Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698935521262.pdf (Malaysia)
Volume II No.
11 Tuesday, 21st June, 1960 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES DEWAN RA'AYAT (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) OFFICIAL REPORT CONTENTS ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS [Col. 1175] BILL: The Internal Security Bill [Col. 1184] ADJOURNMENT SPEECH [Col. 1272] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS [Col. 1277] PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRESS BY B. T. FUDGE, GOVERNMENT PRINTER FEDERATION OF MALAYA 1961 FEDERATION OF MALAYA DEWAN RA'AYAT (HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) Official Report Second Session of the First Dewan Ra'ayat Tuesday, 21st June, 1960 The House met at Ten o'clock a.m.
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Speaker, DATO' HAJI MOHAMED NOAH BIN OMAR, S.P.M.J., P.I.S., J.P. the Prime Minister, Y.T.M.

TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN PUTRA AL-HAJ, K.O.M.

(Kuala Kedah).

the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, TUN ABDUL RAZAK BIN DATO' HUSSAIN, S.M.N.

(Pekan).

the Minister of External Affairs, DATO' DR. ISMAIL BIN DATO' ABDUL RAHMAN, P.M.N.

(Johore Timor).

the Minister of Finance, ENCHE' TAN SIEW SIN, J.P. (Malacca Tengah).
the Minister of Works, Posts and Telecommunications, DATO' V. T. SAMBANTHAN, P.M.N.

(Sungei Siput).

the Minister of the Interior, DATO' SULEIMAN BIN DATO' ABDUL RAHMAN, P.M.N.

(Muar Selatan).

„ the Minister Of Agriculture and Co-operatives, ENCHE' ABDUL AZIZ BIN ISHAK (Kuala Langat).

the Minister of Transport, ENCHE' SARDON BIN HAJI JUBIR (Pontian Utara).

the Minister of Health and Social Welfare, DATO' ONG YOKE LIN, P.M.N.

(Ulu Selangor).
(Ulu Selangor).

the Minister of Commerce and Industry, ENCHE' MOHAMED KHIR BIN JOHARI (Kedah Tengah).

the Minister of Education, ENCHE' ABDUL RAHMAN BIN HAJI TALIB (Kuantan), TUAN SYED JA'AFAR BIN HASAN ALBAR, J.M.N., Assistant Minister (Johore Tenggara).

ENCHE' ABDUL HAMID KHAN BIN HAJI SAKHAWAT A LI KHAN, J.M.N., J.P. Assistant Minister (Batang Padang).

TUAN HAJI ABDUL KHALID BIN AWANG OSMAN, Assistant Minister (Kota Star Utara).

ENCHE' CHEAH THEAM SWEE, Assistant Minister (Bukit Bintang).
ENCHE' V. MANICKAVASAGAM, J.M.N., P.J.K., Assistant Minister (Klang).

1171 21 JUNE 1960 1172 The Honourable ENCHE' MOHAMED ISMAIL BIN MOHAMED YUSOF, Assistant Minister (Jerai).

ENCHE' ABDUL GHANI BIN ISHAK, A.M.N.

(Malacca Utara).

ENCHE' ABDUL RAUF BIN A. RAHMAN (Krian Laut).

ENCHE' ABDUL SAMAD BIN OSMAN (Sungei Patani).

TUAN HAJI ABDULLAH BIN HAJI ABDUL RAOF (Kuala Kangsar).

TUAN HAJI ABDULLAH BIN HAJI MOHD.

SALLEH, A.M.N., P.I.S.

(Segamat Utara), TUAN HAJI AHMAD BIN ABDULLAH (Kota Bharu Hilir).
ENCHE' AHMAD BIN ARSHAD, A.M.N.

(Muar Utara).

ENCHE' AHMAD BOESTAMAM (Setapak).

ENCHE' AHMAD BIN MOHAMED SHAH, S.MJ.

(Johore Bharu Barat).

TUAN HAJI AHMAD BIN SAAID (Seberang Utara).

ENCHE' AHMAD BIN HAJI YUSOF, P.J.K.

(Krian Darat): TUAN HAJI AZAHARI BIN HAJI IBRAHIM (Kubang Pasu Barat).

ENCHE' AZIZ BIN ISHAK (Muar Dalam).

DR. BURHANUDDIN BIN MOHD.

NOOR (Besut).

ENCHE' CHAN CHONG WEN (Kluang Selatan).

ENCHE' CHAN SIANG SUN (Bentong).

ENCHE' CHAN SWEE HO (Ulu Kinta).


ENCHE' CHAN YOON ONN (Kampar).

ENCHE' CHIN SEE Y IN (Seremban Timor).

ENCHE' V. DAVID (Bungsar).

DATIN FATIMAH BINTI HAJI HASHIM, P.M.N.

(Jitra-Padang Terap), ENCHE' GEH CHONG KEAT (Penang Utara).

ENCHE' HAMZAH BIN ALANG, A.M.N.

(Kapar).

ENCHE' HANAFI BIN MOMD.

YUNUS, A.M.N.

(Kulim Utara).

ENCHE' HARUN BIN ABDULLAH, A.M.N.

(Baling).

ENCHE' HARUN BIN PILUS (Trengganu Tengah).

TUAN HAJI HASAN ADLI BIN HAJI ARSHAD (Kuala Trengganu Utara).
TUAN HAJI HASSAN BIN HAJI AHMAD (Tumpat).

ENCHE5 HASSAN BIN MANSOR (Malacca Selatan).

ENCHE' HUSSEIN BIN T O' MUDA HASSAN (Raub).

TUAN HAJI HUSSAIN RAHIMI BIN HAJI SAMAN (Kota Bharu Hulu).

ENCHE' IBRAHIM BIN ABDUL RAHMAN (Seberang Tengah).

ENCHE' ISMAIL BIN IDRIS (Penang Selatan).

ENCHE' KANG KOCK SENG (Batu Pahat).

ENCHE' K. KARAM SINGH (Damansara).

ENCHE' KHONG KOK YAT (Batu Gajah).

ENCHE' LEE SECK FUN (Tanjong Malim).

ENCHE' LEE SIOK Y EW (Sepang).


1173 21 JUNE 1960 1174 The Honourable ENCHE' L IM JOO KONG (Alor Star).

ENCHE' L IM KEAN SIEW (Dato Kramat).

DR. LIM SWEE AUN, J.P. (Larut Selatan).

ENCHE' L IU YOONG PENG (Rawang).

ENCHE' MOHAMED BIN UJANG (Jelebu-Jempol).

ENCHE' MOHAMED ABBAS BIN AHMAD (Hilir Perak).

ENCHE' MOHAMED ASRI BIN HAJI MUDA (Pasir Puteh).

ENCHE' MOHAMED DAHARI BIN HAJI MOHD.

A LI (Kuala Selangor).

ENCHE' MOHAMED NOR BIN MOHD.

DAHAN (Ulu Perak).


DATO' MOHAMED HANIFAH BIN HAJI ABDUL GHANI, P J .

K. (Pasir Mas Hulu).

ENCHE' MOHAMED SULONG BIN MOHD.

A L I, J.M.N.

(Lipis).

ENCHE' MOHAMED YUSOF BIN MAHMUD, A.M.N.

(Temerloh).

TUAN HAJI MOKHTAR BIN HAJI ISMAIL (Perlis Selatan).

NIK MAN BIN NIK MOHAMED (Pasir Mas Hilir).

ENCHE' NG ANN TECK (Batu).

DATO' ONN BIN JA'AFAR, D.K., D.P.MJ.

(Kuala Trengganu Selatan).

ENCHE' OTHMAN BIN ABDULLAH (Tanah Merah).

ENCHE' OTHMAN BIN ABDULLAH (Perlis Utara).


ENCHE' QUEK KAI DONG (Seremban Barat).

TUAN HAJI REDZA BIN HAJI MOHD.

SAID (Rembau-Tampin).

ENCHE' SEAH TENG NGIAB (Muar Pantai).

ENCHE' D. R. SEENIVASAGAM (Ipoh).

ENCHE' S. P. SEENIVASAGAM (Menglembu).

TUAN SYED E SA BIN ALWEE, S.MJ., P.I.S.

(Batu Pahat Dalam).

TUAN SYED HASHIM BIN SYED AJAM, A.M.N., P J .

K. (Sabak Bernam).

ENCHE' TAJUDIN BIN A L I, P J .

K. (Larut Utara).

ENCHE' TAN CHENG BEE, J.P. (Bagan).

ENCHE' TAN KEE GAK (Bandar Malacca).


ENCHE' TAN PHOCK K IN (Tanjong).

ENCHE' TAN TYE CHEK (Kulim-Bandar Bahru).

TENGKU INDRA PETRA IBNI SULTAN IBRAHIM, J.M.N.

(Ulu Kelantan).

DATO' TEOH CHZE CHONG, D.P.MJ., J.P. (Segamat Selatan).

ENCHE' V. VEERAPPEN (Seberang Selatan).

WAN SULAIMAN BIN WAN TAM, P J .

K. (Kota Star Selatan).

WAN YAHYA BIN HAJI WAN MOHAMED (Kemaman).

ENCHE' WOO SAIK HONG, J.P. (Telok Anson).

ENCHE' YAHYA BIN HAJI AHMAD (Bagan Datoh).

ENCHE' YEOH TAT BENG (Bruas).


ENCHE' YONG WOO MING (Sitiawan).

1175 21 JUNE 1960 1176 The Honourable PUAN HAJJAH ZAIN BINTI SULAIMAN, J.M.N., P.I.S.

(Pontian Selatan).

TUAN HAJI ZAKARIA BIN HAJI MOHD.

TAIB (Langat).

ENCHE' ZULKIFLEE BIN MUHAMMAD (Bachok).

ABSENT: The Honourable the Minister of Labour, ENCHE' BAHAMAN BIN SAMSUDIN (Kuala Pilah).

ENCHE' HUSSEIN BIN MOHD.

NOORDIN, A.M.N., P. J.K. (Parit).

CHE' KHADIJAH BINTI MOHD.

SIDEK (Dungun).

ENCHE' LEE SAN CHOON (Kluang Utara).


ENCHE' T. MAHIMA SINGH, J.P. (Port Dickson).

WAN MUSTAPHA BIN HAJI A LI (Kelantan Hilir).

IN ATTENDANCE: The Honourable the Minister of Justice, TUN LEONG Y EW KOH, S.M.N.

PRAYERS (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Establishment of a Ministry of Shipping 1.
Tuan Haji Mokhtar bin Haji Ismail minta kapada Perdana Menteri menerangkan ia-itu memandang kapada sebok-nya perniagaan sekarang ini di-antara Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dengan negeri2 luar ada-kah Kerajaan berchadang menubohkan sa-buah Ke- menterian baharu yang di-namakan Kementerian Perkapalan.

The Prime Minister: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, berkenaan dengan soal ini tidak berchadang hendak Kerajaan mengadakan satu Kementerian bagi perkapalan.
Berkenaan dengan perka palan dan juga perniagaan yang ber- kaitan dengan kapal itu ia-lah di-jaga oleh Kementerian2 Pengangkutan dan Perdagangan dan Perusahaan.

Food Supplies for Muslim Pilgrims 2.

Tuan Haji Mokhtar bin Haji Ismail minta kapada Menteri Luar menerangkan saudagar mana-kah yang membekal barang2 makanan keperluan Jama'ah Haji di-dalam masa pelayaran di-antara pelabohan2 Persekutuan Ta nah Melayu dan Jedda.
The Minister of External Affairs (Dato' Dr. Ismail): Tuan Speaker, Sharikat Kapal yang menghidangkan makanan untok penompang yang naik Haji, tambang yang di-bayar itu ter- masok harga makanan.

Sharikat kapal sudah pun di-beri tahu dan mereka faham bahawa makanan yang di- hidangkan itu hendak-lah makanan yang halal dan yang sesuai kapada penompang2 kapal Haji.

3.
3.

Tuan Haji Mokhtar bin Haji Ismail minta kapada Menteri Luar menerangkan ia-itu memandang ka pada banyak-nya bilangan pendudok2 Persekutuan Tanah Melayu yang me- nunai perdzu Haji pada tiap2 tahun, ada-kah Kerajaan hendak mengadakan satu dasar baharu, ia-itu membekal barang2 keperluan makanan Jama'ah Haji, di-dalam pelayaran di- antara Pelabohan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dengan Jedda, di-buat sechara tender, dan saudagar2 jalan tawaran Islam Persekutuan Tanah Melayu di- beri keutamaan.
berniat Dato' Dr. Ismail: Tuan Speaker, sekarang ini belum ada sungutan ten- tang makanan, kalau ada pun saya belum menerima lagi.

Sa-kira-nya di- kehendaki orang lain daripada Sharikat Kapal menghidangkan makanan, maka perkara ini boleh-lah di-timbangkan, sa-kira-nya tidak berlawanan dengan sharat2 kapal Haji.

1177 21 JUNE 1960 1178 Evasion of Income Tax 4.


Enche' Yong Woo Ming asks the Minister of Finance to state whether he is aware that a number of owners of rubber land and also big business men who have good incomes are not paying any income-tax, or are paying if so, very whether he is planning any steps to investigate into this matter.
income-tax, and, little The Minister of Finance (Enche' is Tan Siew Sin): Sir, Government aware that evasion of income tax is practised on a considerable scale and is taking steps to deal with the matter, firstly through the increased powers it is seeking to give to the Comptroller in the Bill to amend the Income Tax Ordinance and secondly by the recruit ment of a large team of experienced investigation officers.

I have already enlarged on these points in my speech on the second reading of the Bill.
If the Honourable Member has specific information about any person who is evading the information either to the Comptroller or myself he may be assured that the case will be fully investigated.

tax and will pass on Enche' D. R. Seenivasagam: Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification, the Honourable Member be will entitled reward?

informers' to (Laughter).

the Enche' Tan Siew Sin: Certainly, if he wishes to take it!

Exemption from Income Tax 5.


Enche' Yong Woo Ming asks the Minister of Finance to state whether income of any wage-earners with $2,000 a year, who have to pay income- tax under the new amendment of the Income Tax Ordinance, have appealed for exemption, and if so, has his Ministry considered their request.

Enche' Tan Siew Sin: Mr. Speaker, Sir, an allowance of $2,000 is given under section 35 of the Income Tax Ordinance to every individual who is resident in the Federation.
Accordingly, a total income is $2,000 a year pays no tax and the question of an appeal for exemption does not arise.

individual whose resident Report of Education Policy Review Committee 6.

Enche' Yong Woo Ming asks the Minister of Education to state whether the Committee of Review on the New Education Policy is ready with its report; and if so, when it will be implemented.
The Minister of Education (Enche' Abdul Rahman bin Haji Talib): Sir, I hope that the report of the Committee appointed to review the policy set out in the Report of the Education Com mittee, 1956, will be ready at the end of this month and that I shall be able to present it to Parliament at the next meeting.

The Committee's recom course, be mendations cannot, of implemented without Parliamentary approval.

Technical and Vocational Schools 7.


Enche' Geh Chong Keat asks the Minister of Education to state the types of examinations students are prepared for the Technical and Vocational Schools.

in Enche' Abdul Rahman bin Haji Talib: Mr. Speaker, Sir, pupils in Technical Institutes are prepared for examinations in Overseas School Certi ficate, Federation of Malaya Certificate and City and Guilds.
Pupils in Junior Technical Trade Schools are prepared for examination in City and Guilds, Electrical, Mechanical and Building.

Pupils in Sekolah Lanjutan Kampong will be prepared for the Lower Certifi cate of Education Examination.

Enche' Geh Chong Keat: Mr. Speaker, Sir, who are the officers advising on Technical Education for these and what are their academic and profes sional teaching experience?
qualifications examinations types of and Enche' Abdul Rahman bin Haji is entirely a separate Talib: That question.

I need notice of it.

8.

Enche' Geh Chong Keat asks the Minister of Education whether pupils who have passed out of these institu tions and schools found employment for which they were trained.

Enche' Abdul Rahman bin Haji Talib: As regards pupils who have 1179 21 JUNE 1960 1180 trained is yes.
Those passed out of Technical Institutes, the answer in electrical and mechanical courses in the Junior Trade Schools are able to find jobs.

Very few of in building are able to find jobs due to the system adopted by employers who do not readily admit outsiders into the trade.

those trained 9.

Enche' Geh Chong Keat asks the Minister of Education to state what are the prospects of employment or of further technical education for pupils who have completed their courses in such institutions or schools.
Enche9 Abdul Rahman bin Haji Talib: Mr. Speaker, Sir, generally speaking, prospects of employment are very good.

Prospects of further tech nical education and continuation of studies are provided in the evening classes.

Irrigation Schemes in Kedah 10.
Enche' Abdul Samad bin Osman minta kapada Menteri Pertanian dan Sharikat2 Kerjasama menerangkan bila- kah Kerajaan hendak mulakan peker- jaan yang di-namakan Merbok-Bujang Scheme untok memugar tanah baharu bendang sa-banyak 3,000 relong dan relong di- lagi 5,000 memperbaiki Kedah Tengah yang telah di-mulakan beberapa tahun dahulu dan segala sukat menyukat tahun 1953. siap dalam telah The Minister of Agriculture and Co-operatives (Enche' Abdul Aziz bin Ishak): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, boleh jadi Ahli Yang Berhormat itu hendak tahu tentang Ranchangan Membena telah pun di- Merbok Bunding kemukakan kapada Kerajaan negeri Kedah untok di-masokkan dalam Ran changan Kemajuan Negeri tahun 1961- 1965. itu Enche' Abdul Samad bin Osman: Untok pengetahuan ada-kah Ranchangan ini akan di-jalankan oleh negeri Kedah sendiri atau Federal.
tuan, Enche' Abdul Aziz bin di-jalankan boleh Mudah2an negeri Kedah.

Ishak: oleh Dato' Onn bin Ja'afar (Kuala Trengganu Selatan): Kenapa mudah2an.

(Ketawa).

Enche' Abdul Aziz bin Tanggong jawab dia, bukan kita.

Ishak: 11.
Ishak: 11.

Enche' Abdul Samad bin Osman minta kapada Menteri Pertanian dan Sharikat2 Kerjasama menerangkan ia-itu memandang bahawa Pump Ayer telah di-bena dalam kawasan yang Province Wellesley yang membolehkan sa-banyak 15,000 relong bendang men- dapat ayer dari Sungei Muda dan lebeh daripada 6,000 relong bendang boleh di-buat sa-tahun dua kali, apa- kah sebab-nya ranchangan saperti itu tidak Lima, di-buat Sungei Patani.
di-Bumbong Enche9 Abdul Aziz bin Ishak: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Ranchangan Pump Ayer di-Bumbong Lima, Kedah telah pun di-kemukakan untok di-masokkan dalam Ranchangan Kemajuan Negeri tahun 1961-1965.

12.

Enche' Abdul Samad bin Osman minta kapada Menteri Pertanian dan Sharikat2 Kerjasama menerangkan sa- takat mana-kah kemajuan yang telah ranchangan menye terchapai dalam lidiki "diversity of crops".
Enche' Abdul Aziz bin Ishak: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kemajuan bertambah dalam masa 4 tahun yang lalu atas tumbohan2 perusahaan yang boleh di- lihat saperti berikut: ,, ,, ,, 26,000 ekar 17,000 6.900 700 500 Kelapa Kelapa Bali Tea Kopi Manila Hemp Enche' Abdul Samad bin Osman: Pertanyaan tambahan.

Dalam ini, Tuan tidak sebutkan koko.

Saya Menteri dapat tahu, fasal koko Kerajaan ada mengambil langkah untok menyelidiki dan apa-kah jadi-nya tanaman koko yang telah di-adakan di-Trengganu dan lain2 negeri.
,, Enche' Abdul Aziz bin Ishak: Koko2 pada masa tidak hendak di-teruskan kerana tidak berapa maju.

ini di-chadangkan Construction of Pasir Mas Bridge and Wakaf Setan-Bachok Road 13.

Enche' Mohd.

Asri bin Haji the Minister of Works, Muda asks 1181 21 JUNE 1960 1182 Posts and Telecommunications to state when the construction of the proposed Pasir Mas bridge and of the proposed road from Wakaf Setan to Bachok will begin.
Sub-section 3 (b) of section 12 states that, where no period is specified in a contract of service, or where the period so specified exceeds one month, the period of notice shall be one month.

The Minister of Works, Posts and (Dato' V. T. Telecommunications Sambanthan): Mr. Speaker, Sir, both these projects are included for consi deration under the 1961-1965 Develop ment Plan.
Dato' Onn bin Ja'afar: Is it not the fact that boring and other works were completed that money in 1959 and allocated for the construction of the to Pasir Mas bridge was transferred another State?

Dato' V. T. Sambanthan: I am not aware of such a thing, but I am aware of the fact that these projects have been included for consideration in the 1961-1965 Development Plan.

Period of Notice for Termination of Employment 14.


Enche' V. Veerappen asks the Minister of Labour to state whether he is aware that workmen are forced to accept, through circumstances, con tracts of service in which the "period of notice" for termination of service may be so short as to be a week or even a day; and whether he will con sider amending section 12, para.
3 of the Employment Ordinance, 1955, to provide for a minimum period of one month for termination of service so that employers may not take undue advantage over workers.

The Assistant Minister of Labour (Enche' V. Manickavasagam): Mr. Speaker, Sir, sub-section 3 (a) of section 12 states that the period of notice shall be the period specified in a contract of service but that it shall not exceed one month.

This means that it may be for a period of less than a month.
This section gives liberty to both an employer and his labourers to mutually agree to a period of notice less than a month.

Moreover, it will not be equitable to require employers to give their labourers one month's notice if the nature of the work to be performed is for a period of less than a month.

Wrongful dismissals or termination of contracts, when referred to Labour Offices by labourers, are heard by Labour Courts and decisions given with the least possible delay at no cost to them.
It will be seen, therefore, that the interests are already well labourers' protected by this section.

for I wish to assure the Honourable Member that the Ministry constantly refers matters of this nature to the National Joint Labour Advisory Coun cil review when circumstances demand, but such a necessity has not so far arisen in connection with this section.
If the Honourable Member cares to bring any specific cases to the notice of the Department of Labour and Industrial Relations, it will do all its best to investigate them.

Enche' V. David: Is there any move on that part of the Government to revise the present Employment Ordi nance?

Enche' V. Manickavasagam: I require notice for that, Sir.

Enche' V. Veerappen: Is it not a fact that this particular section is used to the disadvantage of the workers?
Enche' V. Manickavasagam: Sir, I said earlier that this has been discussed by the National Joint Labour Advisory Council where we have 19 representa tives of the workers.

the Labour Department Enche' V. David: Has the Ministry or received any complaints or dissatisfaction among the workers of dismissals of this nature from time to time?

Enche' V. Manickavasagam: They are being dealt with by the Labour Courts, Sir.

Strike on Seremban Estate, Seremban 15.


Enche' V. David the Minister of Labour, with reference to the strike at the Seremban Estate in that the Seremban, is aware if he asks 1183 21 JUNE 1960 1184 employer is making attempts to incite a communal clash between the workers, and if so, what action the Government has taken to bring an end to the strike in the interest of the workers and the economy of the country.
the Seremban Estate Enche' V. Manickavasagam: Mr. to the Speaker, Sir, with reference strike at in Seremban, I am not aware that the employer is making attempts to incite a communal clash between the workers.

I can assure the Honourable Member that Government will not tolerate at any time any person from whatever quarter attempting the present inter-racial harmony enjoyed in this country.

(Applause).
(Applause).

The strike in Seremban Estate is receiving the close attention of myself and the Officers in my Ministry and every effort is being made to bring about a satis factory settlement.

to disrupt Enche' V. David: Mr. Speaker, Sir, will the Government consider setting up a Court of Inquiry under the Trade Disputes Ordinance?

Enche' V. Manickavasagam: Sir, I said that we are investigating.

We are trying to settle the thing and the matter does not arise.
Enche' V. David: If the matter is not amicably settled, will the Govern ment consider setting up a Court of Inquiry?

Enche9 V. Manickavasagam: We will consider it then, Sir.

Alleged Case of Rape, Johore Bahru General Hospital 16.
Enche9 S. P. Seenivasagam asks the Minister of Health and Social Welfare, what action he has taken regarding a complaint that a girl patient of about 4 (four) years of age was raped by an attendant in the Children's Ward of Johore Bahru General Hospital on or about the 4th January, 1960. the information received, the medical authorities immediately caused a full investigation to be carried out which established that there was no evidence to support the allegation.
I am satisfied that this investigation was properly carried out and that its conclusion is correct, and consequently that no further action is required.

Enche9 S. P. Seenivasagam: Mr. Speaker, Sir, was the report of the investigation submitted to the Ministry?

