HC Deb 03 August 1966 vol 733 cc611-33

Order for Second Reading read.

10.13 p.m.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart) rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. Will Members who wish to leave, please do so quietly?

10.15 p.m.

Mrs. Hart

I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time. This is a short Bill which has been made necessary by the secession of Singapore from Malaysia last August. It is not a Bill to provide for the independence of Singapore, but is aimed merely at amending various British enactments affected by the advent of a new republic within the Commonwealth.

Singapore became a separate British Colony in 1946 after over a century as one of the Straits Settlements. In 1958 the State of Singapore Act was passed in this Parliament, giving Singapore full self-government but leaving responsibility for defence and external affairs with Britain.

Five years later, after a referendum of its citizens, Singapore joined with the Federation of Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo to form the new Federation of Malaysia. The change in Singapore's status from partially dependent State to membership of the new Federation was effected by the Malaysia Act passed in July 1963, and by an Order in Council a month later. By virtue of this new legislation Britain relinquished all sovereignty over Singapore and from that time the British Parliament had no further responsibility for any subsequent constitutional changes affecting the state.

In 1965 the Malaysian Federal Government and the Singapore State Government came to the conclusion that the differences between them were such that their constitutional association should be discontinued, and they agreed to separate. That decision was a disappointment to the friends of both countries, but it was entirely one for them to take.

The secession was effected by legislation in the Malaysian Parliament which provided that Singapore should become an independent State on the 9th August, 1965. Subsequently, Singapore applied for, and was readily given, Commonwealth membership and constituted herself a Republic with a President and Parliamentary system of government.

Although no legislative action was needed by this Parliament to effect the separation, there are a number of British enactments relating to the former Commonwealth countries and former dependent territories which now need amendment. Until now, Singapore has been covered by the provisions in them for Malaysia, but now that she is no longer part of Malaysia it is necessary to provide in British law accordingly—hence this Bill.

There is no need to obtain the new Republic's agreement to the Bill since only British law is involved. However, the House will wish to know that the Singapore Government are aware of the Bill and are, where appropriate, dovetailing their own legislation with it, for example in relation to appeals to the Judicial Committee.

I wish now to say something about the delay which may seem to have occurred between the establishment of Singapore as an independent State and the passage of the Bill. The advent of the new State of Singapore was without warning. Normally, new membership of the Commonwealth comes about only after a period of negotiation and that gives the opportunity for all the necessary legislation to be prepared.

But we could only begin to consider drafting the legislation for Singapore after the event. Moreover, it has obviously been very desirable to await the passage of Singapore's own legislation. Here, too, the drafting could not begin until after separation, and it was not until the end of December last year that her first constitutional enactments were passed.

It might also be asked what the position has been since secession and before the Bill goes on to the Statute Book, because of the delay. Consistent with our powers, in this interim period, we have treated Singapore as an independent Commonwealth country. This has been administratively possible over a certain field for a limited time.

However, it is clearly unsatisfactory, even within that limited field, that this situation should continue, and it is essential that the legal position should be clearly defined and enacted.

That is the background of the Bill. I am sure that the House will be anxious to speed it on its way.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood (Bridlington)

For the fourth time within a fortnight, we have a Bill of not inconsiderable importance coming up for discussion in the now regular nocturnal extension to the Parliamentary day. To say the least, this seems to be a highly unsatisfactory way to arrange Parliamentary business. But the unsatisfactory arrangement of Parliamentary business has been the subject of our main debate today, and the country is now aware of the administrative mess into which the Government have plunged not only the House of Commons but also another place. Even without the Parliamentary forced march which the Government are now imposing upon us, it had been obvious ever since the election that the Parliamentary time-table in the late summer would be seriously congested. This gives a great deal of point to the question which the hon. Lady mentioned but did not satisfactorily answer, the question asked in another place by my noble Friend Lord Bessborough—Why has the Bill taken nearly a year to appear?

We agree with the hon. Lady—no one could disagree—that the events of last August in Malaya and Singapore were not foreseen. I make no criticism of that, but it is still very hard to understand, even after the hon. Lady's explanation, why the Government needed the whole winter, the spring and most of the summer before producing a Bill which makes, in the words of the Under-Secretary of State the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, a number of consequential detailed changes … in those parts of British law which relate to Singapore and the Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th July 1966; Vol. 276, c. 328.] It seems a very long time, ten months, for the incorporation of these consequential changes in a five-page Bill, and the result is to throw the Bill at the House of Commons when its business was always certain to be dangerously congested.

