INTERNAL SECURITY COUNCIL'S DECISION AND STATEMENT ON COMMUNIST CONSPIRACY

10.12 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion,

That this House supports the decision of the Internal Security Council made by representatives of the three Governments - the United Kingdom. Singapore and the Federation of Malaya - on the 1st February. 1963, ordering that certain persons known to the security authorities of the three Governments to be deeply implicated in the Communist United Front conspiracy to jeopardise national defence and security of Singapore and the territories of the proposed Federation of Malaysia, should be arrested immediately and not left till after 31st August, 1963, and that it endorses the statement made by the Internal Security Council as contained in Paper Misc. 2 of 1963.

On the 1st of February, the Internal Security Council met in Kuala Lumpur. It decided that action should be taken immediately to safeguard national defence and security of Singapore and of the other territories of Malaysia. It decided that certain - not all - of those known to the three Security Authorities to he deeply implicated in the United Front working for Communist and foreign interests must be arrested.

In the early hours of Saturday morning, the 2nd of February, operations were launched from Johore by Singapore and Federation Special Branch officers and a number of persons were detained. I do not think the public were surprised at the action taken against these Communists and their United Front workers. For that matter, the Communists were not surprised either.

Perhaps a word of explanation, Mr Speaker, Sir. Since it is rather late in the evening, it is inadvisable to drink tea and it is better to drink water. To those Members of the Opposition Benches who find it difficult to keep awake in the evening, I recommend Chinese tea, particularly the Member for Queenstown.

In 1956, when Mr Lim Ching Siong and his Communist United Front friends were taken to gaol, the action was accompanied by riots and civil commotion. This was because the Communists had then succeeded in creating an issue over Chinese education and in exploiting a series of strikes. Thousands of Chinese students camping at the Chung Cheng and Chinese High Schools - Eton and Harrow for a lot of Chinese parents in Malaysia - were broken up by tear-gas. They marched down Bukit Timah Road with arms linked, in tears particularly because of the tear-gas. The action against the students gave the Communists a chance to claim that they were defending Chinese civilisation, education and culture. As a result, an air of martyrdom was assumed by these Communist detainees. They appeared to be defenders of Chinese culture and champions of the workers. This time, on the contrary, the detention of these Communists has not caused any surprise, let alone consternation, amongst the public. On the contrary, there is an air of calm and tranquility. Instead of broken shop-windows and barbed wire and troops, there is peace and business as usual.

The Communists wanted an emergency meeting of their United Front cadres, wanted an emergency sitting of this Assembly in the hope of whipping up excitement and tensions, all under cover of privilege. However, because the Member for Cairnhill, for his own reasons, also asked for it, we agreed. Unfortunately, as you have ruled, no emergency sitting could be held until the new Session opened. We offered them radio forums. They declined.

Sir, we are always prepared to meet them in the open and join issue with them. We have nothing to hide, nothing to fear, and, as Members know, for nearly two years now, we have had a continuous and open debate with the Communists over merger and Malaysia and Singapore's non-Communist future as part of Malaysia or, as the Internal Security Council says it, "whether it should become a Cuba."

Before Lim Ching Siong, leading the open front organisations, embarked on this reckless adventure of trying to make Singapore a Cuba, even at the risk of selling it to foreign powers in this region, he took instructions from the Communist underground.

The day following the Anson by-election - Sunday, 16th July, 1961 - Lim Cling Siong made contact with the underground Communist Party of Malaya for instructions. This contact was made in the Nee Soon area at the 7� mile, Upper Thomson Road, in a house off the main road. A number of other senior cadres, including Chok Koh Tong and Tan Hee Kim - being leading members of the Barisan Sosialis - were gathered at the place when discussions were held. Arrangements for the meeting were completely clandestine. At 1927 hours, Lim left the Singapore General Employees Union in Middle Road for the corner of Outram Road and Seng Poh Road, opposite the Chung Khiaw Bank Branch there. He walked to the five-foot way, and at about 1938 hours, a black Morris Minor SR. 5222 drew up. There were two male Chinese in the vehicle ---

Mr Bani: He did not ---

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the Member for Thomson could contain himself. He will know that from time to time that car - [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: - is seen in the precincts of this House. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed. I do not think the Member for Toa Payoh thinks it is very funny.

Mr Wong Soon Fong (Toa Payoh): No.

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: There were two male Chinese in the vehicle, one of whom was Chok Koh Tong. Lim, by this time, had put on a pair of dark glasses in the evening. He got into the car quickly which then drove off at great speed. He and Chok were dropped off at the bus-stop, 7� milestone Thomson Road, and the car drove off to the Work Brigade Barracks, Andrews Avenue, Sembawang. The meeting in the house at Sembawang went on throughout the night and into the early hours of the morning.

After this important discussion, these senior cadres, including Lim, held a series of meetings amongst themselves to work out the details of a plan to be implemented straightaway.

Sir, the Communists preferred Singapore not to merge with the Federation. They wanted to make it into a Cuba from which they hoped to mount an offensive against the Federation of Malaya. When they lost the referendum last September and the overwhelming majority of us - the people - voted decisively for merger, for a peaceful and stable future in Malaysia, they knew that their fate was sealed. They knew that after the 31st of August, they will face security action. The first team of open leaders were well known and could not withdraw and go into hiding. Also, if they had done this, their rank and file would have lost heart and melted away. So their first team of open united front cadres in the political Parties, unions, rural associations and cultural organisations had to be sacrificed. The Communists treated them as expendables to be sacrificed. However, there were other less well-known expendables - the reserve team - cadres whose names and faces were less well known to the public. These, the Communists had hoped, could escape action when the first team was removed. They could go into hiding, since they were not so well known. Their plan was that when the first team had gone after the purge, and some time had elapsed and things looked safe, they could come out and take over the key positions left vacant by their first team, and carry on the conspiracy, restarting and re-forming the united front. Of course, the three Governments knew of this and as the reserve team withdrew and took cover, intelligence men followed to keep track of them. In some cases, however, they have not as yet been found. No doubt after some time, when they think it is safe, they will come out and resume their activities.

But Lim Ching Siong and his friends prepared for trouble. They knew what they were doing was wrong. They knew they were deliberately defying the will of the people expressed clearly in the referendum and they were plotting with Azahari to frustrate Malaysia.

When they failed to stop Malaysia through Singapore, they began to look around for ways and means to stop Malaysia through fellow Communists in the S.U.P.P. in Sarawak. They even plotted with an anti-Communist adventurer like Azahari in Brunei. They knew that without the Borneo territories the Tunku would not agree to Malaysia. So they plotted in various was to create trouble in the Borneo territories to stop merger between Singapore and the Federation. To achieve this, Said Zahari, a former editor of Utusan Melayu, who was banned from the Federation in 1961 after the Utusan strike, played a great part.

The three Governments knew that Said was Lim Ching Siong's closest Malay associate. Said was in touch with an intelligence agent of a foreign power. In fact, he was in their pay. The three Governments also knew that Said was Azahari's adviser and contact man in Singapore. Said arranged several secret meetings between Lim and Azahari. Their last meeting was four days before the revolt broke out in Brunei. Lim Ching Siong had previously discussed a request by Azahari for money to buy arms. In fact, Lim and his friends were debating whether to give Azahari the money for this purpose. But they had their misgivings about whether the money would be spent for the purchase of arms or whether it would he spent on women for Azahari.

Hon. Members will understand from the brief summary of these facts that the Communists knowingly took the risk of action upon themselves.

After the 16th of December last year, when action had been taken in Sarawak and the Federation of Malaya, they took special preventive measures. They knew that security actions were usually taken in the early hours of the morning when people were at home. Lim Ching Siong, therefore, gave instructions to all his first team united front cadres to stay in a different place each night, so that the largest number of men might escape when the purge came. It took the police a great deal of trouble and men to mark out the different places where each of these people stayed in the course of one week. Some of them had as many as four or five different places in a week.

Lim himself and some leading lights in the Barisan Sosialis, including several hon. Members on the other side, took special precautions. They believed that since the security action in the Federation and Sarawak had been taken in the early hours of Sunday morning, so every Saturday night they went to a midnight show, so that they would not get home till well after two or three o'clock on the Sunday morning. In this way, they would hear of any action that may already have been started and so have time to dive for cover and elude the police.

The operations were mounted with great secrecy from Johore. Yet, in spite of the strict security, partly because of their early counter measures, like withdrawing their reserve team and getting their first team to change their sleeping places each night, some 18 of their important first team members could not be found, and quite a number of their reserve team who had taken cover could not be traced.

Many Members may ask why security action was taken on 1st February, 1963, instead of some other time, like after 31st August, 1963. Well, there were urgent reasons why it had to he taken in the early hours of the morning of 2nd February. An important member of the Communist united front, Said Zahari, was leaving that morning for Jakarta where Azahari had just arrived the day before from Manila. The last time when intelligence reports came to the notice of the Federation Government of an impending revolt in Brunei by persons trained in Indonesian Borneo, no action was taken. The Tunku said that, although he informed the British, they did not take sufficient preventive steps. British Intelligence did not altogether accept the imminence of the danger. In retrospect now, had the report been acted on, perhaps the Brunei revolt, which has cost a lot of money, involved movements of troops and arms, caused deaths and built up an atmosphere of crisis with some of our neighbours, may not have happened.

This time, however, none of the three Governments on the Internal Security Council was willing to be caught napping. And partly because the security action has been successful, the things which were being planned have not taken place. A part of the plan was to mount demonstrations and violent protests in Singapore at the same time as so-called "volunteers" were moved to renew the revolt in Brunei.

There are three Governments on the Internal Security Council, and the Intelligence information available to the Security Council was derived from three intelligence agencies.

I am in a position to disclose only information collected by the Singapore security organisation and part of the information collected by the Federation security organisation. The British do not wish to disclose their Intelligence information, particularly information from their Intelligence sources in the capitals of South-East Asian countries. They have their reasons for not wanting to disclose information which may jeopardise their sources and may, even worse, make their position vis-a-vis certain powers in South-East Asia more difficult. Each of the three Governments on the Security Council has different immediate interests, and the British have different long-term objectives from the Federation Government and us. But nevertheless, all of us were agreed on the need for immediate action. For one thing, Sir, at that time, the Singapore Communists were making veiled threats to resort to violent struggle.

As recently as the 1st January this year Mr Lim Ching Siong, in his New Year message, said:

`The ruling clique in the Federation is heavily committed to the imperialists and will pursue an anti-democratic policy in the hope of maintaining themselves in power indefinitely'. Then he ominously said:

'The Left forces must then make the necessary judgment on the matter.'

Now, what is the meaning of this? Members will remember that every now and then Barisan Sosialis leaders have made similar statements. They have done so many times in this Chamber and did so again yesterday. To us who have known the Communists for so long, and studied their thinking and their methods, the meaning is clear. They will use constitutional methods as long as these are useful to them. At the same time, they are ready to use more violent methods - strikes, riots, and, in the last resort, armed insurrection. These considered statements were made by persons of authority in the Communist front movement and were intended to prepare their cadres for stronger action when the time was ripe.

On 2nd February, immediately the arrests were known, the Member for Queenstown issued a statement in which he said:

Now is the time for the people to consider seriously whether the present arrests, and the repressive actions have not already closed all the doors to constitutional struggle,'

He repeated that again yesterday:

`If the last door to constitutional struggle is closed, then there remains but one final answer.'

He goes on to talk of bloodshed if Malaysia were pushed through.

The question for the Internal Security Council was when will violence be mounted - before 31st August, 1963, or after 31st August, 1963? It so happened that events in Brunei gave them another opportunity to try and stop Malaysia. Let me give hon. Members the main outline of how the Communists in Singapore tried to exploit the situation.

Sheik Azahari is not a Communist. He is too fond of the good life. Nor are the persons immediately around him Communists. But for different reasons, he was opposed to Brunei entering Malaysia, unless it was on his terms. And the Communists saw in Azahari and the few thousand Malays be led in Brunei a convenient cover for their conspiracy. The revolt would be made to appear as the forefront of a liberation movement in Borneo and so prevent the Borneo territories from joining Malaysia and without Borneo, the Tunku would not have Singapore. As luck would have it for the Communists, the Filipinos, also known to be anti-Communists, had made claims on North Borneo. Some Filipinos had discussions with Azahari last November and certain Filipino personalities established links with Azahari and settled a deal on mutually profitable terms. Here was the perfect blind, for nobody can accuse Azahari's revolt to establish the independent State of Kalimantan Utara, otherwise known as the United States of Borneo, as being a Communist conspiracy, for Azahari was not a Communist and the Filipino personalities who backed him were also known anti-Communists. But the irony is that the Communists made good use of them.

Sir, no one will ever know how lucky we were that Azahari's revolt went off at half cock, earlier than originally planned, and flopped. Had the original plan which was co-ordinated to coincide with events outside Borneo succeeded, the Sultan captured and made to proclaim the independence of Kalimantan Utara, as may well have happened, we would all have been in a very dangerous situation. But as things turned out Sheik Azahari was no Ferhat Abbas of Algeria. Nor was he made of sterner stuff of men like Ben Bella or Ben Khedda.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister, but I think one hon. Member is using his ear-phone as a loud-speaker. Could a check be made? [Pause] It is not here. It must be up in the Strangers' Gallery. If it is in the Strangers' Gallery, I ask the Serjeant at Arms to try and trace that loud-speaker. Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I do not want to introduce unparliamentary language in this Chamber, but I think I am fair in quoting Azahari's lawyer in saying that he is a liar and a "bum".

Long before the revolt actually took place, Lim Ching Siong bad been in regular and secret contact with Azahari. On all the visits Azahari made to Singapore during last year, Said was his closest associate and confidant.

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to take his seat again. I am told that it is probably the loud-speaker in the Member for Anson's seat - he is not here. Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: On several occasions Said arranged meetings between Azahari and Lim Ching Siong. Lim Ching Siong met Azahari at 11.15 on the night of 4th March, 1962, in secret at 118 Tembeling Road. They met again on the 12th of April. On the 3rd of December, just four days before the revolt, all the three, Messrs. Lim Ching Siong, Said Zahari and Azahari met at the Tiong Hwa Restaurant in Prinsep Street. Then within less than 24 hours after the outbreak of the revolt on the 8th, the Barisan Sosialis came out in open support of the revolution.

As early as May last year, Mr Lim Ching Siong was already aware of the plans for an uprising. He was then actively considering an offer of weapons being made either in Singapore or in Borneo through his links with the S.U.P.P. He was not quite clear about the situation then prevailing in Brunei and the offer of weapons "to his side". He feared it might be a trap because he was worried that top level "fellows may betray him". He also knew that there was a promise for troops to be sent from the border at the time when the revolt was mounted.

All this while the Communists in Singapore knew what was being hatched. In October last year, several weeks before the revolt, the three Governments knew that even Mr Mahadeva of the Straits Times, now detained, knew of the impending revolt and had told some people that Malaysia may not come off as there was going to be an armed revolt in Brunei.

Captured rebel leaders in Brunei have revealed that Azahari had told them that he had arranged for a simultaneous uprising in Singapore at the same time as. they attacked in Brunei, Sarawak and Sabah. Lim and Said had promised Azahari that they would mount demonstrations and hamper British troop movements in Singapore when counter action was taken by the British, and they promised to rally support for this so-called "revolution".

For a number of reasons they did not succeed. A pending retrenchment of over a thousand Army civilian workers made the climate unsuitable for getting Army civilian workers to take action against base installations. Civilian employees of the Army are employed in order to keep these bases ready for an emergency. The workers were not prepared to jeopardise their rice bowl just for Communist tactics. They failed to get the workers to do things against the workers' own interests. In anger Lim issued a statement condemning the use of the British bases in Singapore in crushing the so-called "liberation" struggle of Kalimantan Utara. They also got the President of the Naval Base Labour Union, Mr De Cruz, to condemn the use of the bases in putting down the revolt. This was immediately echoed in all their other united front publications.

They called two so-called "mass rallies" at Hollywood Park, rather inappropriately named for mass rallies, the first by the Barisan Sosialis directed at the Chinese, the second by Party Rakyat directed at the Malays. Both meetings were cold and drew small crowds. Again they failed.

Earlier they had even tried to get arms for the rebels. On 6th December last year, two days before the revolt broke out, Azahari went in Said's car to Jalan Spencer, off West Coast Road, to meet a contact to get stolen arms.

Said, the link between Lim Ching Siong and Azahari, was all this while in the pay of an agent of an Intelligence agent of a foreign power. He has now, under interrogation, admitted his links with them. Some time ago his agent was arrested. He disclosed that Said was in his pay. The agent was released and he returned to his own country. Shortly afterwards another man came to Singapore. He became Said's "handling agent", a technical term to describe a person who keeps contact with an agent for an intelligence agency. The first agent who was arrested and released obviously did not report to his organisation that he had already revealed Said's connections with them.

When Azahari was last in Singapore just before he fled to Manila, he was in constant touch with the leading conspirators in Singapore and also with certain persons connected with foreign consulates. Surveillance was kept on all the key conspirators.

Shortly after the revolt in Borneo, Said secretly tried to start a movement for volunteers to fight for the liberation of Azahari's Kalimantan Utara, just like the volunteers who were going to fight for the liberation of West Irian.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all this may sound a little bit ambitious now in retrospect, if not comic, but these men take themselves seriously, and we would have made a grave mistake if we did not take them seriously.

These men knew that they had lost the battle in Singapore against Malaysia. So they resorted to every available device, and exploited every opportunity to create trouble in the other territories, particularly in Sarawak and Brunei, in order to stop Malaysia. Honourable Members may recall reading in the newspapers of the sudden increase in the number of Barisan Sosialis and other united front cadres who began to tour Sarawak and Brunei in the last few weeks before the revolt. Some will also remember that when the revolt broke out, they were immediately detained and expelled from Brunei and Sarawak. I do not think their capacity for harm was very great but the Sarawak and Brunei Governments did not think that they were just sight-seeing.

After the experience of the Brunei revolt, it would be a mistake to underestimate Communist intention or capacity for harm. They had said in the past that there would be bloodshed and violence and they said again yesterday, through the Member for Queenstown, that there would be bloodshed if Malaysia came about or was pushed through, as he put it. This was said by some of their leaders now in detention, Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan and Mr Sandra Woodhull. Yesterday the Member for Queenstown repeated this threat under the cloak of privilege. Some people did not take them seriously in the past. Events have shown that they were prepared to use the Brunei Malays and involve themselves in conspiracy with foreign groups to precipitate armed revolt in the Borneo territories to stop Malaysia. Action could not be delayed. Already relations between the Federation and neighbouring countries are gravely strained, and we can only hope that goodwill from all sides, with the help of conciliation and mediation by disinterested officials of international organisations, will ease the situation.

Sir, the Communists did their calculations carefully. They knew that on or after 31st August, their united front would be disrupted. In their eagerness and recklessness to escape this fate, they involved themselves with persons who ii turn were involved with foreign powers. They have brought retribution upon themselves sooner than they had expected.

It would have been easier for the Singapore Government to leave them alone until after 31st August, for then the Central Government would assume complete responsibility for defence and security, and take over direct control of the Police and Intelligence. But when the Communists threatened the security of Malaysia, we had to agree to take immediate action to curb them. Probably, as far as Singapore alone was concerned, they could not have created much trouble because they had already been discredited. After nearly two years of open confrontation and public debate the ground was growing cold for them. The Chinese education issue they mounted had failed. Last December they had to abandon their plans for another examination boycott. Their strikes were failing, and in fact only a few days before the arrests, after fierce talk and strike action at Metal Box, Mr Fong Swee Suan had to tell the workers to go back with very little benefits gained and a lot of face lost. Their unions were breaking away from them.

We have been able to hold the Communists down because we had exposed their deceit and selfishness in opposing merger and Malaysia and isolated them, by public debate and the open argument. They suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the people in the referendum last September. Since then we have been spared a great deal of this bragging by the Communists and their supporters in this Assembly that they had the masses behind them. We have not heard of the masses, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the last few days.

One of the reasons why the purges of the last Government were accompanied by riots and arson, and troops had to be called out, was that Ministers of the last Government were unable or unwilling to meet the Communists in the open and argue it out. The result was that they lost the argument and lost the battle for hearts and minds. So when they detained leading figures, a lot of public sympathy was for the Communists and against the Government. We must never make this error. We are prepared to join issue with the Communists at any time, and all the time, here in this Assembly, on the radio, in T.V., in public forums, in public rallies, a, the United Nations, in Moshi, in Afro-Asian conferences, anywhere and everywhere. We have even invited the Chairman of the Movement for Colonial Freedom in London, Mr Fenner Brockway, to come here, investigate and satisfy himself about all this rubbish of so-called torture that the Member for Queenstown had told him about in his recent trip to London. I am happy to say that he will be coming, not as early as I hoped he would be able to come in April, but some time in May. The Member for Queenstown should remember this before he goes around spreading rumours and falsehoods, that this is a Government that never flinches from the open confrontation.

It is they who fear the public debate. The Indonesian Communists and other Communist bloc delegates at the Afro-Asian Conference in Tanganyika feared the arguments of our delegates. As Members know, on 1st February we sent a delegation to this conference. We knew that this conference was controlled by a Communist-dominated Secretariat. Azahari himself had said in Jakarta that the Conference was dominated by Communists and that he was not going on that account. We knew that the Communist bloc led by the Communist Party of Indonesia would try to move a resolution condemning Malaysia as neo-colonialist and giving support to Azahari as the leader of the so-called revolution in Kalimantan Utara.

