Lee Kuan Yew
Singapore
“Sir, I had not intended to intervene in any debate. But I was doing physiotherapy just now and reading the newspapers and I thought I should bring the House back to earth. Mr Rajaratnam had great virtues in the midst of despondency after a series of race riots when we were thrown out during Independence.”
“A point of clarification, Sir. The Member has compared Singapore against Switzerland, Denmark and Finland. Can I ask him if he considers Singapore's population to resource ratio equal to Denmark, Switzerland and Finland?”
“The Member has not answered my question. Is he saying that we are comparing apples with apples? Is he saying that the system of government in Finland, Denmark and Switzerland can bring them from First World to a superpower? Can they do that?”
“I am putting a simple question and ask for his clarification. He has compared Singapore as if it were a Denmark, a Switzerland or a Finland. Their system, their governments, never produced the kind of transformation that we have had, and their system and their governments have a broader base, and can afford a mediocre government.”
“At the end of the day, that will be the same for the Malays, for the Indians and for all the others. S Rajaratnam was aiming for the stars. I went along with him with the pledge, and we must try to live up to the pledge. But to say, let us forget race, language, religion, culture, that is not doable.”
“So there is a wide range of options open and it depends on your judgment on the quality of the people you appoint, and also what is the objective of appointing people to these positions, whether you want them to stay effectively until retirement, which means you have to avoid appointing good people to these positions early which is, I thi…”
The complete record
Every one of 506 lines we hold for Lee Kuan Yew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 11.
“Whilst we were part of the component States of Malaysia, it was my impression that perhaps quite a number of these provisions had a bias towards executive power. But then it is not a very fair assessment to make because at that time, as you will know, Mr Speaker, Sir, there were moments when it looked as if the overbearing weight of executive power might fall upon our ears. Therefore, we did not take kindly to executive powers. It may well be that, in the light of our experience in dealing with a difficult and truculent citizen, a certain degree of executive effectiveness may well be useful. But my general training as a lawyer leads me to feel that a liberalisation of some of these provisions may well be in keeping with the spirit of a tolerant government or a tolerant multi-racial society which we already have in Singapore and which we are seeking to consolidate. I do not think it is possible, in the four months since separation, to come to any finality or any definite conclusion on quite a number of these provisions. They are as they stand now, taken over from Malaysia into Singapore, transferred from the Federal Government to the Singapore Government; transferred from Federal Ministers, Heads of State to Singapore Ministers, their Commission to our Commission, and so on. I do not think we have any vested interest in continuing with a constitutional framework which really in extremis means that the Head of State can, with certain key Ministers and Commanders-in-Chief, proceed with orderly government, which I think was the situation and contingency for which it was intended.”
“And second is an amendment to ensure ex abundante cautela that any Act done by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara or the State Advocate-General before the enactment of this Act shall be valid notwithstanding that this Act is retrospective as to its operation from the 9th of August this year. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have set out candidly and in some detail the reasons why we have made the various amendments set out in the two Bills. After the enactment of these two Bills and the various modifications have been done, it is possible to put the Constitution in one simple document. But it will still be a cumbersome document because we have inherited, first, a Federal Constitution which is not applicable to us because we are not a Federation; and, secondly, a State Constitution which, in some respects, contains a number of provisions to bring us into uniformity with the other States which we deem to be irksome and cumbersome. We have got rid of some of those items which we consider unnecessary and cumbersome. We have had to spell out who corresponds with the respective executive authority set out in the Federal Constitution. In other words, what we have sought scrupulously to do is to state the law, the powers and the jurisdiction of the various executive authorities and judicial bodies and legislative bodies as they existed before Malaysia transmuted into this new situation. In the course of next year, we will have to decide whether or not amendments should be made to the whole body of executive and legislative functions. It is easier, I think, from the point of view of public confidence, in the process of orderly government, if we were first to move into what were the positions occupied by the Federal executives.”
“But at the end of it all, you will notice, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there is a Bill for a Law Revision Commission. It is our hope that within two years a new set of the laws of Singapore will be available not only to practitioners but to all administrators, and everybody else interested in orderly government in Singapore, and everybody will very easily determine what is the law applicable to any particular subject he is interested in from a set of documents which will have the authority of this House. Sub-clause (4) is purely consequential. Sub-clause (5) and sub-clause (6) are of a consequential nature allowing the Prime Minister to declare which is the corresponding public officer or the corresponding authority or body to exercise the executive powers which are contained in the Federal Constitution. Now there are two amendments which I shall be moving, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have mentioned. First, to remove Article 4, for the reasons I have set out, that I do not think it is possible for us to say that those sections of the Federal Constitution which will continue to be in force in Singapore are supreme law because that would imply that if there is any contradiction or any conflict with either the State of Singapore Constitution or any other Ordinance, then our own Ordinance and our own State of Singapore Constitution will have to give way, and it is not a situation which we desire. Ultimately what will be supreme law will be the Republic of Singapore Constitution after it has been brought up to date.”
“Sub-clause (3) allows the President for a period of three years to make such modifications in any written law as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the enactment of this Act and in consequence of the independence of Singapore upon separation from Malaysia. I sincerely hope that it would not take three years. This is a very long time and we want a certain amount of clarity and finality in the law. It is our hope that by this time next year the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission on how to safeguard minority rights will have concluded and we ourselves will have prepared a comprehensive document setting out all the constitutional provisions applicable to Singapore, so that the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore will be neatly accumulated in one bundle of documents. But even more important is the state of the law generally. I am told by practitioners now that it is quite a problem to find out which Modification Order extends which law from Malaya and revokes which law in Singapore. These are some of the minor manifestations of empires, and are expected. We always believe that our laws are better than those of the territory we have acquired or incorporated. Hence a considerable number of our Ordinances were set aside in favour of Ordinances and statutes prevailing in Malaya. Not unnaturally we have a particular familiarity with our own procedures and our own set of laws. In quite a number of cases, civil servants and other law officers who have to advise the Government prefer to use the instruments to which they have been accustomed. So now a series of Modification Orders may well be issued which will restore, by and large, what was the position before Malaysia.”
“At the same time, I would like to add that this has been done without any feeling of rancour or a desire to be rid of people whom we do not like. It is just a neat and tidy way of rectifying what needs to be rectified. Either we have to go through about 40 or 50 different Ordinances and amendments will have to be made to each one, or we do it by an omnibus clause. This omnibus clause allows us, wherever we think it is of value, to provide that the Federal Government will still continue to have an interest in our institutions like the University of Singapore if they wish to continue. But where we feel the weighting is somewhat lopsided as in the case of the University of Nanyang, where 11 States versus Singapore one State, and Singapore pays for the education and the upliftment of the minds of all the off-spring of the people in the 11 States, then the position must be set right. It may well be that, after discussions, there is no objection to the 11 representatives turning up for meetings and observing and going hack to the 11 States and reporting on what has taken place. But when it comes to the very important question of how monies are to be dispensed, then we must have a fairly decisive say as to what happens to the monies we ourselves have provided. Article 13 is an omnibus clause setting out that all existing laws shall continue in force but with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with this Act and with the independent status of Singapore upon separation from Malaysia. Sub-clause (2) of clause 13 sets out the various changes in nomenclature consequent upon separation.”
