MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE

7.43 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion* was supposed to have been debated in April - two months ago.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member move the motion?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That this House expresses no confidence in the People's Action Party Government for its pro-colonial policies.*

*The same motion also stood in the name of Mr Low Por Tuck.

I said that this motion was supposed to have been debated two months ago. But because the P.A.P. feared exposure and defeat, unjustifiable excuses were put forth to guillotine the debate. The debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech was cut down to one and a half days, and my two motions on the February arrests and on the inhuman and barbaric treatment of detainees, matters of national importance, Sir, were not given an opportunity for a full and frank debate. After an all-night debate, hardly anything of my six-hour speech appeared in the newspapers the following morning. This, of course, is what the P.A.P. had wanted and had planned.

Sir, this delay, like the guillotine motions of the past, is a clear case of abuse of power of the Government, cutting short our Assembly debates on matters of national importance in order to allow the Prime Minister to go and play golf. This is the parliamentary democracy that we have. Fascist dictatorship in fact.

Sir, heavy sacrifices in blood and toil in the past have brought to the people but limited gains in our struggle for our freedom. But even these limited gains are now in danger of being taken away from us by the P.A.P. which today is playing a most reactionary role - all for the benefit of the P.A.P.'s colonial masters in Britain. The P.A.P. Ministers today regard British troops as troops of their own. They forget that British troops are here not to protect the people of this region but British vested interests. And the Special Branch similarly looks after only imperial vested interests. Yet the P.A.P. now relies more and more on the Special Branch to rule the country. Agents provocateurs are employed to create incidents so as to allow the Government an opportunity to crush political opponents. There is a complete denial of the very fundamental freedoms of the people.

Last night I mentioned to you that when our legal adviser, Mr T. T. Rajah, and I were arrested by the P.A.P., we were denied the basic rights of all individuals who are placed in similar circumstances. Even the vilest criminal accused of the most horrible crime, when arrested, is allowed the basic right to contact his lawyer and inform his family or next-of-kin. But this right is not for us in the Barisan Sosialis today. The P.A.P. treats us worse than the worst of criminals. On that particular occasion we were denied the use of the telephone to inform our legal adviser and our families until well past midnight.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is just for clarification. The motion is,

That this House expresses no confidence in the People's Action Party Government for its pro-colonial policies.

I take it that the Member for Queens-town is alleging that bad treatment of prisoners detained is pro-colonial policy?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No, Sir. But as an introduction I wish to inform the House that this is the type of democracy and freedom of the individual that we have in Singapore today. This is the direct result of the pro-colonial policy of the P.A.P. Government.

Democracy is dead and it has been killed by the pro-colonial P.A.P.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Yet you can talk here!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Prime Minister has said that the one-man-one vote system is a tragedy in the context of Singapore. To us, Sir, the one-man-one-vote system is our only hope against Fascist dictatorship. At least with this system the voice of the people can still find, expression periodically against Fascist dictatorship. But, of course, to the Prime Minister it is a tragedy. Why? Because he cannot do away with it and immediately become a dictator in Singapore. Sir, in order to gain mass support, the Prime Minister has postured as a Leftist and a democrat, and therefore as an anti-colonialist. But he has been unmasked and he now openly adopts all the colonialist and imperialist tactics in order to impose a Fascist dictatorship on the people.

Since the last Confidence motion in this House in July 1962, much has happened in Singapore which clearly shows that under the P.A.P. Government there is a rapid strangulation and death of democracy in Singapore. You will remember the passing of the National Referendum Bill which was designed to deny the people of Singapore their democratic right of dissent. The injustice and dishonesty of the undemocratic Bill so aroused the antagonism of the people in Singapore that protests against the Bill came from political Parties, trade unions, journalists, universities, cultural and other civic organisations, and progressive individuals. Then came the unprecedented scare propaganda campaign of the P.A.P. Government in which the people of Singapore were compelled by threats and intimidation of loss of citizenship and other civic rights, into voting for the P.A.P. White Paper merger proposals in the referendum. This has given the British and the P.A.P. Governments a chance to deceive the outside world with the untruth that there is majority support for Malaysia in Singapore.

Then came rapid developments in the Borneo territories with vehement opposition to the neo-colonialist Malaysia erupting into the Brunei uprising and guerilla warfare today in the jungles of Brunei, Sarawak, and even Sabah. In Singapore, in spite of attempts to crush the Barisan Sosialis and to intimidate those who support the Barisan Sosialis, opposition to Malaysia still grows with more and more people rallying round the Barisan Sosialis in opposition to the imperialist Malaysia, a Malaysia that is designed to prolong and perpetuate colonial domination over all of us in South-East Asia. And because of the fear and growing strength and influence of socialist and progressive forces in the region, the colonialists, their agents and their stooges, have extended repressive actions to arrests and detention without charge or trial of anti-colonial stalwarts in the Federation, in Sarawak and recently in Singapore.

Today the whole of Singapore, Malaya, South-East Asia, and the world have condemned the cruel, barbaric and inhuman treatment of detainees by the imperialist stooges in the P.A.P. There can be no shadow of doubt as to the true nature of the P.A.P. Government today. Their Ministers no longer pretend to be anti-colonial. They openly support and promote pro-colonial schemes and plots to enslave the people.

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

7.59 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They take pride and even responsibility in asking for more troops to suppress the people. They plan not to help the masses but to serve their colonial masters. They think for their colonial masters and they make excuses for their colonial masters. They take pride in being stooges and puppets of their imperial masters, and they hope thus to salvage their own personal political future.

The P.A.P. Ministers have clean forgotten their election pledges to the people. They spout only pro-colonial and pro-imperialist mouthings these days, and the policies of the P.A.P. are indistinguishable from the policies of the S.P.A. That is why the S.P.A. today supports the P.A.P. The Member for Cairnhill and his colleagues prop up the Prime Minister and his other Ministers in office today because the Prime Minister follows a pro-colonial policy, lithe Barisan Sosialis were in the position of the P.A.P. today, that is the Government, the S.P.A. would have no hesitation, I am sure, in bringing the Government down. The P.A.P. does not depend on the working class for support but on the compradores and representatives of big businesses, both foreign and local, and other reactionary elements for support.

The P.A.P. today solicits support from the very same reactionary elements that the Prime Minister used to despise and ridicule only not so very long ago.

The picture of the Prime Minister hugging the Member for Farrer Park in the Straits Times two months ago tells us graphically where the P.A.P. stands today ---

An hon. Member: That is a technical offence.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- not with the anti-colonial Left, but with the pro-colonial Right.

The Ministers have changed their once-upon-a-time anti-colonial P.A.P. - that is, the genuine P.A.P. of old - into a fervently pro-colonial front and puppet organisation of Whitehall.

We understand that we want to finish our debate early tonight, and I do not intend to weary you with a whole series of examples of broken promises and pro-colonial policies of the P.A.P. I have already touched very lightly on some. More can be found on every page of the Hansard and in the Press since our break with the P.A.P., and for some time even before that. For example, it is quite obvious that the promotion of television and the programmes in Radio Singapore serve only party and sectional interests and the interests of foreign capitalists and the colonial powers.

