MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

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 Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to take very long because I realise there is a guillotine on this and we still have to go back to the main motion. But I, of course, realise why our Prime Minister was giving a long thesis. He had hoped to stall in order that we might not be able to debate our main motion. Of course, it is possible, now that there is talk of his going to the United Nations, that he wants to make some political capital out of this before going. As everybody knows, whoever wants to go to the United States must first proclaim himself as a big anti-Communist, otherwise he might not get a good reception there. And the United Nations are situated in the United States.

Mr Kandasamy: On a point of explanation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No, Sir. Time is rather short. Of course, I know that the Prime Minister had hoped for a chance to replace maybe Chiang Kai-shek.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Queenstown has drawn the attention of this House to the fact that there is a guillotine. He seems to be completely irrelevant. He has lost, I think, according to my reckoning, two minutes speaking irrelevantly.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No, Sir, I do not intend to be irrelevant except to say that what we said of the possibility of the Prime Minister being the United Nations representative for the Federation is not completely untrue.

Sir, the amendment by the Member for Cairnhill to my mind is very dishonest. I think this is one of his usual double talk somersaults. It is very clear that the S.P.A. want to support the P.A.P. but dare not do so openly. I can quote the instance of the S.P.A. objecting very strongly to clause 29 of the Referendum Bill in Select Committee but on recommittal abstaining instead of really supporting, and so indirectly supporting the P.A.P.

I can say this to the Member for Cairnhill: that when we moved this motion of no confidence in the Government, there was no intention whatsoever to discredit the S.P.A. as he had thought. You can read the words of the motion and it says, "no confidence in the P.A.P. Government". Therefore, if the SPA. agree with us, namely, that they have no confidence in the P.A.P. Government, whatever the reason may be, they still can join us in voting against the P.A.P. But the reason given by the S.P.A. cannot be acceptable to us because the amendment only falls into the trap of the P.A.P. and allow them an excuse to use dictatorial methods against any organisation that is P.A.P.

As you know, Sir, at the present moment, there are a lot of people in Singapore who are against the dishonest referendum and against the sell-out of the P.A.P., and therefore they combine together to take concerted action against the P.A.P. And since these organisations put up effective opposition to the P.A.P., the obvious line left for the Government is to smear these organisations as so called Communist and Communist front organisations. I hope, therefore, that the S.P.A., if they are really sincere and honest and if they really think that the P.A.P. are no good and should not have the confidence of the people, will support our amendment instead. But it is curious that although the S.P.A. agree with us that they have no confidence in the P.A.P. Government, yet they turned round to attack the mover of the original motion instead. This is one of those somersaults typical of the Member of Cairnhill and, I, suppose, this is the result of his experience as a politician for the past 12 years. This is no surprise to us, Sir. Of course, as we have seen all along, the S.P.A. tactics have been to embarrass the P.A.P. and at the same time, to join the P.A.P. in smearing the Barisan Sosialis. I do not know what the Member for Cairnhill hopes to get out of this. But-

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Another Tun!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do not know, maybe a double bar; but if the S.P.A. really are sincere and agree with us that they have no confidence in the P.A.P. Government, then when it comes to voting, let them join us in voting against the P.A.P. Government.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I speak on the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill, namely, to add to the original motion 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". Sir, I think we should first attempt a definition of some of the terms used in the amendment. First, the words "sacred duty", that is, the sacred duty of the Government is to protect the internal security of Singapore. I do not think this duty is sacred. I think it is the normal duty of any government to see that law and order is maintained. There is nothing sacrosanct in any government performing that sort of function. Then the method of maintaining or protecting the internal security of Singapore, according to the Member for Cairnhill, is to restrain the known Communists. What does the word "restraint" mean? Members will know that every time the Member for Cairnhill speaks on the subject of dealing with the Communists, he recommends only one method, and he puts it into several ways - put them in a place where they can do no harm. Now he used the word "restrain", when all he meant is to arrest them, put them in Changi Gaol, put them out of circulation. That is the meaning of the amendment.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Correct.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member for Cairnhill says "Correct". Sir, it is a very strange thing that one section of the Opposition should ask us to lock up the Members of the Opposition, while the Opposition that is supposed to be the target of security action constantly calls us Fascists. One or the other must be wrong. There is a contradiction here. If we are Fascists, then it is quite unnecessary for the Member for Cairnhill to urge us on this course of action. We would have done it long ago. Of course, the Fascists not only restrain the people, they not only lock them up in prison, but suddenly you find prisoners completely disappearing and no trace of them is found. So, Sir, it is obvious that when the Barisan Members, particularly the Member for Queenstown, accuse us of Fascism, they do not know what Fascism means and they do not know what the Fascists would do to people like him.

Sir, why cannot the Government agree with this amendment? The Member for Cairnhill is always instigating us to lock up the Communists and their fellow travellers. We can understand this easily, because that was the way he dealt with them in the past. This is the method which he thinks will solve the problem. I could perhaps mention that it is not only the S.P.A. Members who think that we should do it. I recollect the rather hilarious occasion when one of the Barisan Sosialis leaders, Mr Woodhull, and I were having a conversation in the C.P.A. Room. We talked about how democratic the P.A.P. is, how we believed in allowing the Barisan Sosialis all the opportunities to propagate their views, and he said, "Come off it! Come off it! You surely do not mean that'?" Well, the long and short of it is that it ended in an uproar, and he said, "Why don't you lock us up? You have got no guts. Tun Lim Yew Hock at least had the courage of his convictions and he proceeded to massacre the Communists and their sympathisers when he thought he had to do it." He thought we should do the same thing, and the only reason why we did not act in this manner is that we lacked the courage.

Sir, that is a point of view which I think we must dispute. People can point to the various shortcomings of the P.A.P. Some may be right, others are not, but I do not think that lack of courage can be one of our shortcomings. If we desist from taking security action against the Communists, the reason is not that we lack the courage to do it. The reason is that in the present situation there are far better and more effective ways of dealing with them. Sir, as you know, there is a saying which goes, there are more ways of killing a cat than just drowning it in cream. In the present situation in Singapore, our stand is that so far as the Communist threat is concerned, we have never attempted on any occasion to minimise it. So far as this threat is concerned, direct security action against them, blocking them up, putting them away in Changi Gaol is not the correct way, for various reasons. The most obvious is that the Singapore Government is not the ultimate authority on this matter. The ultimate power rests with the internal Security Council in which the Singapore Government has minority representation. Therefore, if we were to assume powers which we do not really have, the Government could easily, and I believe quite rightly, be charged with taking action on behalf of some other interests, not necessarily the interests of Singapore.

But there is a more fundamental and more basic reason why the game cannot be played in this way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Do not filibuster. There is no time.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the Member for Queenstown believes that filibustering is the sole prerogative of himself and his Members. I am trying to develop a serious theme in which one line of action has been recommended to the Government. True, if we were to accept this line of action

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Come to the point on the main issue.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the Member for Queenstown is a person who always raises his hands in anger when there is any attempt to curb freedom of speech. There you are.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I have already told the Member for Queenstown and the Barisan Sosialis that if they keep interjecting I cannot stop the person who is speaking from replying to the interjection and taking up time. I think the Minister for Finance is quite in order in answering this amendment which has been proposed. Dr Goh.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, as I was saying, there is a more basic and important reason why resort to the use of knife must be refrained from. This really stems from the nature of the Communist threat itself - the very nature of the movement, the system of the organisation, and the way they attempt to manipulate persons and organisations in our society to advance their own long-term political interests.

