IN 1961, the Government suffered defeat in two by-elections. The first created political uncertainty and provided opportunities for exploitation by pro-communists and communalists. Concerned with this, the Prime Minister of Malaya, in a speech in Singapore on 27 May, suggested the creation of a new State of Malaysia with the merger of Malaya, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, Brunei and Singapore. This proposal became a critical issue in the second by-election. It was during this contest that a group of trade union officials led by Lim Chin Siong (secretly a member of the Malayan Communist Party) set out to prevent Singapore from merging into Malaysia. He was supported by Dr Lee Siew Choh, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs. The PAP was defeated, the TUC was split, and the Prime Minister offered his resignation as Prime Minister to the Chairman of the PAP. This was refused, and the PAP confirmed its faith in Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership.
Lee demanded a show-down in the Assembly. The issue was nationalism as against communist united-front tactics. The Government held its position by twenty-seven to eight with thirteen PAP Members (including five parliamentary secretaries) abstaining. Having failed to capture the Government, the extreme Left of the PAP, led by Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan, S. Woodhull and Dr Lee Siew Choh, broke away from the PAP to form the Barisan Sosialis. On 24 August, Lee Kuan Yew met Tunku Abdul Rahman for the first formal discussion of the details of merger. The TUC was dissolved, and two new trade union organizations emerged, one of them grouped around Lim Chin Siong. Two major strikes marred the labour scene, a disturbing effect of the political conflict between the two groups. Pro-communist elements organized student demonstrations. The year ended with the issue of merger and Malaysia still undecided and Lee Kuan Yew, with a majority of one in a House of fifty-one, determined that the two territories must be reunified.
IN Asia, as in most other parts of the world, emotions were aroused by the murder of Patrice Lumumba in the Congo. In the Singapore Assembly, on 22 February, the Prime Minister moved a resolution expressing abhorrence at the “cold-blooded murder”, called upon the United Nations to bring the murderers to justice, condemned the presence of Belgian troops and agents in the Congo, and supported the proposal to expel from the Congo all foreign troops not under United Nations command. At the same time, Lee Kuan Yew warned the people of Singapore to “restrain their righteous desire to show the Belgians what they think of them”. Lee said that when the news broke upon the world that Mr Lumumba was said to have escaped, and ten nations immediately signed a declaration that they believed that he had been murdered, millions of angry, indignant words were uttered and millions more went out over the air carrying the righteous indignation and anger of people with any sense of decency throughout the world. But it illustrated, he said, that we live in one world, that there was only one peace and that it was indivisible, and that what happened in the Congo affected everyone sooner or later. Lee continued:
“In a world shrunken in size as a result of man’s scientific and technical advance, new problems emerge, and, just as in the case of the Algerian conflict, since total war means total annihilation, new forms of combat for partial or complete victory in limited fields have to be evolved.
“It is the intention of the Government in bringing this matter for debate to put on behalf, I hope unanimously, of the people of Singapore a little more weight in the balance in favour of what is right and just, and also to set the tone of the talking that has been going on and will be going on in Singapore and around us and, what is more important, to set the pace of the thinking. . .
“There are really very few new things that can be said on the subject of the death of Mr Lumumba. Everything that need be said has been said so well and eloquently by so many other eminent people with more powerful pens and eloquent voices than our own. All I wish to do is to draw attention from our point of view to a few salient facts.
“There are really two issues—Lumumba the man when he was alive and Lumumba the myth that has been created by his murder. As for Lumumba the man, we never said anything. We stood for the freedom and independence of the Congo. If the Congolese people chose Mr Lumumba as their Prime Minister, then it was their right to do so, and he should have been given the opportunity to carry out his duties as Prime Minister. Whatever he was, the stupidest thing that could have been done was to have killed him and created a myth. The myth is becoming stronger day by day. It is the biggest united front issue on a world basis created since the Spanish civil war. Whether you are Right-wing, liberal, Fabian, social democrat or democratic socialist, or whether you are a communist, willy-nilly if you believe in decent behaviour, certain standards of honesty, certain standards of what people should do or should not do, then you must be against what has happened. . .
“We add our voice to the rising chorus of indignation. . . In Singapore, I hope we can give the lead to the thinking that should be done by people in a position to influence public opinion. One can get hysterical over this. One can get very angry. But what I am asking this House to do is soberly, albeit we are angry, to say what this means to us, what it is doing to our people, and how we, as elected representatives of the people, should lead them in the expression of their views of what is right and wrong in matters which concern us, although these matters take place some thousands of miles away in some country unknown to us, but so vitally important for the survival of all of us.”
In 1960, the Minister for National Development, Mr Ong Eng Guan, was expelled from the People’s Action Party. He resigned from the Assembly, contested a by-election, won, and became a member of the Opposition. He at once began to attack the PAP, and PAP personalities, especially the Prime Minister.