Like the hon. Lady and many others, I was disappointed by the events of last summer which led to the secession by Singapore from the Federation. It is certainly not for me or for any of us to criticise, or, perhaps, even to try to analyse the causes of the divorce. As the hon. Lady rightly said, this was a matter for the Governments of Malaya and Singapore. But perhaps I may be allowed to express the very sincere hope that the divorce may not last for ever and that a remarriage of these two sovereign States may one day take place. Recent events seem to make that hope rather less unrealistic than it appeared to be in the weeks and months immediately following secession.

I do not know, but I think that I should probably be out of order in a debate on this Bill in discussing the whole future of British and allied strategy in the Eastern hemisphere, but there is one aspect of it which is closely connected with the secession of Singapore and which deeply concerns us all. According to the legislation which covered the separation of Singapore, the Government of Singapore will permit the Government of the United Kingdom to make such use of this base and facilities, as that Government "— that is, the Government of Singapore— may consider necessary for the purpose of assisting in the defence of Singapore and Malaysia and for Commonwealth defence, and for the preservation of peace in South-East Asia. We know from the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State in answer to a Question last October that a statement about the future of the base had then to await further progress with the Defence Review … and detailed discussions with Singapore and our other allies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28 Oct 1965; Vol. 718, c. 350.] We know something of the views of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew about the base, but we know extremely little about the answers to three important questions which I shall now put to the hon. Lady and which, no doubt, my hon. Friends will reinforce in their own words.

First, are we right now in expecting a renegotiated agreement with Singapore, and, if so, when will that renegotiated agreement be complete? Second, is there absolutely no room for doubt that Britain has the power to use the Singapore base for operations outside Malaysia, as was possible under the old agreement reached three years ago with the Federation? Third, has this right of Great Britain to use its forces in that way been clearly accepted by the Singapore Government?

In another place, the Under-Secretary of State shed the light of a glowworm on these problems. I regard this as the most important aspect of the Bill, and I press the hon. Lady for a brighter light and perfectly clear answers to these three questions.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger (Goole)

This is indeed a short Bill. It deals with some of the enactments to which my hon. Friend has referred, but a notable omission, which I regret, is a reference to any of the enactments dealing with the employment of staff in Singapore. I am disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken in the Bill to look into the question of compensation for the staff employed in Singapore under the Superannuation Acts and the Abolition of Offices Regulations current there.

There are about 30,000 locally enlisted civilian employees in Singapore employed by the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Public Building and Works. Abount 1,000 of them are employed on established terms and about 29,000 are unestablished. These establishment terms were originally set out in 1953, under a previous Government, and it was said at the time that they would be reviewed after three years. Unfortunately, nothing has been done. They were never reviewed, and that has created a considerable amount of dissatisfaction among local civilians employed in Singapore. They have, through their unions, approached the High Commissioner, and in every case they have been told that the matter was referred to Her Majesty's Government and that a reply was awaited. No reply has been received, and no satisfaction has been given.

There are two main problems. The first is the question of pensions and retirement provisions. These are inferior to those of independent civil servants employed by the Singapore Government. It surely is a bad thing that civilians who are really employees of the British Government through departments set up in Singapore should be employed on inferior terms to civilian employees of the independent Singapore Government.

Furthermore, the future of employees of our Government is very insecure. They feel that when the time comes for the withdrawal of the British Government they will be tainted by the fact that they have been employed by Britain and that their prospects of employment, either commercially or under the independent Singapore Government, will be very slight. Consequently, they ask that these inferior conditions of compensation and pensions should be reviewed and at least brought up to the level of the employees of the Singapore Government.

It is ironic that the better conditions under which the Singapore Government employ their own staff were introduced by the British Colonial Government and adopted by Singapore, and that we ourselves have inferior terms for our own employees. The unions, which have organised their workers and attempted to instil discipline into them and organised them into a competent, efficient, satisfactory and reliable labour force, are disgruntled at the treatment they have received from consecutive Governments over their complaints. I appeal to my hon. Friend to consider whether this cannot be settled speedily in this Bill or when another Bill dealing with Singapore is brought before us, so that we do not leave a legacy of grievance, ill will and unsettlement in Singapore.