May I explain what I mean by the nature of the Communist threat in our present society so that it will be quite clear that once the real nature of the threat is recognised and is known, then the unwisdom of taking the course of action recommended in this amendment would be apparent to all? On several occasions, when we on the Government side drew attention to Communist activities, Communist agitation among students, the trade unions, penetration of political Parties like the Barisan Sosialis and so forth, the reply always thrown back at us was, how many known Communists? The last known estimate was 300. And they said, "How can 300 men be so dangerous to society?" Some of the persons who make the statement honestly believe that 300 Communists pose no threat to 1,700,000 people. They say all this repetition, emphasis on the Communist threat is a red bogey; I mean they believe that it is a red bogey, that 300 people cannot possibly be any danger to society. But there are others who are fully aware of what the real situation is and join the chorus, thereby hoping to save themselves from embarrassing attention.

Sir, the Communist Party as a political force in any society is always a minority group. The Communist Party is not like a football club or a turf club which wants to recruit more and more members. That has never been the way in which the Communist Party operate and the way they operate in Singapore. The Communist Party is a leadership elite. They themselves in their own literature consider themselves as a Marxist-Leninist combat party, the vanguard of the proletariat revolution. And a member of the Communist Party is a full-time dedicated professional revolutionary, nothing more than that and nothing less than that. If we want to find an equivalent in our society to this full-time dedicated revolutionary professional, the nearest analogy we can find is that of a Catholic priest, equally dedicated to the faith. They are even better indoctrinated in the school of theology and they organise themselves into a disciplined hierarchy. Supposing you have in Singapore 300 Catholic priests I do not know whether we have that number here, Mr Speaker - but supposing you do, then they can extend their influence; one priest can extend his influence over a herd. What is the term they call it, Sir?

An hon. Member: The diocese.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The diocese. Yes, he is the shepherd and one of them can bring several hundreds, or thousands. When we have 300 Catholic priests, I say you have a very powerful force.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of order, Sir, Is all this relevant, Sir?

Mr Speaker: I understood the Minister for Finance to be drawing an analogy between a Roman Catholic priest and a Communist.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, this is immediate and direct because I say that you cannot understand the threat posed to our society by the Communist movement unless you understand the nature of the movement, the manner in which it is organised and the type of men that run these various organs. Sir, the full-time cadre is distinct from amateurs and occasional misfits which they collect now and then into the movement, misfits like the Member for Queenstown, for instance. The full-time cadre knows what he wants. He is schooled in the ideology of Marxism and Leninism. He is trained; years of training go into the upbringing of a cadre. In Singapore, for instance, in Malaya, for that matter, the prospective cadre is not just given an entry form; then he signs, pays two dollars and joins the movement. He is selected, he starts in a primary school, nurtured and-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think now I must stop the Minister for Finance. I think he is going into too many details. We do not want to hear how a Communist cadre is nurtured from childhood. Let us come to this amendment itself.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: So, Sir, I think we will accept this proposition and I will not expand upon it any further since you say sufficient attention has been paid to it. We accept this proposition that the operator is a person of very high calibre. Now, I want to describe how they set about their work. So far I have been speaking about general propositions, but I think we can confine ourselves to Singapore because the subject of the motion is the threat of the Communist movement in Singapore. Sir, if you have lots of these people around the place, each knowing that his job is to advance the revolution, each school trained in techniques of operation, then what do they do? Mr Speaker, Sir, they do not go to work and earn an income, get married, advance in life, climb up the social ladder, accumulate wealth and so on. They do not do that.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: They join the Barisan Sosialis.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Among other things, Sir, they penetrate and capture organisations. Sir, it is an extraordinary fact that in almost all organisations, that is, all associations of men, an active minority can always capture power. It is so in trade unions, it is so possibly, for all I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, in professional bodies that people who are prepared to do the work and be nominated to committees can always be elected. I do not know why it is so. It may be that it is some inherent lethargy in mankind, some aversion from doing committee work. The fact remains that given this lethargy or indifference or unwillingness to provide leadership, of being elected to membership of committees and running an organisation, an active minority always wins, always captures. Therefore, we have in Singapore large numbers of organisations and associations in key fields of human activities which are easy to penetrate, easy to capture, and in fact have been penetrated and have been captured. In Singapore, Sir, we know what these associations are, who they are. They are the famous trade unions of the S.A.T.U. group, the Old Boys' Associations, the Rural Dwellers Association, the Country People's Association, one group of the Hawkers' Union. These are the associations that have been penetrated and are being used for united front purposes.

The average man may say, what is the paint of doing all these things? Why do a small group - there are not many, just a few hundred, and they are energetic young men do - these things? What purpose does it serve?

I will give a very simple and clear example of the tremendous value and importance which a group of persons can get from penetrating and capturing these organisations. Take the Referendum Bill. There was a Select Committee on it of which you, Mr Speaker, were the Chairman. You no doubt were fully aware not only of the contents of the memoranda sent by these associations, but you even met some of the honourable gentlemen who purport to have written these memoranda. Sir, on an important issue such as the Referendum Bill, a basic important national issue of the utmost importance, we find a group of just a few hundred persons running around. Having already got these organisations under their control, they set out long memoranda attacking the Government on a stand which they knew would be against the interests of the Communists and their open front organisations. Now, that happened and we have here the Member for Thomson who proclaimed, "These are persons who represented only one hundred thousand people or two hundred thousand," I forgot the exact figure. A hundred thousand, but in fact just a few hundred energetic young men and women who have done this job.

Now, on the one side, this is what a determined anti active minority of people are doing, presenting forcefully their point of view. There is nothing wrong with that at all. It is highly commendable provided the motives are honest and the representation is honest. Well, they have put their point of view. Now, what of the real view of the vast majority?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: On a point of order, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, on today's motion we have a guillotine at 12 midnight and it seems that the Minister and the Government Benches are filibustering so that the Opposition have no chance to speak on the original motion.

Mr Speaker: I was watching the position very carefully. I think the Minister for Finance is, in fact, going much too far away from the amendment. The amendment charges the Government for having 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. All he is doing now is to say that, in fact, they are manipulating and controlling organisations. Having said that, I think that is enough and he should not go into further details. He should now come to the point and answer the charge as to why these communist and communist-front leaders have not been restrained. Dr Goh.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What I was saying is of the essence of the argument. It is not sufficient, I think, to say that they are controlling organisations. What is important is to demonstrate how they do it and why they do it. Otherwise, how can we ever put across the view that, taking into account the whole modus operandi of these groups, it is not in the interests of Singapore and to the advantage of the people of Singapore to lock them up; it is not in our interests to carry out the policy recommended by the Member for Cairnhill.

Now, I was comparing what an active minority could do in capturing associations presenting forcefully their point of view as against an inert large minority, which has an opinion of its own no doubt, but are either incapable of organising themselves into a cohesive and vocal organisation or are unwilling to do so. And I say, so long as the majority of people, either through laziness or through ignorance, remain indifferent to what is going on around them, then I say to take the action recommended by the Member for Cairnhill is quite wrong. Put it this way. Can I explain the proposition this way? Supposing we do this; these birds disappear, then everyone - the majority of people - will breathe a sigh of relief. Then they fall back on the old former state of indolence. Does it help the situation, Mr Speaker? Does it really help?