The recent Budget debate of the last few days tells us exactly where the P.A.P. stands. The P.A.P. has also done nothing to prevent the attempts of Western films and literature from promoting propaganda for the colonialists and from undermining the development of the national aspirations of the vast majority of the people. Neither has the P.A.P. done anything to prevent the undermining of the morals of our youth.

An hon. Member: You went to a striptease dance.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Similarly, in the matter of education, the whole trend of the P.A.P. policy is not to give equal treatment to the four streams of education. Very little has been done for the national language; very little has been done for the Tamil language. The number of students attending Chinese schools is dwindling and the Nanyang University question remains unsettled.

The aims of the P.A.P. policy, in fact, are to anglicise the whole population of Singapore and so to strengthen the colonial influence in the country, paving the way to a cultural subversion by Western films, newspapers and so-called literature. I will not go into great details, Sir, but I wish briefly to summarise some of the main pro-colonial policies of the P.A.P. as follows:-

One, the merger negotiations. It helps to divide and rule the people. It helps only British interests. The financial negotiations have revealed enough that Singapore has been sold lock, stock and barrel to the Federation. All this, Sir, only profits ultimately the colonial power that rules the whole area from behind.

Two, their active support and promotion of the British-sponsored Malaysia Plan. This is the most obvious example, Sir. The whole world knows that Malaysia is a neo-colonialist plan. The President of the Philippines, the President of Indonesia - the closest neighbours of Malaya and Singapore - have condemned Malaysia as neo-colonialism. Yet the P.A.P. Government glorifies Malaysia.

Three, their suppression of the fundamental rights and freedoms of speech and publication, association and assembly. The P.A.P. abuses State power for private and sectional interests. I do not need to give many examples. Just one or two - the S.A.T.U. conference was banned; a convention was also banned last year.

Four, their frequent and unjustifiable attempts to divide the people by deliberate rousing of communal sentiments and fears on national issues. One of the most blatant examples is the Prime Minister's constant harping on the communal arithmetic of Malaysia. Recently, he talked of a Singapore electing only a Chinese leader to head the Singapore Government and the Federation electing only a Malay to head the Federation Government. Yet, not so very long ago the P.A.P. had been telling the people that Malay Assemblymen were elected in predominantly Chinese areas. Another example, Sir, is the way the Prime Minister threatened the Chinese in British North Borneo into supporting Malaysia following the Brunei uprising.

No. 5. Their use of the police and troops against the workers and the deliberate division of workers and non-implementation of their promise of unification of the trade union movement. They talk of industrial peace with justice. But, of course, whenever they talk of justice, they talk of justice only to the employers and the imperial masters. They never talk of justice to the workers. The Finance Minister has said that Hong Kong is a successful industrial State because the workers there have no unions. From this, you can see what the Minister for Finance has in mind concerning the reunification of the trade union movement and the unions of the workers.

No. 6. The P.A.P. support of the Internal Security Council in the arbitrary arrests and detention of anti-colonial stalwarts. Everybody knows that the I.S.C. is an imperialist organ, an instrument for the imperial power to suppress the hopes and aspirations of the people in the region. Yet we see the P.A.P. Government fully supporting the Internal Security Council in arresting people who are fighting for the interests of the people.

No. 7. Their denial and revocation of citizenship rights and the threatened banishment of anti-colonial stalwarts. We have a sorry spectacle of a Government that was elected by the people now going completely against the people.

Those of us who have obtained our citizenship after such difficulties are now in great danger of losing that citizenship. The funny thing about the so-called national Government of Singapore is that even Malay nationals, born in the Federation, are having their citizenship taken away from them.

No. 8. Their suppression of national education and the promotion of Western education. I do not need to enlarge on this because we have had a good debate on it only last night and it is quite clear that the P.A.P. Government intends to anglicise the educational policy of Singapore.

No. 9. The P.A.P. is not pursuing a policy of helping local businessmen and industrialists to develop a national industry. The P.A.P. concentrates on promoting the interests of external imperialist businessmen like those from Japan, Australia and other imperialist countries.

No. 10. They are doing nothing to prevent the Naval Base from being used for the suppression of the nationalist and popular liberation movement in Brunei and Kalimantan Utara. It is recognised that the Brunei uprising is a national liberation uprising, and yet the P.A.P. Government wants this liberation movement to be suppressed and does nothing whatsoever to prevent the British from using the Naval Base in Singapore as a lumping-off ground in its suppression of the nationalist uprising.

No. 11. The P.A.P.'s active co-operation with the Special Branch and the Internal Security Council to suppress the legitimate hopes and aspirations of the people. This is especially blame-worthy and deplorable when the P.A.P. uses and employs foreign nationals to suppress the people of Singapore. People like Thomson, Blades, Ahmad Khan, Corridon are not citizens of Singapore. They serve only the interests of people outside Singapore. Yet the P.A.P. today uses these people to suppress the hones and aspirations of the people.

No. 12. Their use of Commissions of Inquiries to frighten and intimidate people opposed to the P.A.P. for selfish cods. I do not think I need go further ---

Mr Rajaratnam: You have your own myth.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You will probably realise that the PAP, is very fond of Commissions of Inquiries in order to serve the interests of the P.A.P. and their masters.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Serve the interest of truth.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No. 13. Active co-operation with the colonial Press and the giving of special commendations and even medals to pro-colonialists and pro-imperialists.

Mr Rajaratnam: You will not get a medal, I am sure.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: These are some of the main items of the pro-colonial policies of the P.A.P. I shall leave other material to be touched on by some of my colleagues.

But let the P.A.P. remember this. The P.A.P. celebrated National Day two weeks ago, but Singapore is still a colony. National Day in Singapore serves to remind the people of toast sacrifices in blood and toil in order that they may have today limited self-government. But more important, National Day reminds us of the yet uncompleted tasks ahead. The tasks ahead in the anti-colonial struggle. This struggle must lead us to complete independence and to the restoration of all our basic and fundamental democratic rights. Only then will the people have the opportunity to go one step further in the struggle towards freedom in order that they may solve the basic problems of poverty, disease, ignorance and want, and towards a society with no exploitation of man by man.

The P.A.P. was elected to office in 1959 on an anti-colonial policy. The object then was to lead the people to genuine independence and freedom. But for selfish interests, the P A.P. Ministers now try to retard the progress of the people in their march towards freedom. In so doing, the P.A.P. Ministers ally themselves with the imperialist and colonialists and pursue pro-colonial policies I have just outlined.

I, therefore, move,

That this House expresses no confidence in the People's Action Party Government for its pro-colonial polices.

Question proposed.

8.23 p.m.

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown and myself.