Dato9 Ong Yoke Lin: Yes, Sir.

17.


Enche9 S. P. Seenivasagam asks the Minister of Health and Social taken Welfare what action he has regarding a complaint that the Ward Sister failed to take any action or even to report the alleged rape incident to the doctor on duty.

Dato' Ong Yoke Lin: No such complaint has come to the notice of the Ministry or the medical authorities in Johore.

18.
18.

Enche' S. P. Seenivasagam asks the Minister of Health and Social Welfare if no action has yet been taken, whether Government will hold an Inquiry into the circumstances in which the patient was raped in the Johore Bahru Hospital.

Dato' Ong Yoke Lin: In view of my reply to question number 16, this ques tion does not arise.
BILL THE INTERNAL SECURITY BILL Second Reading The Deputy Prime Minister (Tun Abdul Razak): Sir, I beg to move that a Bill intituled "an Act to provide for the internal security of the Federation, preventive detention, the prevention of subversion, the suppression of organised violence against persons and property in specified areas of the Federation and for matters incidental thereto" be read a second time.
The Minister of Health and Social Welfare (Dato' Ong Yoke Lin): Mr. Speaker, Sir, no formal complaint of the incident referred to in the question was made either to the Police or to the medical authorities.

However, on Sir, as announced in His Majesty's gracious speech from the Throne at the opening of the Second Session of Parliament, the Government intends to declare the Emergency at an end at midnight on 31st July this year.
I am 1185 21 JUNE 1960 1186 happy to inform the House that our programme to this end is going accord ing to plan and, in presenting a number of Bills for their second and third read ings at this sitting of the House, I now call upon Honourable Members to play this programme.

The their part Internal Security Bill which I am now putting before this House is the most important of those Bills.
in The Hon'ble Prime Minister and the Government, other Members of including myself, have made it quite clear on a number of occasions that, because the Emergency is to be declared at an end, the Government does not intend to relax its vigilance against the evil enemy who still remains as a threat on our border and who is now attempt ing by subversion to succeed where he has failed by force of arms.

It is for this reason that this Bill is before the House.
It has two main aims: firstly to counter subversion throughout the country and, secondly, to enable the necessary measures to be taken on the border area to counter terrorism.

Let me deal with terrorism first.

In Pedis, Kedah, northern Perak and western Kelantan and across the Thai border, there are now still 583 armed terrorists of whom perhaps 90 might be on the Federation side of the border at any time.
We know quite well that it is their intention to avoid contact with the Security Forces and merely to remain in existence until a favourable opportunity arises for them to revive their so-called "armed struggle" against the people of this country.

They remain, therefore, as a potential threat to the security of this country which cannot be disregarded.
We are however, fortunate, Sir, in having a friendly neighbour with whose Government we are on the best of terms, and it is therefore the intention both of the Federation and the Royal Thai Governments, to continue taking the necessary action to eliminate the remnants of the Communist terrorist movement.

For this reason we have already established a Joint Senior Staff Committee and Border Operations Committee for the co-ordination and the necessary security execution of is measures on the border area.
It intended that these arrangements should continue after the end of the Emergency.

to wind up certain Under Section 47 of the Bill it is proposed to proclaim a border security area embracing parts of Perlis, Kedah, northern Perak and Kelantan.

A Border War Executive Committee will be established to control all anti-terrorist measures in that area in place of the State War Executive Committees in those States.
The State War Executive Committees will, however, remain in being residual Emergency security measures.

A Border Security Council, under the chairman ship of the Prime Minister, will take the place of the Emergency Operations Council and will be responsible for overall of Emergency Operations will become the Director of Border Security.
It is the firm intention of the Government to continue to fight our enemies on the border until completely eliminated or until they are reduced to such a strength as not to constitute a security threat to this country.

policy.

The Director they are Hon'ble Members will realise that Part II of the Bill is applicable only to a Security Area, that is to say, Opera tions Area, i.e.

an area where we are fighting the terrorists and it will not be applicable to any other.
Therefore, much more powers are required to deal with a situation which is tantamount to war.

solely retained Hon'ble Members will note from Chapter III of Part II that the death penalty will be in respect of those persons who are in possession of arms and ammunition in a security area without lawful authority and those who consort with them.

There will be no death penalty in respect of food suppliers.
I might also mention at that Government's policy this stage with regard to rewards and surrenders will remain unchanged.

It is not intended to proclaim a security area in any other part of the Federation.

Although there are three terrorists left in central Pahang and perhaps eight in the more remote areas of eastern Pahang and Trengganu, it is considered insignificant remnants can be dealt with without the these that 1187 21 JUNE 1960 1188 additional powers provided by Part II of this Bill.
therefore no need for me to go over the ground again.

Within the border security area the Federation Government will continue to have the assistance of the Common wealth Land and Air Forces.

While it might be possible for the Federation Government to employ only Federation Army units on the ground it is not considered advisable to do so.
Most of our units have been engaged in terrorist operations for many years and it is now desirable that some of them should be given an opportunity of being stationed in their permanent barracks the Federation and of throughout training.

The normal undergoing Commonwealth Governments concerned have expressed their readiness to make forces available as long as may be required.

There are only four such battalions engaged at the present time and it is expected that this number will be gradually reduced.
With regard to Air Forces, the Royal Malayan Air Force, in addition to its communication and "mercy mission" duties, is fully committed to the supply of jungle forts which will be maintained either as security posts within the border security area or as administra tive posts for the aborigines in other areas of the Federation.
The Common wealth Air Force is ready to continue the assistance which it has given over the past few years including the very heavy supply dropping commitment which is well beyond the capacity of the Royal Malayan Air Force.

I would like to take this opportunity of expressing the Federation Govern ment's appreciation of the generous manner in which this assistance is being extended thereby allowing the Federa tion Government to divert more of its resources to social services and rural development.
I come now to Part I of the Bill, and in particular to Chapter II, which pro vides powers of preventive detention.

The principle of preventive detention has been debated frequently this House and was debated at full length in connection with the amendment to Article 149 of the Constitution at the this House.

There is last sitting of in is Let me make it quite clear once again that to the object of detention safeguard the security of the country and not to punish persons for crime.
A person is detained for what it is considered he may reasonably be expected to try to do but not for what he is proved beyond doubt to have done.

He is detained because he repre the sents a risk country and not because he is a member of a lawful political party.

The Govern ment has no desire whatsoever to hinder healthy democratic opposition in any way.

This is a democratic country and the Government intends to maintain it as such.

It is the enemies of democracy who will be detained.
to the security of We have already defeated these terrorists— enemies—the Communist who have taken up arms against the people of this country and against its democratic form of Government.

Some of them remain, however, as a potential menace.

At the same time there are those who are seeking to achieve by subversive means what the terrorists failed to achieve by force of arms— namely, to overthrow democracy in this country.
There is nothing novel about the use of preventive detention for this purpose and reference has already been made that in previous debates to the fact such provisions exist in India and also in Singapore where indeed the grounds for detention are more extensive than those provided in this Bill and include not just a threat to the security of the country but also threats to law and order and the maintenance of essential services.
If there must be preventive detention then there must also be in a democratic country, safeguards for the individual and those are provided in the Bill in accordance with the provisions of Clause 2 of Article 151 of the Con stitution.

Persons detained have a right to make representations to an Advisory Board which must consider such repre sentations within three months and make recommendations thereon to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
If these repre the sentations fail then the case of 1189 21 JUNE 1960 1190 person detained must continue to be reviewed by the Advisory Board not less often than once in every six months.
The original order of detention is made, as expressed in Clause 8 of the Bill, by a Minister but only if His Majesty, acting on advice in accordance with Article 40 (1) of the Constitution, is satisfied that, with a view to pre venting that person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaya or any part is necessary so to do.. Further, when the representations have been made to the Advisory Board the recommendations of the Advisory Board are similarly submitted the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
The Government is responsible for the security of the country and Government must, subject to the safe guards to which I have referred, be the final authority to decide whether persons should continue to be detained.

thereof, to it of this Bill should be only for a period of one year and its extension beyond that period should be subject to the approval of Parliament.
in apart This Bill is moved under Article 149 of the Constitution and clause 2 pro vides for the continuance of the Bill until repealed or annulled by Parlia ment.

So, this is really a matter which has already been decided the Constitution.
However, Sir, I suggest that a matter from being of convenience not only for this House but also for the Opposition, this Bill is terminable at any time by resolution of both Houses of Parliament as set out the in our Constitution, and question of the termination of this Bill can be raised at any time on a motion whenever it is considered necessary.

So the question of the length of its life is, to my mind, not a very material question.
is prepared the Government Let me make it quite clear that it is no pleasure for to order the detention of any person.

Nor these powers be abused.

The will Alliance Government to stand on is well its record which demonstrated by the constant reduction of the number of persons in detention.

From a figure of over 250 in 1957 the number, including terrorists, has been reduced to under 70.
Even after a person has been detained every effort is made to achieve his release as soon as it can be shown that he is loyal to the country and is no longer a risk to the security of this country.

Now, Sir, the remaining chapters in this Part deal with a number of matters which are not covered by provisions in any other permanent law.
I do not think that anyone who is a loyal citizen of this country and a firm supporter of government would quarrel with these provisions which are solely designed to deal with those who may wish to demonstrate either their disloyalty their desire to destroy democracy which we all cherish.

this country or democratic to There is, however, one matter which the I would explain, and question of this Internal Security Bill.
It has been suggested in some quarters that the life is the continuance of that Now, Sir, I would like to explain briefly the principles of this Bill in Malay.

ketahui lama-nya Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya suka hendak terangkan sedikit berkenaan dasar Rang Undang2 ini.
Saperti Ahli2 Yang Berhormat bahawa Kerajaan berchadang hendak menamat- kan Dharurat yang ada pada ketika sa-sudah 121/2 tahun ia-itu akan tamat pada 31 haribulan July, oleh itu mustahak-lah di-adakan Rang Undang2 termasok-lah Rang Undang2 Keselamatan dalam Negeri atau Internal Security Bill.

Saperti yang telah di- terangkan kerap kali bahawa sunggoh pun Dharurat akan tamat pada 31 hari bulan July ia-itu pengganas komunis maseh lagi ada di- negeri kita di-antara sempadan Tanah Melayu.
ini, tetapi musoh terangkan Sudah saya lebeh tadi kurang 580 orang lagi pengganas komunis di-sempadan Tanah Melayu dan barangkali 90 orang lagi ada dalam negeri Tanah Melayu.

Jadi, mustahak-lah kita mengadakan satu undang2 dapat Kerajaan meneruskan serangan terhadap peng ganas2 komunis ini supaya dapat di- hapuskan dengan segera.
Begitu juga oleh sebab musoh maseh ada dalam negeri kita yang mana musoh itu di-sebabkan dan memikirkan seberapa supaya 1191 21 JUNE 1960 1192 yang mereka itu telah kalah dalam peperangan yang akan menjalankan tenaga-nya dengan seberapa usaha chara meresap subversive hendak menjatohkan Kerajaan negeri ini dan hendak merosakan keamanan.

Oleh sebab itu, mustahak-lah kita mengada- kan undang2 bagi menchegah atau melawan anasir2 subversive itu.
dengan Undang2 atau Rang Undang2 yang ada ini bertujuan satu bagi hendak menjalankan peperangan di-sempadan antara Tanah Melayu dengan Siam supaya pengganas komunis akan di- hapuskan segera.

Kedua, hendak menchegah anasir2 pengganas komunis yang ada dalam negeri ini yang menjalankan pekerjaan dengan chara meresap atau subversive.
Ber kenaan dengan bahagian yang kedua Rang Undang2 ini ia-itu bagi melawan pengganas komunis di-sempadan Siam, dan oleh sebab peperangan akan di- teruskan maka terpaksa-lah di-adakan kuasa2 yang banyak sedikit pada pehak Kerajaan dan pehak tentera dan juga pehak Polis bagi menjalankan tugas mereka itu.
Oleh sebab itu-lah di-dapati bahagian yang kedua dalam Rang Undang2 ini ada kuasa yang besar itu di-beri sa-tengah dari pehak Kerajaan dan pehak pegawai2 tentera, akan tetapi kuasa itu hanya-lah boleh di- gunakan dalam kawasan2 yang tertentu yang di-istiharkan menjadi security areas, dan Kerajaan hendak sempadan di-kawasan menjadikan Siam ia-itu kawasan2 di-sebelah utara negeri Perlis sebelah timur negeri Kedah di-utara negeri Perak dan sebelah barat negeri Kelantan.
Kawasan akan di-jadikan yang security area.

tidak telah lain Jadi, kawasan yang kedua dalam Rang Undang2 ini akan di-gunakan dalam tempat yang tersebut sahaja.

Berkenaan bahagian yang pertama da lam Rang Undang2 ini sa-bagaimana yang saya katakan tadi bahawa kuasa yang di-kehendaki itu supaya hendak menchegah anasir2 subversive yang ada dalam Tanah Melayu ini.
Dan fasal yang mustahak sekali dalam bahagian ini ia-lah bahagian Fasal 8 berkenaan dengan kuasa hendak mempertahankan orang yang di-fikirkan merbahaya kapada Keselamatan dalam Negeri.

berusaha segera.
Semenjak Saya suka terangkan di-sini Kerajaan tidak suka hendak memberi perentah supaya sa-saorang itu di-tahan, akan tetapi oleh sebab di-fikirkan kadang2 mustahak kerana keselamatan negeri, maka terpaksa di-gunakan kuasa ini, dan apabila sa-saorang itu telah di- supaya tahan, Kerajaan mereka itu dapat di-lepaskan dengan sa-berapa tahun 1957 hampir 200 orang tahanan telah di-keluarkan, bagitu juga orang yang di-tahan sekarang apabila Kerajaan berpendapat mereka lagi merbahayakan kapada keselamatan negeri dan mereka itu benar2 ta'at setia kapada negeri ini, mereka itu akan di-lepas dan di-bebaskan dengan sa- berapa segera.
Jadi itu-lah chara-nya Kerajaan menjalankan kuasa yang ada di-dalam tangan Kerajaan pada masa yang lalu.

Dan saya boleh ini memberi akuan kapada Dewan bahawa kuasa2 yang akan di-beri kapada Kerajaan akan di-gunakan dengan chermat-nya dan dengan sa- mata2 memikirkan kapada kepentingan dan keselamatan negeri.

tidak telah itu Oleh itu, saya harap Ahli2 Yang Berhormat akan memberi sokongan kapada Rang Undang2 ini.

To conclude, Sir, I do hope that Honourable Members will give this Bill their support.
It is, as I said, designed solely to prevent those whose loyalty from is elsewhere either enslaving this country or overthrowing our democratic institutions, and I can do no more than remind Honourable Members of the final sentence in His Majesty's Gracious Speech referring to the end of the Emergency: "It remains now for us all, with God's help standing on guard against the sinister forces that do not rest in their attempts to undermine the Government by secret and subversive means, to ensure that this great victory is not wasted but becomes, instead, the starting point for building a yet more peaceful and pros perous Persekutuan Tanah Melayu".
Sir, I beg to move.

(Applause).

The Minister of the Interior (Dato' Suleiman): Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Enche' D. R. Seenivasagam (Ipoh): Mr. Speaker, Sir, Malaya attained 1193 21 JUNE 1960 1194 independence in 1957, and we pledged to uphold the principles of democracy in this country.

Whether we are doing that, or whether we are not doing that, must depend very largely on the actions of the Government from time to time from that date until to-day.
the independence of Mr. Speaker, Sir, let us briefly con sider what has been happening in this land.

In 1957 the Emergency Regula tions were in full force, and they are in full force until to-day.

Arbitrary detention, loss of liberty without trial in a court of law, are all features of this land and until to-day nothing was done about that by the Government.
Recently, the judiciary was shaken by legislation which says that in the future the Prime Minister of this country would have a say in the selection of judges.

In my opinion, in the opinion of the Peoples' Progressive Party of Malaya, that was a step towards the curtailment of the independence of the judiciary in this country—a blow to the people of this country, a blow to democracy itself.
Legislation passed between the period of 1957 and now in criminal laws clearly indicate that the normal practice of trials in courts, or judicial decisions in criminal matters, is slowly but steadily being destroyed in this country.

And now before us is an Internal Security Bill which Parliament is asked to pass.

What does the Preamble say?


It says: "Whereas action has been taken by a substantial body of persons to cause a substantial number of citi zens to fear organised violence against persons and property."

What we would like to know is evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.

Who are the body, or substantial body, of persons who have taken action to cause a substantial number of citizens to fear organised violence against persons and property?

No.
No.

2 "Whereas action has been taken and threatened by a substantial body of persons which is prejudicial to the security of Malaya."

Who comprise this body of persons who have taken action which is prejudicial to the secu rity of Malaya?

Mr. Speaker, Sir, we all know that Communist terrorists were in this country and are still in this country according to the statement just now by the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister.
But what we would want to know is, is there an attempt to distinguish from the Communist terrorists another body of persons who come under the Preamble recited, or has it reference to the same Communist terrorists?

Mr. Speaker, Sir, in every country laws are necessary—sometimes extreme laws—to deal with extreme situations.

The Emergency Regulations were such a law to deal with such a situation.
We are told that the need for the Emergency Regulations no longer exists, and on the 31st July they will be done away with.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the circum stances which require the Emergency Regulations are no longer in existence in this country; then, the provisions of the Emergency Regulations themselves should not be re-enacted in another form, because if we are going to re-enact something under a different code, under a different cloak, then we might as well have it under the same name, as the Emergency Regulations.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, the very strong objections to this Bill are on a number of grounds: (1) preventive detention without proper safeguards; (2) the Bill encompasses organised violence but it encompasses every citi zen in this country, whether peaceful or otherwise; (3) powers given to the Police are so wide, so terrifying, that every citizen of this country will be in constant fear, in constant and absolute fear throughout the days of his life so long as this Bill remains law.
is Mr. Speaker, Sir, a comparison necessary to see the motive of the Government in introducing this Bill, because I charge the Government and say that their motive is not that a substantial body of persons is subver ting the Government of the country, but that their motive is intimidation, intimidation, not only of political political organisations, but of the people of this country.

That is the motive of the Internal Security Bill.


only not Mr. Speaker, Sir, under the Emer gency Regulations, when a man is detained he has the right to protest 1195 21 JUNE 1960 1196 against the detention to what is known as a Committee of Review.

If that Committee of Review, which is pre sided over by a High Court Judge, orders his release, that man is released.

And, here, I would quote the example of the Honourable Mr. V. David who sits here.
He was ordered to be released by a Committee of Review and he was released, because nobody could do it.

A question was anything about asked to in detention and the answer was given the Ministerial bench saying, from "There was no the Ministerial the case of detainees who were detained, the answer was, "If we had the power to interfere, perhaps you will not be sitting here to-day—that was the answer given to the Honourable Mr. David.

interference by this House in relation side.


"; in and Now, what does the Internal Security Bill suggest?

The Bill says—"All right, go ahead and object to the Committee of Review.

We will give you a Judge, we will give two others to sit with the Judge; but even if that Committee says that you are to be released, the Minis ter can say, T don't care for the recommendation': the Yang di-Pertuan Agong acting on the advice of the Minister can say, we are not bothered about the recommendation.
It may recommend that Mr. So-and-So be released, but we are not going to release him."

That is the most terrifying aspect of the Internal Security Bill— even more terrifying than the Emer gency Regulations this country.

What is the use of a Committee pre sided over by a High Court Judge, if you are going to tell that Committee, "We do not bother about your recom mendation; we have considered it but we are not going to act on it."?
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong can—it is very nice to put those words in—but we must remember that under Article 40 (1) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong does not act on his own.

He acts on the advice of either the Cabinet or the Minister authorised by the Cabinet to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
Therefore, there at once we have the clearest indication of the attempt by the Minis try to be in a position to suppress in and oppress not only political oppo nents but also anybody in this country the if it so wishes to do.

Whether Minister the present in charge at moment will act in that manner is a matter is if possible, a good law should guard against such a danger.

What we heard just now—that in preventive detention there are safeguards—is no safeguard at all.
The man who is to be detained is not safeguarded.

to be seen.

But that there looks very nice, but Then, what does the Internal Security Bill say?

It says you can arrest a man and you tell him why you arrest him.
It is a proviso which says that if it is in the interest of the country, you need not tell him those things, those can be kept confidential—and we know it for a fact that those who are arrested are not told what they are arrested for; if they are told, they are given one or two lines from which they know nothing.

They do not know who has complained against them, and they do not know why they are arrested—and they are asked to object.
to-day the freedom Mr. Speaker, Sir, freedom to speak, freedom to write, was a feature of this country, but to speak, and even the freedom to write in the newspapers, is not a feature of this country; if proof is wanted of that, we have just to look up some of the licences now granted to newspapers in this country and we will see the terms or conditions of the licences which are granted.
If one looks at those, one knows that the freedom to write, which is normal under the law of the country, is not no longer exists.

As if enough, what does the Security Bill say?

The Security Bill says that no one can write anything with which the Government does not agree.
In accor dance with this Bill, for example, if a newspaper writes something which says that the Chinese in this country want Chinese as an official language, or the Chinese want Chinese reservations, that newspaper can get its licence cancelled, because it will be a matter which raises a communal issue and which may cause heartache to certain sections of the people; or if a Malay newspaper writes something that that 1197 21 JUNE 1960 1198 to say that all Chinese should be kept in another area in this country, that newspaper can lose its licence; or if a political speaker says any of these things, he can lose his freedom by being put under detention.
It is all very nice to say that the Government will be very fair, it wants the Bill as a protective measure and it does not intend to use it indiscriminately.

Those are promises which are not binding.

What is binding is the law—and the law is what is contained in the Internal Security Act.

likely Mr. Speaker, Sir, then there is the question of using words of a communal to cause nature which are communal illwill.
Nobody intends to cause communal illwill, but communal problems are present in this country as they are present in South Africa, and communal problems will continue to be raised.

Recently, an attempt was successfully made by this House in amending the Standing Rules and Orders to attempt to muzzle Members of this House from raising communal issues in this House.
The effect of that amendment has not yet been tested in this House, but I say that is one more indication of the way in which the Government is working—the Gos the deprivation of all liberty either in this House or outside this House.

Therefore, the bona fides of the Government in introducing the Internal Security Bill is greatly suspect.

One after another, you are depriving the citizens of this country of to talk, liberty to write, liberty even to think.
liberty—liberty their Mr. Speaker, Sir, there are other provisions of this Bill dealing with police officers' powers and I have no doubt that other speakers will touch on them.

With regard to trials in Courts, anybody knows what has been happen ing in past years, where under special legislation any statement made to a police officer is admissible in a Court of Law, even to hang a man, provided a caution in some form is given to him.
Sir, it is only necessary to look at the law records of this country to see how many times persons have been wal loped, if that is a parliamentary word to use, in police stations, how many times people arrested have been beaten up in police stations and confessions or statements under Section 124 of the Emergency Regulations extorted from these men, how many times Judges in this country, independent Judges, have those confessions, and how rejected many times people have been acquitted.
Even to-day, in police stations, people are being hammered by police officers and the Government says, "re-enact that provision in this law"—for what purpose?

Is it to allow police officers to go on treating inhumanly people who are arrested, for that purpose?

Or is it for the purpose, if you have no evidence, of torturing the men to get evidence from the mouth of the man concerned to hang him—is it for that purpose?

Have we not learnt from past experience?


Have we not learnt that in democratic countries that pro vision does not exist?

We are told that the Malayan for certain purposes people are not educated enough to understand implication of full democracy; for certain other purposes we are told that they are wise enough, they know what to do and what not to do.

the Recently in the Malay Mail there was a caricature of the Honourable the Prime Minister bringing back a bell of freedom on his return from England.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, that bell, I think, has tolled the death of democracy for the people of Malaya and it has not opened any door for the people of South Africa.

On the question of what is com munal, what is likely to cause feeling of illwill, what is subversive, one has only to read the parliamentary debates in this House on the 30th November, 1959.

The Opposition of the Peoples' Progressive Party asked that China be allowed to enter the United Nations and that Malaya should support this stand.
From the Government Bench there were shouts of, "They look to the Rising Sun for their inspiration; they look to Russia and China for inspiration."

The Honourable the Minister of External Affairs gave a reply saying, "Malaya cannot support the entry of China into the United 1199 21 JUNE 1960 1200 Nations, because China is an aggressive nation, and Malaya can never support the entry of China into the United Nations unless Malaya recognises China."
We were attacked as being communistic in outlook, because we asked for the recognition of China or its entry into the United Nations.

If we had said that in the padang after this Bill has been passed, would it be considered subversive or an act which places in jeopardy?