Now, if by locking up these birds you can remove the threat once and for all, then perhaps the Member for Cairnhill may have his point, but I say this, that does not happen. Remove them - the top leaders, the top echelon, all known open front leaders - they disappear, you may have peace and quiet for two years, three years, four years; then the whole process will start again, because this whole movement is based on an ideology and ideas; because it is a revolutionary and real political force; it has its own methods of drawing on new people to replace those that have been put away, and you solve nothing at all. On the other hand, by so doing, you give the majority - the inert majority - a false sense of security for a few years at the end of which new crises will develop. They will be jolted into a new feeling of danger; they may bestir themselves perhaps for a few months, a year or two. Something has gone wrong; but they will not know what to do about it; they will be running around frightening others. Then the demand may come from some to stage another lock-up. So this can go on ad infinitum and it does not solve the basic problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the correct way of dealing with the situation? I say the correct way is the way we are doing.

An hon. Member: Is that so?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Precisely. Matching them move for move, manoeuvres for manoeuvre. Finally, they find themselves in a zugzwang. And this is important because we have matched their manoeuvres correctly. Coming back to the point of developing hundreds of cadres penetrating and controlling associations of various types so that all can work together in a united front. Now, the whole purpose of this is to mount excitement not only among members of these organisations but in the general population. Have a feeling of excitement, of tension, of crisis. Do so by attacking an enemy whom you present as utterly wicked, utterly renegade, utterly traitorous, Fascist; in other words, choose the enemy, in this instance, the P.A.P. Government, call them all sorts of names, mount hatred among the people, and tension will rise. If they succeed, more and more people will rally round to their banner, more and more bitterness will be felt against the Government until the point of explosion is reached.

Sir, in Singapore we have seen how the Communists, through agitation by united front tactics, were able on several occasions in the past to bring about just this critical situation. They got not merely their own immediate followers but the general population, or the majority of the general population, with them. 1955, 1956, 1957, or 1958 - three, four times -

An hon. Member: 1957.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It was not merely the few hundred energetic, well-trained disciplined cadres who caused the security problem, because a few hundred people cannot do anything, but it is because these few hundred people had thousands of other people on their side that they posed a threat to security, and they were able to do that because they had out-manoeuvred the government of the day; they were able to get the majority of people in a state of excitement and tension.

Sir, since more than a year ago the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis were attempting just this and no more - a repetition of what they succeeded in doing in 1955, 1956 and 1957.

Sir, I would not weary you with all the details but merely refer to the several attempts they made to create trouble just mentioned - the episodes of the People's Association, the Work Brigade, the middle school examination boycott, strikes, this, that and the other, the last one, you know, polling in Tanjong Pagar - each one we met them blow for blow, round by round, and I say we did not go under, they did not get the better of us.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Do not filibuster.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, how can the Member for Queenstown say I am filibustering? I mean just because these blows hurt him. It is very relevant to the issue. Did he not listen to the last sentences I was saying? Did he not listen when I said that the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis were mounting all this campaign of agitation against us, and I itemised them one by one? How can you say it is filibustering?

Sir, the way to meet them is not to get rattled when these challenges come up but to meet them as and when they come up, deal with each issue, resolve them, meet them with patience, with benevolence even. Where firm measures are required, firm measures should be taken. Where flexible and reasonable methods are required, flexible and reasonable methods should be used. The net result is that over all these months of agitation or penetration or manipulation, running around in circles, they got nowhere. Nobody is excited. There is no feeling of tension in the city, although the Barisan Sosialis pretends that there is. Of course, this goes on. We are prepared to meet them, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have already had Round 7. The Member for Thomson says the final round will kayo us. That will not happen, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Sir, in Singapore the political scene is rather sensitive and vulnerable, much more so than in other societies. Put it this way, Mr Speaker, Sir. Perhaps I will explain it in this way. I will make the point which I want to make, more vividly if I were to relate a conversation I had [Interruption] - I beg your pardon?

Mr Speaker: Order. I must ask the Minister for Finance now to wind up his speech. He has already taken three-quarters of an hour.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I just want to make this last point, and that is in the political field in Singapore we are more vulnerable to the assaults of minorities - active minorities - than other societies are. I want to develop this point in a rather vivid way. I have been trying several ways to present this fact, to put this point across. I think the best way would be to relate what some Japanese civil servants told me when I went there the first time. They were asking about the Singapore Government, who were the Ministers and so on. They asked, "Who is the Minister for Home Affairs? How old is he?" They thought I was the youngest Minister in the Cabinet. I said, "No, no, actually I am one of the oldest." "How could it be? How old is your Home Minister?" I said he has not reached the age of 30 yet, and they were absolutely appalled. I mean, they say this thing cannot happen. Their Ministers are 60 plus and 70 plus.

The fact that in Singapore here you have - mind you, I am not saying there is any demerit in being young, far from it - a very youthful Cabinet points to the fact that there is something wrong somewhere. This sort of thing does not happen in normal societies. I mean, you take the age of Cabinet Ministers in any well ordered society, and it is usually 60 plus.

Mr Speaker: Has age got anything to do with restraining Communist or Communist-front leaders?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I want to make this point without further embellishment. Singapore society is usually vulnerable to active minorities. In Singapore, with rapid political changes, it has always been the younger people who, being more bold and more rash than their elders, are prepared to put down their stake and make their bid for power.

An hon. Member: Like the Member for Queenstown.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: There are several reasons why this is so. I see the Member for Hong Lim glowering at me, so I will not go into these reasons, but if you, Mr Speaker, Sir, will just give me two minutes more. The reason is that there is no traditional leadership in this country. There is traditional leadership in the Federation among the Malay population. Therefore, it is not possible for energetic minorities to penetrate organisations by united front tactics to capture power. But in Singapore, there is no traditional leadership. After all, Mr Speaker, Sir, 150 years ago there were only 300 persons in Singapore - mostly fishermen or pirates - and people have been coming in without any traditional leadership as it is understood in societies with a long history. This poses for us rather acute problems. How can you maintain political stability in a situation where there is no traditional leadership, where an active minority can quite easily win political power through fair and democratic means; active and well-organised minorities like the Malayan Communist Party which is the most active, the best disciplined, has the longest history, the toughest, and, from all accounts, persons to be reckoned with? But I say, for reasons which I have dealt with at some length, at this stage of our historical development, to wade into them in the manner prescribed and recommended by the Member for Cairnhill would be a grave error. We say it is always better to match them blow for blow in the hope, in the expectation indeed, that more and more people will understand the real meaning of what is going on. When you get more and more people understanding the real situation, then I say we will be in a position to face the assault of this minority group, however active they can be, however dedicated they can be. We can meet them, in the words of Mao Tse-tung "with ease and poise".

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of fact, there is no need to filibuster because there will not be much of Opposition news in the newspapers anyhow. Sir, we are still debating on the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill. I oppose the amendment because it does not state sufficiently the reasons why this House should express no confidence in the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, the main reason why I support the original motion is that it is different from the Member for Cairnhill's amendment.