“Similarly, we have the rather absurd situation where the Singapore taxpayer and the Singapore Government are supposed to pay for the upkeep of the University of Nanyang and our representation on the Nanyang University Council, together with that of the various guilds and clans and other associations which are interested in Nanyang University from the Singapore side, is outnumbered by somewhat like 3 to 13 or 3 to 11. There are 11 States in Malaya and each little State nominates one member, with the result that we may find large sums of money to which we have committed ourselves being disposed of in a way which may not accord with the interests of people who have paid for the maintenance of this institution. But it has a saving proviso, that wherever it is deemed necessary and it varies from Ordinance to Ordinance, we may allow the representation to continue by way of Gazette notification. I could think of quite a number of instances where it may be useful. I do not think we will have any serious objection to the Government of Malaysia having representation on our University of Singapore Council. I do not think we would have any objection if they sought representation on the Nanyang University Council. But I do think that we cannot put ourselves in the position now where our money is to be disposed of in accordance with what the 11 representatives from 11 associations in 11 States of Malaya may decide amongst themselves. This is a matter which will have to he sorted out. I do not think we object to all the 11 turning up provided they only have one vote as against our three votes, since we are paying for all the development and recurrent expenditure.”
“We have once again re-established the Police Training School in Singapore and no further recruitment or training will be done by Malaysia. Therefore, the number of persons who will be affected is defined and their positions will be resolved, I hope, within 24 months of Singapore Day. Clause 11 sets out the continuance of the practice of appeals from the High Court to the Federal Court and thence to the Privy Council. I think it would be in the interest of the administration of justice if this were to remain so. Clause 12 will automatically make it unnecessary for any statutory board, whether it be a Government statutory board or whether it is a Council of the University, to have representatives from any of the States of Malaya, or indeed of Malaysia, or of any appointee or nominee from any body or association or statutory board or Government from the Malayan States. Quite a number of our laws provide for such representation and it is hardly necessary for me to say that this representation arose, first, out of the fundamental premise that we were going to be part of Malaysia; and then, secondly, whilst we were in Malaysia, this was part of the Federal framework and, therefore, representation of various States was allowed in our statutory bodies. For instance, a member of the Port of Singapore Authority would be appointed by or nominated by us on the recommendation or on the submission of the Federal Government.”
“In fact, nearly half of our population are people who have come from the States of Malaya and who have shown over the course of the years that they are extremely loyal to the country, and that when it came to a moment of crisis, they were loyal to their first responsibility - that as citizens of Singapore. However, we ourselves will have to weigh the various considerations that will have to be borne in mind in deciding whether a particular person is retained or is not retained in our public service. This applies, by and large, to those in the lower echelons of the public service. I am told that there are quite a number of Malaysian citizens who have been engaged in our higher branches of the administration, in the legal service, and so on. And whilst this clause applies uniformly to all who were recruited in Malaysia, I think I can hold out a firm assurance that we will continue the practice which we had before we entered Malaysia, namely, that our public service is open for competition to all Singapore and Federal citizens and will continue to do so. I think it is good for us and good for them and probably good for both countries in the long run. But there are certain sectors where it is important that their loyalty should in no way be divided. As you well know, Mr Speaker, Sir, situations may arise in which the absolute and unquestioned loyalty of the police can be a matter of crucial importance to all of us and, therefore, it may well take as long as two years before we decide to do what is right in respect of the fairly large numbers of officers who have been recruited since the 16th of September, 1963. The group of persons is a limited one; it cannot grow any more.”
“This raises for us the question first, of principle, and second - even more important than principle - the question whether this arrangement will be practical of application. I think I would he less than honest to Members of this House and to the public generally, particularly in the absence of the Opposition, if I did not say that we were very loath not to adopt in toto what was a solemn agreement arrived at between the Malaysian Government and us. It was an agreement which, in the nature of the transaction, was an extremely urgent one and, therefore, the main terms and conditions were agreed upon on the basis of major principle. But when we found that the implementation of this would mean, in effect, that large numbers of our own security organisation would not be our own citizens, then a problem arose. We have asked the Federal Government whether they would wish to re-absorb their own citizens into their services. In the case of the Army, I am happy to be able to tell the House that all those who are not Singapore citizens will find positions in the Malaysian services. However, in the case of the Police, I am told by my colleague, the Minister of Defence, that the complement for the police force of the Federation is all filled up and that, therefore, they have asked us to deal with such recruits in our service as we think proper. This puts the burden on us. I would like to state here what I think should be our policy with regard to each individual case. We do not start necessarily on the assumption that because a man is a Malaysian and not a Singapore citizen he will therefore not be loyal to Singapore. That is not necessarily true.”
“If I could refer to the Gazette Extraordinary of the 9th of August, you will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Federal Government, by the agreement reached between them and us sought to arrange that all persons who, between Malaysia Day and Singapore Day, were engaged by the Government of Malaysia for employment in those departments which were departments of the State of Singapore before Malaysia Day shall, on Singapore Day, become forthwith officers employed by the Government of Singapore. Now this does not coincide with our provision. We say that all persons who between the 16th day of September, 1963 - the day we became a constituent member of Malaysia - and Singapore Day (9th of August this year) were engaged by the Government of Malaysia and were employed in those departments which were departments of the Government of Singapore before the 16th day of September, 1963, shall on Singapore Day become persons temporarily employed by the Government of Singapore. And the President may within twenty-four months of Singapore Day confirm or terminate the employment of any person or class of persons who are temporarily employed by the Government under the provisions of sub-clause (2) . Mr Speaker, Sir, after the separation, we discovered that there had been considerable recruitment in what were known as the Federal Departments such as the Police, the Army and some other sections of our public service. The result has been that in the two years that we were in Malaysia a large number of persons who are not Singapore citizens and who come from the other States of Malaysia have now become members of our own public service.”
“The powers of the Attorney-General of Malaysia shall be exercised by the Attorney-General of Singapore. Clause 7 sets out the position already obtaining, that Malay, Mandarin, Tamil and English shall be the four official languages in Singapore. The national language shall be the Malay language and shall be in the Roman script. The proviso sets out a guarantee that no person shall he prohibited or prevented from using or from teaching or learning any other language: and nothing shall prejudice the right of the Government to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any other community in Singapore. Clause 8 invests the power of pardon on the President who will exercise it in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. Clause 9 sets out the terms of the agreement between the Malaysian and the Singapore Governments that all property which, before Malaysia, belonged to Singapore or was the responsibility of Singapore will, after the 9th of August, once again revert to, and vest in, or devolve upon, and become the property of or the responsibility of the Government of Singapore. Clause 10 (1) deals with the status of all persons who were officers of the Singapore Government and who, on our federating with Malaysia, became servants of the Central Government, and now revert to public servants of the Government of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 10 (2) does not spell out the position which the Legislature of Malaysia probably had sought to enact for us.”
“" and Fourth is "Oaths of office of Yang di-Pertuan Agong". Seventh - "Election of Senators" and Eighth "Provisions to be inserted in State Constitution". Ninth and Tenth - "Capitation grant, State road grant", inapplicable. Eleventh - "Provisions of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, 1948, applied for interpretation of the Constitution" and Thirteenth - "Provisions relating to delimitation of constituencies", all inapplicable. Sub-clause (4) of clause 6 sets out the transfer of the various powers of those parts of the Federal Constitution which are applicable to Singapore to the corresponding Ministers and their counterparts in Singapore - the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to be exercised by the President; the powers of the Federal Government to be exercised by the Government of Singapore; the powers of the Federal Legislature to be exercised by the Legislature of Singapore; the powers of the Prime Minister of Malaysia to be exercised by the Prime Minister of Singapore. The powers of a Minister of Malaysia shall be exercised by the corresponding Minister in Singapore or by such Minister as may be designated by the Prime Minister of Singapore. The powers of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission shall be exercised by a Legal Service Commission which shall consist of the following persons: the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, a Judge of the High Court and two members of the Public Service Commission. The powers of the Police Force Commission shall be exercised by the Public Service Commission. The powers of the Lord President of the Federal Court shall be exercised by the Chief Justice of Singapore.”