It was only two days ago that the Honourable Prime Minister said, "We will support the entry of China into the United Nations".

the security of Malaya Mr. Speaker: Is that relevant?

Enche' D. R. Seenivasagam: Yes, Sir.


I am saying that to show how easily what is subversive and what is not subversive can be misconstrued.

When we said it, the retort was, "You are looking to the Rising Sun for inspi ration"; the Minister of External Affairs said, "We can never do it.".

Now the Prime Minister has said, "We will support it."

Now, who is subversive and who is not?

Is the Minister of External Affairs right or the Prime Minister right?
Mr. Speaker, Sir, that is the sum total of objection to this Bill.

I do not intend to go through the whole ground, as was done when the Constitution was amended, as it serves no purpose.

We made our strongest objection to the amendment to the Constitution, because it took away the liberty of the subjects.

The Constitution, as it was drawn up, clearly stated under Article 149 that preventive detention should not be effected—preventive detention, if at all, can only last for three months.
That, of course, has been amended now.

I say that amendment has taken away the liberty of the people and this Bill seals up all liberty in this country.

To deal with subversion you do not need a public security Bill of this nature.

This Security Bill not only attempts to deal with terrorism, but it also attempts to deal with any citizen who dares to open his mouth.

That is the purpose of this Bill, and nobody, and no amount of white-washing, can the take away that flavour from Internal Security Bill.
I say to the Government side—"You pass this Bill, but remember that one day somebody else, perhaps, not as democratic as you are, may be sitting on that very Bench; and when time comes you— perhaps not you but the children of those who to-day support this Bill— will say "My God!

we regret the day we this House.'"


introduced this Bill into that Enche' Ahmad Boestamam (Setapak): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dalam menge- mukakan Internal Security Bill ini tadi Menteri Pertahanan menerangkan kapada kita tujuan-nya yang pertama untok menentang subversive dan yang kedua untok menentang bahaya dalam negeri, erti-nya Undang2 Keselamatan Dalam Negeri ini terbahagi atas dua bahagian.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, bahagian yang pertama dari undang2 ini menyentoh beberapa soal yang menurut anggapan saya bukan-nya untok menegakkan demokrasi akan tetapi untok meng- demokrasi.

Tuan hanchor-leborkan Yang di-Pertua, bahagian yang pertama dari undang2 ini berhubong dengan larangan menggunakan pakaian sa- ragam—uniform.
Di-sini di-sebutkan "The Minister may from time to time" erti-nya Minister boleh dari sa-masa ka-samasa kalau "in the opinion of the Minister" menggunakan uniform itu membahayakan keselamatan dalam negeri.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, perkataan "in the opinion of the Minister" dan "may from time to time" ini menun- jokkan ketiadaan ketegasan pemeren- tah.

Kalau pemerentah mengatakan menggunakan uniform salah—ia, kata- kan menggunakan uniform itu salah bagi sa-siapa juga pun.
Tetapi tidak, "may"—boleh, kalau "in the opinion of the Minister " dan di-sini menimbulkan kewas-wasan dari saya.

Mungkin, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, "in the opinion of the Minister" pakaian sa-ragam tidak salah dan tidak mem bahayakan keselamatan umum kalau di-pakai oleh Pemuda Perikatan umpa- ma-nya.

Jadi ini sendiri-nya menunjok- kan pandangan yang berat sa-belah dan ini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, terbukti waktu kita di-perentah oleh penjafah Inggeris dahulu.
1201 21 JUNE 1960 1202 Saya mengetuai Angkatan Pemuda Insaf—API, dan waktu itu juga ada gerakan yang bernama San Min Chui.

Pemerentah Inggeris menganggap bahawa API ini membahayakan kesela- matan-nya dan melarang-nya memakai pakaian sa-ragan?

tetapi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, San Min Chui itu terus ber- leluasan menggunakan uniform itu.

Jadi saya tidak menghendaki kalau peme rentah kita langkah yang demikian itu.
Ini membahayakan keselamatan umum di-haramkan, ini tidak membahayakan keselamatan umum tidak di-haramkan.

Kalau mahu mengharamkan penggunaan uniform, haramkan dia dengan tidak memberi kuasa kapada Menteri memikirkan memberi bahaya kapada keselamatan umum atau tidak-nya.
juga mengikut Tuan Yang di-Pertua, cheraian 7: "The Minister may, if he considers it in the national interest so to do, by order prohibit the manufacture, sale, use, wearing, display or possession of any flag, banner, badge, emblem, device, uniform or distinctive dress or any part thereof."

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, soalan yang pertama timbul di-sini, apa-kah istilah national interest itu, apa-kah istilah kepentingan kebangsaan ini.

Di-sini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ada tersebut bendera, banner, badge.
Ini ada-kah bendera atau banner Kominis umpama- nya yang sudah memang haram?

Tetapi kalau mengikut istilah ini ben dera dan banner yang mengikut pan- dangan Menteri boleh membahayakan national interest dapat seluroh-nya di- haramkan dan ada kemungkinan di-sini bahawa bendera daripada parti pem- juga ada membahayakan bangkang national interest dan itu di-haramkan.

Sekarang kita masok kapada che raian 8 ia-itu berkenaan dengan pre ventive detention.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, tentang preventive saya berchakap detention ini sa-bagai sa-orang yang mempunyal pengalaman.

Saya melihat, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, undang2 menge- nai preventive detention ini tiada beza- nya dari Undang2 Dzarurat yang telah lalu.
Undang2 ini berbunyi: "If the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied with respect to any person that, with a view to preventing that person from acting the in any manner prejudicial security of Malaya or any part thereof, it to is necessary so to do, the Minister shall make an order— (a) directing that such person be detained for any period not exceeding two years; .

.

.

. "

Sa-saorang boleh di-tahan bagi satu masa tidak lebeh daripada dua tahun.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, erti-nya sa- saorang itu boleh di-tahan sa-lama dua tahun.

Dua tahun bukan-lah satu masa yang singkat.

Dua tahun, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, satu masa yang dapat orang menghasilkan dua orang chahaya mata (Ketawa).

terus atau saya waktu Tuan Yang di-Pertua, di-sini tidak ada ternyata apa-kah sa-saorang itu tempoh boleh di-tahan tahanan itu di-teruskan, sebab penga laman saya di-tahan dahulu juga tempoh tahanan itu tidak sampai dua tetapi bila di- review apa yang datang kapada saya "CD."
bukan "Corp Diplomatic", Tuan Yang di-Pertua, tetapi "continued detention" (Ketawa).

tahun, Dua tahun tahun, sesudah dua nanti tahanan itu di-teruskan lagi.

Ini menunjokan sa-saorang itu dapat di- tahan bukan dua tahun, tetapi empat tahun malah enam tahun dan mungkin sampai kiamat.

Dalam undang2 ini tidak di-nyatakan apa-kah sa-saorang yang di-tahan kerana tudohan mem bahayakan keselamatan umum itu tidak boleh di-tahan terus apabila telah chukop tempoh tahanan-nya itu, tidak ada.
Erti-nya dia boleh di-tahan terus menerus.

Di-sini juga ada di-nyatakan sa- saorang itu boleh tidak di-tahan, sebab perkataan "or" di-sini, tetapi Menteri itu hendak-lah mengenakan sharat2 kapada orang itu dan salah satu daripada sharat2 itu ia-lah melarang dia— taking part "8.

(iv) for prohibiting him from addressing public meeting or from holding office in, or taking part in the activities of or acting as adviser to any organisation or association, or in any political from activities."
Jadi, dia mungkin tidak di-tahan, tetapi dia mungkin akan di-kenakan sharat ini.

Di-pandang sepintas lalu ada kelonggaran di-sini.

Tetapi ia me- nimbolkan keraguan pula.

Mungkin pemerentah menganggap keselamatan dia sendiri, dan mengenakan sharat ini 1203 21 JUNE 1960 1204 ini di-gunakan atas sa-saorang.

Ra'ayat tidak mengata- kan ini tidak baik, tetapi kalau sharat demikian dengan sewenang2-nya maka bererti melumpoh- kan sa-tiap orang yang berkata me- nyalahkan pemerentah.
Sa-saorang itu kalau dia berchakap dalam rapat umum lain2-nya bukan-kah dia mesti dan tundok kapada kuasa2 Polis?

Menteri Pertahanan semalam juga telah menga- takan bahawa rapat umum yang bukan juga dapat di-hadziri pilehan raya oleh Polis dan dapat merekodkan uchapan2.

Kenapa kalau kuat-kuasa ini ada maka sharat2 demikian juga harus di-kenakan kapada sa-saorang itu.
Kalau sa-saorang itu di-agakan merbahaya bagi keselamatan umum, bukan-kah lebeh baik membenarkan dia berchakap dalam rapat umum dalam public meeting, supaya di-situ dapat kita buktikan benar tidak-nya dia membahayakan keselamatan umum itu?

Kalau dia berchakap mari kita memberontak mithal-nya, dengan tidak payah menggunakan sharat ini tindakan pemerentah tentu-lah dapat di-lakukan atas-nya.

Cheraian 9 ada menyebutkan soal sa-saorang itu di-tahan dan akan di- beri tahu alasan2 atau grounds of detention-nya.
Kedua perkara Clause 3, Article 151 Perlembagaan yang men- sharatkan pehak berkuasa tidak di- mestikan menyatakan sa- saorang itu di-tahan.

Sa-waktu kami di-tahan dahulu kami ada di-beri grounds of detention ini, tetapi apa yang di-berikan kapada kami itu ia-lah: "You are acting or suppose to act prejudicial to public security and order."

Ini umum.

Grounds of deten tion ini tidak tegas.

alasan2 Cheraian 10.


Sa-saorang itu di-tahan dan jika Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri memikirkan orang ini tidak merbahaya lagi, bukan security risk lagi, dia boleh di-bebaskan dari tahanan dan di-samping itu boleh di-kenakan sharat2 termasok juga tak boleh ber chakap dalam tadi.
rapat umum Sa-sudah itu di-sebutkan pula— " any such direction if he is satisfied the person against whom made and the Minister may revoke that the order was " sudah di-tetapkan kalau dia tak boleh keluar dari rumah pukol 6 malam tetapi dia keluar juga maka Menteri itu boleh membatalkan sharat2 itu— " or that it is necessary in the public interest that such direction should be revoked."
dia sudah di-tahan, dan Menteri su dah puas hati dia boleh di-bebaskan dengan di-kenakan sharat2; akan tetapi sharat2 itu boleh di-tarek semula kalau dia menentang keputusan ini atau— that such direction that it is necessary in the public should be " interest revoked."

public interest, national interest dan entah apa lagi.

Dan sa-sudah Menteri itu sendiri mengenakan sharat2 itu dia akan ini revoke balek.

Tidak-kah aneh?
Tidak-kah aneh?

Dan berkenaan dengan "security risk" ada baik-nya kalau kita meninjau kenyataan sa-saorang itu di-tahan dan tanya kenapa dia di-tahan?

kita Kerana security risk.

Tetapi, semalam sa-orang itu di-tahan berhubong dengan security risk maka hari ini dia di- bebaskan hilang security risk itu dalam tempoh 24 jam sahaja.

Hilang kerana apa, kerana tahanan.

Dan di-sini timbol pula maksud tahanan itu.


Apa- kah ini di-maksudkan untok "brain washing" kapada sa-saorang itu sa- hingga yang mula2-nya security risk itu 100 peratus, kemudian tinggal 99 peratus sahingga tak ada security risk lagi?

Jadi, di-sini saya membuktikan bahawa perkataan "security risk" itu ada-lah satu perkataan umum sama sekali.

Sekarang, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, berkenaan dengan Advisory Board.

Pada zaman dharurat dahulu ada juga satu Committee of Review.
Committee of Review atau Advisory Board yang datang-nya dari orang yang boleh menjadi Hakim.
Kalau dahulu waktu Perlembagaan Persekutuan Tanah Me- layu ini belom di-pinda, kehakiman ada-lah satu badan yang bebas, satu badan yang tidak tundok atau tidak di-kuasai' oleh pemerentah, tetapi se karang sa-sudah pindaan perlembagaan di-adakan yang meletakan kehakiman itu bersangkut paut dengan pemerentah, maka kedudokan Advisory Board itu jauh lebeh tidak ada guna-nya dari- pada kedudokan Committee of Review dalam Undang2 Dharurat dahulu itu.
1205 21 JUNE 1960 1206 Committee of Review yang dahulu ada kebebasan-nya (independent), ada kemerdekaan-nya, kita boleh perchaya, kalau tidak 100 peratus, 50 peratus, kerana Hakim2 itu tidak tunduk kapada pemerentah, tetapi sekarang, Advisory Board ini mungkin, kerana kehakiman sekarang di-kuasai oleh pemerentah, menjadi Advisory Board yang tidak sama sa-kali dapat menunjokkan ke- sama tengahan-nya.
Walau pun, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Advisory Board ini dapat kita katakan orang yang akan menunjokkan sikap kesama tengahan- nya, tetapi Advisory Board ini mengikut Perlembagaan tidak mempunyai kuasa langsong, sebab di-sini ada di- nyatakan: ini "Upon considering the recommendations of the Advisory Board under this section the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may give the Minister such directions, if any, as he shall think fit regarding the order made by the Minister; and every decision of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong thereon shall, subject to the provisions of section 13, be final, and shall not be called into question in any Court."
Jadi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Advisory Board ini sa-mata2 hanya suatu lem- baga yang mahu menunjok2kan demok- rasi negeri ini tetapi satu lembaga yang tidak mempunyai kuasa langsong untok menentukan, apa-kah sa-saorang yang di-tahan itu patut di-bebaskan atau tidak?

Dia hanya boleh memberi nasehat, tetapi nasehat-nya itu tidak di-katakan "mesti" di-terima.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, cheraian 16 berbunyi: "Nothing in this Chapter or in any rules made thereunder shall require the Minister of any member of an Advisory Board or any public servant to disclose facts or to produce documents which he considers it to be against the national interest to disclose or produce."

Ayat yang demikian ini ada dalam Undang2 Dharurat dahulu.

Kalau ayat yang demikian ada dalam Undang2 Dharurat dahulu mungkin dapat kita ma'afkan, dharurat.
sebab waktu Waktu kominis mengganas dahulu orang menggunakan kekuatan senjata, tembak sana-sini, memang keselamatan sa-saorang itu tidak terjamin, tetapi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sa-sudah dha rurat tamat, kita kembali kapada undang2 yang biasa di-negeri ini.

Saya tidak nampak, kenapa sebab2 ini harus di-adakan?

Kita harus takut apa?

Pemerentah harus takut apa?

Apa-kah pemerentah takut kapada 1-2 orang yang barangkali mempunyai senjata?
Di-belakang pemerentah ber- diri polis dan tentera, kenapa takut sa-saorang membuktikan kesalahan itu?

Apa-kah ketidak sanggupan itu tidak ada bukti, tidak ada kerana tangan pemerentah keterangan pada untok membuktikan sa-saorang itu salah, maka di-adakan sharat ini?

Dan bila ada sharat2 ini, kerana pemerentah tidak payah hendak menunjokkan bukti2, maka perkara yang sewenang2 dapat berlaku.
Tetapi kalau pemerentah di-kehendaki menunjokkan bukti atas kesalahan yang di-kehendaki, maka mahu tidak mahu, baharu-lah dapat di-pastikan sa-saorang itu patut di- tahan atau tidak.

Berkenaan dengan "Special Powers relating to Subversive Publications", di-sini Menteri yang bertanggong jawab dalam perchetakan (printing) boleh mengharamkan perchetakan2 itu ia-itu ada di-nyatakan jenis perchetakan yang boleh di-haramkan dan menyatakan dalam Government Gazette, perche takan ini, bahagian ini tidak boleh.
Dalam cheraian 23, di-nyatakan sa- saorang itu boleh mengemukakan ban- tahan (objection) terhadap keputusan Menteri yang menjaga soal perche takan ini tadi dalam tempoh satu bulan kapada Yang di-Pertuan Agong, dalam cheraian ini mengatakan : " .

.. whose decision thereon shall be final and shall not be called into question in any Court."

Apa erti-nya objection ini?


Dia boleh menghantar bantahan atas keputusan Menteri yang menjaga soal perchetakan ini, tetapi segala keputusan, terserah kapada Yang di-Pertuan Agong, dan ini tidak boleh di-chabar dalam mana2 Mahkamah.

Sa-sudah sa-saorang itu membantah sikap Menteri itu, kenapa ini tidak di-dengarkan dalam Mah kamah terbuka supaya dapat di-pasti kan siapa benar dan siapa tidak?

Pada akhir-nya, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, berkenaan dengan kuasa polis.
Dalam cheraian ini di-sebutkan: sa- orang Pegawai Polis yang di-bawah pangkat Inspector boleh melakukan 1207 21 JUNE 1960 1208 penangkapan dengan tidak ada meng- gunakan warrant.

Kalau dalam masa itu di- dharurat hak yang demikian berikan kapada polis menangkap sa- tidak ada warrant, saorang dengan barangkali dapat di-ma'afkan, tetapi dalam masa ini—dalam masa dharurat tidak ada, kenapa sa-orang Pegawai Polis itu tidak di-beri warrant untok melakukan penangkapan, pemereksaan, pengelidahan dan lain2?
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya menganggap bahawa kuasa yang ada kapada Pegawai Polis sekarang ini sudah terlalu luas, dan memberikan kuasa yang demikian ini sa-saorang, menggelidah menangkap rumah sa-saorang dengan tidak ada warrant, ini ada-lah keterlaluan dalam semua kuasa2 ini.

Saya bertanya, apa-kah ini di-adakan, apa-kah ini, di-chiptakan dengan mak- ini sud untok menjelmakan negara kapada satu negara polis?
dan ini ada subversive, Enche' Zulkiflee bin Muhammad (Bachok): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, di- satu Rang hadapan kita Undang2 yang bertujuan hendak me- merangi di-dalam Undang2 ini ada beberapa peratoran yang di-tujukan kapada maksud itu.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya bangun di- sini menyokong Undang2 ini.
Tetapi saya hendak mencheritakan beberapa perkara yang ada di-dalam Undang2 ini yang pada fikiran saya akan boleh menimbulkan kepayahan dan kesusah- an dan akan boleh di-gunakan bagi maksud yang lain daripada maksud yang asal Undang2 ini.

satu telah memberi bahawa Undang2 Tadi, Timbalan Perdana Menteri sudah memberikan fikiran-nya dan di- itu dalam uchapan-nya yang panjang tegasan dia mengatakan ini tidak di-maksudkan untok mencheng- kam kebebasan dan democracy di- dalam negeri ini.
Dan dia telah ber- janji dan memberi jaminan tidak pula tujuan Kerajaan hendak meng- ada gunakan Undang2 ini bagi maksud menahan perkembangan parti2 politik yang bertentangan dengan Kerajaan.

Saya tidak tahu sama ada janji ini boleh di-pegang atau tidak.

Itu akan di-terangkan oleh perbuatan2 yang akan di-tunjokkan kapada Menteri tetapi ini maka saya memberi itu, amaran, Tuan Yang di-Pertua.
Di-dalam mem- persetujukan ini saya memberi amaran bahawa kalau sah dan benar tujuan Kerajaan hendak mengawal, memeli- hara dan mengembangkan democracy di-negeri amalkan-lah Undang2 ini menurut dasar pengu- balan-nya.

Sa-barang salah guna dari Undang2 ini akan membawa satu re action yang burok tidak-lah menjadi mustahil kalau sa-sudah ber- janji hendak di-jalankan-nya dengan itu baik, tidak mustahil Kerajaan hendak menjalankan tidak baik.
Orang2 atau sa-tengah atau sa- bahagian daripada manusia daripada negeri ini akan menjadi komunis jika di-salah pakai Undang2 ini.

dengan dan atas ini, kami sa-bagaimana bagi Kita, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, tahu kesalahan2 dan penyakit2 yang ada di- dalam Undang2 saya kepentingan sebutkan, tetapi keselamatan negeri dan asas bahawa Undang2 ini menuju kapada menchegah perkembangan subversion dan terrorism maka kita sokong.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, apabila kami me nyokong Undang2 tuntut kapada Kerajaan supaya meluaskan fahaman di-dalam ma'ana subversion, tidak sahaja subversion dari komunis, tetapi tidak sa-barang anasir yang di-ingini yang ingin menjatohkan tata hidup demoracy di-dalam negeri ini hendak-lah di-tegah sama ada dia melakukan subversion-nya itu dengan chara langsong.
puak2 Amereka, Saya maksudkan puak2 Inggeris, puak2 apa sahaja yang chuba hendak menggunakan helah dan daya-nya bagi menjahanamkan tata hidup di-negeri ini di-dalam sub version.

Sebab-nya, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, "Prejudicial to the interest of this country" yang menjadi teras bagi perkara yang besar di-dalam Undang2 ini di-hadkan kapada sa-suatu puak sahaja.

Saya di-Pertua, bersetuju, Tuan Yang bahawa bahaya2 komunis amat-lah besar.

Dan ada masa-nya ia-itu akan bertambah besar.


Chara2 mengembang kan komunis di-dalam negeri ini bukan-lah payah, sadikit ka-silapan akan membalekkan sejarah negeri ini kapada apa yang telah berlaku.
Bagi langsong atau sa-mata2 tidak-lah tidak 1209 21 JUNE I960 1210 pehak saya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sa- Perdana hinggakan pengishtiharan ka-masokkan Menteri menyokong China ka-dalam United Nation itu pun saya rasa, ada mempunyai bibit yang menyeronokkan orang2 komunis di-dalam negeri ini, dengan memberi- kan kekuatan kapada-nya bahawa sekarang negara besar-nya telah di- akui dan komunis-nya sa-kurang2 di- Sa-kurang2-nya hormati.
Perdana Menteri kita telah memberi sadikit pokok angin kapada komunis di-Tanah Melayu ini dengan pengishtiharan yang saya tidak hendak bahathkan kerana itu soal luar negeri tetapi ada-nya sokongan moral komunis.
goyang-nya di-nafikan tidak Tuan Yang di-Pertua, di-dalam Undang2 ini, ada beberapa perkara yang ta' terang dan ini akan saya supaya chuba menyebutkan-nya, dengan menyebutkan perkara2 itu dapat-lah Kerajaan itu betul2 menga- malkan Undang2 ini dengan jiwa dan roh Undang2, ini tidak dengan jiwa dan roh yang lain dari dasar meng- gunakan Undang2 ini.
Lagi sakali saya katakan, sa-barang silap amal, salah gunakan Undang2 ini bukan akan mengurangkan terroris yang 400 orang itu bahkan akan menambah bilangan- nya.

Sa-barang penekanan yang tidak di-bolehkan oleh Undang2 ini akan mengakibatkan kesan balas yang tidak satu2-nya di-ingini.
Pergi kapada Undang2 ini dan saya perchaya Kera jaan katika sakira-nya orang menyo kong satu Undang2 Kerajaan itu maka beri-lah pertimbangan yang berat kapada fikiran yang di-kemukakan- nya itu sebab dia tidak membangkang, chuma menyokong, kerana ada per kara2 yang di-risau, kok salah masok maka perjalanan senget-lah akan jentera Undang2 ini.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sekarang ini saya mulakan umpama-nya; ini soal satu2-nya.

Di-dalam Fasal 7.
Di-dalam Fasal 7.

Fasal 7 ini perkara-nya kechil sangat, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, tetapi yang kechil-nya ini-lah kalau salah kita, kata orang, ta' ada, berdemocracy, kita kata ada, jadi bergadoh akhir-nya.
Fasal 7 bahagian (3) : "Any article in respect of which an offence has been committed under this section may be seized and destroyed or otherwise dealt with as the Minister may direct, whether or not the identity of the offender is known and whether or not any prosecution has been commenced in respect of the offence".

Jadi, belum pun dia di-da'wa, dia di-bicharakan orang itu dan benda yang kita jumpa di-rumah itu boleh kita hanchorkan, boleh kita rosakkan.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, itu berlawanan dengan mengikut ke'adilan, kata-lah saya ada satu buku, entah macham mana saya di-tangkap oleh orang dan kemudian buku saya itu; belum lagi saya di-jail atau di-hukum, buku saya di-bakar-nya, Bichara saya ta' salah!

Apa hal jadi-nya kapada buku saya itu.

Orang kata, perkara ini kechil.

Ini lain soal, Tuan Yang di-Pertua.

Itu soal ke'adilan democracy.

Satu2 benda yang belum tentu salah benar-nya tidak-lah boleh di-pandang salah.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, di-sini baha gian yang ka-8 pechahan (iv): "for prohibiting him from addressing sharat ta' di-tangkap, di-kenakan-nya public meetings, etc Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Menteri yang bersangkutan dengan hal ini, ini fasal kuasa-nya, dia boleh tangkap kita dan dia boleh kita di-tahan.