10.30 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles (Winchester)

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) that this is a shocking time of night to discuss this or any other Bill. But it cannot be said that the fault lies with the Opposition. At this hour there is only one small point I wish to raise, relating to paragraph 3 of the Schedule, where reference is made to the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933. Section 4(3) of the Act states: Whilst a member of another force"— that is to say, under this Bill, the Singapore forces— is by virtue of this section attached temporarily to a home force"— meaning the United Kingdom force— he shall be subject … to Service law … and shall be treated and shall have the like powers of command and punishment over members of the home force … as if he were a member of that force of relative rank;". It might be said that this situation is theoretical and not likely to arise in Singapore, at least not very often. Nevertheless, at face value, it seems that, by the wording of the 1933 Act, which was passed in the very different context of the Statute of Westminster and when the Commonwealth was very different from now, United Kingdom troops could be put under the command for all purposes, including punishment, of Singapore officers or non-commissioned officers.

Of course, I have nothing against the Singapore services. Many Singapore citizens in the armed forces of Malaysia have worked very well with British forces. For example, a great mutual respect has sprung up during the naval patrols round the island which have protected it during the years of confrontation.

But, in the nature of things, the Singapore forces, separated as they will be from the Malaysian forces, will have to be reorganised and greatly expanded. There will be dilution and Singapore personnel with relatively little experience will obviously be given rank and positions in the Singapore forces. No doubt they will do well but surely no one will suggest that they should now be given command and powers of punishment over United Kingdom forces. I do not suggest the Government intend this situation to arise but I think that the drafting has gone wrong. As I read it, that is the position which would arise.

If confrontation is not ended—and we have no certainty that it will be—and if subversion goes on, as it is certain to do, it seems likely that British armed forces will have to help Singapore for a considerable time. I ask the hon. Lady to look at the wording of the 1933 Act and see whether some alteration is required to avoid bringing about a situation which I am sure the Government do not intend.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson (Aberdeenshire, West)

On behalf of the Liberal Party, I add my welcome to the graduation of Singapore to independence. I am looking forward to visiting there as a member of the Parliamentary delegation in the autumn and, incidentally, revisiting a part of the world with which I first made acquaintance in 1945.

While we may regret the secession of Singapore from the Malaysian Federation, we hope that future years will bring a growing together rather than a growing apart of the two countries. Perhaps we may eventually see them together again in federation.

I also look forward to the day when this country is able, with impunity, to withdraw her forces from Singapore, and Singapore can thrive in a peaceful atmosphere. We believe that the security and interests of Singapore and our obligations under the S.E.A.T.O. Treaty can be fulfilled just as well by British forces operating from base and with servicing facilities on the North Australian territory.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. John Peel (Leicester, South-East)

As one who attempted to serve Singapore during many happy years and also as one who has spent some less happy years in Singapore, during the war, I would not like this opportunity to pass without welcoming her very warmly to the Commonwealth. This occasion should not pass without someone remarking that Singapore is one of the greatest monuments to the British imperial story.

Singapore was fundamentally entirely a British creation. Her history begins when Sir Stamford Raffles landed on that swampy, steamy island in the early years of the 19th century and found only a handful of Malay fishermen. Within a short period it became a great free port, the gateway to the Far East, prosperous and with a very happy community. All of this can be attributed to the British genius for colonial rule. We should not be ashamed of our history there. Over the years many very poor Chinese, escaping from the unbearable conditions in their own country, came to Singapore.

Today the majority of the population are Chinese, but there are plenty of Malays, Indians and other peoples who live there. It was, however, the Chinese, who came from the hardships in their own country and found under British peace and justice—where there were no barriers to the exercise of their own particular genius for hard work and commercial thrift—who were able to make and add to the great wealth of Singapore

As the years went by the wealth of Singapore was owned principally by the Chinese, but I am quite certain that they would have been the first to say that they owed it to the efficient administration of British justice. Then there were the tragic war years and the occupation by the Japanese, and after that once again the energetic people of Singapore turned to the pursuits of peace and prosperity. It was as a great port and outlet for the trade and the products of the Malayan Peninsula, as well as being an entrepreneur for trade between east and west that Singapore owed her prosperity.