“Part VIII - Elections - is again not applicable for the elections relate to Federal elections, and our own elections are contained in the State Constitution. Part IX - Judiciary - we have taken in toto, with such changes mutatis mutandis to apply to the separate status of Singapore. Part X - Articles 133 and 134 - Joint services, etc. and Secondment of officers, expunged, Article 139, Public Services Commission, expunged, we have our own under the State Constitution. Articles 141 to 143, Railway Service Commission, General provisions relating to Commissions, and Conditions of service of members of Commissions, inapplicable. Articles 146A to 148, Branches in Borneo States and in Singapore of Judicial and Legal Service Commission, Branches in each Borneo State and in Singapore of Public Services Commission - they are no longer to be applied - going right on to Protection of pension rights and Interpretation of Part X. You will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that within this Bill itself we have set out the rules governing the transfer of personnel from the Federal Government back to the Singapore Government, and the Public Service Commission of the Singapore Government will now again reassert its jurisdiction over the whole of the Public Service. Then Part XI is adopted in toto. Part XII is excluded, it does not apply. Reservation of quotas in respect of services permits, etc., for Malays, which never applied anyway to Singapore. "The Federal capital", "Commonwealth reciprocity", and so on. Part XIII - Temporary and Transitional Provisions - is not applicable. Part XIV - Saving for Rulers' sovereignty, etc. - is not applicable. And all the various Schedules, the Third, Fourth: Third is "Election of Yang di-Pertuan Agong ...”
“Clause 6 sets out also the various other Articles which are to be excluded. For instance, Articles 14 to 18 relating to the acquisition of citizenship which is not relevant to us, because they refer to a Malaysian citizenship which is no longer ours, and our State Constitution already makes provision for Singapore citizenship. Article 19A - transfer of citizenship to and from Singapore -- that again is no longer relevant. Article 22 - citizenship by incorporation of territory - as we are a peace-loving nation, we have no intention of incorporating territories, as some other countries have done. We have decided that it is more in keeping with our modest and peace-loving attitude to world affairs generally to exclude this provision. Articles 28 and 28A - application to certain citizens by operation of law, and deprivation of citizenship - they no longer apply because we have our own provisions in the State Constitution. Part IV, which refers to the structure of the Federation's Supreme Head of State, Conference of Rulers, Executive, Federal Legislature, Legislative procedure, Capacity as respects property, contracts and suits - all those do not apply, and have therefore been excluded. Part V - Precedence of Rulers and Governors, Federal guarantee of State Constitutions, and so on - they are also not applicable. Part VI - Relations between the Federation and the States - is also excluded. Part VII - Financial Provisions - is excluded. As you will see from a Bill which has been introduced, we are ourselves introducing a separate statute to order the procedure by which the financial affairs of the country will be conducted in this House.”
“Last year, if you will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, we moved a Bill to change the law regarding the acquisition of land in which we laid down that where land was compulsorily acquired for public purpose, no compensation shall be payable to the owner for any appreciation in value of the land which has been brought about by development expenditure of the Government. It very often happens, as it did in the case of the development of the Jurong industrial site, that when public funds have been expended in considerable amounts for the development of roads, services, harbours, the adjacent land appreciates in value. And when it became necessary to acquire parts of the adjacent land for the expansion of the Jurong industrial estate either for expansion of the estate itself or for ancillary services such as schools, hospitals, and so on, we had to pay the owner under our present acquisition laws the enhanced value of the land, a value to which he himself had contributed nothing and which was, in fact, created wholly by the expenditure of State funds. This Article will, therefore, be excluded. With this exclusion our Land Acquisition Bill, which went to Select Committee and was allowed to lapse because of the doubt as to whether or not it could be said to be in compliance with Article 13, which is the supreme law, shall he proceed with. Whilst we were still in Malaysia, we had sought to get Article 13 excluded in its application to us, but, in the nature of things, these matters either took a very long time for any decision to be made or for some reason or other no decision was made. Now the jurisdiction again reverts to this House and it is our intention that the Land Acquisition Bill shall be proceeded with and Article 13 excluded.”
“Article 5, liberty of the person; Article 6, slavery and enforced labour prohibited; Article 7, protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials; Article 8, equality; Article 9, prohibition of banishment and freedom of movement; Article 10, freedom of speech, assembly and association; Article 11, freedom of religion; Article 12, rights in respect of education. These fundamental liberties will continue as part of our Constitution. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will notice in clause 1 of the Republic of Singapore Independence Bill that this Bill will be deemed to have come into operation as from the 9th day of August, 1965, so that there will he no hiatus in the law. Clause 13 - we have specifically set out to exclude. The reason is quite simple. This Constitution was drawn tip by five eminent jurists from five of the major Commonwealth countries for the old Federation of Malaya. It is, in form, modelled upon a similar provision in the Constitution of the Republic of India. Since the passage of that section in the Indian Constitution, amendments have had to be introduced because land reforms were not possible, if the strict tenor of the words were to be complied with. In other words, in clause 2, once we spell out that no law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation, we open the door for litigation and ultimately for adjudication by the Court on what is or is not adequate compensation.”
“Sir, in sub-clause (3) of clause 6, we have set out the provisions which will not have effect. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution of Malaysia is one which covers the relationship between the Federal Government and some 14 State Governments. In so far as those provisions apply to the relationship between the Centre and the States, they are expressly to be now excluded. Part I consists of four Articles. It sets out the States, the religion, the law of the Federation. I shall be moving an amendment to exclude Article 4, together with Articles 1, 2 and 3 from the Constitution of Singapore. The reason for that is as follows. Article 4 sets out that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation; in other words, if we accept that particular Article as part of the supreme law of Singapore, then any other law found in any other document is subsidiary law, including, of course, the State Constitution of Singapore. There are certain Ordinances relating, for instance, to citizenship which were peculiar to Singapore and which, whilst we were in Malaysia, were revoked by way of Modification Orders, Malaysia seeking to unify the, citizenship laws by extending its citizenship laws, rules and regulations into Singapore to the exclusion of Singapore citizenship laws and rules and regulations. Now, if this Article stands, then it will not be possible for us without a constitutional amendment to revive our Singapore Citizenship Ordinance and the rules and regulations thereunder. So for that reason, after further consideration consequent on the First Reading of this Bill, we have decided to exclude Article 4. Part II deals with fundamental liberties.”
“It is illusory to believe that because an amendment has to he passed by a two-thirds majority, the provisions are thereby sacrosanct. From our experience in the short while we were in Malaysia, we have found that in a situation such as theirs, and indeed in a situation such as we have in this Chamber where the Government has a clear two-thirds majority, it is no impediment to the Government to alter the Constitution at will. In fact, in the case of the Federal Constitution, as Members may well know, some 250 amendments of various sorts have been introduced into the Constitution and incorporated into it since it was first adopted in 1957. Clause 9 is a transitory provision whereby the Head of State continues as President of Singapore from his present function as Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, with your indulgence, run through the provisions of the Republic of Singapore Independence Bill? Clause 1, title, nomenclature. Clause 2, change of nomenclature. Clause 3 is the recital of a fact which took place on the 9th of August this year -- that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, as from Singapore Day, cease to be the Supreme Head of Singapore and his sovereignty and jurisdiction and power and authority, executive or otherwise, in respect of Singapore shall be relinquished and shall vest in the Head of State of Singapore. Clause 4 recites the fact that the executive authority of Singapore shall vest in the Head of State and shall be exercisable by him or by the Cabinet or by any Minister authorised by the Cabinet. Clause 5 transfers the legislative powers of the Parliament of Malaysia to this House. Clause 6 sets out those provisions of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia which we now incorporate as part of the Constitution of Singapore.”
