Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE OF SINGAPORE.) (Hansard, 16 July 1958)

§ Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)
Before we accept this Clause I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State for certain assurances. This is a Bill to provide for the establishment of the State of Singapore and for the peace, order and good government thereof and this Clause is the essential Clause of the Bill. I do not think that there will be opposition to the Bill as a whole from this side of the Committee. It was accepted in conference between the Secretary of State and representatives of the parties from Singapore.
There was, however, one difference during those discussions, and it is the matter of that difference that I want to raise now. The difference between the Secretary of State and the representatives of the parties in Singapore was on the question whether anyone who had been found guilty of having been subversive—

The Deputy-Chairman
I am afraid there is nothing about this in the Clause.

§ Mr. Brockway
I submit to you, Sir Gordon, that this Clause is for the establishment of the State of Singapore and for the peace, order and good government thereof". and that under this Clause Her Majesty may by Order in Council … make such provision as may appear to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient for the peace, order and good government, under the title of the State of Singapore …". I am raising the question whether arrangements which have been made between the Secretary of State and the parties in Singapore are such as to make for peace, order and good government in the State of Singapore, as established by the Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman
Would the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies tell me whether this would be done by Order in Council under the Clause and, if so, would it come before the House?

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo)
No, Sir. It is not done by Order in Council under the Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman
Then the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) is not in order.

§ Mr. Profumo
It was explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on Second Reading. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) was here or not. It is reported in column 756 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 11th July last.

§ Mr. Brockway
May I ask for your guidance, Sir Gordon? If this does not appear to be in order on this Clause, may I raise the matter on Third Reading?

The Deputy-Chairman
No. It is not in the Bill.

§ Mr. Brockway
I wish to raise a matter which is of substance greater than I could raise in discussion of the individual Clauses but which is very relevant to acceptance of the Bill. The Bill arises from discussions which have taken place between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and representatives of the parties in Singapore. I think that on Third Reading one is entitled to ask for an assurance that the Bill will be applied in such a way as to bring peace, order and good government to the State of Singapore. During these discussions there was general agreement on all but one matter, which I now want to raise because I believe that some assurance on it is absolutely necessary if the Bill is to succeed in its purpose.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)
I gather that the hon. Member is about to raise something which is not in the Bill.

§ Mr. Brockway
I would argue very strongly that the matter is relevant to the Bill, which is for the establishment of the State of Singapore and which arose 1386 from negotiations between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and parties in Singapore. Surely, when the Bill gives power to Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to do certain things one is entitled to raise on Third Reading what may be done under such an Order in Council.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I understand that what the hon. Member wants to raise is something which will not be done under the Bill.

§ Mr. Brockway
I respectfully suggest that it is a matter which is governed by the Bill. The Bill is to establish a State of Singapore and that State must depend upon elections to the legislature and other matters of that kind. I wish to raise the question of a condition relevant to the election of that body, which must be the functioning body within the new State of Singapore.

§ Sir Frank Soskice (Newport)
I do not know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you are calling upon me to speak in the debate. I was moving, I agree, in a somewhat suspicious manner. I really desire to do two things. My agitated movements were dictated, first, by a desire to explore, possibly more fully than my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) had done, the propriety of his raising the point which I believe is the one he wishes to raise although he has not as yet indicated exactly what that point is. I was hoping to discuss that with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in the form of a point of order if you would allow me to do so.
My other object was to make some general observations on this very important Bill. Perhaps I might now, in the form of a point of order, raise this matter with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and ask you whether I am now on my feet in pursuance of the point of order, or whether, with your liberty, I should make the general observations that I wish to make on the Third Reading of the Bill.
I should like some time or other, if you are disposed to rule against my hon. Friend. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to make one or two submissions on that. Perhaps you would be good enough to give me your guidance as to whether it would be appropriate to do that now.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The right hon. and and learned Gentleman should raise the question on the point of order first.