Much has been said about the pro-colonial policies of the P.A.P. Government. I would like to stress only one or two points. The P.A.P. came to power on an anti-colonial platform, but the P.A.P.'s pro-colonial policies during their short four-year reign have exposed their deceit of the people and have openly shown their tolerance, adulation and support of colonial polices. On the other hand, their support for all anti-colonial struggles has been next to nil.

Instead of making use of the country's surpluses to solve our problem of unemployment and to industrialise our country, the P A.P. Government has followed in the footsteps of the previous colonial Government by investing millions of dollars abroad, especially in the United Kingdom During the general elections in 1959, the P.A.P. promised the people of Singapore that they would recall all local capital invested abroad for the industrialisation of the country. But since they came to power, more and more money has been invested abroad, nearly twice the amount in three years, and these large sums of money which should have been used for the benefit of the people of Singapore are being used to provide employment for the benefit of other people.

The P.A.P. have never come out in the open to give wholehearted and sincere support for any anti-colonial struggle. Most Afro-Asian leaders and political Parties condemn the apartheld policies of the Verwoerd Government in South Africa. To show their disapproval of this apartheid policy, many of them, including the Federation of Malaya, imposed a boycott on South African products. But the P.A.P. Government which profess to be anti-colonial have not done anything of the sort. Their silence on this issue could only mean support and tolerance of the racial and colonial policies of the Verwoerd Government.

In the struggle of the Indonesian people to liberate West Irian, the P.A.P. as a ruling Party failed to show any vigorous support. It was the Barisan Sosialis who organised the people to show their support for their brothers and neighbours.

When the Brunei revolution broke out, the P.A.P. openly condemned it, just as the British had condemned it and sent troops to suppress it. But in the eyes of the Afro-Asian countries, the revolution was a national revolution aimed at ending British colonialism. The P.A.P. stand condemned in the eyes of the Afro-Asian countries. This could not be better illustrated than by what had happened to their delegation at the Third Afro-Asian Solidarity Conference at Moshi recently when the P A.P. delegates had the door of the Conference slammed in their faces.

As a semi-colonial country with no control in foreign affairs, even then the P.A.P. as a local political Party can come out and show their support for anti-colonialism. But the P.A.P. dare not do so, for they arc entirely dependent on the British Government for their survival. They depend on the British for aid, especially military aid, in the form of troops, to wipe out their political opponents. This is best illustrated by the fact that the Prime Minister has, during a world tour, stopped at London to ask the British Government to finance another battalion in the Singapore Military Force.

It is well known that the Malaysia Plan is not originated from the Tunku.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

8.30 p.m.

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): He has only been made use of by the British to bring out this Plan. It is a British-sponsored plan, a plan by which the British hope to withdraw from political control of the territories of Borneo and Singapore, leaving them in the "safe" hands of their stooges, thus maintaining their economic and military interests in this region. This is the usual design in the grand tradition of British colonialism. The British only let the Tunku announce the plan to allay suspicion. The Prime Minister of Singapore, in fact, who knew of this plan before, instead of opposing it as a true anti-colonialist should, welcomed it as a means of saving himself from political bankruptcy. He thought that through Malaysia he could deceive the people about achieving merger with the Federation, an objective advocacy by every political Party in Singapore. He, therefore, came out in full support of the plan. The P.A.P. who call themselves anti-colonialists now become purveyors of non-colonialism. The British now have, therefore, in Singapore and the Federation, two stooges to carry out their grand plan.

Before I sit down, I would like to stress another point which is quite important in parliamentary practice, as the P.A.P. have always pretended to he the protector of the parliamentary system. I was told that if in the House of Parliament or in the Assembly, whenever there is a motion of no confidence, the Government, if they have guts, if they are serious, and if they have confidence in themselves, should push aside all matters on the Order Paper and debate the motion of no confidence. But instead the P.A.P. Government decided to postpone this motion which we have tabled at the last sitting and forced us to have it debated at today's sitting. Even then our motion was not debated first but was left till the end of this sitting. If the P.A.P. Government and the P.A.P. Front benches are really the protectors of the parliamentary system, and if they have guts and confidence in themselves, they should have debated our motion first instead of now.

8.33 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is a saying that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. The Barisan Sosialis have been repeating themselves so often that we on this side are often constrained to repeat our counter arguments. Perhaps it would be best to start off by asking what they mean by anti-colonialism. That is the essence of the motion, that we are following pro-colonial policies.

As I understand anti-colonialism, its purpose is to get rid of foreign rule, foreign control, political or otherwise. The method by which we intended to get rid of colonialism was laid out in the fixed political objectives of the Party, the policy statement by the Central Executive Committee of the People's Action Party in 1960, contained in the book, The Battle for Merger, a statement issued before the election and signed by every P.A.P. Assemblyman. It indicated how to get rid of colonialism.

First, we made it quite clear that fighting to get rid of colonialism did not mean fighting for an independent Singapore. It was made quite clear that we said that an independent Singapore, once established, cannot lead to merger by consent. If merger ever came, it would be by the conquest of one by the other. For an independent Singapore, once established, even for an interim period, would create a situation whereby vested interests with a Chinese appeal would become permanent. If once independence were achieved in this island city, 75 per cent of whose population is Chinese, the logical consequence would be that those Chinese chauvinist sentiments which are at present being muted and slowly dissolved because of the objective of independence through merger, would openly and aggressively come to the fore. Therefore, the objective was independence through merger, and that was the basis of our anti-colonial struggle signed by everyone of the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen.

That was 1959, four years ago. I think exactly 77 days from today, we will be getting merger. The gentlemen over there will get into trouble on 31st August. But we have fulfilled our mandate of securing independence through merger. Can they say that we have not kept faith with our anti-colonial policy, the major platform of our election promise signed by all the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen?

What is a pro-colonialist? A pro-colonialist is one who wants to sell the country to outside forces, who has to rely on outside forces. I would like to convince you, within this short period of time - I do not want to take up too much time - that it is the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists who are today following a pro-colonialist policy. You will remember, Sir, that when the question of merger was sprung on the Communists, what did they do? It was revealed here that the first person they ran to was the United Kingdom Commissioner in order to make a deal. Pro-colonialists? Anti-colonialists running to the U.K. Commission to have tea. They were led up the garden path into taking a dangerous and disastrous course, which they did. Anti-colonialists never tried to do a deal with the U.K. Commissioner. What was their deal? We said independence through merger. By getting merger we, in Singapore, will become part of a national Government which will have control over foreign affairs and defence. We have internal self-government; now we want control over foreign affairs and defence. What was the deal that the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis put forward to the British? They said, "Please give us internal self-government in return for which you, the British, can keep control of defence and foreign affairs." Who are the pro-colonialists? Who are the anti-colonialists? I can tell you, Sir, it was sometime in August last year, I think, that the Barisan Sosialis sent a delegation to the United Nations to try to interest the Russians and the Poles to take up their cause. The Prime Minister was there. When their representation was made, the Russians and the Poles thought the Barisan Sosialis were Communists. They took a firm anti-colonial stand. The Prime Minister said. "Yes, but do you know the Barisan's stand is against merger, as proposed by us, and that they will allow the British to keen defence and the Naval Base and foreign affairs?" The Russians were so flabbergasted. They thought the Prime Minister was putting on a fable. So they asked Mr Woodhull, "Surely, Mr Woodhull, that is not so?" Mr Woodhull said, "Well, I have no authority to make any statement on that point." "But is it so?" He said. "Yes, at the moment." He had already said that under their arrangements the British bases would be retained. The British could have control over their bases and over foreign affairs and defence. Pro-colonialists? Who are the pro-colonialists? After that the Russians and the Polish delegates decided to call the whole thing off. They were so embarrassed. Here were Communists coming before other Communists taking what appeared to be an active anti-colonial line, but which in fact turned out to be a pro-colonial line.

