MALAYSIAN INFANTRY BATTALION IN SINGAPORE (Statement by Minister of Defence)

The Minister of Defence (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to inform the House of the latest position in regard to the continued presence of a Malaysian infantry battalion in Singapore. The issue was first brought to public attention by a public statement made by the Prime Minister of Malaysia on 17th February, when he described how he was taken aback by what he termed the sudden demand by the Singapore Government that the Malaysian battalion should vacate the camp that they had been occupying. This came, in the words of the Tengku, as a bolt from the blue.

In fact, quite some time before the Tengku's public statement, events had already been set in motion. The first step was taken by the Malaysian Ministry of Defence. In a letter dated 4th February, 1966, i.e, nearly two weeks before the Tengku's public statement, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia and Minister of Defence wrote to me proposing that a Malaysian infantry battalion remains stationed in the island. This particular battalion had been in occupation of Camp Temasek, following upon the posting of the 2nd Battalion, Singapore Infantry Regiment, to defence duties in Sabah. In February the battalion had completed its tour of duty and was scheduled to return to its own camp by stages. Advance parties of the battalion had already arrived in Singapore and were in occupation of Camp Temasek to prepare for the arrival of the rest of the battalion. At the same time, the Malaysian battalion in Camp Temasek was scheduled to move to another battalion camp in Tapah and, in like manner, advance parties of this battalion had moved to Tapah.

The request of the Malaysian Defence Minister was therefore an unexpected move not in conformity with the schedule of rotation of troops previously laid down. It constituted an obvious departure from policy. I replied on the 9th February stating that the question of the continued presence of a Malaysian infantry battalion in Singapore was something that should be discussed as a separate issue. In the meantime, it was urgent that the Malaysian battalion vacates Camp Temasek to allow units of the Second Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment to return to their camp since they had been living in very difficult conditions in the jungles of Borneo for the past six months.

Since the Tengku's statement, there has been public controversy as to the respective rights of the two Governments under the separation of Singapore agreement in respect of stationing of troops. The Ministry of Defence, Malaysia, claimed that "it is obligatory on the part of the Singapore Government to allow Malaysian troops to stay in the present bases or, if they require these bases for their own troops, to provide suitable alternative accommodation." Article V (3) of the Independence of Singapore Agreement, 1965, was invoked in support of this claim.

The Singapore Government had made it clear in a statement on 18th February that it does not accept this interpretation of the agreement on two grounds.

First, Article V stipulates that the two Governments will enter into a treaty of external defence and mutual assistance to provide for matters set out in four separate sections. The two Governments have not as yet entered into any such treaty.

Second, when such a defence treaty is agreed and signed, it will provide, in accordance with paragraph (3) of Article V, that "the Government of Singapore will afford to the Government of Malaysia the right to continue to maintain the bases and other facilities used by its military forces within Singapore and will permit the Government of Malaysia to make such use of these bases and facilities as the Government of Malaysia may consider necessary for the purpose of external defence".

The operative words are "right to continue" bases and facilities "used" by Malaysia's military forces. Camp Temasek was not "used" by Malaysia's military forces on the date of the separation agreement - 7th August, 1965, or the date of separation, 9th August, 1965. By section 9 of the Constitution of Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act, 1965, passed by the Parliament of Malaysia, all property which before Malaysia belonged to Singapore reverted to Singapore once again.

We offered to submit the issue to arbitration by an independent Commonwealth or international tribunal as a means of resolving the disagreement as to the interpretation of the Agreement. Up to now, this offer has not been accepted by the Government of Malaysia.

In the meantime, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, Malaysia, issued a public statement on 21st February, 1966. In one respect, the statement was re-assuring in that the Parliamentary Secretary stated that his Government accepted the fact that Singapore is an independent and sovereign State. He also stated that the Malaysian Government had never maintained the right to station troops in Singapore without regard to the agreement and without the consent of the Singapore Government. So far so good.

But he went on to say that the Singapore Government had agreed to the Malaysian Government stationing their troops in Singapore under the separation agreement. He also stated that under the separation agreement Singapore had agreed that Malaysia shall be responsible for the defence of Singapore.