It is only in close association with the Malayan Peninsula that she will maintain it. I was never one to agree with the decision of the British Government, in 1946 to split Singapore from Malaya. It was one of two, I think, very serious mistakes made by the British Government at the time, and we reaped a great deal of trouble from them That is now water under the bridge. However, I was delighted when, eventually, Singapore and Malaysia were brought together again. It seemed to me to be a great victory for common sense, so I cannot really feel that the present situation is by any means ideal. It is almost as bad as severing the Isle of Wight from Britain, because Singapore is just as close to the mainland of Malaya, and the people of Singapore have a great many cose connections with the people of Malaya.

The future peace and prosperity of Malaya depend fundamentally upon the cohesion and harmony of its multiracial society, and Singapore is part of it, economically, politically, and very much from the defence point of view. There can be no doubt that there are serious risks, and the seeds of danger are there so long as a natural entity is divided. So I must hope that, one day and before very long, the peoples of Malaysia and Singapore will see that their future must hang together very closely.

In the meantime, I hope that so long as the people of Singapore want our help and protection we shall give it. Our military base is a very important contribution to Singapore's economy. It provides about a quarter of the gross national product and gives employment to about 150,000 people out of a population of two million. It is a great contribution to the stability and prosperity of that part of South-East Asia, and I very much hope that the peoples of that part of the world—because it is both a Commonwealth and a British interest—will realise that their future depends upon the closest possible association.

Having said that, I would just like to wish the people of Singapore the very best of good luck in the future.

10.47 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

I would like, first, to emphasise the point raised by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger). I have raised it on more than one occasion in the House. It is of paramount importance that something is done for these people before this Bill becomes an Act. If it does not happen, we shall probably cause them difficulties, as we have done elsewhere on other occasions when we have left without making a settlement. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give us some definite assurance that these people, who have served us extremely well in the past and continue to serve their own island now, will be given some satisfactory conditions before we finally hand over Singapore to its new constitution.

When the Bill was discussed in another place, the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State was asked about the consultations with the Singapore Government which the hon. Lady has mention. He replied: It would be wrong to say that they were consulted at all stages. They were informed of what we were doing, and to certain of the provisions it was necessary to get their agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th July, 1966; Vol. 276, c. 342.] Surely it would be very unfortunate if we did not get their agreement on all these matters. I should like the hon. Lady to tell us, when she comes to reply, whether there are any outstanding disagreements, and if the Singapore Government have been consulted fully on all points and that they are now in agreement. Should we pass this Bill tonight and it becomes an Act, what will happen if they are not in entire agreement?

I would like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) in what he said about this remarkable island. As the hon. Lady knows, I have worked in the territory, and went in with the Red Cross in 1945 at the time that the Japanese gave up their occupation. The island is 27 miles long and 14 miles wide, and it will be difficult to support a population which is at the moment over 7,907 to the square mile. As my hon. Friend mentioned, it is a mixed population, and we are glad to know that the people live in great harmony. However, with the division now, as a great many of them have relations in Malaya itself, I hope this will help the harmony between the two territories. I want to mention that presently when dealing with defence.

As the Minister of State knows, the Island is extremely vulnerable, with its vast population and very few minerals or other resources and being dependent mostly upon commerce and having the free port and a certain number of manufactures and factories but in particular, at the present time, on the British services. I hope, therefore, that in view of the vulnerability of the island—Malaya, in fact, could cut off its water over the Straits at any moment—before we pass the Bill discussions will be held with Malaya to ascertain what agreements are being made to safeguard the island for the future.

I agree also with my hon. Friend that it was a great mistake to have what, I think, was called the MacMichael Agreement in 1946, for separate Colony status. This was the time to bring the territories together. Twelve years later, when the State of Singapore was created, I took part in the debate in this House, when we hoped that the creation of the State would be a stepping stone for future federation.

In the Long Title of the Bill on that occasion, one of the objects was stated to be the establishment of peace, order and good government. I am very sorry that the Long Title of tonight's Bill does not contain a similar statement. In the 1958 debate, the possibility of federation was considered, and now we come to the present Bill and, regrettably, we have to admit that federation has not worked.

In 1961 I happened to be an observer at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association regional conference in Singapore when the whole matter was discussed. I did not think that we would come to today's Bill because at that time a working party of Members of Parliament of four of the territories concerned was set up and had full opportunity to discuss the matter with the various territories which they visited. As the Minister of State will know, this went on for two years before federation was decided upon.