“We resisted this particular condition being imposed upon the State Constitution at the time we entered Malaysia, but our representations were not accepted because Malaysia insisted on uniformity of our laws with the other States in the Federation and with the Federal Constitution itself. Since we are no longer a part of the Federal whole, for reasons which we find valid and valuable as a result of our own experience of elections and of government in Singapore, we have decided that this limitation should no longer apply. Clause 8 repeals Article 90 of the Constitution which sets out the mode by which the Constitution can be amended. Article 90 requires that there shall be no less than two-thirds of the total number of Members thereof supporting any amendment to the Constitution on the Second and Third Readings. Mr Speaker, Sir, this and the other Article in the Federal Constitution also requiring a two-thirds majority, will be repealed. It is our considered opinion that a two-thirds majority is not necessarily the best way of entrenching the Constitution. There will be different sections in the Constitution dealing with matters of varying gravity. Some will be entrenched to a point where, if the Legislature seeks to amend, a reference to the general electorate may be necessary. In others, we may go back to the mechanism which was used in Malaysia whereby a two-thirds majority was required. In other sections, such as the number of Members in this Chamber, the less fundamental sections of the Constitution which order the delineation of constituencies and so on, may not require any such special sanctity before amendment. The point I would like to make is this.”
“Clause 3 sets out the methods by which the Head of State, henceforth to be known as the President of Singapore is to be elected, the period of his term of office, and the special nature of his office. Clauses 4 and 5 will enable this House to appoint as Deputy Speaker, a person not necessarily a Member of the House. We have to mould the Constitution in accordance with our needs, and whilst it may be preferable that an elected Member of this House should occupy the post of Deputy Speaker, we have found it in practice not necessarily a convenient way of conducting the proceedings of this Chamber, and it is the Government's intention that someone who is not a member of either Party should be appointed to this Chair. The schism between the Opposition and us is so wide and almost unbridgeable, that I think debates, if and when they are resumed with the Opposition, should be held under conditions which will make it manifest to all that there is free and full debate within the rules of the Constitution and of this Chamber, without the Opposition fearing any bias or favour on the part of either the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. After the passage of this Bill, it is our intention to seek the election of a member of the Bar who is not connected with either of the Parties in this House to assist you in discharging your functions. Article 7 revokes a clause which was introduced into the State Constitution of Singapore when it entered Malaysia. Members in this House will know that there was no such injunction of holding a by-election within three months in our previous Constitution.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, and the one following it, the Republic of Singapore Independence Bill, will together complete the formalities consequent upon the assumption of independence by the State of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg your indulgence to refer to both Bills and to the documents which the two Bills together seek to amend. The Constitution of Singapore as it was on the 8th of August this year, the day before separation, was contained in two documents, first, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia; next, the State Constitution of Singapore. Together they comprise the framework for the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary and the Public Administration. By the document which was published on the 9th of August, proclaiming Singapore as an independent State and setting up the agreement between the Federal and the State Governments, that the Federal Government shall relinquish all further executive and sovereign authority over Singapore and that that authority shall he vested in the sovereign Government of Singapore and the sovereign Legislature of Singapore, certain consequences have to be spelt out. In the first Bill, we have taken the State Constitution as the basis for the Constitution of Singapore. That remained unchanged. This Bill seeks to change certain terms and seeks to amend certain of the Articles in the State Constitution, such as the election of a Deputy Speaker which has to be from an elected Member of this Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to go through clauses 1 and 2. They are simple and straightforward. It is a straight change in nomenclature.”
“For as I have said, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are other factors, factors outside our dispensation, which can affect our own position. But whatever the result will be, we would like those who come after us to believe, and to have grounds for believing, that we did not leave a stone unturned in seeking a just and enduring future for all the people who made up the society - those who were here when the British came, those who came when the British were in control, and those who are willy-nilly now rooted in this corner of South-East Asia and whose destinies are interwoven - whatever we would have wished it to be. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name. *The motion reads as follows: 'That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to:- "We, the Legislative Assembly of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present Session of this Assembly.".' Question proposed. 4.11 p.m.”
“Whilst we are unable to say, having gone through so many changes in a matter of two years, what will happen in the next two years, I think we can safely predict that in two decades, either there is a tolerant multi-racial society comprising us in this region, or this will be an area of constant strife, very much like what the Balkan States were before and after the First World War. We are here in South-East Asia for better or for worse, and we are here to stay. Our policies are designed to ensure that we stay peacefully in South-East Asia in accord and amity with our neighbours, but with a right to decide how we order our own lives in our own home. Every action, every policy, must be decided by this yardstick. Any policy which endangers our long-term interests as a separate and distinct community in this region must be eschewed. Any act, any programme, any decision which will help to secure a more enduring future for ourselves and our progeny in this region must be pursued whatever the sacrifice. We have not sought this particular formula of survival, but it is now the basis on which we move forward; and with independence comes an independence of action in policy and planning which can help establish that enduring basis for ourselves in South-East Asia. It is with confidence - a confidence born out of the past performance of our people - that we feel we can overcome problems of economic development, problems of unemployment. But in the other wider fields of inter-racial harmony and tolerance, there are so many other factors that even though we are independent, we have not got an exclusive prerogative to decide what is to be that relationship even between our own citizens.”
“I do not wish to go into the figures given by my colleague, the Minister for Finance, yesterday, but I would like to add this comment, that however important statistics are in giving weight to an argument or to demonstrate the validity of certain premises, they are never able in themselves to give a complete picture of what the performance is going to be, for they fail to bring forth one important quality --- the effectiveness of the digits of the units that the statistics comprise. Sir, we are nearly two million people --- 1.9 million --- in an island of 224 square miles with a few adjacent islands. The statistics do not tell the world the factor that really decides performance, the quality of each individual digit, the intensity of the effort that the digits are capable of, and the efficacy of the framework within which they can be marshalled and organised for high performance. For us, survival has always been hazardous. We sought to make it less so by seeking the larger framework of Malaysia, but it was not to be. We are on our own, not unfriendless, not helpless, but nevertheless in the centre of an extremely tumultuous arena of conflict. Our survival depends upon our capacity first to discern where the dangers are for us as a distinct and separate community in South-East Asia; and, second, our ability to convince the bigger powers interested in this region that it is in their interests to ensure our separate survival, and in the end, whatever happens, to ensure that we have got enough will and capacity to see that no policies, no solutions, are attempted which will destroy our right to be ourselves in this corner of South-East Asia.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have a vested interest in multi-racialism and a secular State, for the antithesis of multi-racialism and the antithesis of secularism hold perils of enormous magnitude not just for the people living in South-East Asia, but dangers of involvement by bigger powers who see in such a conflict fertile ground for exploitation of either ideological or other power interests. The future is not ours to see, Mr Speaker, Sir, but we can safely conclude that there are two possible trends in which events can unfold themselves. One, the emergence in one half helping the emergence in the other half of a tolerant society not based on the concepts of exclusiveness of race, language, religion, which means an ultimate re-association, a political re-association, of the parts which form the one larger federation of which we were a member until so recently; and the other a trend towards a bias and emphasis on exclusiveness of race, language, religion, which must have fissiparous effects, divisive effects, on the other. There is an element of urgency in this and we are reassured to see an air of more confidence in dealing with problems of language and culture now that we are out of Malaysia. This in turn helps us in our solution of the problems on this side. For us we can only hope that ultimately our policies will also be able to help our neighbours in reaching similar rational adjustments in their own domestic arrangements. In the meantime, the business of life and administration has to go on.”