As I have said, Sir, we have fulfilled our mandate. The political objective, which, as I have said, was signed by them also, is to get independence through merger. In 77 more days that mandate will be carried out to the hilt. And these gentlemen first went to the U.K. Commission to do a deal! They even embarrassed the Russians and the Poles!

Further, in the issue of the Plebeian Express No. 6, ten cents, published by the Barisan Sosialis - I believe the Petir is a bit more expensive. But this is ten cents; and what is it? Here they try to prove - "Malaysia on 31st August???" Three question marks. They try to convince here, and demoralise and rather frighten their followers that Malaysia will not come about. Why? Because they have the people behind them? No. They give the reasons why Malaysia will not come about. Perhaps, Sir, it is better to quote. "First, a lot of difficulties for the Tunku." The Tunku is not a foreigner. He is one of us. He is a Malayan, a Malaysian. But they are not referring to the Tunku, "First, that guerilla warfare is spreading in the Borneo territories." Who is spreading guerilla warfare'? Mr Azahari. Where is Mr Azahari?

An hon. Member: In Indonesia.

Mr Rajaratnam: In Indonesia. Mr Azahari is carrying on propaganda to say "Save Malaysia from the Chinese." How to save it? Break up Malaysia! Those are the allies of the Barisan Sosialis, their friends, the men who are going to save and destroy Malaysia. Mr Azahari, who is in Indonesia, now says, "We must oppose Malaysia to save it from the Chinese." Kalimantan Utara Radio broadcasts it every day. Pro-colonialists? Anti-colonialists?

Secondly, what is the other alternative? What are the other reasons why they believe that Malaysia will not come about? They say, "It is because of the sham referendum." 70 per cent of the people voted for it. Is it a sham? They know that they cannot rely on the people of Singapore te break up Malaysia. So, therefore, they have to rely on Brunei. Azahari? That also fizzled out. Today they say, perhaps it is not Azahari - this gentleman is now a little bit as desperate as the Member for Queenstown - but because there are other reasons. What is the greatest of the other reasons? The greatest is that a strong and vehement opposition has come from Malaya's immediate neighbour, Indonesia, and Malaya's ASA partner, the Philippines. Great anti-colonialists, nationalists now saying, "We cannot get the people of Singapore to oppose Malaysia. But this is all right, friends and comrades. Indonesia and the Philippines will help break up Malaysia." 70 per cent of the people voted for Malaysia, but the Barisan Sosialis, the great anti-colonialists, say, "Do not worry; Indonesia and the Philippines will help us to break up Malaya." Anti-colonialists? Pro-colonialists? I say. Sir, that a pro-colonialist is one who sells his country to foreigners and outside forces. Who are the pro-colonialists?

An hon. Member: The Barisan.

Mr Rajaratnam: Further, they say "Malaysia will not come about???" Three question marks. "Because it will mean the intensification of the confrontation policy with a greater flare-up in the fighting in the Borneo territories." That simply means that foreign forces are going to invade the Borneo territories and we will be saved by the Barisan Sosialis, the great anti-colonialists. We will be saved not by the people of Malaysia, but by people from outside. Again I ask you, Sir, who are the anti-colonial's and who are the pro-colonialists? People who sell out the country, who depend on foreign forces, who tell the British that they are prepared to give them their foreign bases, ask them to keep their defence and foreign affairs. They are the colonialists ---

An hon. Member: Fifth columnists.

Mr Speaker: Order. I would suggest that Members on the Government side do not interject. I think Members of the Opposition side have not so far interjected.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, that is bad enough. At least they can say that it is in the spirit of Afro-Asia. But the Member for Queenstown has new allies to help break up Malaysia. Not in Afro-Asia. Because he goes on to say, "Britain too ---", page 4. This was all written before recent events. This was 7th June, 1963. "Britain too recognises these difficulties and the Under-Secretary for Commonwealth Relations, Sir Saville Garner, was concerned about the attitude of Indonesia, and, therefore, tells the British that if they go ahead with this, they are going to get into trouble." In other words, they now hope that even the British will come to their aid.

And you will remember, Sir, that a few months ago the Member for Queenstown, having lost the referendum, when 70 per cent of the people voted for merger and Malaysia, said, "Better get rid of Bung. Let me go and enlist new friends." So he said he was going to visit Afro-Asia. But he went to London - the heart of colonialism - to enlist support from amongst M.P.s. And we know three M.P.s turned up. These three M.P.s came at his request, though, as you know, Sir, when they came, the first thing they said was, "We are coming here at the invitation of the Prime Minister." But, in fact, I did suggest to the Finance Minister that if the Member for Queenstown kept on insisting that the three M.P.s came at his request, he should send all the bills to him. But, I think, since the M.P.s said that they were coming here at the request of the Prime Minister ---

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Who is paying the bill?

Mr Rajaratnam: The interesting thing is that even if the three M.P.s had come at the express invitation of the Member for Queenstown, his treatment of the three M.P.s. his three guests, was even more deplorable. You will remember - in the newspapers, he invited the three M.P.s to go to the Happy World rally. They always go to the Happy World because they are so depressed that that is the only place where they think they can feel a certain amount of elation at what is going to happen. They invited the three M.P.s and insisted that they should speak. They refused to speak, and then they went off. The Member for Queenstown then got up and made a long speech in which he denounced the three M.P.s Who had invited their guests, Sir? They invited them. The M.P s did not want to go to their meeting. They said, "We have not come here to address mass meetings, having addressed bigger meetings." They made their case and they went away. So he denounced them. He said, "The three M.P.s were Labour M.P.s. The Labour Party is a Party of monopoly vested interests." Then three paragraphs later there is a new trend in the argument. He said, "On the other hand, the Barisan Sosialis had a big reception at the Airport, one of the biggest receptions." So it all boils down to this. The Barisan Sosialis organised a big reception at the Airport to meet three Labour M.P.s who were the representatives of monopoly capitalism. How silly can the Barisan Sosialis get, that they should now confess that here is an anti-colonial Party inviting three Labour M.P.s from the heart of colonialism to help break up Malaysia, and, at the same time, they organised a reception for what amounted to representatives of monopoly capitalism.

