of the people. We cannot allow a Government that works only for the interests of a tiny minority to impose its will on the will of the vast minority. It is a travesty of democracy and of justice and it is our duty to stop it.

Sir, let us briefly cast our minds back over the last three years. The P.A.P. started on its journey of power and glory most impressively. In the 1959 general elections, the P.A.P. contested all the 51 seats in the Legislative Assembly; 43 of the P.A.P. candidates were returned, some with large winning margins. It was a triumphant victory, and more than half the votes cast were polled for the P.A.P. When the reactionary Lim Yew Hock Government -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Thank you!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - was replaced by the new Lee Kuan Yew Government, there followed a period of rejoicing amongst the people. The people were happy and they thought that at last they had elected a Government that would look after their interests and not the interests of some colonial master. But alas, such is not the case. No one at that time thought that it would be such a short passing phase in the history of Singapore politics. Never in the history of Singapore has there been a political Party in power that commanded so much .respect and had such great support of the people in 1959. Everybody had the feeling that the P.A.P. was destined to have a brilliant future and that the new political set-up would definitely come to stay and for some considerable time. But see, Sir, how quickly it has changed -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - see how quickly and how completely the P.A.P. have destroyed themselves. Never in the history of Singapore has any government given so much hope to our people and let them down so very badly, within so short a time.

The Prime Minister himself had said the P.A.P. could only be destroyed by the P.A.P. deviating from its stand and if the P.A.P. were dishonest. He said that in 1959. Now, those words of his have come true. The P.A.P., by being dishonest and by having deviated from the original stand of the P.A.P. have destroyed the P.A.P. Amen!

Let us briefly catalogue the milestones, so to speak, of the P.A.P.'s downfall. From the original impressive number of 43 out of a total of 51 seats in this House in 1959, the initial P.A.P. majority of 35-43 against 8 - was first reduced to 29 in 1960. Then came the split in the Party in the middle of 1961, and the majority was soon reduced to the uneasy figure of 1. Now, this uneasy one-man majority has been changed into a precarious and untenable one-woman minority. Sir, can we still have confidence in such a Government? In July 1961, with still a majority in the House, the Prime Minister introduced a motion to seek the confidence of the House. Yet today -

The Prime Minister: To draw a line separating the traitors!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - with only an untenable minority the P.A.P. want to carry on, and to carry on, they have to rely very heavily on the support of the S.P.A.-U.M.N.O. Alliance, an organisation which the P.A.P. leaders used to despise and to poke fun at with disparaging remarks. But fearing this support may be taken away from them soon, the Government will adjourn the House sine die in the fond hope that the P.A.P. Government might yet survive a wee bit longer, a hope which the P.A.P. leaders themselves know will not and cannot be fulfilled.

The Prime Minister said that the P.A.P. would never ally themselves with the so-called anti-Communist forces which, according to the words of the Prime Minister himself, are often cloaked to hide the reactionary elements ranging from colonial vested interests to enemies of democracy. But see what has happened today. He has to rely more and more heavily on these reactionary elements that are enemies of democracy, and he says he is a non-Communist. Sir, even a blind man, I think, can see that the P.A.P. Government are now on their last legs and, under such circumstances, we should probably have seen the formation of some form of coalition government -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: S.P.A. and Barisan?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But there is no coalition government. Neither the U.M.N.O. nor the somersaulting S.P.A. have received their due share of the spoils of government -

The Prime Minister: You try to entice them?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Perhaps there is no point in trying to have a coalition government. There may be more from the Government Benches who will take courage in time and stand up for the interests of the people, instead of just sticking around and following the tails of their leaders of the bankrupt and discredited P.A.P. Government. Let us hope they have the courage and the guts to do so, because this is their last chance.

Sir, today the P.A.P. have become the object of hatred and contempt of the people of Singapore. If only the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, especially these two, should go into the coffee shops, markets and other places of gathering - that is, really going amongst the people -

Mr Chan Chee Seng: You go to bars and coffee shops?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - instead of just hiding behind air-conditioned Radio P.A.P., they would better be able to sense the intensity of the people's feelings against the P.A.P.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You are a real scream!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Everywhere we go we hear that the P.A.P. is dirty -

An hon. Member: Ch'ow!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They say the P.A.P. is more dirty than the S.P.A. In fact, they say now that the P.A.P. absolutely stinks. Surely, the Special Branch and other MI 5 scouts of theirs should be able to inform the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance of this feeling of hatred and contempt for them and the Government -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Barisan.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: In fact, Sir, not only in Singapore and in the Federation, but also in the Borneo territories and other Afro-Asian countries, the common talk is that the Lee Kuan Yew Government has sold Singapore down the river -

An hon. Member: Singapore River stinks though!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And what is worse, the P.A.P. Ministers have sold out Singapore on a time schedule -

The Prime Minister: Oh, I am worried about that.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, our debate has been guillotined and every act of the Lee Kuan Yew, Government has been timed to the pleasure of the colonialists and the neo-colonialists. [Interruption]

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of information -

Mr Speaker: Unless the Member will give way.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister cannot talk unless the Member gives way and sits down. Is the Member giving way?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Prime Minister will have ample opportunity to reply -

The Prime Minister: No, I want only a few minutes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But let him hear my piece.

The Prime Minister: You weary my heart. [Laughter]

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Our Prime Minister and the Ministers of the P.A.P. think it is great fun. They think they can hide their great anxiety and fear of the contempt of the people and the anger of the people by laughing it away.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: You laugh.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Let them realise that if they were to go out into the streets of Singapore without their array of bodyguards, we might not see them again -

The Prime Minister: Are you threatening me now?

Mr Speaker: Order. I might remind Members of the Government Benches that this is not really a mass meeting. I have not attended a mass meeting, but I understand there is a lot of heckling at a mass meeting. I suggest that this is not a mass meeting and hon. Members should try not to heckle as much as they can.

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order. The last words of the Member for Queenstown were really a threat. He said that if we were to go into the streets, we would disappear. Is he going to contrive our disappearance, Mr Speaker, by himself?

Mr Speaker: Do I take it then that the Minister for Finance has been intimidated?

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member for Queenstown not to intimidate.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will never be able to intimidate, Sir, If there is any intimidation, it is not from me. I have no arms on me. It is the people outside, who will go for them hammer and tongs and they will never be able to see themselves alive again.

I was saying, Sir, that now every action of the P.A.P. has been timed to the pleasure of the colonialists, pro-colonialists and neo-colonialists -

An hon. Member: Who are they?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - so that our Prime Minister can hand Singapore over to the Federation bound hand and foot on time. Let us ask: is the date 31st August, 1962?

The Prime Minister: You are getting worried?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - that shows, Sir, from what they have been saying, that they are trying to sell Singapore down the river on time -

Mr Chan Chee Seng: For how much?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - in order to please forces outside Singapore.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, the P.A.P. today do not work for the interests of the people in Singapore. No, Sir, they work for the interests of people outside Singapore -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Where? Peking?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - and for that reason, Sir, they have deservedly earned the contempt and hatred of the people of Singapore the contempt of some and the hatred of more of the people of Singapore -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You do not like us, do you?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Member for Bras Basah knew of this widespread hatred and contempt for the P.A.P., but the others all those who are still associated with the Ministers - tailing them around, condoning and conniving at whatever they do, should awaken early from their stuporous slumber -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - before it is too late. They are words not easily understood by the Minister for Education.

Sir, immediately following the Party split, and even before, when the few leaders of the P.A.P. were left with an empty shell of an organisation that has leaders but no followers, the triumvirate of the P.A.P., namely, the Prime Minister, -

An hon. Member: The Minister for Finance.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Minister for Finance -

An hon. Member: The Deputy Prime Minister?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - and the Minister for Culture. Anyway, Sir, the Minister for Finance is also the Minister for Culture now. So it makes no difference.

The Prime Minister: He thinks that they are all the same.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: These three started the smear campaign of the Communist bogey. They had hoped by so doing that the public might be deceived as to what was going on.

The P.A.P. was disintegrating, but the P.A.P. leaders attempted to paint a picture that it was all the work of a handful of Communists and subversives, and if only the P.A.P. could cleanse themselves of these so-called subversives, then all would be well. But what has happened? Only recently another Central Executive Committee Member has crossed the Floor. Is this again the work of Communists, so-called Communists, and subversives?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Some of the Members on the Government Benches seem to know a lot more.

An hon. Member: We know more about you!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And they dare not face the people and tell them on a public platform. They must hide behind Radio P.A.P.

Sir, in their desperation today, the P.A.P. have labelled everything - any person, any organisation, any movement - that is against the dishonest P.A.P. dictators as Communist, pro-Communist, or Communist-inspired. The unions, because they are against the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Culture, are called Communist-led unions, irrespective of whether they are unions of factory workers or of English-speaking office workers. The civic organisations and the Chinese Schools Old Boys' Associations have been similarly labelled, simply because they are against the dictatorial rule of the Fascists in the persons of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance. Now the Singapore University Socialist Club and the Nanyang University Political Science Society which have organised a Gallup poll on the P.A.P. White Paper merger proposals in Tanjong Pagar constituency, are similarly labelled pro-Communist. The political Parties outside the Legislative Assembly - the Lib-Socs, the United Democratic Party, the Party Rakyat all those that protest against the dishonesty, the cheating, and the dictatorship of the P.A.P. are now all pro-Communist or supposed to be made use of by Communist organisations.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sure, that is right.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: All the people who oppose the sell-out merger are Communists. All those who oppose the humbug of this sham referendum are Communists. And today. Sir, I see in the newspapers that the United Nations may be taking up the matter, and I suppose they also are Communists. [Laughter] In fact, everyone who is against the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Culture, is a Communist or a pro-Communist. How ridiculous can one be? Surely they must have a sense of proportion. Is everything just because it is anti-P.A.P., anti-Lee Kuan Yew and Goh, the work of the omnipotent and the omnipresent Communists? No. Sir, it is not the Communists and subversives that have been at work, it is the bad things, the unforgivable things that the P.A.P. Ministers themselves have done, and are doing, that have given rise to such hatred and contempt, it is a demonstration of the people's discontent against the P.A.P. Government. It is the P.A.P. that have destroyed the P.A.P. And I dare say if more Government Backbenchers could pick up courage and defend the rights and interests of the people, more would be crossing the Floor of the House. And we would be able to -

Mr Chan Chee Seng: Don't dream of it!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - see the spectacle and comedy of the S.P.A.-UMNO Alliance also crossing the Floor - but from the Opposition. of course, to join the P.A.P. Ministers opposite. [Interruption]

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Better not. If you go there, you are finished! [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. There seems to be a combined orchestra again! We have not reached midnight yet. Let us not have any further interjections. Let us carry on with this debate as fast as we can.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You see, they are already anticipating, Sir, the tragic comedy of the big double cross.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Member for Queenstown talks in that vein, then I cannot really blame the Government Benches for interjecting. If he addresses his remarks to the Chair and proceeds with his speech. I think it will be all right.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I beg your pardon, Sir. My last remark was a repartee to what they had earlier on said.

Sir, the evidence of this loss of confidence in the P.A.P. Government can easily be seen all over Singapore and even in the Federation and the Borneo territories where the name of the P.A.P. is always mentioned together with epithets that are only used in abusive language.

If you will remember the National Day celebrations of the past three years, Sir. Contrast the 1960 and 196! National Day celebrations with the National Day celebrations this year. The P.A.P., this year, fearing that the loss of support and depletion in their rank and file would allow the P.A.P. contingent to be totally eclipsed by the Barisan Sosialis contingent if the political Parties were allowed to participate as in previous years, imposed all sorts of restrictions on us. Banners and slogans were not allowed, and contingents from the political Parties were restricted to 60 men per Member of the Legislative Assembly. Calculated on this basis, Sir, the Workers' Party would be allowed to have a team of only 60 in the march past: the United People's Party would be allowed to have 60 times 3 = 180: and the Barisan Sosialis would be allowed 60 times 13 -

An hon. Member: How many is that?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 780, Sir.

An hon. Member: He has written it down there!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Of course, it would give the P.A.P. a chance to put up a larger crowd of 26 times 60, which would be 1,560, exactly double ours. But in spite of all this, unfortunately for the P.A.P. they could not put up a show of strength. The P.A.P. tried their utmost, Sir, to put up a show of strength. Work Brigade boys were given double pay to attend. Certain workers were induced to attend by a special allowance of $1.50 per head. All sorts of inducements were also offered. Sir, all these things are known to everybody. Why should they try to hide? In spite of all this, Sir, in spite of their trying to buy people to attend, the P.A.P. could not muster more than a handful, a mere handful of 300. It was no show of strength. It was a pathetic spectacle of the loss of confidence in the P.A.P. and a clear demonstration of general discontent against the P.A.P. The workers who were scheduled to hold their own National Day celebrations had all sorts of restrictions placed in their way and they were compelled to cancel a meeting to celebrate National Day. It was indeed, Sir, a city divided. And it was this "City Divided" - which was headlined in the Sunday Mail - that had caused the P.A.P. to get into such fits that they had to threaten to stop the circulation of this Sunday paper in Singapore. And now we understand that the editor of that paper has been transferred to another department in order to placate the wrath of the P.A.P. Ministers.

Consider again, Sir, the May Day rally of the P.A.P.-sponsored unions in the Happy World Stadium and the rally of the independent unions in the Jalan Besar Stadium. It was described in our Plebeian as a battle of rallies. We had a series of pictures to show the people who attended the two rallies. On the one hand, there were 70,000 to 80.000 who braved the heavy rains in order to show their solidarity against the P.A.P. On the other hand, you had this humbug of a rally in the Happy World Stadium which started with about 6,000, but when the time came for the P.A.P. "adviser" to speak, the crowd had dwindled down to only a few hundred.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You had a Gallup poll taken there?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, all these are undeniable facts and I see that the Ministers dare not even deny what I say. Because these facts can all be proved, Sir, with pictures which tell stories that nobody can deny.

The Prime Minister: That is right. We already did so yesterday.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Of course, the P.A.P. leaders, knowing full well how unpopular they have become, dare not hold rallies of their own to meet the people. The people used to flock by the thousands to listen to them -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: They will flock again.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - not so very long ago. The P.A.P. were invited to a rally in Anson, Sir. They dared not turn up. They were afraid of the people.

The Prime Minister: Come off it!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They just dare not. None of them turned up, Sir. They were afraid that they would be booed.

The Prime Minister: You mean you were scared of their booing us?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Nowadays, Sir, if the P.A.P. Ministers ever think of holding a rally, they will first make sure that they have some sort of entertainment or show on before they step on to the stage, at least hoping that the people might turn up to see the show and incidentally listen to them at the same tune. That was what happened in Malaysia Week. They had to put on a huge show hoping to attract a crowd to listen to the Prime Minister. But in spite of all that, it was a poor effort. The thousands never turned up. They cannot deny it. All this is due. I believe, to a lack of confidence in the Government. Even in the recent University forum, Sir, I understand that lorry loads of Work Brigade boys were transported there as cheer boys for our Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Come off it!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do not know. He can deny it later on and we will see what he has to say. The Government are very clever at distorting and inventing stories to cover up all their defects. Sir, the Prime Minister himself had said before that if a government were to function properly they must have the masses on their side. I think if he wants me to quote the proper context, I can quote, but those are the operative words. I think he would not deny it. Even the Deputy Prime Minister, I think [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already told the Member for Queenstown that he should address the Chair. If he does not want to be interrupted, he should address the Chair.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Even the Deputy Prime Minister said that if the P.A.P. want to succeed, they must have the support of the masses. But what has happened today? The P.A.P. do not have the support of the masses, and they have accordingly failed.

Sir, the P.A.P. made a series of promises in the general elections, promises which they have now clean forgotten. They promised to release the detainees, for example. But the detainees are still detained. They are six years under detention, Sir.

The Prime Minister: Just think of that!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And even without the courtesy of a trial! And to think that our Prime Minister spoke so strongly, Sir,-

An hon. Member: Your Secretary-General was released.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - on this particular point. I am just wondering whether the Prime Minister and the Ministers that go along with him really have any feelings. Are they completely devoid of humanitarian principles? Has the Prime Minister forgotten those brave and inspiring words - words which inspired me, Sir - uttered in this House not so very long ago? He said that if any government wanted to put up the slightest pretence of democracy, then all detainees must be released, or if not released, at least be taken to a court for trial. He said that he would never abandon his colleagues even if they should work against him.

The Prime Minister: That is right. That is why we let out Lim Ching Siong.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But what has happened? The detainees are still in St. John's Island.

The Prime Minister: Those are not our colleagues.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister is entitled to elucidate if he is addressed in that manner.

The Prime Minister: Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the Member for Queenstown - it is not really his fault - is capable of this subtle blurring of the lines. Never were the detainees an issue. In fact, we made it quite clear by stating that only those who were closely connected with the P.A.P. would be released and nothing more. We owed no obligation to the others who were against us and who fought us in 1957.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I have no wish to prolong this argument on a small episode. But I can tell you this. The Prime Minister gave a categorical assurance to Woodhull that he would release the prisoners within six months.

The Prime Minister: On a point of elucidation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I missed Mr Woodhull recently at the University of Singapore. I met him only the other evening and invited him to a drink but he was so very busy that he was unable to accept my invitation. This is one of those malicious lies that are being spread. By the very fact that we demanded the release of Messrs. Woodhull, Lim Ching Siong, Devan Nair, Fong Swee Suan, James Puthucheary, Chan Chiaw Thor and the rest, we indicated that we were not in a position to ensure the release of every one on the assumption of power, for the power was not in our hands.