Sir, it is important that the two Governments should be in no doubt as to what the separation agreement provides for and what it does not provide for. Nowhere does the separation agreement state that Singapore has agreed that Malaysia shall be responsible for the defence of Singapore. If the Malaysian Parliamentary Secretary had consulted his own Attorney-General, he would never have made a statement like this. The second point is that the agreement in respect of bases and facilities in Singapore, as we have repeatedly pointed out, is limited to those bases and facilities used by the Malaysians on the island at the time of separation. The right of the Government of Malaysia is the right to continue to maintain these bases and to make such use of these bases as they may consider necessary for the purpose of Malaysia's external defence. It does not extend to the right to occupy new bases with new troops. Here again, if the Malaysian Government disagrees with our interpretation, the matter can quite easily be resolved by reference to an independent international tribunal, whose decision should be accepted as binding on both Governments.

Sir, let me, for a moment, move away from the constitutional and legal aspects of this matter. There are two points to which attention may be drawn. The first is the obvious one that the Second Battalion of the S.I.R., having served a gruelling campaign in the jungles of Sabah in the defence of Malaysia, surely deserve better treatment on their return to Singapore than to find that their camp has been occupied by Malaysian troops.

The second observation is that a disagreement of such a nature could have arisen in the way it did is symptomatic of a deeper malaise in the relations between the two Governments on defence matters. This issue is but one of the many outstanding issues which had arisen between us.

I do not wish to overburden the House with the minutiae of the many points of unresolved disputes arising between the Ministries of Defence in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, but an outline of some of the matters may be illuminating.

The Second Battalion, S.I.R., has not only been deprived of its camp accommodation, but also of the greater part of its Battalion transport. A search party is now in Batu Gajah to try to collect the Battalion's transport which has found its way there. So far their efforts to locate their trucks, jeeps, landrovers and other vehicles have met with only limited success. Nor is the First Battalion of the S.I.R. in a better position. Much of its transport had been taken over by the Fourth Malaysian Infantry Brigade Headquarters during the time when Singapore was in Malaysia. In spite of repeated requests over the last four or five months for the return of the transport to the First Battalion, S.I.R., both the trucks and the drivers still remain with the Fourth Malaysian Infantry Brigade, who maintain that until they receive instructions from Kuala Lumpur, they are unable to make any move.

On Singapore Day, there were large numbers of Singapore army personnel, some three hundred in number, posted in various units of the Malaysian army. Similarly, there are large numbers of Malaysian citizens in the Singapore army. Attempts to have this matter sorted out so that citizens may return to their own armies, have so far made very little headway. However, a message has been received from Kuala Lumpur recently that suggests that there is hope that this vexatious issue will be settled shortly.

Not only is the army transport and camp accommodation taken over by Malaysian units, but a large part of our signals equipment and personnel have also been taken over by them. There are 60 officers and men of the Singapore Armed Forces posted to the Fourth Malaysian Infantry Brigade. It was agreed in November last year that these officers and men and their equipment should return to Singapore units in a phased programme. Here again, no progress has been made to carry out this phased programme, with the result that the operational efficiency of our Battalions in carrying out internal security functions is reduced. Again, armoured cars, equipment and personnel belonging to Singapore were attached during Malaysia to the Federation First Independent Reconnaisance Regiment and all our attempts to unscramble this have met with no success.

As regards our Navy, the story is even more extraordinary. Before we joined Malaysia, we had a naval ship, the renowned "Panglima". This ship has disappeared under Malaysian Command, and attempts even to find its location have not met with any success.

Sir, where do we go from here? It is important that we should never lose grasp of the proper perspective of the fundamentals of our defence policy. Both Malaysia and Singapore do not have adequate defence forces at their command to deter aggression from their larger neighbours, nor are they able successfully to fend off any major assault that may be mounted upon us. So for some time, until our defence forces are substantially increased, we shall have to depend on the military shield provided by our Commonwealth Allies. But our Commonwealth Allies will be willing to provide us with this shield only if they find their international political position a tenable one and the domestic scene stable enough for their defence effort to be effective. If the Governments of Singapore and Malaysia are unable effectively to co-operate in their common defence effort, this must in turn adversely affect the efficacy of the defence arrangements with Britain, Australia and New Zealand who are expending large sums of money and men in retaining their military commitments in this region. So co-operate we must, but this co-operation must be as between two sovereign States and not as between big brother and his satellite.