Sa-tengah orang memahamkan, bila kita keluar maka dia pun boleh keluar dan mem ini.

Sa-benar-nya dia beri ta' di-tahan boleh tetapi ini sharat kapada-nya.
Sharat dalam bahagian (b) boleh pula di-pileh-nya ia-itu bahagian kechil (iv) itu sahaja.

Kata- nya, "awak ini tidak boleh bersharah, memegang ta' boleh".

Jadi, saya pun kalau orang itu bersharah dia ta' boleh; saya bukan suka hendak bersharah, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, tetapi di-dalam per- kembangan politik ini, bersharah ada- lah mustahak.

Jadi, kalau ini di-hadkan- nya dengan sebab security, maka akan terchabut-lah democracy, daripada sifat2 asasi yang telah di-berikan oleh Perlembagaan Tanah Melayu.
Jadi, kemungkinan Menteri, oleh kerana baik sangat, "saya ta' mahu tahan, ta' mahu apa", tetapi yang ini di-kenakan.

Ini akan me- nyebabkan kelumpohan bagi perkem- bangan politik di-negeri ini.

Jawatan-Kuasa pun Persekutuan Ini yang saya takut kalau salah guna.

Kalau salah guna, bila sa-saorang tidak dapat menjalankan kerja politik ini 1211 21 JUNE 1960 1212 dengan chara yang sehat maka pergi- lah dia menjalankan politik ini dengan chara yang tidak sehat.
Itu-lah saya berikan ingatan saya, Tuan Yang di- Pertua.

Dalam Fasal 9, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, di-nyatakan : "Whenever any person is detained under any order made under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of section 8 he shall, in accordance with Article 151 of the Consti tution, as soon as may be— (a) be informed of detention;" the grounds of his jadi "As soon as may be" ini ada-lah satu kesamaran, "as may be" 3 bulan, 6 bulan, boleh tangkap dahulu bechara kemudian pun satu jalan, Tuan Yang di-Pertua.
Sebab masa menangkap dia tidak mesti menyebut sebab-nya tetapi "as soon as may be" dia mesti menchari sebab2-nya.

Jadi saya ber- harap kapada Kerajaan supaya soal yang sa-macham ini beri-lah "definite time" supaya boleh mengelakkan kelambatan yang tidak mustahak yang akan menyebabkan Bill ini menuju kapada satu arah yang lain daripada arah yang telah kita buatkan pada hari ini.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sa-lain dari pada soal itu, dahulu di-dalam Dewan telah membahath dengan ini kita panjang berkenaan dengan "ill feeling and ill-will" dan sa-bagai-nya; lagi sa- kali kita berjumpa.

Di-sini tuan2 dari pehak Kerajaan boleh mengatakan telah di-persetujukan kalau perkara maka tidak boleh-lah di-bahath lagi sekarang ini.
Kalau di-dalam Per- lembagaan kita membuat perkataan2 yang luas maka boleh-lah di-fahami dan boleh di-pandang betul sebab tidak tepat dalam Perlembagaan berjela2 keterangan-nya, dalam undang2 yang berhajat kapada tegas- nya.

Saya risau, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ia-itu sa-lain daripada "ill-will" atau "hostility" ini akan di-gunakan bagi penekanan kapada faham politik.
Persatuan Islam Tanah Melayu mempunyai dasar memperjuangkan hak tidak kebangsaan Melayu, Kerajaan suka kapada dasar ini, maka terbuka- lah lapangan kapada Kerajaan meng- gunakan tujuan ini.

tetapi ini Tuan Yang di-Pertua, di-dalam mem- persetujui' Rang Undang2 ini, Persatuan Islam Tanah Melayu memegang apa yang di-chakapkan oleh Kerajaan bahawa dia tidak bertujuan hendak menchegah perkembangan politik yang sehat di-dalam negeri ini.

Sebab apa, Tuan Yang di-Pertua?


Kerana kita memikirkan kepentingan keselamatan negara.

Apa yang di-sharahkan oleh orang2 Persatuan Islam Tanah Melayu mudah sangat membawa kapada apa yang di-sebutkan di-sini.
ada satu perkataan Tuan Yang di-Pertua, di-dalam pindaan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dahulu saya maseh ingat ia-itu "hostility" di-tukar "violence" ia-itu perkataan yang sa-dikit sa-banyak-nya memberikan satu gambaran pada benda yang di-pandang salah, tetapi malang- nya apabila datang undang2 ini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Kerajaan tidak hendak memberi keterangan yang lebeh jelas, benda itu pun di-tarek balek sa-hingga tinggal-lah perkataan "feeling of ill-will or hostility".
Jadi, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, hal yang sa-macham ini tidak berapa terang, samar2 dan saya per- chaya kalau sunggoh-lah Kerajaan ber tujuan hendak menjaga demokrasi di- dalam negeri ini maka jangan sekali2 perkataan yang saperti ini di-gunakan bagi maksud menekan perkembangan Persatuan Islam di-dalam negeri ini.
di-Pertua, Tuan Yang dalam bahagian yang kedua daripada fasal itu ada satu perkara yang saya rasa tidak berapa sedap ia-itu: "An order under sub-section (1) may, if the order so provides, be extended so as— (a) in the case of a periodical publication, to prohibit the publication, sale, issue, circulation, possession or im future portation of any past or issue thereof;" Kata-lah Utusan Melayu atau Mujallah Mastika bukan main baik-nya, lima tahun "good service".
Akhir tahun yang kelima bulan December keluar satu issue yang tidak bagus yang salah pada pandangan Kerajaan dan salah pada undang2 ini dan thabit-lah salah-nya.

Pada ketika itu, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, mengikut bahagian (b) dia boleh pula menahan dan merampas benda yang sudah dahulu.

Apa-kah dosa-nya, apa- kah sebab-nya, oleh kerana perbuatan mereka pada hari ini maka yang dahulu di-bongkar2.
Ini pun, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, satu perkara yang saya rasa 1213 21 JUNE 1960 1214 terang2 berlawanan dengan undang2 ini.

tujuan Tuan Yang di-Pertua, di-bawah bahagian 29 "Possession of Subversive Document."

Di-sini pun tidak berapa terang, Tuan Yang di-Pertua.
Kata- nya: 'subversive document' means any document having in part or in whole a tendency"—(a)— (b}—(c) dan tentang (d) tersebut: section this "In "to bring into hatred, ridicule or contempt, or to excite disaffection against any public servant in the execution of his duties or any class of public servants or against any armed force lawfully in the Federation or any member of such force in the execution of his duties; .

.

.

. "
.

.

. "

Saya hak-nya perchaya Kita kata-lah Postman dalam masa'alah ini pada sakian haribulan umpama- nya telah memberi surat itu biadap— sudah subversive.

Jadi "any public servant" di-dalam menjalankan kerja- nya akan menyebabkan terok benar-lah ra'ayat menjalankan kerja negeri ini dan menjalankan untok menyatakan fikiran-nya kapada orang Timbalan ramai.

Perdana Menteri akan menjawab tidak- lah sampai ka-situ tujuan saya, tetapi undang2 ini tidak menahan sampai ka- situ.
Jadi ini satu perkara yang saya rasa undang2 ini ada mempunyai ke- longgaran2 yang mungkin salah faham dan merbahaya kapada yang ber lawanan.

Mungkin pula di-pegang oleh orang itu sakira-nya di-dapati bahawa— "0) to support, propagate or further the interests or aims of any unlawful society."

Apa nama-nya dia?

Menurut Undang2 Society bahawa tiap2 satu pertubohan yang belum mendapat pendaftaran maka dia itu not lawful.
Kata-lah sa-saorang itu atau tegas-nya orang kampong yang mana satu persatuan yang banyak orang2-nya maka dia berkata sendiri surat sementara dia menghantarkan kapada pegawai2 yang mengesahkan Pendaftaran Undang2 itu maka dia pun orang2 membuat siaran menyuroh masok menjadi ahli persatuan-nya, dan itu menjadi sub dengan sendiri-nya versive document.

Saya perchaya per kara itu tak sampai, tetapi siapa-kah boleh melarang undang2 itu?

Maka itu- lah yang menjadi soalan dalam melulus- kan sa-suatu-nya.
Kemungkinan ini mesti-lah ada "safe guard" atau kawalan yang memboleh- kan ra'ayat yang tidak ada penjaminan dengan subversive ini supaya dapat di-selamatkan dalam kebebasan mereka hidup dalam negeri ini, dalam bergerak, berkumpol dan berchakap dalam negeri saya pergi kapada ini.

Kemudian bahagian yang kedua ia-itu berkenaan dengan menentang terrorist.
Dalam hal menantang terrorist ini, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, kita tidak berapa tentu-lah risau sebab category atau jenis manusia yang di-sebutkan terrorist ada-lah kurang orang yang mungkin di-tudoh.

Maka apa yang ada dalam undang2 ini yang menerangkan bahawa boleh kita ma'afkan, kalau pun ia itu terkeluar sedikit sa-sudah batas ke bebasan hidup biasa.

Sebab kita ada- lah berhadapan dengan terrorist.


Walau bagaimana pun kalau ada kemungkinan di-lakukan kezaliman kapada orang yang kita rasa bukan diri-nya penjahat maka patut di- hendarkan dalam undang2 atau yang menjalankan undang2 ini.

sa-bagai dapat yang Fasal 53 kata-nya "the Minister" dengan sebab demikian "may take possession of any land", kerana maksud yang demikian.

Kemudian dalam dia hendak mengambil maka tidak pun di- sebutkan dalam undang2 itu apa2 atau procedure yang hendak di-buat-nya.
Saya risau, kerana menurut undang2 ini apabila di-ambil sa-suatu bangunan atau rumah maka di-bawah-nya ada di-buat suatu lembaga atau badan atau commission yang boleh kita merayu dalam satu2 waktu yang tertentu ia-itu "within 14 days".

Dalam bahagian 53 (1) tidak menyebutkan kalau dia hendak mengambil rumah itu mesti- lah di-beritahu kapada orang itu, dan kalau kita tahu security area itu di- dalam-nya meriam senapang menjadi unsor yang tegas.
Jadi, yang selalu-nya mengambil rumah orang itu bukan terrorist, kerana tak akan dalam hutan pula.

Umpama-nya dalam sa- suatu kampong yang hendak membuat camp bagi kegunaan tentera dan sa- ada-lah bagai-nya, maka memaksa berbuat demikian.
Apa-kah salah-nya dalam undang2 ini di-buat satu peratoran kalau kita hendak mengambil itu hendak-lah memberi notice kapada orang itu terlebeh dahulu keadaan dan 1215 21 JUNE 1960 1216 supaya dia tahu dan apabila dia tahu, kata-lah dalam masa 14 had, dia boleh kemukakan bantahan kapada commis sion, atau Board of Committee itu.
Satu daripada perkara yang me- mayahkan dan yang patut di-buat kawalan dalam undang2 ini, sebab kuat-kuasa undang2 ini ada pada tangan Menteri, ia-lah jika sakira-nya orang itu tidak ada dalam negeri yang mem- bolehkan notice sampai kapada-nya itu maka hendak-lah di-buat satu jalan supaya boleh di-panjangkan masa-nya, ter- ia-itu masa appeal, sebab kita paksa-lah mengambil risk security kerana hal itu lebeh panjang dan lebeh kuat supaya dia dapat menjalankan hak2 asasi-nya.
Saya sengaja mem- bawakan perkara ini kerana saya rasa mustahak-lah hak asasi manusia itu di-kawal, walau pun kita terpaksa ber- perang dengan terrorist.

Sa-telah saya menyebutkan darlam perkara ini tadi maka saya ingin mengemukakan kapada Tuan Yang di-Pertua bahawa kami menyokong Rang Undang2 ini demi kepentingan keselamatan negara, dan saya ulangkan peringatan yang di-beri tadi bahawa sebarang salah gunakan di-atas undang2 ini akan mengakibatkan satu perkara yang sebalek-nya.
Yusof Enche' Mohamed bin Mahmud (Temerloh): Tuan Yang di- Pertua, sa-telah negeri kita Merdeka, maka negeri kita di-kawal dengan satu undang2 menjaga keselamatan ia-itu Undang2 Dharurat.

Undang2 Dharurat ini telah berjalan 121/2 tahun.

Negeri kita telah Merdeka, maka undang2 ini tidak sesuai lagi kapada negeri ini, oleh se bab berkurang-nya perkara berkenaan dengan hal terrorist ini, maka tiap2 satu negeri yang Merdeka, wajib-lah me- ngadakan satu undang2 untok menjaga keselamatan-nya.
Maka undang2 yang ada di-hadapan kita hari ini, ada-lah satu undang2 untok tidak lain dan tidak bukan menjaga keselamatan negeri kita, sunggoh pun ada sa-orang Ahli Yang Berhormat mengatakan lebeh baik kita mengamalkan Emergency Regulations.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, pada fahaman saya Emergency Regula tions atau pun Undang2 Dharurat ada- lah berbeza.
Undang2 Dharurat ini ia- lah satu undang2 yang akan menyebab- kan pehak yang tidak bersangkut-paut menderita daripada tindasan undang2 itu, tetapi dalam undang2 yang baharu ini, kita tujukan undang2 ini kapada mereka2 atau pun sa-kumpulan mereka yang chuba hendak merosakkan ke- tenteraman negeri kita, kerana negeri kita pada masa ini banyak ra'ayat yang ta'at setia-nya belum kita ketahui de ngan betul.
Maka dengan sebab itu-lah undang2 ini sangat2 mustahak, kerana sa-kira-nya dalam negeri kita, ada orang2 yang kita tahu mengamalkan satu chara yang bertentangan dengan chara2 yang ada dalam negeri ini, satu daripada-nya ia-lah communist terrorist, ini dengan keadaan negeri kita yang berugama Islam.

bertentangan ada-lah terhad di-dalam kebebasan menulis Sa-orang sahabat saya daripada sa- belah pembangkang mengatakan dengan ada-nya undang2 ini, kebebasan ber- chakap, surat akhbar terancham.
Di-sini saya mengu- telah saya lang sa-bagaimana yang katakan dahulu ia-itu kebebasan kita ia-lah lengkongan undang2 negeri, bukan-lah kebebasan itu berma'ana kita boleh membuat suka hati.

Ada-kah sahabat saya itu tadi ma'anakan kebebasan ia-itu bebas mengeluarkan perkataan atau pun menchetak perkara2 yang boleh membangkitkan huru-hara dalam negeri ini?

Jadi, pada fahaman saya kebebasan itu leng ia-lah kebebasan di-dalam kongan undang2.
Tiap2 buah negeri ada undang2 untok menjaga keselamatan negeri-nya, bukan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu sahaja.

itu Sa-perkara lagi yang di-khuatirkan oleh sahabat saya daripada Setapak tanda2 atau pun berkenaan dengan tanda bendera serta pamphlet dan satu2 pertubohan yang boleh Kerajaan mengharamkan-nya.

Di-sini, Tuan Yang jikalau Kerajaan hendak mengharamkan itu, lebeh baik- lah Kerajaan mengharamkan parti-nya.
Saya sebutkan tanda itu ia-lah tanda2 yang tidak di-kehendaki dan yang luar daripada boleh menyebabkan ta'at setia atau keten- teraman negeri ini terancham.

di-Pertua, negeri yang ini Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya rasa undang2 di-tujukan ini kapada mereka2 yang ta'at kapada undang2, di-tujukan kapada mereka2 yang tidak takut, yang bukan-lah ia-lah tetapi 1217 21 JUNE 1960 1218 chuba mengancham dan mengachau negeri ini supaya negeri in huru-hara.
Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Saaid (Seberang Utara): Tuan Yang di- Pertua, saya bangun menyokong dengan kuat-nya di-atas chadangan yang di- kemukakan oleh Yang Berhormat Menteri Pertahanan.

Undang2 ini ada- lah berasaskan kapada tiga dasar.

Pertama, undang2 berkenaan dengan keselamatan negara, yang kedua, ber kenaan dengan tahanan untok kese lamatan dan yang ketiga mengawasi penyeludupan.

Parti Perikatan di-masa telah berjanji Pilehan Raya dahulu di-atas ia-itu keamanan, ke'adilan dan kema'moran.
Oleh yang demikian itu menjadi kewajipan bagi parti ini mengekalkan keamanan dan menjalankan sa-penoh2 ke'adilan untok menchapai maksud yang ketiga ia-itu memberi kema'moran kapada ra'ayat sebab-nya jelata negeri maka undang2 ini di-laksanakan oleh kerana hendak menggantikan Undang2 Dharurat.

tiga dasar Itu-lah ini.

ini menchabol hak Ada di-antara beberapa Ahli Yang Berhormat yang mengatakan bahawa undang2 asasi manusia dan hak kebebasan manusia.
Di-sini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya menarek perhatian Ahli2 Yang Ber hormat itu berkenaan dengan apa yang termaktub di-dalam Perlembagaan kita ia-itu "Fundamental Liberties" atau "Asas Kebebasan".

Daripada asas ini- lah di-bena kebebasan untok ra'ayat jelata, dan sa-benar-nya juga yang asas kebebasan ini terta'alok kapada undang2 yang berbunyi: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law."

dengan chara undang2 boleh di-beri kebebasan.


Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Ipoh juga menyebutkan tadi ber kenaan dengan kebebasan berchakap, kebebasan berhimpun dan kebebasan membuat persatuan2.

Di-sini Clause 2 ada menyatakan: "Parliament may make laws .

.

."

Parlimen di-benarkan sa-barang undang2 untok membuat mengawal keselamatan negeri ini.

Ada di-antara Ahli2 Yang Berhormat telah menyatakan ia-itu Preventive Detention dan juga kawasan untok keselamatan suka menarek tidak sesuai.
Saya perhatian Ahli2 Yang Berhormat sakalian 74 yang kapada Atikal mengatakan: "Without prejudice to any power to make laws conferred on it by any other Article, Parliament may make laws with respect to any of in the the matters enumerated Federal List or the Concurrent List (that is to say, the First or Third List set out in the Ninth Schedule).

Dalam Jadual Yang Kesembilan 3 (c) ada tertulis Preventive detention; res triction of residence.
Maka sebab itu- lah kita membuat undang2 berpandu- kan kapada Perlembagaan ini.

sahaja mereka Saya berasa khuatir ia-itu ada dua perkara yang saya rasa patut di-masok- kan dalam undang2 ini tetapi tidak di- masokkan.

Perkara ini jika tidak di- masokkan akan merbahayakan peme- rentah kita ia-itu pemerentah yang mengamalkan demokrasi dengan chara berparlimen.
Satu daripada-nya ia-lah berkenaan dengan pergerakan da'ayah2 falsu seluroh tempat untok menjatoh- kan Kerajaan atau hendak menche- roboh dasar demokrasi.

Saya berharap supaya Y.B.


Menteri Pertahanan me- ngambil berat di-atas perkara ini, kerana ra'ayat jelata tidak bagitu faham dari segi siasah dan tidak bagitu tahu hal- ehwal pemerentah sebab kebanyakan- nya boleh di-katakan buta huruf, maka itu dengan mudah menerima da'ayah2 falsu itu, dengan ini pehak yang hendak me- jalan sahaja runtohkan Kerajaan senang da'ayah2 untok menjalankan falsu mempengarohi jelata.

Yang ra'ayat kedua, saya minta juga Y.B.


Menteri Pertahanan mengambil perhatian ber kenaan dengan sumpah sulit yang dalam bahasa Inggeris-nya "rite".

Di- antara sumpah sulit ini ia-lah sumpah ta'at setia kapada pemimpin, ta'at setia kapada parti, ta'at setia kapada dasar dan ta'at setia kapada fahaman; ini satu perkara yang merbahayakan.
Kita ada mendengar keterangan2 yang jelas, konon-nya, di-adakan sumpah dengan junjong Koran dan ada yang menjunjong Bible dengan mengatakan "demi Allah" dan ada yang minum ayer sumpah dan sa-bagai-nya.

Perkara ini patut di-chegah, jikalau tidak, harus akan mendatangkan satu akibat yang burok di-masa hadapan kelak, negeri kita ini akan menjadi huru-hara.
Tuan 1219 21 JUNE 1960 1220 Yang di-Pertua, di-sini saya ingin menyatakan ia-itu pepatah Melayu ada berkata: "Jangan pisang berbuah dua kali" kita mengatakan perkara ini mustahil, tetapi sudah ada "Pisang berbuah dua kali".

Sejarah dapat membuktikan apa yang saya sebutkan di-sini berkenaan dengan pergerakan2 yang dahulu-nya telah berjalan di-seluroh Persekutuan Tanah Melayu ini daripada sa-belum perang dahulu.

Saya menarek perhatian kapada satu pergerakan yang 3i-nama- kan K.M.M.
dahulu—pergerakan sulit yang telah menjalar di-seluroh Perse kutuan Tanah Melayu ini.

Dan dengan chara sulit itu-lah mereka itu men- dapatkan pengaroh dan tujuan dasar- nya, pada dzahir-nya ada-lah untok membebaskan negara ini daripada pen- jajahan British.

Apa-kah telah jadi, K.M.M.

telah bekerja sama dengan memasokkan satu perjanjian dengan pemerentahan Jepun bagi melaksana- kan dasar "Dai toha nosento".

Kita maseh ingat lagi pergerakan K.M.M.


ini dengan menunjokkan jalan kapada tentera2 Jepun dan memberi rahsia kapada Jepun supaya senang masok negeri kita.

Sa-banyak 30,000 tentera Jepun dapat mengalahkan 100,000 tentera British.

Jika tidak ada persa- tuan yang sa-macham ini, tentu-lah sakali Jepun tidak dengan mudah-nya mena'alok Malaya ini.

Oleh yang demi- kian, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya meng- harapkan mesti-lah di-awasi dengan sa- kuat2-nya.
Dan di-samping itu, ada satu pula pergerakan komunis dengan ber jalan sulit sejak tahun 1933 atau 1932 kalau saya tidak salah.

Jadi, perge rakan itu berkembang dari satu masa ka-satu masa sa-hinggakan pada waktu itu pun Kerajaan British chukup me- ngawasi tetapi tidak dapat mengawal dengan sa-penoh2-nya kerana di'ayah mereka itu chukup kuat.

Dan berkem- bang-lah komunis dari satu masa ka- satu masa, waktu British dahulu dan waktu Jepun dan sa-hingga lepas perang.
Dan pada waktu lepas perang terdapat satu peluang yang chemerlang terbuka kapada pergerakan komunis untok mendirikan sa-buah Kerajaan komunis.

Di-sini, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya ingin membachakan untok penjelasan daripada "Standard Merdeka Souvenir", memberi ulasan perkembangan dan pergerakan komunis yang mengancham keselamatan negeri ini.

Dato' Onn bin Ja'afar (Kuala Trengganu Selatan): Tuan Yang di- Pertua, sa-belum Yang Berhormat itu membachakan-nya itu saya suka hen- dak menerangkan ia-itu K.M.M.
itu bukan sa-buah pertubohan yang telah di-haramkan oleh Kerajaan.

Pertu bohan yang telah di-haramkan oleh Kerajaan itu ia-lah "Angkatan Pemuda Insaf", bukan-nya K.M.M.

Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Saaid: Untok pengetahuan Ahli Yang Berhormat sakalian, saya ingin membacha bagai- mana-kah pergerakan komunis .

.

.. Mr. Speaker: Berapa panjang hendak di-bachakan itu?

Tuan Haji Ahmad bin Saaid: Tidak berapa panjang.

Saya mengambil sa- bahagian sahaja.

"Time was ripe" kepala-nya. "


TIME WAS RIPE for the In their frame of mind, anything that the Communists did was tolerated and conditions were rife implementation of Loi Tek's plan.

Almost results were the British Military clearly evident.

And in Administration which was so the enormous task of government had only a vague idea of what was going on.
immediately, involved the The sprinkling of political parties and the societies that grew up suddenly were merely looked upon as the inevitable awakening of nationalism.

It was altogether a unique situation.

Army majors and captains who in civilian life were clerks or found themselves discharging the duties of magis trates, district officers administrative officers.

factory hands suddenly and the end of 1946, the Communists had the field all to selves.
By parties and labour unions found deeply enmeshed in Communist Communist The atmosphere was ideal for intrigue and them the political themselves subterfuge.

influence was soon dominant in the more militant nationalist organisations the API like the Malay Nationalist Party, (Malay (peasants' (Malay Women's organisation) AWAS Awakening the Communist the Malayan Democratic brainwaves League.

party), PETA Party) like youths and With the battle cry of T i g ht the British,' the Communists rallied .

.

."
.