The Indonesian and other Communists were afraid of our facts and arguments, so they stubbornly opposed our delegates from even presenting the case for Malaysia before the Afro-Asian delegates.

Mr Bani: Before Lim Shee Ping was arrested.

Mr Rajaratnam: No papers.

The Prime Minister: Shee Ping? A Member of this House was not aware of the reply that was given. Mr Lim Shee Ping, I fear to say, was no match when it really came to the open argument between him and the gentlemen that we sent - Mr Devan Nair, Mr Jek, Mr Rahim Ishak, Othman Wok. He went to the Polytechnic to meet the Minister for Finance and we have a tape recording of what happened, the ground went cold on him. Doctrinaire, half-baked Marxist - [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: This was at the Polytechnic Students' Union [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member for Thomson, if he wishes to intervene, to intervene in the proper way; not from his seat. Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: No, Mr Speaker, Sir, I always allow him to intervene. I will never refuse him an opportunity as long as he is with us to debate, to argue, as long as he behaves himself in a constitutional manner. I think the Member for Thomson ought to be grateful that he has a Government in power that is anxious to see that the decorum of public debates, public assemblies is somehow maintained despite very trying circumstances.

Sir, at Moshi they knew that if our delegates were allowed to speak, they could have shown that it was nonsense to claim that Azahari's revolution of 2,000 out of 40,000 Malays in Brunei - 40,000 Malays in Brunei, meaning men, women and children and babes in arms, Mr Speaker, Sir, half the size of the Member for Geylang Serai's constituency; half the population - entitled him to proclaim himself Prime Minister, not just of Brunei, but of the 1.2 million people of Sarawak and Sabah. The Indonesian Communists wanted to rally Afro-Asian opinion against Malaysia. They will try hard first in conferences like that in Tanganyika, and if they succeed, then finally in the United Nations. The very fact that they have made no mention of this attenuated resolution that has been passed supporting Azahari's Kalimantan Utara, either by the Indonesian Communists in Jakarta or by local agents in Singapore, is an indication of the defeat they suffered at Moshi. Sir, if they could get the non-aligned countries of Afro-Asia to denounce Malaysia, it would provide for them a cover for intervention without the danger of a world war. For once non-Communist Afro-Asia supports a liberation movement, as it did in Algeria, to aid rebels in the way of arms and volunteers by other Afro-Asian powers, it cannot be easily countered by intervention by a major Western power. Then there will be no danger of its provoking a world war or leading to United States intervention.

This was what happened in the case of West Irian. Once Afro-Asia solidly backed Indonesia, the Americans being practical persuaded the stubborn Dutchmen to give up West Trim rather than risk a war in which Afro-Asia would be against them. Sir, I do not say that Sarawak and Sabah is like West Irian. In fact, the Indonesian Communists are rapidly finding that this is a very different proposition. Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah were not part of the Dutch empire. They belong to us, the people of the territories which together were part of the British empire in South-East Asia. They do not belong to the Member for Queenstown alone, and it is not his to give away to the Indonesians, as I heard he wanted to do yesterday. If Azahari claims the support of 40,000 Malays in Brunei, then there are 1.2 million people in Sarawak and Sabah who oppose him. However, we must expect the Indonesian Communists to keep on trying. Our business is to defeat their diplomatic and propaganda offensive at every turn.

The recent security action was taken in a different situation from 1956. In 1956, when the Communists were purged, they were part of an anti-colonial united front when we nationalists in the P.A.P. were together with them fighting a common colonial enemy for our freedom. The last time, in 1956, they were purged by a Chief Secretary who was a British official. It was a semi-colonial government whose understanding and grasp of the Communist problem in an anti-colonial situation was feeble, and whose ability to counter Communist tactics was pathetic. This time they were arrested on the decision of the three Governments - the Federation of Malaya, an independent nationalist Government, the Government of Singapore, consisting all of elected Ministers, and the British Government, which has a defence treaty with the Federation of Malaya and is also responsible for the external defence of Singapore. Sir, we have different immediate policies and different political attitudes and different methods. But we all agreed with the decision of the Internal Security Council because it was vital that no chances should he taken that would upset Malaysia and because we in Singapore share vital long-term objectives with the Federation Government on the defence and security of Malaysia.

The persons detained were known not just to one but to all three security authorities of the thee Governments to be deeply implicated in the Communist conspiracy. So there was no question of political victimisation or personal vendetta. The decision on who were to be detained was an impersonal one, dispassionately made by professional security officers whose instructions from their respective Governments were to blunt the Communist capacity to mount trouble, leading perhaps to violence, and to break their lines of conspiracy with foreign groups. The decision of the I.S.C. was not immediately to destroy all Communist united front organisations. The operation had a limited objective, for a specific purpose, to meet a particular situation. So no political Party or trade union or rural association has been banned, although they are known vehicles of the Communist united front. Only those persons who were known by the three different security authorities to be deeply implicated in the conspiracy - in other words, the key activists in the political Parties, unions aid rural organisations, who were their open points for mobilising support to violent action, mobilising their workers of farmers who belong to these organisations, were detained. Because of this directive, certain other persons, although known to the security organisations to be Communist united front cadres, were not detained in this action.

In 1956 after the purge, the Communists and their supporters felt that victory was around the corner. The P.A.P. had been fighting with them in an anti-colonial united front. They knew that when we won the general elections in 1959 and got the keys to Changi Prison, we would have to open the prison gates for them. Otherwise we would have been accused of being traitors to fellow fighters in a common anti-colonial cause. This time, Mr Speaker, Sir, they know the e is no victory around the corner. Whoever wants to open the prison gates either of Changi - there would not be Outram anymore - Pudu, Taiping or Johore, must conquer Malaya and Malaysia by force, or must constitutionally win the majority of the seats in the Malaysian Parliament. Neither of these two ways appears even remotely possible.

But I think the most dangerous aspect of this limited purge of Communist front organisers is that the country may be lulled into a sense of false security. Without the leading Communist front figures in the open, without their wild postures, their fierce statements, their strikes and inflammatory speeches, people may be lulled into believing that the Communist threat is gone. Let us never deceive ourselves that this action has removed the Communist threat. Even if the Internal Security Council had arrested all the other united front cadres and banned their organisations, the problem would only be slightly diminished. The basic threat remains.

There are two reasons for this. First, the underground party is still there. Our security organisation has not succeeded in locating and breaking up the underground network as yet. In Communist plans and calculations they have anticipated the removal of their united front organisers. These are the "expendables", the men who pay the price of detention in the hope that the Communist revolution may eventually triumph. Any man who is really valuable to the Communists and is not yet known to security intelligence, is never put to work in the open to run the risk of detention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the second reason why the threat is there is that the united front framework is left intact. They have arranged the temporary withdrawal of their reserve team in the united front. A number of these men cannot immediately be traced. After some time, they will come out and carry on where the first team left off. And the underground leaders can always throw in a few more trained cadres to help the reserve team reactivate and revitalise the united front, particularly at the time of elections after election writs have been issued. Members will remember that in several major pronouncements after the referendum last year, when they knew that they had decisively lost in the fight against merger and Malaysia, Mr Lim Ching Siong warned of the difficult struggle ahead and of the need to conserve their strength and carry on the struggle. Well, they have done exactly this.

A considerable number of the leaders involved in the Communist united front are men who have come from the Federation. Because of conditions during the Emergency in the Federation and because of the sterner measures there taken against the Communists, some of their best Communist cadres have come to Singapore. One of our problems is that not only do we have our own share of Communist cadres, but that we also have in our small island a considerable number of Federation Communist cadres. This time some 20 of them, key organisers, all of Federation origin, have been ordered by the I.S.C. to be sent hack to the Federation; and there they will remain. They will not be allowed to return to Singapore to frequent their old haunts and cause trouble again.

All those detained and those still not detained engaged in the conspiracy should remember that it is up to them to decide if they want a decent place in our society. If they give up this dangerous nonsense of revolution for a Communist Malaya, and now a Communist Malaysia, and stop taking their directives from foreign groups, they can be released immediately. We have no desire to keep anybody out of a fair share of the fruits of our society, whether Chinese-educated, Malay-educated, Tamil-educated, or English-educated. Everybody can share in the fruits of freedom and join in the building of our nation.

But let me remind those who are still determined on violent revolution and the setting up of a Communist society, that this time they face nationalism, a much more formidable and enduring opponent than colonialism. Colonialism, Mr Speaker, Sir, is on the way out. Nationalism will stay and triumph.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

11.19 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, as expected, the Prime Minister's speech is full of trite, evasive and irresponsible pro-colonial statements that one normally sees in speeches of Colonel Blimps and colonial governors. The phraseology used and the sentiments expressed are no different from the phraseology and sentiments expressed by Governor Waddels and whoever they may be.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What are they?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The pathetic thing about our Prime Minister is that today he can no longer pretend to be an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist fighter. He has already been totally exposed, and now he can only shed crocodile tears. If I were to compare what the Prime Minister says today with what he used to thump his chest about not so very long ago, it would provide very interesting reading. And I did tell the Prime Minister during the Anson by-election that I was running through all his past speeches and he laughingly admitted at that time that what he said in July 1961 was entirely different from what he had previously said in 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1959. Therefore, today we see in the Prime Minister only a contrast, a shell of what he was. He does not spout anti-colonialism any more. He does not spout the cause of the exploited and of the oppressed any more. He does not hurl defiance at the imperialists any more. But now he cows before the colonial master. He belly-crawls to his colonial master.

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member to remember that he is speaking in an Assembly where unparliamentary words are disallowed. I do not think the term "belly-crawls" is parliamentary. He should withdraw it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I beg your pardon, Sir.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Withdraw.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Prime Minister in his -

Mr Speaker: Has the expression been withdrawn?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, Sir. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. I have had occasion to pull up the Member for Queenstown for being disorderly, and now I find that Members of the Government Front Bench are just as disorderly.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Prime Minister, in his opening statement, talks of having won the open argument. But even in this Assembly, Sir, they are so scared of talking about it that they want to run away from the argument. So how can they ever talk of winning the argument? How can they talk of ever winning any argument'? He talks of his uninvited representatives to Moshi, hoping to gate-crash into the Afro-Asian Conference in Tanganyika. Somehow or other they managed to get some country to sponsor them. But, as I will say a bit more later, the moment they failed they turned round and said, "Sour grapes." The very referendum itself, which the Prime Minister has tried so very much to boast about, showed that the P.A.P. had lost the open argument. Now the Prime Minister talks of midnight shows, meetings in Nee Soon. As in July 1961 when he talked of Russian bears and British lions, now he tells us the same stories. [Interruption] How different is this story from the twelve Arabian Night talks?

Mr Rajaratnam: 1,001 Nights!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Prime Minister talks of colonialism on its way out. Surely ---

Mr Speaker: Order. May I ask the Ministers on the Front Bench not to behave with such frivolity? The Prime Minister was allowed to make his speech with very little interruption, and I ask the Ministers to try and listen to the Member for Queenstown with all seriousness.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Prime Minister talks of colonialism on its way out, but surely he should know - if he claims to know anything about the basic fundamentals of any theory on socialism - that today Malaysia does not mean the end of colonialism. In fact, it means just the opposite, and it means the prolongation of colonialism only in another form. But, however, I shall refer to all this a little later.

The Prime Minister talks of our trying to sell the interests of Singapore and Borneo to a foreign power. Later on in my speech I will touch on many of these points, and you will be able to see that it is not us in the Barisan Sosialis who are selling the interests of our country to a foreign power. It is those people opposite who are traitors of our country and who are selling the interests of our people to a foreign power.

We support the call for freedom in the Borneo territories. We support the hopes and aspirations of the people in Borneo, and if the P.A.P. Ministers were ever genuine in what they say, they would have done the same, as I will try to prove to you, Sir, because at one time they talked very grandiloquently of their help and support for the Algerians. The Prime Minister referred to it just a little while ago.

Of course, the Prime Minister waxes eloquent whenever he talks on the subject of Communism. He always talks of the united front organisation; he talks of the Communist plot, and he refers to Mahadeva having known of the revolution in Brunei a few months before. If the memory of the P A.P. should not be so short, they would also have remembered that we in this Chamber have been talking of revolutions in Brunei and in the Borneo territories many months before that, because Malaysia is a plan meant to subjugate the people. And people are ever ready to fight for justice, equality and freedom and will not submit easily to plans imposed on them against their will.

The people in Brunei are fighting with shotguns against jets and warships. Yes, with blowpipes too, and that shows our Ministers opposite that for freedom people are willing to sacrifice anything, even their lives.

Now, the Prime Minister talks of decisions having been taken dispassionately by security officers. By that, of course, the Prime Minister means the Special Branch. I will refer to the Special Branch a little later. And he also refers to the wisdom of the P.A.P. in having the concurrence of the three Governments in the arrests. On this question too, I will touch a little later, but, at this stage, may I ask the Ministers sitting opposite whether they remember what they used to say before?

As I have said, Sir, I do not wish to quote extensively from the mouthings of those who now stand discredited in the eyes of the people and who have to use Government power and position in order to coerce other people into putting up a semblance of "supporting" the P.A.P. If they were so courageous, let them have the Sembawang by-election straightaway. Why are they scared in spite of all the tours of the Prime Minister to all the constituencies, with all the beautiful pictures taken? With the so-called "support" of the people, why should they be scared? They had ample time to prepare the electoral registers. I have worked in the Ministry of Home Affairs before, and I know exactly how long it takes to get the electoral registers ready. It is a patent falsehood on the part of the Ministers to say that they have not as yet got ready the electoral registers.

At this stage, I shall just mention the so-called constitutional methods that the Prime Minister waxes so eloquent about. I do not speak under privilege in this Chamber, Sir,I have been speaking on many occasions outside this Chamber, and when I went to London recently, I also told Labour M.P.s. trade unionists and responsible organisations that if the British Government really wanted the people to oppose constitutionally, then the British Government must make sure that they allowed the Opposition a chance to oppose. If the Opposition has no chance to oppose, it is the British Government that is encouraging armed struggle, and all responsibility must lie with the British Government and with their P.A.P. stooges today.

I am glad to hear that the Chairman of the Movement for Colonial Freedom. Mr Fenner Brockway, is coming, because I have with me his written opinion on Malaysia and on the referendum, but I will not say more at this stage. I am sure that Mr Fenner Brockway, when he does come here, will tell the Prime Minister what he thinks of Malaysia and the sham referendum that was imposed on the people by the P.A.P. Government.

Today, we all know whit the P.A.P. Government is. We know what the P.A.P Ministers are - just a bunch of reactionaries, opportunists and ruthless, repressive, selfish individuals.

Mr Rajaratnam: Words only!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Prime Minister has repeated again and again some of the o!d choruses of his old colonial masters, talking of links between Azahari and Said Zahari and our open support of the Brunei uprising. I will come to all this by and by. I would like, Sir, at this moment, before I venture to speak fully on the motion, to move an amendment to the Prime Minister's motion as follows:

In line 1, to leave out from "House" to the end and insert - `condemns the Internal Security Council and the People's Action Party Government for the arbitrary arrests and detention without trial of anti-colonial stalwarts and political opponents of the People's Action Party in political parties, trade unions, universities and civic organisations and te banning of publications of these organisations in suppression of legitimate opposition to the neo-colonial Malaysia scheme; and demands that they forwith stop all further repressive measures, release unconditionally all those detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and restore to the people their inherent democratic rights and liberties, freedom of speech and publication, association and assembly.'

Mr Speaker: May I have the amendment?

Amendment handed in.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And, Sir:

That this House condemns the People's Action Party Government for the cruel and inhuman treatment of political detainees, in particular, solitary confinement and denial of newspapers and other reading materials and demands that detainees now in the Federation of Malaya be immediately brought back to Singapore; and that the People's Action Party Government forthwith stop all tortures and implement the recommendations of the People's Action Party-appointed 1960 Prisons Inquiry Commission Report as contained in Paper Cmd. 17 of 1961.

Mr Speaker: I take it then that the hon. Member wishes to move by way of an amendment the deletion of the words from "House" to the end of the Prime Minister's motion and there to insert the substance of his own motions which appear as items 5 and 6 of the Order Paper. Is that correct?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The amendment is in order. The hon. Member may continue his speech.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first refer to the black day of Singapore? The Prime Minister spoke very lightly of the 2nd February - he used the words "1st February" - but to us. Sir, the 2nd February is a black day for Singapore. What happened on that day - the black day of Singapore - is now history. In the early hours of the morning of 2nd February, sudden repressive action was taken against leaders of political Parties, trade unions, rural organisations, hawkers' associations, universities, old boys' associations, intellectuals and other progressive individuals. All those arrested were, and still are, anti-colonial and anti-Malaysia stalwarts and bitter and strong opponents of the PAP. The mass arrests were all carried out with an intimidatory array of armed might. Accompanying plainclothes officers were fully armed police with combat troops in battledress standing by and on the ready. It reminds us of the days of the Gestapo of dictator Hitler and of the Japanese Kempetai. The Japanese Kempetai did exactly what the P.A.P. Government has done today.

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

11.42 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Barisan Sosialis bore the brunt of the onslaught and has suffered the most casualties. From our Central Executive Committee alone, nine members have been arrested and detained. They are our Vice Chairman, S. Woodhull, the Secretary-General Lim Ching Siong the Assistant General, Mr Poh Soo Kai, Committee members, Chok Koh Thong, Fong Swee Suan, Dr Lim Hock Siew, Lim Shee Ping, Dominic Puthucheary and Tan Yam Seng. From our Central Cultural sub-committee, Central Organisation sub-committee, Publication sub-committee and Branch Committees, altogether more than 40 from the Barisan Sosialis have been detained. I will table a list of names of Barisan members recently detained. The total number under detention, together with those from other organisations, we now learn, is 133. Nine have been released, leaving 124 still under detention. 124 innocent persons, deprived of their individual freedom and kept behind walls in solitary confinement, and given treatment worse than that of convicted criminals. Why? All because they oppose imperialism and neo-colonialism. All because they oppose the British-sponsored Malaysia, and because they, oppose the P.A.P. The powers that be, in order to give an excuse for locking them up, made them out to be dangerous men. The Prime Minister says, "These are the people who will mount the barricades." Yet, not so very long ago, he used to ridicule them as beer-hall revolutionaries. Now, because 4 suits the purpose of the P.A.P., they have suddenly become dangerous men. And, of course, it suits the Prime Minister. But let us ask: Did they steal or rob? No. Did they kill or murder? No. Did they take part in riots? No. Did they take up arms against the Government? Again, no! Yet, all these 124 persons have been arbitrarily arrested and detained without charge or trial, and treated worse than convicted criminals! Why? Why, Mr Prime Minister? Why, Mr Deputy Prime Minister?

Today, as a result of the arrests, threats and intimidations a change has come over Singapore. The people prefer not to talk so very loudly of politics these days. Many clam up on politics the moment they see strangers around. There is an atmosphere of suspicion, uncertainty and fear. There are so many spies and informers around that no one can be certain that what he says will not be carried back to the ears of the fearful P.A.P. Without doubt, Singapore has become a Police State. Those in authority can resort to arbitrary arrests at any time. The only law in the State seems to be the law of the Police, the Special Branch and the P.A.P.

What has taken place and is taking place today merely confirms what we have all along been saying, namely, that the P.A.P. is endangering democracy and that parliamentary democracy under the P.A.P. has already become Fascist dictatorship. If such a Police State is going to be the blessing of Malaysia, then we must be prepared for worse things to come. We need only see from how the arrests were carried out the things to expect with the formation of Malaysia. Innocent people engaged in legitimate pursuits have been arrested and some very quickly whisked off to the Federation without the families even notified where they were sent. It is like being shanghaied, or kidnapped, and that, by the powers that be in the country. It is so unbelievable. The brutality and callousness of the people have to be seen to be believed. And I am very glad that Mr Fenner Brockway will come ---

The Prime Minister: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - and see what is happening in Singapore today.

The Prime Minister: And you did not even have the decency to - [Interruption]

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Inquiries from anxious parents and families were put off, and in the anxious moments after the arrests, no attempt whatsoever was made by the police to give any information concerning the detainees in order to allay their anxiety. There seems to have been a conspiracy to inflict mental agony and torture on the wives and families of the detainees simply because they happened to `be the wives and families of the detainees. Has the P.A.P. Government no humanitarian principles left? Repeated attempts were made by us in the Barisan Sosialis, in our capacity as Legislative Assemblymen, to enquire for news of the whereabouts of detainees and how they were being detained, but our efforts were all in vain. Our requests for news were completely ignored. Wives and families were not allowed to see the detainees until after six days - six agonising days of anxious waiting. Is this what the people of Singapore had elected the P.A.P. in 1959 for - to inflict on them mental torture and agonising anxiety, and fear of spies and informers?