“But whilst we have no control over events there, independence has given us a unique opportunity to order our way of life, and I would like to believe that the two years we spent in Malaysia are years which will not be easily forgotten, years in which the people of migrant stock here who are a majority learnt of the terrors and the follies and the bitterness which is generated when one group tries to assert its dominance over the other on the basis of one race, one language, one religion. It is because of this that my colleagues and I were determined, as from the moment of separation, that this lesson will never be forgotten. So it is that into the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore will be built safeguards, in so far as the human mind can devise means whereby the conglomeration of numbers, of likeness, as a result of affinities of race or language or culture, shall never work to the detriment of those who, by the accident of history, find themselves in minority groups in Singapore. There will be this Commission which will hear the views of all the minority communities. It may well be that their recommendations would be sufficiently wide to ensure not only that individuals shall not be penalised or discriminated against by reasons of race, language or culture, but also that their views should always be taken into consideration when formulating policies which affect their collective interest. It is more than just an idealistic desire to create a just new world that has motivated us.”
“Hence the recurring theme of multi-racialism, of tolerance, of understanding and sympathy, and forbearance of other people's habits, customs, susceptibilities. If, on the Singapore half, account is taken only of the Singapore sector of this one people, then the solution that will be derived out of that one sector will be very different from the solution which will be derived `if we take into account the whole. And the very different solution attempted here, based on the demographic features of Singapore, will in turn act as a spur to contrary measures being taken on the other side; and so it could go on until inevitable conflict. Conflict not only between two independent and sovereign nations, but between two independent and sovereign nations both with plural societies. We are no longer in a position to decide or in any way to influence directly the course of political events in Malaysia. That is the price of independence for Singapore. But we would be dishonest to ourselves if we did not express a profound interest in the policies and the consequences of such policies upon the relationship between the communities in Malaysia, which would, in turn, help to influence attitudes and relationships between communities in Singapore. The future is more fraught with danger than before separation -- the long-term future -- for if there is a failure to understand this nexus between us, then it is extremely easy for one to embarrass and to influence attitudes and policies in the other, which, as I have said, must end up in the polarisation of two opposing attitudes based on two opposing assumptions of superiority of race, language, and culture, which can only spell disaster for all.”
“Fitzgerald's short treatise: `Singapore has always resented and deplored the policy, first conceived by the Japanese and later implemented by the British, by which the City on its relatively small island was separated from the rest of the Malay Peninsula and treated as a different community with lesser political rights. This separation was the one feature of the abortive Malayan Union which survived the demise of that ill-fated scheme. It was also the one feature of the Malayan Union which the Chinese thoroughly detested. The British could not deny their responsibility for this development, but the reason why they had originally separated Singapore was still present. Singapore added to the Federation would give the Chinese community a clear majority of the population, and thus ultimately of the voters.' That was pages 88 and 89. And on page 101: `Internal changes in the political representation of the States giving more equitable distribution of seats would do something to effect such a change of attitude, but it may well be that more than this would be required before the allegiance of the younger generation of Chinese is won, They will require some positive evidence that Malaysia is to be a progressive and increasingly democratic community; not continue as aristocratic society dominated by the Malay feudal families. If these changes do not materialise, the opposition of the Chinese will continue and probably be intensified, ultimately veering more and more towards the support of the Communist movement.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I quote these extracts to show the dangers into which we are inevitably going to slide if we begin to think in terms of race arid racial hegemony.”
“General Terauchi, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Army in South-East Asia, summoned various Malay and Indonesian, Sumatran leaders to his headquarters in Saigon for consultations. On other occasions he flew to Ipoh in Malaya and held similar meetings there. These were attended by, amongst others, Hatta, the Indonesian nationalist leader in Sumatra, and Dato Onn bin Jaffar. There is nothing in the record to show that the Japanese proposals were unwelcome to these leaders and the project began to take shape. The end of the war made it abortive. Maha Malaya was never proclaimed. This wartime incident revealed the fact that among the Malay leadership there had already arisen a new nationalism which looked for a political order should the British and the Dutch never return, which would secure Malay majority rule, This was agreeable to the Japanese who knew well that they would never obtain the allegiance or loyalty of the Chinese community. Singapore under this plan was to remain a Japanese naval base and colony excluded from Maha Malaya. It will thus be seen that the separation of Singapore from Malaya devised by the British project of the Malayan Union agreed with the abortive Japanese plan of Maha Malaya, a fact which certainly did not escape the notice of the Chinese. On the other hand, the Malayan Union offered the Malays a great deal less than Maha Malaya would have given them, for under that plan they would have been a large majority in the new State with Sumatra added to Malaya, and Sumatra is the ancestral home of a great part of the present Malay population of Malaya.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to quote another extract from Prof.”
“If we are not conscious of this and we each play only to our own immediate electorate, then having two halves of one whole - and not very equal halves of one whole - one in which the accent is inevitably that in Singapore, in numbers, the migrant community or people of migrant stock and, on the other hand, in Malaya peoples of indigenous stock, a polarisation of policies and attitudes would take place which in the end may well bring major calamity for all in South-East Asia, with repercussions throughout the whole of Asia. Mr Speaker, Sir, the problem is popularly presented to the Western world as the Problem of a Third China, which is the title of a fairly readable dissertation by a scholar in the Australian National University, and in historical terms he puts it in this way. This is a recent publication called Third China by P. C. Fitzgerald, Professor of Far Eastern History in the Institute of Advanced Studies in the Australian National University. He said - talking about the Second World War and its aftermath - on page 50: `In the latter part of the war the Japanese decided that for both military and political reasons, it would be desirable to grant a measure of self-government to the peoples of the occupied countries of South-East Asia. They did not see any reason to respect the arbitrary boundaries which the play of European political parties had imposed upon South-East Asia. They perhaps remembered that in the Middle Ages before the rise of the colonial powers or the intrusion of the Europeans, there had been a powerful State comprising both Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula, Sri Vijaya. The proposed to revive this State under the name of Maha Malaya or Greater Malaya.”
“But in the last resort they are one people, and work permits and everything else notwithstanding, in extremis, in an emergency, it would be inhuman to believe, and unrealistic on our part to believe, that we could maintain a separate and a disinterested posture if a major catastrophe were to take place in South-East Asia. And this brings me to my last theme. The danger of a major catastrophe which we can precipitate if we are not conscious of the problems of finding a new balance in South-East Asia to take the place of a balance which was maintained by the European empires before the war. Mr Speaker, Sir, the multi-racial character of the population of Singapore and the States of Malaysia creates the probabilities of two different trends. As long as British rule kept everybody in place, multi-racialism or the problems of having a multiplicity of communities of different races, languages, religions, never gave rise to any problems of law and order, for in the ordered nature of former colonial society, the British Raj decided who should do what and who should fulfil what roles in their system. The disappearance of direct political control has brought about the necessity of finding an authority indigenous to the peoples who now reside in these territories, and with imperfection, a compromise was found in certain forms of elected representation weighted to hold the balance between people who were supposed to have been here longer, the indigenous people, and those who were supposed to be more recent migrants. As long as we were one, Singapore and Malaysia, the danger of the multi-racial communities going their separate ways was less than it is now.”
