Marshall of Singapore : a biography 9789812308771, 9812308776

Citation preview

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) was established as an autonomous organization in 1968. It is a regional centre dedicated to the study of socio-political, security and economic trends and developments in Southeast Asia and its wider geostrategic and economic environment. The Institute’s research programmes are the Regional Economic Studies (RES, including ASEAN and APEC), Regional Strategic and Political Studies (RSPS), and Regional Social and Cultural Studies (RSCS). ISEAS Publishing, an established academic press, has issued almost 2,000 books and journals. It is the largest scholarly publisher of research about Southeast Asia from within the region. ISEAS Publishing works with many other academic and trade publishers and distributors to disseminate important research and analyses from and about Southeast Asia to the rest of the world.

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

2

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

First published in Singapore in 2008 by ISEAS Publishing Institute of Southeast Asian Studies 30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Pasir Panjang Singapore 119614 E-mail: [email protected] Website: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. © 2008 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore The responsibility for facts and opinions in this publication rests exclusively with the author and his interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views or the policy of the publisher or its supporters. ISEAS Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Tan, Kevin. Marshall of Singapore : a biography. 1. Marshall, David Saul, 1908–1995. 2. Statesmen—Singapore—Biography. I. Title. DS610.63 M3T16 2008 ISBN 978-981-230-877-1 (soft cover) ISBN 978-981-230-878-8 (hard cover) Typeset by Superskill Graphics Pte Ltd Printed in Singapore by Utopia Press Pte Ltd

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

4

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

Contents

Foreword by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong

vii

Preface

xi

Acknowledgements

xvi

1. Baghdad to Singapore and Back

1

2. Growing Up in Colonial Singapore: 1917–1925

19

3. Searching for a Place in the Sun: 1927–1934

50

4. Studying Law in London

63

5. Starting Legal Practice in Singapore

85

6. War

107

7. Rebuilding Broken Lives

140

8. The Legal Legend

163

9. The Political Tyro

205

10. Igniting a Spark

224

11. Into the Deep End: The Struggle for Survival

241

12. Building a New Singapore

290

13. Politics on the Margins

362

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

5

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

VI

14. Doyen of the Bar

427

15. Viva la France!

509

16. The End Game

541

Bibliography

561

Index

579

About the Author

614

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

6

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

Foreword Chan Sek Keong Chief Justice of Singapore

David Marshall is one of the most famous sons of Singapore. To those who have known him or of him as a politician and as a lawyer during the turbulent period just before Singapore attained internal selfgovernment and up to the period when Singapore became a state of Malaysia, Marshall needs no introduction. However, that was half a century ago, and the younger generation of Singaporeans today may not appreciate or remember the significant role he played in Singapore politics during this period, even though he might have failed to achieve his goals. To the present generation of lawyers, however, he remains a legend, as accounts of his impressive forensic feats at the criminal bar continue to be passed on by generations of lawyers. Marshall was a member of one of the smallest communities in Singapore and yet managed to be chosen in 1955 as the first Chief Minister of Singapore. That office came with the responsibility of advancing the cause of self-rule for the people of Singapore. He has been described as an accidental Chief Minister,1 as he had not set out to hold that office whose powers were framed within a constitutional structure (the Rendel Constitution) that provided only for a gradual constitutional evolution from colony to internal self-government, and then self-government for Singapore. 1

Edwin Lee, Singapore: The Unexpected Nation (Singapore: ISEAS 2008), p. 104 et seq.

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

7

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

VIII

Independence was not then on the cards. However, Marshall was temperamentally unsuited to accept limitations of this power structure, and by persisting to pursue an unwinnable fight for what the British were not then prepared to concede, had to resign fourteen months later in June 1956. That was the height of his political career. With the expansion in 1959 of the electorate, the political environment changed irrevocably and made it impossible for him to make a comeback as a contender for political power. However, he was a spent force politically, but he continued to air his political views vociferously from the sidelines but was unable to influence or make a serious mark on the political development of Singapore. Marshall was endowed with many natural gifts, a great intelligence, eloquence and flair for dramatic actions and gestures. However, these gifts were neutralized by a temperament that did not permit him to wait and see, a seeming lack of political craftiness or guile and, most importantly, an absence of political realism in dealing with his political adversaries. But when it came to the law, he was matchless in his field. Time has not dimmed my mental portrait of Marshall as a man who could have achieved so much for himself and the people of Singapore. At a personal level, I can still recall the few times I had occasion to witness him in action. During my early years as a law student and as a young lawyer, I met Marshall on three or four occasions, all of which were in the company of Tommy Koh:2 (1) a visit to a prison in Johor Baru where Marshall interviewed a client (who had been charged with a capital offence): I came away from it with a valuable lesson learnt on how not to put oneself in a position of conflict of interest;3 (2) a visit to his electoral office in a constituency in which Marshall was standing 2

Tommy was one of Marshall’s pupils in 1961–62, but he did not stay on to practise law.

3

At a certain point during the interview, he stopped the client from giving a statement (which Marshall sensed) would be difficult for him to defend the client.

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

8

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

FOREWORD

IX

for a by-election and (3) a weekend visit to his home in Tanah Merah.4 Being a young lawyer, I could not help but be impressed by his stature as a lawyer, his fame as a politician and his apparent style of living as a bon vivant. As a criminal lawyer, Marshall was a legend even at the time I started law studies in 1957. His previous political office as Chief Minister merely added to the lustre. His prestige and reputation at the Bar and with the Bench were unrivalled. There were certainly many young lawyers who dreamed of being another Marshall at the Bar. Even in civil work, he could be the best at the Bar, if properly briefed. I was once unsuccessful in the High Court in defending a client who had been sued for selling unmerchantable goods to a German animal feed company. There was a conflict of laws element in the case, i.e., whether German law applied to the contract of sale. My firm briefed Marshall for the appeal, and he had no difficulty in persuading the Federal Court that there was no breach of contract.5 In internal security (preventive detention) cases, he was the first port of call for practically all detainees who could pay his fees. Unfortunately he could not provide a safe harbour for them. This was all the more ironical since it was he as Chief Minister who had introduced the predecessor legislation in Singapore.6 But if Marshall could not get them off, then no other lawyer could. To many lawyers, he was a heroic figure in his unsuccessful opposition to the Government’s policy to abolish the jury in 1970. It was a battle he could not win and which, I believe, lost him some credibility. I was present at a discussion on the subject organized by 4

Where he used to invite his friends, admirers and acolytes for food, drink and discussions on whatever subjects that fancied him.

5

On the ground that the appellant was not in breach of contract as the flour was merchantable under Singapore law, even though it might not have been so in Germany under German law. See Seng Hin v. Arathoon Sons Ltd [1965–1968] SLR 293.

6

The Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, Ordinance No. 25 of 1955.

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

9

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

X

the Law School in the University of Singapore. Marshall was, of course, the star speaker. When a participant questioned him why he was so sure that abolishing the jury was bad for Singapore, he promptly replied that it was not necessary to break open a bad egg to know that it was a bad egg. His ability for quick repartee did not serve him well on occasions like this. Marshall was a man of many talents. He had the innate intelligence, ability and drive to achieve great things for Singapore, but many obstacles stood in his way, the chief of which were probably his own character, beliefs and ideals which did not wholly resonate with the electorate of the time. But though he has left no tangible political legacy behind, he is still remembered as a pathfinder and a fierce anticolonialist who did his best to accelerate the passing of colonialism in Singapore. Marshall is now an indelible part of the history of Singapore. But time fades memory. To the succeeding generations of Singapore born after 1965, David Marshall might be just a name which appears in the school texts on the modern history of Singapore as he effectively ceased to be in the public consciousness when he left Singapore in 1978 to become Singapore’s first Ambassador to France. When he returned to Singapore in 1993 upon his retirement, he was a stranger to the younger generations of Singaporeans. This publication of this biography is therefore timely not only to remind the young Singaporeans of a gifted Singaporean whose political missteps had a silver lining in paving the way for others to achieve the goals that eluded him, but also to serve as a fitting memorial in the centenary year of his birth. This biography tells the story of an extraordinary Singaporean who lived a full and eventful life in the course of which he attained the highest political office, became the most famous lawyer of his time and excelled as an ambassador to round up his public achievements. It is also worth reading for the many other facets of his personal and family life, all of which the author has documented and recounted with passion, as he has written, worthy of his subject.

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

10

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

Preface

I first met David Marshall when I was a student at the Law Faculty at the National University of Singapore at Kent Ridge on 10 September 1984. He was back from France on a holiday and had been invited to address the Law Club of which all law students were automatically members. Of course, we had all heard of David Marshall long before. For myself, I first learnt his name when I was about 10 or 11 years old when I was given an assignment to find out about Singapore’s political history for my Scout Civics Proficiency badge test. That afternoon, some 200 of us packed the Moot Court to hear this legal legend. Those of us who were there never forgot the occasion. He started out by attacking women, chiding them for their temerity in not speaking out more forcefully against the Graduate Mothers’ Scheme. He thought it was barbaric. Where is “the chilli padi in your veins?” he challenged. He then spoke to us about how honourable the law is as a profession, how we should not grow up with “gold dust coursing through” our veins. The women were furious and politely told him that he was wrong, that they were up in arms but that the government was not listening. And then he turned on his charm. “Don’t be mistaken,” he told us, “I don’t have anything against women. I love women.” The crowd roared and his point was made. Like so many of the others, I fell under the spell of David Marshall. I felt like I was hit by a cyclone while the volcano I stood on erupted beneath me. Many of my classmates still talk about that memorable occasion. David Marshall so inspired us that we all wanted to go out there and change the world! While Marshall made a tremendous impact on us that afternoon, I fear we made little impact on him. Indeed, we succeeded in sending

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

11

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

XII

him into a temporary state of depression! That night, he wrote in his diary: To Legal Club of NUS [sic]. Some 200. Addressed them … impression of measure of fear … depression … Unable to sleep for a long time. Decided to close the book on “political” activities. No more public expression on political issues.

I was so impressed with David Marshall that immediately I went up to him after his talk and introduced myself. I was then the Chief Editor of the Singapore Law Review and took the opportunity to ask him for an article for our fledgling publication. To my surprise, he readily agreed and gave us a most entertaining and instructive article on legal ethics which we happily published. Over the years, I met him again, on and off, usually at official law functions, but I never really knew the man. Like so many others, I cheered him from the sidelines when he lambasted the press, pleaded for the government to be more humane, and urged young people to smell the roses and learn to appreciate the finer things in life. Like so many others, I mourned when he died. Given this experience, I readily agreed when the Director of ISEAS, Ambassador K Kesavapany, approached me towards the end of 2006 to write Marshall’s biography. After all, David Marshall was one of my greatest inspirations, and I have long felt that a thorough treatment of his fascinating life was long overdue. Do we really need another book about David Marshall? After all, he has already been the subject of at least two book-length treatments, and numerous articles and interviews. As a scholar, my first instinct was to dash down to the library and do a quick search of the prevailing literature. I had to be sure that I would not simply end up rehashing work already done by others. Biographically, Marshall has been especially well-served. Indeed, one of the best biographies to be published in Singapore is Dr Chan Heng Chee’s A Sensation of Independence: A Political

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

12

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

PREFACE

XIII

Biography of David Marshall (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1984). However, these biographies cover only a part of Marshall’s long life and career. Chan’s book for example, focuses on Marshall’s political career (mainly between 1950 and 1963), as does a slightly earlier work, Alex Josey’s David Marshall’s Political Interlude (Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 1982). Alex Josey also wrote a journalistic book, David Marshall’s Trials (Singapore: Times Books International, 1981) containing quite a few but featuring four of Marshall’s more interesting and sensational criminal cases. None of these studies offer a comprehensive study of Marshall’s life from the time he was born till his death in 1995. Chan’s biographical sketch in the opening chapters of her book is perhaps the best to date, but she devotes only 50 pages to his early life and since her focus was primarily on his political career, spilled little ink on his post-political life. I was most privileged to have had full access to the David Marshall Papers which the Marshall family donated to ISEAS. Going through each document in the 500-odd folios took me many months, not to mention some forensic detective work, especially when it came to reading Marshall’s beautifully flamboyant but infuriatingly illegible handwriting. This is not an official or authorized biography even though Mrs Jean Marshall gave me almost unfettered access to Marshall’s diaries and his papers. Fascinating as the diaries were, I have used them judiciously, mindful of the great diarist James Lees-Milne’s admonition that the diarist is but “an irrational being, a weathercock, a piece of chaff drifting on every wind of circumstance”. Beyond this incredible archive of papers — much of which his previous biographers were not privileged to consult — I interviewed many people who knew him, and who worked with him. Then there are his numerous speeches — inside and outside the Legislative Assembly — and the many delightful interviews he gave in the course of his long years.

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

13

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

XIV

Did I discover any myth-shattering, mind-blowing material that will change how we see this great man? No, not really. What I have found does not fundamentally change the man as we know and remember him. But the devil, as they say, is in the details. I managed to catch a glimpse of his thought processes, of the way he ran his practice, his philosophy about life, the law and a whole host of other things, and above all, his spirit of service. We are not just talking about the public service we have come to know, but small things we often don’t hear about, like helping the liftman in the Bank of China Building to find his brother a job, or writing to friends in the UK and elsewhere to get them to take care of his friends from Singapore who were visiting. These little acts of kindness demonstrate the sincerity and genuineness of Marshall’s entire make-up. He loved people, believed everyone to be of equal worth and treated them accordingly. Many have asked me if my view of David Marshall has changed in the course of my working on this volume. After all, it is terribly difficult to write about a legend one admires. My answer is this: “The more I know about him, the more human he becomes. He was no saint or angel, but despite his shortcomings, he transcended so much, to bring such joy to so many.” What would Marshall have thought about what I’m writing? I don’t know, but I shudder just thinking about it. When asked, some years ago, whether he would write an autobiography, he was at his most acerbic. “No,” he said, “most autobiographers are hypocrites seeking to justify their actions. They cannot confront and handle the truth because it is painful.” And what about biographers? Well, in his own words: “I think in respect to the late Alex Josey, he was flatfooted. Heng Chee is as cold as a surgical instrument. There isn’t anybody who has caught the fire in my belly, the passion, the intense excitement, the capacity within me to throw myself into the turmoil willy-nilly and to risk surviving.” I hope I have done justice to the enormity of the responsibility placed upon me by this biography. I hope that I shall be able to

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

14

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

PREFACE

XV

capture that “chilli padi” in his veins, that “fire in the belly” and the intensity with which he lived life to the fullest. At any rate, I have, as Marshall would have liked, thrown myself willy-nilly into this project with all the passion I could muster. Kevin Y L Tan September 2008

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

15

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

Acknowledgements

One cannot write a book of this breadth and magnitude without help. I would like to first thank Ambassador K Kesavapany, Director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), for approaching me to write this book and for facilitating its research and publication. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong for kindly penning the Foreword to this book. Working on this book has been a most rewarding experience, made all the more so by the extremely helpful and supportive staff at ISEAS, especially the library staff under the capable and knowledgeable Ms Ch’ng Kim See. Among Library staff whom I had the pleasure of working with and whom I would like to thank are: Ms Zaleha Thamby, Ms Gandhimathy Durairaj, Mr Mohd Kassim bin Ishak, Ms Linda Yip and Ms Susan Low. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of Ms Triena Ong, managing editor and head of ISEAS Publishing for producing this handsome book in such quick time; and V.L. for her excellent copyediting and indexing of this volume. This book would not have been possible if not for the kindness of Mrs Jean Marshall and her family. Jean gave me unprecedented access to the Marshall papers and his diaries deposited at ISEAS. She also introduced me to family members and friends who knew Marshall well during his lifetime. It was impossible to interview everyone who either worked with or knew him given the constraints of time and travel. Jean’s counsel and insights into many facets of Marshall’s life, his friends, his work and Singapore society in general were really extremely helpful. To her I owe an unpayable debt.

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

16

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

XVII

I have been most fortunate to have great help from many individuals who have either known David Marshall, or were familiar with differing aspects of his life and who willingly shared their stories with me. I would like to thank the following interviewees and correspondents who willing shared their thoughts, views and recollections of David Marshall (in alphabetical order): Geoffrey Abisheganaden, Amarjeet Singh, Frank Benjamin, Chew Swee Yoke, Chiang Hai Ding, S. Dhanabalan, Harry Elias, Eng Ah Pat, Joe Grimberg, Michael Hwang, J. M. Jumabhoy, Tommy Koh, Lim Chong Eu, Jean Marshall, Jonathan Marshall, Samuel Marshall, T. P. B. Menon, Jaya Mohideen, Mohideen P. H. Rubin, S. R. Nathan, Michael Raeburn, L. A. Sheridan, Josef Silverstein, Charles Tan, Teo Soh Lung, Thio Su Mien, Francis Trindade, and Annie Wee. It is amazing and wonderful how the name David Marshall evokes so much goodwill among people who may not even have met him. In that respect, I have also benefitted much in my research from a large number of friends and fellow researchers. I want to thank Professor Josef Silverstein (former Director of ISEAS), who agreed to allow to listen to and quote from his 1975 taped interviews with David Marshall; Geoff Wade of the Asia Research Institute for readily and enthusiastically sharing fascinating and hitherto classified documents — in which David Marshall was mentioned — from the Australian National Archives; Ian Buruma for quickly connecting me with the family of Walter Raeburn, Marshall’s pupil master in London; Joan Bieder for sharing her experiences researching the history of Singapore’s Jewish community; Hannah Baker of the Middle Temple Archives for leaving no stone unturned in extracting everything there was on David Marshall within the Temple’s records; Julia Han of the Jewish Welfare Board for giving me full access to the historical files of the Board; Tan Chuin Wei for helping me track all reported cases in which David Marshall appeared; Alvin Tan Poh Heng for transcribing a few of Marshall’s speeches; Roger Mansell, Director of POW Research, www.mansell.com for his very helpful assistance in tracing

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

17

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

XVIII

and tracking Japanese hell ships and Prisoner-of-War camps in Japan during World War II; Thum Peng Tjin for allowing me to read and quote from his unpublished Oxford MA thesis “Thick Faces, Black Hearts”; and Kazuo Sugino, Secretary-General of the Japanese Association, Singapore for sharing a video interview with David Marshall that was taped just months before the latter’s death. I want to also thank Tan Siok Sun, Khoo Gaik Tee and Alex Tan for their friendship, help and support in the early days of this project. Thanks also to Ang Seow Leng of the National Library, Singapore, who helped me track down many of the old law firms in Singapore and to the staff of the National Archives, Singapore who were extremely helpful when I had occasion to consult the treasure trove of oral history interviews in their collection. Finally, I want to thank my wife Meng and my daughters Krystal and Kimberley for their love and support throughout the writing of this book. Meng and Krystal also helped me go through the manuscript with their eagle and critical eyes and saved me from many an embarrassing typographical and syntax error. Kevin Y L Tan September 2008

00 Marshall_S'pore Prelims

18

11/21/08, 9:18 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the SINGAPORE AND BACK 1 Institute BAGHDAD of SoutheastTO Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

1

Baghdad to Singapore and Back HAIL DAVID

O

n 12 March, 1908, a baby boy was born to Saul and Flora Mashal at their home on the island of Singapore. They named him David, after the biblical king of the Jews. Unbeknownst to them, his life would parallel and resonate with that of the legendary king in many ways in the years to come. The Mashals lived on the second storey of a small shophouse at 81, Selegie Road, at the junction of Selegie Road and Sophia Road, in the middle of Singapore’s Jewish quarter, referred to as the mahallah by the Arabspeaking Jews. Below them was a shop selling Chinese coffins. The Mashals celebrated the arrival of their first-born son. Flora was especially pleased. The year before, she had given birth to their first child, a daughter named Rachel. Saul and Flora had been in the British colony of Singapore for just eight years and things were looking up for them. Saul had arrived in Singapore in 1900. Unlike so many of his fellow sojourners, Saul was not in Singapore to seek his fortune but to recover his health, having been diagnosed with jaundice.1 Two years previously, in 1898, he had married Flora — born Mariam Farha

1

Saul came to Singapore via Bombay. His brother, David, apparently left Baghdad for Bombay at about the same time.