In 1963 the then Government of Singapore, before joining Malaysia, held a referendum and it was agreed by the population of Singapore to join Malaysia. I regret very much that similar action was not taken on this occasion: I have a feeling—and I was there last autumn—that had this been done, we would probably still have Singapore in the Federation.

I understand from what the hon. Lady has said that there is to be a republican constitution, but, as far as I can see, there is no mention of this in the Long Title or elsewhere in the Bill, as there usually is on such occasions. Does this mean that the Prime Minister will become a President and that the office of Head of State will be abolished? As the hon. Lady knows, Singapore at present has a Prime Minister and Head of State, who acts as the Agong does in Malaya as Head of State. I would like to know what is to be his position in the future.

Before we pass the Bill, we are entitled to know whether there is to be any defence agreement. In the House of Commons we have been talking hopefully recently about the end of confrontation, but President Soekarno does not seem to be quite in agreement with this happy achievement. I believe that the Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew—to whom I pay tribute for his great statesmanship and the fact that he has done a great deal for the Island during his premiership—has been in London in April to renegotiate the defence treaty. Since the territory is no longer in Malaysia, what, if any, other agreements have been made? If the island is to be independent, it must have some form of defence against outside attack, to which it is vulnerable. There is also the question of internal security.

There are two difficulties over defence. First of all, thousands of the inhabitants rely for their living on the Services. There are 18,000 approximately employees in the Royal Naval Dockyard alone. If we are to pull out our forcees in any numbers, I hope that, despite the Bill being an Act, provision will be made for some other employment for these people. Perhaps we could give some aid through the C.D.C. or help in the building of factories, for otherwise, the vast population will find difficulty in earning their living.

This applies also to the many commercial undertakings. Shopkeepers, especially dressmakers and others, have founded their livelihood on the Services.

I understand that Singapore seceded without warning the British Government or Malaysia. I know from my last visit that relations between the two countries are still not happy.

When the Federation was formed, the Singapore forces became one with the Malaysian forces, and this applied especially to the Royal Malaysian Navy. If there is any difficulty between the two countries, unless there is any further agreement, the Services will be in a difficult position, particularly as intermarriage, with one coming both from Singapore and from Malaysia, would mean that relations would have to fight each other.

Has any agreement been reached in Malaysia about who is to command its forces? I want an assurance that if British troops remain there they will not be used in any dispute between Malaysia and Singapore. Should there be any trouble between the two, which we sincerely hope there will not be, our troops might be involved in the protection of Singapore, which would make for difficulties.

I would like to praise the expatriates who have done so much for the territory in the past. Many of them suffered in Japanese prisons, but they went back immediately to help build up the State, and now the island is able to maintain itself, it is greatly due to the commercial community—in 1958 there were 20,000 of them—and I hope that these people will be given security so that they can continue to help maintain the prosperity of the country.

What aid are we giving to Singapore? A good deal was given to Malaysia and subdivided between the territories. Will any aid other than defence aid be allocated in future?

I hope very much that in due course these territories of the old Federation of Malaysia may find some other means of association. When I was in Singapore in the autumn I found rather a lot of pride among the people, particularly among the Singapore-born Chinese, in having their own independent island, and I was there shortly after 6th August.

I think that as time goes on it may be possible to have an association of the States concerned. I hope that in future we may get a bigger association. In other words, that Maphilindo, which has been discussed on many occasions, may become a reality as this would result in better security for all these states.

In the meanwhile, in wishing Singapore well in the future, I hope that friendship will grow, particularly with Malaya itself, and that the association with the two states of Sabah and Sarawak will continue, because this island is very small and vulnerable to be on its own, and in the present state of the world one needs what I call collective security to provide a real defence against the various evils which exist.

In wishing the island well, and in wishing my many friends in Singapore well in the future, I hope this will develop into a larger entity in the future, because I think that this will provide greater prosperity for the people in the area.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Wavertree)

I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. As a Member for Liverpool and Merseyside, which has a considerable trade with Singapore, I, too, would like to wish Singapore well as the new addition to our great Commonwealth. We all have friends there. I have had the privilege of knowing the head of the Government, and other prominent figures, in that area, and I think that we in this country are lucky to have many people who have a feeling of good will towards Britain in positions of importance in Singapore.