Mr Woodhull has publicly stated that I promised him ten times. I indicated to him that the Prison records show that I visited the Prison only twice before he was released. I have since had no reply from him.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Prime Minister indicated to us in this House that he would never put his hands into the dirty gloves of the Lim Yew Hock Government. What is he doing -

The Prime Minister rose -

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Sir, that is another inaccuracy. I never indicated it in this House. I indicated it at the Hokkien Huay Kuan at a Press conference.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Then why is he denying? Does it make a difference whether he said it in this House or outside this House? But did he not say those things? That is all we want -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think, for the sake of the Official Report, there must be some sort of accuracy in this House, even though it might be trivial in the eyes of the Member.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, all these are promises which the Prime Minister has clean forgotten. For example, he also promised the unification of the trade union movement. But there is no unification of the trade union movement today. In fact, so far as we know, every attempt is being made to further divide the trade union movement.

The Prime Minister: You broke it up.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Then, of course, again, Sir, there were those promises which the Prime Minister made to the workers in the Singapore Harbour Board. He told them that he would see to it that their living standard, their wages and everything would be raised the moment he came to power. What has happened today?

The Prime Minister: On a point of clarification.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: I do not remember at any time the Member for Queenstown being present at any meeting of the Singapore Harbour Board workers. My only association with the Member for Queenstown was in the Chinese Printing Workers' Union. I was the legal, adviser and he was the medical adviser. And from time to time we used to meet. He has got it all confused.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, the Prime Minister tries - to

An hon. Member: Twist and turn.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, twist and turn. But he has not denied what I have said. Sir, we learn a lot of things not through direct experience. We have to learn through the experience of others. I am sure, Sir, that nobody will say that he knows everything through direct experience. He has got to learn it from books. Books tell you the experience of other people. Surely you must learn that, Mr Prime Minister -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown is forgetting that he is in the Assembly. He is completely wrong in addressing the Prime Minister directly. He must address the Chair. It seems to me that we are now debating the Prime Minister and not the motion of no confidence in the Government which is before us.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will endeavour to prove, Sir, that it is the triumvirate that is actually running the government, and the whole of the P.A.P. Government actually rests on those three people.

An hon. Member: The Three Musketeers!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do not know whether they call them the Three Musketeers or the triumvirate. It makes no difference, Sir. But if any one of those three should fall, the whole P.A.P. will fall.

The Prime Minister: That is what you think.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The other- [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is a Backbencher of the Government who seems to be very persistent in his interjections. I do not propose to mention him yet. But I think he knows that I have watched him, and I ask him to stop interjecting.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Talking of promises, Sir, I must mention one more thing. There is the shocking remark by the Prime Minister in the Singapore University Forum about Singapore citizens not born in Singapore. He now thinks that the loyalty of the Singapore citizens who were not born in Singapore is worth only one dollar - just two packets of cigarettes-

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of elucidation?

The Prime Minister: Point of elucidation, Sir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh refused to give way.

Mr Speaker: Order. If an hon. Member makes a direct reference to another hon. Member of this House - which the other hon. Member thinks is a misrepresentation or an untruth - and if the Member who is attacked wishes to rise on a point of elucidation, I think the Member who speaks ought to sit down. That is courtesy not only to the Member attacked, but also to the Chamber itself.

The Prime Minister: I have given up smoking for some five years, Sir, I do not even know what the price of a packet of cigarettes is, to begin with. In my remarks to the University of Singapore - which is all on the tape, Mr Speaker, Sir, and it can be checked - what I pointed out was the curious position in Singapore where, as a result of the legislation of the previous Government, a whole host of persons have been granted citizenship on the basis of a quantitative and not qualitative test, with the result that those born and bred here - 280,000 of them - have been outnumbered by those not born here - 340,000 of them. And I said this in answer to a question why it was necessary to pose alternatives to the people. I indicated then that the process of just registering a man for one dollar does not ensure that he is as loyal as his oath. It is a fair remark which I will make and repeat anywhere - which any honest man knows to be true. I did not make any disparaging remarks about the price of two packets of cigarettes being the price of a citizen because obviously there must be quite a number of the 340,000 who will satisfy any qualitative test. Quite a number of them are sitting with me in this House on my side.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister has made his point.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That merely proves my point, Sir, that he did say that loyalty to Singapore was worth only one dollar. And yet the Prime Minister -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Queenstown must not misinterpret what has been said. I think the Prime Minister indicated quite clearly that a dollar is the cost of a certificate of citizenship, which is quite a different thing.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No, Sir. He did say those things about the Singapore citizens who were not born in Singapore, and yet he came to power with the support of these very same non-local born citizens.

The Prime Minister: On a point of elucidation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: The vote was secret, and nobody knew who voted how. There was no disparity between the Singapore born and the non-Singapore born citizens at the last election. I think the suggestion by the Member for Queenstown that the non-local born citizens supported us and the local born citizens did not support us is completely untenable, and in any case -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has made his point. He cannot make a speech.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Just one last sentence. Sir, about this incident. Let him remember the verdict of the people. The Prime Minister himself has said that the verdict of the people is a terrible thing and that it will be very terrible to those who do not keep faith -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Like the Barisan.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: -with the people. The P.A.P. Ministers themselves know that they are no more what they were, or what they used to be. Hence their desperate attempt to woo the civil service with the restoration of pay cuts and their belated attempt to introduce equal pay for women. Now, Sir, we see this comedy of trying to placate the teachers on their grouse about the six-day week, hoping thereby to gain or to regain possibly-

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the report of the Commission of Inquiry on that particular point has been published. If it has not been published, the Member should not refer to that subject.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will leave it out, Sir. Anyway, the P.A.P. today have travelled very far away from the people, so much so that they have to place open reliance on troops in order that they may have an opportunity to repress the people. The Prime Minister has boasted, for example, that he has obtained money from the United Kingdom in order to have more battalions stationed in Singapore-

The Prime Minister: I am rising on a point of elucidation, Mr Speaker, Sir, It is very important.

Mr Speaker: Point of elucidation. Will the Member give way?

Dr Lee Siew Choh indicated dissent.

Mr Speaker: The Member will not give way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I think the Prime Minister has ample time to reply, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is not a question of the Prime Minister having ample time. As I have indicated, if a direct attack is being made on a Member and that Member thinks that that attack is untrue, then he should be given a chance of elucidating. But I am watching it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, the Prime Minister claims that he is a great anti-colonialist. But he is a curious type of anti-colonialist who fights colonialism with money and troops from the colonial power. In addition, Sir, I saw in the papers recently the Prime Minister was giving indirect encouragement to the troops in the Federation to take over should the Socialist Front come to power in the Federation. Sir, this Fascist and intimidatory talk of the Prime Minister of meeting force with force in Singapore, leaves no room for doubt as to his true nature. There is now, Sir, no more faith in the Lee Kuan Yew Government. The Prime Minister talks contemptuously of the one man one vote system, a system which brought him to power. Let me quote, Sir, from his speech to civil servants as reported in the Straits Times of the 9th of July, 1962. It is on page 8, column 6:

`The Prime Minister said: "The tragedy about the one-man one-vote system is that it is often easier to raise the bid not knowing or, even worse, knowing full well that you will never be able to fulfil your promises, and the higher bidder usually wins.

In all new countries, the electorate is inexperienced, unsophisticated - It will vote for the person who says, `I promise you the moon, the sun and the stars'."'.

Does he still believe in the wisdom of the people?

Sir, if there is any tragedy in the one-man one-vote system in Singapore, it is that the people have unwittingly voted in a man who has so little respect for the opinions of the common man. The Prime Minister is already killing parliamentary democracy, and on the day this sham, dishonest referendum is held-

The Prime Minister: That day your lies may-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - democracy in Singapore will officially be pronounced dead-

An hon. Member: Officially?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Because on that day, freedom will have been taken away from the people of Singapore. There is no free expression of views in Singapore today, Sir. There is even this clamp down of news from the Opposition Parties and on other political Parties outside who try to express opposition to the Government's Fascist measures. Unionists, journalists and University students have all come out openly to protest against the undemocratic measures of the Government that further and further limit individual freedom. I will not enlarge on that, Sir. Suffice it to say that this alone goes to prove that it is not the so-called Communists that are killing democracy, but these Fascists masquerading as democrats who are killing parliamentary democracy in Singapore.

Sir, let us now try and find out the reason why the selfish P.A.P. Ministers have got themselves into such a sorry plight. They would like to ascribe all this to the Communist bogey, but that is not true. Why then are the people against the P.A.P. Government today? I have already indicated, Sir, that it is the P.A.P. that have destroyed the P.A.P. How, you may ask? Sir, the fact is the P.A.P. leaders are the greatest political bluffers and opportunists in Singapore history and, as such, they are opportunists of the first order, completely without scruples and without principles of decency and fair play. I do not wish to open up old scores, Sir, but there are strong rumours current in town that the P.A.P. leaders are not completely free from political guilt in the dirty political purge of 1956, although such political dirty work was carried out entirely by the reactionary Lim Yew Hock Government. You see, Sir, our Ministers have posed as Leftists for a long time and have managed to pose as Leftists because the genuine Left-wing leaders have been prevented from performing their legitimate role as a result of political repression. It is because they had posed so successfully and well as the Left that they were voted into office and power in 1959. However, it is much easier to pose as the Left than to be Left, and then when they were exposed as humbugs and shams, they began to fight their own comrades and colleagues in order to keep up the pretence and humbug and in order to keep themselves in office. I say, Sir, these are the ruthless opportunists who tenaciously hold on to the reins of government in spite of the fact that they have been completely discredited and in spite of the fact that they are no more supported by the people. We realise they always have their plausible set of rationalisations and justifications for their opportunistic act of perfidy to the people of Singapore. Sir, these are the so-called social democrats who, because if their numerous somersault distortions and disreputable public utterances, have become a discredit to true democrats. They say, Sir, that they love the beautiful system of parliamentary democracy. But the Prime Minister has just come out openly to say that the one man one vote system is a tragedy in the context of Singapore. They say they are democrats, but they claim that democracy can only be saved by dishonest, undemocratic and dictatorial methods. They say they cherish the freedom of the Press, but the Press is subjected to such tight control that there is already one newspaper, the Min Pao, that has been compelled to suspend publication indefinitely.

As you know, Sir, newspaper space for Opposition Members on whatever they say in this House has been cut down to less than one-third; two-thirds of newspaper space must be reserved for Government Benches. For example, Sir, yesterday when the Member for Thomson moved his motion and later on when the Minister for Home Affairs replied, one full page was given to the speech by the Minister for Home Affairs, and only a scraggy couple of columns - less than a couple of columns - I do not think it could even be a column, in some corner, Sir, for the Member for Thomson. This is a disgraceful method of pressure on the Press. They say they are not Fascists and that they allow people to freely express their views and opinions. Yet when a group of trade unions got together to hold a convention in connexion with the referendum, the unionists were prohibited from holding the meeting and from expressing their views. More recently, they also barred the Council of Joint Action from conducting its lawful and constitutional campaign or protest against the dishonesty and dictatorship of the P.A.P. by holding rallies and conventions in order that its views on the merger issue and on the referendum might be communicated to the people. They say they allow the people of Singapore the final say on the future of Singapore and on the question of merger. But in the forthcoming referendum, the people will not be allowed to say 'no' to the alternatives offered to them. They are only P.A.P. alternatives foisted on the people-

Mr Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that those alternatives have been approved by this Assembly. Therefore, there is a vote of the Assembly approving the alternatives and there cannot be any reflection on any vote of the Assembly no matter how much the Member might dislike it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is one of the defects, Sir, -

The Prime Minister: That you cannot vote it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Just because they have been approved by the majority -

Some hon. Members: So what?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We are not even allowed to criticise-

Mr Speaker: Order. I thought the Member for Queenstown was a champion of parliamentary democracy. The Speaker is here to see that parliamentary democracy, at least in this Chamber, is upheld and one of the rules is that no vote of the Assembly can be reflected upon by any Member.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will observe your guidance, Sir.

An hon. Member: Rule.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, the P.A.P. Ministers call themselves socialists at one time. Nowadays, they dare not use the word "socialist" any more. They call themselves nationalists. But by their very actions, they have shown themselves neither to be socialists nor nationalists-

An hon. Member: Communists.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But they have shown themselves to be national socialists-

The Prime Minister: We heard that yesterday, you know.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - national socialists of the Hitler type. They do not like to hear it because they are the exact replica today in Singapore of the Nazis in Germany.

Sir, I want to emphasise, and I take it that it is no exaggeration so to say, that all along public confidence in the present P.A.P. Government has hinged on the public standing of three individuals. I have already indicated to you. They are the Prime Minister as a lawyer, the Minister for Finance as an economist and administrator, and the Minister for Culture as a Goebbels propagandist, and all three of them have been thoroughly discredited. These three, Sir, the triumvirate of the P.A.P., have now decided to wear a cross-

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Cross? They are not Christians.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They have now turned themselves into anti-Communist crusaders a la McCarthy.

An hon. Member: Oh, alamak!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: a la McCarthy. Their historical mission, so they keep repeating, is exactly this.

Mr Byrne: You need baggy trousers and a top hat!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Not with a marble skull! They want to fight the supposed Communist enemies and the supposed Communist sympathisers to the finish. And towards this end they have plotted and slept with Machiavelli, strained every sinew, mobilised all available forces whatever they may be, both from their side as well as this side of the House, and used all the most dictatorial and Fascist means and methods.

The people of Singapore have seen the proponents of this negative philosophy of anti-Communism, and have seen how the P.A.P. have racked their evil genius for excuses and distortions in order to cling on to power. As I have indicated earlier, Sir, they have, and they know this full well, lost the support of the people. The rank and file of the P.A.P. have been so depleted that the P.A.P. today is no more than an empty shell. And they have no organisation and hardly any cadres to speak of. They know full well that they have no more moral authority to carry on as a Government. Yet these self-same men who hold power have taken upon themselves to tell the people of Singapore what their constitutional future should be. Simply because the P.A.P. leaders say, with their usual arrogance, that they know what is best for the people of Singapore. As long as the P.A.P. leaders say that, then the P.A.P. maintain that it is correct and that the future of the people of Singapore must be good. They imagine only the P.A.P. know what is best for the people of Singapore! And it is because of that, I suppose, that they thrust this sham referendum on the people. And it may be because of that that they have decided on the questions for the people. Without any reflection on this House, Sir, those were the questions that were acceptable only to the P.A.P., not to the people of Singapore.

Sir, I would like to ask how crooked our Singapore politicians can become.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is you.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am surprised at the Deputy Prime Minister interjecting, Sir, I would like to ask him whether he was elected by the people of Singapore in Rochore or whether he was elected in Kuala Kangsar.

An hon. Member: In Rochore or Rochore Canal?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am not sure whether it was Rochore or Rochore Canal, Sir. Possibly it might-

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us try and stop being abusive. A repartee is quite all right if it does not go over the border.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I would urge our Ministers opposite to remember that they were elected by the people of Singapore and I would urge them always to place the interests of the people of Singapore above everything else. They say now that they do not want to vacate their cushy jobs and their seats of power because they believe they are the chosen people, destined to fulfil their so-called historical mission of merger and Malaysia. And if their ways happen to be undemocratic - so the Minister for Finance said - these undemocratic and drastic ways are necessary because of the Communists! They can become Fascists. They can be most undemocratic and most dishonest because of the Communists! Can we trust such people to look after the interests of the people of Singapore?

Sir, we sincerely believe that Singapore can no longer allow this dangerous political trend to continue. Otherwise from a sophisticated Singapore version of Syngman Rhee, Ngo Dinh Diem, and Chiang Kai-shek, we might get a more noxious variation of these abhorrent dictators. We do not want that to happen. We have a duty to stop that from happening. And I urge all representatives in this House to see that this does not happen.

Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis say that it is suicidal to leave the future and destiny of our people in the hands of the leaders of this minority Government. No one could have trust and confidence in such leaders of this minority Government any longer. As a minority Government that refuse to budge from their cushy seats of power after they have lost the support of the people, the P.A.P. Government today cannot be expected to have any consideration for political principles and for the normal standards of decency and fair play. It will be the people of Singapore who will suffer at the hands of this minority Government if such a dictatorial minority Government is allowed to continue in office.

Sir, in the current series of debates in this House, the people of Singapore have been treated to a fantastic exhibition of twists and turns of the P.A.P. leaders. It was a beautiful exhibition of somersaults, malicious distortions and malicious falsehoods on the part of the P.A.P. There were dishonest attempts to maliciously distort the stand of the Opposition on merger.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Of the Barisan Sosialis, not the Opposition.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We saw how a general Referendum Bill had been changed into a specific Referendum Bill almost overnight. And now this so-called general Referendum Bill will even have to be scrapped immediately after the dirty work has been done. There were also dishonest attempts to make political capital out of our original intention of not wanting to reveal the contents of the exchange of letters between our Secretary-General, Mr Lim Ching Siong, and the Tunku. Now, the P.A.P. have to eat their own words and their own mischievous distortions. They want the people to believe that today, although their own comrades have broken away from them in large numbers, the P.A.P. Ministers are still gaining new admirers and supporters with each passing day. This, of course, is a fond hope which they themselves know will never be realised. Many are surprised at the thickness of the skin of the P.A.P. Ministers. I am not surprised, Sir, this is the only way left for them - i.e. to have a thick skin. [Interruption] I am a medical man - I should know, Sir, how thick their skin is.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You have cow-hide!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: After defeats in two by-elections, if they had any sense of decency, they would have considered it highly improper and immoral, not to have gone hack to the people for a fresh mandate.

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of elucidation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He can have plenty of opportunities later.