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

1

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

2

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Khan — only child of Khan and Ha’cohen.2 The young Saul arrived in Singapore during Ramadan — the holy Muslim month of fasting — and noticed that local Muslims did not have any dates with which to break their fast, as was the tradition in Baghdad. Born into a family of traders and dyers, Saul smelt an opportunity here and began importing dried dates from the Middle East. Soon he set up an office in Change Alley, leading off Singapore’s business centre, Raffles Place.3 Business was good and Saul decided to settle in Singapore. Once settled in, he sent for his young bride in Baghdad. FROM BAGHDAD TO SINGAPORE 4

Today, the Jews constitute the smallest ethnic community in Singapore. Even at its height, just before the onset of World War II in Europe, the total number of Jews in Singapore numbered no more than 2,000. Most Jews in Singapore came from Baghdad, in Mesopotamia (presentday Iraq). Jews had lived in Mesopotamia for close to 3,000 years and Baghdad had long been one of the most important centres of Jewry in the Middle East.5 In 1910, Baghdad had a huge Jewish population. 2

It has not been possible to trace her paternal blood line beyond this point. Her maternal blood line reveals that her mother was the daughter of Nissim Ha’Cohen and Rachel Sadka and that Rachel Sadka was the daughter of Sadka and Mariam Levi.

3

Raffles Place had been reclaimed from the swamp around the Singapore River and was first known as Commercial Square — rather a misnomer since the “square” was in fact a rectangular, open space measuring 200 by 50 yards, surrounded by commercial buildings, shops, and offices. In 1858, it was renamed Raffles Place but the name Commercial Square remained in common use for a long time thereafter.

4

See Joan Bieder, The Jews of Singapore (Singapore: Suntree, 2007), pp. 12– 35.

5

For accounts of the Jews in Arab lands, see Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984); Norman A. Stillman, Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991); and Chaim Raphael, The Road from Babylon: The Story of the Sephardi and Oriental Jews (New York: Harper & Row, 1985).

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

2

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

3

BAGHDAD TO SINGAPORE AND BACK

A British consular report of that year estimated that there were some 45,000 to 50,000 Jews in the city, and in 1921, the last official yearbook listed 80,000 Jews among 202,200 inhabitants.6 There are hardly any Jews left in Baghdad today.7 These were the Sephardic Jews of the Iberian Peninsula — the descendants of those who were ordered to leave Spain in 1492, as well as those who had lived in the area since the deportation of Jews following the destruction of the first Temple of Jerusalem, in the sixth century BCE. The term comes from the Hebrew Sepharad, meaning Spain. Most of the exiles settled throughout the Ottoman Empire, which included Mesopotamia, Turkey, and Persia. Under the Ottomans, the Jews enjoyed the status of dhimmi or ‘protected persons’ who ranked just below the Muslims in status, but above the pagans. This status carried with it certain disadvantages — such as the need to pay special taxes, wear special dress and shoes, and live in special quarters — but it did guarantee their lives, property, and the right to worship as they chose.8 In the nineteenth century, as the Ottoman Empire was facing revolt from its non-Muslim population, the millet system was introduced.9 The millet system granted civil equality to all racial and religious groups. It replaced the special poll tax with a military substitution tax

6

See Nissim Rejwan, The Last Jews in Baghdad: Remembering a Lost Homeland (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004), p. 1.

7

Ibid; Naim Kattan, Farewell Babylon: Coming of Age in Jewish Baghdad (Vancouver: Raincoast Books, 2005); and Marina Benjamin, Last Days in Babylon: The Story of the Jews of Baghdad (London: Bloomsbury, 2007).

8

See Daniel J. Schroeter, “The Changing Relationship Between the Jews of the Arab Middle East and the Ottoman State in the Nineteenth Century”, in Avigdor Levy, ed., Jews, Turks, Ottomans: A Shared History, Fifteenth Through the Twentieth Century (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2002), p. 89.

9

From the Arabic millah, meaning ‘religion’, but referring to religions other than Islam. On the development of the millet system, see Schroeter, pp. 89–96.

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

3

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

4

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

to be paid by Christians and Jews who did not wish to serve in the Ottoman military. This new-found equality meant that Jews were presented with economic opportunities as well as relative autonomy in regulating their communal affairs. In 1847, there were some 3,000 Jews in Baghdad “living in happy circumstances” and the “trade of Baghdad with India was then largely in the hands of the Jews, who had manufactories in Calcutta, Bombay, Singapore and Canton.”10 Even so, the position of the Jews was less than completely secure. For example, in 1876 and 1877, Baghdad was attacked by a terrible plague and the Jews were forced to leave the city and camp in the wilderness till the plague subsided. This did not stop the Jews from becoming completely assimilated into their adopted society: By the end of the nineteenth century, Jews were so thoroughly integrated into Baghdadi society, eating the same food, wearing the same clothes and cherishing the same local customs as their Muslim peers that often the only way to tell the Jews apart was by their headgear: they wore the red fez, while Muslims favoured the turban.11

The Tanzimat or ‘reorganization’ of the Ottoman Empire between 1839 and 1876 gave Baghdad’s Jewish community greater opportunities than ever before.12 The autonomy within the millet and

10 See The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901–1906) Vol. 2, p. 436. 11 Benjamin, Last Days in Babylon, p. 20. Howard M. Sachar has pointed out that this phenomenon is peculiar to Iraqi Jews, whom he described as “almost indistinguishable from their Arab neighbors, and spoke Arabic at home as in the street”. See Howard M. Sachar, A History of the Jews in the Modern World (New York: Vintage Books, 2006), p. 153. 12 The Tanzimat began in 1839 and ended with the First Constitutional Era in 1876. It sprang from a reform-minded sultans such as Mahmud II and Abdulmecid I and from reformist, European-educated bureaucrats such as Ali Pasha, Fuad Pasha, and Midhat Pasha.

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

4

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

5

BAGHDAD TO SINGAPORE AND BACK

the economic opportunities turned the “very ambitious, hard-working, capable, and economical” Jews into an important business and social class.13 Haron Da’ud Shohet, a dragoman14 at the British ConsulateGeneral in Baghdad in 1910, noted: The Jews of Baghdad are no longer persecuted and despised. They are now placed on the same footing as the Mohammedans and the Christians. The Turkish Government fully realize that the Jews are one of the chief elements in the progress of their country. The Turks have all along regarded the Jews as very faithful subjects of the Sultan and have placed confidence in them. On the other hand the Jews of Baghdad have borne feeling of gratitude towards the Turkish government ever since the immigration of their co-religionists from Spain into Asia Minor some hundreds of years ago. The community is anxious to co-operate with the government for the improvement of the country, if only the government gain their confidence.15

By the turn of the twentieth century, the Jews had established themselves as Baghdad’s pre-eminent businessmen, controlling the vast bulk of Baghdad’s commerce and finance.16 Most Jewish businessmen made their money through money-lending and entrepôt trade, capitalizing on their far-flung contacts throughout the British Empire. The centre of business was the Al-Shorja souk, the Jewish quarter’s largest open-air market. And leading the Jewish community was the great Rabbi Joseph Hayyim ben Eliahu Mazal-Tov (1832–

13 H.D. Shohet, Account of the Jewish Community in Baghdad, 27 Feb 1910, quoted in Elie Kedourie, Arabic Political Memoirs and Other Studies (London: Routledge, 1974), p. 270. 14 A dragoman was an official who acted as an interpreter, translator, and official guide in Turkish, Arabic, and Persian-speaking countries. 15 H.D. Shohet, quoted in Kedourie, Arabic Political Memoirs, p. 271. 16 Benjamin, Last Days in Babylon, p. 19.

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

5

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

6

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

1909). This was the Baghdad in which Saul Nissim Mashal’s family flourished — and which he left in 1900. In Singapore, Saul very soon came into contact with the Jewish community and settled in the mahallah (Arabic for ‘place’, used generally to denote the Jewish quarter) — an area delineated by Selegie Road, Sophia Road, Bencoolen Street, Prinsep Street, Short Street, and Middle Road — which was within walking distance of the Maghain Aboth Synagogue on Waterloo Street. This was a mainly residential area favoured by fairly humble Jewish, Eurasian, and Indian families. Jews began settling in Singapore in the 1830s,17 coming to the island via India. Later, others joined them from Persia and Mesopotamia. Soon, these early settlers, led by Joseph Dwek Cohen, Nassim Joseph Ezra, and Ezra Ezra Ezekiel, established a synagogue in a small shophouse in 1841 at what is now Synagogue Street.18 That same year, the Jews obtained a 99-year lease on a plot of land between Orchard Road and Penang Lane for a Jewish cemetery.19 Quite naturally, the Jews lived near their place of worship, at Boat Quay and its environs. This first Jewish synagogue could hold only forty persons, but the growth of Singapore’s Jewish population was slow and it served as the centre of Jewish life and worship until the 1870s. Among the many Jewish settlers of the nineteenth century, the most important was Manasseh Meyer (1846–1930), a Sephardic Jew who was born in Baghdad. Meyer spent his childhood years in Calcutta before coming to Singapore in 1861 as a young boy to stay with his uncle, Joshua

17 The Singapore population census taken in 1830 showed nine Jews among a population of some 16,500. 18 See Jewish Synagogue Ordinance, Cap 365, Singapore Statutes. 19 This cemetery was exhumed in the 1970s and is now the site of the Dhoby Ghaut MRT Station.

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

6

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

7

BAGHDAD TO SINGAPORE AND BACK

Rafael Joshua, and study at St Joseph’s Institution. He later returned to Calcutta and joined the family business, but came back to Singapore for good in 1873 and established the trading firm of Meyer Brothers. Meyer’s brilliant business acumen made him the richest Jew in the Far East. Albert Einstein, on meeting him in 1922, compared him to Croesus, the legendary fifth-century king of Lydia who was famed for his vast wealth. The trustees of the old synagogue, including Meyer’s uncle Joshua, were already making plans to replace the overcrowded and fastdeteriorating shophouse in Synagogue Street when Meyer joined them as trustee. Meyer obtained approval from the Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Braddell, to sell the shophouse synagogue in Synagogue Street and to build a new one elsewhere. Meyer then secured land in Waterloo Street, where the new Maghain Aboth Synagogue (literally, ‘The Shield of Our Fathers’) was built and consecrated in 1878. Meyer contributed significantly to the cost of this new synagogue and later added a simple gallery for the women’s use. The moving of the synagogue from the city centre to Waterloo Street also meant that many Jews resettled in the area around Waterloo Street since it was traditional for Jews to live within walking distance of their synagogue. Before long, the area around the Maghain Aboth Synagogue became known as the Jewish quarter. Most newly arrived Jews found familiar faces and accommodation there. Not all of Singapore’s Jews lived in the mahallah. Richer and upwardly mobile Jews chose to live outside it, as it was fast becoming a bit of a ghetto. Many moved up along Sophia Road and the really wealthy ones lived in the suburbs, a few miles out of town. For many wealthy Jews, Katong in the East Coast was the prime choice. The Singapore to which Saul had moved was teeming with activity. Claimed for the British East India Company by the ambitious Stamford Raffles in 1819, the island was declared a free port and almost immediately attracted immigrants and traders from surrounding lands as well as India and China. By the beginning of the twentieth century,

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

7

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

8

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Singapore was a busy commercial centre. Much of the commerce was in the hands of the European firms such as Guthrie & Co., Brinkmann & Co., Huttenhach Brothers, Syme & Co., Behn Meyer & Co., Boustead & Co., Rautenberg, Schmidt & Co. and Paterson Simons. Many of these companies had offices along Collyer Quay, as they needed to sight ships anchoring in the roads.20 Change Alley, the little lane where Saul Mashal decided to locate his import business, linked Raffles Place to Collyer Quay and was one of the busiest human thoroughfares in the city. Most business people got around by rickshaw or horse-drawn carriages called gharries. There were few macadamized or metal roads. Most roads were red laterite, even in downtown Raffles Square, and electricity was a luxury. Indeed, most offices had no fans or electric lights, only punkahs — portable fans made from a large leaf or cloth, pulled by a coolie or punkah wallah — and oil lamps. Despite the hot, humid climate, men working in downtown offices would dress in a white cotton drill suit or baju tutup (literally, ‘closed coat’). By this time, the telephone had become a commercial necessity but some offices still had to share telephone numbers and lines. Other than the major European trading houses, most locals either owned small shops, were petty traders, or worked as blue-collar labourers. Saul Mashal had arrived in Singapore at a time when the colony was undergoing tremendous change. The death of Queen Victoria in 1901, plunged the city’s loyal subjects into mourning. Singapore’s place in the Empire was as important as it was secure. The economy, which had been in the doldrums since the disastrous fall in value of the Straits dollar in 1893, had begun to pick up in the late 1890s. With that, a number of important public works were undertaken with

20 See Edwin A. Brown, Indiscreet Memories: 1901 Singapore Through the Eyes of a Colonial Englishman (Kelly & Walsh, 1935; repr. Singapore: Monsoon Books, 2007), p. 41.

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

8

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

9

BAGHDAD TO SINGAPORE AND BACK

vigour and enthusiasm.21 These included the enlargement and expansion of freshwater reservoirs;22 the renovation of the old Town Hall which reopened as the Victoria Memorial Hall in 1905; the introduction of electric street lighting in the central area; and the introduction of electricity for domestic use.23 The scheme to introduce higher education in Singapore culminated in the establishment of the King Edward VII College of Medicine in 1905. Around this time, motor cars were introduced on a commercial scale for the first time. Even so, there were major problems besetting the colony. The rickshaw-pullers, who provided the main means of transport within the central area and its outskirts, went on a major strike in 1901 in protest over government attempts to impose road safety rules. This brought business to a standstill. In 1905, a major cholera outbreak claimed 759 lives, prompting the Straits Government to look seriously at Singapore’s substandard health care system. The consumption of opium was still a major problem. Education for the masses was still very much left to Christian missionaries and Chinese clan associations.24 THE MARSHALL ANCESTRY

The Sephardic Jews of Baghdad did not have a strict naming convention for their offspring. Some Jewish families had family names

21 C.M. Turnbull, A History of Singapore 1819–1988, 2nd ed. (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 112. 22 These included the expansion of the Thomson Road Reservoir (now known as the MacRitchie Reservoir) in 1904; the building of the Pearl’s Hill Reservoir in 1907; and the Kallang River Extension Scheme that created the Peirce Reservoir in 1911. 23 Electric fans were installed in Government House in 1905, while electric lighting and fans began replacing oil lamps and punkahs in private homes in 1906. See Turnbull, A History of Singapore, p. 113. 24 Ibid., pp. 115–16.

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

9

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

10

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

or surnames, while others adopted the Arabic practice whereby a child would adopt his or her father’s first name as his or her last name.25 Families with surnames usually acquired them from their occupations, just as in much of Europe. There would thus be the “baker” families with one surname, or the cloth-dyeing family with another surname. David’s family name was Mashal, the Arabic word for ‘torch’.26 Family legend has it that his first known ancestor, Nissim Heskiel Mashal, was so nicknamed ‘Mashal’ because he had a shock of red hair that stood out like a torch or beacon of light. When certain branches of the family migrated to different parts of the British Empire, such as India and Singapore, they changed the spelling of their names to ‘Mashaal’ to mimic the long ‘aa’ sound traditionally used in the Arabic pronunciation, or anglicized it to ‘Marshall’. Some others retained the spelling of ‘Mashal’. Saul Nassim Mashal came from a family of dyed-cloth merchants.27 Born in Baghdad, Mesopotamia, in 1880, he was the eldest of nine children of Nissim Mashal (1853–1923) and Farha Sadka (1857– 1937).28 Nissim Mashal, David’s grandfather, was also born in Baghdad,

25 Harry Elias, one of Singapore’s top lawyers and a leader of the Jewish community, told me that his family, which came from the poorer segment of the Jewish community, adopted this practice. He was named Harry Elias Jonah after his father, who was named Elias Jonah. 26 Incidentally, the word mashal also means ‘parable’ in Hebrew and is also used to “designate other forms of rhetoric, such as fable and apothegm”. See The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. 9 (Funk & Wagnalls, 1901–1906) at p. 512. 27 For this account of the Mashal family genealogy, I have relied on the Les Fleur de L’Orient genealogy website and on information provided by Mrs Jean Marshall. 28 Saul’s brothers were Saleh (1886–1946); Abraham (1888–1961); David (1893– 1995); Isaac (1899–1939); and Joseph (1902–1927). His sisters were Hannah (1890–197?); Sarah (1892–1977); and Nazima Habiba (1903–1957). David

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

10

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

11

BAGHDAD TO SINGAPORE AND BACK

just like Nissim’s father Za’aroor before him. Unfortunately, it is impossible to trace the male line of David’s ancestry beyond his great grandfather Za’aroor, who was probably born at the turn of the nineteenth century. We do not know what Za’aroor did for a living nor when he died, but he was married to Hannah Mashal (1815-1891) and they had four children: Jonathan Yona (1850–1948); Nissim; Eliahoo (1859–1925); and Habiba (1862–1892). All four children adopted Za’aroor’s name as their family name except for Nissim, who for some inexplicable reason adopted his mother Hannah’s surname, Mashal. Hannah Mashal was the youngest child and only daughter of Nissim Heskiel Mashal (1778–1848), generally acknowledged by the Marshall clan as the founder of the family and its first-known ancestor. The fact that Marshall family lore has Za’aroor as the redhaired moneylender who was known as the ‘torch’ adds further to the confusion. David’s mother Farha (or Flora, as she later called herself) had a rather mysterious past. According to the family genealogy,29 she was the daughter of Khan, but Chan Heng Chee’s account of David’s early life, in her Sensation of Independence, states that she was a Gahtan, hailing from Isfahan in Persia (modern-day Iran).30 According to Chan’s account, based on her personal interview with David, Flora’s stepmother was “a tall and beautiful lady with blue eyes”. When she

seems to have been particularly fond of his uncle Abraham Nassim Mashaal of Baghdad, his father’s younger brother. Abraham had apparently visited Singapore in 1904 and 1905. He kept in close touch with David right up to the time of his death in Baghdad in 1961. His last known address was Abo Nowas Street 53/1, Baghdad. See Abraham N. Mashaal to David Marshall, 24 Aug 1955, DM/18/83. 29 See the Les Fleur de L’Orient genealogy website at . 30 Chan Heng Chee, A Sensation of Independence: David Marshall — A Political Biography (Singapore: Times Books International, 2001), pp. 16–17.