“It is true that quite a number of these people may have come to Singapore in order to take ship or aircraft to go abroad. But I do not think it is feasible to explain this away on the basis that more than perhaps 5,000 could have travelled in this way. Assuming that 10,000 went abroad by ship and aircraft, we would still be left with a net credit of about 40,000 people. Sir, I would like to emphasise this point, that this is not designed to exclude Malaysians. It is designed to limit our liabilities so that we know what it is we have to cater for. For only by making our problems finite will we be able to know what it is that we must o in order to ensure the economic viability of Singapore. And only then will we be able to define the problems and the solutions to these problems which we hope will come by way of new markets being made available to us. I would like to emphasise that so far as we are concerned, we are one people in two countries. All that separation has done is to divide the one society into two not altogether dissimilar parts. But whereas before we would have sought one solution for the whole, now there are two experiments being carried out in these two halves. And the experiments on how to find a solution to the problems of multi-racialism, multi-lingualism and a multiplicity of religion, and the policies pursued in any one half are bound to have repercussions on the attitudes and assessments on the other side; and the side which produces a successful solution is the side whose views will ultimately prevail. This is one people now divided into two arenas.”
“Next, the reclamation of land from Bedok to Tanjong Rhu of about 1,000 acres, giving in turn another 600 acres of available land from sites where excavations are now being made for the filling. Then the Housing and Development Board plans for 60,000 units in the next five years. I do not think there is much doubt that these targets will he achieved. But I would like, if I may, in the next twenty minutes before I close the argument for the objectives which have been set out, the long-term objective which has been set out in the policy statements, to explain first the interim measures which we have had to take to stabilise and limit our liability; and, second, our long-term attitude on the future of Singapore and of the people that we consider one with Singapore the people in Malaysia. In the short-term, we have had to introduce certain new measures in order that we can take stock of what our liabilities are, our immediate liability to give jobs to our own people, our own citizens, provide schools for their children, hospitals and social and community services, housing and so on. To this end, identity cards and work permits will be implemented. The problem becomes particularly acute because it has been said, since the 9th of August this year, the flow of migrants, the flow of people across the Causeway, has ended up with considerable credits on our side. The rate has increased to twice the normal rate prevailing before the 9th of August. I have not got the complete figures for November and December., but the rough gross turn-over of people crossing the Causeway on both sides since the 9th of August shows an increase or a credit or plus on the Singapore side of about nearly 50,000.”
“My colleagues and I will try as scrupulously as we can to put forward all the pros and cons of every piece of legislation and every policy in the hope thereby of discharging the duties of the Opposition. But more so, I hope you will allow considerable latitude amongst the Backbenchers on the Government side to take up more of their time in playing the role of the constructive critic. It is part of the technique of the open society that the wisdom of certain policies, of certain programmes, are tested in the open argument. It is difficult for us to propound the kind of criticism which the Barisan Sosialis, if they were here, would propound, because I do not think they would want to go into the merits or demerits of the legislative programme we have placed before this House. But, nevertheless, I think there are certain valuable points which could be brought out by Members on the Government side if they were given considerable latitude in appearing, so to say, to speak against the Government; not that they are against the Government but that they are thereby in a position to bring out the underlying problems which led to certain policies being decided the way they were. Meanwhile, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the Five-Year programme that we have outlined in the Address of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. You will recall that His Excellency mentioned the land reclamation projects which are going on - 620 acres in Toa Payoh, excess land from which is used to reclaim 400 acres in the Kallang Basin ---”
“This was the Plebeian of the 16th of October, heading on page 8: 'DEMAND TO MAKE CHINESE AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE IS CORRECT AND JUST! If in putting forward a just demand someone has said that Singapore has 80 per cent Chinese instead of 75 per cent, is this such a monumental error? If so, then this is also an error which the PAP ministers themselves have frequently committed in the past. So why the fuss about the 5 per cent error?' This is in the English text, Mr Speaker, Sir,In the Chinese text, it has got subtle overtones of chauvinism which the interpreter will find difficulty in bringing out. But this was the same publication which joined with the Communists in denouncing our analysis that in Malaysia, with Singapore a part of Malaysia, it is not possible for any one racial group to dominate the others to the exclusion of their languages and cultures. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Barisan Sosialis joined in the condemnation of the analysis 40: 40: 20, as a communal provocation, because it was designed to arouse chauvinistic feelings in the various component parts. But 40: 40: 20, is communal, but exaggerating 75 to 80 is not a monumental error! I would like to ask you, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of this Session, and until such time as they either decide to reappear in this Chamber, or if they do not, then until such time as elections are held either generally or to fill up the vacant seats caused by continual absence of Members who are at full liberty to represent the views of their constituents in this House, to give considerable latitude to Members on this side.”
“The distinction between their policy and ours is a very subtle one, but a very important one. They say that there shall be no national language - there is no need for a national common language - and that there shall be four official languages. And if, on the one hand, the Language Action Committee who represent the ultras in the linguistic field espouse one language to the exclusion of all others, here was the M.C.P. fanning the desire, a very natural desire of everybody, to preserve their own linguistic and cultural heritage - a situation which must have led to conflict. In that situation, of course, both the Parliament in Kuala Lumpur and the Assembly in Singapore were valueless. And the policies and the statements they have made would have made very good sense if in fact separation never came about. I am not sure how long it will be before the Communist Party come out with their new policy, new tactics, in view of the different circumstances they are faced with as a result of Singapore's emergence as a separate, distinct and independent nation. Undoubtedly, they will pursue the same cliches for some length of time, but I would not be surprised if in the end their top leaders did not make the necessary adjustments which are inevitable to meet this new situation. But for our part, whatever their policies may be in the Peninsula, or in what they call Kalimantan Utara, we have given them all fair notice that any exploitation of issues of language or culture, any divisive policies designed to create racial discord and conflict will have to be dealt with swiftly and effectively. By way of illustration, I will just refer to the kind of difficulties which I anticipate will occur from time to time, the kind of mischief which they are hound to peddle.”
“If one were to compare what comes out in the Plebeian and the Shih Chen Pao with the words and phrases which have come out from the M.N.L.L, in Jakarta and from other radio stations which broadcast the policy statements of the Malayan People's Liberation Army, one finds a consistent pattern. The only problem that has arisen for them in this case, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the unexpected separation of Singapore from Malaysia which entails a serious reassessment of the policies which they were about to initiate in order to succeed in armed conflict. Had there been no separation, then the policies which they were espousing just before separation, if continued to its logical conclusion, were designed to lead, and would inevitably have led, to a situation in which armed revolution was not only feasible but was most probable, and success was not altogether that remote. Unable to win by the open argument, it was their intention to seek discord principally by changing their policy on language and, via racial conflict over language issues, to create a situation in which armed force would be used and the Malayan Communist Party as the instrument and the holder of that armed force would emerge triumphant. In 1955 at Baling when they last pronounced their programmes and policies, the M.C.P. accepted Malay as the national language. Recently we had information, which was corroborated by the statements made by the M.N.L.L., that certain members of the united Communist open front organisations who journeyed to Algiers and other conferences had received instructions that they should withdraw support for any language as the national language and that they should insist, on the other hand, that there should be four official languages.”