But the P.A.P. leaders appear, as you will gather from the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister, to be of a different kettle of fish.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Ikan bills!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They still talk of the mandate they received from the people three years ago in spite of the fact that I have repeatedly explained to the House that the P.A.P. never had a mandate on merger in the 1959 general elections. Today the P.A.P. can no longer claim to have any right, constitutionally and morally, to carry on as a Government. Not only are they a minority Government but in each of the constituencies of the Ministers and the other P.A.P. Assemblymen, it will be found that there is no more support for the P.A.P. There are no more safe seats today for the P.A.P. Ministers. The chances are that should the Ministers go back to their respective constituencies in a general election, most of them will lose their deposits. A Gallup poll in Tanjong Pagar should tell the Prime Minister what chances he will have if he should dare go back to Tanjong Pagar. My guess is that the Prime Minister will lose his deposit.

So we see that though the P.A.P. had the support of the majority of the people in 1959, they no longer have that support today. The P.A.P. bank their precarious existence only on the simple calculation that the U.M.N.O. and the S.P.A. cannot just as yet dispense with the P.A.P. Government. The S.P.A. in all their somersaults want to give the P.A.P. all necessary support at the present moment in order that they may capitalise on the unstable status quo. At the same time, all of us realise that the Opposition Parties are divided both ideologically and in our immediate objectives.

The Prime Minister: That is right.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And it does look as if there is as yet no common issue that can unite the Opposition Parties to bring the P.A.P. Government down. The only unfortunate thing about this P.A.P. calculation is that they cannot any longer put up a pretence of being non-Communists. If the P.A.P. really adopted an independent line as was proclaimed by the Ministers in the past, then it would be difficult to see how the P.A.P. should accept the prop of the Right-wing reactionaries today, forces which the Prime Minister used to deride as inert and ineffective two years ago.

I would like, Sir, to quote a small paragraph here of what the Prime Minister himself said on the 12th September, 1957. May I refer you, Sir, to col. 2604? I do not wish to quote too big a paragraph. Sir - he was talking about the fight to the Left, to the Right, and how he was trying to keep a tightrope balance right through. He said: (it is the last sentence of the second paragraph)-

`But in this fight we shall not make the mistake of allying ourselves with so-called anti-Communist forces which are often cloaks to hide reactionary elements ranging from colonial vested interests to enemies of democracy.

Brave, inspiring words, Sir, I have informed the Prime Minister before that I admired the way he was going about his political work. And I admired him very much at that time, Sir, It is so unfortunate that he has changed so completely today.

Today the P.A.P. will have to rely on any force, because they are no longer thinking of the people: they are thinking only of themselves. The cards are all on the table - face upwards. We know the U.M.N.O. will support any government that helps to further the realisation of the Malaysia plan. But as regards the S.P.A., all Singapore know how they somersault, and their policies are beyond comprehension. The Member for Cairnhill said that the blank paper clause is undemocratic and dishonest, and he voted against the clause in Select Committee, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. It seems to me now that we are having a debate on the S.P.A. There is a motion of no confidence in the Government. I do not think we can have a debate on the S.P.A.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): We are not the Government yet!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I bring in the S.P.A., Sir, only in relation to the support that they can give to the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker: Order, that, of course, is quite legitimate. But when the hon. Member goes further and talks about a somersault. I do not know whether he means somersaulting across the Floor of this Chamber.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I want to say only this, Sir. Although the S.P.A. keep on saying that the P.A.P. is dead, every time the P.A.P. ghost moves, the Member for Cairnhill gets up to salute the ghost. Everybody in town knows that it is the S.P.A. support for the P.A.P. that keeps the P.A.P. alive today. The Prime Minister himself will have to admit that. That is why he dare not even attack the S.P.A. Members nowadays. The P.A.P. are completely mum. There is a blackout. To the P.A.P., the S.P.A. are now no more effete and ineffective! They are now the Grand Alliance! I would suggest to the S.P.A. - especially the S.P.A., Sir, since the U.M.N.O. have their interest bound up with the Malaysia plan - that if they have the interest of the people at heart, now is the time for them to show it, by knocking out this minority P.A.P. Government which is at its last gasp. They should not allow a dishonest Government to continue to perpetrate a fraud on the people of Singapore, because never before in history has there been such a minority Government that clings on to power so desperately without constitutional and moral justification. The P.A.P. Government is not loyal and sincere to the true wishes and aspirations of the people of Singapore, because, at the present moment, the P.A.P. leaders are only thinking of their own interests. The future of Singapore is at the crossroads. The P.A.P. have committed the future of our people to forces outside Singapore, without our consent, and against the collective will of the people. This is the P.A.P. sell-out. One extra day of the P.A.P.'s existence and P.A.P. misrule will mean one extra day of unhappiness for the people of Singapore. As the P.A.P. no longer have a majority in the House, it is our duty as Parliamentarians and representatives of the people of Singapore to take the necessary stand and action to compel the minority Government to go back to the people. We in the Barisan Sosialis believe that there is no other alternative before the country than to compel this discredited and dishonest minority Government to resign.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): You should have resigned yourself!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: To summarise, the P.A.P. today have, because of their selfish interests, deviated from their original stand of democratic non-Communist socialism. They are now dishonest and dictatorial and have lost the support of the masses. In the words of the Prime Minister himself, the P.A.P. have destroyed the P.A.P.

The Five-Year Plan, which is also known as "The Tasks Ahead", represents the mandate that was given to the P.A.P. in the 1959 general elections. All those promises in the Five-Year Plan "The Tasks Ahead" - have been forgotten, and all because of what? It is because the Prime Minister thinks that by playing about with merger, he could distract the people's attention from the promises which he gave to the people of Singapore. At the present moment, Sir, the Government is not a Government run by the elected representatives of the people. It is a Government which is self-running. The civil servants run the Government, Sir, It makes no difference whether the P.A.P. Government is there or not. They have lost already all justification to remain as a Government. There is no Government in Singapore today truly run by the elected leaders of the people. The Prime Minister had said a few years ago that if we want to run a democracy and a good government, we must have the people on our side. Today we cannot allow the Government that has already lost the support of the masses to pretend that it still is a respected elected government. We cannot also allow the vicious communal line of the P.A.P. propaganda, under the cloak of nationalism in the controversy of the merger issue, to continue. This is a very dangerous drift which the P.A.P. communalists must stop. One of the ways of stopping this is to stop them as a Government because today they have all the facilities of propaganda in their hands. They are the people who can stir up communal feelings. I will not go much further, Sir, except to say that we must hold a general election so that a new government may be formed that can really have a new mandate to continue our constitutional struggle ahead.

An hon. Member: S.P.A. Alliance!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Let us truly put the happiness and the national interests of the people above sectional and party interests. Let us do our duty to the people and get rid of this lousy, dishonest, untrustworthy and dictatorial Government.

Before closing, Sir, let me quote one small paragraph of what the Deputy Prime Minister himself said last year. May I refer you, Sir, to Hansard, Vol. 14, No. 13 of 22nd February, 1961, in column 1029. It is somewhere in the middle, Sir, I think it is a very good quotation because the Deputy Prime Minister had always given us indication before that if the P.A.P. Government had no support from the people, he would not like the Government to carry on. I am sure he will remember the time when he said, "I would rather stop now than having stones thrown at me."

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Let us hear the quote.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: "Let us hear the quote?" I will quote. He was talking on the motion on Algeria. In column 1029, the Deputy Prime Minister said, in the last paragraph - it is a very interesting paragraph, Sir, I think it deserves mention, especially now that the Deputy Prime Minister is here:

`During the period of the Rendel Constitution in 1956, the first Merdeka talks were held. Mr David Marshall, then Chief Minister, led an all-Parts delegation to London. Our representatives at those talks were the Secretary-General of the Party, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Mr Lim Ching Siong and Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Let me remind the Member for Cairnhill that nothing came out of those constitutional talks under the leadership of David Marshall. In 1957, following the resignation and collapse of David Marshall, Mr Lim Yew Hock, now Member for Cairnhill, became Chief Minister, and he in turn led a second round of talks in London.'

Now, these are the interesting words, Sir. He said:

`However, let us be quite honest-'

I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will be honest this time -

`about how the trend of those talks was carried out; who provided the mass base, the mass support, so that the 1957 talks could be successful, and so that a new Constitution could be drafted out which would give complete internal self-government to Singapore.' Now in Singapore the mass base is no more supporting the P.A.P.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is not my quotation, is it?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You see, the Deputy Prime Minister has forgotten the words that he said. It is only one year ago. How quickly people change! Their memories are very short. May I carry on, Sir?

`It is not the achievements of those - meaning the Member for Cairnhill and his colleagues - who were in the Government at that time. It was an achievement of the people of Singapore, of the masses -'

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Beautiful!

`---who had confidence in the P.A.P. that confidence had been very ably demonstrated in the City Council election and in the general elections in 1959.

Sir, the P.A.P. cannot claim that by itself it will lead Singapore to complete independence unless it is also supported by the masses.'

Now today, Sir, the P.A.P. have not got the support of the masses. They dare not even hold a rally to meet the masses.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is what you say.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But the most significant few lines which I want to quote today, Sir, is this. It is somewhere in the middle. He said:

`However, the Constitution has promised [and I hope he will not eat his words] that in 1963, there will be a review of the Constitution, and we are determined to see that that clause is honoured.'

"determined to see that that clause is honoured"!

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know how the hon. Member for Queenstown gets those inflexions. I cannot see them in the Hansard. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister never said those words in that tone of voice.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You see, Sir, our Deputy Prime Minister said those words, and he said that he would he determined to see that that clause is honoured. which means that in 1963, there will be a review of the Constitution.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: See how they have twisted, see how they have turned! I only wish, Sir, that the Deputy Prime Minister could really honour truth and honour promises. I said before, Sir, that I thought that the Deputy Prime Minister, because of his scientific training, would at least see truth as truth should be seen and not distorted versions of things. But I see now that he is completely infected-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - and that he has already lost all sense of decency and fair play.

Mr Byrne: He has been playing about with Barisan rabbits.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Let all those with ivory skulls remember it.

The Prime Minister: He has got the thickest of them all! [Laughter]

Dr Lee Siew Choh rose and remained slient. [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order. I take it that the Member for Queenstown has completed on that note.

Mr Speaker: Not yet. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Whenever we say something which hurts them, they try and laugh it off and make light of it [Laughter].

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the Member has anything further to say.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Except when I reply.

Mr Speaker: That is a good thought!

Question proposed.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, today is Friday the 13th, and the Barisan Sosialis also number 13. Today. Sir, is Friday the 13th and a great political event is unfolding itself in this very Chamber. Sir, the S.P.A./U.M.N.O Alliance express no confidence in the Government.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I am indeed thrilled by the enthusiastic support given to me by the Member for Anson. His "Hooray" sounds like sweet music to my ears. Sir, as I said, the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Alliance express no confidence in the Government in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known Communist and Communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore. Sir, my colleague has been rather taken aback by my naming the Barisan Sosialis. I think he said "alamak mati"? [Laughter].

Just now the Member for Queenstown said a la McCarthy, but may I say "alamak mati"? [Laughter].

Sir, I now propose to move an amendment to this motion, but I would like first to seek your guidance as to whether or not my amendment is in order.

*Amendment handed in,

*The amendment reads as follows:-

"At end, to add:

'in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis thus endangering the wellbeing of the people of Singapore'."

Mr Speaker: The amendment is in order. Please proceed.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Thank you, Sir.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point ot clarification, Sir, I was wondering whether the Member for Cairnhill could have copies of the amendment distributed to us?

Mr Speaker: Are extra copies available?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Later on, Sir. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: I think the Member has already indicated his amendment.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The cat is now out of the bag!

4.31 p.m.

Copies of amendment handed in to Clerk at the Table and distributed to hon. Members.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mammen) in the Chair]

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I received enthusiastic support from the Member for Anson before he heard me out, but after I said that I had tried to nail the crime of the Government in that it has endangered the well-being of the people of Singapore by not discharging its sacred duty, there was some silence. I trust, Sir, that the Member for Anson, who is a great fighter against these Communist pests, will fight shoulder to shoulder with me in ridding Singapore of the menace of Communist subversion. Communist penetration into organisations like the Barisan Sosialis in damaging the well-being of the people of Singapore. The leader of the Barisan said he could not find common cause. In fact, he appealed to this House, "Let us sink party differences and serve the interests of the people of Singapore." I call on them, "Let us serve the interests of the people of Singapore, sink all party differences. Let us show that at least we have one common cause and that is to protect the interests of Singapore from Communist subversion." That is the common cause, if the Barisan Sosialis want a common cause.

The Member for Queenstown, in moving his motion, gave a very long account of what his Party saw wrong in the P.A.P. All I can say here at this time is this: The pot is calling the kettle black. They were on that side of the House less than a year ago and they were the people who, together with the remnants of the P.A.P., perpetrate - the crimes that he now - says the P.A.P. did. The Barisan Sosialis are just as guilty, If they say the P.A.P is guilty, of what they have done to the people of Singapore.

Sir, let us examine the charge sheet of the leader of the Barisan Sosialis when he makes his indictment of the P.A.P. I have a few listed here and what I have, read like this: Three years of P.A.P. misrule will be recorded in history. Yes. The Barisan Sosialis were there, so the misrule includes the Barisan Sosialis arrogance.

Sir, we who have been in the Opposition ever since there were 43 Members in the P.A.P. did touch on this arrogance of the P.A.P. They kept on crowing, and crowing like a cock every day, but like the cock their throats may be slit in due course.

Sir, arrogance they enjoyed. The Barisan Sosialis, when they were on the other side of the House, also indulged in arrogance against the Opposition, and we had been bearing the brunt of it for three years. We got it bad, but we did not feel hurt, because, after all, Sir, arrogance has been practised by the P.A.P. against their opponents. It is aimed at their political opponents. It is not a crime that has damaged the well-being of the people of Singapore. We can take it.

Arrogance was indulged in by a number of Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and Back-benchers, although the P.A.P. claim that they have a Ministry of Culture. Arrogance is a sort of personal vice that can only be found in a person who lacks culture.

Sir, when I was a little boy in school. I was attracted by one short verse. I think it was by Longfellow, and it reads like this:

"He who is down need fear no fall,

He who is low no pride;

He who is humble ever shall

Have God to be his guide,"

It is because of the arrogance of the P.A.P. that even the gods frowned on them and showed their displeasure by causing a water shortage in Singapore. [Laughter]

Sir, the Government Front-benches do not believe in God, but if I remember rightly, it was the Prime Minister who said, "Only God can save us."

An hon. Member: He never said that.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: A water shortage that was never heard of in the history of Singapore happened at the time when the P.A.P. was the Government. We have not got out of the threat of a water shortage yet. Maybe the gods have been a bit kinder today because the P.A.P. saw the error of their ways and have got rid of their Communist sleeping partners. May the gods be a bit kinder to them when they do discharge their sacred duty.

Sir, let us go back to the charge sheet of the Barisan Sosialis. Dishonesty - both are dishonest. Party considerations above national interests - both come from the same school and practise the same things. Sell-out of the interests of Singapore. Now, what is this sell-out? A sell-out of the interests of Singapore by doing their best to achieve merger to serve the interests of Singapore; or a sell-out of the interests of Singapore by the Barisan Sosialis to the Communist cause. I do not know when the sell-out ends. Sell-out to achieve merger, as the end result, will mean prosperity, happiness and security for the people of Singapore; whereas the sell-out of the Barisan Sosialis to the Communist cause will bring misery, despair and hardship to the people of Singapore.

The leader of the Barisan Sosialis said earlier - I think he used the word "destined" twice - that the P.A.P. was destined to have a brilliant future. I do not think the P.A.P. could be destined to have a brilliant future. Its symbol is lightning. It came like a flash: it dies like a flash.

If the P.A.P. had wanted to have a brilliant future, they should have consulted the Barisan Sosialis earlier and have a star-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is right.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - that could be a brilliant star; but this star of the Barisan Sosialis is one of the dangerous stars of the Communist group in the firmament.

An hon. Member: A shooting star! [Laughter]

Another hon. Member: Tell them their horoscope!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Ah, yes. The leader of the Barisan Sosialis said this - he referred to this, yes, he did - "It was indeed a very ridiculous picture in July last year when the P.A.P. with 39 Members on their side tabled a motion of confidence." What happened at that time? Did not the S.P.A../U.M.N.O. Alliance then say, "We have no confidence in the Government."? What did the Barisan Sosialis do - the 13 bright stars? If then they had meant to pull the Government down, they could have voted with us, but they abstained. Why did they abstain then, but want to do it now? Why did they abstain then when the opportunity was given to them? Was it because they had not received fresh orders yet? Or was it because they were caught unawares and they did not know what to do? If they really had no confidence in the Government and I am sure they had not if one were to believe the lengthy speech of the Member for Queenstown when he recited the crimes of the P.A.P. for the past three years - then why did the 13 bright stars in the Barisan Sosialis abstain? Why did they not vote with us against the Government and express no confidence in it? They did not do it. And now, it seems funny, they have tabled a motion of no confidence. Why? From the long speech of the Member for Queenstown, it is clear that they kept on their fight wanting to wreck referendum and merger every step of the way - from the merger debate in November to the debate on the motion by the Member for Anson for a referendum to be held, through the Second Reading of the National Referendum Bill right up to the Committee Stage and still right up to the Third Reading; and still further they kept on going. During this series of sittings, every day we heard nothing from them but a disclosure of their desire to wreck the merger referendum. Even now their aim in tabling this motion is just to try their best to put a halt to the carrying out of the merger referendum - to call a halt to merger and Malaysia. Are we, as a responsible Opposition, going to be misled by them into creating trouble, into creating chaos for the country?

They want a common cause, Sir, I will show them this common cause: vote with us, that the Government has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known Communist and Communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis and thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore. Vote with us and pull the Government down.

A common cause. Nothing from them. Perhaps they will be waiting for further orders when they go out later on. They want a common cause: we have given them a common cause. But we will not have a common cause with them to wreck merger. [Interruption]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Order.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, it is only those who are capable of dishonesty who see dishonesty in almost every move of everybody else. I have shown the Bansan Sosialis a common cause. Let us put the interests of the country first and foremost. Let us forget the interests of our Party.