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

11

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

12

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

gave birth to her first child, the story goes, a son was also born into the royal house of Persia, but the Queen could not breast-feed the young prince and Flora’s stepmother was chosen to be his wet-nurse. When the Crown Prince came of age, he held a tea-party at which he presented his wet-nurse with two 30-carat emeralds in a silken bag. Chan casts doubt on the story, suggesting instead that Flora’s stepmother could well have been wet-nurse to any male offspring of the royal household and not necessarily to the prince. Indeed, if Flora’s step-brother had been born towards the end of the nineteenth century, then the Crown Prince in question might well have been Ahmad Shah Qajar, who was born on 21 January, 1898, and ruled as Shah of Persia from 1909 to 1925 as the last member of the Qajar dynasty. Sadly, none of this can be verified and very much remains family lore. Another fascinating story is told of Flora’s father — he who was named Khan or Gahtan. He had apparently been a bullion trader in Isfahan. In 1889, during the reign of Nasser al-Din Shah Qajar (1831– 1896), the Imperial Bank of Persia (Bank Shahan-Shahi Iran) was established under a concession given by the Shah to Baron Julius de Reuter, a German-born, naturalized Englishman. The Bank — which lasted until 1930 — was given the monopoly to issue banknotes, to the tune of £40,000 or 13,000 Tomans, as a loan with 6% interest. This was the first time paper currency was issued and the first issues of the Bank went very slowly. Indeed, only 2,000 notes amounting to £22,000 were circulated. This was due partly to the resistance of the “dealing houses”, who were determined to undermine the worth of these notes by drawing huge sums from the bank’s major branches and then calling on smaller branches to convert all the notes into gold and silver. The plan was to cause the public to lose confidence in the bank by making it appear that it was unable to honour its commitments and thus create a panic. The rest of the story, as David related to Rabbi Rabinowitz, is as follows:

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

12

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

13

BAGHDAD TO SINGAPORE AND BACK

The people distrusted these flimsy paper substitutes for solid gold and the bullion brokers did a roaring trade in buying them up at as much as 40% discount of their face value. The country was threatened with economic breakdown and the practice was made a capital offence. The profits were so enormous, however, that the brokers persisted in it, and one night eight of them, including Marshall’s grandfather … were arrested. The other seven were dealt with summarily. Their bodies were put in sacks and they were thrown into the river to drown. The old Marshall was spared because his wife had once been wet-nurse to the Persian Royal Prince. He was given four hours to leave the country and loading his family and as many movables as he could on to two carriages he crossed the border into Iraq.31

Unfortunately, Rabinowitz writes that the subject of this story was David’s paternal, rather than his maternal grandfather, and this is almost certainly wrong.32 David’s maternal grandfather, whether he went by the name Khan or Gahtan, escaped with most of his worldly goods and continued to lead a prosperous life in Baghdad. David’s maternal grandfather was, in his own words, “a great collector of carpets and Chinese porcelain”33 and “in his old age he used to weep when he thought of the treasures which he had been forced to leave behind.”34 As far as can be ascertained, Saul and Flora Mashal had seven children. Their eldest child, Victoria Rachel, was born in 1907 and died of illness some time in either 1919 or 1920. David was the

31 Louis Rabinowitz, Far East Mission (Johannesburg: Eagle Press, 1952), pp. 191–92. 32 This was confirmed by Mrs Jean Marshall, who maintains that the story, as told to her, referred to Marshall’s maternal grandfather. Interview with Jean Marshall, 29 Jul 2008. 33 Quoted in Rabinowitz, Far East Mission, p. 192. 34 Ibid.

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

13

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

14

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

second child, born in 1908, and a second girl, Rose, was born in 1909.35 Then followed four boys: George (1911–1945); Samuel or “Sonny” (born 1913); Meyer; and Rothschild or “Reggie”. There was quite possibly another boy who died in infancy of measles in Baghdad some time in 1920, when Flora made a second trip there along with Rose, Sonny, and George.36 Both Flora and Saul had spent a year each in schools founded by the Alliance Israélite Universelle (AIU).37 The AIU was founded in Paris in 1860 by a group of Jewish intellectuals. The aim of the AIU was to uplift less fortunate Jews in the Middle East and North Africa by, among other things, educating them in the tradition of French secular schooling. Among the goals stated in the first article of its statutes were “working everywhere for the emancipation and moral progress of Jews” and “lending effective assistance to those who suffer because of their being Jews”.38 To this end, the AIU founded in Baghdad a school for boys in 1865 and a school for girls in 1895.39 Although the AIU was keen to use French as the prime language of instruction, it realized that a blind imitation of the metropole’s practices could alienate the tradition-bound Jews in the Arab lands and thus included Turkish and Arabic in their teaching.40 When Saul

35 She died in a car accident in 1963. 36 Interview with Jean Marshall, 25 Jun 2008. 37 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984 (Singapore: National Archives). 38 Andre N. Chouraqui, Cent ans d’histoire: l’Alliance Israélite Universelle et la renaissance juive contemporain (1860–1960) (Paris, 1965), cited in Stillman, Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times, p. 23. 39 See The Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 438. By 1899, the school for boys had 254 pupils while the girls’ school had 132 pupils. 40 Michael M. Laskier, “Aspects of the Activities of the Alliance Israélite Universelle in the Jewish Community of the Middle East and North Africa: 1860–1918” Modern Judaism 3.2 (1983): 147.

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

14

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

15

BAGHDAD TO SINGAPORE AND BACK

Mashal arrived in Singapore, he spoke no English, but was instead conversant in the languages of his schooling — Turkish, some French, and of course, his mother tongue, Arabic. In the course of doing business, he later acquired “fluent if accented English”.41 Flora, unlike so many girls of her generation, received an elementary education at the AIU school in Baghdad. Indeed, in Mesopotamia, the trend was for “well-off girls” to attend modern schools, and Flora, coming from an affluent family and being an only child, certainly benefited from this trend.42 She was, by all accounts, an extremely intelligent woman, whose dedication and commitment to Judaism bordered on the fanatical.43 David was convinced that she was repressed from having no outlet for her intellectual acumen: My mother used to read the Hebrew literature all day long to herself, I couldn’t understand it. She was repressed in that she had no opportunity to develop and express her personal dynamism in action so she spent her time reading Hebrew literature.44

We know little else about Flora except two things. First, that she did not care for the girls in the family — Rachel and Rose — and could be cruel in her treatment of them. Second, the frightening zeal with which Flora was to devote herself to religion eventually alienated her from her husband and children. In those early years in Singapore, however, there was much to look forward to. Saul’s business was doing well. He constantly moved the family to better and better accommodations. They moved out of the mahallah first to Wilkie Road and then to Katong, at Marine Parade, Sea Avenue, and then Chapel Road.45 41 See Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 19. 42 See Rachel Simon, “Jewish Female Education in the Ottoman Empire, 1840–1914”, in Levy, ed., Jews, Turks, Ottomans, p. 150. 43 See Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 20. 44 Sharon Sophie Isaac “Marshalling the Times”, Shalom 1 (1995): 9. 45 Ibid., p. 19.

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

15

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

16

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

BACK TO BAGHDAD

By 1914, Saul and Flora had been in Singapore for fourteen years. His business was prospering, but Flora longed to return to Baghdad to visit her parents. At the same time, she wanted to see if a physician in Baghdad could help rid her of an ailment she had been suffering and that local doctors could not heal. By this time, the Mashal family comprised Saul and Flora and their children Rachel, David, Rose, George, and Sonny, aged eight, six, five, three and one, respectively. She could not have picked a less propitious time to return to Baghdad, as the clouds of war were looming over Europe. As she was wont to do, she decided that her daughters should remain in Singapore while her two elder sons accompanied her on this journey. She would probably have taken Sonny along, if he had been a little older, but he was barely a year old. The strong-willed Flora left with the two boys and her Chinese maid or amah, Ah See Kah. Baghdad had been under the sway of the Turkish Ottoman Empire since 1534 and was one of the Empire’s more important vilayets (administrative regions). It did not become a capital city until the establishment of the Iraqi kingdom in 1920. In 1911, it was estimated that Baghdad had a population of 852,000, of which 54,000 were Jews. Turkish control of Baghdad had always been lax due to its distance from Istanbul. But as storm clouds gathered in the increasingly tense relationship between Britain and Germany, the Turks threw their lot in with the Germans and Britain moved swiftly to safeguard its interests in the Persian Gulf. The British had acquired the AngloPersian Oil Company on 17 June, 1914. They declared war on Turkey on 5 November, 1914, after the latter joined forces with Germany on 31 October. The British were determined to safeguard the transport route of Anglo-Persian Oil through the Gulf.46 46 For an excellent study of foreign intervention in Baghdad and the protection of oil interests, see Edwin Black, Banking on Baghdad: Inside Iraq’s 7,000Year History of War, Profit, and Conflict (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2004).

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

16

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

17

BAGHDAD TO SINGAPORE AND BACK

The ensuing hostilities made it extremely dangerous to be travelling in Baghdad on British passports — exactly what Flora, her boys, and Ah See Kah were doing. When the Turkish authorities discovered this, they placed Flora and her party under house arrest. The Turks were courteous but firm — the group alternated between the homes of David’s paternal and maternal grandparents until the British captured Baghdad in 1917.47 According to David, the Mashal entourage had been advised by the British to leave Baghdad, but the cabins on the ships leaving Mesopotamia were full. Only the deck was available. Flora absolutely refused to sleep on the deck “even for one night” and, as a result, they were stuck in Baghdad for the next three years.48 It appears that at this time David contracted malaria. This disease would plague him when he returned to Singapore. Luckily for the Mashals, Turkish authority in Baghdad was weak and corrupt. His maternal grandfather, who was by then a carpet merchant, was able to make life easier for them with some bribes. David recalled, “He would give the Turkish officers coffee and there would be the clink of gold sovereigns changing hands and we’d be free for six more months”.49 Being under house arrest meant that, although the Mashals were unable to leave town, the boys had relative freedom to play in the streets and to attend school. David recalls that he attended kindergarten classes where he learnt Hebrew and Arabic.50 The British army, under the command of General Frederick Stanley Maude, captured Baghdad in March 1917 and issued the Proclamation of Baghdad, stating that the British had entered the city

47 Lloyd Morgan, “The Marshall Story”, The Malayan Monthly, May 1955, p. 8. 48 John Lui, “He Pulled No Punches”, Straits Times, 10 Oct 1993, p. 4. 49 Ibid. 50 See Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 23.

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

17

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

18

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

not as conquerors but as liberators. At last, holders of British passports were allowed to travel at will. The Mashals packed their bags and took the first passenger ship out of Baghdad. When they arrived back in Singapore, David was already nine years old, a frail, skinny boy who spoke nothing but Hebrew and Arabic.

01 Marshall_S'pore Ch 1

18

11/21/08, 9:09 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the Institute ofGROWING Southeast UP Asian Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg > INStudies. COLONIAL SINGAPORE 19

2

Growing Up in Colonial Singapore: 1917–1925 BACK IN SINGAPORE

I

n the years David was away, Singapore underwent more changes. The island was untouched by the First World War, save that German residents were interned and German ships were seized. For the ordinary inhabitant of Singapore, the most significant and dramatic event in these years was the Indian Mutiny of 1915. Distressed by the fact that Britain was at war with Turkey, the Light Infantry — consisting solely of Punjabi Muslims — revolted, killed their officers, and seized control of Alexandra Barracks, where the Germans had been detained. They released the German prisoners (since Germany was an ally of Turkey) and proceeded to kill any European they met. The Mutiny was put down within a couple of weeks — 36 mutineers were shot, 77 transported, and 12 imprisoned. Kassim Mansoor, the man who had incited the mutiny, was hanged rather than shot as he was a civilian coffee-shop owner.1 When the Marshal entourage returned to Singapore, Saul had already moved the family to a shophouse in Adis Road, a stone’s throw away from where David had been born. Adis Road was considered a higher class area than Middle Road or Selegie Road. At

1

Turnbull, A History of Singapore, pp. 126–27; see also Kuwajima Sho, Indian Mutiny in Singapore, 1915 (Calcutta: Ratna Prakashan, 1991).

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

19

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

20

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

the end of the row of shophouses where the Mashals lived was a huge grand residence — Eu Villa, the palatial home of Eu Tong Sen.2 Eu had made a fortune in traditional Chinese medical products through his flagship company, Eu Yan Sang, and was reputedly one of the richest men in Singapore. Even with the move to Adis Road, the Mashals were still within walking distance of the Maghain Aboth Synagogue and this was very important to Flora. Flora Mashal was a stickler for ritual and made her family observe a large number of rules in this connection. Her religious fervour was early in evidence — she had travelled to Singapore from Baghdad with her own shokhet or ritual slaughterer so that all the meat she ate met with the Torah’s tenets. The presence of the shokhet also enabled Flora to run a kosher kitchen. On the Shabbat or Sabbath, all work was forbidden. David recalls: Oh, my mother was a stickler about rites and rituals. She was addicted to them. I don’t know how much spirituality there was in her religion. But there was meticulous observation of the most tiresome details of Jewish rituals. And every Jewish holy day, including Saturday, was a subject of compulsive observation, especially in singing prayers that I did not understand. … The poor Hazan had to come every day and slaughter our chicken. And we couldn’t have mutton except once in a blue moon when a number of families got together and agreed to have a sheep slaughtered by him the kosher way. And we couldn’t have beef until finally arrangements were made with, I think, Perth in Australia for kosher meat to be occasionally imported. Oh yes, my mother made quite a thing about kosher food and observance of these, what to me were totally incomprehensible and unreasonable, rites.3

2

David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 1 (Singapore: National Archives).

3

Ibid.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

20

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

21

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

Like all Jewish boys, David was also given a religious education at the Talmud Torah Hebrew School in Bencoolen Street, built by Sir Manasseh Meyer and located just behind the Maghain Aboth Synagogue. David recalled that he had to attend lessons with a “very poor teacher of Hebrew” who would give him and his friends an hour’s lesson in Hebrew each week. Unfortunately, he refused to teach David the meaning of the words he was told to memorize and this made him increasingly frustrated.4 By the time he turned fourteen, David had completely rebelled against Judaism and religion in general. AN EDUCATION IN RACISM

The first order of business when the Mashals returned home in 1917 was to get David into school. By this time, he was nine years old, a full two years behind his cohort and totally illiterate in the English language. The Mashals spoke Arabic with a mixture of Turkish at home — if the Mashal children were to get a head start in this British colony, it was imperative for David to get a good English education. The Mashals considered it their duty to get their children to school but did not pay much attention to the kind of education their children were receiving. David and his siblings received hardly any encouragement in their work. In later years, when David would come home with academic prizes he had won, his parents merely shrugged off his achievements as something unexceptional and to be expected of every child.5 They did not have books in the house, only a Bible, printed two-thirds in Hebrew with the other third in English translation. Although David appeared to have enjoyed his school days, he was, in later years to recall these years more for the abject lessons in

4

Ibid.

5

Ibid.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

21

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

22

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

racism and anti-Semitism than with wide-eyed joy and wonder. Despite Flora’s strict Jewish upbringing, she could not find anything akin to the Alliance Israélite Universelle schools in Singapore. English education was, in the main, provided either by the colonial government or by Christian missionaries. She put him in the kindergarten class run by the Catholic nuns of the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus (CHIJ) on Victoria Street. The Convent had been founded by the Reverend Mother St Mathilde Raclot and Sisters Gaetau, Apolinaire and Gregoire in 1854. Two years later, it was expanded and in 1904, it presented its first candidates for the Junior Cambridge Examination. Although established primarily as a girls’ school, the Convent had a boarding facility and in the early years, boys were admitted in the kindergarten and lower primary classes. David did not stay long at the Convent. Years later, David would recall his first day at CHIJ, also the occasion of his first encounter with anti-Semitism and racism. One of his cheeky classmates, who had probably learnt this from some adult, went up to David and said, “Jaudi Jew, brush my shoe, bring it back at half-past-two.” Despite his limited grasp of English, David recognized a racist jibe when he heard one and, without a thought, socked the boy in the face.6 David was neither remorseful nor contrite, refused to apologize and was duly punished by the nun in charge who made him stand in a corner. His stay at CHIJ was short — by 1918, he found himself in CHIJ’s brother school, St Joseph’s Institution. AT ST JOSEPH ’ S INSTITUTION

St Joseph’s Institution (SJI) was the first school in the Far East to be established by the La Salle Brothers, led by Reverend Father JeanMarie Beurel. The school, originally known as St John’s Institution, was founded in 1852. It was renamed St Joseph’s Institution in 1855.

6

Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 23.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

22

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

23

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

SJI was an extremely popular school, especially with the EurasianCatholic community. The student enrollment grew from 426 students in 1900 to almost 1,200 in 1914 and 1,600 in 1922. Miraculously, Flora managed to find her son a place in the school when lessons commenced in 1918. SJI offered a full primary and secondary education, with its upper class students sitting for the Senior Cambridge examinations after about nine years of study. During David’s student days, the school was run by the brother-director (as opposed to a principal) who was then Brother Stephen Buckley, an Irishman whom many consider to have been one of the best brother-directors in the history of the school.7 School began at 8:45 a.m. in the morning and ended at 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon, with, lunch break between noon and 1.00 pm. One traditional school practice was that, at every hour, an appointed student would ring the school bell and all the boys would stand up for a minute of silent prayer.8 As a Jew, David was not obliged to join in the catechism classes or go to chapel. Instead, he and other nonChristians studied ethics and simply sat around when the Catholic boys attended chapel. In the primary classes, the boys were taught basic reading, writing, and arithmetic, while older students were taught French, Latin, religious knowledge, and literature.9 Young David was obviously a precocious learner, for he was put straight in Standard II (officially the fourth year of formal education), even though he had previously only completed a few months of kindergarten. Back in those days, students did not wear uniforms to school but came dressed in shorts or long trousers and shirts. Another common

7

Hedwig Alfred, Living the Mission: The SJI Story, 1852–2002 (Singapore: Archipelago Press, 2002), p. 44. In

8

Ibid., p. 46.