The Prime Minister: You are scared of us, that is why.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: My reason is that today this Government is a minority Government.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of Order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I think the Member for Hong Lim must be patient. We are now dealing with the amendment. Let us complete the debate on the amendment. If there is no other Member on the Opposition side who wishes to speak on the amendment, I propose that we put the Question.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: The amendment moved by the S.P.A. serves only to sidetrack the issue, which is whether this Government is morally fit and competent to govern at this moment, because it is a minority government. In the past week we have tipped the scales. Today we on this side of the House have 26 Members and there are only 25 on the other side.

Mr Speaker: Order. This must come on the main motion. We are now debating the amendment which deals with the Communist threat, the restraining of Communist and Communist-front leaders. I am trying to bring that to a conclusion. Mr Ong Eng Guan, anything further to say?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I have nothing else to say.

Mr Speaker: On the amendment, Mr Rajah?

Mr Rajah: On the amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance for having made our task somewhat easier in the moving of this amendment. If we are to bring home our amendment to the House, we would, first of all have to show that there are Communist and Communist-front leaders who are manipulating and controlling organisations. That is the primary base from which there could have been any possibility for us, from this side of the House, to convince the whole of the House that there is merit in our amendment. Fortunately for us, and also from the point of view of the Member for Hong Lim, because he now can talk more on the main motion, the Government has made it easier for all of us by accepting the fact that there are Communist and Communist-front leaders who are, in fact, manipulating and controlling organisations. Mr Speaker, we on the Front-benches here have been in the Opposition for the last three years. This is not a novel point we are propounding today. We have been propounding it for the last three years. We have been propounding it on every single occasion. Whenever we have thought it is necessary to tell the Government of this threat and of their duty to do something about it, we have always raised it. The threat that existed three years ago has continued to exist and still exists today. I can point in the Prime Minister's argument that, in his view, the restraining and the incarceration of Communist leaders or Communist-front leaders, instead of containing the problem that affects Singapore, might make it worse. That is a point of view which is worthy of respect. It is a matter of opinion. Perhaps the Prime Minister may be right. Who should know the Communists better than the Prime Minister himself? He has admitted it.

The position up to the time when merger was in the offing was different, I am submitting to the Government, from what it is today. One could argue, and the Government could reasonably argue, that before merger, politics were somewhat clouded and were not on a proper footing. We had not got down to the level of national issues, and therefore the arresting of Communist or Communist-front leaders might have been misinterpreted into meaning the arrest of opponents who have been dubbed as Communists or Communist-front leaders, and thereby bringing discredit on the Government. That is a possibility and one respects that point of view. But today the position is quite different. The position today is this; the Opposition, the Government have all united, and even the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Speaker, Sir. The most important thing for Singapore is the question of merger. We have different ideas of how we should merge, and possibly when we should merge. But we are all agreed - the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party, the United People's Party and us - that merger is important and that Singapore cannot survive without it, and the sooner we get on with it the better. Therefore, I put this point in all seriousness. If anybody - be he a Communist, be he a Fascist, be he some foreigner - does something with malicious intent to wreck merger, then that person should be put away. He should be temporarily kept aside. Today we have reached the position where we have now before us a united national issue. And as on this issue we are united, and when I say "we" I mean we as an Assembly, the Government in advising the Assembly has a sacred duty to advise it properly. If then the Assembly is satisfied that there are dangerous persons who are going about intending to wreck merger and that they are using every possible means to wreck it, then I say to the Government, "The time has come to stop them from doing it, at least up till after merger."

The intention of the amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, is - and we hope we will have the House with us on this - if the Barisan really mean that they want merger, then surely they must accept the proposition that follows from it - to frustrate any element that tries to wreck merger for reasons best known to itself.

I understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we have been asked by the Member for Queenstown to indicate our line on the main motion. On that we will reply when our time comes, and when the time does come, Mr Speaker, Sir, we hope that we will be given an opportunity to reply on the main motion.

Mr Speaker: No other Opposition Member wishes to speak? I propose to accept a closure of this amendment. Any Opposition Member who wishes to move a closure motion may do so now.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, it has been repeatedly said that the action taken by the Member for Cairnhill when he was Chief Minister was a mistake. He now calls upon the Government to take action, and again the Government say, "We are not going to make the same mistake." Sir, when you say it is a mistake, it means you have brought disastrous results or have caused damage. I ask the Government what damage and disastrous results have been brought about by the action of the then Chief Minister by taking action against the Communists and putting them in Changi? The disastrous result was that we lost the election badly. I admit that was the disastrous result. It has not brought any disaster to Singapore. Singapore has got one new Constitution. We have got the Prime Minister sitting there. Without the new Constitution, he will not be sitting there. Probably if that was not done, we might even be under Communist control now, or the British might have possibly taken it back because of the trouble and the bloodshed. We might even be under martial law now, Sir, and even Malaya might not have got its independence, if the then Chief Minister did not act as he acted then. The only disaster that was brought about affected the S.P.A. As the Member for Cairnhill repeatedly said, he had always put the country and the people before the Party. We do not regret the fact that it has brought disaster to the S.P.A., although it brought us to a defeat of five against 43, and made it necessary for us to endure the humiliation and the harsh words of the then very arrogant Prime Minister. We swallowed that and we were happy because it had not brought disaster to Singapore, but, in fact, it has brought Singapore on the verge of independence. Sir, if they still say that this is not true, I would like to quote from "The Battle for Merger", page 198, the letter from Mr Puthucheary. He said:

`Right up to the end of 1955 it seemed impossible that the British would make any imaginative political move which would turn the flanks as it were of the armed revolt.'

Sir, if you read that passage carefully, it will give you the intention or the picture behind the minds of the so-called Communists. They did not think that the British would give up Singapore and Malaya so easily. They thought that armed revolt, bloodshed, riots and force were absolutely necessary to get independence for Singapore. That was what they thought, and Mr Puthucheary admitted that it was a mistake that they had thought that the British would not give up Singapore so easily - and the British did give up.

If the then Chief Minister did not put such people with such misconceptions in a safe place and if they had been allowed freely to work on the theory that the British would not give up Singapore and Malaya without bloodshed and without armed revolt, what would have happened, I ask you, Sir? Would there be a Prime Minister sitting there with a Constitution and parliamentary democracy existing today?

The Prime Minister gave that argument. I agree wholeheartedly that the happiness and the economic stability of the country have a lot to do with the fertility of the grounds for Communist manipulation. I quite agree with that. But, Sir, although that is true, it is not true to say that we must wait till there is economic stability and everybody is happy before you can take action. It is like saying, "Let us not catch the thieves; let us not catch the robbers. Wait till there is full employment when everybody has a job, then people will not want to steal, except a few kleptomaniacs. Nobody wants to steal, so let us wait till that position exists before we start arresting thieves and robbers." It is like saying that unless there is economic stability all round, let us leave the Communists alone. I do not think that argument holds water. You will remember, Sir, even a few years ago, when there was a series of kidnappings in Singapore, the Government took the same attitude. They would not move until pressure was put on them by the Opposition. I think the pressure today in this amendment is very necessary to make the Government move.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the question be now put."

Mr Speaker: Standing Order 51 (1) reads:

'After a question has been proposed a Member rising in his place may claim to move, "That the question be now put", and, unless it appears to the Speaker or Chairman that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the Assembly, or an infringement of the rights ot the minority, the question, "That the question be now put", shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate, not with standing that the mover has had no opportunity to make his reply.'