."

Mr. Speaker: Panjang nampak-nya itu!

12ll 21 JUNE L900 1222 Tuan Haji Altmad, bin Saids Sikit sahaja lagi .

.

.

• .

~ .

,, , the political parties to form a common front.

The, crystallization, ,of tbia united front the Pan-Malayan Council of Joint was A@n whioll ,'°oIJ.

c•ve tho, Qritish Cololial Government so ijlany llQXiQus momenw.
Although it was elearly a Communist inspiration, many top rankiug politicians of to-day, were unwittingly dr~wn into it, so potent was Loi Tek's plan in its execution. "

Jadi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua; dengan ada-nya perkara2 yang telah berlaku yang sa-macham itu, patut-lah kita mengawasi sunggoh2 supaya jangan jadi pisang berbuah dua kali saperti yang saya katakan tadi.
Lagi satu perkara bagi menarek perhatian Ahli Yang :BtPor~t jla kalian di-atas apa yang telah di·kata· kan oleh Chin Peng, waktu perjum paan-nya dengan Yang Teramat Mulia Tunku, Perdana Menteri di-Baling dahulu.

Kata-nya: "Sakali kami men jadi komunis, tetap terus jadi komunis".

Itu-lah kata-nya, oleh itu orang2 yang biasa terpengaroh oleh komunis dan faham komunis walau plUl , apa juga chorak fahaman pada batili-nya tetapi tetap sakali dia komunis.

Jadi, mcsti lah kita mengawasi di-atas perkara ini.
Ada pehak:2 yang konon-nya berasa churiga dan berasa bimbaag dan tak:ut, Kerajaan Perikatari atau Menteri yang bertanggong jawab itu salah gunakan Rang Undang2 yang kita hadapi ini.

lni perkara jangan-lah tuan2 bimbang, oleh kerana pemerentahan Kerajaan Perikatan ini ada-lah di-bawah pimpi nan orang yang chukup ada ikhsan dan rahim bukan sahaja kapada ra'ayat jelata bahkan kapada seteru yang ketat sakali ia-itu Chin Peng, Kepala Komu· nis seluroh Malaya pun.
D1-waktu per jumpaan Tunku dengan Chin Peng, ka lau Tunku hendak mengkhianat atau hendak menganiayakan, tetap sakali Tunku dengan mudah boleh menang kap Chin Peng dan kawan2-nya kerana tiada siapa boleh mengganggu tamba han pula tentera kita sa-waktu itu kuat tetapi Tunku tidak berbuat demikian.

"Apa yang di-kata.

kami kotakan, kami hendak berunding tetap berun· ding".

Jadi, sebab itu ta' payah di· cburigakan.


Kedua-nya banyak di antara pehak2 yang bersimpeti dengan pehak komuni~ bekerja sama dengan pellak kom'lltlis hendak: meruntohkan K~ajMn dan hendak menegakkan Kerajaan Komunis • .

• .

dan banyak di-antara mereka itu, telah pun menye.

rah diri , dan di-kawal.

Orang2 yang rnenyerah diri ini sa-tengah-nya di antara mercka itu di-beri layanan yang istimewa yang orang2 kampong yang ta'at setia pun tidak dapat.
Ini menun jokkan Kerajaan Perikatan tidak akan mcmalingkan kapada orangz yang telah mengkhianat atau chuba hendak: ini.

Lagi khianat kapada Kerajaan satu,· Tuan Yang di•Pertua, berkenaan dengan apa yang kita jalankan pada masa ini ia•lah, kesemua•nya mengikut dan berpandu kapada manifesto kita untok mcnegalckan keamanan, ke'adilan dan juga memberi kema'amoran ka .. pada ra'ayat dalam Semenanjong Tanah Melayu ini.

Sekian, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, terima kaseh.

(tepok).
(tepok).

- besar harapan Enche' Othman bin Abdullah (PerU.

Ubtra): Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya bangun menyokong penoh Rang Undang2 I<eselamatan Umum yang di bentapgkan, oleh Kerajaan atau pun yafi$ di-bel).tangkan oleh Menteri Per tahanan dan bersama2 itu mengaJu alukan Undang2 Dharurat yang akan di-tamatkan tidak lama lagi yang mana kapada memberi ra'ayat2 di-da~am negeri ini yang cbinta kan keamanan, ke'adilan dan ke ma'amoran di-masa yang ka-hadapan kelalc.
Kita sedar walau pun Undang2 Dharurat tamat, tetapi jiwa dan se mangat Parti Komun1s memang tetap tqmboh dengan subor-nya kalau tidak di~awasi dengan betul kerana gerakan subversive itu perjalanan-nya tumboh perjalanan samif Komunis2, kerana gerakan2 saperti itu bermula daripada pekan2 ka-kampongl bingga ka-pertubohan2 pekerja dan di dalam sekolah2 kemudian baharu-lah gerakan itu berjalan dengan lanchar nya semenjak tahun 1948 yang lalu.
Maka dengan sebab itu-la~ sa-bagai ra'ayat yang chintakan keamanan, ke'adilan dan kem,a'amoran tanah ayer kita ini tentu sa-kali menyambut dengan rasa penoh hati dan rasa riang dan gembira.
dengan sahaja Mengaleh p\lla kapada undang2 baharu-Undang2 Keselamatan, yang 1223 21 JUNE 1960 1224 ia-itu di-bentangkan oleh· Menteri yang· ber· kenaan, Perlis khas-nya kawasan yang di-sebutkanl oleh Menteri yang bor• kenaan, akan di-jadikan · satu tawasan yang merbahaya, terbayang-lah kapada saya bahawa di-kawasan tanah yang di-buka oleh tanah ra'ayat baharu yang sedang giat di-usahakan oleh ra'ayat beberapa tahun yang lalu yang bertanam getah~ sayor-sayoran, pisang, ubi, tembakau dan fainl-nya yang mana kawasan itu terpaksa di jadikan suatu kawasan yang merbahaya dan terbayang-lah kapada saya babawa boleh jadi di-antara pcmdudokl di•situ yang berusaha berbagai2 perusahaan itu akan terpaksa · mengikut hukuman ia•itu berpindah kduar.
Tctapi walau bagaimana pun saya .perohaya demi kepentingan dan keselamatan· ·negara kita untok: melancharkan gerakan melawan subversive · dan gerakan Kominis ini dengan lebeh chepat-nya l~gi, saya perchaya-lah pendl!dok2 .di s1tu akan keluar semua §·bli.

· · saudara2 saya Tadi beberapa banyak hu)ahl :tetah di-keluarkan oleh pehak pembangkang yang merasa ragu2 tentang UJ;1dang2 tadi.

takut salah di-gunakan.

Sa.ya juga menyertai hujah2 yang telah di-berikan oleh tadi .
biiliawa memang-lah bagi · Kerajaan kita, Kera jaan Perikatan, tidak akan mengabai2- kan bagaimana dasar-nya ia-itU dasar keamanan dan ke'adilan yang telah di tumpahkan keperchayaan · .

aleh.

tiga suku ra'ayat, hampir2 9Q · peratus pendudok Tanah Melayu ini kapada Kerajaan Perikatan yang memerentah Tanah Melayu pada hari ini.
Pada masa sa-be•um Merdeka dabulµ Undang2 Dharurat atau tangkapan atau tahanan di-jalankan kapada mana2 pertubohan politik yang di-~ramkan; tetapi fada hari jalankan ini kita itu ia-itu menchegah gerakan undang ia-itu gerakan2 yan,g ~i­ subversive salorkan .

melalui penuntut2 dan per tubohan2 orang ramai.

J adi gerakan2 yang tersebut kita perlu perhatikan kerana daripada gerakan2 ini-lah yang akan .

menimbulkan perselisehan besar di-dalam tanah ayet.
kita yang mem· bawa pergadohan dan e_erselisehan di· antara kaum2 dan part12 yang ada di dalam tanah ayer kita ini.

Sekian-lah sahaja dan saya ulangi menyokong dengan sa-penoh2-nya undang2 baharu ini dan mengahi2kan <kmg&A sa•penoh nya undang2 lebeh menyelamatkan lagi bangsa dan ke turunan kita di-masa yang atan datang.

Sekian-lah, Tuan Yang di·Pertua.

ini yang.


akan Encbe' Lim Kean Siew (Dato Kramat)t Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to my feet With great fear in my heart after listening to the teamed discourse on law by our Honourable Member for Seberang Utara.

As I remember it, the Honourable the Minister of Finance did say ·the other day that the more un qualified a person is the mote voci ferous he is.

I believe the Honourable Member· for Seberang Utara has proved to be no exception that rule (Laughter).

.
.

to · E~dle' Ta· Siew Sin: Mr. Speaker, Sir; bD a· point of explanation, it was not meant to apply to.

all human beings.

Enebe' Liat Kean Siew: I know, Sir, that he did· not intend ic-to apply to evecybod:r and I suppose he must have excluded the Honourable Member for Seberang Utara !

Mr. Spealer: ·Proceed!

Enche' 'Lim Kean Siew: In fact, we have to-day witnessed a very unusual scene.
The Honourable Member for Ipoh is usuaD.y the persoo who is most emphatic abOut questions of law, but in this case the Honourable Member for Seberang Utara has overshadowed the Honourable Member for Ipoh, now coming into this Chamber.

The other point is the unusual pheno ~enon of the ~.M.1.P.

speaking up for this Bill and supporting it.

It is sur the .. preamble says, prising because ~Now therefore PURSUANT to Article 149 of the· Constit6tion :SE IT EN ACTED''~this Bill.

If I remember.
If I remember.

the Honourable ·Member for Bachok was most vociferous against the amendment to Article l 49 of the Constitution; This is very unfortunate indeed because the P.M.l.P.

is standing up in s1ipport of the Bill enacted under an amended Article, the amendment to which they have Voted against.

They, in fact, ought to· be speaking against the Bill instead of supporting the P.M.l.P.

supports this Bill, they object to its provisions.

How can one support it.


But though - - - - - -------------------------------------~ ... 21 JUNE.

t960 1226 course,, J .

am.

quite right because this Bill is '()Cl)llling intm force.

1225 the Bill and object to its .

provisfons?

This is equivalent to the case Of a person who says, "Well, Sir, I like you: but I do not like your face, I do not like your nose, 1 do not like how you walk, I do not like the way you speak, I do not like your behaviour-in fact I do not like you at all/' .

(Laughter).
(Laughter).

Of course, it may be quite possible that the P.M.I.P.

has not really read through this Bill at all, because had they done so they would have spoken against the Bill and had they done so they would that those arguments have realised which they have against the provisio11s of this Bill are .

valid, are good, are proper and are correct; that they have not spoken against this Bill is either because they have had no time really to make up their minds or ·they do not quite understand in Parliament.
If one supports this Bill.

one votes for this Bill ..

If one votes for this Bill, one votes for all the provisions ~ of this Bill.

If we vote for all the provisions of this Bill, we vote for all the sections of this Bill; but.

if we disagree even with one section of this Bill, we must vote against the Bill.

We are not asked to vote .

for this Bill section by section.

The House is asked to approve this .

Bill or to reject .

this Bill, and if the P.M.l.P.

have so much against this Bill.


I think it would be logical-if by "logical'' they mean the same thing as myself _.:.for them to reject that .

very .. eloquent Honourable Member for Bachok stood up this morning saying that he supports this Bill.

but in fact goes on to ·criticise · its provisions.

the .

procedure it.

Yet Now, if we will remember, during the last session, the Honourable Member, who calls himself "the Member from the town of great peace".
rose up to speak for the fi'rst time at any length.

I hope he has not gone ba~k to sleep again.

He said.

this: "At least the cancer of the Emergency is being re moved and by July the 31st we are going to have a gloriQus new era.

'~ I warned that in fact a s~tre might arise from the ashes and I did gay, "I pro phesy that another Bill or Ordinance will take the place -0f the Emergency Regulations",and I believe-the Honour able the Minister of the Interior stood up and said, '1You are quite right".
Of Th~ Honotirable ' Member from Taiping.

·le) give him his proper name, did say that, '_'We do not dance to the tune of the Tengku"-which Tengku he' meant.

J do not know-,.J presume he inearit of course the .Honourable the Prime Mhµstet, himself.

Mr.· Speaker.

Sir.

this time it .d0es not happen to be the Tengku who is calling the tune, but the Hono.urable the Deputy Prime Minister.

Will he now dance to the tune of the H.onourable the Deputy Prime ' Mmister?'

· ·<· · , .
· ·<· · , .

Acwally this Bill, if one looks at it very -carefully, is divided into two parts.

A~.

the Hon9urable the Deputy Prime Minister has said thi~ morning, the ~t part .

of, this Bill deals with ·sub versi(iln, .with publication, with speech, with all political ·organisations and with little school boys; the other section Part II-deals with armed insurrection, with terrorism and with disturbances of what is.

generally known as the lawful order.


Now, practically everyone has stooo up this morning to support this Bill, because they ate against terrorism.

J say this, ''Yes, if you believe that you are correct, then you support Part II of the Bill and not Part I, because Part I does not, and I e~phasise it.

does not deal with terrorism.

As some one has· pointed out to me quite correctly this morning, this Bill has only two faults.
This Bill permits breathing 'without permission, this Bill permits thinking without permission except that it has gone a long way towards the control of thought.

Suppress these two things and the Bill would have been perfect.

I would go farther than that.

I would say that on the whims of .

one man will lie the political destiny of Malaya.

The colour of his personality will stain the face of Malaya and the condition of his liver when he wakes up in the morning may decide the liberty of our subjects.
The Bill may be 'harmless whilst the present Deputy Prime Minister is the Minister respon~ sible for the maintenance of Internal· Security, because we may all like him, but supposing the Assistant Minister of Information (Laughter), then what will· happen?

The other day the Assistant Minister of Information it is ·,- 1227 - 21 JUNE.

1960 1228 stated quite clearly that there are spies and traitors.

to tho Government · in Radio Malaya.


I understand-of course, I am not prepared to vouch for it, not like the Honourable Member for Ipoh who may have better sources of infor mation-that now the people in Radio Malaya walk about in great fear.

I understand that when they have to go downstairs to the bathrooms, they even leave the doors open for fear.

.

.

.

.

.

Mr. Speaker: How is that relevant?

(Laughter).


Encbe' Lim Kean Siew~ Sir, sometimes it may not be, but some times it is relevant in the sense that to the personality of the according Minister, fear may be cteated, since too much power is given or is put irito the hands of the Minister concerned f-O'r the time being.

However, I think I have made my point.

There is no need to press too hard on the Assistant Minister of Information.

Now, we must remember that there is a well-known saying.
"All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Let us now hope that the Government in its attempt to stop terrorism, as it puts it, will not use· that attempt to terrorise the people.

Let us remember that what we are doing by this Bill is to introduce a new principle of law-that by an ordinary law of the land, power is now taken out of the Courts and is put into the hands of the Executive.

Let us remember that if we approve this Bill, the question of the supremacy of law will be destroyed.
Let us remember that the inspiration of our Constitution is based; upon the Magna Charta which states that let no man be deprived of his liberty of life or limb except through the judgment of his peers-in other words, by the judg ment of the people.

What could have been tolerated under an Emergency is now being made a permanent feature of the law in this land.

You may think that what I say is an exaggeration.

Therefore, to.
Therefore, to.

run before my own argu ment, for instance, I would like to read Clause 31 of this Bill : "Where proceedings are taken in respe~t of any offence against this Chapter .
the Court by or before whkh the alleged offender is tried shall, on the request .of any rank of poiice officer not below the Assistant Superintendent of Police, on the final determination o{ those proceedings that any ~ument, publication, order material or article being art exhibit in such proceedings be delivered to such officer for disoosal under sub•section (2) of section 30.r' Now, the word "shall"-not "may" me.ans that any police officer of the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police or above may order our Chief Justice to do an act against the Judge's incli nation.
therefore, not only are we subjected to the indignity at the whim of any police officer but also our Chief Justice and Judges of our Courts, our Presidents and our Magistrates, can in fact be ordered, whilst in Courts over which they are supposed to have con trol, by a little police officer to do what they may not want or like to do.

The danger of unqualified politicians who are untrained, is obvious, but the danger of a bumptious police officer who is untrained in law, is sometimes not known.
It would seem that if we approve this Bill we may be opening the doors to executive control over our political destiny.

Whilst I am .not quarelling with the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister on the question of the need to bring about law and order in this country, we must not forget that Part r of this Bill is not directed towards that end.

Now, in order to understand the implications and the far-reaching effects of this B~ll.

I would have to refer to certain sections of it.


Let us first take the preamble, which has been referred to by our Honourable Member from lpoh, and that reads: a taken action has been "Whereas action has been taken by a substantial body of persons .

.

.

.

.

And and Whereas threatened by substantial body of persons .... " You will note that the language, the grammar, is "has been taken" or ''has been threatened" and not "is being threatened" or "is being taken".
In other words, we may even say "Whereas action has been taken by a substantial body of persons in 1850," it is necessary to approve this Bill, and if we look forward we can then say.

"Whereas a substantial body of persons have threatened the peace and security of Malaya: in 1950," in.

1999 this Bill is still necessary.

It sounds very nice 1229 21 JUNE 1960 1230 for the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister to say, "Well, you know, if you do not like this Bill, it can always be revoked by resolution".
But he did not say that to revoke it we need the proper resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, as to Article 149 states that before this Bill can be revoked it has got to come before to be approved by the two Houses.
two Houses and the amendment the the height of Now, even at the Emergency, when General Sir Gerald Templer was in command—he who brought about the curse of the new villages of Malaya—he never attempted to make the Emergency Regulations that Regulation was permanent; brought before the Legislative Council or Parliament year after year to be renewed and the term of that Ordinance was that if it was not renewed it would die of itself at the end of a year and be of no effect.
But in this case, the principle is completely different, that is to say, if it is not revoked it will live forever.

It might be said that even if it is to last forever there would be no need to be alarmed.
But one has to be alarmed because Clause 5 (1) states: "If the members or adherents of any incorporated association of persons, whether or not, are—" That means any association, not any political association, even if it is a debating society, will come under the provisions of this Bill; even a bird watching association or a bee watching association will come under this Bill.

Then we come to (b) which says: "If the members or adherents of any association of persons, whether incorporated or not.
are— for there (b) organised or trained"—that sounds very nice—"or equipped either the purpose of enabling them to be employed for force the use or display of physical in promoting any political"—then comes the difficult part— "or other object"— that means not political object; is a distinction here—"or in such a manner as to arouse reasonable apprehension that they are organised or trained or equipped for that purpose;" Therefore, according to this para graph, if you display physical force for any object, if you display physical force in promoting any object, you come under this provision.
In other words, if you go on to the streets in a to a body and make a lot of noise or climb trees, you are organised for a display of physical force, since you cannot climb trees without physical force— you cannot lie down on your back to go up if you are tree—and organised to climb trees, you come under this section, and this section says that you will be entitled to imprison ment for a term of not more than one year, or to a fine of two thousand dollars, or to both.
So for climbing a tree you can be sentenced to imprison ment, and you can be fined up to a maximum of two thousand dollars.

You might say that I am exaggerating, that I am making the objects too wide, but I am not because the Bill gives an exemption to certain persons thereby making all others subject to its provi sions.

And who are those persons?

They are stewards.


Under-sub-section (7) of the same section 5 on page 7, it is stated: "Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the employment of a reason able number of persons as stewards at any public meeting held upon private premises those with the permission of the owner of premises, This clause is so wide that you have to put down a special clause to exempt even the stewards.

.

.

."
.

.

."

Section 5 of this Bill, sub-section (1) reads— "If the members or adherents of any association of persons, whether incorporated or not, are—" —any association (not any political association), any association, even a photographic association, comes under this Bill; a debating society comes under this Bill; even a bird-watching association or a bee-watching associa tion, comes under this Bill.

Anyway, if members of any association of persons, whether incorporated or not are— .

.

."
.

."

equipped trained or "(6) organised or either for the purpose —it sounds very nice, the first part of it— " .

.. organised or trained or equipped either for the purpose of enabling them to be employed the use or display of physical force in promoting any political .

."

—then comes the not so nice part— for " .

.. or other object .

.

."


—"or other object" may mean non- this clause political object, because 1231 21 JUNE 1960 1232 distinguishes itself dealing with political objects— from the clauses to that they apprehension " .

.. or in such a manner as to arouse reasonable are organised or trained or equipped for that purpose."

Now, if you display physical force for any object, if you display physical force in the promoting of any object, then you come under this Section.
In other words—I the repeat—if we go streets in a body and make a lot of noise, or climb trees, we are organised for a display of physical force, because you don't climb trees without physical force!

(Laughter).
(Laughter).

You can't lie down on your back and get up a tree, and of course you have got to use physical force to go up a tree, and if you are organised to climb trees, you come under this Section, and if you do that, it says you will be liable to imprison ment for a term of not more than one year and/or to a fine of $2,000.

So, for climbing a tree, you can be sen tenced imprisonment!

(Laughter).

But you might say I am the exaggerating, that I am making I am not, objects too wide.
But because an exemption to certain persons.

And who are those persons?

.

Stewards—what they call "boys"—because sub-section (7) of Section 5, at page 7, provides— "Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the employment of a reason able number of persons as stewards at any public meeting held upon private premises with the permission of the owner of those premises .

.

.

".
.

.

".

You see, it is so wide that they have to put down a special clause to exempt stewards, even "boys"—or stewards—can be arrested and sentenced to one year's imprison ment because he happens to be present there.

the Ordinance to one year's otherwise because gives Then, you might well argue that if you are not there you won't get into trouble; why should you be there?

But the Bill has also taken care of that, because even if you are not there, you can be held responsible.
I will read this the same section: to you—sub-section (4) of "In any criminal or civil proceedings under this section proof of things done or of words written, spoken or published (whether or not in the presence of any party to the adherents of in organising, proceedings).
By any person taking part in the control or management of an association training or equipping or members or adherents of an association shall be admissible as evidence for the purposes for which, or the manner in which, members or association were the organised or trained or equipped."
In other words, you may be away in Japan, having a nice holiday, and somebody has merely climbed a tree in Penang; but you may be charged for the tree climbing offence on your shouts return; "Merdeka" from the tree, that state ment can be used against you in your trial.

somebody and if else.

Again, you might say: "Oh, well, that is all right!"

We will not argue over small points.


But the Bill has It has introduced something introduced what the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister has stated as a provision to prevent crime.

Now, Mr. Speaker, normally, in this country, if a person has not committed a crime, he cannot be punished, because, as they say, there is a big gulf between thought and action.

Many of us in our anger may think of shooting someone, of knocking him on the head.

That is not a crime.


It is only a crime when you begin to try and knock somebody the on the head.

In this Bill, even thought is crime (N.P.)

Section 59 (3) very clearly states— " "Any person who whether within or out side a security area provides, whether directly, or indirectly, any supplies to any other person in circumstances which raise a reasonable presumption that " .

.. within or outside a security area .

.

.

".


Malaya is divided now into two areas: a security area and a non-security area, so that any person who is within Malaya "provides directly or indirectly .

.

."

That means if I give to my Honourable friend from Tanjong a piece of cake any place in Malaya and he takes it and he meets a man who is a terrorist sympathiser and gives him terrorist sympathiser gives that piece of cake to a terrorist who is arrested on his way to a security area.
We will all be liable.
So now it seems, you can't even give a piece of cake to anybody on his birthday (Laughter)— the cake, and that "Any person who whether within or outside a security area provides, whether 1233 21 JUNE 1960 1234 directly, or indirectly, any supplies to any in circumstances which raise other person a reasonable presumption that such other person intends, or is about, to act, or has recently acted, in a manner prejudicial to public security or the maintenance of public order, Of course what the last phrase exactly means I do not know— .
.

."

" .

life:" .. or that the supplies so provided for the use of any person who intends or is about, so to act, or has recently so acted, or that such supplies are intended for the use of any terrorist, shall be guilty of an offence against this part and shall be liable to imprisonment for Give a piece of cake to a friend and we may all go into prison for life, on a presumption which the security forces say is reasonably suspect.

But how many men are really reasonable?


So, you see, Sir, this Bill, although we may accept the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister intended against armed that insurrection, we cannot agree with him that its implications do not go far wider.

the explanation of is it And since this Bill has a tendency of lasting for ever, we have to consider the probable effects of an order made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on any person, under their Bill.
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong under this Bill has power to make an order of detention of two years.