That is why. Sir, I earlier prefaced my remarks by saying some epithet about the Barisan Sosialis, that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. And this is madness, Sir. First, anti-colonialists who rely on foreign forces, ending up with British monopoly vested interests; representatives of monopoly vested interests to help them out of their predicament. Anyway, Sir, now they have come to this point. You will remember these great pro-colonialists. There is no doubt about it. We are the real anti-colonialists. We said we would get you independence through merger in 77 days - in 77 days that will come about. These people originally said that they supported the concept of Malaysia - on the record, the concept of Malaysia. But now, in the Barisan Sosialis Plebeian Express on the 15th May, they say, "We oppose Malaysia irrespective of whether it is the plan or the concept." Here, they repeatedly kept on saying, "Oh, we accept the concept of Malaysia. We oppose the plan."

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Read it.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, it is in the Plebeian Express.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Read it, read it!

Mr Rajaratnam: "No to Malaysia. We oppose Malaysia irrespective of whether it is the plan or the concept. We oppose Malaysia and we do not want Malaysia."

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Read on.

Mr Rajaratnam: "It may be asked, do we object to smaller territories?" Now, I do not want to repeat your propaganda here.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Read.

Mr Rajaratnam: "That the Borneo territories will have self-determination." But you say now that you oppose the Malaysia concept just as you signed the pledge ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Everybody is getting excited now. I have said nothing about the Malaysia concept. The Minister should now address the Chair, and perhaps if he holds his glasses in his right hand, he will not be pointing so much at the Opposition side.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not risk my glasses by holding them in my right hand, having regard to the microphone here. I will just try to control my hand.

Sir, we have come, I think, to what is really the last chapter in the history of the Barisan Sosialis. You will have noticed a rather significant news item which appeared a few days ago. There was a united front of the Workers' Party, the Barisan Sosialis, the U.D.P. But you will have read that the Workers' Party has pulled out. Why? Because they know that by tagging themselves on to the united front, they are going to get into real trouble. So, like rats which know how to desert a sinking ship, they have pulled out first. They have even better reasons for believing that these are condemned men who have got a few more days - 77 days; tomorrow it wi11 be 76 days. Sir, they have now placed all their hopes on foreign socialists - Indonesia, the Philippines, British M.P.s. even British colonial administrators - to help them out. They cannot mobilise the people to help them out, but we have had news from Manila. They have been putting their faith, their last hope, on confrontation But now we know that whatever happens, both the Philippines President and the President of Indonesia have considered that Malaysia is not neo-colonial. Sir, if you will read the communique - not the speculative part which gave buoyant hope, increased their optimism the day before yesterday (but yesterday I noticed they looke4 slightly depressed) - in today's paper, what does it say? The communique, the relevant part ---

Mr Speaker: The Straits Times?

Mr Rajaratnam: The Straits Times of 12th June, 1963.

`The Ministers in the context of their close and brotherly association, succeeded in reaching common understanding and complete agreement on how to resolve problems of common concern arising out of the proposal to establish a Federation of Malaysia.'

Nobody reaches common agreement to establish something which he believes to be neo-colonial because whatever he might say President Soekarno is no neo-colonialist.

An hon. Member: Provided?

Mr Rajaratnam: There is nothing; provided what?

'In the same brotherly spirit the three Ministers discussed the Phillippines claim to North Borneo and arrived at a common understanding...'.

At a common understanding, not what you were expecting, Sir. Sorry, Sir, not you, the Communists expected:

`and agreement and how this problem should be resolved justly and expeditiously.'

But it is quite clear, Sir, now they are hanging on to half straws. Yesterday, or the day before yesterday, they were clinging on to a straw. Today it is half a straw. But I think in a couple of days they will have to swim on their own and since they do not know how to swim, you know what the outcome will be. But this is inevitable when tenderfoot Communists, wolf cubs, girl guides of the Communist movement try to launch out on their own. Sir, they issued a statement the day after this communique came out. We only read the speculative part. As a newspaperman, I know every newspaperman wants to give a sensational twist to a rather prosaic communique. Of course, the speculations - they were talking about a referendum even in Singapore, Sir, and they were getting a bit elated, and on the basis of that they went and issued a silly statement supporting the accord which was reached in Manila. I think the statement was issued on the following day, 13th June. But if they had only restrained themselves and not launched out on their own, they would have got the right line first. They praised the Manila Agreement. I have a translation here. It appeared in the Chinese Press.

`We are thankful to the Foreign Ministers (that is, Tun Razak too, Sir) conference in Manila for paving the way for a summit meeting of the heads of Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaya. This will undoubtedly reduce tension and help bring about stability and peace in South East Asia ...'.

An hon. Member: Is that true?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Aidit - the man for whom they have great respect and who can decide their fate arid their future - came out later in the Straits Times, June the 14:

`Aidit hits at Manila Agreement. The leader of the Indonesian Communists complained yesterday (he was not praising, thankful or welcoming) that the Foreign Ministers' joint communique in Manila lacked the spirit of anti-imperialism. It is a warning to them that this is not in the spirit of welcoming something. It is not in the sprit of anti-imperialism, because it did not contain enough of the anti-imperialist and the Bandoeng principles'

Sir, I think this was the last issue of the Plebeian which came out on the 7th of June and I have no doubt that the next issue will contain another somersault in denouncing the talks at Manila.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Today.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Rajaratnam: It does not matter, because I say there are only 77 more days. This issue was probably concocted before June the 14th.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: With pictures too.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Rajaratnam: I have no doubt that just as they supported the Malaysia concept - in fact, the Member for Thomson went even further; you will remember that he supported the Malaysia concept but he wanted Indonesia to be the heartland - but, as I have already said, they do not even support the Malaysia concept but all that they want is Indonesia as the heartland. So now Indonesia has deserted them. They have no friends. The Workers' Party has deserted them; some of their ghost-writers have left the scene. So there are 14 gentlemen who do not know how to swim, and there are 77 days more before we, as we have promised, finish our anti-colonial battle. As we have said, the nature of the anti-colonial battle is to get independence through merger, and I am quite sure that the ten million people of Malaysia will rejoice in exactly 77 days. Malaysia will come. We still have the neon light service for all: a flash with the words "As sure as the sun rises."

Dr Lee Siew Choh: As the sun sets.

Mr Rajaratnam: And as sure as Malaysia rises, the Barisan Sosialis will set.

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, in reply?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I understand that the Member for Upper Serangoon wishes to speak a few ---

Mr Speaker: A few words?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chan Sun Wing - just a few words.

9.06 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I will leave it to our Chairman to rebut the balderdash uttered by the Minister for Culture. I will now only speak on some other aspects.