I therefore put the Question. The Question is, "That the question be now put." That is the queston on the amendment.

Some hon. Members: Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Take a division.

Division bells rung for two minutes.

10.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker: A closure motion on the debate on the amendment has been proposed by the Member for Hong Lim. Before I put the Question again, I might read Standing Order 51 (4):

`A question for the closure of debate shall not be considered to have been decided in the affirmative upon a division notwithstanding that the "Ayes" have it unless it appears by the numbers declared by the Speaker or Chairman that not less than twenty-five Members voted in the majority in support of the motion.'

There must be 25 Ayes.

Question put, "That the question be now put."

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 15; Noes, 31; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Ahmad Jabri bin Miss. Mohammed Akib. Lee Siew Choh. Buang bin Leong Keng Seng. Omar Junid. Lin You Eng. Byrne, K. M. Low Por Tuck. Chan Chee Seng. Ng Teng Kian. Chan Choy Siong, Ong Chang Sam. Madam. Ong Eng Guan. Goh Chew Chua. Sheng Nam Chin. Goh Keng Swee. Tan Cheng Tong. Kandaswamy, G. Tee Kim Leng. Chor Yeok Eng. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Khoon Choy. Wong Soon Fong. Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Mammen, John. Noes.-cont. Abstention. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Nil. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M.Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Absent. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ahmad bin Ramaswamy, S. Ibrahim. Sahorah binte Hoe Puay Choo, Ahmat, Madam. Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Koh, C. H. Mrs. Lingam, S. V. Tan Kia Gan. Marshall, David. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohammed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr Speaker: We are still on the amendment.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I rise not merely for the sake of taking part in this debate but because I feel the problem under discussion in this Assembly is an important one, and I think it is necessary that I convey to this House the views of my Party.

10.46 p.m.

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

Inche Ahmad Jabri: It is fortunate for my Party that this Assembly has taken a decision to continue with the debate on the amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not an irresponsible Opposition. We are not trying to usurp power nor do we wish to wreck anything without taking into consideration the consequences. So on this amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill it has been the stand of our Party right from its inception to defend and uphold parliamentary democracy in our country. For this reason, this amendment expressing no confidence in the Government in that it has failed to take appropriate steps to restrict the expansion of the Communist movement in Singapore is wholeheartedly supported by us. But I wish to make it clear that in giving our support, our anti-Communist stand is not anti-Chinese, for there has been a suggestion that anti-Communist means anti a certain community. It has been our fundamental stand to create a united nation and to inculcate a national consciousness in the various races in Singapore.

We are not happy with the stand taken by the Government. Although the Prime Minister has dwelt at that they are an anti-Communist Party, except to tell the people that they are a length on his Government's way of fighting the Communist threat, they refuse to acknowledge non-Communist Party. But it is clear to us that the P.A.P. Government have slept and eaten together with the Communist leaders. In this matter, it cannot be said that the Government had made a mistake because they knew very well and they realised who their companions actually were. These former friends have now deserted them. It is true - as has been said by the Prime Minister of the Federation - that once a person is a Communist, he will remain a Communist.

Our efforts to try and win the minds of the Communists cannot succeed. Why I cannot accept the arguments put forward by the Government, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is because it is merely an excuse for them to work in close collaboration with the Communists. We have seen what the P.A.P. Government have done in Singapore; they have helped to disseminate an ideology which is dangerous to the youths of the State. I say that it is dangerous to expose our youths to such an ideology because we know that the Communists are always trying to infiltrate into organisations. We have seen the damage done to this country immediately after the P.A.P. came to power. And I am quite sure that there are many industrialists today who are reluctant to invest their capital here because they would first like to have an assurance - an adequate guarantee - that it will be safe to do so. But today let us have a look at the state of the trade union movement although the Government may believe that the setting up of the Industrial Arbitration Court has brought about industrial peace in Singapore; similarly in matters of education where damage has been done; and, so too, the development programme which has been blocked by the Communists.

Mr Deputy Speaker, a point which has impressed us was that the amendment moved by the Member for Anson which sought to delete the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" was rejected by the Members of the Barisan Sosialis. They prefer the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" to remain in the original amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill. It is not my intention to reopen the debate on the amendment to the amendment, but it is clear to us that the Barisan Sosialis Members are openly accepting the challenge contained in the amendment and they do not want to escape from the original intention contained in the amendment of the Member for Cairnhill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, at the moment we are at the cross roads as to whether we are to uphold parliamentary democracy in our State or we will be forced to follow the footsteps of the Left-wing leaders who are dictated by the Communist Party. For instance, from Indonesia, they have followed the events leading to the Malaysia debate. It is clear to the people of Singapore that there are two groups now which would like to shape the fate and destiny of the people of Singapore; one is for parliamentary democracy while the other is for Communist dictatorship in Singapore. The Barisan Sosialis have moved this no confidence motion. Their intention is merely to create an atmosphere of tension. For instance, if their motion is approved and adopted by the Assembly, it means that the Government will have to resign and we will go hack to the people to face another general election for the purpose of electing a new government. This is clear even though the Referendum Bill has been adopted by this Assembly with a majority. According to parliamentary democracy, even those who oppose the Referendum Bill must accept it; they must accept the majority decision. But this has been used by the Barisan Sosialis as another occasion to criticise the Referendum Bill in spite of the fact that it has been assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I am quite sure that the Government is under an obligation to carry out the referendum. But because-

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the Member for the Southern Islands is going completely away from the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Deputy Speaker, when I mentioned the Referendum Bill, I wanted to emphasize my point, that the Barisan Sosialis which is playing an important part in opposing the referendum is clearly a Communist movement. There is no need for me to elaborate on this point because it is clear that the Barisan Sosialis do not like to see Malaysia or merger materialise.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we support the amendment whole-heartedly. This is our clear stand to the end. The people will weigh our stand carefully and they will have an opportunity to pass judgment when the time comes for us to go back to them.

11.00 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to speak at length, because I am tired and fed up. There is no need for me to remind the Minister for Home Affairs of what we are discussing just now.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not only hate the Barisan Sosialis but I also loathe to see the faces of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis which Party, in my opinion, stinks with the odour of a Party that has gone bad. It is clear that they are really traitors who are out to do damage to the prosperity which the people of Singapore are now enjoying.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Geylang Serai and I had occasion to exchange views and we are of the opinion that if the Member for Upper Serangoon were a Minister, he would not be able to prove his sincerity, particularly to the indigenous people of Singapore and generally to the people of Malaysia.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I often thought that the Barisan Sosialis have not only been infiltrated by pro-Communist and Communist elements - this is causing concern to the P.A.P. - but that they have also attempted to disturb U.M.N.O., including myself. Not only from within U.M.N.O. but also from the other side, they suspect that I am an instrument to wreck Malaysia, because there is a section in U.M.N.O. who are demanding this and that hi the local newspapers. Recently the Plebeian of the Barisan Sosialis supported a section of U.M.N.O. It alleged that someone was fighting for the Cyprus Constitution in Singapore.

The Barisan Sosialis claim to be wise but they are actually unwise if they want to play politics as a game of chess. I have played this political game of chess with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and also with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Law. In order to attract certain sections of U.M.N.O. to wreck Malaysia, the Barisan Sosialis must not indulge in this game at the moment. It is too late because the Barisan Sosialis struggle is inappropriate. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the game being played by the Communists who are trying to set one against another, whether they are in the Government or in the Opposition.

