On one thing we cannot give way: a Malaysian Malaysia. Otherwise, it means nothing to us. It means nothing to me and to the other Malaysians who are here with me. Any other kind of Malaysia, I have no place.
QUESTION: Are you suggesting the guerilla war would start as a result of this, or there is a possibility …?
LEE: Where do you think it will lead to? Where do you think it will lead to? It must, isn’t it? Once you have a revulsion of feeling, an antipathy against a regime, where do you think, the communists will come up? You mean they will just cheer and say, “Well, three cheers now the PAP is out of the way”; they will take over the constitutional stage and they will win the next elections and govern Singapore and keep Singapore happy? Or do you think they will mount, together as others mount, mount a campaign which must lead in the end to the complete dissolution of Malaysia? Is there any other possible consequence of such steps? If we sat down, as I hope others will … we do this very often, do this exercise amongst ourselves and say, “Well, if we do this, then what happens; if we don’t want that to happen, then we cannot do these things.” Therefore, we try very hard to be as patient and as forbearing as we can.
But on one thing we cannot give way: a Malaysian Malaysia. Otherwise, it means nothing to us. It means nothing to me and to the other Malaysians who are here with me. Any other kind of Malaysia, I have no place. I have therefore no stake in that kind of Malaysia, and I am not going to help defend, protect or advance its cause. Why should I?
QUESTION: Are you as pessimistic as you are projecting yourself to be about the future of Malaysia as such?
LEE: No. I am not all that pessimistic. I think I put my position and the position of my colleagues fairly clearly on May 1. I said the prospects are fair. And it is not bleak. I don’t want to be dishonest and say that the prospects are rosy, that all is well, because we will be misleading people, and that’s not the way to govern. You can’t just lead people into believing things which you know to be false. But I say they are fair for one simple reason. As you yourself can see reading the proceedings of the recent UMNO conference, there are leaders in UMNO who realise what the things being suggested by some leaders, some extremist groups in UMNO, where these steps will lead if they were taken: arrest PAP leaders; take over radio and television; smack us down, do us in by extra-constitutional methods, or perhaps even within the constitution, in accordance with the law, but not in accordance with the spirit of democratic practice. You know, we passed the Internal Security Act, or we passed the Emergency Regulations here, not for it to be used against the democratic opposition but against undemocratic, unconstitutional opposition. And I would say that we are encouraged to read Dr Ismail Abdul Rahim (Malaysian Minister for Internal Security) state fairly clearly that as long as we express our views democratically and constitutionally and rally people’s opinion democratically and constitutionally without resort to violence, he accepts that position as right. There are the hopeful signs: that some people have sat down and calculated where these steps which are being urged by extremist groups, where these steps will lead to, once you start on them.
“It has been suggested recently that you and the PAP are creating racial discord in this country. So, what have you to say about it?”
QUESTION: It has been suggested recently that you and the PAP are creating racial discord in this country. So, what have you to say about it?
LEE: Well, can we really go back to how this all started? You can look up the old editions of the newspapers, starting from last March. If we want to be accurate from the point of time, the campaign started immediately we announced our intention to compete in the general elections in Malaya. And from then onwards, it has never stopped, this appeal to race in the Malay language only, and this attack that we are anti-Malay. How do we add to racial discord because we have pointed out the dangers of what this sort of appeal can lead to? How do we add to it? What have we done?
QUESTION: Mr Lee, when is the PAP as a national political party going to evolve a policy for the uplift of the Malays and the rural people in Malaysia as a whole, not just in Singapore?
LEE: Well, we had refrained from doing this for one and a half years now because we didn’t really want to join issue with the ruling party, UMNO; and even in the last elections in Malaya, in April last year, we did not contest the rural seats. But I think a position has now developed in which we must make clear our stand not only to the urban areas but also to the rural areas: where we stand, what kind of Malaysia we want in a Malaysian Malaysia, one in which the imbalance of development between the rural areas and the urban areas must be altered, must be remedied.
I thought it was a useful beginning what happened after my visit to Australia, when I mentioned to some Malaysian students who asked me in Adelaide why we should agree to Malay rights, Malay special rights in the constitution for Malays and indigenous peoples in Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak. That the problem is not whether there are Malay rights or not but whether these Malay rights can really uplift the life of Malays generally, not just as a small group of people who become company directors or contractors or part-owners of transport companies, but Malays generally in the rural areas who are now drifting into the towns looking for jobs because rural development is not going at the same pace as urban development. And Malays are coming into Singapore looking for jobs. Last year, 10,000 Chinese and Malays came from Malaya into Singapore looking for jobs. We know that from the identity card change of address: 10,000 came down. You know, if we are exploiting Malays and being cruel to them, why should these Malays, about two to three thousand Malays come in last year from Kedah, from Muar, from Selangor?