I would like to point out to the Party in power that they have deviated from their original anti-colonialist stand, because in one of the past P.A.P.'s declarations, they said that the economy of Malaya existed only for British interests. They also said at the same time that under the then economic system the thought of getting political power through constitutional reform was something of a deception, that the various reforms carried out in Malaya after the war by the colonialists were all meant to consolidate the interests of British colonialists and that before achieving political freedom it was impossible to change the then economic system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the past P.A.P.'s declaration, it was necessary to change the economic structure first. You will remember the other day in this House, I criticised the P.A.P. policy. When I insisted on changing the economic structure at the time when I was in the P.A.P., the Minister for Finance accused me of being a Communist. From this, you can clearly see that the P.A.P. have deviated from their original anti-colonial stand to their present pro-colonial stand. Further in February 1959, the then Chairman of the P.A.P., in a Hong Lim mass rally, said that there were three forces existing. The first force was the banking compradore class, the second force was the British and American imperialists, and the third force was the Ministers such as Inche Johari of the Federation. Now, this was uttered by the P.A.P. before they came to power. They described the then situation as one of the existence of three forces. At present, we are witnessing the P.A.P. competing with the M.C.A. of Malaya for the role of compradores. They no longer criticise the British and the Americans because the U.K., the U.S.A. and all Western countries are now praising the P.A.P.'s new approach as wise.

Although the Prime Minister has, on a few occasions, attacked a certain Minister of the Federation, yet he has been playing golf in the Federation.

Before I sit down, I would also like to point out that we Barisan Assemblymen left the P A.P. in 1961 mainly because we saw through the P.A.P.'s stand which was pro-colonialist. In January 1962, sometime before the referendum was held, not only we in the Barisan Sosialis knew that the P.A.P was pro-colonialist but that the political Parties from the five territories which held a socialist conference in Kuala Lumpur knew it too. At that conference the P.A.P. was expelled from the socialist camp. After the national referendum ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I did have great hopes that at last parliamentary practice was going to be practised in this Assembly, and I was informed of the speakers who were going to speak on this matter. Now, the Member for Upper Serangoon is raising new issues which will probably have to be replied to by the Government side. As I have said, I had great hopes that at last we are knuckling down to really good parliamentary practice. I wonder whether the Member for Upper Serangoon realises that what he has said about certain parties not practising parliamentary democracy might very well apply to him.

Mr Chan Sun Wing continued speaking in Mandarin.

Mr Speaker: I did not get that. Will the Member please repeat what he has said?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Just now, I said that I do not agree with the last sentence of your ruling.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Member does not agree with my ruling, then I think he had better sit down. That is my ruling.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am not challenging your ruling, because the last part of your sentence said that I had not been complying with democratic parliamentary practice.

Mr Speaker: Order. The opinion of the Speaker is that the Member for Upper Serangoon is not complying .with parliamentary practice. The information that was given to the Speaker was that there were going to be two speakers from the Barisan side and one from the Government. That is the information. If that cannot be honoured, parliamentary practice cannot be honoured.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): This is because my Party has not informed me of this undertaking and, in the meantime, I have already informed my Party that my speech will be very short. So if Mr Speaker did not stop me I think I might have already finished my speech.

Mr Speaker: The Member is being very disrespectful, and if he continues in that strain I will ask him to stop. He must apologise for being disrespectful.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Well, due to some misunderstanding, I am quite prepared to apologise if you think it is necessary.

Mr Speaker: The Speaker does think it is necessary, and if the Member for Upper Serangoon does not apologise without any frills, I will ask him to stop speaking or I will take action under Standing Orders.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): From what I have said, one can see that since we have understood the deviation of the P.A.P. from the original stand ---

Mr Speaker: I still have not got apologies without any frills. I want that apology without any frills.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, my apologies. Mr Speaker, just now I have pointed out that understanding the change of stand of the P.A.P. from one of anti-colonial to one of pro-colonial and the change of being a true Party to that of a colonial puppet, and after the referendum, their position is precarious. We can see now that the moving of this motion by us will not bring down the Party in power, but I believe, in spite of this, this motion should receive support from the other Opposition Parties. At least we can understand their attitude on this motion.

9.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the the Member for Upper Serangoon says that the P.A.P. Government has not honoured the manifesto of the P.A.P. I believe he is trying to make use of this opportunity to deceive the people. The declaration in the manifesto was made in 1954. I would like him to refer to the manifesto of 1958 before the general election. It is entitled Our Role and Policy after Self-Government. I would like to quote just a small paragraph:

`The basic aim of the party was brought up four years ago in 1954 on 1st July when a declaration was made on the policies and aims of the P.A.P. During these four years there hive been some changes in the history, of Malaya. Three years after 1954 the Federation of Malaya in 1957 on 31st August became an independent nation, while the people in Singapore were still separated from the people of Malaya and such separation was even advocated. In fact, Singapore not even part of the Federation of Malaya, and Singapore itself could not possibly become independent. It could only achieve self-government in the following year, and so to review our position and to explain our policies and aims the time has come for us to do all these things!'

I would like him to refer to this paragraph again. Sir, before he stood for the election, he endorsed our aims and policies. What he read was outdated. He was repeating something which was outdated. Now we have already changed.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary has developed the habit of the Minister for Culture of pointing across the Chamber. He must not do that.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): I do not wish to take too much time on this. All I want to do is to remind the Member and those people who have sold out the P.A.P. and who are now in the Barisan Sosialis of their knowledge of our new policy as expounded. So they should not mention anything that was made previous to this new change of policy. Policy must change according to the context of society and history. If they are really gentlemen and honourable, then they must admit that they were elected on a P.A.P. ticket and so, by right, if they want to reserve their seats in this House, they should go out from this House to the electorate ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that is completely irrelevant. That is inciting a debate from the opposite side. Perhaps he could wind up now. Mr Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): I was just pointing out to the Member for Upper Serangoon that he was trying to make use of our past manifesto to deceive the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, in reply.

9.21 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with what the Minister for Culture has said, "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

Mr Rajaratnam: At least, he admits now.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Because it is quite obvious to all of us that the Minister for Finance ---

An hon. Member: The Minister for Culture.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Minister for - yes, the Minister for Finance too, I think -

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Minister for Culture plus his ex-Parliamentary Secretary are getting mad ---

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Who is mad?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- standing up in this Assembly and pointing their fingers across the Floor. Are they not mad?

Mr Rajaratnam: You have a funny look in your eye.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already indicated to the Member for Queenstown that if he asks questions, he will probably get an answer across the Floor. Perhaps if he tries not to ask rhetorical questions, we could get on with the debate.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: He wants to go to Yio Chu Kang.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Because he is asking: what is anti-colonial? And then, according to him, it is to get rid of foreign rule. Yes, we agree that it is to get rid of foreign rule. But it is foreign domination in many aspects. They keep on repeating the slogan of independence through merger. They also say independence through Malaysia. But one of the most pro-Malaysia politicians in Sarawak today has come out and said that this slogan of independence through Malaysia is a myth. Sir, we in this House have debated ad nauseam and explained to all the Ministers how the so-called merger will not give the people of Singapore independence. The Member for Upper Serangoon has already informed the House that the P.A.P. has such a bad reputation amongst genuine anti-colonialists that it was driven out of the socialist conference in Kua1a Lumpur in January 1961 and was debarred from entry to the conference at Moshi, Tanganyika, in spite of all the sponsoring by friendly governments hoping to smuggle the P.A.P. candidates into the conference.