“And from one false premise, they have gone to the next spurious conclusion. The plum fact of the matter is, right at this moment, they are so confused by defeat and, worse, demoralised by the prospect of further defeats, that the leadership is now questioned. Sir, when an army goes into battle, generals are never questioned when battles are being won. But when a general leads his army into one disaster after another, the younger officers and eventually even the privates begin to question the wisdom and the authority of the general. And in this case, the generals in apparent authority were only recently privates and corporals. So with-out the prestige of long years in positions of leadership, it is only natural that the Barisan Sosialis should face these problems of challenge to the Party leadership. If it were just a question of the Party leaders being in constant conflict with their ground because they have failed to bring about confidence in the wisdom and success of their policies, it would not matter so much for us. But I make it my duty, Mr Speaker, Sir, to read these dreary tracts, because, behind it all, whether we like it or not, there are people in higher authority than the apparent leaders of the Barisan Sosialis. There is a consistency of line of policy which dovetails with broadcasts of policy statements made by the Malayan National Liberation League recently formed in Jakarta, consisting of a number of quite well-known Malayans closely associated with the Malayan Communist Party in pre-Emergency days who disappeared during the days of the Emergency. They have formed themselves into a group before the recent coup in Jakarta on 30th September.”
“But it is useful for us to remember this, that whatever the shifts and turns of policy or tactics, as they call it, from time to time, their objective never changes. Fortunately for us this time, a series of false premises have led them into so blinkered a situation that they have come to a series of repeated defeats and into mare illogical, absurd and untenable propositions. They have mesmerised themselves by repeating words like "phoney" --- An hon. Member: An American word.”
“This is a challenge to the whole system of government. Thev consider that system to be - to put it in orthodox Marxist-Leninist verse - the handmaid of capitalist monopoly. Whether it is the Parliament of Singapore or whether it is the Parliament of Westminister, it is the instrument of repression of the revolutionary working class which the Communists say they represent. Logically, arising from those attitudes, not only must they boycott formal sessions of this House since this is a ruse and a guise to confuse the populace with the false independence that we have acquired, to get legal sanctions and respectability for votes on public expenditure which we are seeking hut they also have to carry the battle one step further to wreck it. The question is how? And for all these years, we strenuously sought to prove that in fact they were operating on the twin premises of (1) work the system and shake it and rock it; (2) undermine it altogether. In other words, use constitutional forms of struggle which the bourgeois enemy is foolish enough to afford the Communists, use the public forum, not to work it better, hut to denounce the system and break it - shake public confidence in it. And the other, the armed revolution, where State power is wrested from the hands of the monopoly capitalists and vested in the hands of the vanguard of the proletarist - the Communist Party. I am not quite sure whether the present leaders of the Barisan Sosialis intend to pursue this to its logical conclusion, or whether they intend to go hack to the much more subtle line which they used to follow, of pretending to he a constitutional Party whilst at the same tune operating on directives issued by illegal and unconstitutional parties seeking to usurp power by violent means.”
“' Article (3) , December 1965, "What It Means!" `POWER REMAINS IN HANDS OF CAPITALIST CLASS So the whole state machine and other institutions under the control of the monopoly capitalists have manoeuvred the voting rights of the people in such a way that in a general election the people are compelled to choose between two parties, both ready to serve their interests. For the labour Party too has proved itself during office willing to subordinate itself to the monopolies This is made possible by the nature of the two main political parties. The common feature of both parties is that their leaders have accepted without question the capitalist foundation of society, Their Parliamentary leaders have always been free from control by the rank and file of their party. However much they may have paid homage in public to the principles of democracy, they have never tolerated the application of these principles to the relations between themselves and their followers. So long as the official top leadership of the Labour Party has the control of the Party and are prepared to serve the interest of the monopoly capitalist class, they will be tolerated and even welcomed by this class. But in case the attitude of the Labour Party changes, the capitalist class has built-in safeguards within the State machine which will he discussed later. So we see that the 2-party system places serious limitations on the democratic rights of, the people which they achieved in the form of universal suffrage.' Sir, I shall he looking forward with interest to the continuing article because I hope, from them, ultimately to know just how far the Barisan Sosialis are prepared to go. This is not a negation of this Chamber or Singapore's phoney independent Parliament.”
“It is in this context that the issue of freedom & democracy in Britain must he seen and judged.' Second instalment - mid-November 1965 "Parliamentary Democracy - What It Means!": 'A BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...Even the apparent continuity is deceptive. While the old feudal institutions have retained something of their original forms, they have undergone tremendous changes in the past 600 years. Not all the institutions have this appearance of continuity. Some of the organs of the British State (such as the armed forces, the civil service, the police and the secret police) are essentially products of the modern industrial capitalism of the past 150 years, or even less.' Next heading, "THE STATE SERVES MONOPOLY CAPITAL", "MONOPOLY CAPITAL USES COERCION AGAINST THE PEOPLE". And it ends up, "CAPITALIST RULING CLASS FEARS DEMOCRACY". `The attitude of the capitalist class towards democracy has always been clear. They fought for an extension of democratic rights in the last century in order to dislodge the landed aristocracy from their exclusive control of all the key position in the State apparatus; but they have become increasingly hostile to these very rights & liberties in the course of the present century owing to the growing strength of the working class movement which threatens in turn to dislodge them. They so fear democracy now that it has led them to be oppressive in a variety of indirect forms in Britain, and in direct & brutal forms in the colonies against the national liberation movements. The striving of the Peoples of Malaya (including S'pore), N. Borneo. Kenya. British Guiana and more recently Aden for national independence, were met with the most savage repressions which completely unmasked the bitter anti-democratic nature of the British ruling class.”
“We feel an understanding of the workings of the British system of government is useful and so many of our so called "leaders" have made it an object of imitation.' "Leaders" in inverted commas. Therefore, it does not include Barisan Sosialis leaders because they are not going to make this the object of any imitation. `The following is the 1st instalment of the article. Further instalments will be published in future issues of the PLEBEIAN Express. -- Ed.' It does not say who the author is, hut obviously he is no revisionist. Now, I will just read out the pertinent extracts so that Members will get the flavour of their approach to this House, what it implies, the folly and the futility of the whole parliamentary machinery. `The same brand of democracy is being sold to our people in Singapore and Malaya and we have seen how this crude imitation of the British Parliamentary system has worked in our country.' It goes on: `...it is necessary for us to discover and understand the true nature of this so called "democracy" which is being peddled to us by the stooges of the Anglo-American imperialists & colonialists.' They always seem to find stress in repetition of tautologous phrases. If you just say, "You are a stooge of the imperialists," it does not carry the same conviction as if you said, `You are a stooge of the imperialists arid the colonialists." Presumably there must be imperialists who are not colonialists, Mr Speaker, Sir. They went on, at the end of the first article, to recite this fact: `This ownership of the means of production allows the monopoly capitalist class to maintain a tight grip over the state machinery and over the lives of millions of wage-earners & salary-earners who have no choice but to work for them and constantly enrich them.”