9

Ibid., p. 45.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

23

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

24

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

item of attire was the baju tutup, a long-sleeved jacket with detachable buttons from the collar down the front, worn over long trousers. The boys’ attire came in various colours and materials, ranging from white cotton or khaki to blue or pale yellow linen and even silk for special occasions.10 Boys would either walk to school or commute by tram or rickshaw. By 1918, Saul Mashal was prospering and could afford to move his family out of the city to the suburbs. He bought a house which he called Bluebell Cottage at Sea Avenue in Katong. It was a “green timber house sitting amidst a large compound with bling-bling trees”, right on the water.11 With this move, David could no longer walk to school, but nor did he need to. His father could afford to have him sent in a carriage, just like the other rich, Jewish boys of Katong. David usually brought his lunch to school with him, but most of his classmates would have bought food from the hawkers that gathered in the school compound at recess and lunch times. With just three cents of pocket money, boys could eat very well. A bowl of kuay teow (flat rice noodles) cost just one cent and a drink cost a quarter-cent. Poorer boys often came to school with just two or three cents in their pockets while rich boys often had as much as ten cents.12 At SJI, David caught up quickly. His quick mind and excellent memory allowed him to breeze through his lessons easily. In 1919, he was promoted to Standard III. Things were going well for David in school and he was devouring literature of all sorts voraciously. Among his favourite leisure reading were weekly dime novels — Buffalo Bill from America and stories from the Sexton Blake Library in the United Kingdom. These “dreadful books” which cost 15 cents each used to

10 Ibid., p. 47. 11 See Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 25. 12 Gwee Peng Kwee, Oral History Interview, 11 Nov 1981, Reel 2 (Singapore: National Archives). Gwee studied at SJI from 1907 to 1914.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

24

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

25

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

come by mail to a bookshop in Change Alley every Wednesday and David would eagerly await the latest offerings. Unfortunately, young David’s mother disapproved of these dime novels and one day burned his entire cache after discovering it hidden under his bed. His tastes were eclectic and he found the heroic and swashbuckling tales of Alexandre Dumas and Sir Walter Scott a great draw. And for the fine turn of phrase, there was nothing to beat Shakespeare.13 However, the malaria that David had contracted while in Baghdad kept flaring up every forty days or so with infuriating regularity. Each occurrence followed a characteristic, five-day cycle. On the first day, he would come down with a fever that climbed higher on the second and climaxed on the third. On the fourth day, the fever would subside and, by the fifth day, it was all over and he would feel normal again. For a while, David tried hiding this illness from his parents. He had read the tale of how his hero, Horatio Nelson, the great British admiral, would as a young boy never let his grandmother know when he was sick. Whenever he was afflicted by illness, he would hide in the forest until he was better. Ten-year-old David tried to do the same. With the onset of fever, he would dash off to the toilet and put his head under cool, running water to bring the fever down. Then, at lunch time, he would go to the Maghain Aboth Synagogue just across the street from his school, unpack his lunch, and smear his plate with food to give his mother the impression that he had ingested it all. He would then lie down on three chairs placed side by side to try to sleep off the fever. He certainly managed to hide his malaria from his teachers, but it was more difficult to do that with his parents, especially if he avoided swimming in the waters around Bluebell Cottage, something they knew he dearly enjoyed.14

13 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 24. 14 Ibid., p. 25. See also Morgan, “The Marshall Story”, p. 8.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

25

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

26

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

It was during one of these bouts of malaria that a decision was made to anglicize the Mashals’ family name. David remembered it was in 1920 when he was being treated by the doctor Sir David Galloway: I was in bed with my usual bout of malaria, five days every 40 days. And I remember Sir David Galloway, our doctor, a florid Englishman with a monocle to his eye, saying, ‘I can’t pronounce this outlandish name. Why don’t you anglicise it, man? Why don’t you anglicise it?’ And my poor humble father saying, ‘How do you anglicise it?’ ‘Put an “r” in it man. Put an “r” in it. So from “Mashal” which means a torch, it became “Marshall”.15

From that day, the Mashals became Marshalls, but David was still not rid of his debilitating malaria. For some unknown reason, no local doctor — not even as eminent a physician as Galloway — could diagnose David’s ailment. Indeed, it was not until he was fourteen, on a visit to Batavia (now Jakarta) in 1922, that a doctor diagnosed it as malaria and cured David of the dreaded illness. One positive upshot of his years of malaria was that he had no choice but to spend a few days in bed every forty days, with very little to do but to read. David recalled: Now, the first two days I could read. Third day was such high fever — 105, 104.5. It was a bad day. And then the fourth and fifth days I could read but there’s nothing to read. I had nothing to read at home. There were no children’s books, but there were no other books also. There were no newspapers, there were no magazines. My father was not English-educated. He could speak English he’d picked up. And my mother was not English-educated. The only thing that was available at home was this very big Bible, two thirds of which, maybe three-fourths of each page was in Hebrew, and the corner column was a small English translation. As this was the only book available, it was the only book I could read.16 15 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 1 (Singapore: National Archives). 16 Ibid.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

26

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

27

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

David calculated that he had read that particular Bible at least three and a half times from cover to cover, and he considered it “perhaps the most formative aspect” of his character: Because the King James’ version has an organ sonority of language which sank into me at a very impressionable age, and also the wonderful stories of heroic global view of life and passionate dedication to human rights that you find in the Bible. It appealed to me very much. So, maybe I was fortunate that there were no books to read.17

In years to come, David reflected that reading that old Bible so many times “influenced both my passion for human justice and my feel for the English language”.18 Now eleven, he still followed his father to the synagogue every Saturday and kept up his Hebrew lessons. The events that led to David’s expulsion from SJI in 1919 are somewhat hazy. Many years later, David would tell everyone that it was because he had stayed away from school on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the holiest of Jewish holidays. According to David, his father had told him to go to the synagogue on Yom Kippur and he had asked his teacher for permission to be absent from class. His teacher sent him to see Brother-Director Stephen Buckley who, according to David, flatly refused: I asked the teacher if I could have leave the next day; I think it was Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish year. And this must have been pre-arranged because the teacher said that I had to see the Principal. I went to see sour-puss Brother Stephen and he said ‘Nyet. You come to work tomorrow. You’ve got to do exams.’ I said, ‘Sir, exams are three months hence.’ ‘I order you. You come to school tomorrow.’ I said to my father, ‘I have to go to school tomorrow.’ My father was a very simple man. He said, ‘Are you a

17 Ibid. 18 M. Kahlenberg, “A Goliath of a David”, Singapore Tatler, August 1988, p. 23.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

27

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

28

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Jew or aren’t you a Jew?’19 It’s a sort of logic you can’t answer. So the next day I went to synagogue with my father instead of going to school, and the day after when I went back to St Joseph’s School, Third Standard, my desk was occupied. A bit of a row. The teacher came and said I’d better see the Principal. Why the Principal? He’s taken my seat. You go and see the Principal. It seems that all had been arranged. I went to see our Brother Stephen, and he had my leaving certificate ready. Expelled for disobedience in September.20

It is unlikely that the Jewish holy day precipitating David’s expulsion was Yom Kippur even though he mentioned it many times while telling this story. It may instead have been Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. In 1919, Yom Kippur fell on Saturday, 4 October; if David had gone to the synagogue that day, he would hardly have needed permission from school since classes were not held on Saturdays. In 1919, Rosh Hashanah, the first of the so-called “high holidays” or Yamim Noraim (‘Days of Awe’ — the most solemn days of the Jewish year) fell on Thursday, 25 September. This accords more faithfully with David’s recollection. The fact that the ten days of repentence commencing with Rosh Hashanah culminate with Yom Kippur may explain David’s confusion over the events. As with his previous experience at CHIJ, David looked back at this expulsion as another instance of racism. In a speech he gave at the Substation in 1994, David recalled: I said to my father, ‘It’s not fair. Why don’t you go and see the Director of Education.’ He laughed and he said, ‘You want me to appeal? From one white man to another white man? He won’t even see me.’21

19 In the version he told to his political biographer Chan Heng Chee, his father asked him, “What do you want to be? A goy?” See Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 20. 20 Talk by David Marshall at the Substation on 17 Jan 1994, transcribed by the author. Transcript on file with author. 21 Ibid.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

28

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

29

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

By any measure, Brother Stephen Buckley overreacted to David’s absence. However, at that time, he was under tremendous pressure to take in more students and the school was already bursting at its seams. Thus, whether Brother Stephen’s decision to expel David was motivated by racism or by pure opportunism is impossible to tell, but other recollections of his stewardship of the school make absolutely no allusion to any racist proclivities.22 ON TO ST ANDREW ’ S

David’s parents were astounded by his expulsion from SJI, but they could not blame him for obeying them and conforming with Jewish tradition. Flora swung into action. Her eldest boy must secure a place in school and she was going to raise hell or high water to see that done. She went from school to school, trying to cajole the various school principals into giving her brilliant son a chance. It was very difficult since it was very late in the year and all classes were full. Furthermore, examinations were round the corner. Finally, she ended up on the doorstep of St Andrew’s School and its principal, Reverend James Romanis Lee. St Andrew’s School was established by Anglican missionaries some time between 1850 and 1860 in Chin Chew Street. In this sense it is almost as old as SJI. However, it was not until the turn of the twentieth century that the school became truly established. The man responsible for the transformation of the school was James Romanis Lee or simply Romanis Lee, as he was usually called.23 Lee is generally acknowledged to have been one of the “greatest

22 See Francis Brown, Memories of SJI: Reminiscences of Old Boys and Past Teachers of St Joseph’s Institution, Singapore (Singapore: The Institution, 1987), pp. 17–31. 23 See Daniel Kovilpillai, A Short History of Saint Andrew’s School (Singapore, 1963).

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

29

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

30

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

benefactors” of St Andrew’s School.24 He was appointed principal of the school in January 1912 and almost immediately set about expanding the school and raising its status. Back then, St Andrew’s was considered a “second grade” school in that it did not have classes up to the highest standard — the Senior Cambridge. By 1914, Romanis Lee was able to present his first Senior Cambridge candidates and the school was elevated to “first grade” by the Inspector of Schools. The school was located at the old St Andrew’s House on Armenian Street, not very far from SJI. Indeed, most of the important English schools were located in this vicinity. When Flora Mashal sat across from Romanis Lee, he told her gently that the school was full and that there were no spaces left. She pleaded with him, told him what a genius the young David was, and how he would be an asset to the school, how he should be given a chance. Romanis Lee then told her that there was a vacancy only for Standard IV as one of the boys was leaving to return to Britain. She jumped at it. She assured him that young David was more than up to the challenge and that he would do well even though he had yet to complete Standard III. Romanis Lee relented and David found himself a student in Standard IV of St Andrew’s School. David adapted quickly and applied himself to his studies. He was poor at drawing, worse at singing, but excelled in religious studies, literature, history, and the English language. He did not make many close friends as he was drawn mainly to those who had fire in their bellies. Years later, when asked about his friendship with Sir George Oehlers, who had been at school with him both at St Andrew’s School and at Raffles, David said: Sir George was one of those calm gentlemen throughout his life, including the school days. A cool, reserved, nice person. A decent type of person. I didn’t notice any great drive in him or any great

24 Ibid., p. 14.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

30

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

31

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

feelings. He was intelligent. He was a very good, steady worker. He had an excellent command of the English language, who made a good desk lawyer, and a man of integrity. We were not very close in spite of having gone to school together. Because there was no fire in him — any fire in a human being that appealed to me.25

Indeed, it was this “fire in the belly” that got David into trouble at St Andrew’s the following year, in 1920. Again, David recounted this episode to show the racist atmosphere prevalent in Singapore at the time. The incident started when David, walking down the corridor to class, overheard his fat, American classmate taunting a skinny, Chinese boy with the phrase “Ching Ching Chinaman”. Without a thought, David dropped his satchel of books and lunged at the American kid. Before long, blood was streaming from both their noses and the floor was “streaked red like a modern painting”. The form teacher — whom David nicknamed Katek (Malay for ‘short’) because of his diminutive stature — stopped the fight and sent David to see Romanis Lee. David recalls: I went before Reverend Romanis Lee. A lovely man; a gentle man. We were all very fond of him. He was so courteous and gentle. He was a Presbyterian priest. Marshall, why did you start the fight? Well, Sir, he said Ching Ching Chinaman, he was bullying him … Marshall, you must try and understand, the Good Lord, he created different peoples with different perceptions, different ways of life, different capacities. He saw I wasn’t following. I was 12 years old. He said, ‘Marshall, would you marry a Malay or a Chinese or an Indian?’ I said ‘Oh why not Sir?’ He said ‘Bend down’ and I got six strokes. When I went back to my class, to my sniggering, tittering classmates, I said it didn’t hurt. And frankly I was so angry, I didn’t feel the hurt very much. I was angry, that this man of God, this man whose religion taught him that humanity are all brothers in the fatherhood of God, this man should say to me, the Chinese, the Malays and Indians are sub-humans whom I could not marry. I

25 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 2 (Singapore: National Archives).

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

31

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

32

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

was so angry. I was so furious. Just because he was a decent man, how could he believe these things. But that was the atmosphere of the day.26

David stayed in St Andrew’s School till Standard VII, which he completed in 1922. Some time during his stint at St Andrew’s School, perhaps in 1920 after becoming a Bar Mitzvah, he moved into Oldham Hall, a Methodist-run boarding house located just off Orchard Road on what is now Oldham Lane. At this time, his parents were away in Baghdad on holiday. This move enabled him to be nearer to his school and it gave him a sense of greater independence. It was here that he met Tan Chin Tuan — later to become chairman of the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation and a trusted confidant of the British Government. The boys raced frogs with each other.27 There are, alas, few published recollections of David’s years in St Andrew’s School. Joseph Seah, who was at St Andrew’s with David, remembered him as “quite a clever talker”: From those school days, I could see that he was quite a clever talker. You know, we had a debating society and all that. Oh my goodness, he could out speak anybody.28

David not only absorbed everything the school dished out, he went beyond. One thing he wanted to do was to master Malay. To this end he persuaded his father to get him a Malay tutor. Unfortunately, despite offering the princely sum of $25 a month, Saul could not find a suitable Malay tutor in the Katong area.29 26 Talk by David Marshall at the Substation on 17 Jan 1994, transcribed by the author. Transcript on file with author. 27 Interview with Jean Marshall, 25 Jun 2008. 28 Joseph Seah, Oral History Interview, 1 Sep 1994, Reel 15 (Singapore: National Archives). 29 David Marshall’s interview with Josef Silverstein, 13 July 1975, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, transcribed by author. Transcript on file with author.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

32

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

33

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

BREAKING THE FAITH

David excelled in his studies and by all accounts was having a good time in school. However, he was still afflicted by bouts of malaria and was also beginning to resent the Jewish religious education to which his parents had been subjecting him. At thirteen, like all good Jewish boys, David became a bar mitzvah — literally, ‘son of the Commandment’ — signifying the Jewish spiritual coming of age. This was a most significant occasion for the Mashals. Their eldest child Rachel had died in 1920 and it was unlikely that she had become a bat mitzvah, so this occasion was really something special. Under Judaic law, children attain the age of majority and are responsible for their actions once they become bar or bat mitzvah. They are henceforth responsible for their own adherence to Jewish ritual law, tradition, and ethics. We have no precise date for David’s bar mitzvah, but it was almost certainly held on a Saturday, the Shabbat. David remembers that the occasion was a big festival. He spent months polishing up his Hebrew beforehand and, on the actual day, he donned his tefillin, went up to the tebah (reader’s platform), and read a scroll of the Torah. After that, he went round and was congratulated by everyone and distributed packets of sweets. It was, as David recalled, “a nice celebration”.30 From this day onwards, David was one of the Jewish adults who could make up the minyan (‘count’ or ‘number’) in the synagogue. However, David had a pathologically curious and questioning nature that did not lend itself to indoctrination. He questioned the inconsistencies between what his mother preached and what was practised. He could not understand why it was that Jews were not allowed to handle money on the Shabbat, but could nevertheless hand money to their Chinese servants the day before so the Chinese could pay for the Jewish family’s movie tickets. Nor could he accept 30 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 1 (Singapore: National Archives).

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

33

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

34

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

his mother’s injunction against taking a bath, as water could permeate the skin and that would breach the rules of fasting. By the time he was fourteen, he had had enough and rebelled: I threw the whole thing overboard and I even refused to wear the tefillin, which is the prayer costume.… And I just stopped the whole thing. I said I wasn’t going to the synagogue and I wasn’t going to say my prayers. And that was that. I had my belly full of this hypocrisy. … I got very tired of reading and re-reading the whole passages without being able to recognize a word, perhaps one or two words by virtue of repetition. And also I got very tired in the synagogue. Every time I lost my place, my father would point his finger, helpfully to some page there, and sort of say, ‘This is where we are at this stage.’ I have not a clue what it all meant. And the cumulative frustration, I think, just burst through my patience and I just said, ‘This is it. I’m not going to continue anymore.’ And I threw out the baby with the bath water.31

This was a major break from the faith. His parents, especially Flora, were totally shocked. David remembers that, at this time, he was already staying in Oldham Hall. This made it much more difficult for the Mashals to rein in their precocious and wilful son. What was more, David was already a bar mitzvah and by Judaic law was accountable for his own actions. Saul, always the gentlest of human beings, did something he had never done before. He tried to whip his son into obeying, but failed: My father tried to whip me once and I bawled. I saw the effect it had on him so I bawled some more! Ha ha. Poor Dad. He was such a gentleman.32

David’s decision to abandon the faith of his parents also meant his abandonment of religion altogether. For many years, he professed 31 Ibid. 32 Lui, “He Pulled No Punches”, p. 4.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

34

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

35

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

himself to be an atheist, although those who knew him would find that hard to believe. ON TO RAFFLES

By the time David reached Standard VI, he developed a love for science and made up his mind to be a doctor. Unfortunately, St Andrew’s did not offer any courses in chemistry and physics. It became necessary for David to transfer out of the school. Only Raffles Institution — Singapore’s premier boys’ school — had laboratories and offered science classes at the Senior Cambridge level. Quite a number of the top students at St Andrew’s also decided to make the switch. Among them were George Oehlers, Hu Chee Ing, and R.K. Sharma. Raffles Institution (RI) was founded by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1823. It was then known as the Singapore Institution and was intended to be the Eton of Singapore, where the sons of local notables would be educated. Located at Bras Basah Road (right where Raffles City stands today), it was a stone’s throw away from St Andrew’s and SJI, and right opposite CHIJ. By the 1920s, RI had an enviable reputation. It had produced more Queen’s Scholars than any other school in the Straits Settlements, even outdoing its older rival, the Penang Free School. To be educated at Raffles Institution was a great privilege, an opportunity not to be missed. David knew that. It was a huge school, with over a thousand students housed in a large, rectangular building. At the side adjoining Bras Basah Road, the building — designed by the great colonial architect, G.D. Coleman — was three storeys high, while the rest of the compound was composed of two-storey buildings. The school was crowded and there were more than forty students in each class.33 Subjects taught

33 Lai Kai Joo, Oral History Interview, 9 Apr 1981, Reel 2 (Singapore: National Archives). Lai was a student of Raffles Institution from 1917 to 1920.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

35

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

36

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

included English grammar, literature, composition, mathematics, geography, history, and science. When David arrived at RI in 1923, the school principal or headmaster was David A. Bishop, who had taken over the helm from Charles McGowan Philips in 1921. Bishop had started his teaching career as an assistant master at Raffles Institution, going on to be headmaster of Anderson School in Ipoh and Inspector of Schools in Selangor before returning to RI as headmaster. Contemporary accounts of Bishop show him to have been a kind and courteous person.34 In 1924, Bishop went on home leave and George Thomas Peall acted as headmaster in his place. Peall appears to have been a very innovative and entrepreneurial educator. Not only was Peall an educator, he was by training a solicitor and acted as police magistrate in the afternoons, after school was dismissed.35 He revived The Rafflesian magazine, which had been defunct since the late 1880s, organized the first school exhibition, and introduced the house prefect system. RI had always had school prefects. The head prefect was known as the Head Boy. The school prefects had jurisdiction over any boy in the school, while the new house prefects only had jurisdiction over the boys in their respective houses. Under this new system, the school was divided into six houses, numbered one to six. David was made prefect of House No. 2. Goh Sin Ee, who arrived at RI from SJI in the same year as David, recalled that he was made prefect of House No. 1, which had as its house master, headmaster George Peall. As David was studying science, his house master was Mr. Jacobs, the science master. Other prefects whom Goh remembered were Seow Siew Jin (House No. 4) and Leong Yee Soo (House No. 6). Though

34 Wiyesingha, A History of Raffles Institution, p. 121. 35 Goh Sin Ee, Oral History Interview, 8 Dec 1982, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives).