It is therefore necessary that the Malaysian Government should revise its attitude towards the Singapore Government in defence matters. Peremptory requests, stone-walling and obviously dilatory and evasive tactics in dealing with legitimate requests and enquiries from us can only lead to increasing exasperation. If the Malaysian Government is prepared to accept Singapore both in word and in deed as an equal partner in the defence arrangements of the whole region, then I do not see that there is any problem that cannot be resolved to our mutual satisfaction.

On the other hand, if the Malaysian Government were to insist on having its own way regardless of the legality of its actions in international law, then the whole issue will acquire wider implications and it may eventually become necessary for us, in order to have our sovereignty in these matters recognised and respected, to have recourse to appropriate international tribunals. I am certain that it is not the desire of the Malaysian Government to bring matters to such a pass, and that they are as prepared as we are to arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution of all outstanding issues. On our part, we have acted with the utmost circumspection, and indeed the public revelation of the disagreement over the Malaysian Infantry Battalion in Singapore was not made by the Singapore Government but by the Malaysian Prime Minister.

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor) rose -

Mr Speaker: I take it that the Member wishes to ask a question on the Ministerial Statement?

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): I wish to ask the Minister some questions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard the statement by the Minister of Defence, I wish to know how long it has been since the Second Battalion, S.I.R., returned to the Republic of Singapore?

Secondly, how much longer do the Malaysian troops wish to remain in Singapore?

Thirdly, why are they not willing to return to Malaysia in view of the fact that Malaysia is their fatherland?

Fourthly, are they aware that if they return to Malaysia, their surplus rations will be made available to them in Malaysia?

Fifthly, are they stationed in Singapore with a nefarious object in order to create misunderstanding or friction with the Singapore Infantry Regiment?

Sixthly, are they of the opinion that the Malaysian troops -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Could the hon. Member please ask one question at a time? I have lost count of all these questions!

Mr Speaker: I think so. I was coming to that myself. The general practice is for Members of the House who wish to elicit further information on a Ministerial statement to ask questions so that they can be answered to the satisfaction of the questioners. But if the questions proceed to six, seven, or ten at a time, I am afraid the Member for Kampong Kapor will not get a single answer. So will he confine himself to a single question first rather than six or seven at a time?

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): The reason for putting forward so many questions, Mr Speaker, is that this matter has long been outstanding. I have heard so many complaints from our S.I.R. since their return from Sabah, and they have not been accommodated properly. Hence, I put forward such questions. Nevertheless, I bow to Mr Speaker's advice to put my questions one by one.

Mr Speaker: There is no objection to the Member asking a second question if it becomes necessary. But perhaps, in the first instance, he might just ask a single question of the Minister and the Minister might then be able to answer it. Then we will see where we get to from there. One question please.

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): I have about 15 questions. The first one is: since when have the S.I.R. returned to Singapore, and whether they are accommodated under canvas tents in Farrer Park intentionally or otherwise?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The S.I.R. returned to Singapore in batches, beginning with the first week of February. As I said in my statement, the advance party found accommodation at Camp Temasek. But as later groups came in, there was no more space at Camp Temasek and they have had to be accommodated under canvas in Farrer Park.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps I should inform Members that I will only permit questions arising out of the Ministerial statement. I will not permit any questions on which the Minister has not made a statement but which may be exercising the minds of Members.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, arising out of the Ministerial statement, I understand that the Malaysian Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak, issued a statement saying that the Malaysian troops are here to stay and to defend Singapore by agreement. Here, we all know that Malaysia herself is not in a position to defend against Indonesian aggression. How on earth can their soldiers defend Singapore? So will the Minister of Defence inform this House whether there is such an agreement that we request the Malaysian troops to stay here and to defend Singapore?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I talked at length on this subject in my statement. But in the event the hon. Member had not understood everything that I said, I think it is best if I read the relevant sections of the separation agreement. Now, under Article V, there are four sections. I think I had better read the whole of Article V because this is the one that deals with Defence.

'Article V

The parties hereto will enter into a treaty on external defence and mutual assistance providing that -

(1) the parties hereto will establish a joint defence council for purposes of external defence and mutual assistance;

(2) the Government of Malaysia will afford to the Government of Singapore such assistance as may be considered reasonable and adequate for external defence, and in consideration thereof the Government of Singapore will contribute from its own armed forces such units thereof as may be considered reasonable and adequate for such defence;

(3) the Government of Singapore will afford to the Government of Malaysia the right to continue and maintain the bases and other facilities used by its military forces within Singapore and will permit the Government of Malaysia to make such use of these bases and facilities as the Government of Malaysia may consider necessary for the purpose of external defence;

(4) each party will undertake not to enter into any treaty or agreement with a foreign country which may be detrimental to the independence and defence of the territory of the other party.'