Quite recently, Mr Deputy Speaker, there was an article - I have it with me and I will read an excerpt - that U.M.N.O. has been accused of supporting the P.A.P. in its undemocratic action. This is a recent news article in the Plebeian, the organ of the Barisan Sosialis. I am surprised; why should the Barisan Sosialis be envious or jealous of the U.M.N.O. Members in the Assembly? What have we robbed from them? As far as I know, we have not given them any trouble. I have told them not to try to offend the U.M.N.O. Members. If they want to try to offend U.M.N.O. Members in Singapore, then I believe that the consequences will be very bad for them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it appears that the Minister for Home Affairs loves the Barisan Sosialis. The reason is that he pampers them. They are given $500/- allowance each and they are granted other privileges. Even the constables on duty show their respect by saluting every Member of this Assembly when he enters or leaves the Chamber. On the other hand, I wish to remind the Minister that when U.M.N.O. supported the Government to eliminate the A.R.T.I.S. movement, why was he then afraid of the Communists and the pro-Communists? Mr Deputy Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis said that the Government did not arrest them because they were afraid, but tonight the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture said that the Government are not afraid. The people will decide who are afraid and who are not afraid.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill, regarding the pro-Communists and Communists who are playing their role in the Barisan Sosialis, is a good amendment. I say it is a good amendment because it will protect the leadership of the Barisan Sosialis from the Communist danger. We from the Alliance are conscious - and we hope that the Government are conscious too - that the Barisan Sosialis have been infiltrated by Communists; and with this consciousness, as well as with the object of protecting the leadership of the Barisan Sosialis, I plead with the Government, if possible, after the sitting of the Assembly, to instruct the Special Branch to issue orders for the guards to be ready to arrest and detain them at a place they think fit, so that our plan can be proceeded with in peace and harmony. That is all, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of order, Sir. I understood the ruling was that only Opposition Members would speak on this and we then will return to the main motion. There is a guillotine, Sir, and if you will allow us the chance, we might be able to speak a little on the main motion itself.

Mr Deputy Speaker: As far as I know, I do not think there is a ruling that the Government Benches would not be allowed to speak on this amendment. But if there are Opposition Members who wish to speak we can give preference to the Opposition Members and then to the Government Benches. But since so many Opposition Members have spoken on this amendment, it is only fair to give a chance to the Deputy Prime Minister to speak.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Mammen, may I know your ruling once more? I still think we should have a little time to speak on the main motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. A motion was moved for the closure of the debate on the amendment and a vote was taken with 31 Noes as against 15 Ayes. That is all under the Standing Orders.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Member for Cairnhill moved his amendment he made a very clear statement in regard to what he would have done if he had known that the Prime Minister - at that time the Member for Tanjong Pagar - was consorting with "the Plen". The Member for Cairnhill made no bones about it that he would have put the Member for Tanjong Pagar in gaol so that he would do a little rethinking. Probably if the Member for Tanjong Pagar were in Changi Gaol he might not be the Prime Minister today, but I would have thought that probably he could have spent his time very usefully studying Mandarin or Hokkien so that he could deliver better speeches in those languages at mass meetings. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance have explained very well indeed that the method of controlling the Communists, as advocated by the Member for Cairnhill, is inadequate, and that what is more important is to consider the long-term solution to the problem. Both of them have drawn attention to the fact that the political and social conditions in the country are vital in the fight against Communism.

The Member for Anson previously advised the P.A.P. to get rid of its Communists and Communist fellow-travellers. Last year this group of people left the P.A.P.; they purged themselves out of the P.A.P. and 13 Assemblymen went across to form the Barisan Sosialis. Those who control the Barisan Sosialis today are quite well versed in the united front tactics which the Member for Anson and the Member for Cairnhill knew only too well when they were Chief Ministers. May I just quote what the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Lim Ching Siong, had to say when he was Member for Bukit Timah, in Hansard of 7th June. 1956, col. 2050:

`But now the Liberal-Socialists also refuse to be party to the censure of the Colonial Office for rejecting the minimum demands of the people of Singapore. They go further. They are prepared to censure the delegation of the people of Singapore. This is something which cannot be forgiven by the people of Singapore. This Party proves once again that a change of name does not mean a change of quality. The old Progressive Party, composed of the "yes" men of colonialism, and the not so old Democrat Party, composed of reactionary local capitalist elements, together thought that they could fool the public if they called themselves by a new name - the Liberal-Socialists. The donkey tried to pretend that it was a horse. But this amendment proves once again and for all time that this Party is neither Liberal nor Socialist. If they are honest with themselves and with the people, they will call themselves by their correct name - the Colonial Collaborators Party.'

Sir, today we find the Barisan Sosialis forming a united front with the Liberal-Socialist Party - the very same Party which the Barisan Secretary-General in 1956 had castigated as a Colonial Collaborators Party. The Barisan Sosialis Party can be very aptly named today as the Barisan Liberal Sosialis.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Anson supported in principle the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill; only he did not want the words "like the Barisan Sosialis" to be included in the amendment. He was supporting in principle that Communist and Communist-front leaders should be restrained from manipulating and controlling organisations. The Member for Anson in one sense is quite honest. He has said in this House that he is always the champion of parliamentary democracy and is therefore against Communism. Throughout the records of Hansard, since 1955, you can see that there is only one consistent line of thinking which the Member for Anson has - he is for parliamentary democracy and against Communism. Therefore, in that sense, he is honest. He has learnt from his bitter experience of how the Communists wove circles around him when he was Chief Minister. First, there was a rally at Kallang to send off the first constitutional delegation to London. At this rally, the Member for Anson, then Chief Minister, was standing side by side with me, or rather I was standing side by side with him on the platform. The platform collapsed and he disappeared from the scene and went back to his Changi home. Subsequently in the debate in the House on the incident, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Member for Tanjong Pagar, read statements from the Press concerning the stand of Mr David Marshall towards those who had caused the collapse of the rally. We said that gangsters were responsible for the collapse of the rally, but Mr David Marshall insisted that it was the Communists who caused the platform to collapse and made a fiasco of the rally.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to give an opportunity to the Members of the Opposition to speak on this amendment, because this amendment is theirs and, as I have said before, we are going to refrain from voting on this amendment.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not take much of your time just a few minutes. We of the Alliance moved the amendment to the motion of the Member for Queenstown because we are of the opinion that not only has the Government not carried out its duty towards the people of Singapore, but also its duty - as the Prime Minister has said - to our friends in the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he and his Government do not wish to use strong-arm methods; they do not wish to use the police to arrest those whom he accuses of being Communists or supporters of the Communists. He and his Government are of the opinion that the methods which were used by the former Government, of which I was a Minister, were methods that were not correct and that they would only increase the number of Communist followers in Singapore. My Party do not at all agree with the stand of the Prime Minister and his Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let us see how the Government of the Federation have overcome this problem of Communism. Being at war with the Communists from 1948 to 1960 for more or less 12 years, the Government of the Federation of Malaya did not hesitate to use force against the Communists and their supporters, and in that war in Malaya against the Communists, the police and military forces were used, and many sacrificed their lives. In addition, many civilian lives were sacrificed - Malays, Chinese and Indians. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government of the Federation of Malaya knew its responsibility. It had no fear of arresting such Communists and their supporters. What are the consequences today? Local elections have been held throughout the Federation of Malaya. In places which were formerly Communist strongholds, what has happened now? It can be said that more than three-quarters of the local elections have been won by the Alliance and that three-quarters of the places where they have won are areas which were formerly dominated by the Communists or by their supporters. I am putting forth this argument to refute what the Prime Minister has said that he did not wish to use force. He wanted to calm the people's minds; he wanted to attract their attention or to win their hearts. These were the only ways by which he had hoped to overcome the problem of Communism. To the Prime Minister of Singapore and to the Government of Singapore, I say, do not fear. If the former Government could use force and strong measures to overcome the Communist problem - as was done in the Federation of Malaya with success -why should the Singapore Government not use similar methods to overcome the problem here? Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not saying, as some of the Members of this Assembly do, that all members of the Barisan Sosialis are Communists; but the Government and the Ministers over the radio, in the Press and in this Assembly have always accused the Barisan Sosialis and its supporters of being members and supporters of the Communist Party. If the Government knows that there are Communists in the Barisan Sosialis and in other organisations, I think it is its responsibility to deal with them if it is really keen in protecting the welfare of the people of Singapore and the security of our friends in the Federation. The time has come for the Government to carry out its administration and to use the powers given by this Assembly to deal with the Communist danger, which the Government has said is at large in the Barisan Sosialis and, recently, in other organisations. I am compelled to believe the propositions put forward by the Government, for the Barisan, which have been openly accused, have not denied that among their ranks there are people who are members of the Communist Party.