On 29 December, 1960, seventeen minutes before he was expected to appear before the Assembly, meeting in Committee, to substantiate serious allegations he had made of corruption and nepotism against the Prime Minister and another Minister, Ong Eng Guan resigned. The Assembly thereupon voted to set up a Commission of Inquiry, headed by a judge. This Commission met, and the Prime Minister gave evidence and took part in the proceedings. On 2 March, 1961, the Assembly “took note” of the report which said that Ong Eng Guan was a person “not to be believed”. The report stated that all the allegations against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law were “untrue, groundless and reckless”. The Opposition decided not to vote on the Government’s motion to condemn Ong for his “dishonourable conduct” in using his Assembly privilege “as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods”. Lee was contemptuous of the Opposition’s behaviour and in a scathing attack said that on several occasions in the past “we have had to underline the fact that Western-type parliamentary democracy has to be adapted and adjusted to suit the practical realities of our position. The system of one man one vote, which ensures that the interest of the majority prevails without having to crush and destroy all opposition, can only work if adjustments are made to preserve not the forms, but the essence of a tolerant political system which ensures change in the social and economic order without violence.
“One curious fact which emerges from the experiments in parliamentary democracy in Asia is that it works only when the governing party has a clear majority and is strong and decisive. Where a government is weak and has not got a clear majority or is composed of coalition factions, then the system breaks down. This happened in Indonesia; in Burma, where the governing party AFPFL split and the Army took over; in Ceylon in the last Government of the late Mr Bandaranaike, when he led a coalition because he did not have a clear majority; and lest we forget, in Singapore from 1955 to 1959, with the David Marshall Government and later the Government headed by the present Member for Cairnhill,” (Mr Lim Yew Hock) “neither of whom had a clear majority and both of whom depended on unstable alliances all of an opportunistic nature. Only in India, where the ruling Congress Party has a decisive majority, and in the Federation of Malaya where UMNO has a clear majority, are there governments successfully working under the democratic parliamentary system. . . And the conclusion one is forced to draw from these facts is that one of the problems that bedevil Western-type parliamentary democracy in its workings in Asia is that the Opposition is unwilling or unable to play its role within the constitutional framework. And when the Opposition is strong it can and often does foul up the work of the government. A proper Opposition opposes the policy of the government by offering to the people its own alternative remedies for economic and social problems, whilst at the same time upholding the institutions upon which parliamentary democracy is founded. One of these institutions, of course, is the elected legislature itself. Unfortunately, most, though not all, Oppositions in Asia are negative in that they have no alternative policy to offer to the electorate, and oppose for the sake of opposing not only the party in power but, as in the case of Singapore, also the institutions of the state.
“Our Opposition is feeble not just in numbers. We have tried and will continue to try to make it possible for our Opposition to play its proper constitutional role, albeit limited, to criticize Government policies and to offer their own alternative policies to solve our economic and social problems in order that the people can decide between them and us when the time comes for general elections again. But one thing the Ong Eng Guan issue proved is that this opportunity we have offered the Opposition to play up to its proper constitutional role is wasted. It is wasted because it is an Opposition with no principles or fixed beliefs. It opposes on the basis of opportunistic opposing. It has no firm policies, let alone principles, to offer to the people as an alternative to the PAP. . .
“Mr Speaker, a grave charge was made against the Government which, if true, must mean the resignation of the Government and fresh general elections. And it is the duty not only of the Government but also of the Opposition to see that the truth is uncovered and placed before the people. . .”
“This motion formally condemns a proven liar, but more important, it condemns all those in the Opposition who tried to cover up Mr Ong Eng Guan’s lying tactics by confusing the issues.”
May Day for the People’s Action Party has always been an important occasion. It is a national holiday. Traditionally, the Prime Minister addresses a mass rally. In 1961, the Lim Chin Siong group was moving secretly among the workers’ organizations, scheming to capture the PAP from within. Two days earlier, the PAP had suffered defeat at the Hong Lim by-election. There was now a grave danger that “irresponsible people” could create a state of political chaos. Lee was anxious to prevent that. He believed people would listen to reason if they knew the facts. He said: “Every one of you must know that never in the history of Singapore has there been a Government more sympathetic, more actively sincere in trying to better the working class. However, over the last twenty-two months, not unnaturally, many people have tried to get the best of both worlds. On the one hand, they are quietly pleased, if not grateful, that there is a Government which is prepared to hold the fort against those who would like to see the old order continue. They are pleased that there is a Government working definitely on fixed principles in the interests of the working class, a Government which keeps the predatory instincts of the employer, be he a local or a foreign one, keeps his avarice and his greed in check, a Government which ensures within the limits of its power the maximum amount of political freedom amongst the working class, the maximum amount of political o exercise of mass cohesion of workers in the interests of the working class.
“But, on the other hand, there has been constant and carping back-biting and criticism. Whilst acknowledging to themselves that the Government was generally trying to better the interests of the working class, they publicly tell the rank and file half-truths designed to maintain an atmosphere of discontent, an atmosphere that all could be better if only things were different, if only fiercer men were in the saddle, if only the British colonialists were wiped out, if only independence were obtained, if only the Government did a 1,001 dreamy, starry-eyed impracticable things. . .”
Lee blamed all this on the wild talk during the Hong Lim by-election. He admitted that the position had undergone a definite change. Now was a moment of decision not only for the workers but for all the people of Singapore to decide “whether they stand for or against the PAP. Nobody can have it both ways. . . We of the PAP are of use to you, the working class of Singapore, in so far as we can establish conditions of certainty, to ensure not only the maintenance of living standards, but the sufficiency of industrial expansion which will ensure your jobs, better working conditions, more work for more people with more pay and better terms of service. Uncertainty, a state of stagnation in which there is no expansion of industry, no more employment opportunities are being created, and there is a gradual worsening of the present position for the workers—all these must come back to roost, whoever is in government. Therefore, everybody in Singapore, including us, must, I think, make a careful reappraisal of where we stand and where we are going. It’s no use just saying ‘support the anti-colonial movement’. Those are obvious things. Tun Lim Yew Hock says he represents the anti-colonial movement, David Marshall says he represents an anti-colonial movement, Ong Eng Guan says he represents an anti-colonial movement. The PAP also represents the anti-colonial movement. Positions must be taken in which those who believe they can lead the people better than the PAP must come forward and lead.