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

36

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

37

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

Goh did not remember him, George Oehlers must certainly have been one of the early prefects, since Oehlers became RI’s head prefect in 1926.36 The prefect for House No. 3 was Wee Seong Kang, later to become acting headmaster of RI.37 Each house was headed by a school prefect and a sports captain. During “tiffin hour” or recess, all prefects were required to stand by the tiffin shed or canteen, to watch out for boys who misbehaved and report them to the house master. If the house master was unable to discipline the ill-behaved boy, the boy would be sent to the headmaster. After supervising the boys at recess, the prefects would gather in the prefects’ room for their own meal. Prefects were expected to work with their sports captains to organize sports meets and training. On school sports days, prefects had to host the parents who came to the school as spectators. They would also organize school concerts during the holidays. Of David as a prefect, Goh recalled: I used to remember David Marshall was very strict. He couldn’t tolerate these naughty boys.… He hated another Jew. That Jew always was in his black book. He always gets complaints from David Marshall at that time. He was the only who had a terrible record. His House, most of the boys didn’t like him at all. He was very strict, David Marshall. But I noticed he didn’t like his own people. This fellow happened to be a Jew also.38

Goh, who admitted he was too soft-hearted to be a good prefect, felt that David had been the only one who was strict enough to take his monitoring and prefectorial duties seriously. He would actually file reports on boys who misbehaved, while Goh was content to turn a blind eye. 36 Ibid. 37 Wiyesingha, A History of Raffles Institution (Singapore: University Education Press, 1963) at 114. 38 Goh Sin Ee, Oral History Interview, 8 Dec 1982, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives).

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

37

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

38

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Classes at RI ran from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and most of the upper classmen took six subjects: English, mathematics, advanced mathematics, geography, history, and science.39 In all, there were about thirteen classes with forty or so boys each. The teaching staff comprised about a dozen teachers, mostly Europeans, a few Asian teachers from India, Ceylon, and the Philippines, and a handful of local teachers. David not only threw himself into his new duties as a prefect of House No. 2, but also took a very active part in the Literary and Debating Society, set up in 1922. The inaugural, 1924 issue of the revived school magazine, The Rafflesian, contains an article by David on how debating can help a person: It is lack of self-confidence that almost always prevents one from climbing higher on the ladder of success, that chains one to an obscure seat in the back row in the Auditorium of life. For in this age of strife and energetic competition you will not get anywhere unless you whip the world into making a place for you and you cannot do that if you cannot whip your faculties into obeying your will.40

It is difficult to imagine that these phrases flowed from the pen of someone with only seven years of English education. David obviously enjoyed his new-found status as a debating star and a natural leader of students. He was even made the captain of the Raffles hockey team — not because of his athletic prowess but because he was good at organizing events for the team.41 Libraries, rather than hockey pitches, were more David’s happy hunting grounds.

39 Ibid. 40 The Rafflesian 1.1 (1924): 6, cited in Wijeysingha, History of Raffles Institution, p. 113. Unfortunately, all efforts to track down the early issues of The Rafflesian at the Raffles Institution archives were unsuccessful. 41 Lui, “He Pulled No Punches”, p. 4.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

38

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

39

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

The old Literary and Debating Society combined with the Musical and Dramatic Society and became the Literary and Dramatic Society in January 1925. Debates between staff and students were key highlights in each calendar year. David’s name and that of his St. Andrew’s rival, George Oehlers, were very much in the forefront. Oehlers was an outstanding student, captain of both the hockey and cricket teams and Dux42 or top student of the school in 1924.43 One of the first debates organized by the new Literary and Dramatic Society was a triangular debate as to which was the most preferable profession: law, medicine or teaching. Each side had two speakers. David and Eze Nathan spoke for law, V. Ambiavagar (later RI’s first Asian principal) and George Oehlers spoke for medicine, and R.K. Sharma and Hu Chee Ing spoke for teaching. The students voted overwhelmingly in favour of teaching, such must have been the favourable impression they had of their teachers.44 It was after one staff-versus-student debate that David was stripped of his prefect’s badge. As with the previous cases, David recalls the incident in a colonial and racist light: I found myself standing in the corner of that platform listening to Principal Bishop delivering a lecture on discipline and respect for your teachers and stripping me of my prefect’s badge. And it all arose because on the previous day, there was a debate in the afternoon between the students and the teachers. A Mr Baker, an Englishman, led the teachers, and I led the students on that hoary chestnut which you must have had, ‘Should hanging be suspended?’ And when I was winding up for the proponents, I said that I was fascinated by the specious argument of the cunning fox from the teaching side. And to call an English teacher a ‘cunning fox’ in those days was les majesté. And so I suffered the humiliation of being put up before the assembled school and having my badge

42 From the Latin dux, meaning ‘leader’ or ‘commander’. 43 Wijeysingha, History of Raffles Institution, p. 120. 44 Ibid., p. 115.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

39

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

40

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

stripped. Only the silly ass of a Principal, Mr Bishop promptly gave us … he gave us a half-day holiday, and of course, I instantly became a hero.45

It is unclear exactly when this incident occurred, although there is reason to suspect that it happened around 1922 or 1923. In any case, his prefect’s badge was later restored. Indeed, in 1924, David’s position as a school leader seemed quite secure, as he was chosen — alongside two other Raffles notables, Seow Siew Jin and Wee Seong Kang — to lay a wreath at the Singapore Cenotaph on Armistice Day, 11 November, 1924.46 Furthermore, his School Leaving Certificate clearly stated that he was a school prefect (as opposed to a mere house prefect) from 1924 to 1925. In any case, David applied himself relentlessly to his studies. His capacity for hard work astounded even his hyper-industrious fellow Rafflesians. The Rafflesian of 1925 refers to David as “a very interesting specimen who has been continuously working since he first saw daylight, and is now, like Johnny Walker, still going strong”.47 Beyond his great appetite for learning, David had another important motivation for working so hard. In 1922, his father suffered his “first major economic calamity”.48 The economy, which had been doing nicely through the 1910s, took a turn for the worse in 1920, when the price of rubber — Singapore and Malaya’s most important cash crop — fell from $1.15 a pound to 30 cents a pound within ten months.49 For those in the rubber industry, 45 David Marshall, speech at Raffles Junior College, 1986, transcribed by the author. Transcript on file with the author. 46 Wijeysingha, History of Raffles Institution, p. 119. 47 The Rafflesian, April 1925, cited in Wijeysingha, History of Raffles Institution, p. 114. The Johnny Walker allusion is to the famous brand of Scotch whisky whose tagline is “Johnny Walker, Born 1820 — Still Going Strong”. 48 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 2 (Singapore: National Archives). 49 Turnbull, A History of Singapore, p. 127.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

40

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

41

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

this plunge was disastrous. Many were put out of work. For others like Saul Marshall, the effects were felt much later. The generally morose mood, coupled with an uncertainty about the future, meant that households tightened their belts and spent less. He would probably have felt the worst of the 1920 crash some time in 1922, as David remembered. On the whole, the economy began to recover in 1923 when worldwide demand for rubber and tin began to rise again. Hermann Norden, who visited Singapore in 1922, described the mood as follows: Singapore, with all the rest of the world, is changed, by the way. Much of the old-time gaiety is gone; the Europeans are preoccupied and restrained. The planter is lying low, hoping for a better price for his product. The business man is having a bad time with the exchange situation, and the breathless race with competitors for the little business that is being done. The Chinese alone was prospering, and that only as a class. Individually great losses are being suffered.50

At this time, David feared that his parents would not have the money to send him abroad for university. In the 1920s, there was no university in Singapore. It mattered little to him that Singapore had a medical school in the King Edward VII Medical College, which had been established in 1905 and already had an excellent reputation. Apart from that, there was no tertiary educational institution to speak of. Most ambitious young men who could afford the fees went to England to further their studies. Those of lesser means went to the University of Hong Kong, which had been founded in 1911. Singapore’s first tertiary institution, Raffles College, awarded only diplomas and not full degrees, and would only be established in 1929. In any case, it was on England that David had set his mind:

50 Hermann Norden, From Golden Gate to Golden Sun: A Record of Travel, Sport and Observation in Siam and Malaya (London: H.F. & G. Witherby, 1923), p. 63.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

41

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

42

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

I began to have an itch, a love, you know, I was having the crumbs from the table of the white man. I wanted to go to the fort. And the fort was England. And the fort was the university. And I had dreams of becoming a doctor. And I wanted to be a psychiatrist.… Yes, I was very ambitious.51

The way to fulfil his ambitions without putting any financial strain on his father was try for one of the two Queen’s Scholarships offered by the Straits Settlements Government. The Queen’s Scholarship scheme was introduced by Governor Sir Cecil Clementi Smith in 1885. Initially, only one scholarship was awarded to the best student of the year by a special selection board. Later, in 1900, a second scholarship was added for students from the Malay States. RI had a great reputation for producing Queen’s Scholars, including Singapore’s first Chinese lawyer, Song Ong Siang, who won the scholarship in 1888. However, between 1911 and 1923, the scholarship was suspended as the government felt that it generated unhealthy competition and an elitist attitude among its winners. In 1924, when David was sixteen, the Queen’s was once again made available. Winners of the Queen’s were given a full scholarship to study at either Cambridge or Oxford, an opportunity not to be missed. David explained: … it was in 1922 was the first great slump and my father went through some very difficult times. So I had to depend on Queen’s Scholarship which the very generous imperial government granted us, two scholarships. 52

David was not chasing castles in the air. He had completed his Junior Cambridge Certificate with “Honour Certificate” and was awarded the Junior Scholarship for being the best student in Junior Cambridge

51 Ibid. 52 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 20 (Singapore: National Archives).

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

42

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

43

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

Class,53 with a distinction in history.54 In December 1924, David also passed his Senior Cambridge School Certificate examination with “Honour Certificate” and a distinction in English.55 He would prepare to take the special Queen’s Scholarship examinations in 1925. Other top contenders for the Scholarship at RI included George Oehlers and Wee Seong Kang, both outstanding and well-rounded students. Wee had tried for the scholarship in 1924 but failed to win it. For 1925, Raffles was putting forward three of its top boys — David, George Oehlers, and Wee Seong Kang. By this time, David had acquired the epithets of “Professor Longshanks” (possibly a reference to the heroic King Edward I of England) and “Professor Lamp Post” on account of his tall, gangly frame and cerebral prowess. Once he had set his mind on winning the scholarship, he worked systematically to secure it. David was nothing if not single-minded and disciplined. He mapped out a rigorous — and, in retrospect, torturous — work regime: Well, I worked very hard to get one of those two scholarships. I used to get up at 7 o’clock in the morning, have a bath. I went to school at 8 o’clock till 1 o’clock; have a bath, have my lunch. Work to 5 o’clock, have a bath. Work till 8 o’clock, have a snack. Work till 11 o’clock, have a bath and go to bed. My days were punctuated by showers — when I say bath, I mean of course a shower; we never had a hot bath — and study.56

Day in and day out, David followed his tough regime. And on Saturdays and Sundays, he made time to study bookkeeping, typewriting, and shorthand at the YMCA School of Commerce. No one could sustain

53 Wijeysingha, History of Raffles Institution, p. 116. 54 David Marshall’s Junior Cambridge Certificate, December 1923. 55 David Marshall’s Senior Cambridge Certificate, December 1924. 56 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 20 (Singapore: National Archives).

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

43

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

44

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

such a punishing schedule for long, least of all someone like David, who was never a very robust person to begin with. In 1925, some four months before the Queen’s Scholarship examination, David collapsed and was admitted to hospital. David recalled: And then six weeks before the exam I think it was, I fell seriously ill and was in hospital. You see, very foolishly too … I don’t know what made me do it. I also took shorthand, typewriting and bookkeeping at the YMCA School of Commerce at the same time as I was doing my Senior Cambridge examination. Saturdays and Sundays were full study days. I never went out. Can’t even remember going to the pictures, although I must have I suppose once a week. I was trying to get that Queen’s Scholarship which would be the door to my future.57

Dr Roltray of the Medical Hall put David in hospital. After several weeks there, David told the doctor that he needed to get up and study for his scholarship examinations. David had no idea how seriously ill he was. He was utterly shocked when Dr Roltray told him that, if he insisted on pursuing his studies, he might begin by writing his own epitaph.58 Saul was told that David had tuberculosis in large areas of both lungs and that, if he remained in humid Singapore, he could expect to live another five years. Saul was stunned and asked if something could be done. David recalled the conversation: ‘Yes, if you can afford it. He must rest and send him to a cold, nonhumid climate like Switzerland!’ So my poor father was at his beam’s end at the time, managed to gather, to borrow some $10,000 and took me to France and then to Switzerland.59

George Oehlers and Wee Seong Kang sat for the Queen’s Scholarship in October 1925 but neither was able to clinch it. Oehlers missed the scholarship by a single mark. Indeed, RI was unable to win the

57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

44

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

45

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

Queen’s Scholarship until Tan Thoon Lip (later Singapore’s first Asian Registrar of the Supreme Court) won the prestigious prize in 1929. The Rafflesian magazine lamented that David’s departure for Switzerland had deprived the school of someone who would “have given a good account of himself ” at the Queen’s Scholarship examination.60 David left school on 17 July, 1925. His school leaving certificate states that he passed his Senior Cambridge Local examinations with honours and that his conduct was excellent, having been a school prefect from 1924 to 1925. Principal David A. Bishop’s remarks on the certificate read: “Studying for Scholarship Examination, but has to leave on account of ill-health. A very promising student.”61 JUNIOR MEMBER OF THE YMCA

Some time in 1920 or 1921, David joined the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) as a junior member. Established in Singapore in 1903, the YMCA was initially dedicated to the ministering of young, white men through “devotional meetings, educational classes, outdoor physical activities, and evangelistic outreach”.62 The junior section of the YMCA began as a “Lad’s Club” to cater to boys between the ages of six and eighteen. The YMCA was so successful in its outreach programmes that it moved twice before settling at Orchard Road. By the 1920s, many local boys joined the YMCA to make use of its facilities. It had the first open-air swimming pool — a converted saltwater tank on Fort Canning — an excellent library, and offered various self-improvement courses.

60 The Rafflesian 1.4 (1925): 3, cited in Wijeysingha, History of Raffles Institution, p. 118. 61 David Marshall, School Leaving Certificate, Raffles Institution, 14 July 1925. 62 Robbie B.H. Goh, The Metropolitan YMCA in Singapore: 1946–2006 (Singapore: Metropolitan YMCA, 2006), p. 33.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

45

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

46

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

In 1913, the YMCA began offering technical education courses. Among the subjects offered were: building construction and architecture, mathematics, theoretical mechanics and practical mechanics, surveying, electrical engineering and machine construction and drawing. In 1919, M.R. Menon, who was then YMCA’s office secretary, started teaching courses in shorthand and bookkeeping, subsequently adding typewriting and accountancy.63 These courses were extremely popular, especially among boys who were determined to prepare themselves more thoroughly for the commercial world. David was one such student. Rowland Lyne, the YMCA’s longest-serving secretary-general, remembered David from 1924. In a letter to David shortly after the latter became Singapore’s first chief minister in 1955, Lyne wrote: I have very clear recollections — on arriving in Singapore on 24th October 1924 — of being informed that, in addition to being Physical Director, I should also take over the Junior Department. As soon as I was able to do so I gathered together the Junior Members and found amongst them one David Marshall, a school boy of RI and one obviously destined to lead. The same David Marshall has been associated with the YMCA ever since in one capacity or another. I have watched his progress for over 30 years and now I see him as the Leader of the first Legislative Assembly in this rapidly developing Colony — or is that word unsavoury to your ears. It was remarkable to me, the number of candidates in the elections who included in their qualifications, reference to the YMCA School of Commerce. In various ways the YMCA has contributed to the whole development of this city and I trust that in the years ahead it will be given encouragement to develop its work in the interest of all.64

63 Ibid., p. 37. 64 Rowland Lyne to David Marshall, 4 Apr 1955, DM/10/137.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

46

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

47

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

Another person who remembered him from the YMCA days was S. Subrahmaniam, later a teacher at SJI. Subrahmaniam reminded him that they were both students of bookkeeping, “putting a lot of knotty questions to our Teacher Mr Menon”.65 David replied that it must have been in 1924 when they both studied with M.R. Menon at the YMCA.66 David’s ambition was huge. He wanted to cover all the bases so that even if he failed to win the Queen’s he would have some vocational qualification to fall back on. By all accounts, David did well in his commercial subjects. Indeed, David offered bookkeeping as one of his subjects in both his Junior and Senior Cambridge examinations. From the YMCA, David acquired a Junior Commercial Education Certificate from the London Chamber of Commerce (Incorporated), or LCC(I), in 1924 in bookkeeping, which he passed with distinction. He also passed bookkeeping stage S2 (with first class) offered by the Union of Educational Institutions in England. In 1925, he obtained a Certificate for Proficiency and Distinction in bookkeeping and accountancy from the LCC(I) as well as a First Class Certificate in advanced bookkeeping from the Institute of Commerce Limited. TO SWITZERLAND AND BACK

Before the discovery of the antibiotic streptomycin in 1943, it was believed that the best way to cure tuberculosis was to send the sufferer to a sanatorium, where a regime of rest, good nutrition, and clean, fresh mountain air would be the best chance for the immune system to “wall off ” pockets of pulmonary tuberculosis infection. Switzerland had numerous sanatoriums as it was believed that its fresh mountain air helped in the treatment of tuberculosis.

65 S. Subrahmaniam to David Marshall, 5 Apr 1955, DM/10/117. 66 David Marshall to S. Subrahmaniam, 4 May 1955, DM/10/118.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

47

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

48

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

By August 1925, David was on his way to Switzerland with his father. His father had made arrangements for him to stay at Pro Juventas, a boarding-house for young people recovering from lung ailments. Not only did this convalescence trip save David’s life, but it also changed him completely. While on the ship to Switzerland, David had a sudden realization: When a child, I had believed that God was white and the British were his special agents. I thought that as Asians, it was our privilege to eat off the crumbs of their table. But while on board a ship to Switzerland … I suddenly came across the concept that all men are equal. It’s not the never never, in heaven, but here, on earth, today. That was an explosive introduction to a different form of life.67

While in Switzerland, David grew stronger and better, but his mind needed nourishment as well. He decided to learn French and German: I had to lie on my back I think from 9 o’clock in the morning till 5 o’clock in the afternoon in the verandah. I just could not do nothing. So I studied German and I studied French. Didn’t take to German very well, but suddenly found that French was gaining on me, I wasn’t gaining on it. It was enveloping me; I got very excited by French literature and I swallowed the book, I didn’t read them, I used to underline the words I didn’t know, and then note them up in an exercise book after I’d finish reading because I found I should get the sense without knowing the meaning of every word. And then I studied 20 words a day, repeating them back and forth when the teacher wasn’t there.68

Little did David know that the French he was “swallowing whole” would lead to the launch of a third career in his twilight years. But for now, the French material thrilled him to the core. He was totally taken up with French literature and, though he could not in later life remember specific titles, he recalled how it all excited him: 67 Kahlenberg, “A Goliath of a David”, p. 23. 68 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 20 (Singapore: National Archives).

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

48

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

49

GROWING UP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE

And these great works excited me tremendously. I can’t remember any titles, but the general concepts of French literature: the equality of humanity, the brotherhood of man, ah … these were fantastic concepts which excited me! They opened my eyes to that fantastic discovery: that men are equal human beings, whether you’re white, brown, black or yellow. Human beings were brothers, that there was a single humanity, and no one was superior. Oh, and God wasn’t white.69

David spent ten months in Switzerland and recovered his health. When he returned to Singapore in 1926, he was a changed person. His view of Singapore, of its colonial masters, and of his servile, fellow locals had changed. Not even the Swiss mountain air could cool the fire that raged violently in his belly. By the time he landed in Singapore, the motto for the French Republic — Liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity) — those “thunderous chords of a cathedral organ”,70 had been branded as if with a hot iron into his heart.

69 Melanie Chew, Leaders of Singapore (Singapore: Resource Press, 1996), p. 70. 70 “Childhood Miracle of Awakening”, The Straits Times, 27 Jun 1982.