Because rural development is not going at the same pace as urban development. It is happening in many countries throughout the world, this drift from the countryside into the towns. But in Malaysia, it is a particularly sensitive problem because, by and large, the Malays have been a rural people. They lead a pastoral sort of life: agriculture and fishing. I raised this question: I said, how much did they spend; last year’s budget in December, how much for the Ministry of Agriculture? Eighteen million dollars out of a total budget of nearly $1,300 million; $1,300 million, you spend 18 million dollars, of which half goes to Establishment costs. They mention development estimates of over 100 million dollars, most of which are going into rubber research. Not the smallholder; the big estates get the benefit out of that: rubber research, replanting. Shouldn’t we do something? Even in Thailand today, they are growing maize where they did not grow maize. They are exporting maize. Before, they grew only rice. Now, they have increased their rice population and grow maize, one of their main export products. We are importing their maize for our chickens. We cannot do that in Malaya? Surely this must be done. And a Malaysian Malaysia can only survive if it provides opportunities both for rural people and for urban people. In other words, you must create more equal opportunities for a full life for everybody.
Where I feel extremely frustrated is: every time we talk about this, they say, “Ah! I am attacking Malay rights.”
Where I feel extremely frustrated is: every time we talk about this, they say, “Ah! I am attacking Malay rights.” I am not attacking Malay rights. I am saying that these Malay rights which have been going on for so many years have not solved the basic problem of social and economic development in the rural areas. That what you have got to do if you want Malaysia to survive is to raise the earning capacity of the Malays; not give him a gold coin because if you give a chap just a gold coin to make him live a better life without teaching him how to earn that gold coin, we are all going in for more trouble. You give him a gold dollar today, you have got to give him a gold dollar next month because he has got used to a higher standard of living and you haven’t taught him fertilisation, new crops, new seeds, new methods of irrigation, new marketing boards to ensure that he gets a maximum for the price of his products. You have got to give him a higher earning capacity which can come only with higher education, higher skills and better economi
c planning.
In this speech on the widening Singapore-Kuala Lumpur rift, Lee took the battle into the heart of the Malay leadership when he spoke in the Federal capital during a parliamentary debate. Speaking sometimes in fluent Malay, he confronted them with attacks they had launched on him and challenged them to counter the PAP’s ideas over how to uplift the Malay community. Following are extracts of his speech during the debate in the Federal Parliament on May 27, 1965, on the motion of thanks to the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong for his speech from the throne.
Enemy of the people?
“Lee Kuan Yew is now not only our enemy but he is also the most dangerous threat to the security of this country.” —Dato Ahmad bin Said
I would like, Mr Speaker, Sir, to read if I may what this same Malay press, the Utusan Melayu, was saying at the very same time that His Majesty was making the speech, and it is not what Utusan Melayu says that worries me but who Utusan Melayu is quoting from. Said Utusan of the 25th of May, headline, “LEE IS AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE OF MALAYSIA. Klang, 24th May, Dato Harun bin Haji Idris, Mentri Besar of Selangor, described Lee Kuan Yew as an enemy of the people of Malaysia and was endangering the peace of the country.” In the same issue day before yesterday, this time it’s Berita Harian, the Mentri Besar of Perak, Dato Ahmad bin Said, has called upon the Malays and amongst the things he called upon them to take note of is his statement: Lee Kuan Yew is now not only our enemy but he is also the most dangerous threat to the security of this country.
Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think no advantage is served by equivocation. This has been going on and I have got a whole file, it goes back to a campaign mounted immediately after we announced our intention to contest the last elections, it goes back one whole year. This is what the secretary-general of UMNO said in Utusan Melayu on the very same day, the 25th: the Secretary-General also called on the Malays to be more strongly united to face the present challenge; he stressed that the Malays should realise their identity, quote, “Wherever I am, I am a Malay. If the Malays were split the Malays would perish from this earth.”
Now, Sir, I would like if I may to start with the oath which we all took when we came into this Chamber before we had the right to participate in debates; it is laid down that no Member shall have the right to participate as a representative of the people unless he swears this oath, and the oath reads, which I read myself, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Malay language: “I … (full name), having been elected as a Member of the House of Representatives, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully discharge my duties as such to the best of my ability and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia and will preserve, protect and defend its constitution.” This is its constitution, Mr Speaker, Sir, published by the government printer with the authority of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, compiled in the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Kuala Lumpur.
What is it, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I or my colleagues or the other members in the Malaysian Solidarity Convention, what is it that we have done which deserves this denunciation as “enemy of the people”?
What is it, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I or my colleagues or the other members in the Malaysian Solidarity Convention, what is it that we have done which deserves this denunciation as “enemy of the people”? A danger, a threat to security? We have said we believe in a Malaysian Malaysia. We honour this constitution because that was what we swore to do. And if I may just crave the indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir, to remind Honourable Members of what they swore to uphold:
Part 2, fundamental liberties: Article 5, liberty of the person; 6, slavery and enforced labour prohibited; 7, protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials; 8, equality – equality, Mr Speaker, Sir, political equality; prohibition of banishment and freedom of movement, freedom of speech, assembly and association; 11, freedom of religion; 12, rights in respect of education; 13, rights of property. But I will be fair to Honourable Members. There is also, as part of this constitution we swore to uphold, under 12, general and miscellaneous: Article 153, reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc. for Malays; and just before that, Article 152, National Language.