Now, paragraph (3) of Article V is the most relevant one. Under this the Malaysian Government will have the right to continue and maintain its bases. The Malaysian Government does maintain a number of bases and military establishments in Singapore. For instance, the main naval base of the Malaysian Navy is in Woodlands, that is, in Singapore, and the Malaysian Government, therefore, has the right to continue to maintain this base and use it in whatever manner it thinks necessary for the external defence of Malaysia. Similarly, there are other units with which I need not burden the House.

The point that I am making is that this agreement extends the right to the Government of Malaysia to use these bases and not to establish new ones or occupy them with new troops. It is not, in my opinion, correct for the Malaysian Government to invoke this particular Article to support the continued stay of the Malaysian Infantry Battalion in Camp Temasek. Should it want to station its battalion here for whatever purposes it has in mind, this is something which we are always willing to discuss with it and reach an amicable settlement. But it is not correct to say that the agreement gives it the right to do so.

Mr Ho See Beng: May I ask a supplementary question?

Mr Speaker: Yes, just one supplementary question.

Mr Ho See Beng: I wish to ask the Minister of Defence whether there is any secret agreement or undertaking other than those published in the separation agreement -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already informed the House that I shall only allow questions directly arising out of the Ministerial statement, and I will not allow any other question. That question I will not allow, unless the Minister -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I am prepared to answer that question.

Mr Speaker: Very well then. Mr Ho, you may put your question.

Mr Ho See Beng: I would like to ask the Minister of Defence whether there is any secret agreement or undertaking other than those published in the separation agreement.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I can say quite clearly and categorically that there is no secret agreement or understanding other than the open agreement published and presented to this House.

Mr Ho See Beng rose -

Mr Speaker: I thought the Member is going to ask his last supplementary question.

Mr Ho See Beng: Yes.

Mr Speaker: The very last, yes.

Mr Ho See Beng: In view of the domineering and bullying attitude of the Federation Government, just in case the Malaysian Government refuse to move out their troops from here, what steps are we going to take, of course, without having to resort to military confrontation?

Mr Speaker: The Minister need not answer that if he does not want to.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, we are trying to settle this issue with the Malaysian Government by discussion, by reason, and by logic. I do not think I am being assisted in this task by the use of strong words by the hon. Member. However strongly he may feel about this matter, I do implore him to bear in mind the wider implications of this subject. Of course, one admires the courageous attitude he has taken in this matter, and no doubt his recent military training may have something to do with it.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to ask two questions. First, if the Malaysian troops continue to occupy our barracks at Camp Temasek, how long does our Minister of Defence expect our own troops to undergo inconvenience and hardship by having to live under canvas at Farrer Park?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, discussions at Staff level already took place yesterday. They have not been as fruitful and productive as I wish them to be, but we are very anxious to have this matter settled satisfactorily and as quickly as possible. I entirely share the feelings of the hon. Member that it is a most regrettable matter that our troops on their return from Borneo have to continue to live under very distasteful conditions.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope our Minister of Defence will answer this question. When will negotiations for a defence treaty or treaties commence? Will the treaty or treaties be tripartite or bi-lateral?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Of course, this would have to be taken in a number of steps. The first to be taken is, I think, by the British Government. They have to decide whether they want to run down their bases. At this present moment, I believe a debate is going on in the British Parliament on the White Paper on Defence. So when the British Government have made up their minds, no doubt in the course of this year, approaches will be made to us and to the Malaysian Government to discuss, negotiate, and conclude appropriate defence agreements between ourselves. Whether it will be two separate agreements -between Britain and Singapore and between Britain and Malaysia - or whether it will go into one combined defence agreement, these are matters on which we shall decide at the proper moment when the issues become clearer. I do not think I want to anticipate these issues now.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): (In Tamil): I wish to ask the Minister of Defence one question. I know there are British troops in Singapore. But are there Malaysian troops? Why are Malaysian troops in Singapore? Will the Minister explain? Secondly, our citizens are in the Malaysian army. What is their position? Will they be recalled to our country? When will this happen? And will their equipment be brought to Singapore? Thirdly, there are lorries -

Mr Speaker: One question at a time. I think the first question has already been answered by the Minister, and the second question has also already been answered by him. I do not propose to call upon him to answer them. What is the third question?