“October 1965. But I think more important for our purposes than just understanding how they arrived at the conclusion that this independence is phoney, that in fact this is the old Malaysia dressed up anew in order to preserve British interests -I think more important than that is their approach to parliamentary democracy, because in this bigger problem, on this wider issue, we have a glimpse of their real Party ideology. In November and December they published three instalments of an article which bears the title, "British Parliamentary Democracy -What it means" -No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 for November and December. At a subsequent date I will be able to tell the House about No. 4 because the series is still running. The gist is a simple Marxist-Leninist line - it is their hard-line, and none of this revisionism of Khrushchev, of wishing to win power by constitutional means, the musical chairs, the bourgeois parliamentary democracy. What is important is this: here is a denial of the value of any democratic institution, not of this House, not of Singapore's "phoney" Parliament, but the denial of the worthwhileness of the constitutional struggle of winning power via popular elections. November 1965 "British Parliamentary Democracy - What it Means" (No. 1): `A brief survey of the British State Machine in relation to Democracy. Starting with this issue, the PLEBEIAN Express is publishing a brief survey of the British constitutional institutions & state machine in order to give our readers an insight into the British system of government which is being so loudly acclaimed by the propagandists of the western powers & their local stooges.”
“They wrote in the editorial, "Phoney Independence of Singapore":- 'The question of the Lee Kuan Yew "govt." must also be considered in the same category as the above-mentioned. The "separation" of Singapore from "Malaysia", carried out by the British imperialists, is a trick."' And so they recite all the arguments.”
“That document is the Barisan Express of September 1965. Having read Mr John Eber's erudite analysis, an editorial appeared in another edition of 21st September --- another edition of the month of September of the Plebeian Express. "Controversial Question Concerning The Present Situation", says the editor. There are two views about the independence of Singapore. `The first view holds that this is a purely Alliance-PAP affair, that the British knew nothing about it before hand, and that the British have merely accepted the Alliance-PAP fait accompli in good grace. The second view holds that this is a British plot, that the British knew about this from the very beginning and have jointly initiated this new arrangement with the full agreement of the Alliance & the PAP govts.' Needless to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, they came to the second conclusion. They said: `From all this we can confidently come to the conclusion therefore that though the timing could be a surprise, the separation of S'pore from "Malaysia" was not a Tunku-LKY affair, but was British inspired. The leaders in the Alliance & the PAP are merely actors who play different roles.' And under the heading "Why Do the British Want this New Arrangement?":- `Hence the new arrangement which in essence is still the same old thing. There are no drastic changes. It is a change only in form with no change in content. What was once a federation now becomes a confederation...'. But there again the plaintive note at the end, which is the only note of sanity: `All this would create immense difficulties for the Left in Malaya (i.e. S'pore & the Federation).' And so they went on to October this year, again talking on the Algiers Conference which was abortive.”
“' I do not know whether the editors of the Barisan Express really understand what this is all about. But I think they derive a great deal of their inspiration from a group of revolutionaries who believe that revolutionary thinking consists of the emphatic repetition of dogmatic slogans. In the September issue of the Plebeian Express, they carried an analysis of Singapore by Mr John Eber, whom they have very modestly described as a Malayan now staying in Britain. He is also the Secretary-General of the M.C.F., which means the Movement for Colonial Freedom. He is many things besides just being Secretary-General of the M.C.F. Heading, Who Decides on S'pore's "Eviction"? `Federation was phoney. The decision was primarily a British one. The British decision to evict was based on the necessity to preserve "Malaysia", and it is important to realise that Singapore is today still a part of "Malaysia" in all but name. This fact is very pointedly underlined by the continuing presence under the "secession" agreement of "Malaysian" troops in Singapore - together, of course; with the massive British force there. All that has happened is that Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues have now been excluded from the struggle for status in the wider federation. One speaks of "status" and not of power, for no man or party can have power in Malaya while it remains under the shadow of 55,000 British troops.' "Malaysia was a fake. So is independent Singapore." That is conclusive authority for our revolutionary heroes in the Barisan Sosialis.”
“30th of November, 1965. Mr Speaker, Sir, they started off with a special edition of the Plebeian Express of August 1965 with the title Singapore `independent'? I will just read out phrases from it; I think they will convey the kind of reason and logic which they have mesmerised themselves into believing, that white is black; that black is white; that independence means phoney; that Malaysia does not exist; that Malaya includes Malaya the peninsula and Singapore. `So-called independence of Singapore. Phoney independence, a humbug, intended to confuse, hoodwink & side-track. Change of form. No change in content. Singapore has limited powers and in fact is little better than a City Council. The British imperialists (supported by US) still rule over the Federation & Singapore. The special clauses which stipulate that Singapore cannot enter into any separate treaty or agreement with other countries without the consent of the Federation govt.; that Singapore has to enter into a treaty for external defence & mutual assistance with the Federation govt.; and that Britain can continue to maintain the bases in S'pore and use them as & when they like, without even the usual pretence of "consultation" with the Singapore govt.! - all show that Singapore is not truly independent. It is a private arrangement between the British agents on the one side and British puppets on the other, with active encouragement & support of the British imperialists.' I am not quite sure who are agents and who are the puppets. But obviously both are viewed with considerable disfavour. `It will be noted that the few countries that have recognised Singapore's so-called "independence" are mostly US-puppets & pro-western countries.”
“This Agreement stipulates that British troops and bases will continue to remain in Singapore; that `Malaysia' troops and bases will also occupy Singapore; and that the Singapore `Govt.' cannot establish diplomatic or trade relations with foreign countries unless approved by the `Malaysian' Government. Further the British and `Malaysian' govts, can send Singapore troops to suppress the national liberation struggle in Kalimantan Utara, and this is being done." And it ends up in this flamboyant fashion: `We are Malayan patriots.' So much so, Mr Speaker, Sir, that they refer to Sabah and Sarawak as "Kalimantan Utara". "We cannot, and must not, accept the British-US imperialist manipulated constitutional separation of Singapore from the rest of Malaya. Neither can we in our thinking, and in our struggle for national liberation, accept the new imperialist plot of divide-and-rule. The withdrawal of Singapore has not brought any drastic change to `Malaysia'. There is only a change in form, but no change in content. As far as Malayan internal politics is concerned the present constitutional arrangements are merely intended to isolate and confine the Lee Kuan Yew clique to the island of Singapore and prevent them from competing for status in the wider arena of `Malaysia'. Our struggle is a most difficult one." This is about the sanest of all the comments that they have made. `But with the solidarity support of the peoples of Afro-Asia, we are absolutely confident that our struggle for a genuinely democratic Malaya (including Singapore) free of foreign troops and free of foreign control, will be crowned with success.'”
“But I would ask Members to hear with me when I read out certain extracts which they have published, their Party philosophy, their analysis since the 9th of August. I would like to start off with this - this was their latest publication, on the 8th of December, and the one before that, of relevance in understanding their mind, is that published by the Malayan Monitor, which is a publication by Mr H. B. Lim, a member of the Malayan Communist Party, who has been in London for many years and who runs this particular publication. He carried in full a statement by Dr Lee Siew Choh, who styles himself in this statement as Chairman of the Malayan People's Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee. This is of the 30th November, 1965. He said: "We met Asst. Secretary, Comrade Murshi Said El Din recently in Singapore, [he is the Assistant Secretary-General of the Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organisation] and he asked us our views on the recent political developments in `Malaysia' and especially on the so-called separation of Singapore from `Malaysia', and the phoney `independence' of Singapore. Our views on this matter have been made abundantly clear in the various press statements issued by the Malayan People's Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee and jointly by the Party Rakyat and the Barisan Sosialis Party. We have repeatedly pointed out that the separation of Singapore from `Malaysia' is yet another imperialist plot, designed to save `Malaysia'. The `independence' of Singapore is phoney, and this is clearly seen in the `Agreement of Separation' released on 9.8.65 the day of proclamation of `Independence' of Singapore.”