“It is not possible to tell the PAP ‘do this, do that, do the other,’ knowing full well that the objective and realistic conditions have to be faced by any Government in power with the interests of the people at heart. Therefore to those who say ‘seek concord amidst or whilst maintaining differences’ I say to them and to their supporters: the PAP has clearly stated where it stands. Seek concord if you will with the PAP on the PAP stand. Maintain your differences and seek no concord if you find that the PAP stand is against your stand. But I say this: that it is our duty to convince the people that the PAP stand is in their interests; that in the long-term future the PAP road is the best road that they can travel to a peaceful and prosperous, a happy and a united society.”
Everyone knew what Lee Kuan Yew meant when he said “We had believed that perhaps decisions of principle, of grave political policy, could be left open till 1963 when the constitutional position has to be reviewed.” He was referring to the decision which he always said would have to be taken when Singapore was free of colonialism: communism or non-communism? Right from the beginning, it must be remembered, the PAP was a nationalist front more than a socialist party. “But, ” he said, “developments that have taken place make it necessary that decisions have to be taken earlier and not later, for the interests of everybody. Those who say they stand for outright independence, let them seek concord whilst maintaining differences with Tun Lim Yew Hock, David Marshall, Ong Eng Guan and all the others who say ‘Independent Singapore’. Those who genuinely believe that that is the road to perdition and who know that our political future lies in merger into a larger entity, into a Malayan whole, then it is their business, as it is the business of the PAP, to convince the people, whatever the temporary setbacks, whatever the temporary misunderstandings, that this is the road ahead. Anti-colonialism as a slogan is a necessary slogan. But the direction of that anti-colonialism, the road that we are to travel to independence, are objectives which must be clarified in no uncertain terms.
“In the coming weeks, it is not unlikely that events will unravel themselves with greater lucidity in order that everybody should know where everybody stands. We should be honest to ourselves and to our people. It is my hope that when that moment of decision comes, when the lines which are at present being blurred have to be drawn, we shall be able to convince the majority of the people to stand on that side of the line which stands for sanity, for national unity, for independence through merger in a larger political whole. On the other side of the line is the easy way out—the easy appeal to impatience and frustrations, the slogans that for years have always aroused an atmosphere of excitement and, in some quarters, of hysteria; slogans which appeal to the different communities, different slogans on different wavelengths, bring about different results, the results of all of which must mean national disunity, unhappiness and chaos. It is therefore, your duty as members of the working class to take up your stand. For us, as those who are supposed to guide your destinies in the Government, it is our business to see that you are brought along a road which leads to national happiness, national unity and national independence.
“The history of a people is not decided in one or two election defeats or victories. It is a long and relentless process not dependent on persons and personalities but on the political and social and national forces at work within a given milieu. And it is only a question of whether one can analyse and decipher and discern the forces in play and calculate the resultant direction of all these forces. They are factors more enduring, more decisive than all the slogans that men or politicians or trade unionists can coin. So let us therefore, if we are to survive the test of history, regardless of temporary setbacks, coin slogans which will stand the test of time. That is our business and we hope that is also your business.”
The PAP’s defeat in the Hong Lim by-election created a political shock, and Lim Chin Siong and his group, though still members of the PAP, exploited the situation subtly to put across communist propaganda. Lee Kuan Yew thought of resigning, of going back to the people for a fresh mandate. The Straits Times came out with an editorial saying that it was the scale of Ong Eng Guan’s victory that shocked and dismayed. Ong polled more than two and a half times the votes cast for his opponent from the PAP. The Straits Times attributed the PAP defeat to Ong’s personal popularity. “They have chosen to overlook the failings of Mr Ong, the Minister for National Development, the man who all but wrecked the municipality, who did not get a house built in twelve months, who planned nothing, built nothing, developed nothing.” The Straits Times referred to the PAP’s record of solid achievement and urged the PAP to remain in office. “The Government must stay on the job and get on with it.”
Lee Kuan Yew later went to Hong Lim to explain why he thought the PAP had been defeated. It was, he said, because the Government had not sufficiently explained its plans to help them. The Government had failed to explain why certain things had to be done, why other things could not be carried out. Lee realized that Ong Eng Guan spoke Hokkien to the Hong Lim voters, and could thus get his message across to them direct. Lee at once set about learning Hokkien.
Unexpectedly, there was another by-election caused by the sudden death of the PAP Assemblyman for the Anson constituency. Nobody realized it then, but this was to be the instrument which the communists were to seize, and to try to use, in an effort to capture the party. They nearly succeeded.
Singapore’s political uncertainty, and the opportunity it appeared to provide for pro-communist and Chinese communal policies, caused Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaya’s Prime Minister, to make his historic proposal on 27 May for the building of a new State of Malaysia out of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, Sabah and Brunei. Lee Kuan Yew welcomed and supported the Tunku’s plan. Lim Chin Siong and the pro-communist group opposed Malaysia: the showdown between the communists and the nationalists was fast approaching a climax.