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): There are lorries and other equipment which belong to us. There are boats also which belong to us. Has the Malaysian Government given them back to us? If they are not returned to us, what action is the Minister going to take? Will he explain this?

Mr Speaker: The Minister's answer, I think, is that we are trying to look for them. I think that is the answer. Is it not, Mr Minister?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes.

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to know from the Minister of Defence this. He has stated just now that ships of our Navy and transport from our army had been used by the Alliance Government while we were in Malaysia and up till now they have not been returned yet. Apart from this, is there any other equipment which has not been returned? Is this because they wish to weaken our defence or have they any nefarious designs on our State?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not, of course, for me to make a defence on behalf of the Malaysian Government. But I do wish Members to remember that they are engaged in defending their territories against military aggression from Indonesia. They are in the process of expanding their defence forces both on land, sea and air, and they are having an extremely difficult time. So the point is this; because of their preoccupation in these matters, they may not have sufficient time or sufficient energy to deal with our request as expeditiously as they should have. At the same time, four to five months have passed since we raised the question and I do wish that we can see some finality in it. I am as anxious as, indeed more anxious than, the hon. Member in getting back our ships, our lorries, our signals equipment and other things which are due back to us.

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): A supplementary question, Mr Speaker. It seems that I have to cut down all the fifteen questions I intended to ask originally. However, I would like to ask something about Temasek Camp. Who was it who supplied funds for the building of this Camp? Was it the Malaysian Government which provided funds for the expenses of this Camp, or was it the Singapore Government which provided funds for building Temasek Camp for use by the Malaysian forces?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The money to build this Camp was voted for by this Assembly out of the funds of this Government and meant for the use of our troops.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah): May I question in Mandarin?

Mr Speaker: In Mandarin, yes.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister concerning this. As Singapore is a member of the United Nations, and if another member of the United Nations thinks it has obligations in the defence and security of other member countries, this will cause the impression that our Defence Council is one that has only a name without substance. I would like to ask the Minister concerned whether he could give us a clarification as to the Council of Defence to be set up; or whether he may give some information on that; or whether he would request the Security Council or the United Nations to give us some guidance on this aspect?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Ministerial statement was on Camp Temasek and with regard to the occupancy of Camp Temasek. That is the Ministerial statement. Any questions directed to the Minister must relate themselves to that statement. No questions can be asked of the Government about foreign policy, about defence policy, which are matters at large. If Members are interested in them, they are entitled so to be interested. But they have their processes under the Standing Orders whereby they can bring up these matters. Unless they choose to do it in that way, I cannot permit them to raise these matters under such a Ministerial statement. I cannot allow that question. Any other questions which are relevant?

Mr R. A. Gonzales (Serangoon Gardens): May I ask the Minister of Defence why it is that we are allowing British troops to remain in Singapore and, on the other hand, we are asking Malaysian troops to leave the island? I have my own reason for wanting Malaysian troops to go away, but quite a lot of people in Singapore want to know the reasons why we are asking Malaysian troops to leave.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The presence of troops from other countries in Singapore is regulated by defence treaty, defence agreement and such types of legal document. So far as British military forces are concerned, their position is governed by Article 13 or clause 13 of the Bill to amend the Constitution of Malaysia which was passed in the Malaysian Parliament. This provided for the continuation of treaties, agreements, conventions entered into before separation between the Government of Malaysia and other countries. In other words, until they are expressly re-negotiated, then they continue to remain in force. Therefore, the defence agreement between the Malayan Government and the British Government governing British troops in this area will continue in force until it is re-negotiated by us, presumably some time this year. So the position of the British Army, Air Force and Navy is sanctioned under this agreement.

As regards the Malaysian troops, although we have not entered into a treaty on external defence provided for in Article V, and, therefore, strictly speaking, none of them have any right to be here, nevertheless, it was agreed that such a treaty would be entered into to provide for the presence of some of their troops and the use of some of the bases. So those units and those bases which come within the ambit of Article V (3) are here quite correctly; that is, it is within the constitutional rights of both Governments to allow the continued presence of such troops. The point I was making is that this particular Battalion staying in this particular camp does not come under the provisions of Article V (3) or any other article of the separation agreement.