The Barisan Sosialis leader, the Member for Queenstown, has said that the Government will have the support of the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Let the Barisan Sosialis not give their support to the Government in voting on my amendment. Who knows? They gave their support in July last year. That was 21st July, not 13th July last year. They abstained when they had the opportunity then to pull the Government down. They did not.

Sir, let us now touch on the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday. As usual, he tried to give us his assessment of the security situation up to date. He said that what is happening today follows a similar pattern in 1956 and 1957, and yet he takes no action.

Sir, Emperor Nero fiddled while Rome burnt. Prime Minister Lee plays zugzwang while Singapore burns. Sir, the people of Singapore cannot afford such a luxury. The threat is genuine. The threat is growing, so says the Prime Minister. And yet he said, "Huh, I have got them in a zugzwang. Huh, they could not move." That is not the way to look after the internal security and economic well-being of the people of Singapore. It is not a game. The way is clear and simple. If I were a medical man and if you had a bad leg, I would advise you to chop it off. So if you have bad Communists and bad Communist-front leaders in the political arena in Singapore, use the guillotine on them. I hope when the 12 o'clock guillotine falls tonight, it will spell the doom of those who are so foolish as to be led by the known communists and Communist-front leaders.

Sir, in fact, the Prime Minister laughed at me and said, "Ah, look at them, the foolish Lim Yew Hock Government! I was on the other side planning the game of zugzwang and he got caught." And he said, I am not going to get caught like this poor foolish Lim Yew Hock!"

It does not solve the situation, because there were men then who were prepared to work with the Communists to achieve their own political ends. The action I took could be said to be not enough. There were still a number of pockets left untouched, because then I still was a democratic animal. But if I had known that there was going to be that group of P.A.P. leaders who are still in the P.A.P. now, still working with them and planning with them the general elections were a great success for them in 1959 I would not have hesitated. And if I had known then that the Prime Minister was consorting with the person he called "The Plen". I would have sent him to keep Lim Ching Siong company in gaol, so that he could at least have some re-thinking as Devan Nair had, re-thinking to some good purpose.

Wise after the event, Sir, but it is all right. So long as one gets wise after the facts are known. As the P.A.P. says, we should get wise after the facts are known. I hope they will be wiser after his debate.

Sir, the Prime Minister is still in a stalemate. He does not believe that the only way to check the danger is to withdraw the source of danger. He believes in playing a game of chess, and in trying to sell his idea of his own particular form of game, he has made 12 awful disclosures through Radio Singapore, now enshrined in what he describes as "The Battle for Merger". This book contains many awful disclosures, but what is more relevant to my amendment is that a number of persons have been named as Communists and Communist-front leaders. It has described the Barisan Sosialis as being manipulated and controlled by the Communists. This is evidence produced by the Government. Because of the evidence here, which has not been refuted by the Barisan Sosialis. I have seen fit to table an amendment to name the Barisan Sosialis as one of the organisations that are being manipulated and controlled by subversive forces. I do not know it myself because I am not in the Government, but I am prepared to accept the word of our Prime Minister when he said that the Barisan Sosialis is being controlled and manipulated by the Communists. He even went to the extent of making a few awful, disclosures about the Members of the Barisan Sosialis. If I may seek your indulgence, Sir, I would like to quote from this great masterpiece of the Prime Minister who has seen fit to say that Communist and Communist-front leaders should receive honourable mention in the book and also in broadcasts over Radio Singapore. I believe the only way to give them honourable mention is to put them in Changi, but he believes otherwise. He gives them an honourable place even in a book which is being sold at one dollar. He gives them honourable mention over Radio Singapore. He has one interesting thing to say about the leader of the Barisan Sosialis. I quote from page 95 at the bottom of the last paragraph:

`Yet Dr Lee (that is, the Member for Queenstown) in an interview reported in the Guardian on September 22, stated, "I am not a Communist, and, if I became convinced there were Communists in our party I would expose them and let the people decide."'

But instead of exposing them, he aided and abetted them by acting as a courier. In other words, he was like a post box for someone from Sarawak. This, Sir, is in direct contradiction of an earlier statement by the Prime Minister in an earlier disclosure. That can be found at page 73, second paragraph:

"They used Dr Lee Siew Choh as the front leader of this group. Dr Lee had told Dr Goh and me that he was convinced that so long as the British bases were left untouched, it would be perfectly all right to run a pro-Communist government with Communist support in Singapore."

Sir, this has not been denied or challenged by the Member for Queenstown. In fact, he could have taken the Prime Minister to court on this. But he did not. So what is the conclusion to be arrived at by any one, any third party or any disinterested party, that what the Prime Minister said was the truth and nothing but the truth?

Sir, so in a simple paragraph, you know the mind of the Member for Queenstown, why he is standing up in this Assembly talking so much and claiming to fight for the interests of the people of Singapore when he admitted chat it would be perfectly all right to run a pro-Communist government with Communist support in Singapore. And yet I heard a few interjections of "Dishonest, dishonest, dishonest!"

Sir, I would ask the Member for Queenstown to be honest at least with himself, if not with anybody else. Be honest with himself. What game is he playing in this repeated assault on the Government - repeated for 13 days, today is the 13th day - wanting to pull the Government down when the time for merger and Malaysia-

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member take a long time? I think we will suspend for tea. I suspend this sitting until half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m.until 5.30.p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown tried his very best in his speech to get us away from doing our duty in a responsible manner by appealing to our emotions. He said that the Government poked fun at the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Alliance with disparaging and insulting remarks. What he meant to suggest to us was now is the time to take our revenge. Sir, as a responsible Opposition conscious of the heavy burden that now falls upon us, since the Government is now a minority of one, we will not be deterred from even voting with the Government on any issues that are meant for the good of the people of Singapore, on any issues that will mean the extermination of the Communist pest. If we have been insulted in the past three years - the Barisan Sosialis are not free from blame; when they were there, they did the same thing; they are as equally guilty as the P.A.P. - must a responsible Opposition take note of such insults that were heaped upon us? We want to tell the Barisan Sosialis that we can take it and take very much more if in taking it we are guided in the service of the interests of the people of Singapore. So let me tell the leader of the Barisan Sosialis that there is no need for him to attempt to ridicule the S.P.A./U.M.N.O Alliance so that we can be veered from doing our duty as a responsive organisation. On the one hand, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis tries to make us feel spiteful and vengeful. On the other hand - in fact, he has repeated this many times in his speech aimed at the Back Benches of the Government he says, "Ah, the Member for Bras Basah has seen the error of her ways and has disowned the P.A.P. and the Back benches of the Government should also wake up and disown the P.A.P. before it is too late." I would tell the Back benches of the Government, "Now is the time when you have to prove your mettle, when you have to show your worth in this fight against Communist perversion, Communist subversion and Communist threats. Let us show that we are united and rout them from the political life of Singapore."

Again, Sir, the Member for Queenstown said, "Oh, after the defeat at Hong Lim, the P.A.P. should have resigned." But, Sir, if the awful disclosures of the Prime Minister are to be given credence, and I see no reason why they should not be given credence, it was the Barisan Sosialis who told the Government not to resign after Hong Lim. It is for them to deny this. They were the people who told the Government not to resign after the defeat at Hong Lim. They should not come to this august Assembly to distorts facts and try to make out that they are the true champions of democracy when they have been charged in this book [Indicating] that they are being manipulated and controlled by Communist and Communist-front leaders to damage the security and well-being of the people of Singapore. No one, especially we the Front Benchers here, will ever swallow any distortion, any threat, any attempt by the Barisan Sosialis to deter us from doing our duty.

And another thing. Sir, they try to ridicule us. They say. "Well, the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Alliance are just waiting to share in the spoils." Come, come, they had been sharing in the spoils until they got kicked out, or they ran away, or until they were found out that the plan of the Communists was to capture the P.A.P. Government. We do not want to go over there. We do not have to, Sir. We will remain here against every attempt by the Barisan Sosialis to pull the Government down for Communist purposes. We will meet that threat; we will fight them, and we will challenge them any time, anywhere even in Queenstown. If the Member for Queenstown wants to have a by-election in Queenstown tomorrow, we will meet them there, and prove to the world and to Singapore that the people of Singapore are fed up with Communist subversion and with the so-called leaders who are prepared to lend themselves to be made use of by Communists for their evil ends. Do not talk of general elections. Go to Queenstown, we will meet them there!

Sir, the Member for Queenstown who is a medical man tries to make out that he is also a constitutional expert. He says, "Now that the Government is reduced to a minority of one, constitutionally they should resign." The Government has said, and I say it to him, "Go on, try your best to pull down the Government and serve the Communists, but you will find us always there to back the government against Communist subversion any time." He is not a constitutional expert, it could be that his speech has not been properly vetted by people who know how constitutions work. Yes, I say. "The P.A.P. came in with 43 Members in 1959." Yes, we all know that the P.A.P. came in with 43 Members in 1959; the Barisan Sosialis were there; the United People's Party were there and the Member for Bras Basah was there. On the whole, they did all they could to try to put an end to a responsible and effective Opposition. They ridiculed us at every stage. They say that the P.A.P. are in the process of disintegration today. The Communists have thrust upon me the responsibility of defending democracy against their subversion. The fact that the P.A.P. are 25 today means that they are stronger, better and cleaner than they have ever been when the Barisan Sosialis was with them, and I would like to pay tribute to them that they have fallen to the threats and intimidation of the Communists. They have at long last wakened to their responsibility. They are not disintegrating. They have cleansed themselves and I think they can work harder now - freer and happier - much to the discomfort of the Barisan Sosialis.

Sir, if I were to start quoting from this hook. [Indicating] it will take a very, very long time, but as there is a guillotine at 12 midnight. I will give every consideration to the Members of the Barisan Sosialis to state solemnly in this Chamber whether or not they find common cause with me to pull the Government down for having failed to discharge their sacred duty of restraining known Communist and Communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis. If they want to find common cause, I offer them that common cause. We say that that is the biggest crime of the Government. All the others - arrogance, dishonesty, Press intimidation are pin-pricks to be expected of political enemies. These pin-pricks do not damage the well-being of the people of Singapore. We can take it and we can give it at the same time, but not when the well-being of the people of Singapore is at stake, when the Government is fully conscious of the building up of Communist forces in Singapore to tear down parliamentary democracy.

5.43 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mammen) in the Chair]

Tun Lim Yew Hock: If what the Prime Minister has tried to tell the people of Singapore and the world is true, that there has been a mounting of Communist forces, then this is now the hour to put an end to this threat. Sir, it would be foolish on the part of the Government - if, as they have admitted, the Communists are mounting an onslaught on the democratic forces in Singapore - to allow them time to build up the organisation. I think it is wrong for the Government to say. "They make one move. I make another move. Zugzwang! Ha, ha, ha! The Communists are beaten." This is not the way to run the country. If the Government feel and I know they do feel-that this Communist threat is genuine-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They do not mind it.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: -and if they are sincere in their new utterances that they will see that the interests of the country are protected at all costs, they should wake up to the danger that is building up. It is easier to cripple them now and put an end to them than for the forces to mount up in every organisation in Singapore whose members, and where even some of the leaders, are foolish enough to be beguiled by them into supporting what they claim to be "defence of the democratic rights of the people of Singapore". They are making use of this and they are preaching the practice of democracy in order to damage and pull down democracy.

Sir, the Member for Anson was sincere when he said that he had no confidence in the Government. He was sincere. In fact, in July 1961 the Member for Anson and the S.P.A./Alliance voted "no confidence" in the Government. He is sincere. He is honest. But in this scheme that the Communists are now putting up. I would urge upon him to reassess the situation. I would remind him that at the time when he was the Chief Minister he was a real stalwart of democracy and he was prepared to fight all out against Communist subversion and Communist "plague-carrying rats". That was what he called them, "plague-carrying rats".

Mr Kandasamy: Now they are his friends!

Mr David Marshall: You are not my friend.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Let us try to find out the reason that impelled the leader of the Barisan Sosialis to table a motion of no confidence at this particular time. Why?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Not because they want to pull down the Government because the Government committed all the crimes alleged by them - they were a party to those crimes - but because they want to stop merger and stop the referendum on merger.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Dishonest referendum.

Mr David Marshall: Hear! hear!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I would appeal to the Member for Anson, with whom I was fighting shoulder to shoulder against the Communist threat during the time when he was Chief Minister, to remember that at this particular juncture, when the life and well-being of the people of Singapore are being threatened by the so-called democrats, in an organisation that has been proved to be manipulated and controlled by Communist and Communist-front leaders, not to be misled. He was prepared to fight then, and I know he will be prepared to fight now.

Sir, of course, the Member for Anson and the S.P.A./Alliance voted no confidence in the Government in July, but the other Members not named by me, abstained. I hope that in this call to rid the country of "plague-carrying rats"-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The S.P.A.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: -the Opposition will be united to prove that the interests of the country are above the S.P.A./U.M.N.O., above the Barisan Sosialis, above the Workers' Party, and above the U.P.P. Let us prove it. Those who do not prove it, do not try to put up the pretence of fighting for democracy, do not pretend any more. Today is the day, Friday the 13th, and this political event is unfolding itself in this Assembly.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You have had your democracy.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Deputy Speaker, after this debate, it will be clear to the people of Singapore who are on the side of democracy, in defence against Communist subversion, and who want to play with fire, in the hope that they may be returned to power when the general elections take place. I would say to them, the P.A.P. played that game and got their fingers burnt. That is why today we have contempt for them. I would suggest that they too should not fall into the trap that they say the P.A.P. has fallen into. Let us be honest. Honesty is something that is a bit difficult to measure, but it is relative.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Chew Swee Kee.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, what is more important is this. Never mind other people's estimation of what your honesty is. What is more important is this, that in your own estimation you are honest with yourself and honest in the eyes of God.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: What about Chew Swee Kee?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Chew Swee Kee. That is all these people keep on talking of. What has Chew Swee Kee got to do with this present amendment? What has Chew Swee Kee got to do with the Communists? in fact, if that money had been given, we would have wiped out the Communists.

Mr Deputy Speaker: May I remind the Members of the Opposition, particularly the Barisan Sosialis, because they moved this motion, that they should give a fair chance to other Members to speak, a clear hearing of what the other Members have to say on this motion, Tun Lim.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Deputy Speaker, as I say, Sir, at the end of this debate, at twelve midnight. the witching hour, the people of Singapore will know the forces that are against Communist subversion and the forces that lend themselves to Communist subversion.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I would not like to talk too long, because there are so many Members of the Barisan Sosialis who want to stand up and say how democratic they are and how they are going to see to it that Singapore is rid of Communism. In fact, the Member for Queenstown has said, "If you can prove to me that there are Communists in the Barisan Sosialis, we will expose them." I say there are Communist and Communist-front leaders in the Barisan Sosialis. I dare him to expose them.

5.53 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I know, Sir, that the motion introduced by the Barisan Sosialis is an attempt to discredit the S.P.A., thinking that the S.P.A. would be so weak-kneed as to be frightened by the smear that the Barisan Sosialis can indulge in by going to the people and saying that the S.P.A. voted with the Government, and that the S.P.A. is afraid of general elections. We know they did. This motion is not aimed at the Government. They know that the Government cannot fail. This motion is aimed at the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Alliance. It is a challenge to us. We take up that challenge and we challenge them that if they really mean to pull the Government down, let them pull the Government down on a common cause. Let us nail the real crime of the Government. Let us say that we express no confidence in the Government in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known Communist and Communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore. Those that love Malaya, those that love Singapore, those that are not for Communist subversion, should show themselves to be so by their votes on this debate. Anyone who votes against it. I am going to take it from now on that he is fighting the Communist cause. I now dare them as they have dared me.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

"That this House expresses no confidence in the Government."

Since which an amendment has been moved, at the end, to add-

"in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore".

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point to order, Sir. Mr Speaker. I think I should clarify our stand on the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill first before we proceed further on the debate. I just wish to inform the House that we do not treat the amendment as moved by the Member for Cairnhill as a vote of no confidence in the Government. But we rather treat it as what the Opposition wishes the Government to do. In other words, we treat it as a directive to the Government, of giving the Government a mandate. Therefore, we will be abstaining from voting on this amendment.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, it is interesting to watch the roaring lion of Cairnhill inveighing publicly against the Communists. Sir, it is perfectly true to say that from our first association, he was always willing to co-operate in measures that were necessary to deal with the Communist threat. But when it came to speaking against Communism, Sir, in public, he was bashful, and as a good politician, his advice was I am sure he would not mind if I tell you this - at that time he said to me, "Don't keep on talking about anti-Communism. The people might misunderstand you and think you are anti-Chinese." I am glad to see, Sir, that today he frankly and openly, in public, declares strongly his anti-Communist stand, and I trust it means that he recognises that today our populace and our citizens do distinguish between the Chinese and the Communists.

Mr David Marshall: Sir, the original motion before the House is a motion to express the deep antagonism of the people of Singapore for a lifetime of three years of crime of the P.A.P. The Member for Cairnhill himself recognises that their crimes have been manifold and grievous. I say it is unnecessary to single out one aspect when there are so many; but since he has seen fit to single out one aspect. I want to say to him that I am happy to support him in his attack on Communism; I am happy to support him in his attack on the Communists in this area; for, Mr Speaker, progress in the democratic process has, I think, awakened more and more people to the basic evil of Communist dictatorship and its dangers for this territory, an evil that is, if possible - it is possible. Sir - even greater than the evil of the P.A.P. Fascist Government. Sir, insofar as the Prime Minister has alleged that he has information and evidence in respect of persons in Singapore who are Communists. I agree with the Member for Cairnhill in condemning him and condemning the Government for not making that evidence available in a court of law and for not charging those persons so that they might be dealt with. Sir, there are courts, and there are laws against Communism. Insofar as there might be an implication that the P.P.S.O. should be used - I would wish. Sir, not to evade any aspect of this motion; I say to you, the Member for Cairnhill knows my stand; it has always been the same - the P.P.S.O. is a breach in the rule of law necessary to meet emergency situations. It should be used in an emergency or to prevent an emergency, not otherwise. And he knows, having been in association with me in the enactment and implementation of this law, that that has always been my stand, not its utilisation as a routine measure. Sir, but its utilisation when there is a genuine threat to the security of the country.