02 Marshall_S'pore Ch 2

49

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the 50Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE Institute of at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

3

Searching for a Place in the Sun: 1927–1934 WITH THE LABOURING MASSES

D

avid arrived back in Singapore in 1926. By this time, his father’s business had recovered and was thriving. Overall, Singapore’s economy was flourishing. The price of tin rose to its peak in 1926 and 1927 and huge fortunes in commodities — mainly tin and rubber — were made overnight. One of the most remarkable businessmen of that era was Tan Kah Kee, nicknamed the Henry Ford of Malaya, who made $8 million in 1925 alone. Others made spectacular fortunes as well, though perhaps not on the scale of Tan’s. Among these were Lee Kong Chian (Tan’s son-in-law and a great entrepreneur in his own right), Tay Koh Yat, Aw Boon Haw, and Tan Lark Sye.1 The Marshall family was still living at Bluebell Cottage at 1D Sea Avenue. Gerald de Cruz, who would later work for David in the Labour Front, lived nearby. He was taken to the cottage one day after being knocked unconscious by a coconut that David’s two brothers, Sonny and Meyer, had been throwing at each other on Katong Beach.2

1

Turnbull, A History of Singapore, p. 128.

2

Gerald de Cruz, Rojak Rebel: Memoirs of a Singapore Maverick (Singapore: Times Books International, 1993), p. 169.

03 Marshall_S'pore Ch 3

50

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

51

SEARCHING FOR A PLACE IN THE SUN

This visit to the Marshall household sparked a friendship that would last a lifetime. Having lost the opportunity to win the Queen’s Scholarship and being now eighteen years old, David decided that he had to work hard and save up enough for his university education. His first job was in a stockbroking firm, E.A. Brown & Company, where he worked hard and was apparently very successful. Unfortunately, David has said very little about this period except that he was successful but that his health suffered as a consequence. He had a relapse of his tuberculosis. By 1928, he was back in Switzerland — in Obersee, Arosa — to recuperate. This time, he spent eight months in recovery, spending his spare time reading French literature. When he recovered, David went to Brussels, where he attended the Ecole Pigier, obtaining a typewriting certificate in May 1929. Not content with that, David then learnt the French system of PrevostDelaunay shorthand to complement the Pitman shorthand he had already mastered in Singapore. He began writing his diaries in English that was encoded in Prevost-Delaunay shorthand, figuring that there were very few English-speaking people who knew the French system. In retrospect, it was a bad idea. David mixed up the French and Pitman systems and “the whole thing was a jumble”. Since even he could no longer read his own shorthand, he had “to give it up”.3 He then went to Renaix, where he studied textile manufacturing with the hope of becoming a textile representative in Singapore for his uncle Frank Iny (1893–1976), who had major textile businesses in Belgium and India. By 1930, David was back in Singapore. The effects of the Great Depression, sparked off by the 1929 crash on Wall Street, were being felt seriously in Singapore. David’s father Saul, like all other businessmen in Singapore, suffered yet another business setback.

3

David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 21 (Singapore: National Archives).

03 Marshall_S'pore Ch 3

51

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

52

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Bills were unpaid and there was sometimes not enough money for food. Even the doctors refused to treat David’s brothers because the family owed them $400. This economic downturn was the worst that Singapore had had to endure since its modern founding. Between 1929 and 1932, the value of Singapore’s rubber exports dipped by 84%, that of tin exports fell by 68%, and real wages fell by nearly half.4 By this time, Singapore’s population, three-quarters of which was Chinese had reached 567,500.5 Huff describes the impact and magnitude of the Depression: In response to the dramatic falls in rubber prices, nearly all agency houses and other European businesses cut wages and most dismissed staff … Between 1930 and 1933, 40% of the European planting community in Malaya was retrenched and a large percentage of Europeans in the tin industry were dismissed. Most planters who remained on estates willingly took pay cuts of one-third in preference to returning to unemployment in Britain. By the 1920s, Singapore already had an oversupply of clerks, and the depression, economies by European firms considerably worsened this.6

Times were truly very tough. Even Tan Kah Kee’s juggernaut, Tan Kah Kee & Co., with more than 4,700 workers, collapsed by 1934. Lim Peng Siang’s Ho Hong group, another major conglomerate, escaped liquidation by undergoing drastic restructuring.7 In this dire market, David would be lucky to find a job. Plans to help his uncle establish a textile company representative office fell through because of the recession. Given the paucity of openings, he was grateful to be hired as an assistant by the N.V. Straits Java Trading

4

W.G. Huff, “Entitlements, Destitution, and Emigration in the 1930s Singapore Great Depression”, The Economic History Review, new series 54.2 (2001): 290.

5

Ibid., pp. 295–96.

6

Ibid., pp. 300–301.

7

Ibid., p. 302.

03 Marshall_S'pore Ch 3

52

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

53

SEARCHING FOR A PLACE IN THE SUN

Company.8 This was actually a branch of the Behn Meyer Group in Malaya that functioned in Singapore between 1922 and 1941 under the name of N.V. Straits Java. One of David’s first tasks was to liquidate the company’s Buick car agency. His performance impressed his bosses and they got him to liquidate the gold and silverware department as well. When N.V. Straits Java was forced to cut employees’ pay by ten per cent, David resigned and joined Sternberg and Company where he sold corks, denicotinizers, and cigarettes. David, whose gift of the gab had always been his greatest asset, was “a whacking success as a salesman”.9 In one case, David applied for a job as a car salesman, but he could not drive a car. The boss told him, “You can have the job if you get a driver’s licence within seven days and sell a car at the same time”. This was precisely the kind of challenge David relished. He got his licence and sold a car to an Arab prince, suggesting that the car be painted orange and apple green and the seats upholstered in leopard-print fabric.10 Even so, he was earning only about $150 a month. David’s two scares with tuberculosis did not stop him from burning the candle at both ends. He continued to study French in earnest. In 1931 he scored a distinction in the language — written and oral — in the LCC(I) Senior Commercial Education Certificate examinations. On 3 February, 1932, he registered and was certified as a teacher of French at the YMCA, where he commenced teaching night classes for $60 a month. David still had his sights on an overseas medical education and, knowing that he would need Latin for this course of study, took his Cambridge School Certificate examination in Latin as well as in French and spoken French. He passed with credit in December 1933.11 8

Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 29.

9

Morgan, “The Marshall Story”, p. 8.

10 Ibid., pp. 8–9. 11 David Marshall’s Cambridge School Certificate for Latin & French, 1933.

03 Marshall_S'pore Ch 3

53

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

54

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

When in March 1932 the French shipping firm of Compagnie des Messageries Maritimes offered David $175 a month to be a secretary in its passenger department, he gave up the sales jobs. David remained at Messageries, or MM, until he left for England in 1934. By all accounts, he was happy with his work, which was not so demanding that he had to give up teaching his lucrative French classes at the YMCA. In 1930, David was twenty-two and in love with Rose Solomon, an “awfully nice Jewish girl … middle class, very decent”.12 When he proposed to her, she rejected him, feeling that they should wait until David was “in a position to have a home”13 as his salary of $175 per month was too small to support them both.14 Rose and her family left for London shortly afterwards. David would pick up the courtship again when he got to London in 1934. At about the same time, the Marshalls’ wealthy Jewish neighbour, Kalifa, approached Saul Marshall with a proposition: Oh, I remember Kalifa, a merchant. He had a lot of money; he lived next door to us; a house which had grounds extending from the sea right up to East Coast Road. I remember him vividly because when we were in this awful financial mess — I was 22, I think — he offered $200,000 to my father if I’d marry his daughter. $200,000! 1930! A bloody fortune! ‘Fantastic fortune’, I said to Father. ‘Look, not only can we pay our medical bills, but this can set up you up.’15

Tempting though the offer was, Saul Marshall could not bring himself to subject either his son or Kalifa’s daughter to a loveless marriage:

12 David Marshall’s interview with Josef Silverstein, 13 July 1975, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, transcribed by author. Transcript on file with author. 13 Ibid. 14 Morgan, “The Marshall Story”, pp. 8–9. 15 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 2 (Singapore: National Archives).

03 Marshall_S'pore Ch 3

54

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

55

SEARCHING FOR A PLACE IN THE SUN

He said, ‘Yes, but do you care for her?’ ‘Who? Ten-ton Tessie? Of course I don’t’. ‘But’, he said, ‘is it fair to her that you should marry her? Is it fair to you?’ I admire my father for that because surely that must have been a tremendous temptation for him. And I salute his memory for having dissuaded me from a quixotic and ghastly mistake.16 BACK AMONG THE MINYAN

With his career on an even keel, David had some spare time to devote to public activities. His two trips abroad had made him particularly sensitive to and conscious of the injustice that prevailed in Singapore, not only between the colonial rulers and the people, but also within each community. His own community was particularly stratified and divided. Although David had renounced all religious aspects of the Jewish faith back in 1922, he still considered himself very much a Jew. He explained it in this way: I’m afraid that religion for me was the irritant that started me thinking against the establishment, against accepted teachings. There is so much encrustation of what I call nonsense rites in our Jewish religion as practiced by the Sephardim from Mesopotamia that I reacted, or perhaps over-reacted. And for me, religion was an irritant which got my back out, and set me against my own community … … … I started openly to work on Saturdays. I had pork quite openly. I derided those who considered that there was a significance in compliance with various Jewish rites. And I was known as a rebel although — let’s get the picture straight — I was strongly Jewish. I started the Israelight; I was the founder of the Jewish Welfare Board. I helped Mrs Nissim with her .… the benevolence association that

16 Ibid.

03 Marshall_S'pore Ch 3

55

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

56

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

she had. And I was an integral part of the community and yet apart when it came to the religious aspect.17

David arrived back in Singapore the year Sir Manasseh Meyer died. For fifty years, the grand old man of the Jewish community had dominated the community’s affairs and given it the physical, spiritual, and financial leadership it badly needed. Meyer was a truly religious and pious man, generous with his money and genuine in his desire to help the less fortunate Jews in Singapore. Unfortunately, he had no obvious successor. David remembered the crisis in leadership: We had about two or three thousand people before the War. Most lived in the Selegie Road-Mount Sophia area. Sir Manasseh Meyer, being the recognized head, was deeply, sincerely devout. He built the Meyer Synagogue (Chased-El). A very gentle man, who reigned over the community with a light hand. Then there were the Elias’ and Alan Manasseh … They were the ‘elephants’ of the community! The Synagogues were full on high holidays. The Elias’ and the Manassehs were prominent in the commercial fields and the share market. We had no one prominent in public life. It wasn’t a heroic community. It was made mostly of petty traders, petty businessmen and small time middle class people. The only reason for our survival was that we spoke English.18

Sir Manasseh Meyer’s mantle fell on his widowed daughter, Mozelle Nissim (1883–1975), a kind, gentle, and serene woman who had inherited her father’s generosity. In 1929, she had established the Singapore Jewish Women’s League with her father as patron and herself as president. The League was dedicated to giving practical assistance for the Jewish poor and to assist the Women’s International Zionist Organization (WIZO).

17 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 1 (Singapore: National Archives). 18 Isaac, “Marshalling the Times”, p. 8.

03 Marshall_S'pore Ch 3

56

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

57

SEARCHING FOR A PLACE IN THE SUN

David got to know Mrs Nissim well through the activities of the Women’s League. In support of its activities, he taught French in Mrs Nissim’s palatial Katong mansion, Jeshurun (meaning ‘of the Jewish people’), and donated the fees to the league. With his natural charisma and spirit of derring-do, David became a natural leader among the younger Jews, many of whom were born in Singapore and had the benefit of an English education. In 1934, in a bid to revitalize the community and inject it with new ideas and greater dynamism, David gathered a group of idealists to start a community magazine. The group, who called themselves The Optimists, included David’s brother George, J.J. Gubbay, A.M. Ezekiel, Gladys Nathan, Gracia Adis, Terence A.D. Sassoon, H.M. Sassoon, Joyce Sassoon and A. Solomon. They decided to call their new magazine Israelight. The founding editorial committee resolved as follows: A common meeting place is essential to the healthy life of a community, but since we cannot have a club … a small band can issue a magazine ‘by the Jews and for the Jews only’ and work for the unity and self-respect of the local Jewish community as a whole.19

The first issue of Israelight was published in time for Purim on 1 March, 1934, and in its editorial The Optimists declared: It is our firm conviction that this closer contact between the various self-contained sections of our community will lead to a revival of all that is fine in the traditions of our race — traditions of ISRAEL that for centuries have been the LIGHT of almost the whole world. Their assimilation, added to the cream of culture with which we may come in contact here, will make happier individuals, better citizens and a fine community.20

19 Israelight 1.1 (1934): 1. 20 Ibid.

03 Marshall_S'pore Ch 3

57

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

58

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

The inaugural issue of Israelight contained an article by David entitled “Antics of Hatred”21 that criticized an anti-Jewish pamphlet issued by the Germans, as well as an article by Alain Grandbois entitled “Destiny of Israel”, originally published in French and translated into English by David.22 By the time the second issue of volume one hit the press, David and Terence Sassoon had left for London, leaving the magazine in the good hands of the remaining Optimists. Eze Nathan, David’s old friend from Raffles Institution, took over from David as managing editor. However, the sentiments expressed in the editorial of this issue bear repeating, as they demonstrates the crisis of leadership in the community: Leadership is a power conferred by groups upon individuals whose qualities are expected to yield the greatest good when wielded for the common welfare. These qualities can be brawn or brain or wealth or traditional devotion to the group. The little Jewish Community of Singapore is in a queer position as regards choice of leaders. Settlers in an extremely young country, we have had no time to build up a moral aristocracy and, brawn being utterly useless, we have turned for guidance and help to brains and wealth, which, until lately, were synonymous. This policy prospered as long as we had such a man as the late Sir Manasseh Meyer, whose shrewdness was combined with innate piety that instinctively felt the needs of his people and worked for them from real love — love of religion and love of race. Now we have wealth and intelligence at the helm: intelligence that argues, questions, probes, insists on facts, figures, proofs and while it plays at the pretty game of ping pong with hollow, coloured ball of ‘whys’ and ‘wherefores’, a goodly ship, with rich cargo stagnates. The Community feels this stagnation, but cannot look elsewhere for leadership at present. Wealth is the quality which can help it best during its adolescent stage. 21 Ibid., p. 16. 22 Ibid., pp. 9–11.

03 Marshall_S'pore Ch 3

58

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

59

SEARCHING FOR A PLACE IN THE SUN

Reorganization of our religious and social institutions in harmony with our broadening outlook is urgent and only our present leaders can bring it about. We do not want to grow without religion, without pride of race — we need both. Under present conditions we get neither. The road to progress is clear. Strong leadership from the top, unity at the base will mean happy lives for all. To paraphrase Carlyle: ‘The history of Singapore Jewry is the story of the lives of its leaders.’ May we hope that the lives of these leaders will be great in themselves and a glorious memory in the annals of the Community?23

In his farewell address, appropriately entitled “Adieu”,24 David expressed his regret at having to leave Singapore so soon after the magazine was launched. He told his readers that when he first came up with the idea of having a magazine “by Jews, for Jews” with contributions and editorial work done on a strictly honorary basis, many in the community had “pooh-poohed” it as “an impossibility”. He ended by asking everyone to give support to the new managing editor, Eze Nathan, and the magazine. In 1955, an old friend, Hyim S. Tweg, wrote to David to remind him of the difficulties he had had in getting Israelight off the ground: It is nearly twenty years since last I saw you at the Metropole Hotel Singapore. The subject we were discussing was the community periodical. This I remembered very well because you produced it single handed at a time when community spirit among others was lacking. Not long after that you left for England to study law.25

23 Israelight 1.2 (1934): 1–2. 24 Israelight 1.2 (1934): 52. 25 Hyim S. Tweg to David Marshall, 13 Sep 1955, DM/18/108/1–2.

03 Marshall_S'pore Ch 3

59

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

60

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

The younger Jews of the community kept in close touch with Mrs Nissim and presented her with a leather-bound copy of the inaugural issue of Israelight in appreciation of her inspiration, encouragement, and ideals.26 The first three issues of Israelight came out in quick succession during 1934 — March, June, and November — but the fourth was published only in August 1935. There was then a hiatus of some two years before Volume 2 was issued in September 1937.27 By this time, David had returned to Singapore and was listed as honorary editor. Even after David left for London, he kept a close eye on the magazine and even found time to contribute an article in the August 1935 issue under the non de plume Mars. The article, entitled “Bar Student”, described legal education at the Inns of Court and the holding of traditional dinners.28 The magazine hobbled its way to one final issue in December 1937 before shutting down. David contributed one last article, “Proposed Marriage Legislation”, again under the pen-name Mars.29 OFF TO LONDON

By dint of sheer hard work, dogged determination, and self-denial, David managed to scrimp and save £350, a tidy sum in 1934. Based on the pound sterling to Straits dollar conversion rate of £1 to $8.47, David had close to $3,000.30 He resigned his position at Messageries Maritimes, but not before booking a ticket on the MM Felix Roussel, for which he paid £60. The passage would take him to Marseilles and then to London.

26 Israelight 1.2 (1934): 3. 27 Israelight 2.2 (1937). 28 Israelight 1.4 (1935): 14. 29 Israelight 2.2 (1937): 20–21. 30 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 20 (Singapore: National Archives).

03 Marshall_S'pore Ch 3

60

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

61

SEARCHING FOR A PLACE IN THE SUN

David had long cherished the dream of becoming a doctor, a healer who could be of service to mankind. Later, he thought that he would specialize in psychiatry. He wanted to know “why the goodwill of adolescence that surges in our veins, turns to sour vinegar in middle and old age of crabbed, cabined and confined egoism”.31 On his fascination for psychiatry, David had this to say: I’m fascinated by human conduct. I want to understand the human mind and I wanted particularly to understand this phenomenon, which I thought if I could only understand and break through, wouldn’t the world be a wonderful place? And, of course, I was the one who was going to be Sir Galahad on a white horse, you know, forcing humanity as seen with wondrous heaven on earth of mature, reasonable people. I’m exaggerating. But I was really fascinated by this aspect of human development as I saw it.32

However, a university course in medicine would take five years, with an additional year for housemanship. There was just no way that David’s £350 would sustain him for even half that length of time. Curiously, as his political biographer Chan Heng Chee noted, it did not for a moment cross David’s mind that he could pursue a medical degree in Singapore, where the prestigious King Edward VII College of Medicine had been operating since 1905. Nor did he consider the possibility of reading science or any other subject at Raffles College, so that he could qualify with a diploma and then finish off his degree in England within one year.33 No, David was determined to go to England, come what may. He “had to try and break through the sonic barrier of being an Asian and being a Jew and having no money”.34 But his financial situation 31 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 2 (Singapore: National Archives). 32 Ibid. 33 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, pp. 29–30. 34 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 20 (Singapore: National Archives).