Then, Sir, there was the question of detainees being sent to the Federation. As citizens and residents of Singapore, why have they to be sent outside Singapore? The talk of "those of Federation origin to be sent back to the Federation of Malaya", smacks too much of the imposition of extra-territorial rights by the Federation on Singapore today. In so transferring persons detained in Singapore to the Federation, the two Governments have already violated and trampled underfoot the fundamental human rights of the individual. Already bad enough in the case of Singapore residents, it becomes worse in the case of the Singapore citizens. A person becomes a Singapore citizen with great difficulty. Yet his rights of citizenship are summarily swept aside. Under the circumstances, what legal and constitutional safeguard is there left for the common man? The arrest of Lim Shee Ping is a case in point. This is a good case for the attention of international jurists and constitutional experts.

The Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Secretariat in Cairo sent an invitation to the Barisan Sosialis to send an observer delegate to the Conference at Moshi, Tanganyika. It was decided by us to send Lim Shee Ping as our delegate. He left Singapore on Friday, 1st February, 1963, and was on his way to Moshi when his Federation passport was withdrawn at Nairobi. The Straits Tunes of the 4th February, 1963, says:

`Authoritative sources disclosed tonight that he was intercepted at Nairobi, Kenya, on his way to Dar-es-Salaam. There the British authorities withdrew his Federation passport...'

Let me emphasise, Sir. The British authorities withdrew his Federation passport at the request of the Federation Government. He was then put on a plane hound for Malaya. It is not that he went voluntarily by himself. But he was bodily put on a plane bound for Malaya.

"It is not known when he left Nairobi and whether he will be flown back to Singapore or Kuala Lumpur." This is the high-handed action of arbitrary arrest carried out across the high seas and across international boundaries. And for what reason? Did he commit murder or some serious international crime that needed the services of Interpol? Lim Shee Ping committed no crime. He had been seen off only the day before at the Airport by many of us, and he was then on his way to an International Conference. Yet he was arbitrarily stopped, arrested and sent back to Malaya! A cable was received from him informing us that his passport had been withdrawn and that he expected to arrive back in Singapore at 12 midnight on Monday. 4th February, 1963. We made several attempts to meet him, but of course they were all to no avail. The truth of the matter is - and here I challenge the Minister for Home Affairs in his answer to me only yesterday - Lim Shee Ping was secretly transferred en route in Bombay, or at Calcutta, from a Qantas flight to an Air India flight. If, according to the Minister for Home Affairs, he came back just because he did not have his passport, the authorities would not have transferred him from one flight to another. And instead of arriving back in Singapore at 12 midnight as expected or on an earlier Qantas flight at 7 p.m. he arrived back in Singapore at 5 p.m instead. Instead of 12 midnight or instead of a bit earlier at 7 o'clock, he arrived back at 5 o'clock. This was specially arranged by the British authorities to ensure that we would not have a chance of meeting him. Newspapers next morning headlined, "In and out and nobody knew". "Detainee Lim expected on one plane . . . He came by another." This is the Machiavellian plotting of pro-colonial stooges and agents in order to deprive people of their freedom.

(00.01 a.m., 10th April, 1963)

On Wednesday, 6th February, 1963, the Straits Times, at column 4, page 5, said:

`Reporters who were waiting near the V.I.P. Room to interview Dr Subandrio, Indonesia's Foreign Minister, did not see him [Lim Shee Ping] being hustled [I wish the Minister for Home Affairs will listen to this] from the plane to a police land rover. He was driven from the Airport through a little used gate near the site of the new terminal building. Later he was transferred to another land rover and driven to Kuala Lumpur under a strong police escort.'

Sir, such is the cloak-and-dagger story of the arrest of Lim Shee Ping, Central Executive Committee member of the Barisan Sosialis and adviser to the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Yet the arrest which was done in such a secretive manner (like the arrests of the others in the small hours of the morning) shows that the P.A.P. knows how objectionable and hateful such arrests are in the eyes of the people of Singapore. The arrest of Lim Shee Ping shows clearly too how the abhorrent police work in Singapore. It shows that persons can even be arrested in far away countries in Africa. Lim Shee Ping was arrested by the British authorities in Nairobi, Kenya, not in Singapore. This again shows that it is the colonial octopus, stretching across countries, seas and continents, that is the real monster in Malaya. The British still control all, behind the facade of independence in Malaya. The Federation merely acts as British agents, protecting British interests. The P.A.P. are only the flunkies of both the British and the Federation Governments! Did the people of Singapore elect the P.A.P. in 1959 to become flunkies to colonialists and neo-colonialists? No, Sir. The people elected the P.A.P. to carry on the anti-colonial struggle. But now that the P.A.P. leaders have become willing stooges of colonialism, no amount of so-called good work and social reforms, like the building of flats - which are white elephants - clinics, creches, post offices and community centres, will be able to save them from the wrath of the people. It is only a matter of time, and time is fast running out for the P.A.P. `colonial stooges. Though arrests by the P.A.P. were not unexpected, and I shall enlarge on this a little later, nevertheless, the suddenness of the so-called "dawn swoop" and the extensiveness of the arrests surprised the whole of Singapore, especially when there was not the slightest justification for the arrests. Many just could not bring themselves to believe that the P.A.P. had really gone to the extent of repaying past help and support with such gross ingratitude and outright treachery. Measured by any moral standard, it is difficult to believe that anyone could be so ungrateful. Even a dog will not bite the hand that feeds it.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is right, thirteen dogs in front of us.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Immediately after the arrests, we demanded the immediate recall of the Assembly. We telephoned, and we wrote letters to the Leader of the House after he had refused to see us on important Assembly business. I do not know who he thinks he is. Maybe because he is the Deputy Prime Minister! But surely, as the Leader of the House, he has no right whatsoever to refuse opportunities for Members of the House to see him on important Legislative Assembly business. It is the business of the Leader of the House to be ever ready to speak to Members of the House. Yet we have a Leader of the House who puts on airs and says, "You cannot see me unless you have an appointment." I am sure when he takes up courage enough to go hack to the people of Rochore, the people of Rochore will give him a re-sounding answer.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: And you go back to Queenstown.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He will lose his deposit.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You will lose yours too.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, Sir, it was obvious that the P.A.P. had no intention of recalling the Assembly immediately. The Prime Minister has admitted that the issue was too hot. The P.A.P. no doubt preferred to wait for the heat to cool off before embarking on a debate on the matter. Attempts were made to use Radio P.A.P. as a substitute for the Legislative Assembly. The P.A.P. had hoped to manipulate the radio and the meeting for P.A.P. propaganda. The Government had prepared for a very long Assembly holiday. The Budget, you will remember, Sir, for the first half year of 1963 was passed in 1961 in order to allow the Government to skip holding Assembly sittings until the end of June. And, however brave and courageous, whatever front the Prime Minister may think of putting up, we all know that it is the pressure of public opinion that forced the Government to reconvene the Assembly. We realise that the P.A.P. today will do its best to make it difficult for us. But knowing full well that they have to depend on the Lim Yew Hock group to prop them up in office, they dare not offend the Member for Cairnhill.

Only a little while back, the Prime Minister admitted that he had to reconvene the Assembly because the Member for Cairnhill had also asked for it. Does it not show how much the Prime Minister and the P.A.P. have to crawl down before the very people whom they used to ridicule and despise before? What a sorry plight to see P.A.P. Ministers grovelling before those whom they had not the slightest opinion of only a short while ago! They have had no sitting for the last eight months, since the middle of July, except for a Gilbert-and-Sullivan affair on the 5th of September after the referendum. Many people in the United Kingdom find it very difficult to believe that we have a Legislative Assembly in Singapore today. All are shocked with amazement at the complete lack of parliamentary practice under the P.A.P. Government.

Sir, we must not forget that today there is a news-gag on us in the Barisan Sosialis. I touched on this yesterday. The Government wants to create the impression, inside as well as outside Singapore, and the Borneo territories as Well, that there is very little opposition to Malaysia. In fact, there is a news-gag on anything and everything that is against Malaysia. On the other hand, the slightest bit of pro-Malaysia news is played up and given big headlines. Not only is there a news-gag on the Barisan Sosialis and on all who are anti-Malaysia, but, as you know, ten publications of trade unions, universities, and even political Parties, have also been banned since the arrests. There is now no freedom of association and assembly. On top of all this, we are now denied the freedom of publication.

The Barisan Sosialis has not been proscribed, and the organs of our Party - the Chinese Barisan, the English Plebeian, and the Malay Rakyat - have not been banned, hut attempts have been made to ban our organs indirectly, as I mentioned yesterday. Our printers had their licences suspended and they were forced to go out of business for ten days. They have - been given back their yearly printing press licences, but they no longer dare to print our Party organs. This is the type of democracy we have in Singapore today: arrests, banning of publications, cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees, and a complete denial of the fundamental rights of mankind. How can the P.A.P. Government still pretend to practise parliamentary democracy in Singapore? No, Sir, this is the death of democracy. Singapore has become a police State. The selfish interests of P.A.P. leaders and their lust for power have turned them into Fascists. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This dictum is self-explanatory. It is clear too that State power in Singapore has fallen into wrong hands, and the earlier the P.A.P. is removed from office, the better it will be for Singapore and for every one.

Sir, there are a number of allegations in the Internal Security Council's statement issued after the arrests on 2nd February, chief among which are:

(1) that the Barisan Sosialis and other organisations are under control of the Communists;

(2) that the three Governments concur in the arrests: (this, according to the Prime Minister, is the wisdom of the P.A.P. Ministers)

(3) that the persons were arrested to safeguard the security of Singapore and the territories of the proposed Malaysia;

(4) that they were arrested because of their open support of the uprising in Brunei and their resorting to violence and bloodshed.

Sir, let us examine these allegations one by one, as well as other points in the Internal Security Council's statement and see whether they are justifiable allegations. Let us first deal with the subject of Communism.

Communism is the pet subject of the Prime Minister and is an accusation that is always raised by the colonialists to justify every repression against anti-colonial forces. Ever since the Second World War, and even before that, national liberation movements, which the Prime Minister nowadays speaks so slightingly of, in all colonial countries have been daily gaining in momentum, and colonial powers have always used this accusation to deny the people their legitimate rights and aspirations in the colonies and semi-colonies in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Communist bogey has always been used to frighten and intimidate the people. Almost all nationalist leaders in countries that have now gained their independence had at one time or another been accused of being Communists, pro-Communists or Communist-front men. This has, however, not prevented their helping in the liberation of their own countries from the yoke of foreign domination, nor the inevitable collapse of colonialism. Many were imprisoned for their beliefs and for the part they played in their just national struggles. But, in almost every case, the colonial powers had been compelled ultimately by pressure of public opinion and the inevitable march of history to release them and to recognise them as true national leaders of their countries.

In our country, all anti-colonial stalwarts, all who wage an uncompromising struggle against imperialism and colonialism, and all true patriots, have at one time or another been labelled Communists of one hue or another. Even Lee Kuan Yew, the McCarthy type anti-Communist of today, and ironically the self-professed Communist collaborator of yesterday, was at one time also labelled Communist. He was then wearing the mask of anti-colonialism and he was pretending to fight against imperialism and colonialism. Of course, he is now completely unmasked. He is now exposed through and through - he is now seen in his true colours - an out-and-out colonial stooge, a running dog of the imperialists.

Sir, this charge of Communism is not new. In fact, so long as colonialism in whatever shape or form exists, and so long as we struggle against colonialism, so long will this charge of Communism hang over us.

This business of the Communist conspiracy is so widespread that it haunts even the countries of the sovereign powers themselves. I was informed by a British Member of Parliament, Mr William Warbey, when I was in London recently that the stories of the Communist conspiracy in Singapore reminded him very much of the stories put out before the war by the British Government in Britain itself. Thus, one can see that this Communist bogey is something that is not confined to the colonial territories alone. It is also present in the very heartland of the colonial power itself. In fact, it is present wherever privileged groups exist and when they try to prolong their oppression and exploitation of the people. It is especially used by Fascist dictators and tyrannical oppressors who find in the Communist bogey an excuse for all sorts of repressive actions and terror. Hitler made use of this bogey, and we know today what the world thinks of him.

In British territories the world over today, wherever there is a national liberation movement or some strong Opposition to colonial rule there is this Communist label bandied around. So, in Malaya, when the Federation politicians and the Prime Minister make this same accusation, they are merely echoing the words of British colonialism in many parts of the world. Indeed, they are merely joining the chorus of men like Chiang Kai-shek, Syngman Rhee and Ngo Dinh Diem - Fascist dictators who use anti-Communism as an excuse for all sorts of repressions. We have already seen the Minister for Education making friends with Ngo Dinh Diem, a person whom the Prime Minister used to condemn not so very long ago.

We must remember, when we talk of Communism, that the M.C.P. has been an illegal organisation for the last 15 years, and every effort has been made by the police and colonial troops to hunt down every Communist. It is convenient to label all strong opposition as Communists, as it paves the way for the colonial power to invoke the law against such opposition. But what is the result of such Communist-labelling? It does Snot solve the problems of poverty. It only results in the crippling of all democratic forms Of expression that exist. Already we see the Communist label being used in Singapore to deny workers and trade unions their fundamental rights of freedom of association and assembly. Even political Parties have been similarly denied their freedom of assembly. I do not need to mention the banning of the ten publications and journals of political Parties, trade Unions, universities and other organisations. Those who wish to oppose Malaysia constitutionally, like our comrades and friends in the Barisan Sosialis and other political Parties, trade unions and civic organisations, have been arbitrarily arrested and detained. This Government simply hangs the Communist label on them. This label of Communism is, with few exceptions, only applied to persons of Chinese origin. The Party Rakyat and the people of Brunei revolted against the imposition of Malaysia, but being mostly of the Malay race, the charge of Communism is not levelled at them. Of course, this is only an example Of the colonial policy of divide and rule. The colonialists hope to fan the flames of inter-communal suspicion and discord. The Prime Minister himself played the some colonial game when he "advised" the Chinese in Sabah to quickly join Malaysia by emphasising that the Brunei uprising was mainly a Malay revolt. This is only one example of the communal policies of the P.A.P.

Sir, the opposition to Malaysia has a genuine basis and has nothing to do with any Communist plot, indeed, this opposition is because of the imperialist plot. Instead of answering the injustices of the Malaysia Plan, the British, Federation and Singapore Governments run away from answering by calling us Communists and by putting leaders, who oppose Malaysia, in prison. They cannot answer our proof that Malaysia is unacceptable to the majority of the people. Their answer is the answer of Fascist dictators - arrest, imprisonment and torture. By crying Communism, of course, they hope to side-track the attention of the people from their oppression and exploitation and to confuse them. By arresting the leaders, they hope also to intimidate the people into abjectly accepting Malaysia and to prevent further opposition to the Malaysia Plan. As I have said, they want to create the impression to the outside world that there is very little opposition to Malaysia, and that the majority support Malaysia. Of course, the reverse is the case but so frightened are they of the true facts being known to the outside world that they have to arrest Lim Shee Ping, our delegate to the Moshi Afro-Asian Conference, before he arrived there. And when the uninvited P.A.P. delegation failed to gate-crash into the conference, they turned round to cry "sour grapes" and accused the conference as being Communist-dominated. This alone shows how ready they are to use the Communist label on those who do not accept their policies.

It is clear, therefore, that no weight can be put on the allegation in the Internal Security Council statement that the Barisan Sosialis is controlled by the Communists. As I have said on many previous occasions, the Communist label means strong opposition. To say that the Barisan Sosialis is under the control of the Communists only means that the P.A.P. recognise the strength and popular support of the Barisan Sosialis.

00.32 a.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Let me touch a little on why the P.A.P. is so fond of this Communist line. Why is the P.A.P. so fond of the Communist bogey? The Prime Minister delights in talking about Communism. He enjoys talking Communism and for very good reasons too. Why? Let us analyse why. The Prime Minister and his opportunistic friends like the Communist line. Why? Because with this Communist bogey, they hope to deceive the people and frighten them. I have already mentioned that. They hope to use the Communist bogey as a tool by which to crush political opposition and if political opposition could be crushed, then, of course, there would be no great difficulty in their maintaining themselves in office.

The Barisan Sosialis today offers the greatest effective opposition to the P.A.P. Therefore, the first objective of the P.A.P. is to identify the Barisan Sosialis with the Communist bogey, and through the excuse and pretext of dealing with the Communists, the P.A.P. hope to hit at the Barisan Sosialis and all other organisations that offer effective Opposition to the P.A.P. That is reason No. 1.

The second reason is the Prime Minister uses the omnipresent Communist as a ready-made scapegoat for all the sins of commission and omission of the P.A.P. Thus blames the Communist for all the P.A.P. mistakes and failures, for all the P.A.P. broken promises, for all the P.A.P. undemocratic and Fascist repressive actions, for all P.A.P. reactionary and pro-colonial policies. In fact, everything that goes wrong is indiscriminately blamed on the omni-present Communist.

The third reason is this. It follows from this that since all mistakes and faults are laid at the door-step of the Communist bogey, the Prime Minister and his P.A.P. Ministers can claim themselves to be always right, to be always infallible. They then hope to absolve themselves from all blame under all circumstances, and on all big vital issues that have aroused the indignation of the people.

The fourth reason is this. The Prime Minister also uses this Communist bogey with the hope of silencing opposition to P.A.P. undemocratic and Fascist ways. As the M.C.P. is an illegal body in Singapore and the Federation, no one will be able to speak up in public on its behalf without at the same time being smeared as Communist or pro-Communist. Thus the Prime Minister hopes to silence even the uncommitted into not daring to openly and publicly oppose or criticise P.A.P. leaders. With luck, the Prime Minister also hopes even to intimidate them into "supporting" the P.A.P.

Reason No. 5 is this. With this Communist bogey, the P.A.P. hopes also to alienate certain sections of the people from us in the Barisan Sosialis and thus restrict and limit the growing strength and influence of the Barisan Sosialis. Thus, from the very beginning, since our break with the P.A.P., we in the Barisan Sosialis have been labelled Communist and pro-Communist, and the Barisan Sosialis and other anti-P.A.P. organisations have been labelled Communist front organisations, and so on.

The 12 radio talks and the publication of thousands and thousands of The Battle For Merger booklets were all designed to scare and frighten people away from us in the Barisan Sosialis. Thus, the Communist bogey becomes the useful tool by which P.A.P. leaders hope to crush political opposition.

All through the past two or three years, we have seen how the P.A.P. work this bogey line. For instance:

(i) In an attempt to crush political opponents and to salvage their personal political fortunes, the P.A.P. leaders support the British-sponsored Malaysia Plan. They strain every sinew and exert the utmost effort to sell the Plan to the people of the five territories and proclaim that all this is meant to fight Communism.

(ii) Similarly they claim that the obnoxious clause 29 and the whole sham referendum itself were meant ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already indicated to the Member for Queenstown that on no account can he cast any reflection on a decision of this Assembly. When he refers to clause 29 of the Referendum Ordinance as obnoxious, that is certainly casting a reflection on a decision of this Assembly. He must not do that.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I withdraw the word "obnoxious". Sir. As I have said, similarly they claim that clause 29 of the Referendum Bill and the whole referendum itself were meant to fight the omnipresent Communist.

(iii) The P.A.P.'s unreasonable and Fascist actions against the People's Association employees, Work Brigade employees, striking office workers and Chinese school students were attributed to fighting so-called Communist infiltration and subversion.

(iv) The interference with the practice of academic freedom of the universities, unequal employment opportunities for Nanyang graduates and the suppression of the freedom of publication were again attributed to fighting Communism.

(v) The break-up of the former T.U.C. and the failure to keep the P.AP, election promises - especially of the promise of the unification of the trade union movement - the P.A.P.'s sponsoring of splinter unions and the so-called N.T.UC., and the denial of the freedom of association and assembly to trade unions and political parties, have all been also attributed to fighting Communism.

(vi) The withdrawal of citizenship from anti-colonial stalwarts and the denial of jobs and employment to certain persons are also attributed to fighting Communism.

(vii) The restriction of travel of Singapore students and teachers and the unreasonable and unjust terms of the White Paper merger proposals are also because of the fear of so-called Communist infiltration.

(viii) The failure of the P.A.P.'s industrialisation programme has been blamed on the Communists. Even the dissatisfaction and anger of farmers for their being evicted from their homes with inadequate and unsatisfactory compensatory terms in Toa Payoh and Geylang Serai and other places have been attributed to the Communists.

(ix) The retention and use of the P.P.S.O. and the recent arbitrary arrests and detentions without charge or trial are again because of fighting Communism. And

(x) The cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees -

Mr Ong Pang Boon: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He can wait, Sir. And the cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees that has been condemned by the whole world is also because they are alleged to be Communists.

Let us ask the two Ministers over there: how silly can the P.A.P. get? What further examples do we need to see P.A.P. machinations in the use of anti-Communism for selfish ends? The P.A.P. Ministers have used the Communist bogey to good purpose; all to serve their own personal interests and, of course, the interests of their colonial masters. All this Communism business, of course, is linked up with the Special Branch and the P.P.S.O. And since the P.A.P. leaders have served their colonial masters so very faithfully, they are, of course, entitled to full encouragement of the colonialists. The P.A.P. now have the active co-operation of the organs of repression used by the colonialists and imperialists for the oppression and exploitation of the people. Their so-called Intelligence Department of Singapore is this Special Branch. The Special Branch is one of the main organs of colonial repression. It is the most noxious organ of imperial rule, and in a colony like Singapore, it can be said that the real rulers are not the P.A.P. Ministers but the Special Branch of the Police.