We uphold that, we accept it. This is what we swore to protect, to preserve and to defend, and this is what we have every intention of doing, Mr Speaker, Sir, by every constitutional means open to us and given to us by this constitution, the basis on which solemnly and in good faith we came into Malaysia.
Sir, I think it is time we took stock of our position and we began to face each other on fundamental issues: where we stand in respect of Malaysia, what we propose to do to advance its cause, what we are prepared to do if in fact we are to be thwarted from our legitimate objective to get what was agreed in this constitution implemented. Therefore, I noted with regret that in spite of the protests we have made as Members of the Opposition, that grave constitutional matters require at least solemn deliberations of this House, we are still faced with standing orders which entitles the government to bring about radical and fundamental changes in the constitution, all within one day, one day’s notice of the Bill, the intention of the first, second and third readings, if the government so chooses. Is this likely to protect, to defend, to uphold the constitution?
Sir, I would like to divide the opposition between loyal and not-so-loyal opposition. The Member for Batu reminded the House that I once said there was a gulf between them and us. There is still, Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps not between him personally and us, because he is not really what his party represents. Parties like the Socialist Front, Mr Speaker, Sir, and PAS, parties which have, over a series of elections spread over 10, 15 years, almost abandoned all hope of ever achieving what they want to constitutionally; it is only those parties that then began to become disloyal.
[We don’t intend to secede
I can give the Prime Minister and his colleagues this very firm assurance that we have a vested interest, Mr Speaker, Sir, in constitutionalism and in loyalty because we know, and we knew it before we joined Malaysia, that if we are patient, if we are firm, this constitution must mean that a Malaysian nation emerges. Why should we oblige the Member for Johor Tengara to get out of Malaysia? “Secede,” says he, “I demand that we say so now.” We tell him and all his colleagues now we have not the slightest intention of secession. Secession is an act of betrayal, to leave like-minded people like ourselves in Sabah, in Sarawak, in Malaya to the tender mercies of those who talk in terms of race: “Wherever I am, I am a Malay.” I would have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, if one were to say, “Wherever I am, I am a Malaysian,” it would have sounded enormously more comforting to all of us and would have helped to consolidate the nation.
We tell him and all his colleagues now we have not the slightest intention of secession.
But let me assure him, he has asked and urged the Hon’ble Minister of Home Affairs to take action, he has been going on for some months now, but it’s reaching crescendo – this was the 24th, the day before we met, Utusan Melayu, 24th: “Albar [Jaafar Albar, secretary-general of UMNO] challenges Kuan Yew: Don’t be fond of beating about the bush. Lee asked to state openly his stand whether Singapore wants to secede from Malaysia.” And it goes on to say: “If Lee Kuan Yew is really a man he should not be beating about the bush in his statements and should be brave enough to say, ‘I want to secede from Malaysia because I am not satisfied.’ But, said Albar, Lee did not dare say that because he himself signed the Malaysian Constitutional Agreement. Regarding Lee as ‘the most stupid person he has ever come across,’ Albar said that Lee entered Malaysia with his eyes open and the present Malaysia is the same Malaysia which he had endorsed. Why did he not think of all these before? Why only now have we regretted? Why? asked Albar in a high-pitched tone” – not I who said that, the Utusan, high-pitched note – “and his audience replied, ‘Crush Lee, crush Lee …’
“Lee, continued Albar in a lower tone, was really like an ‘ikan sepat’ which cannot live save in muddy water. Several voices shouted, ‘Arrest Lee and preserve him like entr
ails in pickle.’ Dato Albar smiled for a moment and then replied, ‘Shout louder so that Dr Ismail can hear the people’s anger.’”
I want to make quite sure that everybody hears the people’s anger.
Albar then went on – it is a very long piece, Mr Speaker, Sir, I leave that for Honourable Members who are interested and we can put them on the mailing list, those who do not read Jawi, we will put them on the mailing list and provide them with copies so that day by day they can follow the theoretical expositions of this ideological group – “Albar regarded Lee Kuan Yew as a frightened man chased by his own shadow.” (What can I do about my shadow, Mr Speaker, Sir; it must follow me?) “Lee is like a traveller in the sands of the Sahara, said Albar” (Vistas of the Hydramaut, Sahara, Saudi Arabia.) “He looks to his left and sees the desert sands, to his right a vast emptiness and to his rear a wide open space, and he becomes frightened. To subdue his fear he shouts on top of his voice.”
Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have quite a number of things to say, so I hope Members will forgive me if I say what I have to say in a fairly modulated way but I think sufficiently distinct and clear to leave nobody in any doubt as to where we stand.
Sir, I have no regrets about this document [holding the constitution in his hand]. It was passed in this House and in the old Parliament of Malaya; it was passed in the Assembly of Singapore. Why should we regret it? What we will regret very much, as was obliquely hinted in the address of His Majesty, “There would be an end to democracy” – the constitution suspended, brushed aside. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think these are important matters which affect all of us. And therefore, by the time a campaign which has been going on for some months finds an echo, albeit an oblique one, in His Majesty’s speech to us, it is worthwhile going into the credibility of this insinuation.
Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas Page 38