Lee made two speeches to celebrate National Day, on 3 June. Over the radio he suggested that the salient feature of the past two years of PAP Government had been an absence of hysteria and general unrest (which had been a feature of previous governments) and the presence of an effective government prepared to enforce whatever measures were necessary in the general welfare. “Never,” he declared, “had there been more freedom in the exercise of democratic rights of association for trade unions, cultural and civic associations. Rather than repression, persuasion has been the guiding principle. But we have had to suppress secret society gangsters. We had also to suppress known destructive and communal elements. . . But on the whole, oppression as a method of government is disavowed and the general atmosphere is much healthier.”
Lee dealt with progress in housing and the building of schools. He said there had been a change for the better. “But let us not deceive ourselves. The change has not been large enough or fast enough. The recent by-election which the PAP lost has been useful, for it revealed the sectors where there is dissatisfaction. . .”
Some of these problems, Lee said, could and would be solved. Some problems would take longer to solve. Problems there would always be. “And we will continue to solve them; though it is not possible to please everyone. But let us take heart from our fortunate position of having one of the best-fed and best-clothed cities of the whole of Asia. . .”
The next day, at the National Day mass rally, the Prime Minister spoke from the City Hall steps to thousands of supporters. He said that the years which had gone by defined in sharper outlines the problems they had to face. “They have also defined more clearly the great future that awaits us when we overcome our present problems...
“We share a common destiny with our people in the Federation. No one doubts this any longer. . . This coming together must ultimately be decided by the collective will of the people. . . We welcome and support the declaration of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya that it is inevitable that we should look ahead to this objective of closer political and economic association between the Federation, Singapore, Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo. This declaration should accelerate the speed of political progress towards complete independence for us. . . We have shared a common colonial past. We were part of the same British Empire in Southeast Asia. If we can keep together in close political and economic association as we find our place in the comity of independent nations, it will be to the advantage of all of us, and to the advantage of peace and stability in this region.”
Lee found time during the National Day celebrations to remind school children that the size of a country was not all that important. “If,” he told them in a special National Day message, “size is what determines the importance of a country and its people, then Singapore would be of little importance to anyone other than to ourselves. Fortunately it is not size but quality which counts. Ancient Athens was a small state, but its vigorous and alert people gave birth to ideas and philosophies which are as alive today as they were 2,000 years ago. . .”
July was a month of crisis for the People’s Action Party. David Marshall, the former Chief Minister (making a return to politics after “leaving politics for ever”, and forming the Workers Party, which soon became heavily infiltrated by communists) snatched victory in Anson (on 15 July) with a majority of 546 seats over the PAP candidate, Inche Mahmud bin Awang, a bus conductor and President of the TUC. In his brief and unexpected hour of glory, Mr Marshall called upon the Prime Minister to resign. This was the second defeat of the PAP in two by-elections in three months. Lee Kuan Yew did in fact offer his resignation to the Chairman of the PAP, Dr Toh Chin Chye. Dr Toh in his reply expressed the confidence of the party in Lee.
“We lost Anson by the treachery of three political secretaries and eight Assemblymen who worked in concert with the trade union leaders against the PAP candidate,” said the PAP in a statement analysing its defeat. “At a critical time they deliberately set out to divide the party and confuse the voters. . . All those loyal to the genuine aims of the party (the creation of a democratic, socialist, independent, non-communist Malaya including Singapore) must rally round the party and Government, and close our ranks.”
More than 1,500 people abstained from voting in the Anson by-election. Lee said they had been disillusioned by party dissension. Lee called for a special meeting of the Assembly to clarify the whole issue by a vote of confidence: the time had come for the nationalists and communists, now moving towards different objectives, to stand up and be counted. Control of the PAP was now at stake. Meanwhile, a delegation from Lim Chin Siong’s group dropped in on the United Kingdom High Commissioner, Lord Selkirk, for a cup of tea, and assurances that the Constitution would not be suspended “to prevent them garnering the fruits of the defeat they expected to inflict upon Lee Kuan Yew’s government”.
The Assembly met in the afternoon of 20 July, and the dramatic and crucial debate went on until four the next morning. Lee posed the issue in terms of nationalism as against the communist united front tactic with the “connivance of the Colonial Power”. In a House of fifty-one, the PAP held their position by twenty-seven votes to eight with thirteen PAP members abstaining while still sitting on the Government benches.
Lee said: “After Hong Lim, when we were defeated badly, I felt that if the people desired it, there should be a reference back to the people. However, it was decided by a majority opinion of the party that we should first fight Anson and then reconsider the position. At that time Mr Lim Chin Siong and all his trade union friends strenuously opposed any talk of our resignation. After losing Anson by a narrow majority and because of this attempt by the six trade unionists and eight Assemblymen to capture the Government and the party, we are resolved not to abdicate our position in order that the party and the Government does not pass into the hands of people who intend to use it for purposes for which the people did not vote the PAP in. The present leadership of the party was responsible for winning the mandate of the people in the last elections, and it is our duty not to give Mr Lim Chin Siong any opportunity to take over this Government in order to run it as a communist front government.