Sir, it irks indeed, and irks very much, that the Prime Minister himself, who of all people in this country should know the law and should seek to comply with the law, should refrain from taking action against known criminals - such known Communists - and thereby make himself an accessory after the fact. That he should be condemned is right and proper. Even more, Mr Speaker, it is right and proper to condemn the Government for using these very men as an excuse for measures endangering the welfare, the harmony and the unity of our people, such as section 29 of the Referendum Ordinance which was introduced on the excuse that these people may commit certain offences. If they could have been dealt with by our courts, then at least that specious excuse would not have been utilised. To the extent that such people have not been charged for measures endangering the welfare of the people of Singapore. I agree with the Member for Cairnhill in condemning the Government. But, Sir, I ask whether. in fact, the Member for Cairnhill genuinely condemns the Government. You see, Sir, he has phrased his amendment not merely to condemn the Government, not as a vote of no confidence in the Government, not as a vote of censure on the Government, but also as a vote of censure on the majority Party in the Opposition. It is, Sir, a double vote of censure.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: Not by the vote of the people.

Mr David Marshall: It is a clever parliamentary trick, a red herring in order to prevent the vote of censure from succeeding, in fact, you have heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that in the light of the manner in which the Member for Cairnhill has moved his amendment, they do not consider it to be a vote of censure at all. I understood the Member for Cairnhill to have said, long before the series of 12 radio talks on "How I stab my friends and double-cross my colleagues" was given by the Prime Minister, that he and his Party and his colleagues voted against a vote of confidence in the Government. Sir, he recognises now, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, that by virtue of his amendment the motion of censure is no longer deemed to be a motion of censure because it is turned upon the Barisan Sosialis. I ask you, Mr Speaker, are the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" in this motion in any way pertinent to the motion because, by speaking of "Communist-front leaders manipulating and controlling organisations", he obviously implies, in the plural, that there are many organisations, why then limit it to one, if in fact that is a Communist front organisation and if, in fact, he seeks to condemn the Government? Why does he limit the example to one? Why have any example at all, Mr Speaker? On what basis does he say that the Barisan Sosialis are Communist controlled? He says, "I accept the statement of the Prime Minister that they are Communist-controlled." I must confess that I am surprised, Mr Speaker, that in a matter of the major Opposition Party he so lightly accepts a statement of the Government, which has proved itself politically dishonest in many respects, as being evidence that the Barisan Sosialis are, in fact, Communist controlled. I say to you, Mr Speaker, that the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" are wholly unnecessary to the operative words of that motion and are indeed intended to defeat the motion. By seeking to ask the Barisan Sosialis to condemn themselves, which he knows he cannot do, because they deny they are Communist controlled, he therefore wants them to vote against the motion in order to save the Government, whereas the S.P.A. will vote in favour of the motion. Mr Speaker, he rather let the cat out of the bag when he appealed to me - and I appreciate the appeal, Sir - to recognise and reassess the position, because to bring down the Government would mean an end of the referendum and an end of the immediate negotiation for merger. So he made it known that he does not want to bring the Government to an end and he does not want a vote of no confidence in the Government. This is a bit of an eyewash. Roaring to the bushes that he is looking for wars, like Flagstaff.

Mr Speaker, I trust you will permit me - it is incidental and arising out of what the Member for Cairnhill said - to explain my position with reference to this motion of no confidence. I will be very brief, Mr Speaker. I am convinced that the perfidy of -

Mr Speaker: I take it the hon. Member is speaking to the amendment. He must confine himself to the amendment. The hon. Member cannot now go back to the original motion. He will have his opportunity. I take it, i.e. if the guillotine does not fall.

Mr David Marshall: Indeed, Mr Speaker, I will abide by your ruling, if you think I cannot make an explanation. I was asked why I wanted to vote in favour of a censure motion on the Government in the light of the fact that it might endanger merger. I thought I would like the opportunity of explaining, if you will permit, Sir. It is because of this that I believe - it may be I am wrong, Sir; many disagree with me - that the merger proposals as they stand, through the referendum as it stands, would endanger the stability of this area in the not distant future and that if, in fact, they were to fail at the present juncture, we would have a permanent basis in the foreseeable future for happy permanent relations. It is a matter of temporary postponement and no more. I will go on from there, Sir, having, I trust, not taken up too much time.

I would like to ask the Member for Cairnhill - I am sorry he cannot answer, Sir, but perhaps a Member of his Party could - whether it is just at this juncture to condemn the Barisan Sosialis on the word of the Prime Minister alone, and whether it is appropriate at this juncture to move a double-headed motion of censure. You know, Sir, there is a phrase that I learned as a small boy about "Slowly, slowly, catch monkey" - one thing at a time. Sir, let us have this motion first which deals with the Government. In due course, if and when the occasion arises and there is evidence that the Barisan Sosialis are Communist controlled, I would be only too happy to support him in a vote of no confidence or an analogous vote against the Barisan Sosialis themselves. But it is inappropriate at this juncture because it is a red herring and seeks to abort itself.

The amendment seeks to prevent itself from being passed by preventing a major Opposition group, quite unnecessarily, from voting in favour of the amendment he seeks. Mr Speaker, I have a very minor amendment to make, an amendment which I hope they will accept and which will still deal with the so-called democrats who threaten and strangle democracy in Singapore and who threaten the lives of our people. It is a simple amendment, Sir, It is a deletion of the words which are completely unnecessary to the spirit and intent of the motion. I move that the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" be left out. If he will accept that, I will be happy to vote for his amendment, although, in fact, Sir, I am a supporter of the main one. I say the P.A.P. have committed innumerable crimes. I shall speak on that if there is time on the main Question. But at this juncture, since he wants to pinpoint their perfidy in dealing with known Communists against whom they have evidence, I am with him. But I say, do not abort your own amendment by making it impossible for a major political Party to support it and by condemning a major Opposition Party without adequate evidence as being Communist controlled. Let us be practical. I say, accept my amendment. I am with you in condemning both Communists and the action or the inaction of the Government in dealing with known Communists.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was

"That this House expresses no confidence in the Government," Since which an amendment has bean moved, at the end, to add

"in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore."

Since which an amendment has been moved to the amendment to leave out the words "like the Barisan Sosialis".

The Question now is "That the words `like the Barisan Sosialis' proposed to be left out, be left out." The debate must be confined to that amendment.

The Member for Cairnhill is entitled to speak again on this amendment to the amendment.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The Minister for Health and Law has given me the opportunity to reply to give my views on the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson. As I said earlier, Sir, the Member for Anson is honest in his desire to see that justice is done when injustice has been perpetuated. I was right also when I said he will still stand for democracy against Communist forces. But then he asked me, how it is I have named the Barisan Sosialis and on what evidence? I accept the statement of the Prime Minister. The Member for Anson even went to the extent of saying that when he was a little boy in school he was saying "Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey."

Sir, the leaders who are now running the Barisan Sosialis were people whom the Labour Front Government detained as Communist subversives. The fact that the P.A.P. came out openly without any pretence and defence and nail them for what they are just proves that what the Lim Yew Hock Government did was right. The same men are running the Barisan Sosialis today in as much as they were, in my view, Communist subversives - they are still, in my view, Communist subversives. It is quite fair for the Member for Anson to ask why I should name the Barisan Sosialis. It is something like a double-headed motion, Sir, If the Member for Anson wants to learn why, let me tell him that this motion is not aimed at the Government. The Member for Anson feels strongly against the evil deeds of the Government. But the Barisan Sosialis are not governed by such pure sentiments. They are out to ridicule the Singapore People's Alliance. That was what they said. It was clear in their speeches. "Ha! The S.P.A.-U.M.N.O.- Alliance want to share in the spoils. They are sure not to let the Government fall." In as much as they tried to do it on us, it is not political trickery; it is fair game in politics to nail them as they try to nail us. Let them wriggle out of that. But it has to be left to the Member for Anson to come to their defence.

Sir, he asked whether I was sincere in my condemnation of the Government. All I can ask him, Sir, is for him to refer to Hansard of the 21st July when the Government tabled the motion of confidence. He made his speech. I made my speech. Members of the S.P.A. Alliance made their speeches. It is clearly stated here that we have no confidence in the Government. But today, because of the manipulations of the Communists in trying to wreck merger and bringing up a motion to try to discredit the S.P.A., it is but fair that the S.P.A. should name the Communists for what they are. Exposure? Counter exposure, if the Member for Anson likes it.

We in the Singapore People's Alliance are not little children who play "slowly, slowly, catchee monkey." We are grownups. We are out to catch the Communists at their own game, not playing "slowly, slowly, catchee monkey" at all. The Member for Anson may be fond of playing it, but we are not. This is a serious business, not for school children to indulge in.

Sir, we gave our views whether we have or have no confidence in the Government in July last year. This year it is a different move, as I have said, but if the Member for Anson thinks I am doing this in order that the Barisan Sosialis will not vote for it - I do not worry whether they vote for it or not. All I know is they are Communist controlled, and it is fair for me to nail them as they try to nail me. The only thing is that my nail happens to be a bit bigger and hits harder. That is all. I accept the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson-

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - because the Member for Anson and I believe in this fight - "Down with Communism! Up with Democracy in Singapore!"

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, the original motion before the House today is that the Opposition has no confidence in the Government. We are challenging the right of this Government to carry on its moral right, and perhaps even its constitutional right, because it has no majority. Then what has happened is that we have the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill which has shifted the issue from whether this Government should carry on or not to, the issue of Communism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now we have further confusion - confusion as if a spanner has been thrown into the works by the Member for Anson who has shifted from the issue of no confidence in the Government, to the issue of Communism, and now to the issue of whether the Barisan Sosialis is a Communist front organisation or not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, because of that, we're voting against the amendment to the amendment and to the amendment itself.

Mr Speaker: Inche Ahmad Jabri. On the question on the amendment to the amendment only.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment to the amendment moved by the Member for Anson. Speaking on the amendment to the amendment, on behalf of U.M.N.O., Mr Speaker, our stand on Communist subversives is clear.

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Member has not understood me. We are now on the issue whether or not the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" should be left in the amendment. We will deal with that first. After that has been disposed of, we will come back to the original amendment. Then the Member will have a chance to speak on it.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): I understand, Mr Speaker, and I wish to give further evidence to delete the words "like the Barisan Sosialis". This is to further strengthen the speech made by the Member for Anson to determine now as to who are really fighting based on democratic principles and who are depending on Communist support. With this amendment, it may be that the Members of the Barisan Sosialis can show their true colours in regard to this matter. They have been charged on numerous occasions, as contained in the book issued by the Government, that the Barisan Sosialis is a Party where the strength of the Communists lies.

Mr Speaker: No other Member wishes to speak on the amendment to the amendment?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment to the amendment only seeks to leave out the words "like the Barisan Sosialis".

Sir, today the P.A.P. Government has been seeking opportunity to put a label on any organisation. Any person, any movement, that is against the P.A.P. will be a labelled "Communist, Communist-inspired, pro-communist". What difference does it make whether it is like the Barisan Sosialis or like something else? It merely falls into the trap of the P.A.P., and that is what they like. I will speak again on the Member for Cairnhill's amendment. This is only a red herring, as was pointed out by the Member for Anson. It is to give a chance to the S.P.A. not to vote against the Government in the original motion. You see, the S.P.A. want to support the P.A.P. yet they do not want to support it openly. So the only way for the S.P.A., under the circumstances, in order to get out of their trouble, is to draw a red herring across the trail and say something else to divert attention from the original motion. I will speak again when it comes to the amendment by the Member for Cairnhill.

Mr Speaker: Any other Member wishes to speak on the amendment to the amendment to leave out the words "like the Barisan Sosialis"?

The Prime Minister: That will still give me the right to speak on the amendment proper.

Mr Speaker: Any Member who wishes to speak and who has not yet spoken can speak to the amendment to the amendment. When that is disposed of, we will come back to the original amendment. The amendment to the amendment is to leave out the words "like the Barisan Sosialis".

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was out of the Chamber when the Member for Anson moved his amendment to the amendment. I understand the Member for Cairnhill has indicated that he accepts the amendment by the Member for Anson.

Sir, in so far as the Member for Anson in his usual legalistic way defines it accurately, in other words, the intention is that the definition of "organisations" should not be restricted to "like the Barisan Sosialis", he is, in fact, as I understand this amendment, extending the area which is covered by the word "organisations". If there are the words "like the Barisan Sosialis", then there may be some doubt that it may be confined only to political Parties or to bodies like the Barisan Sosialis which are akin in nature. But with those words left out, as I understand it, the ejusdem generis clause does not apply.

Sir, for those Members opposite who are not familiar with the rules that guide people in construing and interpreting documents, let me explain, particularly to the Member for Queenstown, the purport of the amendment to the amendment moved by the Member for Anson. If we say "from manipulating and controlling organisations" without the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" you have given no example. Therefore, it is all organisations - old boys' associations, back-scratching associations, grandmothers' and grandchildren's friendship associations and-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mothers' Day.

The Prime Minister: -Mothers' Day Committee, Trade Unions Working Committee, Council of Joint Action, Human Rights Committee, Banging of Woodensticks Committee, and so on. [Interruption] No, no, this is serious. I am giving an example. Now, if the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" remain, then in the execution of this directive one will have to go by the yardstick. Is the Council of Joint Action like or unlike the Barisan Sosialis? Is the Trade Unions Working Committee like or unlike the Barisan Sosialis? Because we have given an example, therefore we are covered by a rule of interpretation which says, if you have given a series of examples, then all the others must be like them - ejusdem generis - of the same genus.

Mr David Marshall: I thought it was the Member for Cairnhill who gave the example.

The Prime Minister: Well, exactly. The Member for Cairnhill, I think without a proper grasp of legal principles and so on, probably thought in his own layman's way that if he pinpoints it on the Barisan Sosialis, then everybody will understand - I mean like the Member for Queenstown who is being manipulated and controlled.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: What about Radio P.A.P.?

The Prime Minister: But the Member for Anson quite rightly, I think, has done a service to this House by removing this restriction which probably was never intended by the Member for Cairnhill.

Sir, the stand of the P.A.P. is quite simple. On the amendment, Sir, there is no question of confidence. This is an amendment. It is not a motion. Therefore, it is not a motion of confidence. It can be voted upon; we shall abstain and it is up to the Opposition to give the country a lead. The views of the Government are well known. We say that our first duty is to throw light on the whole situation. Everybody understands what this is all about, what the game is for, who is playing what role. It has been suggested, Sir, that some of us have slept with Machiavelli. Well, it is our business to show who Machiavelli is, what he is doing, what his objectives are, who his other dolls on the stage are. Having done that, I think we will have done our democratic duty in informing the people exactly what is going on; and they also know the role the Member for Anson is playing. Of course, from time to time, he gets confused. For instance, I am not sure when he moved this amendment whether he realised that, in fact, he helped the Member for Cairnhill in achieving his original intention. The Member for Cairnhill has often said - publicly once in a radio forum with me, he egged me on - Our "sacred duty is to arrest and detain these people," and I explained to him that I felt our sacred duty was first to explain to the people what this was all about. These people knew, and I knew, that the game was up for them and, as I said yesterday, it is a fair cop. Therefore, I say that when the amendment to the amendment is taken and if it is carried by the Opposition, it will be the duty of the Government to bring this to the highest constitutional authority for security - namely, the Internal Security Council.

Sir, the Member for Anson has helped us in this, and I would say that our business as the Government of Singapore is to ensure that everybody gets an opportunity on this motion to state where he stand's. Our stand is to spotlight all the moves that are being made. Everybody can understand why people are against merger, why they are doing what they are doing, why if one condition were asked for and agreed to, another condition is raised, and so on, and so on.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister will agree that he is going away from the amendment to the amendment. We will come back to the other amendment.

The Prime Minister: As you wish, Mr Speaker, Sir. In our view, this is an exemplary move by the Member for Anson to define more broadly and in wider terms the purport of the motion by the Member for Cairnhill.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, memories are short sometimes. As the Member for Anson said, only elephants have long memories. My memory is not that long and that is why I have to refer to Hansard. Now, in 1955, when the Member for Anson was Chief Minister, he had this advice to give to the Member for Tanjong Pagar, now the Prime Minister. Let me quote him, in column 241, Hansard of 16th May, 1955. This is what the Chief Minister, now the Member for Anson, said:

`If the P.A.P., which consists of responsible, decent, honest men - many of them - if they would purge themselves of the Communists and fellow-travellers that they know they have, if they would face their own responsibility, they could be the organisation that they hope lo be that would one day lead this country to win its independence.' This was solemn advice given to the Member for Tanjong Pagar in this very Chamber barely seven years ago. Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. has not so much by itself purged what the Member for Anson considered Communists and fellow-travellers. He was the Chief Minister-

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be reading from a text which is not relevant to the amendment to the amendment.

Mr Speaker: I have been watching the position very closely and I am wondering when the Deputy Prime Minister is coming to the amendment to the amendment. He probably is; I do not know.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes, I was coming to it. I am afraid the Member for Anson is a little like the cat on a hot tin roof. Sir, those Communists and fellow-travellers purged themselves out of the P.A.P. We did not do that ourselves. They purged themselves out in May last year. They did it, and all arose from a difference of views on the question of merger.