Other than that, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong can prohibit any person from doing anything at all on the advice of his Minister, so that if our bathroom is next door and we are confined to our house under that order, we cannot use that bathroom.
It says so under section 8: "If the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied with respect to any person that, with a view to preventing that person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaya or any part thereof, it is necessary so to do, the Minister shall make an order— (a) directing be detained for any period not exceeding two years; or person such that (b) for all or any of purposes, that is to say— the following (i) for imposing upon that person such in restrictions as may be specified the order in respect of his activities and the places of his residence and employment; (ii) for prohibiting him from being out of doors between such hours as may the order, except be specified in (iii) for requiring him under the authority of a written permit granted by such authority or person as may be so specified; to notify his movements in such manner at such to such authority or times and person as may be specified in the order; (iv) for prohibiting him from addressing from holding public meetings or office the in in, or activities of or acting as adviser to any organisation or association, or from taking part in any political activities; taking part (v) for prohibiting him travelling beyond the limits of the Federation from So, these the Minister can do all things—prevent us from even using our bathroom legitimately under this order provided he can satisfy the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
There is no appeal against such an order and I dare the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister to show where there is an appeal under this Bill!

We have heard a lot of words about Advisory Boards, three months, six months and so on, in practice the Minister seldom listens to the Advisory Boards; anyway, I believe or suspect, is nothing more than a sop to ease our conscience when we are asked to vote for this Bill.
that provision, You might think that these are all the evils I have to say about such a Ministerial order of restriction.

By no means.

There is something even worse.

Under section 10, the Minister may suspend this order for as long as he wishes, on conditions he wishes to impose.
The Bill says: in "At any any person time after an order has been made under respect of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of section 8 the Minister may direct that the operation of such order be suspended subject to the execution of a bond and to such condi tions''— as are laid out in the Bill.
The Minister may direct that the operation of such an order be suspended subject to con ditions as the Minister sees fit; and then, the Minister may revoke any such direction if he is satisfied that the person against whom the order was made has failed to observe any condi tion so imposed or that it is necessary in the public interest that such direction should be revoked.
1235 21 JUNE 1960 1236 Now, the Minister has the right to suspend and the right to remove the suspension, and on such suspension the original order of restriction would apply.

What can this mean in practice?

If the Government disapproves of a person, the Executive may recommend that the person be restricted to Penang or Johore Bharu; we may then appeal to the Minister, and the Minister may say: "All right, we will suspend that order provided you do not speak at all at public meetings."
So the person agrees and says "All right, I won't speak at all at public meetings."

But since there is no time limit to such a suspension the suspension can go on year after year, for the rest of that person's life, since there is no time limit.

Mr. Speaker: The time is up now!

(Laughter).

then revoke long, he may Enche' Lim Kean Siew: I will just finish on this part of the Bill: this part has no time limit (Laughter).
If the Minister, at the end of ten years, thinks that his suspension has gone on too the suspension of the order, in which case the original order of restriction is then revived and for perhaps another ten years the person may be under bond or under restriction.

At this stage of our nations development is it possible to have a natural and proper growth of political activity with such a Bill?

I think not.

And perhaps my Honour able friends will, during their lunch, consider this point.
With your per mission, Sir, I wish to continue after lunch.

Sitting suspended at 1.00 p.m.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair).

THE INTERNAL SECURITY BILL Debate resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time".

Question again proposed.


Enche' Lim Kean Siew: Mr. Speaker, Sir, to repeat where I ended before lunch, under section 8 and section 10 we have already noticed that there is no time limit given to the order and law there to remind the Honourable there is no appeal either from the order itself or the suspension of the order made by the Minister.

I would like now, Sir, to emphasise another point with regard to this question of deten tion orders.
The Honourable Deputy Prime Minister has stated this morning quite categorically that he can see no reason why the House should be so upset because the Bill is introducing nothing now.

"Why," he said "we have that in India."

Yes, but I should the like Deputy Prime Minister that in India there is the habeas corpus so that if a person has been detained by the order of the Minister, the order of the Minister can be challenged in the court by habeas corpus.

Now, habeas corpus is a prerogative right.


The habeas corpus is to safeguard and protect the rights of the citizen and to put it beyond the powers of a Minister to curtail such is no rights.

Under our habeas corpus that can be applied in such orders of detention; this Bill does not say that the Minister must act "reasonably" or the Minister should act "judicially," but merely that the Minister may make orders.
In other words, if the Minister wishes to act unreasonably, he may do so without right of judicial challenge.

Now, I am not saying he will do so, but that he may do so.

And he may do so with impunity since, if a person's act cannot be challenged by any authority or in front of any other authority, if a person cannot be called to answer for his acts, he can always with impunity say: "I acted reasonably and under this Ordi nance, and I do not see why any person should complain.
After all I am not an unreasonable man.

I am a very reason able man, otherwise I would not be a Minister, and I do not see why people should complain and say that I have not acted reasonably."

Whether a person has acted reasonably or not, one ought always to be able to challenge his reasonableness in front of a judi cial tribunal, and this Act does not allow for a judicial tribunal.

So we can never be sure of the Minister's reason ableness.
that There is another peculiarity in this Bill, under this Bill a person can both be tried criminally and be detained for 1237 21 JUNE 1960 1238 the same offence.

Section 21, on page 14 of the Bill, reads as follows: "The detention of any person under this Chapter shall be without prejudice to the taking of any criminal proceeding against such person, whether during or after the period of his detention."
It is a cardinal principle of our law that no man shall be tried twice and no man shall be punished twice for the same offence.

It would appear to me that this section 21 is going to break that cardinal principle of our criminal law, because it says here that even if a person is detained he can be tried also for a criminal offence, and not only can he be tried whilst he is being detained but he can also be tried after his detention.
Therefore, let us take this instance: if a person has been detained for two years for a crime to which he could have been sentenced for two years, he can then be detained for two years and then tried and sentenced to another two years, which would there fore make his punishment one of imprisonment or detention of four years.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the members of the Government whether they consider that this was in fact what the Ministry intended or was this Bill done in a hurry and therefore there has been this error.

Or is it because the Ministry is demanding for itself greater powers than it would want us to believe it is asking for?
Section 28 reads—here I would sug gest that even if you cause somebody a headache you can be guilty of a criminal offence because it says— "Any person who, by word of mouth or in writing or in any newspaper, periodical, book, circular or other printed publication or by any other means spreads false reports or makes false statements likely to cause public alarm or despondency, shall be guilty of an offence against this Part."

Now, the word "despondency" means a depression.


In other words, I may stand up in Bukit Bintang Park to night and I may make a speech.

To morrow five people can go to the police listening to station and say: "After Mr. Lim Kean Siew's speech we all got a headache; we were very despondent and we could not sleep."

Dato' Suleiman: I assure you they will!

(Laughter).

Enche' Lim Kean Siew: You might!

(Interruption).

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed!


Enche' Lim Kean Siew: Once any person by word of mouth makes state ments which may not be quite correct, and therefore false, and gives a head ache to some people, he may become a criminal for causing such headaches.

I did not realise certainly that an is caused because you cause offence despondency amongst certain members of the public.

But there you are, that seems to section 28 which, as we are going to to approve approve.
this Bill, we are going law according to be the It was stated by the Deputy Prime Minister this morning that this Bill is aimed at terrorist activity and people aiming to overthrow the Government by force.
I would like to suggest that that is perhaps too simplified a way of looking at this Ordinance, because section 29 says quite clearly that if any person has in his possession or under his control any subversive document, he shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars.

So, if you have a subversive document in your possession you can go to prison for five years.
And sub-section (3) says that "subversive document" means "any document having in part"—not whole, "in part" which means one sentence or even one word—"or in whole a tendency to support, propagate or fur ther the interests or aims of any unlaw ful society".
In other words—I would like/ to use again my illustration—if we belong to a bird watching society and we have documents referring to the bird watching society and the bird watching society loses its licence, then any docu that society will ments relating become refers to an unlawful docu ments of that society.
Now if you have those documents in your possession you can go to jail for five years; and it would certainly not please me if the Minister stands up and assures that he will not arrest me, because I may have his word but I have not the word of his successor, if there may be a successor (Laughter).
to 1239 21 JUNE 1960 1240 Of course, our argument against this Bill is that it is not only a Bill against terrorists activity but a Bill which gives the Ministry powers wider than that required and I would like the Minister to consider this point, because under section 32, for example, power is given to the Minister to demand that infor mation be given to the Minister on any public exhibition, and if any person fails to make a report, or makes a report which is incomplete, he shall be guilty of an offence which will make him liable to imprisonment for a term of three years; and this section reads, i.e.
section 32 (1)— "The promoter and every person con cerned in the promotion of any entertainment or exhibition and the proprietor of any premises upon which any such entertainment or exhibition is held or is intended to be held shall upon the order in writing of the Minister or of any officer authorised by the the Minister Minister or such officer such information as he may specify relating to the following matters: that behalf furnish to in (a), (b), (c) and (d) such other matters as the Minister may direct."
do with suppression Therefore, (d) makes (a), (b) and (c) irrelevant because clause (d) says that the Minister may demand for any information as he wishes on any public exhibition.

What has that got to of the terrorist activity?

It does not limit itself to a political exhibition.

It does not exhibitions limit encourage which It does not political dissemination.
even limit itself in any way to any public performance of any importance because says "entertainment or exhibition and the proprietor of any "Any premises".

premises" means in front of any person, anywhere, relating the that Minister may wish to find out.

any matter even likely itself are to to to it in to We come now to the last part—Part II of this Bill.

Part II deals with ter the rorist activities as such.
If, opinion of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, public security is being threatened in any area, he may declare that area to be a security area and so on.

Anybody going in and out of that area without permission is liable to be shot; anybody found there with arms is liable to death penalty.

That part in fact contains nothing new.

The words "special area" the present "black is equivalent area".

This deals with black areas where troops are operating and, of course, measures are very strict there.
Now, since this part is exactly the same as that contained in the Emergency Regu lations, how, may the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister kindly tell us, has the Emergency in fact ended?

How is it that this cancer, as an Honourable the Government side Member from said, will be removed by the 31st of July?

They say a rose by any other name is still a rose.


A cancer by any other name, I am sure, is still a cancer, and the Emergency Regulations under any other name are still Emergency Regulations, except that in this case the Emergency has taken permanent form to be dealt with by a permanent law that is not subject to yearly review.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, there is one signifi cance in this, and it is that Part II, which deals with terrorists, allows trials in our ordinary courts of law with the the recourse of appeal normal highest court of the land, although the first part which deals with the so-called subversive elements, or people, as the Assistant Minister of Information has said, who are disloyal to the Govern ment, meaning the Alliance, there is no such legal recourse and persons can be detained by orders which are subject to no appeal in any court of law of the land.
to Mr. Speaker, Sir, we also notice, apart from the power the police have in a court, the powers they have elsewhere under this Ordinance.

Under this Ordi nance, a police officer, if he has reason to suspect, may search or go into any premises for the purposes of discovering a crime under this Ordinance.

As this has been dealt with by the previous speakers and I shall not speak on it any further.
It would appear, therefore, that a person who carries arms has at least a greater chance to obtain justice than a person, who may have carried an in offensive and innocent document in his pocket.

We all know that if one carries a gun, one is liable to kill somebody and, therefore, unless there is a proper excuse or lawful reason, one should not carry a gun or use it.
But that is 1241 21 JUNE 1960 1242 not a new thing which we have just discovered to-day, or during the period of the Emergency, and we already have laws dealing with this namely, the Penal Code.

Our Penal Code follows the Indian Penal Code and—here I would like to emulate my Honourable friend, the Deputy Prime Minister and say—why should we not follow Indian law?
Our Penal Code allows for punishment with death for treason after a man has been tried by the ordinary Court of the land, why then have a duplication of the law by this Bill, with special exemptions to enable police officers a freer and more unrestricted hand—especially when the Govern ment is proudly proclaiming that the Emergency is ending—after the period of the Emergency?
And you might understand why the Government prefers this Bill—if we refer to this Part— because if any person is shot or killed in a security area, there is no need for a coroner's inquiry as is required under our Criminal law, since death under this Ordinance precludes a coroner's inquiry.

It may be argued, that it is unnecessary to have a coroner's inquiry as this is a matter dealing with the security area and peace is threatened.
But have we not heard of any person being shot by mistake in a black area due to some careless handling of weapons?

Why should a death in a security area be pre cluded from a coroner's inquiry?

If we are afraid that people may know about the death, the coroner's inquiry in- camera with the public excluded, but why preclude a coroner's inquiry?
then we can have Now, we must remember that we should not think that if we approve this Bill, it will not affect us and, therefore, it does not matter; because if we approve this Bill, we are introducing new methods, new principles, into the ordinary law of our land.
Take, for example, Clause 57 of this Bill, which says that a person, if he is found carrying a gun, shall be presumed to have intended to use it in a manner to public security or the prejudicial maintenance of public order; and that a person shall be deemed to have lawful excuse for the purpose of this section only if he proves that he has acquired the firearm, etc., for a lawful in a manner prejudicial purpose and that he has not, at any time, while carrying or having in his possession or under his control such firearms, ammunitions or explosives acted to public security or the maintenance of public order.
Now the onus is shifted to the person who carries the gun—this is a more important point—to prove that he has not been using the gun in a special way.

In other words, not only is the onus of proof shifted to a person to is charged with an offence who prove he is not guilty but he is also asked to prove a negative, and how can anyone prove a negative?

Sup posing, turning to anyone, I say, "I saw you last night walking along a five-foot way and looking guilty.
Prove that you were not walking along the five-foot way and that you were not looking guilty."

How can that person prove that?

How can you have an alibi or evidence to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that from seven o'clock last night up to two o'clock in the morning before you went to bed, you had never walked along the five-foot way looking very guilty.

A person here is asked to prove a negative, to prove that he was not doing something.
This may sound a bit difficult to understand, but I am sure that everyone of us know that it is far more difficult to prove a negative than it is to prove a positive.

There is one other Clause in this Bill which has been resisted time and time again by all the practising barristers or advocates of this land—and it is that no statement made or purported to be made by anyone while in the custody of a police officer, shall be admitted as evidence against him.
But Clause 75 here says that any statement made, after a man's arrest, to a police officer shall be admissible unless he can prove that it has not been caused by induce ment, threat or promise and that the Court is satisfied that a caution has been administered to that man.
This sounds very good until we come across a phrase which reads as follows: "Where any person is charged with any this Act or against any offence against written law for the time being specified in the Second Schedule any statement, whether such statement amounts to a confession or not or is oral or in writing, made at any time, whether before or after such person is charged and whether in the course of a 1243 21 JUNE 1960 1244 police investigation or not and whether or not wholly or partly in answer to questions, by such person to or in the hearing of any the rank of police officer of or above Inspector and whether or not interpreted to him by any other police officer or any other person concerned, .
.

.

. "

Confessions is a very complicated section of the law, but when you say that it is irrelevant whether the state ment has been interpreted by any police officer or not, you come to the following situation.

Let us say that the accused happens to be an aboriginal Malay—a Jakun or Temiar: he has made a statement before a Chinese police officer, who did not pass his bahasa kebangsaan, and both of them have been speaking in Malay.
When the accused comes before the Court he will swear until he is blue in the face that he did not say sentence "A", and that what he meant was "B".

The police officer on the other hand will say that he did.

The law, if this Bill is passed, says that whether the question giving rise to the answer was interpreted or not to the Jakun or Temiar is irrelevant.

I would like to end, Sir, by appealing to the Members of the P.M.I.P.
not to confuse the second part of the Bill, which deals with armed insurrection, with the first part of the Bill, which of ordinary deals with this land.

If they think that they should fight and stand against terrorism, if they think that they should fight and stand against insurrection, against trea son, then they can support the second part of the Bill.
However, they must reject the first part, because they have not shown in their speeches that they are in agreement with it since it does not deal with terrorist activities.

friend To my Honourable citizens from Seberang Utara, I would wish that he read this Bill again in order to under stand it more clearly, and I would wish him to go through his arguments in order to know where he has gone wrong.

I sincerely appeal to him that Chin Peng has nothing to do with the first part of the Bill.
I would also appeal to him that what he has read from the Sunday Standard, I believe, of long ago has nothing to do with many portions of the first part of the Bill.

Sir, if we approve the second part, we must consider whether or not we than is no that very man are going to approve the first part.
The first part gives powers to the Minister to such an extent that any person can be detained and he could not appeal to any person other the Minister himself, because after all the Yang di- Pertuan Agong acts on the advice of his own Ministers.

I am sure that we remember the case of Wan Hamid.


A few weeks ago he was an awful security risk, he was a danger to the country, he was such a danger that when questions were asked by the Honour able Member from Setapak, the Minister concerned stood up and said that it was because of security that he was prevented from telling the House why Wan Hamid was detained.

However, to-day longer considered a security risk.

How did he change overnight from a security risk to a non-security risk?
How is it that that man, who was never allowed to set foot in Malaya, is now released, and he is probably in Kuala Lumpur, the Capital of the Ministries are set up, when he was until only recently such a security risk?

Is the Police following him for fear that he might plant a bomb underneath our Parliament building?

(Laughter).
(Laughter).

You laugh because you agree that it is so absurd (Laughter) but at the whim of a Minister, everything can be altered overnight—from a security risk to a loyal citizen and vice-versa.

Therefore, I ask, Sir, that the Government consider the need to put back this Bill for a few months at least, in order that it may be thought over properly by the rest of the Members of the Government Bench, because once we have passed this Bill, it would be very difficult to take it out of our law again.
the country, where Enche' Othman bin Abdullah (Tanah Merah): Tuan Yang di- Pertua, sa-telah kita bentangkan dan kemukakan Bill ini dan telah pun di- terangkan bahawa Bill ini mengandongi dua bahagian, yang pertama berkenaan dengan subversion dan yang kedua ia-lah berkenaan dengan maseh ada-nya lagi penjahat2 atau pun pengganas2.

Tetapi walau bagaimana pun kedua2- nya daripada bahagian ini ada-lah ter- kandong dalam Bill ini sendiri.
Pada sa-orang permulaan daripada saya dari kawasan Dato sahabat tadi 1245 21 JUNE 1960 1246 sahabat telah pun menyentoh2 dan Kramat menudoh kapada kedudokan kami dari Persatuan Islam yang kata-nya, amat- lah menghairankan sakali kedudokan kami itu, di-mana pada waktu ini kami memberikan sokongan kapada Bill yang.

ada di-hadapan kita sekarang.


Sa- benar-nya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, terkeliruan saya daripada kawasan Dato Kramat itu mungkin agak-nya tidak bagitu faham apa yang telah kami kemukakan baik di-dalam perbahathan pada pindaan Perlembagaan dahulu mahu pun di-dalam masa membahath- kan Bill yang ada di-hadapan kita sekarang ini.

Pendirian Persatuan Islam di-dalam kedua2 masa'alah ini nyata terang, kechuali bagi orang yang barangkali tidak dapat mengikuti bahasa yang kami gunakan.
timbul kerana dia Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kenapa-kah kami membantah di-dalam pindaan Perlembagaan di-kemukakan yang dahulu?

Kami tahu bahawa dengan di- pinda sahaja Perlembagaan itu, tidak- lah berarti bahawa suatu Bill yang ber- kenaan tidak harus di-kemukakan di- dalam Majlis Dewan Ra'ayat ini.

Ma'ana-nya dengan lain perkataan dengan tidak ada-nya Perlembagaan itu di-pinda maka Bill yang saperti ini dapat jua di-kemukakan.
Sebab itu-lah pada pendapat kami, Perlembagaan itu tidak perlu di-pinda dengan alasan sa- bagaimana yang telah di-bahathkan pada masa dahulu.

Ini lain, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, dengan Rang Undang2 di- hadapan kita sekarang.

Maseh ada orang salah faham dalam pendirian Persatuan Islam di-dalam masa per bahathan pindaan Perlembagaan dahulu.

Dengan itu telah heboh-lah orang ber- campaign dengan mengatakan bahawa Persatuan Islam ini pro-komunis.
Kawan saya, Menteri Muda Penerangan telah pun beria2 benar di-satu tempat dalam negeri Kelantan, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, mengatakan jangan perchaya kapada Persatuan Islam ini, dia itu komunis, tanda-nya PAS telah menentang pindaan Perlembagaan, tetapi ini satu kesilapan; apa yang sa-benar-nya .

.

.. Mr. Speaker: Jangan meleret.

Enche' Othman bin Abdullah: Saya tidak meleret.


Apa yang sa-benar-nya, ia-lah kami tidak mahu pindaan itu di-buat dalam Perlembagaan, malah yang kami mahu, ia-lah adakan-lah sahaja suatu Undang2 yang saperti di- hadapan kita ini.

Jadi, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, bila sampai-lah pada peringkat tujuan kami itu, mudahan2 apa yang saya terangkan sekarang ini dapat di- fahami oleh sahabat saya dari Dato Kramat, ia-itu kami telah pun menyata- kan bahawa kami menyokong Bill ini.
Tetapi sa-panjang2 alasan yang di- kemukakan oleh sahabat saya dari Dato Kramat baik pun kawan2-nya yang lain tidak pernah terdengar sa- patah pun mengatakan yang dia menentang Bill ini atau dia menyokong- nya, ta' pernah saya dengar, menentang tidak pula, menyokong pun tidak pula.

Apa yang di-kemukakan-nya ia-lah fikiran-nya sendiri, jadi kalau bagitu saya pun tidak faham apa pendirian- nya yang sa-benar.
ini tegas dalam soal Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Persatuan Islam tetapi menakala tegas kami menyokong, nanti ada pula orang mengatakan kami mengambil modal Menteri Pelajaran yang mengatakan Persatuan Islam ini mengekor sahaja, sebab dahulu pun kami berbuat demikian, orang kata kami mengekor dan sekarang pun kami ber- pendirian menyokong, nanti di-katakan kami mengekor pula.
Jadi, sa-benar- nya, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kami bukan mengekor dalam perkara ini tetapi kami mempunyai berpendirian sendiri yang telah pun berkali2 kami tegaskan bahawa sa-suatu yang penting bagi negara dan masharakat kami tidak segan2 memberi sokongan kami.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, apa yang di-kemuka kan oleh sa-orang sahabat saya dari kawasan Bachok tadi, sudah chukup memberikan pandangan yang tegas kenapa mustahak-nya Bill ini di-terima.
Sebab pada pendapat kami dan rasa- nya tidak-lah ada sa-orang Anggota Yang Berhormat pun dalam Dewan ini yang tidak berpendapat bahawa sa-suatu negara yang merdeka perlu di-kawal keselamatan di-dalam-nya.
Kedudokan negara kita sekarang ini nyata sakali menghadapi dua kemungkinan yang akan timbul saperti kata sahabat saya dari Bachok ia-itu dengan ada-nya saki baki pengganas dalam negeri ini yang walau pun sa-bahagian kechil 1247 21 JUNE 1960 1248 sahaja daripada-nya, akan boleh me- rebak pada masa akan datang.

jaminan kapada oleh Kementerian untok menangkap Yang kedua-nya ia-lah kuasa2 yang maseh meresap2, ini sudah semua-nya kita faham dan kita tahu bahawa ke- selamatan dalam negeri ini perlu di- jaga.
Tetapi apa yang menjadi pendapat daripada Persatuan Islam, ia-lah kami mengemukakan pandangan2 kami yang di-harapkan ini terutama-nya sakali kapada Yang Ber- hormat Timbalan Perdana Menteri supaya dapat memberikan jaminan bukan sahaja kapada wakil2 ra'ayat yang ada dalam Dewan ini tetapi juga memberikan ra'ayat di-seluroh Persekutuan Tanah Melayu ini bahawa Undang2 ini bukan-lah di- maksudkan sa- saorang atau pun hendak menyalah gunakan Undang2 ini.
Tetapi sa-mata2 di-adakan untok menghadapi sa-suatu kemungkinan yang akan timbul dalam negeri ini.
Jadi,kalau sakira-nya Undang2 ini di-buat kerana hendak menghadapi sa-suatu kemungkinan maka tidak-lah ada salah-nya bagi sa-suatu negara ini membuat-nya tetapi sakira-nya Undang2 ini di-buat supaya dapat membalas dendam mithal-nya, atau menekan per- kembangan politik dan democracy dalam negeri ini dengan niat untok "Biar-lah saya tegak, dan orang lain biar-lah rebah," maka Undang2 yang saperti ini mungkin akan di-salah gunakan pada masa yang akan datang.
Ada sa-orang daripada Yang Ber- hormat telah berkata dan membukakan satu surat khabar barangkali tahun 14 sudah agak-nya.

Surat khabar itu kuning nampak-nya daripada jauh, dan dia mengait2kan perkara2 yang tidak ada kena mengena sama sakali bahawa mithal-nya, di-sebutkan-nya orang berfahaman komunis sampai tidak boleh bila pun itu fahaman habis.