“Their first plan now, since they are unable to capture the Government, is to get me to resign in order that someone whom they believe they can manipulate could be elected Prime Minister. They hope in this way to force a compromise in the policy of the Government so that they can extend communist influence in Singapore and prevent us from fulfilling our declared objective of independence through merger with the Federation, with or without the Borneo territories, in 1963. This move has now been frustrated by the unanimous decision of the party’s Central Executive Committee to stand collectively together against any change. This stand has been endorsed by a majority of PAP Assemblymen.
“This motion is one of confidence and the motion will have to be carried as it stands without amendment or the Government must resign and general elections follow. On a motion of confidence, any amendment is tantamount to a vote of no confidence. As for the Honourable Members on the other side of the House may I say on behalf of my colleagues and I, that if they want general elections they can vote against the Government.
“This extraordinary session has become necessary because of the sudden turn of events over the past few weeks. Eight Assemblymen on the PAP side have openly defied the party leadership. Demands for my resignation as Prime Minister have been made and it has become necessary that the House should clearly give us a mandate to carry on. . .
“The time has come for the unvarnished truth to be told. For two years the British Government has tried to manipulate the PAP into a position where we will become the successor to Lim Yew Hock’s policy, where the communist party will be attacked not by British imperialism, which is the supreme power in Singapore, but by us, the locally elected Government with limited powers. To achieve this end every blandishment and argument has been put forward, and every device and seductive manoeuvre practised. After two years the British have decided that the PAP is impervious to such blandishment. Perhaps they have decided that we are men who are not influenced by personal considerations of wishing to stay in power. We are prepared to lay down office at any time at the behest of the people and we are not going to be manipulated by any power.
“The big scheme we have only been able to piece completely together after the Anson by-election. The plot, counter-plot and sub-plots that have been going on would make an Oppenheimer thriller read like a simple comic strip cartoon. The diplomacy, skill and cunning derived from some 300 years of building and running the British Empire, and from the manipulation of men and their motivations, have in great part led to this curious position, daily growing curiouser and curiouser. The British, as I see it, had two objectives. The first was to engineer a collision between the non-communist Left in the PAP and the communist Left. Their second objective was to ensure that the Borneo territories are put into a position where they will come together immediately in a federation under British tutelage, but in a state of readiness, if the international situation turns delicate, to be transferred to a nationalist government of ‘Greater Malaysia’.
“I congratulate the planners of this scheme for having succeeded this far. Day by day, on the basis of British blandishments and manoeuvre, all parties—the communists, the PAP, the Federation and the leaders of the Borneo territories—have been mounting the stakes at the poker table. To the pro-communists in Singapore the British say that the British are liberal and democratic, that if they have released men from prisons to be Prime Ministers, and only recently they have done so again in Nyasaland, why should they want to keep detainees in gaol? It is darkly hinted that it is the wicked Singapore Government that wanted to keep them in gaol.
“These insinuations started slowly. After the Hong Lim by-election they were intensified. The British were unhappy that in Hong Lim the communist Left rallied to the PAP united front. So some plan had to be found to ensure that the PAP would come into collision with the CP Left. Dinner parties, cocktails, luncheons led to friendly fraternization between the British lion and Messrs Lim Chin Siong, Woodhull and Co. The pro-communists were led to believe that the PAP were the wicked obstructionists, and the British, wise and statesmanlike people, were prepared even to envisage a new ‘Left’ government emerging in Singapore, even more Left than the PAP, provided their military bases were not touched.
“The British have become their own agents-provocateur. How well they have succeeded! Quietly and insidiously they instigated the pro-communists to attempt the capture of both the PAP Government and the party. Young, inexperienced revolutionaries were so taken in that in a crisis Lim Chin Siong, Woodhull and Fong Swee Suan looked up the UK Commissioner for consultations on Tuesday 18 July at the Eden Hall home of the UK Commissioner. We felt that something curious was going on and we therefore kept observation of the residence of the UK Commissioner. Lo and behold, the great anti-colonialists and revolutionaries turned up for secret consultations with the British lion! I am now convinced that some funny things are happening when in a serious crisis this revolutionary trio get into consultation at Eden Hall with the UK Commissioner, instead of with the PAP.
“Having led the pro-communists into believing that a non-communist government was no longer necessary and that a pro-communist government was possible, obviously these men were going to try and capture the PAP party and Government. And the British may also have hoped that under attack and threat of capture the PAP would fight back and finally suppress the communists, something they so far failed in persuading the PAP to do. Meanwhile to the PAP the British has suggested that we should take firm action against the mounting subversion. In fact, a plan was to have been drawn up which would have culminated in an act leading to open collision with the communists in which the PAP either remained in office and so became committed for ever to defend British colonialism, or resigned, in which case a non-communist government not amenable to British pressure would have been got rid of.
“Meanwhile, the Federation began to believe that they could get the Borneo territories, together with Singapore, merged in a larger federation. The Tunku came down on 27 May, a week before National Day, and announced to a group of foreign correspondents that he recognized that there must be closer political and economic ties between the Federation of Malaya, Singapore and the three Borneo territories. I answered on 3 June, National Day, that in principle we welcomed the Tunku’s plan for a larger federation, if thereby, merger between Singapore and the Federation was made easier.