My colleague, the Member for Havelock, has also mentioned the fact that the P A.P. Prime Minister went to England to ask for money for troops. Troops for what? Are these troops to fight the British? To borrow money from the British to fight the British? Do they recognise that we are still a colony? Are the Ministers opposite trying to tell us that the British are willing to lend money to the P.A.P. in order to kick the British out of Singapore? This is a new and funny way of fighting against colonialism. Today our troops in Singapore are not trained to fight the external enemy. They cannot fight against Indonesia; they cannot fight against the Philippines; and they cannot fight against anybody outside. The troops are only good for suppressing the people inside Singapore in their struggle for freedom and their democratic rights. That is all that the troops in Singapore are good for. Is this what the troops meant to do? These troops definitely are not meant to fight against the colonial masters. Our troops, in fact, are only trained to surround blocks of buildings and to prevent people from getting in and out. The troops are also ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Are you trying to get in or trying to get out?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- used to suppress strikers and to act as blacklegs in the breaking of strikes. At one time when the daily-rated workers went on strike, our troops were used as blacklegs and the whole exercise to get dust bins emptied and streets cleaned, was more in the manner of a military operation. That is how our troops are being used in Singapore today.

The Minister for Finance talks very much about bases. I have here the text of a speech by the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, on National Day ---

Mr Rajaratnam rose ---

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Rajaratnam: Point of clarification.

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown had better look after himself. He keeps on confusing me with the Minister for Finance.

An hon. Member: Off beam!

Mr Speaker: I think what the Minister means is that the Member for Queenstown is referring to the Minister for Culture as the Minister for Finance. This is the second time he has done that. Once he nearly got into trouble, I think.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: He has already got into trouble.

Mr Speaker: It is the Minister for Culture.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But I am now referring to the Prime Minister. [Laughter] Maybe he thinks he is going to change himself into the Prime Minister. I am not sure whether the Minister for Finance intends to take his place, because I ---

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown did say the Minister for Finance, and he was going to refer to that pamphlet. Do I understand now that that pamphlet refers to the Prime Minister and not the Minster for Finance or the Minister for Culture? Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh rose ---

Mr Rajaratnam: The Minister for Education.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You are off your rocker.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Every country that has self-respect will never like to have foreign bases on its soil, and any politician worth his salt and who calls himself a nationalist, will always do his best to get rid of bases from the country. Yet, I see here, Sir ---

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh remained standing.

Mr Speaker: No, the Member is not giving way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- the Prime Minister glorifying the bases ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What about Mr Woodhull?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He says:

'Without Singapore and her bases, Malaysia cannot be defended. Whatever mutual defence pacts there may be, if tomorrow we were to obiliterate Singapore from the map of Malaysia then the sine vs, with which Malaysia can be defended would be destroyed.'

Defended. Defended for whom?

Mr Rajaratnam: The people of Singapore.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Today the bases are here to defend British interests. The Prime Minster, piqued at not getting his way in the financial talks, is trying to frighten the Federation by reminding them that Singapore is, in fact, an asset to the Federation. But in his trying to emphasise the importance of Singapore, he only talks of Singapore as a base - a base for the defence of whom and for whose interests? Surely, he must know that today the centre of the British Far East Unified Command is in Singapore. The base is the centre of the British Far East Unified Command. In fact, Malaysia is only the political aspect of this military command which embraces all the five territories in Malaysia. The base in Singapore is to act as the springboard for the protection of British interests in the Far East, and stretching as far as the Indian Ocean and into the Arabian Sea. That was what was announced in the British White Paper, and all the big-wigs of the British Military Command have repeatedly said the same thing.

Recently, the Far East Unified Command Chief said that Malaysia would be defended 500 per cent with British forces. Do you mean to say that the British are going to defend Malaysia for people like the Minister for Finance? In fact, all the P.A.P. Ministers have been pleading for British retention of the base, in his visits to the rural constituencies, the Prime Minister stressed the fact that the base is important to Singapore.

Mr Rajaratnam: 40,000 jobs!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He calls Singapore the stopper of South-East Asia and the base is to be used as the stop of the stopper.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: To stop you from talking rubbish!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You can, therefore, see, Sir, that when the Ministers of the P.A.P. talk of their being nationalists, they are in fact playing the role of colonial stooges. They tight for the British base to be in Singapore. They want to preserve the base in Singapore so that it may serve the interests of the P.A.P. to a certain extent, but more important, the interests of a foreign power.

Our stand on the question of the base has been repeatedly stressed in our statements. We want a free, independent, democratic Malaya - that is to say, Singapore together with the Federation - free of foreign troops and free of foreign control. In other words, the base must go if we are to be really independent. But, of course, the P.A.P. likes the base to be there because it will serve the P.A.P. to a great extent.

Mr Rajaratnam: 40,000 jobs!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They keep on talking about 74 days to merger and the fulfilment of a promise. But was there any mention of Malaysia?

Mr Rajaratnam: Merger, yes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There was no mention of it at all in 1959. Why do they keep harping on independence through Malaysia then?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What is your point?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The point is you are bringing new things into your policy which were never mentioned before. Now the P.A.P. Government is even thinking of using money reserved for the development of Singapore for the expansion of the armed forces to protect the so-called Pan-Malaysian Services, Azahari's fight in Brunei is well known. His stand has been supported by all the Afro-Asian countries in Moshi ---

An hon. Member: Mushi?

Another hon. Member: Moshi, Moshi.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: All of us know that Azahari is an anti-colonialist in his own way in Brunei.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Very funny way!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Any person who fights against imperialism gets our support. Our stand is clear. Whether the anti-colonial struggle be in Brunei, Africa or Latin Amerce, it will get our support.

Mr Rajaratnam: Timbuctoo too.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: At one time, the P.A.P. gave the impression of supporting the anti-colonial struggle in Algeria. But when we did the same thing in support of Brunei, they used that as an excuse to arrest and detain the leaders and organisers of our Party. We are very clad, Sir, that the Minster for Culture agrees with our analysis in the Plebeian, and we are very glad that ---

Mr Rajaratnam: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There is no need for any clarification from him.

An hon. Member: You cannot understand him.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Because it is all here ---

Mr Rajaratnam: I never agreed to it. I just read it out.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He quoted extensively from our Plebeian. Our Plebeian came out well before the Manila Conference ended, and we had already predicted the difficulties of the Federation Government and the British in their wish to implement Malaysia. We know that the British and the Federation would like to push through Malaysia, but in view of the difficulties that they will have to face, I think they will be forced to think twice before going ahead without regard to the views of Indonesia and the Philippines.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: All are agreed now.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We have said here very clearly that the Federation and the British would most certainly like to push through their plans for Malaysia, but because of the realisation that if they persist with their plans, they would have to incur great losses, therefore, they now have to think of cutting their losses. That is why we said that there are great possibilities of Britain and the Federation postponing Malaysia.