Sir, since the Emergency in June 1948, repressive laws have turned our country into a police state. When the Emergency Regulations were withdrawn in Singapore in 1955, they were replaced by the P.P.S.O. and under the P.P.S.O., large numbers of our patriots and anti-colonial stalwarts have been arrested and detained without trial. Many are still languishing in prison after seven years without charge or trial, detained at the pleasure of the colonial masters.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 18 and 19 have this to say. This is the 1945 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 says:

`Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom either alone or in company with others in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.'

Article 19 says:

`Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'

This is our Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 18 and 19. But what do we find in Singapore, the Borneo territories and the Federation? It is entirely different from the recognised United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Constitution lays it down that there is freedom of speech and publication, association and assembly. But it is not the rights that exist on paper that count. It is whether or not these rights can be exercised and enforced in practice that really counts. Voltaire many years ago said:

`I detest your views. But I am prepared to die for your right to express them.'

Can the Prime Minister and his Ministers rise to just one-hundredth of the stature of Voltaire?

Today to deny these rights to the people, subterfuges and cover-up charges are laid at the door-steps of the people. And under the pretext of safeguarding the "security of the state," repressive action has been extensively carried out! The mere fact that these allegations are made and no charge and trial is given shows the hollowness of the allegations.

What is the Special Branch? I had worked in the Ministry of Home Affairs for a short period and I have come to learn a number of detestable things about the Special Branch. We all know that the Special Branch in Singapore is merely an off-shoot of the secret police started in the middle of the 19th century in England itself. Spies and agents were employed by the Government at the time when the struggle between the capitalists and the workers were assuming significant proportions. And these spies and agents were employed to deal with the working class in the land of the very heart of imperialism itself. This secret police very rapidly expanded its influence all-pervadingly to all the government departments, not only in the United Kingdom, but very quickly also to the colonies. Its powers are extensive. Even Parliament and our Assembly have no say in the running of the secret police, and I dare say even the Ministers, more often than not, know nothing of what is happening inside the Special Branch in Robinson Road, Singapore, to say nothing of Assemblymen, Backbenchers and other people.

I learned the other day, when one of the Ministers was asked why there should be arrests this time, that he said he knew nothing of what was happening. He did not know a single thing and yet he is a Minister of the Government today! This merely proves my point, Sir, that even Ministers do not know what is happening in Robinson Road Special Branch.

The Special Branch is there to serve not the interests of the people of Singapore but the interests of colonialism and imperialism. The Special Branch is directly linked with the United Kingdom Commissioner in Singapore and the big-wigs of the British Military Forces who are here not to serve the interests of the people of Singapore, but to serve the interests of people outside Singapore. They are here, not to give us freedom, but to oppress and to deny the people of Singapore their legitimate hopes and aspirations. The wide powers of arrests and detention given to the Special Branch under the P.P.S.O. surprised even the people of the United Kingdom itself. There in the United Kingdom, the powers of the secret police are strictly limited by the safeguards in the habeas corpus. This is not possible in Singapore today under the P.P.S.O. And from this alone, Sir, we should be able to see what a repressive instrument the P.P.S.O. is today in Singapore.

Today, the Special Branch, being merely a colonial organ of repression, maligns all anti-colonial political Parties, organisations and progressive individuals as Communists and those who oppose the P.A.P. are, of course, automatically Communists. The Prime Minister tells us there are only 300 Communists in Singapore. But because hundreds of thousands in political Parties, trade unions and civic organisations oppose the P.A.P., these hundreds of thousands have all suddenly become Communists. The Prime Minister used to ridicule them and called them all sorts of fancy names. They were all beer-hall revolutionaries, arm-chair revolutionaries and what-not. But because he fears their opposition today, he has arbitrarily arrested them, detained them. Now he has a chance to pose to the people again, not as an anti-colonialist, but as an oppressor of the people of Singapore.

The Special Branch, of course, is served very well with spies and informers. We see them very frequently nowadays. They are always waiting in lanes and all sorts of odd places. In our Barisan Sosialis headquarters, we have spies and agents opposite us, around us, below us ---

Mr Rajaratnam: Above us.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- and there are Special Branch officers who are permanently stuck to coffee shops, and just do not budge. Some of them, of course, do it very openly. They know that we know them and they do not even bother to cover up the fact that they are undercover agents. Sometimes they pose as loving couples. But, of course, it does not make much difference as to how they pose. We can deal with them.

Very few people understand how the Special Branch works. That they open letters, tap our telephones, censor our communications coming into and going out of the country and tail people around like dogs is an open secret. But how spies, informers and agents provocateurs work is not so well-known. But however the spies and informers work, they have been proved to be the most unreliable of witnesses. The case of Tommy Koh is still fresh in our minds. I have read how the Un-American Committee works in America and I have read also how thousands and millions of pounds have been put aside for the secret police in the United Kingdom. But all of us know that these informers do not speak the truth. They cannot speak the truth and all of them mix a little truth with lots of falsehood. The very nature of spying itself requires that they keep on lying. They spy and lie all the time. An undercover agent has to deceive associates into thinking him to be one of themselves. And the longer the spies and informers are at their jobs the greater is the blurring of the thin line between truth and falsehood. These spies, in order to gain the good favours of their superiors, very, very often have great imagination. The imagination turns to beautiful embroidery and fabrication of events that did not take place and of words that were never said. Moreover, there is no possibility of verifying the reports of spies and informers. The mistakes of doctors and accountants can be checked, but the only witness to so-called conspiracy is the victim the spy wants to punish. Under those circumstances, how can we ever believe the words of these spies and informers the weight of whose information the P.A.P. Government depends on so heavily?

The obsession about anti-Communism and so-called security have merely degenerated into outright attacks on freedom of speech and publication, association and assembly. For those who seek employment, there is the screening apparatus and the P.A.P. has made full use of this to deny many innocent persons of their means of livelihood. There are scare-headlines of the Communist menace like the Straits Times poster headline this morning of "inquiry of Reds in trade unions." I am sure tomorrow's headline will carry further dangers of Red infiltration in Singapore. These are all intended to strike fear into the hearts of the ordinary man in the Street and to restrain him and to silence him and to caution him, if he should be brave enough to oppose the P.A.P., to be careful.

In Singapore today, because of the Special Branch and the exploitation of anti-Communism by the P.A.P., there is, as I have said, fear in many places - fear of being named by the Special Branch to be linked with the Barisan Sosialis, so much so' that there is also fear of coming out boldly in support of just causes and movements for the improvement of the livelihood of the workers ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Who wrote that for you?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- and fear of being seen by Special Branch informers attending Barisan Sosialis rallies. The Prime Minister himself said a little while back that it was to see who attended our rally that he gave us a permit for our rally. The Special Branch men were there to intimidate all who attended our rally. Then again, there i5 fear of openly buying anti-P.A.P. newspapers, like the Plebeian, and there is fear of buying reading material, books and literature which are considered undesirable by the Special Branch; the fear of being seen to be chummy and friendly with Barisan Sosialis leaders, and so on.

Let me now deal a little bit with the so-called concurrence of the three parties and the security of the State. The I.S.C. statement stresses concurrence of the three parties - the British, the Federation and the Singapore Governments - on the arrests on 2nd February, 1963. It was not just because the United Kingdom wants to take repressive action, not just because the Federation wants to arrest anybody, not - just he cause the Singapore Government wants to lock someone up, not because any one of the Troika of the I.S.C., but because all the three - the British, the Federation, and the Singapore Governments - concur and want to take repressive action.

The Prime Minister calls this the wisdom of the P.A.P. But why this emphasis? The answer is simple, it is obvious that none of the three alone would like to face the music of (he wrath of the people. But let us first find out why the British and the Federation Governments want to take repressive action. The British are cunning and experienced colonialists. They have been at the game for hundreds of years and from past experience they know that repressive action of any sort will only engender resentment and bitter hatred among the people. If the British alone were to take any repressive action, they alone would become the object of opprobrium and hatred of the people, They would therefore prefer that repressive action be taken by stooges, if possible. It would take away the sharp edge of criticism of world opinion against them. The stooges would then have to share and even take the brunt of resentment and hatred that such repressive action would cause. Moreover, it would allow the British to present themselves still as democrats. And if embarrassing questions are asked in the British Parliament, for instance, they could pass the buck on to the local Government and their stooges, and let them fend for themselves. Thus we see the pantomime enacted in the British Parliament immediately after the arrests. In the U.K. Hansard of 4th February, 1963, col. 37, Mr Warbey is quoted to have said:

`The Secretary of State said that the people who have been arrested were all known Communists, engaged in subversive activities. Can we take it, then, that all of them will he immediately put on trial?'

And then Mr Sandys replied:

`That will be for the Government of Singapore.'

Just one small sweet sentence: "That will be for the Government of Singapore." [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, the British imperialists are the arch enemies of the people, but their stooges, the P.A.P. Ministers of Singapore, will have to answer to the people. Here we see how the British work: they always leave the unpleasant things to be answered by their stooges, like the Minister for Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister opposite.

With this aim in view, the British had for a long time cajoled and egged the P.A.P. on, praising the cleverness, intelligence, ingenuity, brilliance, and what-not, of the P.A.P. leadership and leading them on by the nose and soft-soaping them all the way.

In 1959, fearing the strength of the working class support for the policies which the Prime Minister then pretended to adhere to, the British had done everything they could to prevent the P.A.P from gaining power. But the popular will at that time could not be thwarted, and in spite of the British the P.A.P. came to power in 1959. Since they could not prevent the P.A.P. from coming into office, they did the next best thing. They manoeuvred and engineered a situation such that the personal interests of the P.A.P. leadership would coincide with the interests of the British. Once their interests coincide, they would then goad the P.A.P. into taking repressive action as part of their desperate efforts to check the advance of the growing strength of the anti-colonial movement. In this manner the British would achieve the objective of protecting and preserving their interests in the area and, of course, getting the stooges to do the dirty work for them.

What is this situation that has been engineered and manoeuvred by the colonial master? It is the situation that has arisen with, and is the result of, the development of Malaysia. It has already placed the P.A.P. in the most absurd and ridiculous position of a political Party that professees to be anti-colonial having to fight instead the battles for the colonial master and having to defend colonialism against the masses. It is not the British that has to sell the idea of Malaysia, but their No. 1 salesman - the Lee Kuan Yew clique - that travels all round the world hoping to deceive other countries about Malaysia. It is Lee Kuan Yew and Company and not the British who are the most vociferous and demonstrative in the propaganda promotion and defence of Malaysia. It is the P.A.P. that had to rig the referendum and not the British, though with British connivance, in order to give a false and distorted impression of the wishes of the people of Singapore to the outside world. And inflated indeed was the Prime Minister with artificial colonial pomp and prestige. He was showered with praise from the colonial master.

Finally today the ridiculous position in which the P.A.P. has found itself has caused it to take repressive action against the people of Singapore, a treachery which will condemn the P.A.P. for generations to come.

The British lion indeed has very seductively and cunningly manoeuvred the P.A.P into a situation where the P.A.P. willy-nilly becomes the handmaid and errand boy of British imperialism. The British want to protect and preserve their interests so that they may continue to exploit the resources in the region: and this they have apparently temporarily succeeded in so doing, thanks to the mass arrests. Thanks to the collaboration of their minions and stooges in the P.A P.

For the British, therefore, to concur with the repressive action on 2nd February, 1963, or at any time for that matter, is not difficult to understand. The history of the United Kingdom and the history of the British Empire abound with such repressive actions. Pick up any history book, even a British one, and we see repression and oppression written on every page - repression which they have euphemistically called "the glory of Empire building".

Now, what of the Federation Government? The Federation Government is a Right-wing, feudalistic Government. It represents the interests of the feudalists, the Right-wing reactionary compradores and the privileged few. The U.M.N.O. Alliance, catering for opportunists, communalists and political careerists, have long been schooled and nurtured by the British as their faithful ally, collaborator and agent, so that they may continue to look after British interests. In so doing, they of course look after their own interests as well, the privileged and the selected few. The interests of the vast majority of the people - of the workers, farmers and fishermen - are but of secondary importance to them.

The reactionary Government in the Federation fears the growing strength of the socialist forces and, dominated by the communal and sectional interests, it has already from time to time made arrests of anti-colonial forces to prevent them from reaching and enlightening the masses in the rural areas. The Alliance would prefer to benumb the masses with communal propaganda and prevent them from knowing the real causes and root of their poverty.

The situation in Singapore is different compared to that in the Federation. Here the masses through years of anti-colonial struggle have gained a better insight into the workings of colonial propaganda. They know that their interests coincide with the interests of the working class as a whole and, with the guidance and leadership of a strong Left-wing movement, they are daily marching forward with the advance of socialist forces.

The Federation Government, being reactionary and feudalistic, therefore, fears a strong Left-wing movement in Singapore. Communally-inspired politicians in the Federation fear that the influence of Left-wing forces will extend to the Federation. They fear that Singapore will become a "Cuba", as the Prime Minister says, and just as President Kennedy wants to remove the so-called subversion of Cuba, so the Federation politicians today want to contain and control and, if possible, completely suppress the Left-wing movement in Singapore.

Mr Emmanuel Pelaez, Vice-President of the Philippines, had said in London that they were given to understand that the primary purpose of the proposed Federation of Malaysia is, as it were, to "sterilise" Singapore as a centre of so-called Communist influence. In addition, should Malaysia really be imposed on the people against their will through the use of brute force and in complete disregard of the danger signals, the Left-wing forces in Singapore could still become a constant headache, to say the least, to whatever Grand Alliance the Tunku and pro-Malaysia forces may be able to form in Malaya and in the Borneo territories.

Under the circumstances, the Federation most certainly would like to remove all strong opposition in Singapore whenever possible. So the Federation's concurrence with the arrests on 2nd February is also not unexpected. The British agree to the arrests and the Federation agrees to the arrests; and what does the P.A.P. do? Being stooges and lackeys of the British, the P.A.P. has to listen to its master's voice and carry out its master's instructions. Moreover, the P.A.P. has its own selfish reasons for joining the British and the Federation Governments in their dirty work. I will come to more of this by and by.

But fearful of repercussions following the arrests and hoping to confuse public opinion and hoping to deceive a section of the people, the P.A.P. comes out with those high-sounding words, "security of the State". And according to the Prime Minister, repressive actions had to be taken and mass arrests carried out on 2nd February because the so-called Communist front men in the Barisan Sosialis constitute a danger to the security of Singapore and to the other territories that go to form Malaysia.

The reason which the Straits Times, the mouthpiece of the colonialists and the imperialists, praised so forcefully that its editorial on the 4th of February states:-

`Justification for their arrests could hardly be argued more powerfully than that.'

"More powerfully than that". What a pat on the back for the P.A.P. - and from the mouthpiece of the colonial master too - like the pat on the back of a dog from its master! But let us take a look at the so-called powerful argument and see what the argument really amounts to. "A danger to the security of Singapore" - such a high-sounding justification for the arrests. But under the cloak of these four magical words, "security of the State", all the sins in the world have been committed throughout the ages. On the excuse to safeguard the security of the State, the most blatant cases of imperialist aggression, exploitation and enslavement of countless weaker nations have been perpetrated and so-called "justified".

To safeguard the security of the State, the tyrants and Fascist dictators have resorted to repressive actions at home and abroad: at home, to preserve the privileges of the tyrannical ruling class; and abroad, to exploit and oppress other weaker and less developed nations. For the security of the State, demands of the people for urgent reforms have been rejected out of hand, and their legitimate rights and aspirations denied and suppressed. In the name of the security of the State, the most fundamental rights of man have been violated, justice denied, democracy trampled underfoot. Under the cloak of this high-sounding phrase, the four magical words "security of the State", millions and millions of people have been tortured and enslaved, oppressed and exploited. Under the cloak of the security of the State, the foreign master rules over an unwilling subject people with an iron hand, and they are not even given a chance to determine their own future.

Sir, history abounds with lurid examples of the grave abuse of these four simple words in every country, in every epoch, and in every age. Thus, to safeguard the security of the State, Hitler unleashed the world war on the people and had millions of Jews murdered. Similarly, to safeguard the security of the State, South Africa today practises apartheid, racial segregation and discrimination, and denies the true sons of the soil of their most basic and fundamental human rights.

A few years go, to safeguard the security of the State, Eden ordered the invasion of the Suez Canal and the United Arab Republic.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What about Budapest?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And only a few months ago, to safeguard the security of the State, Kennedy threatened to invade Cuba and bring about a nuclear destruction of the world.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Stalin?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Do we need more examples? Nearer home, we see, Sir, in South Vietnam ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Stalin?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- under the cloak of the security of the State, democracy being trampled under-foot with millions of people subjected to the most humiliating tortures and denied the most fundamental of human rights. In Malaya and the whole of South-East Asia during the war. Japanese Fascist warlords committed the most brutal atrocities, again under the cloak of the security of the State. In our own Singapore, on the same excuse of safeguarding the security of the State, the most repressive actions had been perpetrated by the colonial forces and mercenary troops against the people of Singapore, with the loss of many innocent lives.

Tun Lim Yew Hock Government followed the path of the colonial master and similarly gave the same trite excuse in the 1956 and 1957 purges, and was roundly condemned by the people of Singapore. Indeed the Prime Minister himself was one of those who most roundly condemned the Lim Yew Hock repression. Now, of course, the Prime Minister sings a different tune. Since 2nd February, the Lee Kuan Yew Government has been treading the same desperate path. Even the Prime Minister is mouthing the same time-worn excuse, with the forlorn hope that, if it was repeated often enough, it might exonerate the P.A.P. from all blame and save the P.A.P. from the wrath and condemnation of the people.

Since so much force is given to this trite phrase and since the persons now detained have been alleged to have constituted a danger to the security of Singapore, let us ask: what do the British, the Federation and the P.A.P. mean by these words?

If they mean that the Barisan Sosialis and the other arrested persons constitute a danger to the security of the vested interests of the foreign overlord and colonial master, of foreign monopoly-capitalists and the privileged few, then we say it is true and correct. If they mean that the Barisan Sosialis and the arrested persons constitute a danger to the security of the capitalist system of oppression and exploitation and to the security of the forces of reaction and repression and tyranny, then, again we say it is true and correct. If they mean that the Barisan Sosialis and the arrested persons constitute a danger to the system of discrimination, inequality, injustice, Fascism and enslavement, then again we say it is true and correct.

The Barisan Sosialis, Sir, is pledged to eradicate colonialism and foreign domination from whatever source. We pledge ourselves to removing the capitalist system of oppression and exploitation. We dedicate ourselves to the struggle against the system of discrimination, inequality, injustice, Fascism, and enslavement. And we are proud of all this. We feel elated that we have constituted a danger to the security of all the hindrances and obstructions to progress and to the forward development of society. We want to get rid of all these hindrances and obstructions.

Mr Rajaratnam: All words.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But if they mean that the Barisan Sosialis and the arrested persons constitute a danger to the basic interests of the workers, peasants, fishermen, intellectuals, and national businessmen, then we emphatically say it is not true. And if they mean we constitute a danger to the oppressed, the exploited, the enslaved, the under-privileged, the down-trodden and dispossessed, then again we emphatically say it is not true. We in the Barisan Sosialis dedicate ourselves to the struggle for the fundamental rights of man, namely, justice, equality, democracy, freedom, and the right of self-determination.

Mr Speaker: Order. I take it that the hon. Member will take some time and, if I am correct, I think it is time I gave a rest to members of our staff, the Interpreters, and the Reporters. We have not such a big staff. I therefore propose to suspend for twenty-five minutes. I will take this Chair again at two o'clock a.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.36 a.m. until 2.00 a.m. Sitting resumed at 2.00 a.m., 10th April, 1963

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: As I was saying, Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis dedicate ourselves to the struggle for freedom, for the fundamental rights of man, justice and equality; and we are pledged to the struggle for a society with no exploitation of man by man. We are pledged to the struggle to eradicate poverty, disease, ignorance and want. In other words, we are pledged to fight for the interests of the common man, namely, the oppressed, the exploited, the underprivileged and the dispossessed. We cannot, therefore, constitute a danger to the interests of the common man, the oppressed, the exploited, the under-privileged and the dispossessed. We fight, Sir, for the interests of the workers, the peasants, the fishermen, the hawkers, the taxi-drivers, the bus workers, the small businessmen, the national businessmen, the intellectuals, and all who believe in an equal and just society. Their interests are our interests, and their struggle is our struggle.

We in the Barisan Sosialis, therefore, constitute a danger to no one except the colonialist, the imperialist, the exploiter, the oppressor and the Fascist tyrant and their hangers-on and parasites. We constitute a danger only to imperialism, colonialism and their stooges, and to the enemy of the people. Ours is a tough and hard struggle, but we are proud of our struggle. Millions of people all over the world - in Asia, Africa, Europe and America - are similarly embarked on the same struggle. We are therefore not alone. We have friends all over the world who give us solidarity support. It is only a matter of time before all our efforts will be crowned with success. No one can stop the wheels of history from moving forward. The advance may be slow or fast, but we advance. We struggle today for what, not so very long ago, the P.A.P. leaders themselves had also claimed to struggle for, and had pretended to struggle for. Yet the P.A.P. Ministers allege that we are dangerous men. How could our struggle, which the P.A.P. also claimed not so very long ago to be their struggle, constitute a danger to the security of Singapore? It simply does not add up.