“The communists, on the other hand, propounded that there was no need for independence through merger and that the next step should be to abolish the Internal Security Council in order that there would be expansion at all levels of human activity on behalf of the communist cause. Six trade unionists came out with statements openly supporting the communist line on 2 June. Forty-two trade unions also supported this CP line and literally put their rubber stamps on the statement without convening any meetings or consulting the rank and file. On 9 June, the PAP Chairman, Dr Toh Chin Chye, announced that the Government would demand complete independence through merger with the Federation, or merger with a larger federation, when constitutional talks reopen in 1963. The PAP, which was not amenable to manipulation by the British, is not going to be manipulated by the communists.
“We took our stand and the battle then began. Three days later, six trade unionists demanded immediate release of the detainees, implementation of the reunification of trade unions, granting of citizenship rights to all those loyal to the anti-colonial struggle, communist or non-communist, and more freedom of speech, Press, assembly and organization for the advancement of the anti-colonial struggle.
“Meanwhile two Governors and one High Commissioner flew in from the Borneo territories to add impetus and mystery to the vast developing plot. All these events incidentally lent credence to the false rumours that the PAP had sold out Singapore to an imperialist plot. The UK Commissioner for Singapore left for London, the Tunku and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong went to Brunei. Everyone started his own analysis and adopted his own counter-measures. Mr Marshall said all this was for the purpose of the Anson by-election. But the communist Left believed differently and decided that this was an evil conspiracy to which the PAP was a party. They mounted the offensive and intensified their campaign. The TUC six openly attacked the PAP; three political secretaries in receipt of Government remuneration flagrantly flouted all rules of decency and attacked the Government they had promised to serve. Forty-three unions came out against merger, supporting the TUC six, to make the PAP lose in Anson. Finally, when, in spite of everything, the PAP looked like winning, they engineered the betrayal of the party by eight Assemblymen issuing a statement of discord on the eve of poll. These pro-communists had been duped into believing that the PAP had sold out the rights of the people of Singapore.
“It will take some time for me to tell you the story right from the beginning. But I feel the people must know the truth in order that when the mandate is returned to the people they will make their choice in full knowledge of the facts. And the choice will be—do you want your future to be a Singapore merged with the Federation of Malaya, or do you want to follow people who ask for the abolition of the Internal Security Council and full self-government, as a first step to an independent communist Singapore? We saw these problems looming over the horizon, even whilst the Hong Lim by-election was on, and I stressed over and over again why the PAP does not stand for an independent Singapore and why our future must lie in a merger with the Federation.
“Mr Lim Chin Siong and his friends took fright and alarm when rapid development began regarding merger. They were alarmed because merger is no longer a mirage over the horizon but a reality which will take place in 1963. . . Why do they oppose this? Why do they want to capture the Government and the party to prevent this, when for years they have always endorsed and supported the PAP plan of independence through merger? Mr Lim Chin Siong, Mr Woodhull, Mr Fong Swee Suan came out of prison because we won the elections and demanded their release as a condition before we assumed office. Although we knew that politically our opinions differed on important points from some of theirs, we were openly comrades in a united front and we did not betray them. Yet in the middle of a by-election, which was crucial to the Government, for their own reasons and for the purpose of preventing merger, they betrayed us openly at Anson, causing dissension in the party ranks and confusion in the minds of the people.
“Day by day the chips on the poker table are mounting. The game as played has gone so far now that no side can afford to back out; some time in the near future all cards will be called and seen. Whoever is bluffing will lose bitterly. I say now on behalf of my colleagues and my party, that we are not going to fit in with the scheme to beat up the CP for the benefit of British colonialism. If we get no independence through merger we will leave the British with the predicament of having to deal with the communists themselves, even in an elected government. The communists, on the other hand, have mounted their offensive in order to capture the PAP party and the PAP Government. We shall resist them. We advise them not to try it and not to provoke us into unnecessary collision. If they want to win and take over power in Singapore they may try to do so in the next general elections. We on the other hand must let the people know the truth—plain, simple and unvarnished—so that all will realize the hazardous course they will travel with these men.
“Our battle with the communists must be won by argument. We will prove that the democratic socialist forces in Singapore are honest and sincere to the people and have not and will not sell out their rights to anybody. It will also be shown that the communists have not only been duped by the British but duped to the extent that they betrayed their PAP comrades in the nationalist Left united front. The battle for men’s minds cannot be won by simple smearing of a man as either anti-communist and reactionary, or a wavering bourgeois, social democrat or communist. Not all those who oppose the British are nationalists. Some anti-colonialists are nationalists and some are communists. We must also see this distinction: that not all who oppose the PAP are communists; some are communists, some reactionaries, some opportunists and some merely confused.
“Therefore, in this battle of ideas it is necessary that we should call a spade a spade and put across truthfully and honestly the respective position of everyone. Our purpose is to build a movement for a united, independent, democratic, non-communist Malaya. Our business is to strengthen the forces that help to create this united Malaya. In the past the communists may have for their own reasons assisted us in this task. If so, they did so in the full knowledge that we are non-communist, not communist. We are firmly convinced that the survival of the PAP depends on a strong adherence to this line of non-communism to prevent perversion of our party, either by the British getting the PAP to openly repress the communists or by the communists making the PAP the vehicle of their communist line.