11.32 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): Mr Speaker, here I would like to draw the attention of this House to the fact that many of the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis have been accused by the Government as Communists or Communist supporters. They have always uttered unsavoury words against the Government of the Federation of Malaya and its leaders. Many such people who are members of the Barisan Sosialis at this time have no shame at all. I say that they have no shame because some of the Members, whom I need not mention, are not citizens of Singapore but citizens of the Federation. And I know of two leaders of the Barisan Sosialis who, when attending conferences in the Federation and elsewhere, used passports issued by the Federation Government. These are some of the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis, and they say that they do not like the Federation; that they do not like merger; that whatever the Government say is not correct. They do not seem to have any shame, as if they are animals. They do not like the Federation but still they use passports of the Federation of Malaya. And such people are leaders in the Barisan Sosialis!

Casually I say this so that the Federation Government could pay attention to this: that their citizenship be taken away and that the Government of Singapore could pay attention to this - that those people who are not citizens of Singapore should not be given an opportunity to take part in politics in Singapore.

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

Dato Abdul Hamid: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 15; Abstentions, 26; Absent, 3. Ayes. Abstentions. Abdul Hamid bin Buang bin Haji Jumat. Omar Junid. Ahmad Jabri Bin Byrne, K. M. Mohammed Akib. Chan Chee Seng. Lim Yew Hock. Chan Choy Siong, Mohd. Ali bin Madam. Alwi. Chor Yeok Eng. Rajah, A. P. Goh Chew Chua. Seow Peck Leng, Goh Keng Swee. Mrs. Kandasamy, G. Thio Chan Bee. Koh, C. H. Lee Khoon Choy. Noes. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Bani, S. T. Mammen, John. Chan Sun Wing. Marshall, David. Fung Yin Ching, Mohd. Ariff bin Miss. Suradi. Lee Siew Choh. M. Ismail Rahim. Low Por Tuck. Ong Pang Boon. Ng Teng Kian. Rajaratnam, S. Ong Chang Sam. Ramaraswamy, S. Ong Eng Guan. Sahorah binte Sheng Nam Chin. Ahmat, Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Toh Chin Chye. Teo Hock Guan. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohammed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Absent. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Lingam, S. V.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of guidance, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you could rule that we have a few minutes to discuss the final motion on the Order Paper, i.e. the Adjournment sine die motion.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid not. The guillotine falls at 12 o'clock midnight and all matters will have to be disposed of then.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, three years ago - let us go back - the P.A.P. swept into power with a majority of 35 in this Assembly. It had just won 43 out of the 51 seats, which was a record of no mean achievement in any parliamentary election. Mr Speaker, Sir, in those days I am sure the eight Opposition Members on this side of the House were feeling a bit cool, particularly when the air-conditioning here is cooler than the average. Then during the course of the following three years the tide changed. The Opposition ranks started to swell and, Sir, you must be finding difficulty in placing seats for those new additions to the Opposition. With 26 now on this side and 25 on the other side, the temperature of this Chamber, from the effect of the air conditioning, is just nice, because it is evenly distributed.

Last week, Sir, the defection of the Member for Bras Basah has tipped the scales. It has reduced the Government's majority of one to a minority Government. Since then this Government has managed to survive not from its own majority but from acts of chivalry and generosity displayed by the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. which managed to keep the P.A.P. from being outvoted. Sir, I feel sorry, as I skip through the events mentally, the rise and fall of the P.A.P. Government is like the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Looking back on its heyday, I could remember vividly the days when the overwhelming masses of the people found in the P.A.P. a beacon of their hopes and the depository of their aspirations. The masses surged forward - [Interruption] Sir, they were hiding behind. They dare not come out yet. The masses surged forward at the call of the P.A.P. The forces of reaction trembled at the very mention of its name and at the sight of its symbol. But, Sir, all these happenings have occurred within the short space of one or two years. The arrogance displayed by the P.A.P. leadership led to the antagonism of the intellectual and the middle classes.

An hon. Member: What about the Mayor!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Its deviation from the stated policy and the avowed aims of the P.A.P. has alienated the masses of the people who have swept the P.A.P. into power. A stage has been reached when no power on earth can resuscitate the P.A.P. even to a mere shadow of its past. In Hong Lim, despite the forces at its disposal, the vast State and party machinery at its command, the number of opportunists at its behest and those who are prepared to abuse the sacred slogan of "Left-wing unity" at the bidding of the P.A.P., the forces of the people delivered a crushing defeat on this ignominious alliance. The P.A.P. was smashed once and for all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me take you for a few minutes back to what happened during polling day at the Victoria Memorial Theatre, where the Prime Minister was ready to march into Anson preparing for the Anson by-election, I understand, with two vans of firecrackers. But the result was what he did not expect. With tears in his eyes, he spoke with emotion in the Hong Lim Branch that this is the finish of the P.A.P. and that "We must resign." Therefore, Sir, here is a Government which is prepared to go all out to beat a "graceful" retreat. Here is a Government which has through its follies and its serious departure from its political principles forfeited the moral right to govern. How can a minority Government steamroller through its constitutional proposals which have far-reaching consequences not only to ourselves but also to the future? How can such a Government, which exists on sufferance only, justify itself in the eyes of the world, a sham referendum to give a facade of democracy with unacceptable constitutional proposals?