We feel honoured indeed that we constitute a danger to imperialism and colonialism. It merely shows our strength. But if the Barisan Sosialis constitute a danger to colonialism which, not so long ago, was also the professed enemy of the P.A.P., should not the P.A.P. then be satisfied that at least others have succeeded where the P.A.P. has failed? Is not the eradication of colonialism what the vast majority of the people of Singapore, in the Federation, and in the Borneo territories, are struggling for, and are thirsting for? How then could this danger to imperialism and colonialism constitute a danger to the security of Singapore which, after all, belongs to all the people in the island? Does the Prime Minister not see how absurd and ridiculous and contradictory he is? One would have thought that any action by any political Party that constitutes a danger to imperialism and colonialism would be welcomed by other political Parties that have anti-colonialism as their main objective. Only the colonialists, pro-colonialists, and their stooges need be perturbed by strong anti-colonial action from any quarter. Only the enemies of the people need fear our anti-colonial struggle. We can understand the British colonialists and their feudalist allies in the Federation being perturbed by our action. Our struggle is directed against the vested interests of the colonialists and the feudalists ---

Mr Speaker: Order. May I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he is, in fact, repeating his arguments? He has been on one theme for about half an hour now, and I would suggest that he has made his point on that particular theme, and that he pass on to the next.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But I have yet quite a lot to develop on the theme, it follows in the arguments, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I can only suggest to the hon. Member his course, and if his repetition becomes tedious, he knows the action the Chair must take.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is not repetitious, Sir. You will find that it is different at every stage of the argument. As I have said, Sir, we can understand the British colonialists and their feudalist allies in the Federation being perturbed by our action. Our struggle is directed against the vested interests of the colonialists and the feudalists, and we have openly said so. But it appears the P.A.P. too is most perturbed by our anti-colonial action; so perturbed and so alarmed, in fact, that the P.A.P. has to join the colonial forces to take urgent repressive action against the Barisan Sosialis and other anti-colonial stalwarts immediately and not be left until the 31st of August. Are these really justifiable reasons for taking repressive action against the people? No. A thousand times no.

Let there be no doubts in our minds as to what we stand for. Lest I be accused of again being repetitious, let me just say once more that we stand for the rights of the exploited and the oppressed, and we stand for justice, equality, democracy, self-determination and freedom. These are the hopes and aspirations not only of the Barisan Sosialis but also of the vast majority of the people, not only in Singapore, the Federation and the Borneo territories, but also the world over. No one need fear the realisation of these hopes and aspirations. The only forces that need fear and oppose the realisation of these hopes and aspirations are the forces of the enemies of the people.

Today because the colonialists want to retain the vested interests and deprive the people of their legitimate rights and aspirations, they have not hesitated to resort to arrests and detentions of anti-colonial stalwarts in a desperate attempt to slow down and impede the advance of the movement for colonial freedom. But these are only their death throes before final destruction and elimination. This has been proved many times over in history. For an elected Government now to forgo the interests of the people and instead, for selfish reasons, now to go into cahoots with the colonialists and imperialists in order to further exploit and oppress the people, is absolutely unforgivable. There can be no justification whatsoever for the arrests.

In the context of Singapore today, when Singapore is still a colony, a danger to the security of Singapore can only mean a danger to the security of colonial interests. For an elected Government to use the trite phrase of - "a danger to the security of Singapore" as a cloak to arrest political opponents, merely shows how bankrupt and ruthless the P.A.P. leaders have become.

Repressive action should never have been taken against persons who fight for the interests of the vast majority of the people. "Political detainees are and indeed should be regarded as an anomaly in a democratic society." So say Devan Nair and Jek Yuen Thong, both top brass of the P.A.P. From a P.A.P. admission, it is clear that repressive action should never have been taken. If repressive action must be taken, let it be taken against those who wax rich through the exploitation and oppression of others, and those who continue to help impose foreign rule over us in Malaya.

To stress on the three Governments concurring in the arrests does not add any weight to the argument. It only shows that they are trying to prop up weak and untenable arguments by the weight of numbers. It might allow one party to shift and manoeuvre, and to pass the buck to others in an attempt to escape the justifiable and inevitable hatred and opprobrium of the people. It can show how closely allied is the P.A.P. to reaction, feudalism, colonialism and imperialism. But it adds nothing to the strength of their arguments.

For the P.A.P. to gloat over the fact that the decision for repressive action was not the P.A.P.'s alone, but of three Governments together, only further shows that the P.A.P. does not truly believe in the so-called justification for the arrests!

I do not need to go into the shameful episode of the P.A.P. trying to pass the buck to the British and the Federation for the arrests. Knowing how abhorrent such repressive action is the P.A.P. leaders do not even have the guts to stand up to so-called "justify" - the unjustifiable arrests. The verdict of the people indeed is a terrible thing. It frightens the insides of the P.A.P. Ministers.

Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis have too often been accused of being anti-national. And because of the P.A.P. control of the radio, Rediffusion and the Press, the voice of the Barisan Sosialis has not been easily heard. Just what is meant by being a nationalist? When we talk of a person being a nationalist, we mean that he places national interests above sectional and personal interests. On the other hand, if a person places sectional and personal interests above national interests, then he becomes anti-national.

Personal interests are interests of the individual; for example, the personal ambitions of power and wealth of P.A.P. Ministers. Sectional interests are interests of small groups of people, for example, the vested interests of foreign monopoly-capitalists and of the compradores and feudalists. But what are national interests? National interests are the basic interests of the country and of its people. They are the interests of the vast majority of the people. And these interests are the interests of the toiling masses - the workers, peasants, hawkers, shop assistants, intellectuals, small businessmen and national businessmen.

We have been under colonial rule for 150 years. We are still under the heel of foreign domination. The country's wealth has been taken away to enrich the colonialists and the imperialists. And we are still being oppressed and exploited.

A true nationalist, therefore, is he who looks after the interests of the exploited and oppressed, and he who fights to eradicate colonialism and imperialism. A nationalist is he who struggles to strengthen the unity of the people, without distinction of race, colour or creed, to rid our country of foreign domination. A nationalist is he who struggles to improve the livelihood of the toiling masses.

He who helps the colonialists and the imperialists to enslave the people is anti-national. He who seeks to destroy the unity of the people by playing on their communal fears is anti-national. He who collaborates with the foreigners and the colonialists, and promotes colonial schemes to enslave the people is anti-national. And he who helps to keep foreign troops on our soil to suppress the legitimate aspirations of the people is anti-national.

Of course, some politicians try to equate personal and sectional interests with national interests. In this way, opportunities, like those in the P.A.P., would then call themselves nationalists in order to confuse and deceive the people.

Let us now ask the Prime Minister and his other Ministers a few simple questions. Who is collaborating with the colonialists today? Who is the errand boy of the imperialists today? Who is promoting the British-sponsored Malaysia today? Who is selling our country to a foreign power today? Who is collaborating to subjugate the peoples of the Federation, Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah under colonial domination and denying them their fundamental rights of self-determination and independence? Who wants to keep foreign troops on our soil for the suppression of the legitimate aspirations of the people? And who is trying to justify the use of the British bases for the suppression of the national liberation struggle in Kalimantan Utara? The answer is clear to all in Singapore. It is none other than the Prime Minister and his traitorous clique. It is the P.A.P. that is collaborating with the foreign powers. It is the P.A.P. that is running errands for the imperialists. It is the P.A.P. that is promoting British-sponsored Malaysia. It is the P.A.P. that is collaborating to subjugate the peoples of the Federation, Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah under colonial domination. It is the P.A.P. that is denying them their fundamental rights of self-determination and independence. And it is the P.A.P. again that wants to keep foreign troops on our soil for the suppression of the legitimate aspirations of our peoples.

The Prime Minister in his tour of the constituency in Sembawang spoke very lovingly of the British bases now in Singapore, and he tried to impress on the people of Singapore that unless they have the bases they would lose their jobs. Who then is trying to keep foreign troops on our soil?

The anti-colonial elements are, therefore, as can be seen from my arguments, in the P.A.P. We here and now charge the P.A.P. as the anti-nationalist elements of our country, collaborating with foreign colonialists to control and dominate our country at the expense of our people! The P.A.P. clique are the out-and-out anti-nationals, the traitors who have sold the rights of our people - the workers, peasants, hawkers, taxi-drivers and students - down the drain! Yes, the P.A.P., the anti-national traitors masquerading as nationalists. That answers this anti-nationalist allegation of the P.A.P.

Now let me turn to the question of the allegation that the Barisan Sosialis wants to resort to armed struggle, violence and bloodshed.

Sir, our open support for the Brunei uprising has been mentioned as one of the immediate reasons that had led the Internal Security Council to decide on repressive action. The I.S.C. statement reads:

`They have professed to be working constitutional1y for democratic ends. But their open support for armed revolt in Brunei and their close connections with leaders of the revolt show that they are ready when the opportunity occurs to depart from constitutional methods and to jeopardise national defence and Singapore's security by joining with groups resorting to violence and blood-shed as in the Borneo Territories.'

With this they attempt to establish the so-called connection between the uprising in Brunei and the Barisan Sosialis and other persons arrested in Singapore. The Straits Times especially gave great prominence and front page headlines to what it called the "link" between the uprising in Brunei and the Barisan Sosialis and arrested persons in Singapore. Because Lim Ching Siong had met the Brunei leader, A. M. Azahari, in Singapore four days before the uprising, so according to the colonialists, this is proof of some hidden conspiracy between the two. But let us ask: What is so secret about this meeting for which the Straits Times gave such prominent headlines? Can the P.A.P. inform us what took place at this meeting?; what was said at the meeting?; what actually transpired? A little while back the Prime Minister also talked of the meeting in Nee Soon and people travelling in Car SR. 5222. What is wrong with people travelling in cars?; what is wrong with people going about? What is all this that they are trying to bring out? Sir, I have always thought that the Prime Minister had some originality in him when he talked about the "Plen" and things like that. But to my surprise, I see that he has been plagiarising what has been published in the book called "The Jungle is Neutral". At page 203 of this book called "The Jungle is Neutral", written by F. Spencer Chapman, D.S.O., a person who was sent into the jungle to fight the Japanese. I see this very interesting paragraph. It is only a few lines and I will read it out to you. Sir. At page 203 under the chapter "Force 136", it says that "when Chin Peng first met Davis at Sigari in September, he agreed to convene a conference with a plenipotentiary from Guerilla General Headquarters. Owing to the tardiness of their communications, it was not until the 1st January, 1944, that this man reached our camp at Blantar. He became known to us as the "Plen" and that is the name which I shall use for him in these pages." Now that I find this, I am just wondering what our Prime Minister has been doing? This book says here in the first page, even before you start reading the story: "This book is copyright. No portion of it may be reproduced in any process without written permission." I do not know whether the Prime Minister has had permission from Mr Chapman about the name of the "Plen". He has been having stories broadcast over the radio, but at least let us hope in future that our Prime Minister will show more originality.

Regarding this meeting between Mr Lim Ching Siong and Azahari, we ask: What is so peculiar, what is so unusual about that? If plotting or subversion is discovered, what is the plot - and what is the subversion? Why do they not inform the people of it? All these stories of wanting to buy arms and what-not are stories given to our Prime Minister by informers and spies - people who cannot be trusted, people who will even sell their own fathers in order to earn some extra money. Can they really be trusted? The Legislative Assembly, the radio. Rediffusion and the Press are all available to the P.A.P. Let them give us all the stories about the true "links" and the connections.

Sir, as leaders of political Parties with common objectives, like our common opposition to neo-colonial Malaysia, and being co-members of the same socialist conference, from which the P.A.P. was ejected, it is only natural and normal that they should meet frequently and whenever the opportunity occurs, for the exchange of views and opinions about political developments, as well as for the promotion and strengthening of friendly co-operation and friendly ties.

A. M. Azahari is the President of the Party Rakyat of Brunei, the Party that won all the 55 seats in the recent elections in Brunei. His views definitely carry weight. Even the colonial mouthpiece, the Straits Times, said so. It is only to be expected, therefore, that we in the Barisan Sosialis should meet him for the exchange of views whenever possible and indeed many of us have met Azahari and discussed political events with him on many occasions. Azahari attended our inaugural meeting and spoke at the rally in the Happy World Stadium in September 1961. He also signed a joint statement together with the Chairman of the Federation Socialist Front, Mr Ishak, and myself on the occasion of that visit. Other political leaders too had visited us in Singapore at various times in the past and we on our part had also visited political leaders in the Federation, Sarawak and Brunei, not with those sinister motives as alleged by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went to Moscow, I do not know whether he went there to conspire with the Communists or what. Surely, no one should be hound to his home. Surely, as political leaders, we should have a chance to go about and meet people who deal with the same subject and have the same common objectives. Similarly today, Federation Ministers, P.A.P. Minister and other political leaders too have many times been to see politicians in Kuching and Jesselton. Our meetings with Azahari in Singapore were therefore nothing unusual. Such meetings take place in the normal course of events. On the contrary, it would indeed be unusual and abnormal if there were no such meetings. For obvious reasons, the P.A.P. and the Straits Times have now gone out of their way to paint innocent, open and normal events with loud and lurid colours. Ordinary everyday happenings are twisted and distorted into something furtive, secretive and mysterious. Yet all the so-called mysterious meetings were open secrets. Even the Straits Times again admitted so in their editorial of 4th February, 1963. Azahari had been in the Barisan Sosialis' headquarters on several occasions and many of us had met him and talked to him. But, of course, the P.A.P. concocts mystery thrillers out of such normal meetings. And because of Lim Ching Siong meeting Azahari four days before the uprising in Brunei. There has grown from it this so-called "link" through Said Zahari. This so-called "link" is dramatised and given a sensational front page play-up. All in order to create the impression of some super front page conspiracy very luckily and very timely discovered, of course, by the sharp prying eyes of the Prime Minister and the Special Branch. But for which a major catastrophe would have befallen the people of Singapore! Such is the fairy tale of the British lion and the P.A.P. dog - the running dog!

The Straits Times representing vested interests can of course, be expected to help the British, the Federation and incidentally the P.A.P., to influence public opinion against the arrested persons. But in spite of all the efforts of the Straits Times to spotlight this so-called "link" and this so-called "conspiracy", the people of - Singapore still cannot understand why the arrests were necessary. Even the Straits Times editorial of 4th February, 163, complained that the Government case was weak and unconvincing. The Straits Times editorial of 4th February states:

`The statement issued by the Internal Security council has little in it that has not been hashed and rehashed in the newspaper for months past, except perhaps for the dealings which Azahari had with Barisan Sosialis leaders and even these contacts were an open secret.'

The editorial went on to hope for the publication of

"the full [I am reading from a few lines above what I have just quoted] or at least a fuller story of the circumstances which forced the I.S.C. to take strong measures before it was too late."

In other words, even the Straits Times admitted that there was no justification in fact for the arrests! Yes, there was no justifiable excuse whatsoever for the arrests. What are the circumstances which, according to the Straits Times, "forced the I.S.C. to take strong measure before it was too late"? Was it because we held a rally in support of the Brunei uprising?

True, we held a rally in Tanjong Katong Road two weeks after the uprising in support of the Brunei National Liberation Movement. We applied for permission for the rally, clearly stating the reason for the rally in the application for the permits, and the permit was granted for a rally clearly staged to support the national uprising in Brunei. So it was all open and lawful. The Government had given us lawful permission to hold a rally in support of Brunei. So obviously there was nothing wrong with the lawful rally for which a permit was issued by the P.A.P. Government. We have not taken up arms against the Government. We merely held a rally to voice our support in a legitimate democratic manner for an anti-colonial struggle in Brunei. Just as the P.A.P. and the Alliance Government had voiced their support for the anti-colonial struggle in Algeria only two years ago. On that occasion a rally was held in front of the Padang in which even the employers were specifically told to let workers get off earlier so that they could go to listen to Dr Ferhat Abbas and the Prime Minister. In that mass rally, the Prime Minister had spoken with staged feelings and had exhorted the people of Singapore to learn from the anti-colonial struggle of the Algerian people against the French imperialists. Of course, the Prime Minister then was only trying to deceive the people.

Then, if you will remember, Sir, in this very House a few weeks later the Government went a stage further and moved a motion to contribute $10,000 to the Algerian fund as a token of sympathy and support and asked the House to record its admiration for the determination and courage of the Algerian people in their struggle for freedom against the tyranny and oppression of French colonialism; and on behalf of the people of Singapore expressed its wholehearted support for the cause of freedom for the Algerian people. In the ensuing debate all P.A.P. leaders spoke brave, inspiring words. Even Members of the Right-wing S.P.A. joined in the chorus. Let me refer you, Sir, to Hansard, Volume 14, No. 13 of 22nd February, 1961. May I refer you to column 1020? It is a pity the Minister for Culture is not here because he had spoken in paragraph 4 at column 1020 of "the rising tide of nationalism" and the "dyke of repression against the tidal wave of nationalist revolt, and how the dyke broke and colonialism was swept into the sea." Very inspiring words, Sir, and at that time I was taken in myself. I have mentioned paragraph 3. It was paragraph 4.

Then in column 1021 on the next page, the third paragraph, somewhere in the middle, the Minister for Culture said:

`Therefore, when confronted by the assertions of Algerian nationalism and Algerian demands for freedom, the French colons, backed by French generals, are trying to counter Algerian nationalism with repression and terror.

It was French extremism which forced a moderate and conciliatory Algerian nationalism to resist French repression and violence with violence of its own.'.

Sir, these are words which nobody who calls himself an anti-colonialist can can quarrel with. And they are inspiring words. But let us just substitute the word "British" for the word "French" and the word "Brunei" for the word "Algeria", and the quote now reads as follows:

`Therefore, when confronted by the assertions of Bruneian nationalism and Bruneian demands for freedom, the British colons, backed by British generals, are trying to counter Bruneian nationalism with repression and terror. It was British extremism which forced a moderate and conciliatory Bruneian nationalism to resist British repression and violence with violence of its own.'

It is a pity, Sir, that the Ministers do not listen to their own words because if they did they would see how ridiculous they have been in their accusations and allegations that we are supporting the Brunei uprising and resorting to violence and bloodshed.

Then in column 1030 - this time the Deputy Prime Minister talked of the "mutual feelings of sympathy between the Provisional Government of the Algerian leaders and ourselves in Singapore because Singapore is still a colony, a semi-colony." Then he said in the second paragraph, near the end:

`It is because of this understanding of peoples who have in the past been under colonial domination that we, the P.A.P. Government, have moved this motion in support of the Algerian people's struggle for independence against French imperialism.'

Again beautiful words, words which no anti-colonialist could disagree with. But, again, let us substitute the word "Brunei" for the word "Algeria" and the word "British" for the word "French" and the meaning again is very clear. It would read:

`It is because of this understanding of peoples who have in the past been under colonial domination that we, the P.A.P. Government, have moved this motion in support of the Brunei people's struggle for independence against British imperialism.'

Let me go just a little further ---

Mr Speaker: Order. May I suggest to the hon. Member that he is labouring on a point which he has already made. He has made the point. Can we proceed a little quicker with this debate?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I understand your impatience, Sir. Similarly, have I not wanted to stay up until this late hour ---

Mr Speaker: Order. The complaint is not the late hour. The complaint is that the hon. Member is labouring a point which he has already made. And in a debate, once a Member, or once any debater has made a point, surely he should be satisfied and not labour the point.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Very well, Sir, I thought of just quoting the Member for Tanglin, but anyway, he is not here. However, I must quote the Prime Minister. In column 1032 the Prime Minister talks of the necessity to make a gesture in the forum of world debate to show what we think of the French imperialists. He says in column 1032:

`But it is significant that in a world in which total war means total annihilation, the conflict is reduced to a secondary plane of a limited war with unlimited world support. There is pressure in the United Nations. There are expressions of sympathy and solidarity and we throw in our voice in support of the chorus on behalf of the freedom of the people of Algeria.'

All I need say, Sir, is to substitute the word "British" for "French" and the word "Brunei" for "Algeria" and we see that there is fundamentally no difference between the situation then and the situation today.

If you will remember that debate, the Government finally asked the Assembly to pass a resolution which, if you were to leave out the second part of money contribution and if we substituted the appropriate words to fit in with the context of our present situation, would read as follows:

`That this Assembly records its admiration for the determination and courage of the Brunei people in the struggle for freedom against the tyranny and oppression of British colonialism and on behalf of the people of Singapore expresses its whole-hearted support for the cause for freedom for the Brunei people.'

Wholehearted support for the freedom for the Brunei people!

Sir, our rally at Tanjong Katong held on the 23rd December, 1962, did not have the support of the Legislative Assembly, and we could not presume to speak on behalf of all the people of Singapore. But we did hold the rally to demonstrate our whole-hearted support for the people of Brunei openly and for all to see. It was not done furtively. In our rally we did exactly what the P.A.P. had previously done in another rally as well as officially in the Singapore Legislative Assembly on behalf of the people of Singapore.