“As the game has been played so far, beyond any doubt the really able and skilful player has been the British. Even we were at first puzzled by this development of events. On the one hand we were asked to be tough and to take firm action. On the other hand the British lion was asking the revolutionary Messrs Lim and Woodhull and Co to dinner and telling them that all the detainees can be let out. And then their fellow-travelling friends come and tell us that they have a first class pipe-line with the UK Commission and are convinced that all that the British wanted in Singapore were their bases and quiet, peace and stability, and even if a communist government can be popularly elected, all is well.
“For all sides the events of the past two months have been irrevocable ones. Such conflicts as have appeared between the pro-CP elements and us cannot just be laughed off and forgotten. The British are still hoping that we will come to open collision and we will use draconian methods of suppression to establish our position as a government. As I have explained, we are completely unmoved by considerations of staying in office, pomp and power, for these were not the considerations that made us seek office in 1959. We can therefore afford to ignore these blandishments and present to the British the dragon’s teeth they have been sowing. But we shall fight to save the Government and the party from capture. In many ways the events of these last two months bear resemblance to the crisis in the PAP in 1957. There again the pro-CP Left, whom we had called Left-wing adventurers, miscalculated their position and tried to capture the PAP and force us to follow their line. Very prudently we calculated differently and abstained from office, thereby saving the PAP and ourselves a great deal of unnecessary trouble. As a result we were able to survive, grow to greater strength and after succeeding in the last General Elections we were able to rescue Mr Lim Chin Siong and seven others from prison, before we assumed power.
“Now again, in 1961 as in 1957, it is believed that the PAP can be captured by communists and used for communist policies with impunity. Some of the lesser souls in our party have decided to take the easy way out—this short cut to peace in our time and popularity in our time. Little do they realize that this short cut can lead to peace only for a time and popularity only for a time. We have decided to stay in office to prevent this criminal folly from being perpetrated on the PAP for the second time. I only hope these gamblers will not have to pay too bitter and high a price when the cards are down. . .”
Lee’s motion of confidence was put to the House at ten minutes to four in the morning after a late night sitting. Twenty-seven members of the PAP supported the Government. Eight Opposition voted against. The thirteen PAP rebels abstained. Later they formed the Barisan Sosialis.
After the Anson by-election dust had settled, Lee Kuan Yew went to the radio station (on 26 July) to tell the people “what the principal forces engaged in battle” were trying to do, and with what success. He said that the thirteen PAP Assemblymen who had failed to support the Government fell into two groups—eight who were ostensibly led by Dr Lee Siew Choh, and five who recognized Dr Sheng Nam Chin as their spokesman. “Neither Dr Lee nor Dr Sheng is a communist. They both joined the party in 1959 when the PAP was in the ascendant. They were both upset by the PAP defeat in Hong Lim. Dr Lee was persuaded that the way to popularity and success was openly to seek communist support from their cadres in the unions and the mass organizations. He had several discussions with me and with Dr Goh. The gist of his argument was that since the communists cannot directly take power in Singapore so long as they have no communist government in the Federation, there will be no harm at all in espousing their cause, co-operating with them, and depending on their support. “What’s the harm?” he asked me. I explained that this would leave him a prisoner of the communists. But all this was of no avail and he set out on this perilous course. Dr Sheng, on the other hand, felt that the communists would win in the long run because of the international situation and he was not prepared to resist them. . . He was offered the Deputy Prime Ministership by the group that wanted to take over power and stay on.”
Lim Chin Siong and his group were expelled from the PAP and fourteen branch secretaries were suspended. Shortly afterwards, Tunku Abdul Rahman invited Lee Kuan Yew to begin discussion on merger and Malaysia.
Finding they could not win over twenty-seven PAP Assemblymen to their side, the communists tried to bring the Government down, if not by constitutional means, then by fomenting industrial strife and mass agitation.
Lee Kuan Yew meanwhile continued to govern. A young developing nation, he told the teachers on Teachers’ Day (5 August), needed guidance and this must be firm. But, at the same time, an independent multiracial society could only come about through tolerance and democracy. Lee said it was most important that the problems of language and education be resolved by the free will of the parents, not by the orders of a government. “It is our duty to point out the road to national unity by offering equal opportunities of learning all mother tongues while encouraging the learning and use of the national language. Then it is up to the fathers and mothers of our community to decide how their children should be taught and trained.”
Having failed either to capture or destroy the PAP Government, the communists, with the thirteen defectors from the PAP, on 26 July formed the Barisan Sosialis. Dr Lee Siew Choh was Chairman and Lim Chin Siong, the Secretary-General. It obtained registration as a party on 13 August, and that evening held a rally. Eleven days later Lee Kuan Yew went to Kuala Lumpur for formal talks with the Tunku about merger and Malaysia.
The open fight between communists and nationalists was now on. Trade unionists grouped around Lim Chin Siong formed the Association of Trade Unions. The TUC was dissolved. PAP trade unionists formed the National Trade Union Congress.
The Barisan were a definite political threat to the PAP: from the beginning the new party employed those very techniques which had brought the PAP to power in 1959—appeals to anti-colonial feeling, criticism of Britain, and a determination to dominate the trade union movement.