Mr Rajaratnam: 77 days more!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I remember when the news came out about a referendum in Singapore and in the Borneo territories, we on this side of the House could see long faces on the opposite Benches. They were worried and did not know what to do. Only with the help of Malaysia can they hope to retain their position. But with Malaysia possibly not forthcoming as scheduled the Ministers opposite are getting worried.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Are you serious?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, we are very glad that they realise that Malaysia is not going to be smooth and plain sailing. In spite of their hopes, it looks as if Malaysia is going to strike rock.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Where?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If I may quote, Sir, from our latest Chinese Barisan. May I read this in Chinese so that it can be translated for you, Sir?

Mr Speaker: I think it will be more convenient, for interpretation purposes, for the hon. Member to interpret straightaway.

Mr Rajaratnam: Skip it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will translate it:

'It does not matter how eager the British and the Federation hope to implement their Malaysia plan. but because of ;strong opposition from the people fn the five territories, from Afro-Asia and from world opinion, and added to this the opposition from the Philippines and Indonesia . . . .'

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): Cuba.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: `, it looks as if the Federation Government and Britain will have to give way.'

And this is to inform the Ministers opposite: let them not be too happy. I think, from today onwards, they will have to start thinking of other ways and means of saving their personal fortunes.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, on a point of order. You will remember ---

Mr Speaker: The point of order being?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: A breach of privilege, Sir.

Mr Speaker: What is the allegation?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member has said that we are trying to save our personal fortunes. Sir. We have no personal fortunes.

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot see how that is either a point of order or a breach of privilege. The Member for Queenstown is just saying that he does not know how the Members are to save their personal fortunes. He has not said how they have amassed fortunes or, in fact, if they have amassed fortunes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Minister also complained that we have changed cur stand towards the concept and plan of Malaysia. Our stand is very simple, Sir. The present plan and the present concept both embrace the Borneo territories, Singapore, and the Federation. As far as we are concerned, the Borneo territories should have self-determination. They have asked for independence, and they should get independence. Moreover, already there is Kalimantan Utara. On our side, we ask for reunification with the Federation. That is all. To keep talking about the concept will allow certain people who are pro-Malaysia to distort the anti-Malaysia stand of the people by quoting non-opposition to the Malaysia concept as non-opposition to the Malaysia plan itself.

A very clear example is seen in Mr Narasimhan's statement recently. He went to Borneo and the Federation. Because some of the Parties have said they are not opposed to the concept, so Met Narasimhan told the world that there was no opposition to Malaysia when, in fact, all of them are opposed to Malaysia. Therefore, to prevent all these distortions and confusion, it is much easier that we say we oppose the Malaysia plan and the Malaysia concept. It will save a lot of confusion and everybody can understand exactly what our stand is.

Mr Rajaratnam: Stop talking and save confusion.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Minister mentioned something about our having a party and reception for the M.P.s who represent the monopoly capitalists. We did not have a party to welcome the Labour M.P.s who represent monopoly capitalists. We had that party to show the M.P.s that there is strong opposition to Malaysia in Singapore. In spite of the Straits Times' distortion and the attempt to give the impression that I had scolded the M.P.s behind their backs, I had, in fact, given my speech to the M.P.s long before I started to speak. Sir, there was no talking behind the backs of the M.P.s. I do not know why the Straits Times put on that "twist". Possibly it was because we are against Malaysia and therefore are against the interests represented by the Straits Times. If the Straits Times were honest enough, they should ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Pack up.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- correct their presentation and tell the people of Singapore that I never did say anything behind the backs of the M.P.s.

I do not wish to go very much further ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Thank God.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- in reply, because, in actual fact, the Minster never touched on any of the points which I raised. The Members opposite keep talking about their 1958 Fourth Anniversary Souvenir. But I remember, Sir, we started complaining about the implementation of the pro-colonial policy of the P.A.P. as early as September, or even August 1959. The P.A.P. had a meeting in a special bungalow in Changi and we Assemblymen and other cadres were asked to attend. As early as 1959, we had already pointed out to the leaders that they were pursuing a policy which was entirely different from the pledges given to the people before the elections. Since that time, there had been frequent meetings and every time the cadres complained to the Ministers. But later on, because of what is now called the Ong Eng Guan incident, these differences were put aside until the time when the P.A.P. openly supported the Malaysia plan without consultation of party cadres. So to say that we supported the P.A.P. from the beginning is entirely wrong. Our quarrel with the Ministers and leaders of the P.A.P. started as early as 1959.

Today the P.A.P. always talks about the Communists because they want to use the Communists as scapegoats. They want to crush the Barisan Sosialis by smearing us as Communists. They want frighten away supporters of the Barisan Sosialis. And when they make mistakes and commit blunders, they hope to blame the Communists for such mistakes and blunders. Everything undemocratic that they do is blamed on the Communists. I think the Minister for Finance did on one occasion say that he needed undemocratic measures to protect P.A.P. democracy.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Rubbish!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And because of that, therefore, we had clause 29 of the Referendum Bill. And because of that also, I and many of us suffered loss of individual freedom in the police station lock-up. Sir, democracy is dead in Singapore today. I would advise the P.A.P. to correct its policy even in the short time left to them. The correct policy is to pursue the anti-colonial struggle correctly and try to raise the living standards of the people. Colonialism exploits the people in many forms. Even if political domination has been taken away, the country can still be dominated economically and militarily, and economic and military domination constitutes neo-colonialism. That is what Malaysia is, and if the P.A.P. wants to get away from this pro-colonial policy, I would ask it to immediately stop supporting Malaysia and to go back to the people.

Question put, "That this House expresses no confidence in the People's Action Party Government for its pro-colonial policies."

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 23; Abstentions, 6; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Buang bin Chan sun Wing Omar Junid Fung Ying Ching Byrne, K. M. Miss Chan Chee Seng Hoe Puay Choo, Chan Choy Siong, Madam Madam Lee Siew Choh Chor Yeok Eng Leong Keng Seng Goh Chew Chua Lim Yew Hock Goh Keng Swee Lin You Eng Lee Khoon Choy Low Por Tuck Lee Teck Him Ng Teng Kian Lim Cheng Lock Ong Chang Sam Lingam, S. V. Ong Eng Guan Mammen, John Sheng Nam Chin Mohd. Ariff bin Tan Cheng Tong Suradi Tee Kim Leng M. Ismail Rahim Teo Hock Guan Ong Pang Boon Wong Soon Fong Rajaratnam, S Ramaswamy, S Absent. Sohorah binte Ahmat, Madam Ahmad Jabri bin Tan Kia Gan Mohammad Akib Toh Chin Chye Kandasamy, G Wee Toon Boon Koh, C. H. Yaacob bin Lee Kuan Yew Mohamed Al-Haj Marshall, David Yong Nyuk Lin Abstentions. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat Mohd. Ali bin Alwi Rajah, A. P. Seow Peck Leng Mrs Thio Chan Bee

Motion accordingly negatived.