I support the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) in his plea for some of the civil servants. I have had a certain amount of correspondence with the Minister of State about those members of the Overseas Civil Service who, I believe, have had only one rise since the Overseas Civil Service came into being. I understand that this matter is being looked at, but the cost of living is rising year by year, and they feel that they have been left out on a limb and forgotten. I hope that the Minister will say something about this.

We all deplore the fact that Asia—and Africa, too, for that matter—is in danger of Balkanisation. The world needs larger areas of trade, and if one state is carved out of another there is a danger of tariff barriers being raised one against the other. This is not good for them, and it is not good for the world in general. I hope, therefore, that commonsense will prevail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) referred to the danger of the water supply being cut off. That could also apply to Hong Kong, but the lesson of Hong Kong could be learned in Singapore. They have had confrontation. They have gone in for industry. They want to develop the trade and all the works and artifices of which they are capable. We wish them well, and we hope that the friendship between that small Island but great State will continue with this country for many years to come.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

As the Minister of State pointed out, this Measure is consequential on Singapore leaving Malaysia, and a common note of regret at this cession has run through all the speeches. We recognise, however, that this is wholly a matter for the people of Singapore and Malaysia, although we regret that history has turned out this way. We recognise, too, that certain political and economic dangers are bound to confront independent Singapore. For example, it is clear that during the period of confrontation, Singapore would have been untenable without the assistance of British troops. We should, therefore, pay tribute to our troops, not only for their activities in Singapore Island, but for their efforts, which caused many of them to lose their lives, in defending Singapore from Borneo, several thousands of miles away.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) said, at a later date we may see a union or some form of loose federation of Indonesia with Malaysia, the Philippines and possibly with Thailand. This would be a good thing for the stability of that rather unstable part of the world. However, one is bound to wonder where Singapore will fit it. It is a very small island—of 224 square miles, with a population of 1,200,000 Chinese and 220,000 Malays. It has the added disadvantage of 50 per cent. of its population being under 21 years of age. Any Prime Minister of Singapore will have plenty of political problems on his plate.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) pointed out, there are also many economic problems. Singapore is the port for Malaya and it is also one of the world's great entrepôt ports. There is sometimes a conflict of interests between these two activities; but at the same time it must be recognised that Singapore is essential to Malaya and Malaya is essential to Singapore.

On the economic side, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport pointed out, the British base in Singapore brings a great deal of revenue to the island and to its population. It has been estimated that about £50 million a year goes to the island in revenue from this source. Any running down or removal of the British base would, therefore, affect the island drastically, particularly from the economic point of view.

It is to be hoped that a remark attributed to the Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, in August of last year will come true, when he was reported as having said that he hoped and expected that Singapore and Malaya would be reunited on reasonable terms within a decade.

I turn to the most important part of this debate: the exact legal position of our troops and of the base in Singapore Island. The original position was wholly satisfactory. We had a defence agreement with Malaysia, which included Singapore, and the base was in Singapore. However, now that Singapore is no longer a part of Malaysia and as there is no clear defence agreement with Singapore, this has become a most important matter as the present position appears to be both vague and contradictory. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) has made this clear in the questions he asked. I trust that the Minister of State will give us an answer at the end of this debate.

If I may briefly outline the position as I see it, Singapore became independent on 9th August of last year; in that same month the Prime Minister of Singapore was stated to have said in an interview that he could give Britain 24 hours' notice to quit the base. In the following month the Joint Singapore-Malaysia Defence Council decided that the status quo—the agreement with Malaya—would remain until new negotiations with Britain had been concluded probably at the end of the year. That was nearly a year ago. Also at that time the Singapore Minister of Defence was quoted as having said that if Britain pulled out of the base, it would be put up for international tender and he added that four foreign countries might be interested. In about the same period, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister, is described in the Observer of 5th September of last year as follows: Mr. Lee is determined to keep Singapore neutrally free from the two great militant power blocs in Asia, the United States and Communist China. The Observer went on: He sees himself in Singapore as eventually standing Socialist and unaggressive, between East and West … in much the same stance as Nehru before China invaded India. That may be excellent sentiment, but how does it fit in with a British base which has commitments not only to Malaysia and Singapore but to the Commonwealth and our allies in S.E.A.T.O.?