Now the Member for Anson seeks to protect the leaders in the Barisan Sosialis. He seeks to protect the leaders in the Barisan Sosialis and yet barely seven years ago - let me refresh his memory - in the debate on the P.P.S.O. Mr David Marshall, who was then Chief Minister, had this to say about Mr Lim Ching Siong who was then in the P.A.P. and the Member for Bukit Timah. Let me quote Hansard of the 21st September, 1955, columns 696 and 697. This was what the Chief Minister, now Member for Anson, had to say vis-a-vis Mr Lim Ching Siong:

`Sir, a letter signed by the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) throws light on the conduct of these pseudo-trade unionists who organised the abortive illegal strikes - I repeat, illegal strikes - of last June. The letter was typed on the head-note of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union, 149 Middle Road, Singapore, 7, dated 12th of June, 1955, addressed to the Manager, Singapore Cold Storage Company, Limited, Orchard Road, Singapore. In referring to the so-called sympathy strike of the workers of the Cold Storage, this is what it says:

"Sir,

This is to notify you that the action taken by our members is not directed against your Company but is taken in support of the common demands of fraternal unions presented to the Government in respect of detained unionists."

There we have, Sir, the naive admission by the Hon. Secretary - the name is Lim Ching Siong - the admission that the workers are made to suffer, not in pursuance of a trade dispute, but in order to blackmail the people's Government by mob coercion.

It is a technique, Sir, of the Communists throughout the world to infiltrate trade unions and to work ostensibly for the welfare of the labourer in order to gain his confidence. Then, when the time is considered ripe, they sacrifice him. The Malays, Sir, have a word for this type of pseudo-trade unionists. They call them "topengs".'.

And he went on relating the case of one trade unionist who was detained, Mr Yong Kok Kim, President of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union. He was detained then by the Member for Anson who was Chief Minister. And in column 697, this is what the Member for Anson had to say:

`This, Sir, is what the Member for Bukit Timah had to say about the detention of Yong Kok Kim. I read from an article in the Straits' Times' of Monday, July 11, 1955, headlined "JAIL ME TOO, SAYS LIM". It is cheap to shout to the hushes that you are looking for wars when it is known full well that this Government does not arrest arbitrarily. Let us see what the statement was that the hon. Member issued. In a statement issued from the Union Headquarters in Middle Road, Mr Lim said:

"The abuse of power provided by the Emergency Regulations has once more been displayed by the arrest of Mr Yong Kok Kim."

Abuse of power, Sir.

"I", said Mr Lim, "share the same beliefs and have the same aims as Fong Swee Suan and Yong Kok Kim. I therefore challenge the Government to arrest me too."'.

The Chief Minister, now Member for Anson, went on to relate to the House that Mr Yong Kok Kim was convicted in an open court of law and sentenced to five years' imprisonment for terrorist activities.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: And the ex-Chief Minister then issued a challenge to the Member for Bukit Timah:

`Sir, in the light of this statement of the Member for Bukit Timah - that he shares the same aims and the same beliefs as this convicted man - and in the light of the statements he has seen fit to issue criticising the present Bill, in lurid language, I think it is pertinent to enquire and to ask him whether he speaks as a man loyal to the democratic process and to the people and territory of Singapore, or whether he speaks as a Communist and a fellow sympathiser of the Communists.'

Mr David Marshall: What did the P.A.P. Member say?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, it is extraordinary indeed that the Member for Anson, previously Chief Minister, who knew all the details of what happened during his regime, should this afternoon stand up not only to defend the Barisan Sosialis but also to work in cahoots with them.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, all Malayan nationalists deplore the utter lack of moral principles and of ordinary human decency of the Member for Anson - a former Chief Minister of Singapore - in allowing himself to be used as a willing tool of the Malayan Communist Party and their open-front leaders in their fight against Malayan nationalism and condemn his political dishonesty-

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have repeatedly pulled up Members for misrepresentations. Is that not misrepresentation, suggesting that I am co-operating with the Malayan Communist Party on this motion?

Mr Speaker: I expected the Member for Anson to get up on a point of order as to whether this is relevant to the amendment to the amendment. We have not come to the main amendment yet. We are now deciding whether or not the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" should remain in the amendment. Mr Byrne.

Mr Byrne: I am prepared to wait for my opportunity. I am going to deal with him very adequately tonight.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I had better sound a note of warning. If the Minister for Law wishes to deal with the Member adequately, he must be relevant and he must not lose his temper. Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment to the amendment?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the original motion moved by the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Anson reads as follows:-

`That this House expresses no confidence in the Government.'

Then the Member for Cairnhill moved an amendment to add, at the end, the words:

`in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore.'

After which, the Member for Anson, one of the movers of the original motion, suggested an amendment, to leave out the words "like the Barisan Sosialis". So the motion now reads:

`That this House expresses no confidence in the Government in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations, thus endangering the well-being of the people of Singapore.'

We are now speaking on the amendment of the Member for Anson who wishes to leave out the words "like the Barisan Sosialis". Now, Sir, I take it from this amendment that he is in sympathy with the other words of the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill; in other words, he deplores the Government's failure to restrain known Communist and Communist-front leaders. That I am taking is a fair appraisal of the stand of the Member for Anson. He deplores the Government inactivity in internal security matters. His only concern is that the Government should take action, not only against the Communists who are manipulating organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, but organisations in general. including his own Party - the Workers' Party - which he has admitted has been captured.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. Just how often is falsehood to be permitted when it is refuted repeatedly, Sir?

Mr Speaker: I must ask the Minister for Finance not to harp on an old tune which has really gone very old. If the Minister for Finance feels strongly about it, he must file a notice of motion to allege that the Member said that the Workers' Party has been captured.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Let us get our facts straight: first, on the facts; second, on the relevance of the facts to the amendment. I would like to establish a direct connection between these two. Before the interruption, I said that the Member for Anson admitted that his Party had been captured. I never said by whom. And he said, "They have captured my Party, but they cannot capture me."

Mr Speaker: I think we must not go back on this - what I call "battledore and shuttlecock". We are going back to my childhood days. Let us try and be men now. Let us try to debate in a proper parliamentary manner.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I am talking on a point which is quite central to the amendment to the amendment - that is, the capture of his Party. I will not, if you so desire, go into the details of who did the capturing. Let us agree that he has some ideas about it, and we have some ideas about it. But his Party has been captured. Let us stop at that. This is directly related to his amendment, because I say that obviously he wants the Government to take action against known Communist and Communist.-front leaders who are controlling and manipulating, not only the Barisan Sosialis, but also other Parties, including his own Party. That is the point.

Mr Speaker: As far as that is concerned, the Minister is in order. But if he alleges that the Member for Anson said that his Party was captured when the Member for Anson time and again says that he did not say that, I think that is just "battledore and shuttlecock". But he is entitled to say that in his view the Party has been captured.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Quite so, Mr Speaker, Sir, but you will recollect that at the moment of interruption by the Member for Anson, I never said who did the capturing. The records are there. The moment I said he admitted his Party was captured, he stood up and said that that was quite wrong.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Get a new record.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: So this, I take it, is the purpose of the amendment to the amendment, and I can see no other possible interpretation. Now, Sir, the stand of the P.A.P. Government on this matter of internal security has been stated every so often, but it seems to bear repetition, because both the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Anson seem to be under some misapprehension as to the powers of the Government in respect of internal security.

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry to interrupt again, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. The issue of internal security is on the amendment proper, not on my amendment to the amendment.

Mr Speaker: I take it that the Minister for Finance is coming to the amendment to the amendment and not debating the original amendment. [Interruption] Order. Mr Sergeant at Arms, I think order should be kept in the Gallery. The strangers in the Gallery appear to imagine that they are in a theatre.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I just mention the powers of the Government in regard to internal security really in passing, and I do not want to develop that theme at all at length. But it is relevant to the amendment to this extent: insofar as we are not the final arbiter - or indeed any arbiter - in matters of internal security, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the Member for Anson wants to take action against the Communists manipulating the Barisan Sosialis, or the Communists in general. Therefore, we say, as between the amendment proposed by the Member for Cairnhill and the amendment to the amendment, quite frankly we await directives from Members of the Opposition. If they want the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill to be passed in this Assembly, then we shall be most pleased to take note of the wishes of the Opposition Parties in this respect. On the other hand, if they think that the operations of Communist and Communist-front leaders are so extensive that action should be taken on a broader field, then we are quite happy to take note of their wishes and transmit them to the proper authorities who control matters of internal security.

Mr Rajah: I wish to speak on the amendment to the amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir. When the Member for Anson moved this amendment, we were quite happy to accept it, because, On reflection, it did occur to us that it placed the Barisan Sosialis in a very awkward position. Although the Government had accused them of being manipulated by the Communists, the Barisan Sosialis had always denied it. Those denials, to my mind, were worthy of belief. So, I was a little horrified, Mr Speaker, when the leader of the Barisan Sosialis got up and said, "I will not accept the amendment to the amendment."

Mr Speaker He did not say whether he will support it.

Mr Rajah: I thought he spoke on the amendment to the amendment. I am subject to correction here. I thought he said, "I cannot accept the Member for Anson's amendment to the amendment." Am I right?

Mr Speaker: Perhaps the Member for Queenstown will confirm?

Mr Rajah: Yes.

Mr Speaker: The Member for Queenstown does not say anything; then the hon. Member, must accept that that is so.

Mr Rajah: Yes, I understood it to be that during the course of the debate, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, or somebody from the Barisan side, had said that he will not support the amendment to the amendment - that is, to make it more plain, the deletion of the - phrase "like the Barisan Sosialis".

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Rajah: Thank you, Sir, I was horrified when the Member for Queenstown said that. It appeared to me that if he was genuine in contesting the allegations of the Government that his Party is being either controlled or has been captured by the Communists or Communist-front leaders, then the natural implication of that is that his is a completely democratic Party without any Communists or Communist sympathisers' affiliations; and on that basis, he would have been able to agree with the Member for Anson, which would have put his Party in a position to vote on the amendment with the Member for Cairnhill. Now, why then does the Member for Queenstown deny the amendment to the amendment? Could it be for the reason that if he denies the amendment to the amendment, then on the amendment itself, he would not be in a position to vote for the reason that he cannot himself condemn himself as being a member of a Communist-controlled organisation? Is the game a deep one, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Any Member wishing - to speak on the amendment to the amendment?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, may I rise on a point of order? If the Member for Queenstown appears puzzled, perhaps the Chair would be of great assistance to the whole House if the meaning of the amendment to the amendment were made clear. He appears puzzled, Mr Speaker, Sir.

An hon. Member: He has no directive.

Mr Speaker: I think the Member for Farrer Park repeated the allegation three times. I asked the Member for Farrer Park to repeat it a third time so that the Member for Queenstown could hear clearly, and the Member for Queenstown indicated that the Member for Farrer Park was correct. In other words, the Member for Queenstown did not wish that the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" should be left out. The Member for Queenstown has indicated that he wishes that the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" should remain in the amendment.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, our understanding of the amendment is this, that whatever the organisation, whatever the name of the person or organisation that is put down makes no difference, because the whole idea of the amendment is to allow the Government a chance to put the blame on the Communists.

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the Member to make another speech. So that is the correct understanding of the position. The Member for Queenstown desires that the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" should remain in the amendment.

No other Member wishing to speak? I will then put the Question.

Question put, "That the words `like the Barisan Sosialis' proposed to be left out, be left out."

An hon. Member: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 8; Noes, 15; Abstentions, 25; Absent, 3. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Bani, S. T. Haji Jumat. Chan Sun Wing. Ahmad Jabri Bin Fung Yin Ching, Mohammed Akib. Miss. Lim Yew Hock. Lee Siew Choh. Marshall, David. Leong Keng Seng. Mohd. Ali bin Lin You Eng. Alwi. Low Por Tuck. Rajah, A. P. Ng Teng Kian. Seow Peck Leng, Ong Chang Sam. Mrs. Ong Eng Guan. Thio Chan Bee. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Cheng Tong. Tee Kim Leng. Abstentions. Teo Hock Guan. Wong Soon Fong. Buang bin Omar Junid. Byrne, K. M. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Abstentions-(cont.) Absent. Chor Yeok Eng. Ahmad bin Goh Chew Chua. bin Ibrahim. Goh Keng Swee. Hoe Puay Choo, Kandasamy, G. Madam. Koh, C. H. Lingam, S. V. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Tan Kia Gan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohammed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Amendment to the amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Speaker: We are back to the original amendment, that is, at the end of the original motion, to add, "in that it has failed to discharge its sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore by not restraining known communist and communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, thus endangering the wellbeing of the people of Singapore".

The Prime Minister: On a point of elucidation, Sir. Since the amendment to the amendment has been defeated it is, in fact, significant in this respect. The words "like the Barisan Sosialis" are again part of the motion and the Barisan Sosialis is thereby, by implication, an organisation manipulated and controlled by the Communists. Perhaps you, Sir, would clarify?

Mr Speaker: I think the Speaker should not be called upon to interpret what is in the amendment and, for that matter, the Prime Minister will no doubt speak on it later on.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Penang and Malacca!

Mr Speaker: Order. I have heard enough of Penang and Malacca.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not our view that we have failed to discharge our sacred duty in protecting the internal security of Singapore. What we dispute in the amendment is that by not restraining known Communist and Communist-front leaders, from manipulating and controlling organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, we have endangered the well-being of the people of Singapore. So the purport of the amendment, therefore, is that the Government, in order to discharge its, duty, has got to restrain - a euphemism, restrain - known Communist and Communist-front leaders from manipulating and controlling organisations.

Sir, it has been our view all along that this simple and blunt method of dealing with the Communists does not provide a complete answer to our security position. It is our intention to abstain on the whole amendment and let the Opposition decide. And on the decision of the Opposition to this amendment, certain consequences and significant conclusions will be drawn by the relevant authorities.

But let me explain the Government's policy and the Government's approach to this problem. Yesterday we had the advantage of hearing the Member for Cairnhill admit in this Chamber that we do know the Communists and their methods. That is the compliment he has paid us. And because we do know how they manipulate things and how to counter their manipulations, we therefore abstained on a motion moved yesterday by the Member for Thomson. Now, I will move one step further, that not only did we know, and we still know, how they operate, how they manipulate, and therefore know how to counter them and their manipulations, but in the long-term, what we are doing is a necessary phase in the history of Malaya and of Malaysia.

Sir, this is an aspect of the problem which I think the people of Singapore and of Malaysia must see clearly. Our view is that the problem of Communism and the Communists is not purely the security problem of restraining the - Communists from activity. Basically, this is an important aspect of security. restraining them from doing damage to society. I will later on explain how we have prevented them, within the play of democratic methods, from doing harm.

But, first, let me explain the whole problem. The appeal, the pull of Communism, is basically one which springs from poverty and frustration. Economic and social distress provide a breeding ground upon which the Communist creed can grow, can recruit and gain strength. Without those conditions, it has been proved over and over again that however militant, however cunning, however active, their movement cannot gather strength.

Sir, immediately after the Second World War, the Communist attack was on Europe, a war-ravaged and destroyed Europe. The industrial edifice of Europe was nearly completely razed to the ground, literally. Stalin's massive effort was to capture Europe, for once he captured Europe, he had captured the whole of the industrial potential of the known industrialised world, and he would capture the world. But what defeated the Communist was not the effectiveness of the strength of the Italian police, or the French police, or the West German police - although they were important factors in isolating and containing known Communist operators. The basic factor that prevented a Communist capture of Europe was the economic booster that they got from the United States in Marshall Aid that rejuvenated European industries that have built now, 17 years after the war, a prosperous common market in Europe, one so prosperous that even Britain is reluctantly compelled to consider joining. True the Italian Communist Party still has a following, particularly in the industrial north. It is also true that the French Communist Party is powerful. But what is true is that they have been halted, checkmated, not primarily by being contained, restrained and detained, but by the economic prosperity that dispels frustration, despair and banishes poverty and brings in prosperity.

I have explained this thesis before. I will only broadly touch on the problem. Sir, a population that is advancing economically, that has something - to look forward to tomorrow, something better than today, and for their children even something better next year, the year after that, the next decade - that is not a population which is likely to throw away the past and grope madly for change and revolution. It is only, as in the case of China, when utter and absolute despair has enveloped a whole people; when the intelligentsia and the educated have lost faith in this system and the people have reached a breaking point, that they cast off the old because nothing could be worse than the old. That was the point. Communism expanded and overwhelmed China. When one day you found that your hundred thousand yen would buy half a katty of rice and two days later you find that it would probably buy you three tahils of rice - in that situation men's minds lose their bearings and they go for a change. In North Vietnam a situation approaching that took place, slightly different in that the colonial power by its stupidity in staying on brought about a united front not only of the Communists - even today the North Vietnamese Communist Party is not known as the Communist Party; the Vietcong Workers' Party brought about a united front which gathered together the Communists, the non-Communists, the liberals, the intellectuals and everybody against the society. The net result, of course, was that in such a united front, they being the best organised of the groups, when victory came, they were the dominant power. Over the years all the peripheral organisations allied to the united front will slowly wither away and the quintessence of the Communist elite will slowly take over. If I were a Vietnamese in that situation, I would have joined them in the united front, as I would have gone on with the united front, my colleagues and I, with the Communists and with everybody else to fight the British to end colonial rule. But, fortunately for us, we did not have to face our problems so hopelessly as the Vietnamese have. By the time they had finished with the colonial power, the whole of the Vietminh Army, the whole of the officer cadre were Communists. There was no question of any other alternative and going on with the united front. In the South, well, a different situation obtains and the light goes on, not a fight which I would have liked to be involved in. But we are in a happier position, that even before independence, the British made it quite clear that they were going to withdraw from the political arena. That is important. True, they have got economic interests in this country, large vested interests in rubber or tin and the distributive trade. But politically they made it quite clear, as far back as 1955 in the Federation, that they were prepared to withdraw. So the objective of the united front became possible of consummation before the Communist forces became strong enough to overwhelm all the other parties.