In September Lee took the offensive: opposition to the PAP’s plans for independence and merger leading to the creation of Malaysia had to be met head-on. In a series of radio talks he set out to show that the Barisan Sosialis rejected merger because it was a communist movement bent upon establishing a communist republic of Malaya including Singapore. The original plan of the communists was to capture power in the Assembly by co-opting twenty-six Assemblymen and forming the Government. This plan failed. Their second plan was to persuade twenty-six Opposition Assemblymen to vote the Government out. This also failed. In another radio talk on 6 October, Lee said that their third plan was to “make it so hot and uncomfortable for the Government all round that they would quit before merger was accomplished. We shall be patient and forbearing, and we shall see merger through.” “The communists are on the surface playing the game constitutionally and softly for the time being. . . At the moment the communists are putting on relatively mild pressure through persons and organizations which they hope cannot be attributed directly to them. . .The communists always do this. Exploit a real or imaginary grievance through cadres and sympathizers not generally known to be connected with them. . .One difficulty the communists are facing at the moment is the complete absence of tension or uncertainty or anti-Government feeling. For them to succeed, a state of uncertainty and unrest, and a belief that revolution is just around the corner, is most necessary. . .”
When the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee met, on 18 December, in Sarawak, Lee Kuan Yew reported progress. He said: “Each of us has his own ideas of the form and the content Malaysia should take. . . but all of us acknowledge that the only logical course is to come together for our stability and survival in the midst of the shifting balance of forces in Southeast Asia. So long as we accept the necessity and inevitability of Malaysia, the differences of view we may have as to the form and content of Malaysia can be resolved. We all recognize that, before a period of rapid and far-reaching changes, there must be some hesitations, doubts, and anxieties. These are the natural reactions to swift changes. It is right, and all to the good, that all of us should speak our minds freely and frankly, for only by understanding each other can we help to resolve our mutual problems. What is wrong is to allow anxieties for local interests and ambitions to become excuses for resisting changes which are inevitable, or to stall solutions which in the long run are to the benefit of all of us. . .
“Having enunciated the principle of Malaysia we should now find ways and means of expediting the realization of Malaysia. The pattern of Malaysia cannot be dictated by any one of the five partners to the exclusion of the others. It cannot be fashioned to fit the exclusive interests of any one partner. We must all uphold the essential interests of Malaysia, the basic and fundamental interests of all of us collectively, whilst at the same time we must take into account the special local interests and conditions of our respective territories. Malaysia is our creation. It is our own nationalist answer to our problems of viability and survival in one of the most contested regions of the world. . .”
Over Radio Sarawak the next day Lee Kuan Yew said that the speed of political development during the past few months was a reflection of the speed with which ideas travel in a world of jets, rockets and sputniks. The three territories of Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo were the last of the colonial possessions in Southeast Asia. . .
“Colonialism is on its way out and the sooner it is out the sooner we begin to grapple with our real problems of social change, of building a more just and equal society. The longer colonialism goes on, the more will we accumulate these problems and the more intractable they will be, because in the process of the anti-colonial struggle, in the name of freedom, the communists in Singapore and in Sarawak, and later, no doubt, in North Borneo, will expand and increase their strength. People everywhere in all colonial territories want freedom. It is easier for the communists to get the people to fight with them for freedom than to fight with them for communism. The communists are the only people who profit by having colonial territories malingering in a stage of semi-independence. . .”
“Malaysia is simply the nationalist answer of cutting short the period of gestation from colonialism to independence in order to deny the communists the use of the time spent in a protracted struggle to build up, not our forces of democracy, but their forces of communism. The communists have seen what happened in the Federation of Malaya. Once independence was achieved in August, 1957, the communists had to face a local, nationalist, elected government, and not a colonial government. Then their armed revolt collapsed and their organization was broken up. From time to time, as they expanded their front organizations and created discontent, a nationalist Federation Government punctured it. So the relentless process of struggle goes on; but now not for freedom, for independence has already been won, but for what we should do with the freedom that we have won for ourselves. . .”
“Constitution-making is the art of making forms of government practicable by taking into consideration the practical realities of a given situation. Those of you who have read our agreement between Singapore and the Federation can see how we have been able to resolve our problems to our mutual satisfaction, fairly and reasonably. But at the end of it all, we have one mutual interest which overrides everything else, namely, the need to survive together in a troubled and changing world, and to create prosperity and stability despite the rapid changes of our social order.
“As one who is a descendant of a Chinese immigrant and who firmly believes that the future of all our peoples in Malaysia depends upon our being united in one nation, I would like to see a fair balance of interests maintained between the indigenous people, the Dayaks, Dusuns, Muruts, the Malays, and the immigrant Chinese and Indians. Naturally I would be most unhappy to see any of the discrimination which is practised against the Chinese in almost every country in Southeast Asia except our five territories of Malaysia. And Malaysia offers us this hope of finding a just balance of interest between the descendants of the immigrant people and the indigenous people.
“If we remain fragmented and in isolation then surely survival will be a dangerous business. But if we come together to form a strong Federation of Malaysia, with our record of reasonableness and tolerance between Dayaks, Dusuns, Muruts, Malays, Chinese, Indians and others, there is every reason for our multiracial society, with stable and happy relationships between its many races, to survive and continue to prosper. If we had the time, perhaps Malaysia could take five or six years for formulation, re-formulation and final creation. But the second half of the twentieth century is the age of rapid change and advance. Ideas and ideologies move with fantastic rapidity. We have to move as fast as events around us are moving. We have to ensure that we are not overtaken by events, and that our future is what we wish it to be. The days of the protecting British Raj are over. We, the peoples of Malaysia, must provide the leadership to solve our own problems before they become intractable. . .”