Saya rasa soal tidak-lah ini timbul, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kerana dia telah menudoh K.M.M.
Saya khuatir dan saya waktu ka-masokkan Jepun dahulu maseh belum chukup umor, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ada di-antara Menteri2 kita di-sini pernah menjadi pemimpin K.M.M.

dahulu yang kalau menurut istilah, kawan itu sesat kerana K.M.M.

telah menolong memasokkan tentera Jepun ka-dalam negeri ini.
Ini suatu keganjilan tetapi telah menudoh fikiran2-nya sa-orang Menteri kerana telah masok K.M.M.—bukan P.K.M.M., jadi, Tuan termasok-lah dalam Yang di-Pertua, tudohan-nya itu bahawa orang itu tidak boleh mengubah dan dia minta supaya Kerajaan mengambil tindakan kapada orang yang bersumpah itu.
dengan darah ayam dan Kor'an Tetapi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya bahawa sokong juga pendapat-nya orang2 yang bersumpah berchakap bagitu bukan sahaja dengan Kor'an dan dengan bible2 tetapi ada orang yang bersumpah dengan 3 "S" Orang2 yang bersumpah dengan perkumpulan 3 "S" itu patut-lah di-ambil tindakan walau pun mereka berada di-dalam kochek supaya keamanan Kerajaan dalam negeri ini dapat di-chapai.

sendiri Tuan Yang di-Pertua, berbalek saya kapada menyebut K.M.M.

dahulu, kalau K.M.M.


ini dahulu di-tudoh sa- bagai perkumpolan yang telah menjadi sayap kelima—yang membawa Jepun masok ka-negeri ini, tetapi di-dalam sejarah pergolakan di-tanah ayer kita ini ada juga di-jumpai' satu gerakan yang di-namakan "wataniah" di-mana juga ada di-antara Menteri2 kita yang menjadi Lieutenant dan Captain-nya yang jalan kapada pasokan2 orang.

puteh masok ka-dalam negeri ini.

Apa-kah kata kawan saya, bahawa orang ini tidak boleh mengubah fikiran-nya?
Jadi itu-lah saya katakan tadi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, perkara itu sekadar tidak hendak menchuit2 dan menchochok2 kita sahaja, kita pun faham juga, Tuan Yang di-Pertua.

(Ketawa).

Jadi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, telah memberi tetapi kerana timbul Mr. Speaker: Dalam Parlimen tidak boleh mengata2.

Enche' Othman bin Abdullah (Tanah Merah): Tadi itu berchakap lebeh dahshat daripada itu tidak kena tegor?
kawan saya Tuan Yang di-Pertua, perdirian Per satuan Islam yang sa-benar-nya ia-lah ikhlas di-dalam menghadapi sa-barang kemungkinan dalam negeri ini, sama ada akan di-timbulkan oleh saki baki penjajahan atau pun di-timbulkan oleh subversion yang menyeludup masok ka- dalam semua gerakan atau sa-barang perkumpulan.
Tetapi apa yang menjadi 1249 21 JUNE 1960 1250 soal kapada kita ia-lah kemungkinan menyalah gunakan dalam melaksana- kan undang2 ini, ini-lah yang di- khuatirkan oleh Persatuan Islam ia-itu jangan-lah dengan ada-nya undang2 ini di-luluskan kebebasan sa-saorang telah tertekan.

Jaminan ini perlu ada dari pehak Menteri atau pehak yang ber- kewajipan mithal-nya pehak Polis.

Apa- sebab saya katakan demikian, walau pun Perikatan mengatakan "Kami tidak pernah membuat lagu tu" ada satu ke- jadian.
Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kejadian yang rasa saya perlu mendapat per- hatian ia-itu berhubong dengan sa- orang ahli Persatuan Islam di-Kedah yang bernama Sa'ad bin Ibrahim telah di- tahan sa-lama 70 hari di-bawah kuat kuasa Undang2 Dharurat pada hal sa- telah di-selideki bahawa Sa'ad bin Ibrahim ini di-dapati salah kerana semata2 melanggar Peratoran Pilehan Raya.
Chuba tengok, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, oleh kerana salah dengan Per atoran Pilehan Raya maka dia telah di-tangkap di-bawah Undang2 Dharurat supaya dia tidak dapat bergerak, tidak dapat bekerja di-dalam usaha2 parti- nya, dalam pilehan raya.
Jadi, saya khuatir, Tuan Yang di- Pertua, jikalau sa-kira-nya Bill ini sunggoh untok menjaga keselamatan dalam negeri dengan tidak ada sa- barang niat untok menekan sa-barang gerakan dan tidak akan menyalah gunakan—"sebab di-dalam Bill ini di- terangkan sa-saorang anggota Pegawai Polis boleh masok ka-dalam rumah dengan tidak berwarrant, dengan tidak payah lagi menggunakan 'adat isti'adat yang biasa dalam undang2," maka saya khuatir, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, Pegawai2 Polis akan dapat di-pengarohi oleh anasir2 politik Parti Kerajaan dalam negeri mi sendki yang boleh menahan sa-saorang itu dengan tidak payah bagitu di-pereksa—di-tahan sahaja.
Maka saya yakin perkembangan politik dalam negeri ini akan hanchor kalau pengelaksanaan perjalanan un dang2 ini di-salah gunakan.

Apa-kab yang akan jadi, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, yang akan jadi ia-lah ra'ayat kena hukum sedang dia tidak tahu kesalahan- nya dengan seridiri-nya dia di-tudoh memasoki gerakan yang melawan undang2 negeri ini.
Jadi kita yang menegah orang daripada membuat satu gerakan yang membahayakan ke selamatan negeri tetapi dengan tinda- kan Kerajaan yang sewenang2 itu sendiri sa-akan2 menyuroh supaya ra'ayat membuat gerakan jenayah di- dalam negeri ini.

Jadi ini-lah yang akan timbul sa-kira-nya pemerentah atau pehak Kementerian atau pehak Polis yang menchuba hendak menyalah guna kan undang2 ini.
Maka saya khuatir suatu hal yang berat akan berlaku dalam negeri ini dan waktu itu terpaksa pula kita mengadakan balek undang2 dharurat bagi menghadapi kekachauan di-dalam negeri ini.
Tetapi sebalek-nya kami harap-lah supaya Menteri yang berkenaan dapat memberikan jaminan bahawa undang2 ini tidak akan di-salah gunakan bagi menekan suatu per kembangan politik dan tidak akan di- lakukan dengan sewenang2-nya malahan untok di-laksanakan sa-telah mendapat kenyataan dan keterangan yang ma'kul di-terima maka baharu-Iah undang2 ini di-jalankan.
Tetapi jikalau-Iah orang itu di-tangkap, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, di-masokkan dalam tahanan baharu- lah hendak di-buat suatu penyelidekan maka ini ada-lah satu tekanan kapada hidup sa-orang manusia di-dalam sa- buah negara yang merdeka saperti negeri kita ini.
Demikian-lah, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, keterangan dan pendapat kami dalam soal ini, kemudian saya ulangi sa-kali lagi kapada kawan saya daripada Dato' Kramat ini-lah pendirian kami pada keselurohan-nya dan pada keselurohan- nya juga ada-lah untok menjaga negara ini daripada sa-barang kerosakan pada masa yang akan datang.
Enche' K. Karma Singh (Daman- sara): Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Honour able mover of this motion has got his history a bit mixed up, and in that mixing up of his history he has, I don't know whether consciously or un consciously, sought to mislead opinion in our country.
He has said that there was a revolt against the Government I tell this House that there has been no revolt against our Government, al though in our recent history there has been a revolt against an alien Govern ment, a Government which was not rooted in our country; that revolt was not against the Government of our 1251 21 JUNE 1960 1252 country, and I would like to remind the Honourable mover of this motion that the Alliance Government only be came the Government of this country in 1957, when this country became free.
Before that, although the Alliance Government did have an elected majority, it could be said that it was the real Government of this country.

As such, I would ask the Honourable mover, who himself lived through this period, not to mix up and not to mis lead this nation as the nature of any alleged revolt against any Govern ment.

We find that there has been talk earlier by the Honourable mover of this motion about democracy.
He him self has earlier said of double talk about democracy, and I quote the Straits Times of Saturday, 11th June, 1960, the heading of which is "Lip- Service Democracy" by the Honour able mover, and what does he say in it?

He says: "In carrying out our policy, we may have to adopt measures which are not strictly compatible with our ideals of freedom and parliamentary democracy.

But we do that as a temporary expediency in order to defend our freedom and our democracy."
If this is not a split tongue, a double talk, about democracy, what is it?

You want to mutilate democracy; you want to destroy freedom in the name of freedom; and you want to defend freedom by killing it, by standing over its graveyard.

That is the double talk that we had on democracy from one of the highest officials of the Alliance Government.

Now, what is this Bill?


This Bill is the death sentence of Malayan free dom, and if there is any mythical father of independence, I would like to see him defend the freedom of our country.

Otherwise, the father who claims parentage is just mythical.

Now, I will go into the lineage of the Internal Security Bill.

It was the child of the British Colonial Govern ment, and it was born, I think, in 1958.
On August 31st, 1957, through the un the unlamented happy demise, or demise, of father—the British Government—it became an orphan and since then it has been artificially kept its alive from year to year until to-day when the Alliance Government has seen fit to adopt this orphan—the Emergency Regulations—and give it its own name.

But it is the same Emergency Regulations.

It is a worse Emergency Regulation.


is an Emergency Regulation which has developed and has become stronger, and it has become a greater threat to the freedom of our country, and I say without fear that the Alliance Govern ment is to-day riding on the same that Henry Gurney and charger Gerald Templer rode—the charger of the Emergency Regulation.

It There was some absurd talk about the necessity of this.
There was one Honourable Member who said the Tunku, or the Prime Minister, is a good man because he did not kidnap Chin Peng.

But neither did Chin Peng kidnap the Tunku.

So, if the Tunku is a good man, Chin Peng is also a good man (Laughter).

put under him his Mr. Speaker, Sir, on page 9, section 8, what do we find?
We find that a Minister can impose conditions, and the conditions are that ha may restrict a person to a particular place, he may specify restrictions on his activities and restriction may regarding employment.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, we know that in war you have an economic blockade.

You can destroy the freedom of any man by putting him in another place from the place where he earns his livelihood.
For instance, you take a lawyer or doctor or accountant who practises in Kuala Lumpur and put him in a place very far away from his professional office.

What do you do to him?

You crush him economically, you finish him, and yet we have a Government which claims to be democratic.

Then that man may be prohibited from coming out at any time of the day.

Okay, you prohibit members of the Opposition from coming out after 6.30.

What happens?

They stay at home.


They can't address any rallies and they can't go anywhere.
Now, sub-clause (iii) of the section says, "for requiring him to notify his movements in such manner at such times and to such 1253 21 JUNE 1960 1254 authority or person as may be specified in the order;" We know from the working of the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance—I am just saying from the working—how in convenient, how oppressive can be this requirement of having to report to so and so, going and telling a person in authority where you are.
Before you leave that place you have to report again; again, when you arrive you have the to report.
But one of sinister provisions is contained in sub section (iv), taking part "for prohibiting him from addressing public meetings or from holding office in, or taking part in the activities of or acting as adviser to any organisation or association, in any political from or activities;" Mr. Speaker, Sir, by preventing a man from addressing public meetings you deprive him of his most democratic, his most fundamental, right, and then you can curb his activities in relation to any organisation.
Why should you prevent a man who is a member from a from going up to a stage and pin-pricking you on your faults and exposing the Government, saying where you all are wrong, saying if you are corrupt, saying you deceive the people.

Why should you be frightened?

What we demand is democratic right, and I will tell the Government that they will have to face the people arid then answer why they are preventing their opponents from exposing them.
legal political organisation Mr. Speaker, Sir, section 22 (1) (c) says— "Where it appears to the Minister charged with responsibility for printing presses and publications that any document or publi cation— is calculated or likely to lead to a breach of the peace, or to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different races or classes of the population;" Now, we know that the plantocracy of Malaya, the people who manage and run the rubber estates, are oppressing the workers there.
If we in the Opposi tion give a statement to the effect that is exploiting and the plantocracy oppressing tappers of rubber the Malaya and a paper publishes that, the Minister can turn round and say: "You are exciting—or promoting—ill- the will between tappers and the plantocracy, the bosses in the estates.

I ban your paper; I would put such conditions on you."

What is the effect?

This is a blow aimed at the Press.

It is a loaded gun put at the freedom of the Press.
immediately after On page 16, section 25 (2) says— "In any proceedings against any person for an offence against this section such person shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have known the contents and the nature of the contents of any document such or publication document or publication came into his possession."

That again is going into the question of the state of a man's mind and you do not give proof or evidence of the condition of the state of his mind.
You go on a presumption, and that is brain washing which the Government always says the communists practice.

But they forget when they practise it themselves.


Now my Honourable friend from Dato Kramat has already dealt with section 28 where it says— "Any person who, by word of mouth or in writing or in any newspaper, periodical, book, circular or other printed publication or by any other means spreads false reports or makes false statements likely to cause public alarm or despondency, shall be guilty of an offence against this Part."
There is no one to judge whether a statement is false or not, and wo know that many times the Alliance Govern ment has been subjected to despon dency, especially when we have attacked them for loss of Government funds.

When we do that they can at once say that these statements are the false and speakers.

I would give an example.

We know that our Prime Minister has just returned from a tour of Europe and very proudly he has announced that West Germany will be making a gift of one million marks.
If I term that as a terrific feat in international beggary, it may cause terrible depres sion, terrible despondency among the Alliance.

Can they on the score of that, on the score that it hurts them, lock me up and ban my political acti vities?

take action against Dato' Suleiman: We will laugh at that (Laughter).

1255 21 JUNE 1960 1256 Mr, Speaker: to I interrupt you.

But these points have already been raised in the House by many people.

Please proceed.
Please proceed.

don't like Enche' K. Karam Singh: We find that the most sinister and crooked provision in this Bill is contained in section 29.

Section 29 (1) reads— "Any person' who without lawful excuse carries or has in his possession or under his control any subversive document shall be guilty of an offence against this Part and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or to both such imprisonment and fine."
And sub-section (3) (d) of the same section says: "In this section "subversive document" means any document having in part or in whole a tendency— to bring into hatred, ridicule or con tempt, or to excite disaffection against any in the execution of his public servant duties or any class or public servants or against any armed force lawfully in the Federation or any member of such force in the execution of his duties;" to?

Now, what is this provision?


It is a very well hidden provision right in the middle of the Bill so that we in the Opposition may not See it (Laughter).

And what does It it amount to this, that we shall not amounts criticise the presence on Malayan soil— on the soil of our country—of foreign troops, of British troops.
If we write up a speech in which we condemn foreign troops, in which we condemn the British army in Malaya, or if we have spoken condemning the British army and calling for its withdrawal and if a newspaper reports our speech, that becomes subversive document.
I would like to inform that we in the Opposition have since the very start, even before Malaya became independent, made a definite stand against foreign troops and we will con tinue that stand until the withdrawal of the last the Government Mr. Speaker: Is that relevant?

Enche' K. Karam Singh: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: It is not the issue at all.

You can give example, but it is not relevant.

Up to that point you are all right, don't proceed any further on that (Laughter).
Enche' K. Karam Singh: But, Mr. Speaker, Sir, we find that it is not to go against any armed necessary forces lawfully in the Federation if it is going to be a Malayan force.

So, it is obvious that the armed force men tioned here must be a foreign armed force and not an armed force of the Malayan Government.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, proceed!

Enche' K. Karam Singh: And we will persist in our stand, as I have said, until the complete withdrawal of the last foreign troop.
Lastly, what does this Bill make of Malaya?

It makes Malaya a complete police State.

(Laughter).

The Alliance Minister can laugh, because they are not at the receiving end.

Dato' Suleiman: They can laugh last!

(Laughter).

Enche' K. Karam Singh: But we know that he who laughs last laughs best, and we will see who laughs last!

(Laughter).

fought is an empty freedom and their freedom, It makes this country a complete police State.
Anyone, even the leading members of the opposition parties, can their political activities con have trolled and curbed and their freedom completely destroyed.

We ask, since our freedom will be destroyed by this Bill, what becomes of the conception the conception of of Independence without independence?

freedom independence, because the people of this land fought for their independence, so that they will be free.
They did not fight for independence so that they become unfree, so that they become slaves of the police.

Without freedom, independence becomes nothing but a hard east iron shell to enslave and cripple the people; and I would like the Alliance that is not they who created us or our minds.
Since they did not create us or our minds, I tell them that they have no right to control us or our minds; if they do not have the intel lectual capacity to control and guide the people of Malaya, then I tell them to give up.

(Laughter).

the mew gods of tell for to 1257 21 JUNE 1960 1258 My Honourable friend, the Member for Dato' Kramat, referred to the Magna Charta of almost eight centuries ago, and we know about the French Revolution of approximately two cen turies ago.
These were historical events concerning the acquisition of freedom by the people.

Sir, what is happening today is a backward step taken by the Alliance Government to the dark past, to the days when there was no freedom in the world—and even farther back than before the Magna Charta, we are taken back to the days of the cave dwellers.

(Laughter).
(Laughter).

The Alliance in a more refined way is attempting to club its opponents who do not accept the Alliance, who do not accept their type of political ideology, the thoughts and ideas represented by the Alliance.

I ask them to be more civilised (Laugh ter) to come back to the twentieth century and let ideas fight with ideas, so that the people of the country can reject or accept, can follow or not follow our ideas.
that The Honourable Mover of this motion has said in his speech, which I quote from the papers: "Therefore we have to defend this ideal of ours and we owe m duty to the future gene rations."

Sir, I would like to tell the Honourable Mover the future unborn generations will be free from the clutches of the police that to-day seek to constrain the minds of Mala yans; and I can tell the Alliance that the future generations will not care anything for what the Alliance was.
If they are remembered in history, they will be the desecrators of the freedom of this land.

remembered as Now, there is another provision in Clause 32, Chapter IV, Control of Entertainments and Exhibitions, and it says "control", and the control is exercised so that there may not be anything subversive.

However, what is the effect of this control on entertain ments and exhibitions and of books?
We find in today's Berita Harian, adorned by the photographs of Tuan Syed Nasir, the Minister of Education and Tuan Syed Esa, the caption, "Dewan Bahasa, the Honourable Lebeh banyak buku tahun ini" (Laugh ter).

It is relevant in this way.

You are seeking to control entertainments and exhibitions; you are seeking to control the press.
I ask you whether under such condition of oppression and the severest curtailment of freedom, free dom of press, freedom of entertain ments and freedom of exhibition, can this country provide the breeding ground, can the conditions here be conducive to the growth and develop ment or production of a George Bernard Shaw—a great creative mind— who would not care what the Prime Minister thought, or who would not care for ten Deputy Prime Ministers?

(Laughter).
(Laughter).

Mr. Speaker: How is that relevant to the debate on this Bill?

Enche' K. Karam Singh: What is the result?

The result is that no original mind, no thinker, no creative mind, can be allowed to flourish in the type of climate created by the Alliance Government to-day.
Tuan Syed Hashim bin Syed Ajam (Sabak Bernam): Tuan Yang di- Pertua, saya menyokong undang2 ini dan menguchapkan terima kaseb ka- pada Yang Berhormat Timbalan Per- dana Menteri mengadakan undang2 ini kerana saya fikir undang2 ini tidak jauh beza-nya dengan undang2 Tuhan.

Undang2 Tuhan dalam bagitu banyak dua sahaja tujuan-nya ia-itu menyuroh orang membuat baik dan menegah membuat jahat.
Jadi jikalau tidak ada yang demikian maka tidak dapat ke- amanan dan tidak dapat menggunakan yang di-katakan demokrasi dan kalau tidak ada keamanan tidak boleh demo krasi berjalan, jadi kita mesti menchari jalan mendapatkan keamanan.

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ada-lah saya tidak hendak membicharakan bill ini.

Kalau-lah bill ini kita hadapkan kapada ra'ayat di-dalam Malaya ini saya perchaya 95 peratus daripada-nya mengaku mahu bill ini.
Apa sebab-nya kerana mereka telah merasa perbuatan kominis sa-lama 12 tahun yang sudah yang telah menjadikan pendudok dan Kerajaan negeri ini kuchar kachir.

Apa telah jadi sa-bagai bukti-nya di-Singa- pura negeri yang dekat dengan kita 1259 21 JUNE 1960 1260 tiap2 orang kaya kena tangkap oleh penjahat dan kena tebus wang, dan orang miskin tidak dapat kebebasan dan apa hal-nya kalau terjadi sa- macham itu dalam negeri kita ini.
Jadi sangat patut-lah undang2 ini kita ada- kan dan tidak-lah payah kita undi, kalau di-hadapkan kapada orang itu dia mesti dan tentu mahukan undang2 ini sebab saya perchaya orang kaya mahu berlindong kapada Polis kerana hendak menjaga diri-nya.

Jikalau tidak ada keamanan boleh-kah orang kaya itu keluar daripada rumah dia daripada pukul 6 petang sampai pukul 6 pagi, tentu dia berkehendakkan perlindongan dari pemerentah negeri ini.

Ini ada-lah satu jalan yang sangat bijak-sana.


fikiran saya Tuan Yang di-Pertua, menilek kapada hal2 dalam rang undang2 ini banyak pula orang mengatakan perkara ini tidak boleh di-terima kerana sangat berat.

Ini saya fikir tidak berat, yang berat ia-lah yang kita rasa sa-lama 12 tahun dahulu.

Kalau di-bentangkan kapada pendudok mana berat undang2 ini dengan undang2 yang 12 tahun dahulu maka semua manusia yang ada di-dalam Tanah Melayu ini mahu undang2 ini.
Jadi di-sini saya tidak-lah membicharakan lebeh panjang ber- kenaan dengan bill ini kerana saya tengok masa pun sudah berlanjutan.

Jadi saya menguchapkan terima kaseh kapada Timbalan Perdana Menteri kerana pada ra'ayat sangat2 bersetuju dengan undang2 ini.
Enche' V. David (Bungsar): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not have very much to the Honourable Member for Dato Kramat has given a proper analysis of the entire Bill, but I cannot let it go with out making certain observations, which are necessary as a result of my experience the Emergency Regulations.
Sir, I know that whatever speeches may be made, whatever expla nations we may be given in this House, the Back Benchers of the Alliance have always come up here with fixed ideas, with directives, so that they will not be persuaded.

However, Sir, I must give a warning that the supporting of this Bill will be a political suicide.
It is a last minute and desperate attempt by the political bankrupts to move a Bill aimed at curtailing the activities of since my colleague under say Opposition Parties in this country.

The two reasons given in this House by the Honourable Mover of this Bill are: (1) to counter subversion; and (2) to take necessary measures in the border to prevent terrorism.

Sir, with regard to countering subversion, I am at a loss to understand what the Honourable Mover means by subversion.
Yesterday when the Honourable the Prime Minister gave a long history about his recent talks with Mr. Eric Louw of South Africa, he said that he was not satisfied with Mr. Eric Louw for making allegations against the Pan-African Organisation and as subversive.
But here, to-day, an attempt is being made by the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister, to adopt this Bill so that in time to come he will have the sole authority, to ban political parties and if necessary to detain any leader of a political party for opposing his views and policies.
intended communist activities only, Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Emergency Regulations Ordinance in this country was to check communist activities, but it did not confine itself to in particular it went beyond its scope by arresting anybody whom the Cabinet did not like, and many had been the victims; and some of us who have been victims of the law are here to tell the truth.
The Honourable the Prime the Deputy Prime Minister, or Minister, or any Member of the Government Bench cannot refute the fact there are still so many citizens, who have not been brought before a Court of Law, for the alleged offences but are under detention—for instance, Mr. Balan who has been detained for twelve years.
This is all done in the name of democracy, and though our detainees are privileged to write letters, those letters written by the them respective persons; and I am sure that the Honourable the Minister of the Interior will be able to reply to me.

are not delivered that to Dato' Suleiman: I will.

Enche' V. David: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not think Malaya can claim to be a model of democracy to the other part of the world.
Unfortunately, people in other parts of the world do not know what is happening in the Federation 1261 21 JUNE 1960 1262 of Malaya.

As the Honourable Member for Ipoh has said, the Police are beating persons who are arrested for alleged offences.

I can dare say in this House that there are not only one or two cases, but there are hundreds of cases.

It has become a full-time occupation for the Police, the moment anybody is arrested, to assault him, and he is forced to admit what he has not committed.
All these are under the disguise of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, a few years back if I were to say that China should be admitted into the United Nations, I would be charged for subversive acti vities.

But to-day after brain-washing at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya has realised the necessity and importance of admitting China into the United Nations.
We are happy to hear that, but as far as we in the Opposition are concerned, we do not need any brain-washing in foreign countries.