03 Marshall_S'pore Ch 3

61

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

62

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

demanded that he rethink his plan. All he knew was that he needed to get some kind of professional qualification quickly — at least before his money ran out. He also knew that this degree would enable him to break through the racial glass ceiling that held him back in Singapore. Law was the next best option. He could start his external London LLB degree in Singapore and then complete it simultaneously with his Bar studies at the Inns of Court. If he was good enough, he could have the whole thing wrapped up within eighteen months. What was more, he could base himself in London where he would get to see Rose Solomon once again. David tied up all the loose ends of his commitments in Singapore and left on the MM Felix Roussell, bound for London via Marseilles, on 24 July, 1934.35

35 Israelight 1.2 (1934): 4.

03 Marshall_S'pore Ch 3

62

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the STUDYING LONDON 63 Institute of SoutheastLAW AsianIN Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

4

Studying Law in London AT THE FORT

I

n September 1934, David arrived in London — capital city of United Kingdom and fort of the British Empire. He had spent the last four years preparing for his assault on the citadels of domination and power and he was going to succeed, come what may. The London into which he stepped in 1934 was not the glittering, glistening, modern metropolis one would have expected. Certainly, all the trappings of power were there in their full glory — the Palace of Westminster and the Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Whitehall, and the Old Bailey — but everything was just a lot greyer, grimier, and grimmer than depicted in history books and travel guides. The tail-end effects of the Great Depression were still being felt in many quarters and life for the average English family was tough. The city itself was experiencing unprecedented growth, surpassing the eight million mark when David arrived. Indeed, London’s population would reach an all-time high in 1939 at 8.9 million.1 This was fuelled in part by traditional migration from the English countryside and in part by the many Jews who were fleeing Germany and other European cities in the wake of growing anti-Semitism and the rise of Hitler’s

1

In 2006, London’s population was only 7.65 million.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

63

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

64

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Third Reich. The trappings of modernity — trams, the London underground, railways — were much in evidence, but there was massive unemployment in the capital. Even women had to go out to find work to supplement the family income; something previously unheard of. London’s East End became a ghetto and a hotbed of extreme political ideas, epitomized by the Communist Party of Great Britain at one end of the spectrum and the British Union of Fascists at the other. The city centre was very congested and lodgings were in short supply. These shortages, coupled with Londoners’ preference for a more “rural” lifestyle, led to the city sprawling beyond the County of London into the neighbouring counties of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Middlesex, and Surrey. Urban dwellings were typically terraced houses or low-rise, walk-up flats built in and around a large grid. Working-class dwellings were affordable, costing between eight and twelve shillings a week, depending on the location and what floor the lodging was on. Running water was available but there was no hot water or electricity. Lamps and stoves were lit by gas. The National Health Service would not be created for another fourteen years. There was no housing benefit or social security to speak of. To supplement the family income, many children left school prematurely — usually at the age of fourteen — and sought employment, armed only with their school leaving certificates and character references. The starting wage for these young workers was typically ten shillings for a 45-hour work week and a bit less if they were working as apprentices, learning a trade. TO GOLDERS GREEN

After David arrived, he headed straight to visit his old friends, the Solomons, at their residence in Golders Green, located some 8.5 km from central London’s Charing Cross. The development of Golders Green as an upscale, residential district began with the building of

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

64

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

65

STUDYING LAW IN LONDON

Finchley Road in the late 1820s. By the end of the nineteenth century the area had about 300 residents. In 1895, a Jewish cemetery was established nearby in Hoop Lane. This led to an influx of Jewish settlers in the neighbourhood.2 In 1922, a synagogue opened on Dunstan Road. In 1907, the Golders Green tube station became operational. Soon, London’s artistic community began living in the precinct. The Golders Green Hippodrome opened in 1913 and became home to the BBC Concert Orchestra. The Aida Foster School of Drama opened on Finchley Road in 1929. David found lodgings near the Solomons’ residence at Golders Green. A letter dated September 1934 has David’s address as 33 North End Road, Golders Green, NW 11.3 He paid eighteen shillings a week for accommodation only as the Solomons used to feed him. Originally, his rent was twenty-one shillings a week with breakfast, but David, skimping on every single penny, decided that he could cook his own eggs for breakfast. It was a bad idea for someone so undomesticated as David. It was, he recalled, “remarkable the number of ways” he “managed to spoil bacon and eggs”.4 David’s accommodation was far from ideal. The roof leaked and he was forced to sleep in his overcoat and his boots. When his soles flapped open, he contacted a bad bout of influenza. But David remained stoic and uncomplaining. He had to make do with his meagre savings and the £10 a week that was all his father could afford to send him.

2

On the importance of Golders Green as a Jewish enclave, see Stanley Waterman & Barry A. Kosmin, “Residential Patterns and Processes: A Study of Jews in Three London Boroughs” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, new series 13.1 (1988): 79–95.

3

Correspondence, Hannah Baker to Kevin Tan, 26 Oct 2006 (on file with author).

4

David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984 (Singapore: National Archives), Reel 20.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

65

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

66

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Finding lodgings in London was difficult enough on David’s budget, but it was made more difficult with the racial discrimination and anti-Semitism then prevalent in Britain. David remembers how, in 1935, after returning from his holiday in Kent, he had a very hard time looking for lodgings: when I came back from my summer holiday, I went round Golders Green looking for a boarding house. I remember being turned down again and again and again. I hadn’t realized that I’d been in the sun all day long, I had become absolutely mahogany bronze. But in one boarding house the poor lady looked awfully embarrassed. She said, ‘Yes, it’s true I advertised. But you forgive me. It’s not that I mind. I like Indians. But the others, my other boarders … you understand, please.’ I was so disgusted I didn’t even try to explain I wasn’t Indian. But there was that attitude.5

He tried to supplement this small allowance by taking on odd jobs. He placed an advertisement, offering to teach chess for “seven and six an hour” (seven shillings and six pence), but gave that up after he realized that his first and only student “knew a lot more about chess” than he did. Recalling that embarrassing episode, David said, “He very courteously gave me the seven and six and I felt like an awful fraud.”6 Then he tried to join the London Metropolitan Police Force as a policeman but was rejected as he was half an inch too short — they wanted six-footers.7 BACK TO SCHOOL

Until very recently, it was possible to become a lawyer without obtaining a university degree in law. In England, one merely had to register for the Bar course at one of the four Inns of Court — Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Gray’s Inn, or Lincoln’s Inn — and pass the 5

Ibid., Reel 21.

6

Ibid., Reel 20.

7

Ibid.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

66

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

67

STUDYING LAW IN LONDON

Bar finals to be called to the Bar. In Singapore, any person who had been called to the English Bar would automatically qualify to be called to the Singapore Bar, provided they passed an oral examination and completed their period of pupillage. This was the practice in Singapore right until amendments were made to the Legal Profession Act in 1984.8 For young, ambitious persons like David, the usual route for admission to the local legal profession was the one he had chosen. The aspiring law student would seek admission to a university in England and sit for the Bar examinations after being accredited with one of the Inns of Court. David could well have simply signed up for the Bar course with one of the Inns of Court without obtaining a university degree, but he chose to get one anyway. His paltry savings meant that any full-time course at an English university would have been out of the question since the fees would have been prohibitive. He opted to take his degree as an external student with the University of London. The University of London had since 1858 been offering external programmes so that students with financial constraints or work or family commitments could gain access to higher education. Indeed, the University of London became in 1878 the first university in the United Kingdom to admit women to degree courses. One of the first things David had to do was enroll with the External Board of the University of London for his external law degree. He was given an entrance examination at which he surmised he had done poorly when he was summoned for a viva voce or oral examination:

8

Cap 161, Singapore Statutes. Amendments thereafter made it increasingly difficult for English barristers to gain admission to the Singapore Bar. In 1991, for example, the Act was amended to require that those seeking qualification to the Singapore Bar must have obtained at least a Second Class Upper Division Honours degree from one of the approved universities listed in the Act.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

67

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

68

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

I had first to get through my exam with the University oif London and I had to go through an exam in which it seemed I must have been marginal failure because they sent for me, a group of some 18 professors around the table. You know, after 20 minutes of grilling, I removed my hands from the table and it was a pool of water there. And some of them tried to encourage me, ‘Well, the teaching of mathematics is probably very rudimentary in Singapore’. And I had to defend my teachers at my own expense. I said, ‘No, that’s not true, they are very good teachers!’ Look! I mean, after all these years, I don’t remember very much … I had nobody to give me a refresher course, I read through the books I was supposed to read which I might be examined on. Anyway they allowed me in.9

Having secured his place in the University of London’s external programme, he sought admission to the Middle Temple, one of the Inns of Court. The four Inns of Court originated as non-corporate legal societies between the end of the thirteenth century and the beginning of the fourteenth century. When the clergy were forbidden to act in the King’s temporal courts in the early thirteenth century, King Edward I directed that “apt and eager” students be brought from the provinces and housed within close proximity of the law courts. These students were accordingly accommodated in these inns — the earliest places for students of the law. Originally, there were some fourteen different inns, many of which were tagged onto or subsidiary to the four main inns — Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln’s Inn, and Gray’s Inn. By the middle of the eighteenth century, most of them had lost their legal character and only the four inns and the Sergeant’s Inn remained. The latter shut down with the demise of Sergeants-at-Law and the Order of the Coif in 1877. Each Inn of Court is made up of benchers, barristers, and students, in order of seniority. No precise dates can be given for the

9

David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 20 (Singapore: National Archives).

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

68

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

69

STUDYING LAW IN LONDON

founding of each Inn of Court, but many of their buildings date back to the Middle Ages.10 Writing in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, James Claude Webster of the Middle Temple estimated that the average fees payable at each Inn of Court was £50, which would cover all expenses from admission to the call at the Bar. However, tutorial and other expenses might add up to £400 or so. The period of call must not be less than twelve terms, equivalent to about three years. The Middle Temple, David’s choice, possesses in its hall (1572) one of the most magnificent Elizabethan buildings in all of London. Its library dates from 1641 but the library buildings in which David studied were completed only in 1861.11 As to why David opted for the Middle Temple over any of the others is impossible to discern, but the Temple certainly had an unassailable pedigree. Among its more illustrious members were politicians such as Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh, scholars such as Sir William Blackstone, and no fewer than 11 Lord Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal, 24 Chief Justices, 10 Masters of the Rolls, and 9 Chief Barons of the Exchequer. To seek admission to the Inn, he had to write to the Under Treasurer, Thomas Frank Hewlett,12 10 See Paul Brand, The Origins of the English Legal Profession (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992). 11 See “Brief Historical Background to Middle Temple Library”, available at (accessed 5 Jun 2008). These buildings were themselves so badly damaged by bombs during World War II that they were torn down and a new library built in their place in 1946. 12 According to the Middle Temple Archives, Thomas Frank Hewlett was appointed Under Treasurer of the Middle Temple in 1930. He was the youngest son of W.O. Hewlett of Harrow-on-the-Hill, a Master of the Supreme Court. Hewlett resigned his position as Under Treasurer in 1949. This information was supplied by Ms Hannah Baker of the Middle Temple Archives. Email correspondence with the author dated 13 Jun 2008, on file with author.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

69

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

70

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

for admission to the Bar. In Hewlett’s reply of 19 September, 1934, David was told that the rules required him to submit another certificate of character before his application was approved.13 David complied with this request and on 4 October, 1934, was admitted to the Society of the Middle Temple.14 HITTING THE BOOKS

Once the preliminary administrative and logistical problems were sorted out, David had to get down to some serious studying. He had been out of touch with academic pursuits for almost ten years, since his collapse in 1925. It was, as David recalled, “very exciting to be in London when you are young, on your own” with “nobody to control your movement”.15 But he had come with a clear purpose and he could not flinch. He had to return home triumphant — he steeled himself to do it. Having been away from his books for so long, he needed to work his way back into a regime of serious study, knowing full well that it was impossible to force himself “into a routine of study right away”.16 He made a pact with himself: I said, ‘Right, the first two weeks I will only study two hours’. And by study, I mean sitting down and looking at that book and not getting up for two hours. Whatever I absorbed, I absorbed. But by the clock, I will not get up before two hours. The rest of the day is mine. The next two weeks it will be three hours. The next two weeks it will be four hours. So I drew my calendar with the dates.

13 Under Treasurer, Middle Temple to David Marshall, 19 Sep 1934, from the files of the Middle Temple. 14 Correspondence, Hannah Baker to Kevin Tan, 26 Oct 2006 (on file with author). 15 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 20 (Singapore: National Archives). 16 Ibid.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

70

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

71

STUDYING LAW IN LONDON

And do you know, it worked so beautifully. I knew that after two hours I can go out in the sunshine, go to the theatre or go to the law courts or whatever it is, go to the museum. But the two hours … I had to pay for the joys with two hours. And then the three hours came very naturally, it wasn’t very much — three hours. And after that it came so smoothly, I never noticed the transition between one fortnight and another. And towards the end, I was the first in the library at 9 o’clock. I was the last to leave at 6 o’clock, and I continued my studies in my boarding house. It’s just the rhythm … instead of forcing myself, I sort of worked myself in.17

David’s strategy of attacking the law books was initially supplemented by his attendance at lectures given by the Council of Legal Education. He attended the opening lecture where the teachers gave the students a list of books and cases to read. However, he found these lectures boring and felt that he was not learning much from them: very soon after my arrival, or very soon after the commencement of the lectures, I realized that I took notes rather skimpily. And I learn much better through the eyes than through the ears. I got the flavour of the lecturer, one or two lectures, and that was enough for me. But I’d read the textbooks. And you know, at exam time, some of the questions … I could actually see in my mind’s eye the page and my underlining of the page which responded to that question. An extraordinary capacity for visual memory, and not oral, not through the ear. I couldn’t learn very well through the ear. I had to see it written. And so I didn’t attend very much the lectures.18

The Middle Temple Library was a magnificent, Gothic-style building measuring 30 metres long and 10 metres across. Its vaulted timber ceiling resembled that of Westminster Hall and its large bay window had a commanding view of the River Thames. Each day, at 9:00 a.m.

17 Ibid. 18 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 21 (Singapore: National Archives).

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

71

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

72

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

or before, David would trudge up one of the library’s two stone staircases to his favourite seat and get down to his studies. Although he found textbooks useful, they bored him. He preferred to read the judgements of the courts in their full, unexpurgated form. As he told Josef Silverstein in 1975: I don’t think I read anything, but law. I read all sorts of judgments. I used to go to sources, not textbooks. Textbooks bored me stiff. The textbooks were the panes on which I hung my research into the law and these that excited me were exquisite cadences and balance of laws. … That lovely verbalization of our judges and the deep sense of humanity that I can sense. The unique genius of the English in blending justice with common sense. … I really got fascinated by the glorious flow of language of English judges. You read their judgments, there is a sonority of an organ, magnificent pealing phrases that I loved. I enjoyed studying.19

David was so directed in his studies that he did not really think about which subjects he liked, though he admitted having difficulty with Roman law because his Latin was rusty. Though he became Singapore’s greatest criminal lawyer in later years, he did not find himself particularly attracted to criminal law. The one subject he found himself drawn to was tort law and, in particular, the law of negligence, which interested him as he found the evolution of tort doctrine through the centuries “fascinating”.20 DISTRACTIONS

By this time, David was getting very serious about wooing Rose Solomon. He was, in his own words, “semi-engaged” to her. Living in 19 David Marshall’s interview with Josef Silverstein, 13 July 1975, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, transcribed by author. Transcript on file with author. 20 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 21 (Singapore: National Archives).

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

72

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

73

STUDYING LAW IN LONDON

the next street from the Solomons’ residence in Golders Green, he went there daily for his meals and was treated like family. On Saturdays he would take a break from his books and plan an outing with Rose. David loved the theatre, but he had little money for expensive dates: On Saturdays Miss Solomon and I would go and pay. I’d pay sixpence for a seat outside the theatre. We’d sit down, or ask somebody to sit down. We’d rush off and pay two and six each for a Chinese meal. You know, that was where I learned how to use chopsticks in Old Compton Street. Two and six. And then we would come back and I’d pay two shillings each for a seat in the gods in the gallery.21 And the evening would cost us 10 shillings exactly.22

In the summer of 1935, David decided to take a month’s break away from London. Why he chose to spend it where he did is difficult to know, but he took the train out of London to St Margaret’s Bay in Kent, near Dover, where the Academy Award-winning actor George Arliss used to live with his wife. The bay is named after the village of St Margaret’s at Cliffe. The two chalk headlands offer a commanding view of the North Sea. Back in the 1930s, the unspoiled beaches and magnificent beauty of the south English coastline made for a splendid vacationing spot. David found modest accommodation in a holiday cottage and, while the temptation to relax was great, he kept to his disciplined study schedule: And I think the landlady must have liked me although she was a very reserved person, but she prepared a flask of tea and some sandwiches and she allowed me to take her bulldog. And I’d go down to the beach which was a long way down that cliff, to a corner of that beach and I’d sit there from 9.30 to about 6. And I allowed myself two swims and a break for having coffee and sandwiches.

21 A reference to seats so high and far away from the stage that occupants were almost sitting “among the gods”. 22 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 21 (Singapore: National Archives).

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

73

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

74

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

And I had that bulldog to keep away curious visitors who might want to indulge in conversation with me. I was a month there and I did a lot of work in fact, because I had forgotten most of my Latin, and I had to pass Roman Law with Gaius in Latin. And that was the month where I finally made great strides through that technique. Friday night I allowed myself to go to the pub. I can’t remember what I did with Sundays; I possibly worked.23

Besides the Solomons, David’s family was also friendly with the Samrahs, who lived in Wales and David would have visited them there at some point, quite possibly in 1936. Dr Maurice Samrah, writing to David in 1955, reminded him of the holidays he spent at the famous Welsh resort of Colwyn Bay and “dancing at Llandudno”.24 Though David may remember his London days as all work and little play, he appears to have taken an active part in London’s intellectual life and the activities of the Maccabees, a Jewish youth group. An old friend, Minna Gold, wrote him in 1955, reminding him of the evenings he spent at the Hampstead Parliament and Fleet Street evening lectures “on all sorts of subjects, and evenings at Dr Lou Schapiro’s”.25 The Hampstead Parliamentary Debating Society was founded in 1883 and met weekly until 1888 when it became inactive. In 1891 it was renamed the Hampstead Parliament, adopting the debating procedure of the House of Commons, and held its meetings at the Blind School, Swiss Cottage, on Finchley Road until 1939. The Maccabees, a youth movement dedicated to sports, often organized Sunday walks in which David took part:

23 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 20 (Singapore: National Archives). 24 Dr Maurice E. Samrah to David Marshall, 8 May 1955, DM/194/76. 25 Minna Gold to David Marshall, 9 May 1955, DM/195/1–2.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

74

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

75

STUDYING LAW IN LONDON

I joined a group called the Macabees, Jewish youth. Every Sunday they would go walking through the countryside. You paid three and six. It included train fare to Essex or Sussex or what have you. After about an hour’s train drive, you landed in some small village, and then you walked till 4 o’clock in the afternoon. And for lunch you had your sandwiches with you, and you tried to get to a pub which would allow you to have just tea or hot water. We were anathema to them. And we would eat our sandwiches. There were usually about 20 or 30 young people.26

It was on one of these walks that David experienced a kindness and generosity that he was himself to practise for the rest of his life. But David was too shocked to accept the kindness and lived to regret it. During one of the walks, a young Jewish girl of about twenty-two noticed that his boots had given way and his soles were flapping as he walked through the country. Innocently, she asked him why he did not buy a new pair of shoes. David confessed that he had not the money to do so and her response shocked him: And she said, ‘How much would you require to finish your studies in comfort?’ ‘In comfort? Oh! Oh! £500 maybe … 400 maybe.’ She said, ‘Can I lend you the money?’ Gosh! Really I had such a shock. My mind raced through. Why, why should a total stranger whose surname I didn’t know, who’d just been introduced to me with her first name, who didn’t know me from Adam should want to lend me this vast sum with no security. ‘What was it all about?’ I was so terrified I eased myself out from that group and I never dared go again on those Maccabee Sunday walks. Which is a pity, because looking back afterwards, I thought how happy she’d have been when she knew I was a successful lawyer and I paid back the money. And how proud she’d have been when she heard I was first Chief Minister. And I learned the real validity of the Chinese saying: ‘It is more generous to receive than

26 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984 (Singapore: National Archives), Reel 21.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

75

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

76

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

to give.’ I’m afraid I was a small, mean man that day. But it was a shock. I’d never met that kind of generosity before or since, spontaneously to offer four or five hundred pounds.27 THE BAR EXAMS

By May 1935, David had moved from No. 33 to No. 45 North End Road. It is not clear why he had to move, but it was from this address that he again wrote the Middle Temple’s Under Treasurer, Thomas Frank Hewlett, on 10 May, 1935 informing him that he had been accepted as an external candidate of the University of London. In his reply of 13 May, 1935, Hewlett wrote: … if you keep term by dining 3 times only per term you will, on Call to the Bar, be required to produce a certificate that you were a ‘Member’ of London University during such period.28

David had been hard at work and by November 1935 he was ready for the Intermediate LLB Examinations. He cleared them quite effortlessly and then set about preparing for his Bar finals in April 1936.29 Few persons have attempted to clear the Bar finals in half the usual time; fewer still have succeeded. Many students spend years trying to clear these professional examinations. When David was on the way to check his Bar final results, he encountered a Sikh law student who was weeping. Concerned, David asked if something was wrong. No, the Sikh student was fine. He was crying in elation at having finally cleared his Bar finals after trying for seven long years.30 Tunku Abdul Rahman, the first prime minister of Malaya, spent almost ten years trying — though not very hard — to clear his Bar finals.