We on this side have raised the matter, on a number of occasions. We had a Parliamentary Answer from the First Secretary on 28th October. To paraphrase him, the right hon. Gentleman said, in column 351 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the original agreement with Malaysia would carry on for the present, and would give us the right of defending Singapore and Malaysia and its use for Commonwealth defence and the preservation of peace in South-East Asia. But I understood at the time that this was an interim arrangement. Is this so? If it is so, does it clearly allow us to fulfill our S.E.A.T.O. obligations S.E.A.T.O. is not always popular in the minds of Singapore politicians.

In April of this year, the Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, visited London, and we were told in the Press that there would be negotiations over the future of the base, with an indication that Britain would be asked to modify her powers over the base. No statement was issued, and no information came from these negotiations. There was, however, a significant occurrence in Singapore at this time. Singapore walked out of the combined National Defence Council and the combined Operations Committee, which had been set up as an interim defence measure since the separation of the two countries

In June we had the Bangkok Agreement and, we hope, the ending of confrontation, and last month we had the Secretary of State for Defence visiting Kuala Lumpur and Singapore In Kuala Lumpur he apparently said that we would reduce our troops to pre-confrontation levels, and nobody can cavil at that. Today, in answer to a Question in the House, he said that a programme of withdrawal had been agreed with the Malaysia Government but we had no information about Singapore—only about Malaysia. The hon. Lady will therefore realise that we are concerned about this point.

In the debate on this Bill in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick said: At the moment, the arrangements "—— that is, the defence arrangements: so I am advised, are satisfactory to us, and until there is a new defence agreement …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th July, 1966; Vol. 276, c. 344.] Is a new defence agreement in process of negotiation? If it is not, how long will the interim agreement last? We are still spending large sums of money. When I was in Singapore at Easter I saw a new barracks being built, so we are spending money there other than on the general maintenance of our forces. Are we satisfied that we have a firm security of tenure?

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East has reminded the House that a Briton first founded Singapore just under 150 years ago. From a swamp, it became a major world city, and is now an independent State. We, in this country, have been closely connected with Singapore in war and in peace, and we hope that this association will long continue through our Commonwealth links—links with 24 independent nations.

I hope that I will not be exceeding the bounds of order if I refer in conclusion to the Colonial Office. It is now three days since that great office of State closed its doors for the last time, and we should pay a tribute in discussing this, the first Commonwealth Bill since then, to the Colonial Office, and to all who served in it and who, in their heyday, administered and looked after 500 million or 600 million people. They deserve well of this country and of the population of the Commonwealth.

A fitting tribute to the Commonwealth was paid by an American historian. I will quote it briefly: Considering its scope the British Commonwealth of Nations is the most remarkable political achievement in history. It has overcome more tyranny, supplied more safety, removed more fear, taught more justice, and given more freedom to more people than any other institution on earth. I would merely add that this was possible only because of the work of generations of devoted servants of the Colonial Office.

11.11 p.m.

Mrs. Hart

We are all grateful for the opportunity——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. The hon. Lady must ask leave to speak again.

Mrs. Hart

I intended to do that at the outset, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I have the leave of the House to speak again in reply to some of the interesting points which have been raised? We are glad to have the opportunity the Bill has provided to have some discussion on the general issues surrounding Singapore at present. I will deal with the points one by one, but not in the order in which they were raised.

The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked about the extent of the consultation there has been with Singapore in the preparation of the Bill. This is a Bill to amend British law. We do not need to consult Singapore or obtain her agreement, except in respect of, for example, appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In cases where it was necessary to get Singapore's agreement, there has been full consultation and there has been complete agreement from Singapore. The Singapore Government are putting through complementary legislation.

The hon. Lady also raised the question of aid. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development. Singapore has not so far sought aid on any large scale, either for defence or for civil development purposes. There are no questions of difficulty between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Singapore surrounding any point of aid.

I was asked also by the hon. Lady about the new Singapore Constitution. The new Constitution, which was passed by the Singapore Legislature, provides for a President and a Parliament. The leader of the majority party is the Prime Minister. It is, therefore, a Westminster-model republic, but with a separation between the head of State and the head of government. We have no indication that a change might be in the minds of the Government of Singapore, but it is a matter for them to develop their Constitution as they feel fit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) and the hon. Lady raised the question of the terms of service for local employees of the British Government. I know that this is a matter of very considerable concern to my hon. Friend, and clearly also to the hon. Lady. This is not a matter, I fear, which could be dealt with in the Bill. It is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of Public Building and Works. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Building and Works has heard everything that has been said tonight, will have listened very carefully, and will be in communication with my hon. Friend, who I know has been raising this question over the last month or two. I am only sorry that we are not able in the Bill to contribute anything to the discussion on that point.