We can decide ourselves for what we stand in this country.

This will clearly indicate that the Alliance Members need brain-washing from time to time from other parts of the world.

different views which were diametri cally opposed the views and to policies of the Alliance and, therefore, he had to spend a few months in the Rest House.
to any organisation Mr. Speaker, Sir, these Clauses here are not new.

Two of them were imposed on me when I was released.

I refer Sir, to page 9, Clause 8, sub paragraphs (iv) and (v) of the Bill which read: " .

.

.

.

prohibiting him from addressing public meetings or from holding office in, or taking part the activities of or acting as in adviser or association, or from taking part in any political activities;" and ".

.

.

.. travelling be prohibiting him from yond the limits of the Federation .

.
.

".

Mr. Speaker, Sir, when I was arrested, the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister made wide publicity in the press that I was not arrested for political or trade union activities, but for purely subversive activities.

What I did find when I was released?

The two conditions imposed on me were: one was that I should not participate in trade union activities, and the other that I should not leave the Federation for one year.

Constant reference has been made to India.


The Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister has said that India has preventive detention.

Yes, it has, but the Indian Government recognises the Communist Party in India—that we do not do in Malaya.

The Indian Government has established diplo matic relationship with all Communist countries regardless of their internal political structure, but we have not done so.

Therefore, making references to India is absurd.


We are only making reference to certain advantages at If we make to India, then we must references things which are apply so many adopted in India.

certain times.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, referring to Wan Hamid who had been all through, until recently when he was released, a security risk to this country, he would not have been detained the moment he entered Malaya if he would have joined the Alliance.
Un had fortunately, Gentlemen, he Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister and his Cabinet cannot deceive the people.

People are constantly reading news papers and they follow events from time to time.

I say that this Bill here take measures to is not against terrorists' interference in the border, but it is aimed at political parties which are opposed to the views of the Alliance.
intended Mr. Speaker, Sir, by the provisions of preventive detention,—suppose a trade union calls a strike, especially in the essential services—as a result of an industrial dispute—the Minister may consider that it is important not to allow the strike to take place, and in order to destroy the strike and the aspirations of the workers, then the leaders of the strike can be placed under restrictive residence far away from their homes.
By this means, the normal func tions and the normal activities of a legitimate trade union itself can be interrupted.

The Bill here has been 1263 21 JUNE 1960 1264 given wide powers, powers which can be misinterpreted and abused at the will and pleasure of the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister and his col leagues.

I have no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, Sir, that this is not a security Bill; it is a Bill which is a threat to the views and expressions of the Opposition political parties.
The Bill also covers the activities freedom of publications.

We of through experience this country in have seen permission for publishing papers have been turned down on many occasions.
The reason is not given—according to answers given to questions in this House it was con sidered as confidential—but I must the Press will one day be warn curtailed if it does not act to the whims and fancies of the Alliance, and one day I won't be surprised the Assistant Minister of Information will go round to the editors and say: "You can only publish three lines, four lines, of what is expressed by the Opposition political parties, and full coverage should be given only to the ruling Party".
There fore, the Press cannot enjoy the freedom to criticise and the freedom of publica tion which is being enjoyed in other parts of the world.

This is not only aimed at English papers, it is aimed on most of the vernacular papers which have been showing a progressive trend, which have been freely expressing their views on the various subjects of this country and the various issues arising from time to time.

Therefore, the Press will be gagged by this new Bill.
While moving the Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister said no loyal citizens should dispute over the provisions of this Bill.

I here completely oppose and deplore this Bill—do you mean that I am disloyal to this country?

Mr. Speaker, it is absurd to say that anybody who opposes this Government is disloyal to the country.

We have a right to criticise, and will continue to criticise.
If you think that we should not criticise, the only measure just lock us up—which you have done, and which you will do to you left is Mr. Speaker: You need not shout!

Enche' V. David: Mr. Speaker, by criticising the Government or the ruling Party cannot be construed as disloyal.

We are citizens of this country, we are entitled and we are provided the right under the Constitution of this country to criticise, to deplore and condemn whenever it is necessary.
Therefore, the test of loyalty cannot be tested in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the mover also said a person is arrested because he is a risk to the security of the country, second, if he is considered as an enemy of democracy.

How could the Minister consider somebody as an enemy of democracy?

The word "democracy" has got a wide meaning and a wide interpretation.

Democracy is now be come the tool of the Alliance and is being applied and twisted and turned as they like.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister is going to decide who are the enemies of democracy?

Maybe people who criticise his Cabinet Minis ters and his policies can be considered as enemies of democracy.

Maybe the Alliance may consider that they are the representatives of God who have come to this world to preserve and protect democracy and anybody who opposes their views and policies are against democracy.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, my colleagues and myself, we feel that if this Bill is accepted, it will be a tragedy to the human rights, democratic liberties and self-determination of the people of Malaya, and as such we condemn and deplore this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Emergency Regulations have given a test to the people of Malaya, and the wounds which were received in time of the Emergency Regulations have not yet been healed.

It will take years to be healed.


Hundreds of people have been tortured and are still being tortured in the hands of our colleagues sitting opposite, and these people will take years to be healed of their wounds.

For example, Mr. Balan's detention for 12 years is a clear example to the world, and it should become an international issue.
I hope this issue will be known to the leaders of other countries so that they will know where Malaya stands, and the Honourable the Minister of the Interior even went to the extent of not delivering the letters, withholding letters 1265 21 JUNE 1960 1266 of Mr. Balan which he had sent to friends and others.

This will clearly indicate where we stand in a democratic country.

This is Fascism!

Power is in your hands, you are abusing those powers vested by the people in you.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, finally, I oppose this Bill and call upon the Government to entrust this Bill in the hands of a Select Committee for another six or seven months so that it can be studied in detail.

Before I finish, I like to touch on the question of bond.

It says here in Section 8 (1): " .

.. any order made under paragraph (b) of this sub-section may by order be required to be supported by a bond."
Mr. Speaker, Sir, a Review Commis sion about a year back, under the Emergency Regulations, decided to re lease four union officials on a bond of $10,000 each, and they were asked to get in touch with their friends to obtain persons to stand surety.

These gentle men obtained people to stand surety.

After that, the Government suddenly announced that it had withdrawn its decision.
This clearly indicates the Review Commission and the Review Committee had been under constant dictatorship of the Government, and not independent.

The same thing will happen to the Advisory Board which will be set up under the Internal Se curity Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a farce, and it is not going to help the residents of this country; it will just try to deceive the people under the powers vested by them during the last election.
However, we hope that the Members of the Government Bench will be fair to the electorates and not allow themselves to be dictated by the Cabinet Ministers.

the Bill Enche' Chin See Yin (Seremban Timor): Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Honourable Minister of Defence, in introducing this morning, told us that it is intended to fight against Communist bandits lurking in the jungles, and, secondly, that it is intended to fight against subversion by evil forces now in our midst.
This Bill is the result of an amendment recently made to the Constitution, and I supported that amendment after the in Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister withdrew a proposal to include pre ventive detention provision the Constitution.

This move is, to my mind, a complete reversal of the practice of democracy.

We are in fact moving from the frying pan into the fire.

If this Bill is intended to fight Communist bandits, Sir, then I say we must not the Emergency Regulations to be repealed; let them remain.
allow by studied Now, Sir, having the Emergency Regulations and compared them with the present Bill, I think there is quite a lot to be said about the present Bill and much of it has previous said already been speakers.

The question before us is: whether this Bill, if we adopt it, will be good or evil to the country.

The success or failure in the administration of a law depends on the governing party.
Now we are going to enact a law that contains very wide powers— the power of preventive detention for a period of up to two years is a very wide power, and can be said to be very dangerous—and if it is left in the hands of someone who is not fair, who practises something that is not good, or who is revengeful or vindictive, then it is going to cause harm to the country.
I am not suggesting that the present Ministers will abuse the powers, but the powers that are given to the Police in this Bill are so wide.

The senior officers may use them very carefully, no doubt, but the junior officers may abuse them.

That is the trouble that we have got to face.

that resulted We have condemned the South Africans for the passport system with out which the natives cannot find employment, and in hardship and starvation to the natives.
We called this an inhuman act—unjust, unfair and what not.

No doubt, Sir, the policy we condemned in South fundamental Africa the principles of human and rights liberties.

Let us examine the two pro posals contained in this Bill.

One is preventive detention; the other is the restriction of the movements of certain individuals.

Both of these, I say, can create much hardship and starvation is against 1267 21 JUNE 1960 1268 to lots of people.
And if it is necessary to do so, then we must do it in a more humanly manner.

We must not make the innocent to suffer.

In the past, under the Emergency Regula tions, when a person is detained he is usually kept in a detention camp.

If he is the breadwinner, Sir, then we know his wife and children, who are depending on him, would suffer.

If this Bill becomes law—no doubt it will be passed by this House—I suggest there should be an island for reform.
Let us send the suspect to the island; let us give him land to culti vate, so that his wife and children, who have to depend on him for support, may not have to live in starvation and hardship.

That is something the Government should do.

By detaining the suspects you are going to create hatred and bitterness among their wives and children, because these innocent people have got to suffer as a result of the detention of the suspects.

For that reason, Sir, I say it is important.


If this Bill is going to be law, the Government must look for an island where we can keep the suspects there, and where they can work hard to support their wives and children.

This is a thing which I say is most important.

If we can retain the Emergency laws, let us retain them.

But let us not create a law, and leave it to somebody else.

If we do that, we are going to repent at a later date.
I think we should consider very carefully before we pass this law, and I hope every body will give this Bill very careful consideration as to whether or not we are going to create a monster that will one day harm us very much.

Dato' Onn bin Ja'afar: Sir, unlike the Member for Damansara, I am not opposing this Bill.

In fact, I support the general principles of this Bill, although I differ in opinion on some of the details in the Bill itself.
Anyone who has been in contact or who has the studied political events within Federation since 1945 will undoubtedly support this Bill, and cannot deny the necessity for some sort of legislation of this kind.

The Emergency will terminate, so we are informed, on the law will have 31st July this year; the Emergency Regulations will be abolished and to be some other provided in order to safeguard the interests of the country.
Subversion is a weapon used by opponents of democratic government in this country and elsewhere and it is with subversion that the Government of this country is closely concerned at this vital stage in the development of the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu as a free self-govern ing nation.

because of two years.


Now, On the Bill itself, Sir, I have in fact very little to say excepting to point out that in April of this year when the amendment to the Constitu tion was brought before this House, there was a section—section 30— dealing with legislation against sub version, empowering a Minister to detain any person for a period of this exceeding particular provision was withdrawn by the Minister moving the amending Act.
And if I remember rightly, a Member of the Alliance—I think it was the Member for Larut Selatan— got up with great glee to point out to this House that that particular section was withdrawn the insistence of the Alliance backbenchers that it should not be included in the amending Act.
Now, to my utter surprise, I see practically the same provision being this Internal Security Bill, and I do feel that it is a breach of trust on the part of the Government to have withdrawn section 30 from the amending Bill to the Constitution and now to include it in this Internal Security Act.

This particular section, section 8, empowers the Minister to make an order directing that such person or persons be detained for any period not exceeding issued an two years.
Now, having order directing that I should be detained say for 18 months, then I am told that I could make representations to an advisory committee and that advisory committee would then review my case and make recommendations to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
inserted in Now, the provisions under section 12 are slightly different to those prevailing 1269 21 JUNE 1960 1270 in Article 151 of the present Consti tution, because under Article 151 it says: "(b) no citizen shall be detained under that law or ordinance for a period exceeding three months unless an advisory board constituted as men tioned in Clause (2) has considered any representations made by him under paragraph (a) and has reported, before the expiration of that period, that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention."
I would like to point out the words "that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention".

Now, in the existing section 12 of this Bill, it says: "(1) Whenever any person has made any representations under sub-section (1) of section 11 to an Advisory Board, the Advisory Board shall, within three months of the date on which such person was detained, consider such representations and make recom mendations thereon to the Yang di- Pertuan Agong."
Tun Abdul Razak: On a point of information, Sir, that part of the Con stitution has been repealed—that part of the Constitution quoted by the Honourable Member has been amended at the April meeting.

There is now a new provision to Article 151 (b).

Dato' Onn bin Ja'afar: Would it not be better to have retained Article 151 than amending it and making it more difficult for the person detained to have his case reviewed with some satis faction?
I would much prefer to retain the original clause 151, or even a variation of it—something in accord ance with the relevant provisions in the Indian Constitution which give complete freedom of action to the Board of Review or the Advisory Committee to make whatever recom mendations it seeks to do, to the Pre sident of India or, in our case, to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
But here the value of such recommendations made by the Advisory Committee is very little indeed, because that Advisory Committee merely makes recommenda tions to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is under the thumb of the Cabinet or of the Minister concerned.

Now, Sir, another matter which deals with this detention business is that any person may have his detention reviewed by this Advisory Committee.
But in the case of non-citizens in the Federation, as I read the Bill, that review can only be made once; whereas in the case of Federal citizens, section 13 says: "Every order or direction made by the Minister in respect of a citizen of the Federation under section 8 or 10 shall, so long as it shall remain in force, be reviewed not less often than once in every six months by an Advisory Board."

That is all right.
That is all right.

But in the case of a non-citizen, as far as I can see his case is reviewed once: the Advisory Board makes a recommendation and that is the finish of it.

He is locked up for two years, 18 months or 20 months, or whatever it is.
Is that the way to deal with an individual, to create a distinc tion between a citizen of the Federation and a person who is not a citizen but who should have the same rights under our fundamental liberties which says, under Article 5 of the Constitution, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accord- dance with law"?

Now, Article 5 of the Constitution says "no person"—it does not say "no citizen".

"No person" includes a citizen and a non- citizen as well.
The other matter which I would like to say a few words is on the clauses dealing with publications.

Article 10 of the Constitution says: "Subject to Clause (2), every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression."

This Bill curbs in a very considerable degree the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression of newspaper editors, magazine writers and people like that.
Section 22 says "Where it appears to the Minister charged with responsibility for printing presses and publications that any document or publication—(a) contains any incitement to violence."

I agree with (b) "counsels dis obedience to the law or to any lawful order."

I agree with that.

Or, (c) "is calculated or likely to lead to a breach of the peace."

I agree with that.

But what I disagree with is "or to promote feeling of ill-will."
We may have an Honourable Member in this House who gets up and advocates a policy in that.

Or, 1271 21 JUNE 1960 1272 for helping favour of certain sections of the popu lation and in advocating that policy he may tread very heavily on the toes of other Members or other parties and may create feelings of ill-will.

I myself may stand up here and advocate greater measures the Malays; I may be creating ill-will towards members of the Chinese or Indian communities or vice versa.
I would much prefer to see the word "ill-will" taken out of this Bill.

I agree to "to promote feeling of hostility between different races or classes of the population"; but I do say that the word "ill-will" is far too wide and incom patible with the existing racial composi in this tion and racial aspirations country as we have it today.

It is only on these two points which I have comments to make.

As I have said, I agree with the general principle of this Bill.
I feel that it is absolutely necessary that there should be legisla tion of this kind to replace the Emer gency Regulations which will expire on the 31st of July, but I do hope that the Honourable the Minister will make a careful note of this.

I would like to warn him—and I hope he will accept it, but I have my doubts—that on the second reading of this Bill I would propose that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

I quite realise the urgency for passing this Bill.


I realise that the Emergency Regulations will expire on the 31st of July, that the Select Committee will have to get down to its work quickly, and that it will mean, Sir, that this House will have to meet some time before 31st July to receive the Report of this Select Com mittee and to pass this legislation.
But nevertheless, I do say that in the interest of the country, it should not be a difficult matter for this House to meet towards the end of July, before the 31st, to deliberate on the Report of this Select Committee and to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Honourable Members, time is up now.

It is half past four.

Enche' S. P. Seenivasagam (Meng- lembu): Sir, there are others who wish to speak.

Mr. Speaker: We can carry on to-morrow.


ADJOURNMENT Tun Abdul Razak: Sir, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

Enche' Tan Siew Sin: Sir, I beg to second the motion.

ADJOURNMENT SPEECH Seremban Estate It entering Enche' K. Karam Singh: Sir, My subject is the strike on Seremban Estate.

its is now fourth month and the strike was the first solid action on the part of those tappers after a long time of being kicked about by their employers, of being oppressed, and of being treated like cattle.
The strike was a protest against the dismissal of 18 co-workers by the Manager, and, like full-blooded members of the working class, they rallied to the defence of their sacked colleagues and of their own honour.

What is suprising, Sir, was the role of the police to this strike.

The role of the Police was most villainous, and we can see that behind the villainy of the Police was the hand of the Government.
For instance, the leaders of the strike were arrested, and, even for a minor offence, they were not offered bail.

Why was this so, and why did the Police act like this?

The obvious answer is that the Police sought to break the strike by detaining the leaders of the strike in jail, but they failed in that.

Further, the Manager of that Estate had used armed thugs to come to terrorise the strikers.
When these armed thugs with weapons were arrested and handed over to the Police, nothing was done to charge these thugs, but, on the other hand, the strikers were arrested.

Later, the strikers asked a responsible officer of the Police, the O.C.P.D.

of that area, why had these thugs not been charged, the O.C.P.D.

said, "You can carry chains, you can carry knives, but please do that inside the estate."

Now, we know that by having more than ten workers in the estate, that makes it a public place.
So, for them to carry knives and chains in the estate is a criminal offence.

I would like to ask why did the O.C.P.D., why did the Police, give this sinister advice—why 1273 21 JUNE 1960 1274 this crooked advice?

Obviously, it was meant to trap the strikers, to brand them as criminals, to brand them as thugs, to give them a bad name, and to charge them in Court and to hang them in front of the whole country.
Further, the Police assaulted even boys and girls and women who were picket ing, and on one occasion the police sought to smuggle four strike breakers in a Land Rover across the picket line.

It was only the persistence and courage of the strikers that foiled them.

To those valiant strikers, I would say that the heart of every tapper in Malaya, not only in Negri Sembilan, is behind.

them and would wish them to continue the strike until they get victory.
is about National Union of Plantation Workers the topic My second the National Union of Plantation Workers.

We kndw that one or two leaders of the N.U.P.W.

had been the stooges of the British Government and they later became the stooges of the Alliance Government.

I have no hesita tion to mention that the Secretary- General of the N.U.P.W and its pre sident have betrayed that Union both to the "plantocracy", to the bosses in the estates, and to the Government.
First, they became puppets, in the former Legislative Assembly, of the British.

The British effectively silenced them—not a single demand for the workers, not a single benefit was asked for the workers by those people in their tenure of office in the former Legislative Assembly.

And to-day what has the the Secretary-General of N.U.P.W.

made the N.U.P.W.?
made the N.U.P.W.?

On every annual conference the Deputy Prime Minister is invited, the Assistant Minister of Labour is invited to come and do propaganda on behalf of the Alliance.

I ask—is this keeping the Union non-political by making it a platform first for the Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister and then for the Honourable the Assistant Minister of Labour?
And, further, we know that the policy of the Secretary-General has been to send out people from Malaya on espionage activities to other parts of the world on behalf of American capitalism.

Dato' V, T. Sambanthan: Nonsense!

Enche' K. Karam Singh: Please reply later.

For instance, people have been sent on assignment to South Africa, to India, to Bangkok and to Burma.

Why?
Why?

To subvert the unions in those countries, to infiltrate into unions of those countries and subvert them in favour of American capitalism.

And these are the so-called union leaders of Malaya.

We know that, for more than a decade, the Secretary-General of the N.U.P.W.

has held that position.


But has he achieved one thing on behalf of its the workers, on behalf of members; has he achieved a single demand of pay rise or guaranteed employment; has he achieved gratuities and agreement on compensation from the bosses?

No.

The bosses love him and the Government loves him, because he has been able to play their game.

It pains me to say this, because it pains me to see a betrayal of the workers.

To-day the monolithic unity of the N.U.P.W.


has been weakened by such leadership.

The ordinary rubber tapper of Malaya is enthu siastic is enthusiastic because he wants the union to fight.

(Interruption).

The ordinary tapper is enthusiastic as a unionist, because he wants it to fight for a better life for him.

He is under-paid, underfed; he has not even shoes to wear, his children are underfed and unclothed.

That is why he wants the Union to fight for him.

But what has this leader ship done?


tor his union, and he I would like every press Mr. Speaker: Your time is almost up.

Enche' K. Karam Singh: I would like every press to carry what I say, so that I can be criticised and I can be answered.

I issue this challenge even to the papers, because I know there have been occasions on which some papers have been bribed by the leadership of the Union not to publish certain news, and to publish certain news favourable to them.
I issue this challenge and I want a reply from these people as to what they have done in their long tenure of office for the workers.

They talk of their activities all over the world.

They 1275 21 JUNE 1960 1276 say that the N.U.P.W.

is the biggest union in the free world.

But what have they done for the workers?

The workers are suffering and that is why I am asking this question.
Enche' V. Manickavasagam: Mr. Speaker, Sir, as far as I am aware, the Police are carrying out their normal duty, that is to ensure peaceful picketing while a strike is in progress.

Sir, the Honourable Member, who comes from the legal profession, should know that there are certain laws by which we govern the country.

The laws are not framed only for the workers.

They are also framed for employers and all workers, irrespective of whether they are on that estate or elsewhere.
As far as the National Union of Plan tation Workers is concerned, Sir, I am at a loss to understand what the Honourable Member hopes to achieve by his attempt to undermine the officials of the National Union of Plantation Workers in connection with this strike.

Government has stated from time to time that it will not at any time inter fere with the internal administration of any union.
Therefore, I do not propose to try to reply to the points raised by the Honourable Member in connection with the operation of the National Union of Plantation Workers.

Further more, Sir, I do not think that this is the place for the Honourable Member to raise the question about the Union, because there is no Member from the Union to reply to him.

He should have gone either to the Union itself or a place where he can get a reply.

Not only that, Sir, but he has also said that the officials of the N.U.P.W.
have been tools of Government.

For the last six months I have had the honour of per forming the duties of an Assistant Minister, and I have never found that they have been, at any time, the tools of anybody.

They have always been championing the cause of the workers, and I can tell this House, Sir, that it is one of the strongest and best organised unions to-day in (Applause).

country this any Conference of The Honourable Member has also said that I had been invited to their Conferences.
Sir, I have not so far the attended N.U.P.W., but on the other hand, I have received an invitation to open a Conference by my colleague the Honourable Mr. David on 3rd July— a conference of the National Union of Transport Workers.

Sir, this quite well shows that the Honourable Member is speaking at random.

Mr. Speaker: The House is adjourned to 10.00 o'clock to-morrow morning.

Adjourned at 4A5 o'clock p.m. 1277 21 JUNE 1960 1278 WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS MINISTRY OF INTERIOR Restricted Residence 1.
Enche' V. David asks the Minister of Interior why Lan Wah Ying and Lan Siew Seng, recently arrested at Lornie Road and Petaling Jaya, Kuala Lumpur, respectively, have been placed under restricted residence at Sepang and Ijok New Village, why were they not tried in the court of law, and why as citizens, they have been deprived of their civil rights.

The Minister of Interior (Dato' Suleiman bin Dato' Abdul Rahman): After an inquiry under section 9 of the Prevention of Crime Ordinance, 1959 (No.
13), an Inquiry Officer duly appointed under section 8 reported that he was satisfied that there were reason able grounds for believing that these persons were members of the registrable category specified in paragraph 4 of Part I of the First Schedule to the Ordinance, viz.— "All traffickers in women and girls, including persons who live wholly or in part on the proceeds of prostitution."
The persons were duly registered under section 12 and subjected to an order of restricted residence by the Minister under section 15 (2) of the Ordinance.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR Shop Assistants Working Hours 2.

Enche' V. David asks the Minister of Labour if he is aware that certain shops in Kuala Lumpur are employing workers more than eight hours a day and whether there are constant checks on shops by the Labour Department.
The Minister of Labour (Enche' Bahaman bin Samsudin): Officers of the Department of Labour and Indus trial Relations make constant surprise visits to shops to investigate matters of this nature.

there If the employer and the labourer come to some mutual acceptable agree in is nothing ment, illegal the labourer, as defined in Section 59 (1) of the Employment Ordinance No.

38 of 1955 (and by L.N.


366 shop assistants are covered by the Employ ment Ordinance), working more than 8 hours a day, as long as the employer does not require his labourer to work more than 48 hours in a week.

In order to secure that mutual agree ment, it is common for an employer to offer some inducement to the labourer in the form of overtime payment.

Whether or not the labourer wishes to do that work beyond a 48-hour week is entirely at his own discretion.
This question of hours of work for shop assistants will receive the attention of the Wages Council, whose work is in progress at present.