§ Sir F. Soskice
The point of order I wish to raise is this. I understand that my hon. Friend wishes to raise a question relating to the eligibility for the Assembly to be set up by the Government under the powers given by the Bill of persons who have been convicted of certain proceedings. The respectful submission which I desire to make to the Chair would be that on Third Reading it is not out of order to discuss the use which the Government propose to make of the powers which they have taken under the Bill.
Under the Bill, the Government are taking powers to make a Constitutional Order, and what I thought my hon. Friend wanted to know was whether, in the exercise of those powers which the Government are taking under the Bill—in other words, that is a question specifically within the terms of the Bill—they propose to bring it about that those persons are or are not to be eligible for election to the Assembly.
My respectful submission to the Chair is that it would be in order for my hon. Friend to press the Government to say how they propose to make use of the powers which they are taking in this respect. All that my hon. Friend said, in effect, was, "You are taking powers under the Bill to do certain things. We can no longer question the propriety of your taking those powers. That has been decided by the House. The only thing I wish to ask is this. Will your exercise of those powers be in one direction or in another in relation to the eligibility of these persons for membership?" I have to submit that it would be in order.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I understand that the Order is not taken under this Bill. That is the position, and the matter cannot be discussed on Third Reading. We can only discuss on Third Reading—

§ Sir F. Soskice
On a point of order. Could my hon. Friend ask the Government whether, in point of fact, the constitutional Order will or will not provide, one way or another, for this matter? If the answer is that it will not provide for this matter, would you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, be so good as to indicate to my hon. Friend what instrument, if any, will provide for it, or whether the Government propose to do nothing about it?
The purpose of my hon. Friend's question is to find out what the Government 1388 propose to do. The exercise of the powers under the Bill enables the Government to make, in the first place, a constitutional Order and then to make other Orders to give effect to the constitutional Order. What my hon. Friend wants to know is whether it will be under the constitutional Order that this matter is dealt with, if it is dealt with, and, if it is not dealt with under the constitutional Order, whether it would be made under an Order in Council to give effect to the Constitution or whether it will be under any or none of them. If the answer is that it is to be made under one of those two instruments, my hon. Friend would probably like to know the form in which the power is to be used.

§ Mr. Profumo
It may be convenient if I intervene for a moment, because my right hon. Friend and I are very anxious that there should not be any misunderstanding about any part of the Bill. The difficulty may arise from the fact that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) was not present for the Second Reading, and I do not recollect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was present.

§ Sir F. Soskice
I read every word of the debate.

§ Mr. Profumo
Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind if I read what was said. The confusion arises in this way. My right hon. Friend said on this subject on Second Reading: We do not propose that this ban should be set out in the constitutional Order in Council itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1958; Vol. 591, c. 756.] It is, therefore, perfectly plain that it is not itself to be set out in the Order in Council which we are discussing. It will be set out in another Order which will be necessary to provide for the holding of the first elections. The imposition of the ban therefore does not arise on Third Reading, and it is perfectly plain what the intention of Her Majesty's Government is.

§ Sir F. Soskice
Further to that point of order. We must press the Government on this matter. The Under-Secretary has now reminded us that it is not to be done under the constitutional Order in Council itself, but that it is to be done in another Order. The Bill provides for further Orders in Council to be made to give effect to the constitutional Order. Presumably, what the Under-Secretary is 1389 now telling the Committee is that it is to be under those other Orders for which the Bill provides. The Government would not have power to make those other Orders unless there were provision for that in the Bill.
My hon. Friend wants to know what we have not yet been told: what does the Order in Council, which the Government are now empowering themselves to make, provide for the matters to which my hon. Friend referred? Is it in order for him to ask that?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It depends whether the Order in Council is made under the Bill. I understand from the Minister that it is not.

§ Sir F. Soskice
Making such sense as I can of the Bill, and considering other relevant legislation, I cannot think of any power which the Government would have, other than that mentioned in Clause 1 (3), to make the other Order in Council. The Under-Secretary has not given you advice on this Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and as he has not done so, perhaps I can humbly tender my poor advice.
Such as it is, my advice would be that the Government have no power to make these Orders in Council, except that power in Clause 1 (3). I respectfully submit that my hon. Friend would be in order in asking what use the Government propose to make of the power which they are taking to make an Order in Council which, I understand, at least by inference from what the Minister said, will be an Order in Council dealing with the matter.

§ Mr. Profumo
Perhaps I did not make it clear enough. The Orders mentioned by my right hon. Friend on Second Reading are Orders which can be made under existing powers and not under the powers taken in the Bill.

§ Mr. Brockway
In that case, I should have to ask what the existing powers were by which that provision could be made. The Bill provides, as I understand, for a constitutional Order under which Order there is power to introduce other Orders in Council. This is a matter which still has to be put into operation. I submit that any action which is taken in connection with the new Constitution must arise from the Orders which are subsidiary to the constitutional Order.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The difficulty is that the Order must be one that is made under the Bill. I understand from the 1390 Government that orders are made under another Act.