A point was raised about Servicemen in Singapore and the Clause in the Bill affecting this question. This is a matter for our own Service authorities. It is a question of whether or not they accept a Singapore officer for attachment. I am told that it is a perfectly usual provision for all Commonwealth forces. Indeed, a Clause like this has been included in the legislation for all the independence settlements in the last few years.

I turn to the general questions which have been raised about the defence agreements and about the general question of Singapore and the use of our Armed Forces there. Much of what has been said is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Nevertheless, I can give hon. Members some clarification on some of their questions. As I think the House has understood, there is at present no formal defence agreement between Singapore and this country. The Singapore Government undertook for their part to continue to carry out their previous obligations until the negotiation of a new agreement. Therefore, until the new agreement is negotiated we are in the same position as we were before the secession or Singapore, in that Singapore has undertaken all the obligations that then existed.

We have made it clear, and the Singapore Government know this, that we are now awaiting their proposals for a new agreement. The Singapore Government spokesmen have confirmed that they will continue to adhere to the previous arrangements under the Malaysia defence agreements in so far as they apply to Singapore.

It would be premature and wrong to consider any point that might arise as a result of the closure of the British base, because we intend to stay there as long as the Singapore Government are happy for us to do so. We have made clear that on bases of this kind we depend on the willingness of the country concerned to have us there. The Singapore Government have shown no signs of wanting us to go.

I think that it was the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport who asked about any possible use of British forces stationed in Singapore in the event of dispute between Singapore and Malaysia. The Malaysian and Singapore armed forces are commanded by their own nationals, and the new separate forces are in the process of being manned by their own citizens. Relations between Malaysia and Singapore must clearly continue to be a question for themselves. We would seek to avoid becoming involved if differences arose. One hopes that they will not, and I do not think that we have any real need to think that they will. To that extent the hon. Lady's question concerned a hypothetical situation.

I am glad that such a welcome has been given to Singapore as a new, totally independent member of the Commonwealth. I am also glad that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) paid tribute to the Colonial Office. It has been a week of considerable changes for those who work in Commonwealth and Colonial relationships. On the very morning of the new arrangements we had our new notices up outside our offices. We are now the Commonwealth Office.

As we all know, there have been some serious implications of British colonialism for peoples all over the world. But, whatever may have been the politics and the difficulties and disputes to which British colonialism gave rise in the past, I am certain that the hon. Gentleman was right when he said that the colonial officers—particularly, I would say, at the grass-root levels—dealing with the people in Africa and Asia, have laid the foundation for whatever support and friendship Britain now has in the rest of the world.

I am certain that this is so, and the more I travel within the Commonwealth the more I am impressed by the extent of the real understanding and friendship that has been built up in so many parts of the world by ordinary people in comparatively humble positions in the Colonial Departments who have been giving so much of themselves for people in many different countries. It is right to separate that aspect of British colonialism from the politics of colonialism and to pay our tribute to the people in the Colonial Office who come under a new Departmental framework as from the beginning of this week.

Mr. Tilney

The hon. Lady has referred to those locally employed. Will she say something about negotiations on the salaries and cost of living of those seconded from this country in the Overseas Civil Service?

Mrs. Hart

Much of this is a question not for me but for others of my right hon. Friends, but I shall certainly look into the point and see that the hon. Gentleman has a clear statement of what the position is and is likely to be.

Whatever the occasion which gives rise to the Bill and the new situation in which Singapore finds itself, on which a good deal has been said in the debate, we have in Singapore a vital and lively new member of the Commonwealth. Singapore has a most distinguished Prime Minister, who is pioneering tremendous initiatives in home policy and in social reform. We all look forward to Singapore playing a full part as a new independent member of the Commonwealth and making a great contribution to the future of the Commonwealth. Certainly, the people of Singapore and their leadership seem to me to have tremendous potential in the contribution they can make.

Hon. Members have had detailed points to raise in the debate, but I gladly join with them in saying that the House, in welcoming the Bill, wishes to convey to Singapore and its people our very sincere good wishes for their future in whatever way they choose to shape it. It is for them now to shape their own future. We, as equal members with them in the Commonwealth, not only wish them well but look to them for the great contribution which we know that they can make.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Committee Tomorrow.