Today, we in the Barisan also admire the courage and determination of the people of Brunei' in their struggle for freedom against the tyranny and oppression of British colonialism. We in the Barisan call on the people to give whole-hearted support for the cause of freedom of the people in Brunei. Can it be that support for the cause of freedom against the French was correct and that against the British is wrong? Can it be that we must condemn French colonialism, but must love, admire and protect British colonialism? Is that what the P.A.P. want? If our support today for the Brunei people was wrong and unlawful, then similarly the P.A.P. and Assembly support in 1961 for the Algerian people was wrong and unlawful. If the admiration for the courage and determination of the Brunei people to be free was wrong and unlawful, then similarly the feigned P.A.P. admiration for the courage and determination of the Algerian people was wrong and unlawful. There cannot be two different standards of moral values. No one has suggested that feigned P.A.P. admiration for the courage and determination of the Algerian people to be free and feigned P.A.P. support of the Algerian struggle for freedom was wrong and unlawful.

In fact, only a few months back, the P.A.P. took great pride in, and gave full publicity to, its past so-called support of the Algerian struggle. So how can anyone suggest that our support and admiration for the courage and determination of the Brunei people's struggle for freedom is wrong and unlawful? Or is it seriously suggested that what is done by the P.A.P. is right and lawful, but what is similarly done by other people becomes wrong and unlawful? Is there one law for the P.A.P. and another law for the rest of the people? Is that what is troubling us today in Singapore? Does being the Government make the P.A.P. right in everything the P.A.P. does? Does being the Government make all the difference between right and wrong, lawful and unlawful, loyalty and subversion?

The Prime Minister himself had feigned support for anti-colonial struggles before, that is, until he had been unmasked as a mere opportunist and a stooge. But why this apparent turnabout, this volte-face. The I.S.C. statement goes on to say that "their open support for armed revolt in Brunei and their close connections with leaders of the revolt show that they are ready when the opportunity occurs to depart from constitutional methods and to jeopardise national defence and Singapore's security by joining with groups resorting to violence and blood-shed as in the Borneo territories."

I have shown that the so-called "connection" and "link" are but fanciful concoctions of the fertile imagination of the colonialists and their stooges. The most unconnected events and happenings have been interlaced with "link" and "connections". The imagination is allowed to run riot. Everything is dominated by one obsession, namely, to prejudice public opinion against the persons whom the P.A.P. wants to fix and to destroy. We in the Barisan Sosialis want to struggle constitutionally for our political aims. But it has become increasingly difficult to continue the constitutional struggle. I have already said that door after door of the constitutional struggle has been slammed by the Fascist and arbitrary actions of the P.A.P., and the latest spate of arbitrary arrests has forced the people to consider seriously whether or not all means of such constitutional struggle have been completely closed to the Opposition.

Constitutional struggle, Sir, can only be undertaken when there are constitutional means left for the people to do so. At the present moment just when the Opposition has become strong enough to overthrow the Government through the democratic one-man-one-vote process, the powers-that-be have resorted to the most unconstitutional methods of arbitrary arrests, in order to crush strong and effective opposition and to prevent the Opposition from gaining State power. They resort to repressive action under the cloak and excuse of our wanting to depart from methods of constitutional struggle. But all Singapore, all South-East Asia, know the opposite is the case. We who are genuinely and consistently conducting a constitutional struggle, are continuously thwarted by those who resort to the most undemocratic and unconstitutional repressive measure. We are accused of wanting to depart from the path of constitutional struggle by those who resort to Fascist and unconstitutional methods of repression. It is like a robber, after he has committed a robbery, calling out, "Thief! Thief!"

Let us take the argument put forward by the I.S.C. one stage further. Because of our open support for the Brunei uprising, so it is alleged that we want to depart from the path of constitutional struggle! I have already mentioned the feigned P.A.P. support of the Algerian people in their struggle for freedom. There was a hot war going on in Algeria with half a million French colons in the war. Did feigned P.A.P. support of the Algerian people in their war of liberation then make the P.A.P. depart from the constitutional struggle? Could we then say that the P.A.P. had embarked on the path of armed struggle? Of course not! No one would dream of saying so. Similarly our Barisan Sosialis support for the struggle of liberation in Brunei does not mean we are embarked on the path of armed struggle. It was only a token support to show our sympathy and admiration for the courage of the people of Brunei who refused to be cowed by the superior might of a nuclear power. And we might add here that, as an Opposition Party, we in the Barisan Sosialis just cannot have the same opportunities and facilities for helping armed struggle anywhere. Now with bow and arrow, parangs, wooden-spears and shotguns, the people in Borneo are fighting against jets and warships for the cause of self-determination and freedom! And they are ready to fight against overwhelming odds because their will to be free cannot be suppressed by threats and superior force. If the P.A.P. support for the Algerian people's struggle is not regarded as embarking on unconstitutional and armed struggle, so is the Barisan Sosialis' open support for the Brunei people's struggle cannot be regarded as embarking on unconstitutional and armed struggle. Indeed, we maintain it is the only correct and proper thing to do if we are genuinely anti-colonial, and if we are truly dedicated to the struggle for justice, equality and democracy, peace and freedom.

But let us take the argument just one stage further. When the West Irian issue was at fever pitch, and peace was threatened in South-East Asia, volunteers from Singapore were ready to go forward to help Indonesia recover West Irian. The P.A.P. had at first ridiculed the idea of resorting to armed struggle to drive out recalcitrant Dutch Imperialism in West Irian, simply because the initial call in Singapore for support of the Indonesian demand for the recovery of West Irian had come from the Barisan Sosialis. But the P.A.P. soon found itself in an embarrassing position. Realising that the vast majority of the people in Singapore had responded to our call and were supporting the demand for the recovery of West Irian, the P.A.P. was compelled to put on the anti-colonial mask. The P.A.P. was forced to support our motion calling for support of the Indonesian struggle to recover West Irian. Later in an attempt to make capital out of the anti-colonial fervour of the people in Singapore, P.A.P. Ministers went so far as to review volunteers about to fly off for further training in Indonesia. P.A.P. Ministers gave them blessing and a rousing send-off. Full publicity was given to the Minister for Health and Law wishing the volunteers good luck at the Singapore Airport. If there was any talk of encouragement given to armed struggle, this was it. We do - not have to look any further. By I.S.C. standards, it could be said that encouragement to armed struggle was so blatant in this case that there is no point in the P.A.P. even trying to deny it.

Yet the people of Singapore have never accused the P.A.P. of encouraging armed struggle. Neither have the British for that matter, so far as we know. It would have been silly, foolish and useless for them to do so. Yet today, without seeing any volunteer off, without in any way urging the people of Singapore to armed struggle, without in any way instigating disturbances, strikes or riots, we have been charged with wanting to resort to violence and bloodshed! How absurd and ridiculous can the P.A.P. become? What explanation can the P.A.P. give? As genuine anti-colonialists, we know that intransigent imperialists will never budge unless they are forced to do so. This was the case with Goa. This was the case with what was once called French Indo-China; and with what was once called the Dutch East Indies. And this again was the case with the West Irian issue. The intransigence of colonialists is proverbial. Look now what has happened in Brunei.

The Brunei people have been deprived of all means of constitutional struggle. In spite of the Party Rakyat gaining all the 55 seats in the recent elections in Brunei, showing overwhelming support of the people, the elected representatives could only play the role of the Opposition. They were not permitted even to table a motion in the Council Negeri against Malaysia. Nor were they allowed to declare for independence. There were no longer any constitutional means left for the people of Brunei to oppose Malaysia. Under the circumstances, what else could the people of Brunei do? Submit to further oppression? No, Sir, there can be no doubt, no argument about it! All means of constitutional struggle were denied the people of Brunei. There was but one way out. The Brunei uprising was the inevitable result. Is it then wrong to support such a heroic struggle under the circumstances? How can our support be twisted to mean our resorting to violence and bloodshed? Have not other Afro-Asian countries similarly supported the struggle of the people of Brunei? Of the people of Kalimantan Utara?

Sir, all such talk of our wanting to resort to armed struggle is therefore so much hocus-pocus, meant only to confuse and deceive the people and to give an excuse to the British, the Federation and the P.A.P. to resort to repression. There is nothing that the Barisan Sosialis has done which the P.A.P. itself has not done but a short time ago. For the P.A.P. now to claim that what the Barisan Sosialis has done is unlawful is sheer unadulterated bunkum. It will not deceive anyone. This is only the colonial way of giving us a bad name and hanging us for it. So long as effective opposition to the P.A.P. can be removed, what matters what reason is given for its removal and how the P.A.P. does it? The ruthless and unscrupulous nature of the P.A.P. is already well known. The Barisan haunts the Prime Minister and his Ministers day and night. The Barisan has too much support for the comfort of the Prime Minister. Therefore, knocking out the Barisan has become an obsession with him.

From all this, it is clear that excuses given by the I.S.C. and the P.A.P. for the arrests do not hold water. The Prime Minister said on 4th February:

`If it were an action by the Singapore Government, we would never have contemplated it. It would not be necessary because we would have carried on till after 31st August, 1963.'

In this statement alone, Sir, the Prime Minister admits, albeit inadvertently, that there were no justifiable reasons whatsoever that necessitated the arrests. "It would not be necessary," he said. And this is confirmed in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which admits that "all was peace and tranquility" for the last seven months. Yet he now tells a story of Said Zahari having left Singapore on 1st February.

Let us ask, then why did the P.A.P. carry out the arrests? I have already explained earlier on why the British and the Federation Government want to carry out the arrests. They want to protect their imperial vested interests. They want to destroy the Left-wing movement, if possible. But what of the P.A.P.? There is mention in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech of the vested interests of the P.A.P. Government. What are these vested interests? What role do these vested interests play in the arrests?

You will recall that the Prime Minister made some Press statements on his return from Kuala Lumpur after the arrests. The Member for Cairnhill had put the Prime Minister on the mat for having tried to pass the blame for the arrests on to the British and Federation Governments. He asked the Prime Minister, "Why did the P.A.P. Ministers not vote against the other members of the I.S.C. if they did not support the arrests?" And the poor Prime Minister had to eat humble pie and climb down and make a second statement to the Press, this time correcting his earlier statement and agreeing in toto with the I.S.C. decision.

I have no wish to go into details, but it is already on record that all three parties concurred with the arrests. So the P.A.P. cannot possibly escape censure by trying to pass the buck this time. To understand P.A.P. vested interests and why they want the arrests, we must first understand the desperate situation in which the P.A.P. finds itself today. Soon after the assumption of power on the support of the workers in 1959, the arrogance, dictatorship, exposure and Rightist deviation of P.A.P. Ministers quickly alienated the Party away from the masses. Originally 43 in an Assembly of 51, their number soon dwindled to 40 in 1960; 39 in July 1961; and finally to 26, when 13 Assemblymen walked across the Floor to form the Barisan Sosialis.

3.28 a.m.

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh: From 43 to 26, and all in a space of two years. Who could have predicted such a complete change of fortunes for the P.A.P. in 1959? Today with only 25 seats in an Assembly of 51, the P.A.P. Government exists only on sufferance. It has to be propped up in office by the Right-wing of the Opposition. That is why when the Member for Cairnhill also pressed for a reconvening of the Legislative Assembly, the Prime Minister dared not offend him. Otherwise, he might find that overnight he is no more Prime Minister. And so terrified is the Government of meeting the people that it has not dared even to hold the by-election in Sembawang which seat was vacant since the middle of August 1962, more than seven months ago. There is no justifiable reason for such delays, but I will have more to say on this later on other motions if there is opportunity for me to do so. However, I might add in passing that if the Sembawang by-election should be further delayed, as I have indicated to the Press some months back, we would have to consider seriously bringing in amendments to the Constitution to make good the lacuna in the law which has allowed the P.A.P. to make a mockery of parliamentary democracy. Everyone can see that the P.A.P. Government is a very shaky Government. The people in the whole of Malaya know it and the P.A.P. Ministers themselves know it, but unfortunately for the P.A.P. leaders, in spite of all their desperate efforts at merger-peddling and Malaysia-selling, in spite of their bending themselves backwards to please the Federation Government, in spite of their frantically trying to buy support with bribes and trying to please all those whom they had previously despised and ridiculed, in spite of all their attempts at staged constituency visits to bolster their own sagging morale and that of opportunistic supporters, the P.A.P. nevertheless has failed to win back the support it has lost from the people. And indeed it is daily losing whatever support that still exists.

It is pathetic indeed to see the arrogant P.A.P. leaders today doing everything they can, kowtowing, in fact, to ingratiate themselves with the various organisations, clan associations and exclusive clubs. What a climbdown from days of yore for these arrogant men! When in spite of all these efforts, no improvement is made and instead they are daily sinking lower and lower in the eyes of the people, it becomes obvious that the desperate P.A.P. will resort to desperate measures. The main reason why all their efforts have not got them very far is that the Barisan Sosialis stands in the way. All the sympathy and support is given to the Barisan Sosialis. Very little is left for the P.A.P. What terrifies the P.A.P. more is that while its own strength and influence is shrinking and diminishing, that of the Barisan Sosialis is rapidly expanding and growing! And that, in spite of its so-called "defeat" at the referendum! It is common knowledge that Barisan has the most popular mass support in Singapore. And it is even generally accepted that the next Singapore State Government will he a Barisan Government.

Under the circumstances, it is not difficult to guess the P.A.P.'s next move. The fear of our growing strength and influence is the urgent reason for the P.A.P. decision to try and cripple and paralyse the Barisan as much as possible. Hence the decision to arrest immediately and not after 31st August, 1963.

The P.A.P. leaders hope that, with the Barisan crippled and generally disabled, the people would again be faced with a situation analagous to that existing at the time of the sham referendum.

You will remember that the original referendum plot was to offer unacceptable alternatives to the people. They were to be compelled to choose the lesser of two or more evils. Similarly with the arrests, The P.A.P. leaders hope that a political vacuum, so to speak, would be created in the Singapore arena. And if there were no adequately organised political parties with sufficient mass support to eclipse the P.A.P. completely, the P.A.P. would still stand a chance of having some of their leaders again being elected to the Legislative Assembly. With luck, the P.A.P. might even win enough seats to form a coalition Government and so still remain in power. Of course, to achieve this, the trade unions, cultural organisations, rural associations, hawkers associations, etc., will have to be dominated by pro-P.A.P. elements. That is why all the prominent leaders in these organisations have been arrested. The P.A.P. hopes by temporarily paralysing these organisations to be able to create conditions through bribes, threats and intimidation for P.A.P. stooges to infiltrate into these organisations and so dominate them.

Already the P.A.P. has a nucleus in the N.T.U.C. There are certain other unions already dominated by P.A.P. stooges. The P.A.P. hopes to extend the sphere of P.A.P. influence into the other unions and organisations. This move is important for the immediate future. But it is more important in the long-term view, as it is only by domination over these organisations that the P.A.P. can ever hope for a comeback in the political arena of Singapore. But, of course, these are only P.A.P. pipe-dreams.

There is already trouble ahead. The Secretary-General of the A.U.P.E., namely, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, has already openly attacked the P.A.P. Government - a matter of a P.A.P. Parliamentary Secretary attacking the P.A.P. Government! So what is the future going to be? We can only say that all the pipe-dreams of the P.A.P. will remain pipe-dreams. They go up like soap bubbles, and burst.

Of course, because of these arrests, certain other Parties are already thinking of filling in the vacuum. They talk of possible arrests in order to give the impression that they are the forces that represent the people. That is entirely erroneous and foolish. The force remains with the Barisan Sosialis. We still have the support of the workers and the civic organisations. And this support will enable the Barisan Sosialis to bury the P.A.P. when the time comes.

Sir, I have now outlined the Machiavellian thinking of the P.A.P. This is the result of selfish thinking of the P.A.P. leaders. They are trying to look after the political fortunes of P.A.P. leaders - the vested interests of the political leaders. Today, we see frantic efforts to erect "standing monuments", according to the Prime Minister, in order to remind the people of the good work of the P.A.P. Government. And when the elections come along, they hope that these "standing monuments" will help to deceive the people and to win them their support.

We must remember that, though the P.A.P. leaders might get away with not holding the Sembawang by-election, they will not be able to skip the general elections, that is, unless more funny things are cooking. The P.A.P. was elected for a five-year term. We have seen how desperately their Ministers cling to power on the slightest excuse. Their lust for power is so great that, if they could get away with it, they would most certainly do away with the coming general elections. But, alas, the gods are not with the Prime Minister. He cannot get away with it and there will have to be a general election at the latest in early 1964, and with every indication of it being held much earlier. We still know nothing though about how the 15 Central Parliament seats are to be filled. The Prime Minister particularly chose to be vague in order to keep us in the dark as to what is happening to our constitutional future.

We can understand now why the P.A.P. leaders want to arrest political opponents in the Barisan Sosialis. Hence the arrest of all our able leaders, organisers and prospective candidates for the general elections.

Anti-colonial stalwarts have long struck fear and panic into the entrails of P.A.P. leaders. It is well known that the desperate politicians would soon resort to desperate measures to keep themselves in office.

There is, of course, a second reason why the P.A.P. want the arrests. We may call them by-products. Arrests and police action cause fear, instil fear into people, especially those who would fight shy of the police and ---

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think we have no quorum. There are about six or seven of us here.

Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present, Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I must ask both the Government side and the Opposition side to see that at least thirteen Members remain in the Chamber so that we can finish the debate as quickly as possible. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have given the first reason why the P.A.P. want to make the arrests. I now come to the second reason. Arrests and police action cause and instil fear into the people, especially those who would fight shy of the police and the courts at all costs. The Prime Minister remembers his success in the last days of the referendum campaign. When he realised that the vast majority of the people were going to cast blank votes, he unleashed the most unprecedented scare - propaganda campaign with threats and intimidation to the people about loss of citizenship. With the help of the radio, Rediffusion, the Press and police vans, he succeeded in coercing large sections of the people into voting for the White Paper merger proposals. Similarly this time, since he has failed to win the support of the people in spite of all his tricks, he now attempts to intimidate them into supporting him. The ruthlessness of the P.A.P. is well known. If a P.A.P. member comes to ask for contribution towards the erection of welcome arches on the occasion of the Prime Minister's visit to a constituency, who can refuse and say no? Who would dare say no? If you were invited to subscribe to and attend a function in honour of the Prime Minister by a fearful P.A.P. branch official or by some Government official, would it not be, to say the least, indiscreet to refuse, even dangerous to refuse? Thus we see, Sir, staged photographs of people "welcoming" the Prime Minister and many "attending" the Prime Minister's functions. The P.A.P. tries to buy support. When that fails, the next weapon is intimidation, and with the arrests, the Prime Minister hopes to intimidate large sections of the people into supporting the P.A.P., especially after they have been given a dose of bedtime stories of Russian bears and the Twelve Arabian Nights. But let us all say here and now, it is a forlorn hope.

Still a third reason for the arrests is the settling of old scores. It is well known that in spite of laughters, handshakes and beer-drinking in the C.P.A. room, P.A.P. leaders have not forgotten that their predicament today is largely due to those, now detained, withdrawing their support to the P.A.P. We see the settling of old scores in the punitive and vindictive treatment of detainees in Singapore today. I will enlarge on this when I speak on my amendment concerning the treatment of detainees. But this alone shows that the P.A.P. leaders also want the arrests because of vengeance against those now under detention.

From all this, we see that the main reason for the arrests, so far as the P.A.P. is concerned, is the approach of the time for general elections, and the P.A.P. leaders want to safeguard the security of their personal vested interests. Many had known that the Prime Minister was only waiting for some excuse, some incident, in order to give a pretext for repressive action. The Brunei uprising and the increased international tension that followed gave him just the excuse and pretext he had been waiting for. Those now detained had talked frequently enough of the Prime Minister using agents provocateurs to create incidents, and consequently they had remained sharply vigilant and on guard against all provocations from the P.A.P. and its mercenary stooges. The mass arrests on 2nd February, 1963, were therefore not wholly unexpected. Those now in Outram Prison knew that the more desperate the P.A.P. got, the greater the likelihood of repression. As the P.A.P. was sinking further and further into the quagmire, all of us knew it was only a matter of time before the Prime Minister would remove the velvet glove and bare his iron claws. That has happened today. And to protect the vested interests of the P.A.P., action had been taken immediately and not left until after 31st August, 1963.

Now, let me speak on the amendment concerning the treatment of detainees. Recently some press publicity has been given to the cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees by the P.A.P. Government in Singapore. You might also have noticed a small item in the Straits Times on the 2nd of April, 1963, about families of detainees "squatting" in the Prime Minister's office. The Prime Minister himself has referred to the incident. From this small item of news one can understand that there must be something pretty serious before aged parents had been compelled to go and brave the fearful Prime Minister of the ruthless P.A.P.

The dawn swoop of the Internal Security Council and the P.A.P.'s "Operation Cold Store" took place in the small hours of the morning of 2nd February, 1963. It is the 10th of April today, and they have been nearly ten weeks in "Cold Store" and in solitary confinement. 69 days in solitary confinement. I am not competent enough to speak about other countries, but so fat as Malaya is concerned, this is unprecedented in prison history, even including the worst periods of colonial oppression and for the worst of convicted criminals. I shall enlarge on this later.