Sir, let me take our problems of Singapore. The British offered no such escape. Their original plan in 1955 and 1956 was to hold Singapore indefinitely as a military base. I remember vividly the first conference in 1956. I did not think the Member for Anson knew who was playing what game. He had a delegation of 13, but I am quite sure the Barisan Sosialis would not be as unlucky as the former Chief Minister's band of 13. He wanted independence to allow Singapore to send representatives to the United Nations. That is one of the most important things, Sir. But without independence you cannot go to the United Nations. Sir, a worthwhile national aspiration. We have a delegation there in the United Nations to play on the world stage. After all, Singapore is a small place, has a small audience, but there, there is the world Press. So he devised a scheme whereby we would get independence and he would hand back almost in perpetuity by treaty, defence and external affairs. It was a mad scheme which I did not think had half a chance of getting off the ground. However, he was encouraged by the Member for Bukit Timah to fight for no less. We finally persuaded him. They said, "All right. Let foreign affairs and defence be in British hands." The clash came on security. The British wanted the predominant voice, the chairmanship and the casting vote. We proposed an alternative with the concurrence of the then Member for Bukit Timah, which is important, Mr Speaker, Sir, for then I could not be outflanked by leftist adventurers in Singapore. He agreed that a fair compromise was that the Federation should have the casting vote, because we all believed in merger; we all believed that that was the way towards independence. Believe it or not, Mr Speaker, the Colonial Secretary refused. May 1956. The intention was that they were to stay here indefinitely. No freedom was in sight. And if no freedom was in sight, the united front struggle must go on. Sir, I put this argument to the then Colonial Secretary. He was an extremely able man who not only could run one conference at any one time whilst he was doing the Singapore conference, looking after the ups and downs of the Member for Anson, who was then the Chief Minister; but he was also looking after Malta and several other places besides, places which were all on the boil. I put to him this simple argument, if you lose Malaya to Communism, then you have lost Singapore. There is no hope of holding Singapore. There is as much chance of holding Singapore from a Communist Malaya as Hong Kong from a Communist China. If tomorrow the Chinese Communist Government decide to take Hong Kong, nothing can stop it. He did not see the logic of it or he did not want to admit the logic of it. I argued with him that as long as Malaya is non-Communist, his base survives. And what better way of deciding the security of Singapore than to have the casting vote in the hands of a Government that has a direct and vital interest in Singapore, because its own survival is intimately tied to Singapore? But the Colonial Secretary refused - 1956. The events that followed are familiar to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Tumultuous scenes in this House. Moments of great excitement. Then the anti-climax. And in 1957 we reached agreement. In that one year some progress was made in thinking in London, that if Malaya became Communist, then the base in Singapore anyway would be useless. Therefore, it was agreed that the casting vote would be with the Federation of Malaya. That was crucial. If one side disagreed, then a new phase opened. In other words, an admission was made that the two territories were intimately linked. If one was lost, the other was lost.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from that moment the gradual drift away from the united front tactics began. In June, we reached agreement in London that Malaya should have a casting vote. In August Malaya itself became independent. You will recall that I reported in this Assembly a conversation I had with the boys then in camp - the people intimately connected with the leadership of the P.A.P. to whom we owed a responsibility. They said that that brought about a metamorphosis of the whole situation. From then onwards the Malay soldiers, the Chinese Home Guard, the Indian policemen - they are no longer mercenaries of the colonial power, but they are sentinels guarding the independence of the newly-acquired Malayan independence. A basic and fundamental change of role. And the continuance of the M.C.P. struggle thereafter became an attack not on the colonial power but on a newly independent Government freely elected by the people. That began the new phase. From then onwards we set down our new stakes - what we were fighting for.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown has talked about our mandate - that we had no mandate - to bring merger about. Let me read to him his pledge signed, sealed and delivered with Tann Wee Long, the legal adviser of the Barisan Sosialis, attesting. He said here, signed, sealed and delivered on the 11th day of May 1959: "I, Lee Siew Choh, of No. 358G Dunearn Road, Singapore, 11, hereby acknowledge that I have read and understood the 4th Anniversary Celebration Souvenir issue of the Petir, the organ of the P.A.P. published on the 22nd November, 1958, and the Five-Year Plan of the P.A.P. announced at a Special Party Congress of Saturday, 25th April, 1959, and I declare that I am in full agreement with the P.A.P.'s policy as set out therein. I hereby covenant with the P.A.P. that if I am elected to the Singapore Legislative Assembly and if I should ever later resign or be expelled from the P.A.P., I shall forthwith resign from the Singapore Legislative Assembly."

Solemn words, Sir. This is what he read and said he understood.

Mr Speaker: I take it this is relevant to the amendment which deals with the Communists?

The Prime Minister: This is to show how the Barisan Sosialis came about and why they became a Communist-controlled organisation. We made it quite clear in this policy statement what we stood for. It says here. "The New Phase After Merdeka: Our Tasks and Policy". This is a little book which I gathered together and which I thought would contain all the useful documents to remind them of what they had subscribed to. It said here, page 148 - "The New Phase Since Merdeka." Can I read at the bottom of the page, Sir, on November 21, 1954, we added:

`though because of the division of Malaya into two territories we are technically a political Party operating in Singapore, we shall, in all our approach to the problems of this country, disregard the constitutional division. We are as actively interested in the problems of our fellow Malayans in the Federation as we are in those of Singapore. When Malayans in the Federation who agree with our aim join us, we shall work throughout Malaya.'

This is even more true now than four years ago, for to achieve freedom in an island we must achieve merger. Singapore, by itself an island of 224 square miles with a population of 1.5 million that was four years ago. Mr Speaker; now it is 1.7 million, as the Member for Queenstown says living mainly on its trade with the Federation and Indonesia, cannot hope for anything more than the status of Hongkong or Taiwan. It goes on to say on page 151:

`We must strive for national unity and solidarity, and anything that stands in the way must be overcome.'

It is as simple as that. That is the foremost objective-

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Not the White Paper?

The Prime Minister: The White Paper is bringing about the reunification-

Mr Bani: A phoney merger!

The Prime Minister: Well, the Member for Thomson will find out how very real it is after it has taken place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we got the boys in Changi to endorse it wholeheartedly.

Page 148 - "Ends and Means of Socialism." They issued this. Subsequently it was suggested at the Socialist Front Conference in Kuala Lumpur, not by the people who signed this - because I think it would have been too barefaced a lie for them to say that it was under duress - that they were being released from prison and they issued this on their release. But the Chairman of the Socialist Front Conference said all these documents were not admissible because he feared it might have been under duress. Mr Lim Ching Siong, he said, was under duress. We allowed him free passage in the C.P.A. Room, free use of the C.P.A. telephone-

An hon. Member: And coffee!

The Prime Minister: - coffee, tea, anything he likes. Mr Speaker, Sir, more democratic no government can be.

An hon. Member: Why did you not stop him?

The Prime Minister: Why should we want to stop him? Sir, this is what he said. Page 184:

`With regard to the immediate tasks particularly in the new phase since the achievement of political independence by the Federation of Malaya, we endorse the stand taken by the P.A.P, in the document "The New Phase After Merdeka" [that is the one I have just read].

Let me read just one short passage on page 187:

`Once the problem of linguistic and cultural unity is on the way to being resolved, fears and suspicions will fade away. We must face the facts. So long as the fight was against British colonialism, the differences between the peoples of Malaya were muted and dulled in the desire to achieve the common goal of freedom by common effort. Now that this freedom has been won in the Federation, all the differences come back into their own. They can and must be resolved and we in Singapore can set the way to the solution of these important differences in language and culture.'

Now, this is what we can and must do in this next phase of our struggle for freedom - the struggle for merger. There is no nonsense there about abolition of the Security Council; more self-government and all this new-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No White Paper-

The Prime Minister: -new united front line bringing the two territories together, getting 15 representatives into the Federation Parliament.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: What is bad about that?

The Prime Minister: I thought they subscribed to these views.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, merger.

The Prime Minister: Merger? Alternative (b) - let them have it: complete and unconditional. But this was the point. A new phase entered and we pegged them down to the nationalist line. They wanted to carry on a united front with us, it was a united front for nationalist, non-Communist, socialist purposes. Not for Communist purposes. We made that decision in 1957, Mr Speaker, Sir, and if anybody tells lies and is a traitor to any cause, it is they who told lies when they signed these documents, never sincerely subscribing to them and opting out of these documents the moment they found that they could not make use of us. Those are the facts. The Member for Thomson was then not with them, Mr Speaker, Sir. He knows very little about this because what he knew were about the open documents.

Let me explain the position. Had this Government carried out the policy of the last Government, then we would have got into an impasse. Sir, this is a simple exercise in logic. The British wanted this base to go on as long as possible in the same old way, with them as sovereign. The Federation wanted Singapore to be reasonably quiet, peaceful, prosperous and no problem to them. A Singapore Government elected can either fight for the long-term rights of the people or play the short-term game of the British in keeping this situation contained. Sir, to keep the place happy and prosperous, you must have economic expansion; you must have first an economic base - a common market. Without that, nobody is going to put his money in Singapore. We have tried it. We have fought hard for a common market.

Mr Bani: On a point of order, Sir, Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is irrelevant to the debate at the moment.

Mr Speaker: I was just wondering how it is related.

The Prime Minister: It is very simple, Mr Speaker, Sir. The motion is that we have failed to discharge our sacred duty of protecting the internal security of Singapore, and then they define how we should do it, by restraining known Communists and so on and so on. I am going to show that that is not the way to discharge our sacred duty. It is as simple as that. We did a lot of thinking. [Interruption.]

An hon. Member: Lock them up.

The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed. That is what they want us to do. Lock them up. Then they become martyrs fighting against colonialism. Then we are tools of the colonialists.

Mr Bani: Anti-Communist, are you?

The Prime Minister: That is their line. No, why should we do such foolish things? They run around. We say, "All right, a common market first, economic expansion, prosperity."

Mr Bani: Where is the common market?

The Prime Minister: It is coming. The U.N. Commission is already on the way. The common market is coming with merger and Malaysia. And a bigger common market too - 130,000 square miles.

Mr Bani: Second-class citizens.

The Prime Minister: No. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are foolish words by tender foots in the game. Tenderfoots fighting hard for the second-class badge. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: The Opposition should realise there is a guillotine. If they interject in this way, the Prime Minister must respond.

The Prime Minister: I always try to keep everybody happy, Sir, including the Opposition, in so far as I can. I do not object to them, if it gives them some release from their inhibitions and their frustrations. I say, so be it.

Let me explain this exercise. If there is no common market, then it means no economic expansion. Then that means more social unrest, more unemployment, more problems. We have gone through this drill; so let us face the problem now. They helped us in 1961. They helped us enormously. They brought home the problem vividly to Kuala Lumpur. Everyday in the fierce things they say, they help to bring the problems home. Suddenly it was generally recognised that there must be merger; there must be a common market, or the position could not be contained. Now had we played the other game, then the position would have been contained for five years, for the life of this Assembly. There is no problem. They are cornered. They are kept down. We are the stooges of the British for having cornered them, because obviously with no independence the interests that are served and protected are British interests, because they are the sovereign power. But with independence, that is a different proposition. The interests that are served are Malayan and Malaysian interests. When they go down, it is not because they are fighting against the British, but because they are trying to down an independent popularly-elected government, and they will deserve what they get. That is a different proposition.

So you see, Mr Speaker, Sir, very far from not discharging our sacred duty, I submit that we have discharged our sacred duty in the best possible way in these given circumstances. There would be no talk of merger, no Malaysia, had we continued the policy of the last Government. The last Government unfortunately did not understand what it was all about. I do not blame them because they opened Pandora's Box. It all started with the Member for Anson. He opened it. He asked for Assistant Ministers. He kept on opening Pandora's Box. Suddenly out popped a weasel and all the Member for Cairnhill could do was to put the weasel back and close Pandora's Box. I do not think, in the long term, that that is the right approach, because it has to be resolved not on a sectionalised basis - Singapore alone - because Singapore is not viable. If we go down, it is not Singapore that goes down, but Malaya and Malaysia also go down.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The P.A.P. goes down.

The Prime Minister: The P.A.P. going down is an irrelevance. It is an utter irrelevance.

The P.A.P. was quite willing to give up after Hong Lim in May 1961, when there was no merger and no Malaysia in sight, because it meant progressive deterioration in the employment situation, more unrest, more discontent, and no solution. It is that simple.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There is no change.

The Prime Minister: No, but there is. Now, new vistas open up a common market, security, economic expansion, political stability-

The Prime Minister: - a bigger common market. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are facts - facts! They miscalculated and they helped us inadvertently to bring about merger and Malaysia, at a pace and a speed which we never imagined possible at the beginning of 1961. And everyday that they continue this, they help us more. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we have not only discharged our duty, but we have done it in the way most beneficial to the people of Singapore in the long run.

The problem of Communism is a world problem. The problem of Singapore is a very special one of a small contained island dependent for its economic survival on the Federation of Malaya. It is not our business to run this as an appendage. Either we are part of the whole and the whole survives, or we are not interested in keeping this appendage going, kept down and contained for the benefit of either the British or, for that matter, the Federation Government. If the Federation Government's attitude had been that Singapore meant nothing to them and could go down the drain, then I say, so it would have happened. Logic, aided by the vivid examples of their own postures and wild statements, has brought about this sudden change - a realisation of the vital interdependence of the two territories and the vital interdependence of the five territories.

Sir, at the same time, let me explain, and they know full well how we kept the situation contained. None of those whom we suspected of being insincere when they signed these documents were given access to secret or confidential files. None of those whom we suspected of being insincere when they issued those documents pledging support for the P.A.P.'s policy of merger and Malaysia and a non-Communist, socialist Malaya were ever given their citizenship. We are not going to be pushed and coerced into doing that. Whether Jamit Singh shouts "Keras, keras" two-times or ten times, he does not get his citizenship. Nor will Mr Fong Swee Suan get his citizenship.

Mr Bani: Go to Tanjong Pagar.

The Prime Minister: That is all right. We shall go back. We are not running away. We do not intend to run away whatever our shortcomings. The Member for Thomson ought to know us long enough to realise that we stay and fight for what we believe in. We are not interested in forming a new coalition to keep the Government going. If this Government is voted out, it will put down its responsibilities and discharge itself of its obligations. But let me inform the Member for Thomson - if he has not done the calculation - the boys behind him have done so-

Mr Byrne: He is a parasite. [Laughter]

The Prime Minister: Confidence motion! Who wants a general election and defeat merger and Malaysia in the melee of a general election? The Member for Hong Lim is an extremely alert-

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Let us have a general election now.

The Prime Minister: Now he wants a general election. Now he wants to be given an opportunity when he knows he is absolutely safe. He knew he would be absolutely safe, so he voted with them. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are glad that the situation is what it is, because it helped to bring a catalyst to the whole situation. The pace at which events take place and develop will be quickened. He said that. He is on the record of this House that he does not want a general election. That was why he was really fighting us.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Do not distort.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Hong Lim is a much more seasoned Parliamentarian. He knows he can stand up on a point of elucidation.

The Prime Minister: It is in the Hansard, Sr.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: On a point of clarification, Sir. The issue then was whether the White Paper should be decided in a referendum or in a general election. From what we know of a referendum and a general election, we thought in a referendum there will be only one issue, but in a general election there will be a confusion of issues. The situation has changed now because we know the Government is going to hold a sham referendum. Here we have a Government which has no majority. It is a minority government trying to push through its White Paper proposals for a sham referendum.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim will get himself more and more involved. All these things are on the record. He has gone on record as saying that there should be at least two questions posed - two alternatives - that is on the record. I am sending up for it, Mr Speaker. He does not want a general election, because he knows he will be corroded with this process. He is no tenderfoot in this -

Mr Ong Eng Guan: On a point of clarification. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to remind the Prime Minister that those persons whom he smears as Communists now were with him fighting on the same platform together on the ground in the Hong Lim by-election. Still how many votes could they get? Every time we are ready to go down to the people for a general election-

The Prime Minister: Big words which he knows will never be taken on. If they were to be taken on, he would be absent.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Because you are scared.

The Prime Minister: No, no, it does not matter what happens to us. We will discharge our responsibilities, because if we resigned we would let down the people who have faith and confidence in us, who want to see Malaysia through. That is the reason.

The Prime Minister opened his despatch box.

An hon. Member: Pandora's Box!

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not opening Pandora's Box. There is only one box inside. This is what the Member for Hong Lim said - this was on the 17th of April, the Revised Transcript, page 36 [Vol. 17 No. 8, Col. 813]:

`If the worst comes to the worst and the people were asked what type of merger they would prefer, then the ballot paper should put forward the two alternatives which the two groups of Parties in this Assembly have supported.'

No question of yes and no. Two alternatives - we gave them two. If they want three, we will give them three.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Why put in an alternative?

The Prime Minister: Why put in an alternative, Mr Speaker? Everybody knows this is not in the larder. It is something more than what any other State has got.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is not for you to decide. It is for the people.

The Prime Minister: Yes, it is for the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis to bring up an exchange of letters between him and the Tunku to show that that is an alternative. If he produces an exchange of letters, I will put that willingly down as an alternative. He produces an exchange of letters which said, "kind and warm regards", and the other party was so surprised he thanked him for the "warm and kind regards". [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. May I remind the Barisan Sosialis that there is a guillotine at 12 midnight, and if they interject, I cannot stop the Prime Minister from answering them.

