2
Page 37
4. The High Commissioner has now written to the Chief Minister, setting out exactly what is proposed and seeking his formal agreement. As soon as he has had a satisfactory reply from the Chief Minister he proposes to issue a press statement, which will be published simultaneously here.
5. The proposed agenda for the London talks is as follows:-
(1) The future relations that should exist between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and Their Highnesses the Rulers and the Governments of the Federation of Malaya in regard to:-
(a) External defence;
(b) Internal security; (c) Finance.
(2) The future of the Public Service.
(3) The powers of the High Commissioner.
(4) The terms of reference, composition and timing of a Commission to review
the constitution.
6. I will, of course, consult the Cabinet when I have worked out in detail the lines which I would propose to follow in dealing with the various items on the agenda for the London talks.
A. L.-B.
Colonial Office, S.W. 1,
19th October, 1955.
APPENDIX
THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION IN SINGAPORE
I paid three visits to Singapore during my recent tour of the Far East. Of these the first and last occupied about a day each; on the second occasion I was there for nearly a week. During these visits I had long and friendly talks with the Chief Minister and the other members of the Council of Ministers and reached agreement with them on a number of constitutional issues. These fall broadly into two categories.
.
2. First, there were the immediate issues which had arisen between the Chief Minister and the Governor over those matters in which, under the constitution, decisions lay with the Governor in his discretion after consultation with the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister argued that in those matters the Governor was bound to accept his advice: otherwise the constitution was in these respects virtually meaningless and unworkable. The Governor, on the other hand, held that the meaning of the constitution was quite clear: he was bound to seek the Chief Minister's advice and to take it into account in reaching his decisions but not necessarily to follow it. While accepting the Chief Minister's sincerity in his own interpretation of the constitution, I had no hesitation in upholding the Governor's view. Nevertheless, both the Governor and I agreed that in relation to most of the powers in question-which related to the appointment, dismissal and leave of Ministers, the allocation of Ministerial responsibilities and the appointment of committees of the Council of Ministers-the constitution might well have been drawn so as to bind the Governor to accept the Chief Minister's advice, and that arrangements should be made to that effect by means of Instructions from Her Majesty The Queen through a Secretary of State. These arrangements are now being made.
3. I could not, however, agree to such an arrangement in relation to the most important of the powers in question, that of prorogation or dissolution of the Legislative Assembly, and I insisted that there the Governor, while still obliged to consult the Chief Minister, must retain his ultimate discretion in reaching a decision. This the Chief Minister accepted.
Page 37
Page 37
1
53
3
54
Page 3832discussions did not affect any of the numerous powers aerised 371
Page of
the Governor in his discretion without obligation to consult the Chief Minister or the Council of Ministers. Nor did they affect the Governor's reserved executive and legislative powers, in virtue of which he is in certain circumstances authorised to over-rule the Council even in those matters in which he is normally bound to accept their advice, and to give effect to legislation even if the Legislative Assembly has refused to pass it.
5. The second group of constitutional issues at stake arose from a unanimous resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly in July calling for the immediate grant of self-government. On this the Chief Minister and I agreed that Singapore should send a delegation to London in April or May of next year for talks on constitutional and other matters "in the light of a year's working of the constitution." In speaking of this in the Legislative Assembly the Chief Minister said, by agreement with me, that the present constitution was a great advance upon its predecessor, that it was workable (which the People's Action Party has always denied) and that it was the intention of the Labour Front Government to make it work. In coming to this agreement with the Chief Minister I particularly stressed four major points:
(a) that Her Majesty's Government would approach the proposed London talks next year with no sort of commitment to accept, or even to discuss, any particular proposal;
(b) that this meant, among other things, that I could hold out no hope that the talks would produce any sort of programme with dates for further constitutional advance in Singapore;
(c) that, when I said on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that the talks would be conducted "in the light of a year's working of the constitution," I meant that Singapore was indeed on trial for that year and that the course of events during it was bound materially to affect the thinking of Her Majesty's Government when the talks were held; and
(d) that any movement towards self-government in Singapore must at all stages make full allowance for the vital interest of Her Majesty's Government in the defence of the Colony and its internal security.
October, 1955.