Since the arrests on 2nd February, repeated requests had been made by Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen to find out, first, where the arrested persons were detained and, second, when we could go to see them. Many of us telephoned the Special Branch a number of times, but always the same stock answer came back, "No, interrogation not completed." One of us, the Member for Thomson, telephoned the Director of Prisons, and he told us that we could go and see the inmates, the convicted prisoners, but we would not be allowed to go and see the political detainees unless permission was granted by the Special Branch.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

3.58 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I was a little surprised at this because I myself had spoken to the Director if Prisons only a few days before the arrests, when I met him at a consular reception, and he had indicated to me that there is nothing in the law to stop Legislative Assemblymen from seeing persons detained in the prison. This polite refusal from him was therefore a little unexpected. But, of course, I also realised that this refusal was not because of his own doings and it would be unfair to find fault with him. I mention this not to embarrass the Director of Prisons who, so far as we know, is a man of integrity, but to show how the P.A.P. itself always breaks the laws of the land, and yet accuses other people of doing so. It is a case, as I have already said, of a robber crying "thief". Since our repeated verbal and telephone requests were refused, we were forced to write to the Director of the Special Branch instead. Accordingly, I wrote to Mr Bogaars, Director of the Special Branch, on the 21st February, 1963. My letter reads as follows, and I intend to table it, Sir, for the record: `Mr Bogaars, D.S.B., Singapore.

Sir,

We Assemblymen have repeatedly asked to be allowed to see the detainees arrested recently. So far we have not been permitted to do so.

It is now three weeks since detention. We want to see for ourselves how the detainees are being kept. Please let us know when we may be permitted to go and see them.'

And I signed myself as Assemblyman for Queenstown and on behalf of 13 Assemblymen in the Barisan Sosialis. We waited for a reply, but no reply came, not even an acknowledgment. Meanwhile, further verbal requests to see the detainees were made by us. But the answer that came back was always the same, "Not possible now, but will let you know as soon as possible." We waited for one week. Finally we wrote our second letter on the 27th of February. It reads as follows. (This is another letter which I intend to table for the record): `To the D.S.B., Singapore. Sir,

It is 3� weeks since the arbitrary arrests. Repeated attempts have been made by us in our capacity as Assemblymen to see our friends and comrades now detained. We had also written to you on 21-2-63 asking when we would be permitted to see the detainees. We have received no reply so far.

Meanwhile we are gravely disturbed by the unduly harsh restrictions that have been imposed on the detainees, which apparently are meant to further punish both detainees and families alike.

Although a few detainees in the Federation have already been allowed to read newspapers, no one in Singapore is as yet allowed the same "privilege". No hooks are allowed and only a half-hour period of relaxation permitted although convicted criminals are allowed to play basket-ball. [I understand the time is actually 20 minutes, not half an hour.]

Tin biscuits and tin foods are barred. An] detainees are given no drinks the whole day. In cases where the detainees have no parents, wives or husbands, brothers or other next-of-kin are not allowed to see the detainees. In addition, in cases where husband and wife, or brother and sister are both detained, each is not permitted to see the other. Is it necessary to further inflict such cruel and inhuman treatment on the detainees?

We learn also that some detainees have been informed verbally that they have been served with Detention Orders. How are they to object to these Detention Orders, as provided under the law, if they are not allowed to communicate with the legal advisers immediately?

Only a few years ago, the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, himself, as a lawyer and Assemblyman, was able to see Lim Ching Siong only three days after detention. It is now 3� weeks since detention and no legal adviser or Assemblyman has yet been given permission to see the detainees.

We demand to see the actual conditions of detention of the detainees. Some of them are in poor health. We demand to see for ourselves that there is no breakdown in their health as a result of maltreatment by the P.A.P. Government.

We want to see the detainees immediately. Solitary confinement for political detainees is inhuman. May I draw your attention to the Report of the Prison Inquiry Commission. 1960, which unanimously recommends as follows:-

"POLITICAL DETAINEES are, or indeed, should be regarded as an anomaly in a democratic society. While we shall not permit ourselves any judgment on the justice or necessity of detaining persons for political reasons, we might observe that disagreement with current political policies and ideas does not constitute an anti-social offence and does not call for measures of social rehabilitation. It follows that political prisoners, if and when there are any, should be kept away from institutions for convicted prisoners and be provided with all the facilities of ordinary living. Political Detainees should therefore enjoy conditions [of detention] as near normal as possible under confinement, and they should be free from penal restrictions and discipline. Political Detainees should, in our opinion, be eligible for as many visits from relatives and friends as are administratively feasible; they should have complete liberty to organise their lives under detention in any manner they choose and should be provided with adequate facilities for reading, writing, study, cooking and recreation.".'

That is the end of the quote. Then my letter continues:

`If there is no immediate improvement to conditions of detention, we shall further protest to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights.

Kindly let me know what arrangements may be made for Assemblymen and legal advisers to see the detainees immediately.

Yours faithfully, Dr Lee Siew Choh on behalf of 13 other Assemblymen in Barisan Sosialis.'

Still nothing happened. Just before I left for London on the 2nd of March, I received a short letter from the Special Branch informing us that they would let us see the detainees as soon as possible. But this "as soon as possible" became "as late as possible.'

We paid visits to the Outram Prison for the first time on the 26th and the 28th of March. No thanks to the P.A.P. The Member for Anson had on Saturday, 23rd March, visited Outram Prison. His report appeared in the Straits Times on Monday, 25th March. Under the circumstances, the Special Branch, the prison authorities, and the P.A.P. had no longer any valid reason to stop us, and so on Monday arrangements were made with the prison authorities for us to visit the prison the next day.

Before I go further, Sir, let us ask the P.A.P., why did the P.A.P. Government and the Special Branch prevent us from seeing the detainees in the prison when it is clearly stated in the law that all Assemblymen have the right to visit prisons at any time? The Prison Ordinance, section 68, reads as follows:-

`68 (1) . Every Judge Magistrate or Justice of the Peace having jurisdiction in the place where any prison is situate may, whenever he thinks fit, enter into and examine the condition of such prison, and of the prisoners therein, and he may question any prisoner or officer, and he may enter any observation he thinks fit to make in reference to the condition of the prison in a visitors' book to be kept for that purpose by the Superintendent, which book shall be duly produced to the visiting Justices at their next ensuing visit.'

And the second relevant part is (2) :

`(2) Any member of the Council of Ministers or of the Legislative Assembly may at any time visit any prison in the Colony and may exercise all or any of the powers specified in sub-section (1).',

which I have just read.

We want to ask the P.A.P. Government, why did the P.A.P. Government knowingly contravene the law? Why did the Special Branch prevent elected representatives of the people from seeing the inmates of prisons? Why have they denied elected representatives of the people their rightful and legal powers? Whatever excuse the P.A.P. may give there is no denying that the P.A.P. had broken the law, and knowingly broken the law. Would the Ministers care to punish themselves for it? Would the State Advocate-General care to take action against the P.A.P. culprits? Of course, Sir, this is not the first time the P.A.P. has broken the law, but let us continue the story.

Even before we went to see our friends and comrades in Outram Prison, we had learnt of the inhuman treatment they were receiving at the hands of the P.A.P. Government. Wives and families were permitted to see their loved ones but once a week, and that only for 20 minutes. No food or material was allowed to be sent to the prison. All detainees were kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours and 40 minutes in the 24-hour day. They were allowed to come out of their cells for 20 minutes a day for bath and exercise. That was all. But I will enlarge on this a little later, Sir.

What surprised us greatly was that detainees were even denied access to counsel until more than one month after arrest. Whatever arithmetic or addition of the Minister for Home Affairs, the P.A.P. cannot deny that counsel were only permitted to see the detainees more than one month after arrest. The exact dates can be ascertained, and assuming that a person can be served a detention order within 16 days of arrest, and a further two weeks allowed for grounds of detention, it only adds up to 30 days, but counsel were allowed to see the detainees, this time in Outram Prison, only five weeks, six weeks, seven weeks, after arrest.

Every detainee or prisoner, as far as we know, has the right to be represented by counsel. Why then were detainees denied this right until more than one month after arrest? Why did the Government, again knowingly, violate the basic rights of detainees? The Minister for Home Affairs tried to be equivocal in his answer. He is obviously trying to hide something.

Some of our friends were sent up to the Federation and confined in different centres, in Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, Penang and Johore Bahru. We learnt that some were treated not so badly, but it would be ridiculous to say that treatment was good in any way. We know the treatment of detainees in the Federation has improved considerably, and is many times better than the treatment of detainees in Singapore today. But lest we forget, let me put on record the inhuman treatment given to our friend and comrade, Fong Swee Suan, Central Executive Committee member of the Barisan Sosialis, and Secretary-General of the Singapore Association of Trade Unions, during the first few weeks of his detention in Kuala Lumpur. We do not just follow a line, as alleged by the P.A.P., to depict the Special Branch as inhuman. No, Sir. We merely call a spade a spade.

Mrs Fong went to see her husband, who is of frail physique and in poor health, and she was shocked at the appalling treatment he suffered at the hands of the Special Branch in Kuala Lumpur. These are some of her complaints:

(1) He was in solitary confinement. The cell was lit by a very powerful electric bulb 24 hours a day. He could not have a chance, therefore, to sleep in darkness.

(2) There was ringing of a bell at frequent intervals to jar his nerves, and to prevent him from sleeping or even relaxing.

(3) He had no bed and he had to sleep on a cement bench.

(4) He was handcuffed like a convicted criminal every time he was brought outside the cell.

(5) He was allowed only five minutes for his meals.

I have no wish to go into more details. But such was the treatment Mr Fong Swee Suan received at the hands of the Special Branch. We learnt that the treatment improved after protests were made to the Federation Government by Mrs Fong.

For some time now detainees in the Federation have been allowed newspapers and other reading materials and may now have a chance to lead a collective and social life though still under detention.

But what of the detainees in Singapore? How are they being treated after 10 weeks of detention? Incredible as it may sound, after 10 weeks, 69 days to be exact, of arrest and detention, our friends are still being treated worse than convicted criminals. Sir, we visited them, as I have related on 26th and 28th March, and we have written a report on what we found in our visit. I wish to table it for the record, and I might as well read it out here to make sure that all of us know what the report is. This report was written on the 29th March, 1963, immediately after our visit and I wrote:

`Report of visit to Outram Prison

1. Together with 3 other Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen I visited the Outram Prison on Tuesday 25.3.63 and on Thursday 28.3.63. We were shown courteously round the prison and we saw altogether 98 political detainees in their individual cells. 86 were in the male A Block, 9 in a separate female block, and 3 in the prison hospital.

2. This is the first time Barisan Sosialis Assembly have been permitted to visit the political detainees despite repeated verbal and written requests to the Government since the arrest on the 2nd February, 1963.

We were all shocked by what we saw. The conditions of detention are in direct contrast to the recommendations of the P.A.P.-chaired 1960 Report of Prison Inquiry Commission.

3. We were particularly shocked at the prolonged solitary confinement of political detainees. This appears to be a deliberate punishment of political opponents of the P.A.P.

Since arrest, all detainees have been put in solitary confinement. They are all locked in tiny cells. They were permitted to come out to wash themselves for only 20 minutes in 24 hours.

This 20-minute period for bath and exercise has, since about one week ago, been extended to 45 minutes. And thus today the political detainees are still kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours and 15 minutes in a 24-hour day.

4. Detainees are not permitted newspapers or any form of reading material. It is only very lately that some childish reading material is given to some detainees, and ironically, English books are given to those who read only Chinese. At one time even dictionaries, Malay, Medical and other textbooks were not permitted.

5. The heat is oppressive especially in the afternoon. There is no through ventilation and the atmosphere inside the cells is stuffy.

6. Already solitary confinement in the tropical heat has given rise to unhealthy appearances on many of the detainees. Many look definitely ill. Some have sallow appearances. Others are pale. Some look swollen and "bloaty" in the face. Then there is one who talks a little irrationally. He advised us to be careful of our wallets being picked inside the prison! It is our view that he is on the verge of a mental breakdown. Then again many complain of weakness of legs because of prolonged solitary confinement. There are some who complained of backache as a result of having to sit for hours on non-mattress spring beds.

7. There is the case of one (already suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis and referred to by Mr Marshall) who complained on Saturday. 23rd March, 1963, of a boil in the back and had asked to be sent to the Prison Hospital on the morning of Monday. 25th March. 1963. This was refused but the authorities changed their minds and sent him to the Prison Hospital in the same afternoon. When we saw him on Thursday, 28th March. 1963, he had an ulcer on his back between the shoulder blades, measuring �" X 1�", with ragged angry edges, inflamed surroundings and pus and gangrenous slough in the centre. This ulcer could easily have been due to improper care following trauma inside the cell, lack of exercise and undernourishment.

8. Contrary to what Marshall has said, the food is far from satisfactory. The fish sometimes is stale, and no fruit is provided. The salt fish is hardly edible.

Families can send in fresh fruit and tin food now. But even eggs were not permitted three weeks ago.

9. A major complaint is that many have to defecate and micturate into chamber pots inside the cells. There is no means for proper washing of the hands, to say nothing of proper ablutions for Muslim detainees. Any washing would mean wetting of the cell. Detainees are not permitted out of the cell to wash and clean themselves after defecation; nor to empty the chamber pots, which if uncovered sometime after, would emit faecal odours that foul and "poison" the atmosphere in the poorly ventilated cells.

10. This has resulted in some detainees not willing to wash their hands and mouths the whole day, as such washing must be done into the same chamber pots and uncovering these chamber pots would mean fouling the whole cell. For the same reason some detainees have been deterred from cleaning the mouth and brushing the teeth before breakfast.

11. Detainees are now permitted pen and paper to write letters once a week. But no table or chair is provided for such writing excepting the female detainees. We saw one male detainee kneeling on the floor and writing a letter in that kneeling position.

12. Many complained that close relation and near and dear friends have not been permitted to see them. Brothers and sisters who are both detained in the same prison are similarly debarred from seeing each other.

13. Many have been interrogated a number of times. Some were interrogated once soon after arrest, but that was all. There are two who have not even been interrogated at all.

14. During our visit, certain requests were made by detainees, for example, hand fans; chairs and tables for writing letters; two baths every day instead of one, better reading material, better food and daily newspapers. (The Prison Commissioner, Major James, said he had instructions not to give newspapers to detainees).

But no request is more urgent than that they must have more time for exercise; more time for breathing the fresh air and seeing the sun outside the cramped cells; time and opportunity for meeting fellow detainees.

15. It does look as if the P.A.P. Government locks political detainees in solitary confinement purely for the sake of punishment and vengeance on political opponents. Their excuse that this is the period of interrogation is balderdash and sheer nonsense. Many have been interrogated, once soon after arrests and they have been in solitary confinement ever since. A few have not been even interrogated at all!

How long is the period of interrogation? If interrogation should take months and months, does it mean that solitary confinement will go on for months and months?

How silly and ridiculous can the P.A.P. argument become?

16. There is no doubt that this sort of solitary confinement is savage, barbaric and inhuman. Political detainees are not convicted criminals and must not be treated as such. Even convicted criminals are not given such cruel treatment.

17. Solitary confinement of convicted criminals is only given as punishment for breaking of certain rules and regulations whilst in prison. Such solitary confinement is given only for a period of 1 day (for the lighter offences) to a maximum of 30 days (for the heavier offences). And at least one full hour is permitted for exercise and fresh air outside the cell.

18.Today political detainees, who are not convicted criminals, have been put in solitary confinement for 8 weeks, i.e., double the maximum period of 30 days given as punishment for the worst offences of convicted criminals!

In addition, for more than 6 weeks the detainees had only 20 minutes in 24 hours outside the cells. Only recently has the period been increased to 45 minutes. This is still short of the minimum of one full hour in 24 that is permitted convicted criminals.

19. Today even P.A.P. backers and supporters are shocked at the cruel tortures of political detainees. The P.A.P. Government stands condemned in the eyes of the world.

We must warn the P.A.P. Government. If the health of the detainees, whether mental or physical, should break down as a result of such inhuman solitary confinement, the P.A.P. will have to stand full responsibility for all the consequences.

We appeal to the people of Singapore and other countries to take serious note of and condemn these inhuman atrocities committed by the P.A.P. Government.'

Mr Low Por Tuck: On a point of order. There is no quorum, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Is the Member insisting? Is it necessary at this time of the day to call for a quorum?

Mr Low Por Tuck: Yes.

Mr Speaker: The Member insists. It is a waste of time. Anyway, ring the Division bells.

Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present, Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Since, Sir, our first visit, more of our Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen have also visited our friends in Outram Prison, and more detainees have been seen by their counsel, both in prison and in the Central Police Station lock-ups. All available information shows how callous, brutal and cruel the P.A.P. and the Special Branch have been in their treatment of those now under detention in Singapore.

I have now mentioned here but a few instances of P.A.P. inhuman treatment of detainees.

The callousness and unreasonableness of the P.A.P. and the Special Branch can be seen from their attitude to the reasonable and legitimate requests of detainees. Take, for instance, the case of the three Nanyang graduates who asked to be allowed to attend the Convocation on the 30th March, 1963, at Nanyang University to receive their diplomas on this big day. They were ready to go under escort and abide by any condition the Special Branch might impose. This request of theirs was made by their counsel to both the Director of the Special Branch and to the Minister. But did the Minister and the Special Branch accede to their reasonable and understandable requests? No, Sir. All the requests were refused. It looks as if the Special Branch is completely insensitive to all persuasion. The three graduates - their names are Ong Sujo Kook, Tan Kok Fang, Chua Siew Chuan - had to be punished with solitary confinement instead.

The case of Peh Tian Guan shows the cruelties and tortures the P.A.P. and Special Branch inflict on detainees. Peh Tian Guan was interrogated by the Special Branch on 5th March, and because he did not give answers that pleased the interrogator, he was squeezed on the mouth by the Special Branch interrogator. Then when he refused to admit to things which he knew nothing about, he was ordered by the Special Branch interrogator to stand up, put his hands on top of his head, and squat down and get up 160 times, himself counting the number of squats at the same time. The next day Peh Tian Guan could hardly walk as a result of this unjust punishment.

This was reported to the Prison authorities who saw the poor man in his terrible condition. He was not able to walk properly to his bath. He could not even squat down at the toilet, as he had not had exercise for the past one month. But what has the Government done about this? On the 16th of March, counsel for Mr Peh wrote to the Commissioner of Police, complaining to him of ill-treatment and manhandling of detainees. Counsel also complained, at the same time, of another Nanyang student having been slapped in the face, apparently by the same interrogator. But what has the Commissioner of Police done about this complaint?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Nothing was done. There was no truth in the allegation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Minister for Home Affairs says, doing nothing. Is that the way the P.A.P. Government treats detainees? Counsel suggested an identification parade as Mr Peh can recognise the Special Branch interrogator who so ill-treated him. There is, however, no response from the Commissioner of Police. I hear that Peh Tian Guan has been threatened with the punishment of death if he should pursue the matter further. What sort of a Commissioner of Police do we have? Is the Commissioner of Police going to shelter this culprit? And is the P.A.P. also going to shelter this culprit? I would like to hear some words from the Minister.

Sir, the police are meant to protect the people, not to: knock them about, still less to threaten them with death. A man died mysteriously in the C.I.D. lock-up only two years ago, Sir, as a result of manhandling by some so-called "unknown persons". Is the PAP, going to connive at such ill-treatment of detainees until there is another mysterious death? Why does the P.A.P. not immediately punish the culprit and give the House an assurance that there will be no such repetition of ill-treatment and manhandling of detainees? Instead, Sir, I see the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries think that it is a good thing for detainees to be ill-treated in this manner. But, anyway they will have to answer for all this.

There is another matter which I want to touch on before I come to solitary confinement of detainees. The Government must not forget that many of the arrested persons were the sole breadwinners in their families. What does the Government intend to do about assistance to these families that need assistance? I saw one detainee in the prison hospital (he who has pulmonary tuberculosis and a large ulcer on his back) crying. He was extremely worried about his family and aged dependants, as he was the sole breadwinner. I asked the Special Branch officer who accompanied us throughout our visit to the Prison as to what the Government was doing about financial aid to needy families. He said the families must apply to the Social Welfare for assistance. Let us ask: is it not the duty, the responsibility of Government to see to the welfare of families whose sole breadwinners the P.A.P. Government has arrested and detained?

While I am at this, Sir, let me bring out another instance of the injustice of the P.A.P. Government. Mr Chang Chan Chuan, a teacher of the Nan Chiau Girls High School, who has an old mother and four younger brothers and sisters dependent entirely on him, was paid only four days' salary for the month of February. Why? Even temporary staff are paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. Why should Government be so harsh on Mr Chang?

If it was the practice for Government to pay detainees who had employment before, e.g. Cyprus, surely the P.A.P. could do the same? Why has the P.A.P. to go out of its way to be harsh and cruel to detainees? All the hardships suffered by families of detainees are due to the P.A.P.'s repressive action. The Government is therefore responsible and should not shirk its responsibility. Some proper scale of allowance to the detainees' family is urgent. Will the Government give immediate attention to the matter?

Then there are those who are detained in the Federation. Every time visits are made to the Federation, it eats into the savings of families who can ill afford the expenses incurred in travels away from home. In this instance again, it is the Government's duty and responsibility to see that free transport and free accommodation be provided for the families. Detainees should not have been sent out of Singapore in the first place.

Let me now touch on the health of political detainees. Imprisoned in stuffy cells and oppressive heat, with no sunlight and fresh air, inadequate exercise and poor food, it is not unexpected that we saw so many who looked ill when we visited the prison two weeks ago.