The Prime Minister: We are a minority government and therefore We can be voted out. Collect 26 votes and vote us out. I say we are properly discharged from our responsibilities, but as long as we are not discharged from our responsibilities in a constitutional way, it is our duty to see this through whatever the threats, whatever the price we pay personally for it. Sir, they can choose Tanjong Pagar. Let them all turn up at Tanjong Pagar. So what? So we shall do what is right by the people.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Go to Cairnhill.

The Prime Minister: We will meet them. If they are so confident, Mr Speaker, Sir, why do not the 13 Barisan Members resign?

Opposition Members: Shame, shame!

The Prime Minister: Prove to us-

Mr Speaker: Order. Now I think I must ask the Barisan Sosialis not to interject. We are just wasting time and we are going far away from the amendment.

The Prime Minister: Sir, we ended the last session on a motion of confidence called by the Government. They did not want a motion of confidence. "Withdraw it, withdraw it." was the plea. "We all supported the Government." That was the plea. They had the choice then to vote against the Government and show their displeasure, but the people supported the Government. We must carry on. It is our sacred duty. They wanted us to carry on and hoped to capture us from the rear. But we were fully aware of the problems connected with the united front.

The Member for Hong Lim is an experienced hand. He was booted out in 1957 by the machinations of these boys. And he talks about fighting on the ground together. They were fighting against us whenever it suited them. He knew it. That is why he has got it in his Constitution - cadre membership - and the Central Committee is elected only once in three years, not like the P.A.P. Ours is once in two years. We meet regularly bi-annually. His is once in three years. And the Rules of the Party are such that nobody can capture it without his consent. [Laughter] It shows him to be an extremely experienced man. They fixed him in 1957; we got him unfixed. That was our misfortune, we trusted him. So we bear the cross. But they are not going to fix him again. He does not want them running around fixing him. We know that; he knows that.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has no great affection for me. We fought many a battle; temperamentally and ideologically, we are poles apart. But can he afford to face his own supporters and say he let the country down and not the Government down? It is no longer a question of the P.A.P. Government. Everybody knows that it is a question of either merger and survival or chaos, trials and tribulations before ultimate merger. Do we avoid the trials and the tribulations? That is the issue. And every vote against the Government is a vote for the trials and tribulations. That is what it amounts to. I say that there is no need for us to try and go round and lobby in order to foist ourselves with responsibilities. The responsibility is there. If any Member on the other side gets 26 to vote us out, constitutionally we are discharged.

Sir, let me explain the other ways in which we feel we have discharged our sacred duty. I say this hesitantly, in case it is believed that we are immodest. But very few men in Singapore and few women at that, Mr Speaker, Sir, would have taken it upon themselves to dig their toes in the face of everything that the Communists could throw at us. The easier way was to play their game and cover up, push along, improvise and carry on the idea of peace for our time, but disaster for the country, while they built up more and more ramifications to undermine the State. We never allowed that, Mr Speaker, Sir. Now, for the first time, the issue is solemnly and clearly posed to the people. This is no humbug. "Bogey," says the Member for Queenstown. Is Chin Peng a bogey; is he a ghost? I do not know if the Member for Queenstown looks up the meaning of these words. I do not think Chin Peng is a bogey. He is real.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Not something you can see, is it?

The Prime Minister: We do not let these chaps make us lose sleep, Sir, I can assure the Member for Queenstown that I sleep well at nights. I take regular exercise and I am fighting fit. For it is my job to discharge these responsibilities and nobody is going to get us away from it. And Chin Peng or Ching Siong, Sir - I read in the papers today and I thought it read rather well. Is he a bogey? He is real. We know him for so many years.

Mr Rajah: He is a nice chap.

The Prime Minister: He is a nice chap. More the pity of it! Gone the wrong way, on the wrong side! But what can we do? Does it mean therefore that we yield, we surrender, just because some of them are nice chaps? But some of them are ruthless chaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us make no mistake about that. I say that the sacred duty was discharged by baring the facts to the people and carrying the fight into the open. We could have concealed the fight, covered up the tracks, carried on for five years, and for five years more. Sir, we are better able to give the Communists a respectable cover. One of the greatest misfortunes of the Member for Queenstown is that he has a sense of humour and every time he goes into his long and lengthy tirades, at the end of it all, the utter silliness and stupidity and comicality of it all strikes him, and he bursts into uncontrollable laughter. He has got an engaging characteristic. He plays his role, difficult though it may be. He rants, he gets angry; he puts on the act. All these lengthy pages - he does not speak in those words and phrases. Those are words and phrases that the Member for Thomson read out yesterday - the words of revolution, anger of the people, turn to other alternatives, traitors. But at the end of it all, the silliness of it strikes the Member for Queenstown, and he is in a fit of merriment.

Mr Bani: You act very well.

The Prime Minister: We have done our duty by baring this. The fight now moves into a new phase. That is our sacred duty - to carry it into the new phase without allowing the harmony that now exists between the people to be cracked. Because once that is cracked, it will never be put together again. They know it.

Well. Mr Speaker, Sir, I say therefore that the first sacred duty to the people was to ensure the permanent security and prosperity of Singapore, which is only possible in a merger with the Federation. Any other way meant isolation, meant playing to the Communists. It is they who want Singapore to remain a colony. Full internal self-government, abolish the Security Council - they will be quite happy. Because then the common enemy is there - British colonialism - and all those who fight like them are anti-colonialists; whether you are fighting for a Communist cause or a non-Communist cause, you are together, you must be, because the common enemy is colonialism. So they want colonialism for their purpose. Their logic is simple, because without the British, the Member for Havelock becomes an aider and abettor of the Communist movement. With the British, the Member for Havelock is an active fighter of anti-colonial revolution. But how can he be an active fighter of anti-colonial revolution if the colonialists are gone? That is the simple logic. It is not only his bosses who can think these things out; so can others. That is why they have a vested interest in colonialism. There is a word to be made use of in order that they can expand on a broad front, absorb all classes, and using the words of the Member for Thomson's resolution yesterday, Sir - workers, students, rural dwellers. If you use a simple word like "peasants", it is too reminiscent of the great lines of workers and peasants of China; so that is a bit tricky. So do not use such words; change to "rural dwellers". They only forgot the grave-diggers, Sir. They represent all classes, including the grave-diggers.

Now, Sir, what therefore is the significance of this amendment? The significance is this, that in the opinion of the Member for Cairnhill, that is the only way to deal with the Communists. We disagree. But we say quite clearly that that is one of the ways in which the Communists have been dealt with. I have said all this before. The Member for Thomson always quotes little bits that suit him; he never quotes the bits that do not suit him, made on the same occasion. That all these methods of "containment" are of no value, unless the general situation is kept out of it. It is like a sick man in a community. It is no use having a quarantine station for people with tuberculosis unless the general health of your population is good. Then you quarantine those that carry the virus and you keep those who are healthy, healthy. But when your general standard of health is down because of poverty, malnutrition and bad housing, you cannot quarantine the whole nation. That is the point we make. Let me say this: a quarantine is a valuable method of containing the virus and from time to time, regrettable though it may be, it would be necessary-

Dr Toh Chin Chye: To get a vaccine.

The Prime Minister: True, I am reminded by my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister that in the quarantine, we produce an anti-toxin which is another necessary aspect of this whole process.

Now, Sir, our first duty is to keep the population healthy. That we will secure through economic expansion and prosperity; otherwise I say it is a waste of time trying to do this. You will have to quarantine finally the whole of Singapore. With growing unemployment, no economic expansion, frustration, and bitterness, the basis will disappear and the whole thing will go in a turbulent, and riotous and chaotic mess. But when we have ensured that standards will be kept up, progress will be made, nutrition is forthcoming, and better and better houses, better and better schools, more and more factories, more and more jobs with better and better wages, then we isolate those who are unhealthy. Of course, we will try and bring them back to health, Mr Speaker, Sir, We will feed them, look after them-

Mr Rajah: And inject them.

The Prime Minister: Yes. We will try our best, Mr Speaker, Sir. All the known vaccines will be tried; all the latest in antibiotics. Sir, when we took office - although these men fought against us to fix us and they fixed the Member for Hong Lim they were in Changi Prison, Mr Speaker, Sir, and we transferred them to St. John's Island where they could get the sea breeze and open air-sports, basket ball, night reading, and even swimming! And I say - I do not claim credit for that, but that is our humanity; we tried to do something for them. And many of them have been rehabilitated, recovered in health, reacquired their balance, their ideological serenity restored, and they have been released. And so the process goes on. But it must be in a contained situation. The general situation must first be firm, solid and healthy, and then it is possible to deal with those infected. Those infected would have to be dealt with. I mean, let us be quite brutal and frank about these things. They are unpleasant things, Mr Speaker, Sir. For instance, but for them, I think the Member for Queenstown, despite all his personal aberrations from time to time, will still be quite a reasonable fellow. But they infected him with something, that inspired and aroused tremendous hopes,-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You have sold out the rights of Singapore.

The Prime Minister: -aspirations, ambitions, and he went careering back. He went back true to form, what they call recidivist tendencies, Mr Speaker, Sir. He has always had a hankering for games of chance. He is one of the great names in some of the clubs in Singapore He is a man who takes chances, a brave man. He has been-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: What has this got to do with the motion, Sir?

Mr Speaker: I do not think it has anything to do with the motion.

Mr Speaker: Has it?

The Prime Minister: I was explaining how to a certain extent I agreed with the Member for Cairnhill, and that is, in some cases, a sacred duty to prevent people from being enticed into games of chance, which is exactly what is happening in his case. He went back, true to form - put everything he had on this mad gamble - this time for absolute power. We wanted to give up after Hong Lim. He was encouraged by certain elements whom I will not mention, but everybody knows, and the bid was made. And now this mad venture has started.

Well, Sir, to that extent, I agree with the Member for Cairnhill. But I disagree with him utterly and completely that this is the basic remedy. I say this is the way to contain it, but the final solution - the long-term and enduring answer - is economic progress. I do not know whether the Member for Cairnhill has read Rostow on "Economic Growth" and a few others. Well, they explain how these things take place. You get off into a stage of industrialisation like an aeroplane taking off from an aerodrome. And that is what we must do once we take off. In no country in the civilised and industrialised world have the Communist Party been able to assume power when there has been a high rate of economic growth. They have assumed power only when there has been no economic growth, when tomorrow is worse than today and the day after tomorrow is worse than tomorrow; then despair sets in.

Therefore, I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, very far from not having discharged our duty, we have right up to date discharged to the best of our ability what we consider and what we know to be in the long-term interests of the people of Singapore. First, to ensure our economic well-being in a larger federation.

An hon. Member: Malaysia.

The Prime Minister: In Malaya and in Malaysia. Then with a healthy economy, merger and Malaysia will sustain its growth.

I give this example again to Members on the Opposition side, and I think this will be appreciated particularly by the Member for Nee Soon because he understands it. If a man has something to live for - if today he has a bicycle and is earning enough, feeding his family in nice and decent surroundings, and with enough to buy a scooter on the hire purchase - from the bicycle he goes to the scooter - that is tangible progress. And he would not listen to all this wild and silly talk of revolution and violence. And if from the scooter he is doing well enough to go to one of the Mini-minor cars - there is the 500, the 600, the Mini-Cooper which is revved up and can do 100 m.p.h. - he can take a girl friend out for a spin, that is reasonable and tolerable. After all, that is what they are fighting for even in a Communist society and even in Moscow.

Now that they have got the industrial take off, they give tremendous cheers to jazz music.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Nylon stockings, too.

The Prime Minister: And all the best things in life. And if from the scooter to the small car, they can, like the Member for Thomson, go on to a bigger car-

Mr Byrne: The Member for Nee Soon.

The Prime Minister: The Member for Nee Soon, I beg his pardon - Opel Rekord, two-tone, adds to the glamour of it all,

An hon. Member: White-wall tyres.

The Prime Minister: White-wall tyres. Now, Sir, there is then no frustration. But if the Member for Nee Soon has not got white-wall tyres, if last year, his Renault fell to bits and he had to go back to a scooter and then this year from the scooter he goes down to the bicycle, we will now find a different Member for Nee Soon. Right at the moment he is a man at peace with himself, but, mind you, a bit fearful of the hazards of the outer world. But nevertheless, as I told him publicly, he is not a man who is either by inclination or by circumstances to be forced into violent action. And he assured me that there will be no violent action whatsoever, and I accept his assurance. I have no doubts whatsoever, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if you can go from a Renault to an Opel Rekord - and with easy small numbers - then I say there is hope. I do not speak in disparaging terms. I say that is the business of society - incentives. People live in this world for fulfilment of themselves, be it a game of chance whether at the table or in the larger field of politics, be it an expression of their alter ego - whatever it is - there must be some consummation in life. I am told, Sir, there is nothing more frustrating than to be a spinster all one's life. I am quite sure that is what happens when a population goes down; when bicycles stay as bicycles. Worse, you go on foot and shoes get worse and you go to sandals. If that happens, then frustration sets in. But where there is no frustration, when there is freedom and liberty of movement, speech, expression, personal enjoyment of one's likes and dislikes, so long as it does not affect the community at large, then there is no violent upheaval. There is no manning of the barricades. They tried it, Sir, several times in the last one year. First, the unions and then the People's Association. All flopped. We left them alone. They were doing things sometimes which were unlawful; for instance, like putting up tents. We did not mind. Is it our sacred duty to lock these chaps up? They were just stooges in the game. I say no. It is not the purpose of it. Focus it on the main actors, These are the minor parts being played by the minor people. They are the supporting cast. Leave them alone. The Work Brigade flopped. Why? If there was what they called in Marxist terminology the pre-conditions of revolution, conditions of despair where the Government is unable to resolve them, people have no confidence that the Government can resolve it, or worse, the Government knows it cannot resolve it, then you have the people ready to man barricades. And they have not got it. They tried it with the Chinese Secondary IV boycott examinations. A happy population, reasonably content - I am not saying that they are ideal conditions - but sufficiently good to hold an expectation of better for tomorrow. The parents swept aside the petty little dictators who tried to prevent their fellow students from taking the examinations. But they went in to take the examinations, without police intervention.

They called for another strike of students recently to stop the Commission of Inquiry. Is that a bogey? What is happening causes a great deal of embarrassment. Everyday they see this with discomfort. Every Barisan issue has long scurrilous tirades on the Commission of Inquiry which they supported in this House. How does the Member for Queenstown explain all this? He supported the Commission of Inquiry. Now he is throwing the spotlight on what is going on. It is like switching on. I do not know, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the Member for Queenstown has ever tried this. You put your foot into a machine - I am sure he has put it on the chest. I have tried it with my shoes. You go to a shoe shop. You put your foot on it. You switch on the button and you can see the bones of your foot. That is what has happened. They want a Commission of Inquiry. The X-ray is put on by popular request. I say here, too, by popular request we leave it to the Opposition. If they say this is what is right, then we will convey this to the proper authorities. This is a directive to the final authority for security in Singapore. We shall convey it. But as far as we, as the Government, are concerned, our duty has been discharged in assuring long-term security, long-term prosperity, for there is no alternative to that. Otherwise short-term from time to time. The quarantine method is useless in a healthy society. If Members on the other side believe that the quarantine should be used right now, then let the Opposition so decide.

8.25 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have just witnessed the Prime Minister repeating the same old record of "Communist, Communist, Communist." He thinks that he is still behind the microphone in Radio P.A.P. But he will not dare to speak this in front of a crowd. He will not dare to face the people of Singapore.

The Prime Minister: Do not make that mistake!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He talks a lot about how to restrain the Communist menace, security and all that. He says that-

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

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh remained standing.

Mr Speaker: The Member will not give way.

The Prime Minister: He wants to give way, Sir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Queenstown should make up his mind. Is he giving way?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He has spoken for about two hours, Sir, I think it is time that he gave me a bit of the time.

The Prime Minister: One hour and twenty minutes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He said that it was his thesis. I do not know whether he developed his thesis. All this has been written in the reactionary books for umpteen years-

The Prime Minister: What reactionary books? Let me see.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He talked of the necessary phase. Since when has he ever come into this so-called necessary phase? I believe, Sir, all that he has brought forward came from the U.S.I.S.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. It would be appropriate, I must-

Mr Speaker: Order. We cannot have two Members standing up. Is it a point of order, or is it a point of elucidation? I think the Prime Minister must be honest with himself.

The Prime Minister: I leave it to you to decide.

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to know whether it is a point of order or a point of elucidation. The Prime Minister must be honest with himself.

The Prime Minister: Sir, you ask me to be honest with myself. As far as I am concerned, it is a point of elucidation but it is so big that it becomes a point of order!

Mr Speaker: There is no such thing in parliamentary practice! Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The U.S.I.S. sends books and information to everybody, and, of course, the Prime Minister has first-hand knowledge since he has talked so much about the Marshall Plan and how the Marshall Plan helped to revive and resuscitate Western Europe. I do not know. He might be a second Mr David Marshall for all I know.

An hon. Member: The Member for Anson?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, the Prime Minister started talking about how Communism wanted to attack Europe after the Second World War. He was relating how the Marshall Plan rejuvenated Europe because it brought economic prosperity, so much so that they now have this Economic Community of Europe and the United Kingdom is even trying to join it. But talking of this, he missed the most basic and fundamental - his usual pet words, "basic and fundamental" - reason why and how such poverty came about. I am sure that since he has been relating about words of Marx and how the Communists used words, he must know the basic analysis of poverty. How it came about-

The Prime Minister: How it came about? You tell me.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, in days of old, the Prime Minister-

Mr Speaker: Order. It is half-past eight. I suspend the sitting until half-past nine.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.30 p.m.

Source: Singapore Parliament Official Report (Hansard) for 13 July 1962. Republished on SGParliament.