§ Mr. Profumo
They are made under existing powers contained in the British Settlements Act, 1887, and the Straits Settlement (Repeal) Act, 1946.

§ Mr. Brockway
I must accept that if it is your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it will now be on record, and I very much doubt whether it is a fact that existing legislation gives the Government power to introduce this proposal. If necessary, I shall refer to this discussion tonight in challenging the right of the Government to make this provision, if they do so in future.

§ Sir F. Soskice
The Minister did not rise to introduce the Third Reading of the Bill. I do not know whether he intends to favour us with any observations about it. It is a Bill of considerable importance, and we ought not to let it go by on Third Reading without dwelling upon it for a short time and considering some of its provisions.
It is true that in form it is simply an enabling Bill; it enables the constitutional Order to be made and also certain Orders in Council to be made with a view to giving effect to that constitutional Order. But the purpose of the Government taking that power is what interests everybody, and it is that purpose which is significant in the progress of events in the march of the Commonwealth of which we are all so proud, and which has moved forward so much since the Statute of Westminster and, still more, since the end of the Second World War.
It is right to remind ourselves of the fact that by the Bill the State of Singapore is being given virtually complete autonomy in matters of self-government, although for matters of defence the United Kingdom Government are retaining authority and there is a kind of half-way house for purposes of internal security. We recognise that in relation to Singapore there are movements which require vigilance.
Hon. Members on this side of the House and, no doubt, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, would wish the young State of Singapore—young in the sense of its now being created into a State—godspeed. This island, depending largely for its living upon the entrepôt trade of the great Port of Singapore, is 1391 one of the phenomena of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. One thinks of the remarkable work done by the man who went there in 1819, when there was a small indigenous population. That population has now increased, largely by immigration, to a great one of 1¼ million, living on an island which is joined to the mainland by a causeway, the island being not much larger than the Isle of Wight.
Obviously, the economic life of that new State is in some senses somewhat precarious. It will depend upon the continued prosperity of the port, and we must wish it well and hope that its economic prosperity will be maintained, and will grow. One knows the various considerations in favour of joining the new State into a wider union, but that perhaps hardly enters into the scope of the present debate. The Opposition, in welcoming the Third Reading of the Bill, wish to express our warm wishes for the future success and prosperity of the population of this island.

§ Sir John Barlow (Middleton and Prestwich)
I cannot let the Bill pass without offering my good wishes for the future of the State of Singapore. I have perhaps had the pleasure of knowing Singapore over a longer period than most hon. Members. I have been there twice during the last year. For that reason, and because I have seen its growth to prosperity in comparatively recent time, and because of the help which this country has given in building up this unique small island in the Far East, I am sure that all of us wish it all the luck and prosperity that it deserves.
The Chinese population has been of great assistance in building up the prosperity of the island and we have contributed both commercially and politically. I hope that with the passing of the Bill the good will on which has been built up its past and present prosperity will still continue. The people of Singapore are as necessary to us as we are to them and I am sure that this legislation carries with it the good will of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

§ Mr. Brockway
Although I have recently raised a point of order which was ruled out of order, I should like to associate myself with what has been said 1392 from my own Front Bench and by the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow). I think it appropriate to express our appreciation of the services of the Chief Minister, Lim Yew Hock, in the solution of this problem, and those of other members of the delegation representing the parties in Singapore. I hope that under the new powers which they will possess they will advance towards full self-government and ultimate independence; and that there will be a continuing improvement in the living standards of the people, educationally and physically, so that the different races represented there may co-operate and live together in continual progress.

§ Mr. Profumo
May I express on behalf of my right hon. Friend our gratitude for the tributes which have been paid by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). I do not want to delay the House, but I should not wish this moment to go by without adding my tribute to the Bill.
I wish also to say how pleased I am to see so many hon. Members present at its Third Reading. There are at least three or four times as many as were present during the Second Reading debate. I mention this because those hon. Members who were unable to be present during the Second Reading debate missed a long and most moving speech from my right hon. Friend. He would have been present tonight but for the fact that he is occupied on other most urgent duties. At the end of his speech on Second Reading he said that it was an essay in mutual co-operation. That single phrase sums up this Bill better than any words which I might summon.
I join with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the good wishes he expressed to the people of Singapore for their future and their economic prosperity. This is a reaffirmation of our belief in the power of democracy and I join with other hon. Members in wishing the people of Singapore God-speed for the future.