For example, Tay Kee Chuan and Kee Swee Ban. It is my firm belief, Sir, that but for their original good health and high morale that cannot be crushed by threats and intimidations and ill-treatment, the punitive and vindictive treatment would have caused grave illness amongst many of the detainees. Many of the detainees look "bloaty" in their faces. For example, Teo Siang Oon, Chen Ee Fong. Many complain of weakness in their legs. Many had sallow appearances. For example, Wang Yuen Peow, Chua Siew Chuan.

Some who have been confined in the Central Police Station lock-ups have lost considerable weight. For example, Poh Choon Seng has lost 10 lbs, since his arrest, and Chok Koh Thong, our Central Executive Committee member, and one who was mentioned by the Prime Minister a little while ago, has lost 19 lbs. This loss of weight is a result of the detention, and their solitary confinement and cruel treatment.

Let me just comment slightly on Mr Ghouse. He was seen by his counsel on the 2nd of April and he complained of chronic constipation since arrest, which, was not relieved by Agarol, a laxative, which was given to him. He complained Of pain in the ears and stomach, and he reported that he vomited at about 9 p.m. on 3rd April, 1963. He appeared nervous and was sweating profusely, wetting in no time two handkerchiefs given to him by his counsel.

Such, Sir, are but a few examples of how solitary confinement has affected the detainees. Today detainees at Outram Prison are still kept in solitary confinement in cells 5 feet by 11 feet with tiny barred windows near the ceiling. They are still permitted only to come Out of their cells for only 45 minutes in 24 hours, and during these 45 minutes they must bathe, wash, defecate and exercise. This is the only time when they can breathe the fresh air outside the stuffy cells and enjoy the sunshine. All in 45 minutes! If they do not feel the urge for bowel action at this time, they will have to defecate in the cells! And until about three weeks ago, the period allowed for bath and fresh air, as I have already mentioned, was only 20 minutes!

Newspapers are still not permitted and, until recently, even books and tin foods were not allowed. Sir, we can imagine how the detainees feel, all alone - 23 hours and 15 minutes out of 24 hours a day inside a tiny cell, with no one to talk to, no newspapers to read, not knowing what is happening outside the cell, seeing no one except uniformed prison guards, all the time in the stuffy, suffocating atmosphere and oppressive heat, gazing at the walls around them, and looking into space but seeing nothing!

Can the P.A.P. Ministers imagine what it means for a man to be in solitary confinement daily, having only a single non-mattressed spring-bed and the thick drab walls as company? Would the P.A.P. Ministers like to have a taste of what they have given the detainees? Would the Ministers like to change places with the detainees just for one day? Sir, a man is a social animal. He is horn to live amongst men. He is brought up in a social environment. He lives, works and plays amongst fellow human beings. Until death, he is all the time associated with his fellow human beings. Excepting for hermits and recluses, man cannot live alone. He can exist alone, but he needs the company of fellow human beings in order to live. Without social company, a man's faculties do not develop and function. He rapidly degenerates and atrophies. Ultimately he becomes the shell of a man.

Let me, Sir, refer you to the Prison Ordinance, section 58 (1), and see what the law says about solitary confinement; it talks of the punishment by the Superintendent of minor prison offences. Section 58 (1) reads:

`The Superintendent may punish any prisoner found after due inquiry to be guilty of a minor prison offence as hereinafter specified by ordering him to undergo one or more of the following punishments:'

And (a) says:

`Confinement in a punishment cell for a term not exceeding seven days on a diet of bread and water or rice and water;'

You will see, Sir, this is a punishment inflicted by the Superintendent for people who are convicted prisoners and it says, "not exceeding seven days".

Then, may I refer you, Sir, to section 59 (1) , which talks of the punishment by the Superintendent of aggravated prison offences. These are for heavier offences of convicted prisoners while in prison. It reads:

`The Superintendent may punish any prisoner found after due inquiry to be guilty of an aggravated prison offence as hereinafter specified by ordering him to undergo one or more of the following punishments:'

And I just refer you to (b), which states:

`Confinement in a punishment cell for a term not exceeding seven days on a diet of bread and water or rice and water.'

Sir, these are punishments inflicted by the Superintendent on convicted prisoners and it says nothing of any punishment of solitary confinement that exceeds seven days. Let me now, Sir, refer you to section 62 (1) , and section 62 talks of punishment by Visiting Justices. This refers to more aggravated offences committed by convicted prisoners, and it reads:

`62 (1) Where a prisoner is accused of any aggravated prison offence and the Superintendent is of opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, the power of punishment which he possesses is inadequate, he shall forthwith report the matter in writing to the Visiting Justice or Justices.'

And (2) reads:

`The Visiting Justice or Justices shall, upon receipt of such report, attend at the prison without undue delay and investigate the charge, and may punish any prisoner whom after due inquiry upon oath he or they may find guilty of such offence with one or more of the following punishments:-'

And (a) reads:

`Confinement in a punishment cell for a term not exceeding 30 days upon such prescribed diet as he or they may think fit.'

I want to impress upon you, Sir, that these punishments are only for convicted prisoners, and the maximum that could be inflicted is seven days by the Superintendent and 30 days after due investigation by Visiting Justices. Today our friends and comrades are not convicted prisoners, but they have been put in solitary confinement for 70 days.

Let me refer you, Sir, to the penal law of India, 6th edition of 1955, and it tells how solitary confinement will affect a man. This is a law book. I refer, Sir, to section 73 of the Indian Penal Code which is on page 227. Section 73 under a heading called "Analogous Law" reads:

`Under English law, solitary confinement, though at one time legal, was rarely awarded and was finally abolished by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893.'

This section prescribes the limit within which solitary confinement may be awarded. It repeats an old English rule, now obsolete as a form of torture which fails in its effect on the public.' And this is a very important sentence, Sir:

`When unduly prolonged it leads to mental derangement.'

And following this, under the next paragraph "Principle" it says:

`Solitary confinement is isolation of the prisoner from human intercourse and society. It causes a feeling of oppression due to the gregarious instincts of man. Prolonged isolation from human communion becomes intolerable and often leads to mental derangement.'

And then it reads:

`The sentence has been, therefore, reserved for hardened criminals and as a punishment for atrocity or brutality. It should not be ordered unless there appear in the evidence some special features such as extreme violence or brutality in the commission of the offence.'

Of course, it talks of the convicted prisoner committing some brutal offence whilst in prison. There is only one more quotation here, Sir, and it is in section 74. It reads:

`In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed 14 days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods, and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods.'

And under the same heading "Analogous Law", it says:

`This section has been enacted on medical grounds. Continuous solitary confinement is conducive to physical deterioration and mental derangement.'

Sir, you can see even the law book tells us that solitary confinement has serious effects on the health of a person, and because of that, solitary confinement is only given to the worst and most hardened of convicted prisoners and does not exceed 14 days. But our friends now in Outram Prison have been confined in solitary confinement for 69 days. Is that what the P.A.P. Ministers want? Are they so vindictive and punitive in their punishment of political opponents that they only allow them to exist but not to live - and may not even exist? Solitary confinement is a terrible punishment and it is normally, as I have already indicated, given as punishment to convicted prisoners who have further committed grave offences while in prison. I understand. Sir, even the High Court Judge does not normally sentence or convict an offender to solitary confinement. But today the P.A.P. punishes innocent persons arbitrarily arrested and detained with solitary confinement. This indeed, shows the Fascist and sadistic nature of the P.A.P. Ministers! This cruel and vindictive inhuman treatment given to detainees in Singapore breaks all records. There was nothing like this in the worst of the worst colonial days. It does look as if the Prime Minister has aped his colonial master so well that in the art of cruelty and tortures he is now master of his master.

I went to the United Kingdom recently and there I visited some organisations that concern themselves with the treatment of prisoners of conscience, i.e. political prisoners. One of them is the organisation Amnesty, whose aims include seeking the release of those imprisoned for their opinions and seeking for them fair and public trial. I visited the Amnesty on 11th March. 1963, and explained to its officials what is happening in Singapore. They were very sympathetic and helpful. I understand that Amnesty has written to the Prime Minister a letter asking him to answer a few questions. But so far as I know the Prime Minister has not even bothered to reply to this letter from Amnesty. I have brought back with me a leaflet of the Amnesty International, the code of conduct towards prisoners of conscience. I table it for the information of hon. Members. It is a Minimum Code of conduct towards political prisoners and has been approved by a committee of lawyers from the United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden. We can see straightaway that what the P.A.P. Government is doing today is in direct conflict with the Minimum Code of conduct to political prisoners, as recognised by Western countries. Let us skip through just a few of the articles in this Minimum Code and see what they say. Article 5 reads:

`The authority arresting a prisoner of conscience shall immediately notify his next-of-kin or his legal representative of his arrest and of the place where he is kept in custody.'

The P.A.P. and the Special Branch took six days to notify the next-of-kin and, in fact, did everything they could to deny information to the next-of-kin. Article 6 reads:

`(a) Upon arrest a prisoner of conscience shall have the right to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choice.

(b) He shall be informed of this right and provided with facilities to communicate with his lawyer.'

But we know, Sir, that our detainees today have been denied access to legal counsel until more than one month after arrest. Neither were they informed of this right and provided with facilities to communicate with their lawyers.

Article 9 (a) reads:

`A prisoner of conscience shall not be induced to give information by violence or threats or any unfair means.'

But, as I have related, the detainees have already been threatened with death.

Article 10 reads:

`A prisoner of conscience shall not be required to stand except when his cell is inspected or during the first five minutes of any interrogation.' But, as in the case of Peh Tian Guan, the detainees have been ordered to stand and squat 160 times as punishment.

Article 11(a) reads:

`A prisoner of conscience on remand shall not suffer any unnecessary restrictions or deprivations. In particular he shall be permitted to receive visits, letters, parcels of food clothing, reading and writing material.'

We know how our friends in Outram Prison were denied all these things until only very recently.

Article 12 (a) reads:

`A prisoner of conscience shall not be required to work during remand, nor shall he be required to eat or drink anything contrary to his wishes except on the advice of a medical practitioner.'

We know one detainee in the Central Police Station lock-up, whose name is Foo Chee Zee, who has been asked to scrub the lavatory attached to his cell. We are glad to learn that he has refused to dot this and has stood up for his rights.

We also understand that other detainees now in Outram Prison have been asked to sweep the floor!

Article 13 (a) reads:

`A prisoner of conscience shall be brought to trial as soon as possible. If he is not brought to trial within six months, he shall be deemed to be acquitted and shall be free from further arrests, custody, imprisonment, trial or other sanction on the ground on which he was originally arrested.'

We all know what has happened. There are persons who have been detained for nearly seven years without charge or trial. Does the Government intend to give all the arrested persons a fair trial in an impartial court?

And then Article 25 (a) reads:

`A prisoner of conscience shall not be subjected to:

(i) physical violence:

(ii) forced labour;

(iii) cruel or inhuman punishment: or.

(iv) a collective punishment.'

We all know what sort of punishment the detainees are getting. They have been subjected to physical violence, forced labour, and cruel and inhuman treatment.

I quote one more Article. Article 32 reads:

`During the period of his detention the state shall be obliged to pay an allowance in cash to any dependant of a prisoner of conscience unable to support himself.'

But the Government has done nothing in this direction.

Today the P.A.P.'s inhuman treatment of political detainees has been condemned by friend and foe alike, by those who oppose the P.A.P. as well as those who actively back and support the P.A.P. Even the good friend of the P.A.P. Ministers, Mr John Strachey. Labour M.P., has openly condemned the inhuman treatment. He asked why the detainees could not be sent to St. John's Island as in the past.

I do not have to refer again to Paper Cmd. 17 of 1962, the 1960 Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Prisons. The Report recommends that "all political detainees should enjoy as near normal conditions of detention as possible." The P.A.P. Ministers had accepted and implemented certain recommendations in the Report, like the change of name from the "Commissioner of Prisons" to the "Director of Prisons". But for reasons best known to themselves, they do not implement the recommendations concerning the conditions of detention of political detainees. The excuse given by the P.A.P. for the solitary confinement of detainees is that it is necessary during the period of interrogation. Yet, according to the Minister for Home Affairs, so far only one-third of the detainees have been interrogated. Only statements have been taken from all. This is a shocking revelation, Sir. More than two months have passed and the Minister says that only one-third of the detainees have so far been interrogated. When will interrogation be over? At this rate of progress interrogation will not be completed until another four or five months. And judging from the past practice, the interrogation will not be completed until after months and years. Does the P.A.P. intend tot lock up political detainees in solitary confinement and with no access tot newspapers for six or seven months or even years? With all their self-professed brilliance and ingenuity, the P.A.P. Government today cannot invent a better excuse for these cruelties and tortures.

The health of the detainees is the responsibility of the P.A.P. Government. Already there are some who talk a little irrationally as mentioned in my report. Does the Government really intend that these people be detained until they become mentally unbalanced? Sir, according to Price's Textbook of Medicine, illnesses could be produced during solitary confinement, and they can be grouped into three categories: (1) mental disorders, (2) psychosomatic illnesses, and (3) somatic illness.

The mental illnesses that can be produced as a result of solitary confinement are: (1) Affective disorders like (a) excitement, (b) depression, (c) anxiety; (2) Schizophrenia; (3) Paranoia; (4) Hysteria. Those who have a familial pre-disposition to these illnesses are more susceptible to these diseases than others.

Let me finally quote from this medical book, Clinical Psychiatry, by Dr Mayer-Gross, Slater and Roth of Cassell & Company, Limited, London 1960. On page 169, whilst discussing the psychopathic personality of neurotic reactions, in the paragraph under the heading of "Precipitation", there is this very small paragraph, paragraph 5:

`The isolation in prison and especially in solitary confinement is a most fertile soil for paranoid reactions.

Birnhaum (1908) has made a study of such cases. Some prisoners developed fantastic delusions of being pardoned or acquitted and indemnified, which disappeared when they were allowed to mix with others or when the sentence had been concluded. Paranoid reactions in prisoners of war, isolated by language from their environment, have also been observed.'

Sir, I have learnt that even the Government Prisons Doctor, Dr Leong Hon Koon, has complained of the solitary confinement. I understand he has already seen the Minister for Home Affairs and has told him that as a doctor he would not be responsible for the health of the detainees if they should be further detained in solitary confinement.

I would only ask the P.A.P. Ministers since none of them are here, it could he conveyed to them - to remember the fate that overtook all the Fascist dictators of the past. The verdict of the people is a terrible thing and it is especially terrible to those who go out of their way to inflict inhuman tortures on the people.

Let me now, Sir, conclude and finish with what I have taken considerable time to inform the House of. There are still one or two points mentioned in the I.S.C. statement which I have not as yet dealt with adequately. For example, there is still this irresponsible talk of the sham referendum having indicated the wishes of the decisive majority of the people in Singapore. It has indicated nothing of that sort, of course. But suffice it to say now that the referendum on the 1st September, 1962, never at any time reflected the true will and desire of the people of Singapore. The I.S.C. statement has sought to justify the repressive actions of the three Governments taken against our anti-colonial and anti-imperialist stalwarts. But I have now exposed the shallowness and falsity of all these so-called "justification". There is no justification whatsoever for the arrests. All the excuses put forward by the colonialists to white-wash their cruel and repressive action do not hold water. Let me summarise:-

(1) The Communist story is the usual accusation used to suppress and deny the people in the Colonies their legitimate rights and aspirations. It is an excuse for repression against anti-colonial forces.

(2) The British. Federation and Singapore Governments cannot answer our proof of the injustices in the Malaysia Plan, and, instead, have resorted to arrests and imprisonment without charge or trial, and to tortures of detainees.

(3) There is not the slightest evidence of violence and bloodshed. Nether is there evidence of their wanting to resort to armed struggle. There were no violent demonstrations, no riots, no window broken and no stones thrown.

(4) Our open support for the popular national struggle of the people of Brunei and Kalimantan Utara is justified. It is an anti-colonial struggle. And support of a similar nature was given by the Federation Government and the P.A.P Government in the past.

(5) The allegation that we constituted a danger to the security of the State is another trite excuse for the suppression of the fundamental freedom rights and aspirations of the people. This has been the same excuse given by the powers-that-be for all the worst tyrannies and repressions throughout the ages.

(6) The P.A.P. leaders have, in fact, collaborated with the colonial and imperialist forces to prolong foreign domination over our country. Therefore, they are colonial stooges.

(7) By their selfish actions. P.A.P. leaders have shown that they are indeed the detestable anti-national elements in Singapore.

(8) P.A.P. leaders hope that the arrests at this juncture would give them a better chance to preserve their personal vested interests. Fear of the growing strength and influence of the Barisan is the main reason for the repressive action.

(9) The emphasis on the concurrence of the three Governments taking repressive action on 2nd February, merely confirms the fact that all three Governments are undemocratic Governments.

(10) The banning of the publications is an attempt to deny the people their fundamental rights and freedom of speech and publication, association and assembly.

(11) The sending of detainees to the Federation is unnecessarily cruel and vindictive. It denies the citizens and residents of Singapore their basic rights as citizens and residents of Singapore.

There are many who have asked how we may discover if there is freedom in a country, democracy in a country. There are four basic conditions. According to John Dewey, the American philosopher, if you want to establish some conception of a society, go and find out who is in gaol. This is the first condition and we see today a large number of people in gaol. The second condition as to whether or not there is democracy In a country, freedom in a country, is: Is the Press allowed to criticise the Government? There is a certain amount of criticism, criticism of sorts, but it is clear that the Press today has been under heavy pressure. Third, does Government prevent political opposition? From what we have seen, it looks as if the Government wants to prevent all political opposition. And, fourth, do those accused of offences against the State receive a speedy and public trial before an impartial court? It is curious that one of the M.P.s in London, a good friend of the P.A.P., Mr John Strachey, frankly admitted that there is no democracy in Singapore. Sir, it is obvious that parliamentary democracy has failed in Singapore. Parliamentary democracy cannot work if the people in power do not want it to work, and do not allow it to work. If those in power were sincere in their talk of parliamentary democracy, then they themselves must first practise democracy. They must not preach democracy and instead practise dictatorship, oppression and tyranny. If those in power were sincere in their talk of parliamentary democracy, the basic minimum is that they must allow the Opposition the facilities to function as an Opposition. They must allow the Opposition a chance to oppose. If the Opposition is not allowed to oppose democratically and constitutionally, then it is tantamount to encouraging and even urging the Opposition to oppose unconstitutionally. If they close all doors of constitutional struggle to the people, they are guilty of urging the people to resort to armed struggle, forcing them to resort to armed struggle. Let us hope that the powers that be see where they are going, what they are doing.

The P.P.S.O. is an undemocratic instrument used for the suppression of the legitimate aspirations of the people. We condemn the three Governments for the arrests. We demand that the people be restored their inherent democratic rights and liberties of freedom of speech and publication, association and assembly. We demand that all the repressive measures be immediately stopped. We condemn the P.A.P. for the cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees, in particular solitary confinement and the denial of newspapers and other material. We demand that detainees now in the Federation be immediately brought back to Singapore. We demand that the P.A.P. immediately stop all tortures of detainees and forthwith implement the recommendations of the 1960 Prison Enquiry Commission Report. And we demand that all detainees be immediately and unconditionally released.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: The original Question was as moved by the Prime Minister, appearing as item 4* (*See col. 375.) of the Order Paper, to which an amendment+ (+See col. 399.) has been moved by the Member for Queenstown.

To leave out from "House" in line 1 of `the Prime Minister's motion to the end, and there to insert the words as they appear in the gestetnered paper which has been circulated.

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

I take it that the leader of the Barisan Sosialis has said all that has to be said by the Barisan Sosialis after six hours --- am I right?

Madam Hoe Puay Choo (Bras Basah) rose ---

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There may be a couple of points more, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I must warn Barisan Sosialis Members that I will be very, very strict. If there is any repetition, I will stop the Member. Madam Hoe.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am rising to ask whether this is the right time for us to have a tea-break, or are we to continue the debate? In my opinion, I would suggest that we have a tea-break before we continue with the debate.

Mr Speaker: I do not intend to suspend. I intend trying to get home as soon as possible. [Pause.] No Member wishing to speak? I will now put the Question to the vote.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 15; Noes, 23; Absent, 12; Abstention, Nil.

Mr Speaker: The amendment is therefore lost. We are back to the original Motion by the Prime Minister. The Question is,

"That this House supports the decision of the Internal Security Council made by representatives of the three Governments - the United Kingdom, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya - on the 1st February, 1963, ordering that certain persons known to the security authorities of the three Governments to be deeply implicated in the Communist United Front conspiracy to jeopardise national defence and security of Singapore and the territories of the proposed Federation of Malaysia, should be arrested immediately and not left till after 31st August. 1963, and that it endorses the statement made by the Internal Security Council as contained in Paper Misc. 2 of 1963."

The debate must be confined to the original question and nothing further can be said on the amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House supports the decision of the Internal Security Council made by representatives of the three Governments - the United Kingdom, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya - on the 1st February, 1963, ordering that certain persons known to the security authorities of the three Governments to be deeply implicated in the Communist United Front conspiracy to jeopardise national defence and security of Singapore and the territories of the proposed Federation of Malaysia. should be arrested immediately and not left till after 31st August, 1963, and that it endorses the statement made by the Internal Security Council as contained in Paper Misc. 2 of 1963.