Sir, the P.A.P. is now no more, as I have said, than a mere shadow of the past. As people are saying, it is even difficult for them to muster a few hundred to fill up the few hundred chairs in the Cultural Centre. Let us recall the last open meeting they had, that is, the celebration of The Sixth Anniversary of the P.A.P. at the Badminton Hall, where from the photos and from what I heard, there were about seven or eight hundred Party members and supporters attending the meeting. Since then we did not hear of the P.A.P. having a seventh anniversary celebration. The eighth anniversary celebration is coming very soon and they are now having meetings in the small little Cultural Centre. I am very doubtful if they could even fill the few hundred chairs there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after the Hong Lim Resolutions, the thousands of members the P.A.P. had, suddenly disappeared. The last opening meeting, as I have said, was attended by only several hundred members. What was left after the Hong Lim Resolutions were only Generals, Colonels, Lieutenants, Captains-

An hon. Member: Corporals.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Corporals. But the rank and file have disappeared.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Quarter-master.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: This Government now lacks a political organisation for the proper discharge of its task and its responsibilities. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very important for Government to have the backing of a political organisation. Just 25 Members here would not be able to understand what the masses want and would not be able to translate Government policies into action for the benefit of the masses and interpret to them what the Government is trying to do. Therefore, this Government which now lacks an adequate political organisation has no right to carry on any more.

Sir, the years that have been spent since November 1954 - nearly eight years ago - and the sacrifices by the thousands of members of the P.A.P., are now all wasted. The P.A.P. is now a spent force, with hardly any political support in the country. Does it represent the workers? No, Sir. Does it represent the farmers? No. Does it represent the intellectuals? No. Does it represent the businessmen? No, Sir, because most of them are supporting the S.P.A. Does it represent the civil servants? No. There is no section of the population now which supports the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I speak tonight, I do not speak from any feeling of animosity or anger at what the Prime Minister did to me in the way of personal insults or injuries. I forgive him. But, Sir, we cannot forgive him for what he has been doing in the past few months. We cannot forgive him for the White Paper constitutional proposals which he is going to push through by a sham referendum.

The Prime Minister: You said an alternative.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: A genuine alternative. Bread and rice, not potatoes and bread. Sir, I only feel sorry-

Dr Goh Keng Swee: For yourself!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: -that the final chapters of a Party and a Government with which I was once associated should come to such an ignominious end. The final chapters of this Party and this Government are drawing near. The curtains will soon be drawn.

An hon. Member: 12 o'clock.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have this form of democracy. Guillotine at 12 o'clock, filibustering, so that the Opposition would not be given a chance. Why should there be? Why should you worry?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Speaker: The Member does not give way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I have only seven minutes, Mr Speaker, Sir.

An hon. Member: What about the others?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: There is no need to filibuster because what we speak tonight only a very small percentage will come out in the newspapers tomorrow. For instance, we are having a mass rally on Sunday and we were given twelve conditions. I will just take two minutes to explain one of the conditions. There are twelve conditions, Mr Speaker. And one of the conditions - condition No. 11 - reads:

`That no caricatures or drawings of any description may be displayed."

And I have to sign on the form: `I certify that I fully understand that any breach of the conditions of this licence will lead to a prosecution. Signature.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are restrictions, restrictions and restrictions. The Prime Minister now is afraid of caricatures and cartoons. He is afraid of the Opposition Parties drawing his-

An hon. Member: Handsome features!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - handsome features. Why should he worry, Mr Speaker, Sir, because when we in the P.A.P. were in the Opposition in those days, we drew cartoons of Chew Swee Kee, the Member for Cairnhill, and everybody in the Government. There is no harm in everyone being drawn. Like in the Hong Lim by-election, they drew cartoons of me riding a beycha with the Member for Cairnhill and many Right-wing leaders at the back. We just laughed it off. But the Prime Minister now feels it. He is afraid we will draw big caricatures, a big cartoon of Government leaders displayed in the mass rally. We are not supposed to distribute anything. Nothing is to be distributed, Mr Speaker, Sir.

An hon. Member: Distribute prizes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: For the Minister for Finance!

An hon. Member: He deserves a gold medal.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: No banners or posters except those which have been approved shall be displayed. And what has been approved will be in the list. Persons attending must not display national emblems and nothing should be distributed which has not been approved. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I deplore is that despite all these restrictions, despite the guillotine, they should still filibuster until the Opposition have no chance to speak. What has happened in tonight's debate was, instead of the P.A.P. being on trial, the P.A.P. Government with the support of the S.P.A. has turned this Chamber into a trial of the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Speaker, what I deplore is that in its last pangs, the P.A.P. Government, being a minority Government, with only 25 seats out of 51, still seeks to steamroller through its White Paper proposals-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Shame!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - very shamefully by means of ,a dishonest referendum. It is still not too late, Sir, for the P.A.P. to change its mind. We know that tonight will be the last sitting, the last three minutes of the Third Session. The Assembly will prorogue from now onwards. Once the Assembly is prorogued, Mr Speaker, Sir, there will be more pressure put on the Press, more restrictions on mass meetings. Instead of twelve conditions, we might have 13, 14, 15 or 16 conditions.

The Prime Minister: No, we stop at 13. It is unlucky!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: The next condition is this. We must give the list of speakers and the subject matter. Next time they will ask that the speakers must give their photographs and thumb-prints. These are all necessary. If the Government is confident that its White Paper proposals have the support of the people, it should allow the Opposition Parties to have rallies as freely as he had during-

An hon. Member: You want an election?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Have it tomorrow. Come on. Tanjong Pagar, Hong Lim -

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Hong Lim wishes to waste time, he may waste time. He must address the Chair.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we know these people too well. We worked together for six years. We are ready for any general election at any time. We know these people will not commit the same folly as the S.P.A. - dilly-dallying, not sure whether to have a general election or not. We know that the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance has been amended so that they can have a surprise general election in seven days' time. And all the time we are keyed up for a general election. That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, two weeks ago we had a big membership meeting which frightened the lives of members of the Government. We are ready at any time from now onwards to have a general election. We did not, Mr Speaker, Sir, challenge the Government to the Hong Lim by-election, just spouting empty air. We are prepared br it. The organisation is ready. Any time we can have polling. Tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Just give us only one rally. That is all that is required.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Chan Say Jame will fix you.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, they had one hundred Chan Say James speaking on their platform in the Hong Lim rallies. Did it make any difference? No. How many votes did you get extra? Only a few votes.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Be careful! He is listening to you! [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order. The guillotine has fallen on that very pleasant note.

Original Question put, "That this House expresses no confidence in the Government."

The Prime Minister: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 24; Absent, 3; Abstentions, 8. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Buang bin Chan Sun Wing. Omar Junid. Fung Yin Ching, Byrne, K. M. Miss. Chan Chee Seng. Lee Siew Choh. Chan Choy Siong, Leong Keng Seng. Madam. Lin You Eng. Chor Yeok Eng. Low Por Tuck. Goh Chew Chua. Marshall, David. Goh Keng Swee. Ng Teng Kian. Kandasamy, G. Ong Chang Sam. Lee Khoon Choy. Ong Eng Guan. Lee Kuan Yew. Sheng Nam Chin. Lee Teck Him. Tan Cheng Tong. Lim Cheng Lock. Tee Kim Leng. Mammen, John. Teo Hock Guan. Mohd. Ariff bin Wong Soon Fong. Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Absent. Ong Pang Boon. Rajaratnam, S. Ahmad bin Ramaswamy, S. Ibrahim. Sahorah binte Hoe Puay Choo, Ahmat, Madam. Madam. Tan Kia Gan. Lingam, S. V. Toh Chin Chye. Yaacob Bin Mohammed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Abstentions. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib. Koh, C. H. Lim Yew Hock. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Rajah, A. P. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Thio Chan Bee.

Motion accordingly negatived.