27 Ibid., Reel 22. 28 Under Treasurer, Middle Temple to David Marshall, 13 May 1935, from the files of the Middle Temple. Copy on file with the author. 29 David Marshall’s University of London diploma, dated 20 Nov 1935. 30 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 21 (Singapore: National Archives).

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

76

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

77

STUDYING LAW IN LONDON

The results of the Bar finals would appear in The Morning Post, a conservative newspaper that was published in London between 1772 and 1937 before being acquired by The Daily Telegraph. On the evening the results were to be announced, David took Rose Solomon and her mother out to a Chinese meal for which he spent 10 shillings. There were insufficient copies of The Morning Post for sale and students were told to wait till 1:00 a.m. At the appointed hour, he made his way back to the Morning Post office with Rose and her mother in tow: we waited till about 1 o’clock … we finally went to the Morning Post. And there was a mob of students. … And I fought my way to the door. You know, everybody tearing bits of that newspaper. So you couldn’t really see anything. You didn’t know the bit you tore was where your name was. And I said to Mrs Solomon, ‘Let’s go.’ She said, ‘Let’s try. David, have you got five shillings?’ ‘Yes.’ She said, ‘Give it to the door-keeper.’ ‘Five shillings!’ Oh well, I thought, you know, in fairness to the two ladies who were with me, damn it. ‘All right, I’ll spend the five shillings.’ So I made my way to the door and I gave five shillings to the door-keeper. And he took me inside, into this room, where the newspaper was pinned down to the table. M, M, M, M, M. ‘Well,’ I said, ‘Mrs Solomon, I failed. But after all, you can’t expect very much you know. Do it again in six months.’ She said, ‘But you’re sure you’ve looked? I said, ‘Yes. Look here.’ But she said, ‘Isn’t that just the passes? Why don’t you look at the Honours?’ And I said, ‘Come off it.’ And then I said, ‘Yes, I will. Because I’d like to know which of my friends got Honours.’ So I looked up the Honours and suddenly I let out one hell of a yell, ‘I’ve got Honours!’31

He had done it. By sheer force of will and determination, David had scaled the heights he set for himself. The inner discipline he showed was awe-inspiring. By his own admission, he had always been a disciplined person, even as a child. He had what he called “a slave mentality”, in that once he decided that something needed to be done, “then whether I like it or not, I do it”.32 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

77

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

78

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David had now slain the Goliath of the English Bar finals and it was time to get home. Never mind the University of London examinations in 1937. He could always take them back in Singapore since he was an external student. What bothered David was the fact that he had yet to complete his course of dinners at the Middle Temple. David tried his luck. He asked for an appointment with Mr Hewlett, someone whom David remembered as “a very dignified man, not too elderly, quiet spoken”.33 David asked Hewlett if the Benchers could exempt him from the rest of the dinners since he had already completed the Bar finals. David pleaded: Look, this is absolute nonsense. I have just passed with honours. And forcing me to stay here for another 18 months (six terms) to eat dinners, that contribute nothing to my knowledge. I mean, I haven’t got the money and I’m old … I’m 28 years old and I’ve got to start work. Please, I mean this absurdity, this formality about having … could you exempt me from them?34

Hewlett, who had probably heard this all before, handled it with exemplary, phlegmatic primness, telling David “in a somewhat severe tone”: Mr Marshall, I regret to learn you’ve been with us for six terms and you are not aware that we do not pretend to teach the law. We try to teach you where to find the law, should you be so interested. As regards the dinners, it is to make sure that you are in the proximity of the Law Courts and Hall and Common Room where you could meet not only fellow students, but members of the Bar, and watch the law being administered in our courts. And through these contacts, absorb the traditions of our profession which no books can teach, and which are far more important than knowledge of the law.35

33 Ibid., Reel 22. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

78

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

79

STUDYING LAW IN LONDON

The authority had spoken, David was crestfallen and felt very abashed. Hewlett then looked him in the eye and said, “I’ll let you off six months.” To formalize the agreement, David wrote to Hewlett on 20 June, once again seeking admission to the Bar and asking for dispensation for the dinners. Six days later, Hewlett replied: Your letter of the 20th instant was submitted to the Masters of the Bench at their meeting yesterday and I am directed to inform you that you cannot be Called to the bar before Trinity Term, 1937.36 The Masters of the Bench would, however, be prepared to grant you a dispensation of two terms and call you then in your absence. Before leaving this Country you should call at this Office to make all necessary arrangements for Call.37 EATING DINNERS

The tradition of eating dinners at the Inns of Courts is an old one and its objectives were spelt out quite vividly in Hewlett’s encounter with David. So, much as he would have loved to set sail for Singapore, David knew in his heart of hearts that he had to make the best of the remaining dinners and become one with that great, big brotherhood of the common law. At the Middle Temple, the dinners were held in the Middle Temple Hall, quite possibly the most outstanding, surviving example of Elizabethan grand architecture.38 The hall is enormous, over 30 metres long and 12 metres wide, spanned by a rare, doublehammer beam roof. The building of the Hall was completed in 1562,

36 Trinity Term runs from April to June each year. 37 Under Treasurer, Middle Temple to David Marshall, 26 Jun 1936, from the files of the Middle Temple. 38 I have based this description of Middle Temple Hall on the account given by the Temple itself at its official website and on David Marshall’s own oral history account.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

79

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

80

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

when the great law reporter Edmund Plowden presided as Treasurer of the Temple. Massive oil paintings celebrate Queen Elizabeth I, who dined many times in the Hall, and several other monarchs. In the windows are memorials to notables closely associated with the Inn. The High Table is made of three 8.8 metre-long planks of a single oak — said to be a gift from Queen Elizabeth I — cut from Windsor Forest, floated down the Thames, and installed before the building was completed. The hatch of Sir Francis Drake’s ship, The Golden Hind, was used to make the ceremonial table known as “the Cupboard” standing below the Bench Table. It is used for ceremonies and for placing the Call Book, which members sign when they are called to the Bar. It is also used as a lectern. The dinners were at one and the same time formal and informal affairs. There was great respect for protocol and veneration for the seniority of members of the Temple, but once everyone sat down to dine, it became one big, Bacchanalian feast. Students dined in groups of four — No. 1 being the most senior and No. 4 being the most junior — which they made up informally before they entered the Hall and they sat apart from those barristers who had already been called. David ascribes the free flow of alcohol at the Temple to the time when Queen Elizabeth I came to attend the premier performance of Shakespeare’s The Tempest. She was so pleased with the performance that she asked the Treasurer if there was anything he wanted for the Temple. The Treasurer requested that the Temple be free from the Queen’s excise. From that day onwards, the Middle Temple never paid duty on its alcohol.39 David described the typical dinner he attended as follows: We sit in groups of four … That is to say, sort of forming a little square, two opposite two. Only No 1 is allowed to talk to the next

39 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984 (Singapore: National Archives), Reel 21.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

80

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

81

STUDYING LAW IN LONDON

group, or to anybody outside the group. If No 2, No 3 or No 4 permit themselves to talk to anybody at all outside the group, he gets fined half a bottle of wine. And they are very liberal in fining you. … The tables nearer the front are mainly barristers who had already qualified. And at 7 o’clock sharp there is the ‘Dong! Dong! Dong!’ as our Sergeant-at-Arms comes in, leading the Benchers by seniority, who have been tippling already in their own common room. And we sit down. Now, we are allowed as much beer as we can drink as I remember. And we are allowed half a bottle of wine per person. And then comes the loving cup at the end in a vast silver bowl which gets passed all round. And by the end of the evening some of us are, shall we say, in high, good spirits. And it’s traditional to throw the policeman’s cap into the pond. Or in my case, very wrong of us … We went to a theatre. The poor people! We didn’t follow what was going on. We were a bit late anyway. And we kept interrupting and heckling until we were thrown out. The only time in my life I was thrown out of a theatre. It used to be nice. I think I had to have six dinners or three dinners a term. And they cost a princely sum of three and six.40

The food itself was of little consequence. David could not even remember what they ate — probably a soup, “the main dish and two vegetables and a sweet”41 — for everyone concentrated on the drinks. “And”, David added, “the important thing was to get an Indian because then you could have an extra half bottle.”42 Bar students from all over England and the British Empire met as equals at these dinners. There, David did not recall any form of discrimination although he felt that the English kept too much to themselves. Once, when asked to be part of a four for dinner, David was asked to bring another person along. The person making that

40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

81

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

82

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

request then added, “and for God’s sake, bring a white man.” David, ever the defender of the underdog and sworn enemy of racism, went over prepared to battle: Oh boy! I went to that table ready for a real battle royale, ready for a fight with whoever … and the chap who’d been doing the shouting disarmed me completely by saying, ‘Look, don’t get on your high horse, Marshall. I want to enjoy my dinner and I’d like to have my dinner with people who talk my own language.’ Not a question of racism. And I suddenly could see it. You know, he wants to talk sport or whatever it is that they do talk.43

Beyond the dinners, which were rather infrequent, the Bar students met informally in the junior and senior common rooms. The tendency for the British to congregate in one common room and for the “natives” from the colonies to congregate in another was something David never understood. He once heard a huge commotion coming from across the corridor and when he asked, what it was about, he was told that the noise was emanating from “the other common room”. David was curious: ‘Oh,’ I said, ‘is there another common room?’ So I popped in there. A lot of Africans and Indians. And boy, the vicious talk against the UK in that common room. I went back to the first common room and I said to the boys, ‘Isn’t this a bit absurd? Here are people who are going to be the leaders of their countries in years to come, some of them at least, and you ignore them and ostracize them instead of trying to make friends and to understand they are part of the British Empire.’44

Obviously, colonial attitudes prevailed in the Middle Temple common rooms as well.

43 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 21 (Singapore: National Archives). 44 Ibid.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

82

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

83

STUDYING LAW IN LONDON

PUPILLAGE

Left with a year’s dinners to eat, David decided that he should read in chambers. In those days, pupils had to pay their pupil masters to take them on and he was hard put to find the fifty-five guineas required. It is not known how he ended up in the chambers of Walter Raeburn. There are two possible reasons. First, Raeburn was also a member of the Middle Temple and David could well have met him at one of the dinners. Second, Raeburn and his family lived in Hampstead, only a stone’s throw away from Golders Green, and he might have met him outside of the Inn. Walter Augustus Leopold Raeburn was born in England to Hermann and Anna Regensburg, who had come to Britain from Germany.45 He changed his family name to Raeburn in 1915 when he volunteered for the army. Educated in history at Oxford, Raeburn started life in advertising before deciding to become a barrister specializing in criminal law. His chambers were at 5 King’s Bench Walk (Middle Temple). In choosing to chamber with Raeburn, David made a wise choice. Not only was Raeburn an outstanding pupil master, but he was an excellent lawyer with a first-class legal mind. He and his wife Dora were also destined to be David’s lifelong friends. Raeburn was a tall man six foot three and was very kind to foreign students, quite a few of whom ended up chambering with him. David spent six months with Raeburn, alongside four other pupils. Recalling those exciting days, David said: we followed him wherever he went. Every court he went to, we prepared his brief or rather, we assisted him in the preparation of his briefs, we did his research or rather, we co-operated with him in his research. He showed us how to do it. We attended, as mute witnesses, his conferences with solicitors and the very rare

45 Most of the information about Walter Raeburn was kindly supplied by his son, Michael Raeburn, in an email dated 5 Feb 2008 to the author (on file with author).

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

83

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

84

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

conferences when client was present. Very rare; barristers don’t see clients. But he did occasionally. He had clients in his chambers. We were an integral part of the chambers family.

Among the young lawyers in Raeburn’s chambers was Leslie George Scarman (later Lord Scarman) who had just been called to the Bar. David found the experience extremely useful, giving young lawyers “an insight into the workings” of the legal system. By the end of the six months, he “was raring to go”.46 By this time, David was bleeding financially. He had no money to buy himself new clothes and Raeburn was kind enough to loan him a pair of trousers to come to work.47 He could not afford to hang around much longer. It is not certain when David left London for Singapore. He would have finished his pupillage with Raeburn by January 1937 and, according to Chan Heng Chee, returned to Singapore in February 1937.48 While this is certainly possible, it would mean that David did not complete his dinners at Middle Temple, since technically he should only have completed them around April 1937. It is also not clear when and where he sat for final examinations at the University of London. Whatever the case may be, he was no longer in London by June 1937. David never again proposed to Rose Solomon after she rejected him in 1930. They parted as good friends and Rose never married. Throughout his life, David never forgot the kindness she and her family lavished on him while he was struggling with his studies in London. Later on, when David was making good money, he bought a house in London for Rose and her mother where they remained for the rest of their lives.49 46 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 22 (Singapore: National Archives). 47 “Trousers loan”, Daily Mail, 26 Apr 1956. 48 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 31. 49 Interview with Jean Marshall, 16 Jan 2008.

04 Marshall_S'pore Ch 4

84

11/21/08, 9:10 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the STARTING PRACTICE IN SINGAPORE 85 Institute of SoutheastLEGAL Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

5

Starting Legal Practice in Singapore WELCOME THE CONQUERING HERO

B

y 1937, Singapore had climbed out of the economic morass brought on by the Depression. Commerce was booming and Saul Marshall’s business was once again thriving. By this time, he had diversified his business and gone into real estate brokerage. He was a much respected businessman and was on friendly terms with most of the colony’s notables. He was absolutely delighted to have David back in Singapore. David, now totally penurious, moved back in with his family in Bluebell Cottage. His return had been much anticipated by his friends and contemporaries in the Jewish community. The Israelight editorial team, which could not seem to work without David pushing them along, was relieved and thrilled by his return. By this time, the Israelight group had formed a social committee. They threw David a welcomeback party to celebrate his return and his success at the London Bar. By completing a further six months’ pupillage in Singapore, David would be eligible to be called to the Singapore Bar as well, making him the first Jewish lawyer in Singapore. We have no record of where David did his pupillage. When he was asked about this in 1984, he could not even remember the firm where this took place, so forgettable had been his experience. The Singapore pupillage experience could not hold a candle to that in Walter Raeburn’s chambers. In Singapore, David remembered that

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

85

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

86

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

people at the firm “more or less ignored” him and let him find his “own way”.1 He was disgusted and determined that if he ever took on any pupils in future, he owed them a duty to guide them properly and show them the ropes the way Raeburn and those in his chambers had done. On 10 June, 1937, Thomas Frank Hewlett, the Middle Temple’s Under Treasurer, wrote to David to inform him that he had been called to the Bar at the Middle Temple on the evening of 9 June, 1937 in absentia. He also enclosed a certificate of Call together with a cheque for £26-1s-4, being the balance of his deposit after the call fees were deducted. Hewlett ended by requesting David to call on the Middle Temple office when he was next in England to sign the Call Book.2 On 21 July that year, David received his Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree from the University of London.3 His journey to being a full-fledged, practising lawyer was almost at an end. In addition to completing his six months’ pupillage, David had to undergo an oral examination, as required under the new Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance 1935.4 Section 7 of the Ordinance provided that before an applicant could be called the Bar, he or she must appear before a three-man panel comprising the Attorney General or his representative and two other lawyers (excluding the applicant’s pupil master), … who shall interview the practitioner and satisfy themselves and report to the Bar Committee whether or not, in their opinion, the

1

David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 22 (Singapore: National Archives).

2

Under Treasurer, Middle Temple to David Marshall, 10 Jun 1937, from the files of the Middle Temple.

3

David Marshall’s University of London degree scroll. P. James to Kevin Tan, 14 Feb 2008. Letter on file with author.

4

Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, Cap 62, Statutes of the Straits Settlements, 1936 Rev. Ed.

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

86

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

87

STARTING LEGAL PRACTICE IN SINGAPORE

petitioner has an adequate knowledge or the practice and etiquette of the profession and of the English language and is a suitable person for admission.

David failed this examination and was furious: Zehnder failed me. A man called Zehnder and two others, for oral examination. They asked me about the Charter of Singapore, Queen Victoria’s Charter which I had not studied and some others.5 And I was furious with them. And I wrote them a stinking letter so they had another examination, oral examination, in a month’s time and they passed me this time. But they failed me the first time.6 They were very unfair in seeking, really, to trap me rather than to find out the extent of my knowledge of the English language and the law of Singapore.7

The Zehnder to whom David referred was a Eurasian lawyer named Hugh Ransome Stanley Zehnder, who practised with his brother Walter Frank Zehnder under the style of Zehnder Brothers.8 Hugh Zehnder was a senior lawyer, having been called to the Singapore Bar in 1910, while his brother was called in 1914. We do not know who the other two members of the examining committee were. By the end of January 1938, David had completed his pupillage and passed his oral examination. It was time for him to petition to be called to the Bar. By contrast with the practice today, in which large numbers of law graduates get called to the Bar en masse, in the 1930s lawyers

5

Here, Marshall could be referring either to the Second Charter of Justice 1826 or the Third Charter of Justice 1855. These Letters Patent established the jurisdiction of the courts and judges in the Straits Settlements.

6

The Bar Committee must have considered David’s objection to be meritorious because under section 7(4) of the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, a petitioner who is the subject of “an unfavourable report” shall only be entitled to re-submit himself for a second interview “not less than three months” after the first interview.

7

Ibid.

8

Singapore and Straits Directory 1938.

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

87

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

88

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

tended to be called on an ad hoc basis. David remembered that the procedure was fairly uncomplicated. First, an application was made to the Supreme Court to be called. This application was moved by a “friend” — usually a fairly senior member of the Bar — before the Chief Justice. At the call hearing, the Bar Committee was represented and if it had no objection, the Chief Justice would give the applicant a little lecture about law and ethics and offer other sagely words of advice before admitting him to the Bar. The new advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements would then take the oath of allegiance to the king, his heirs, and successors to the throne. The ceremony was completed with the donning of the traditional wig and gown.9 From the earliest days, Singapore had a fused profession in the sense that there was no distinction between solicitors and barristers, the latter having exclusive right of hearing before the court. David was called to the Singapore Bar on 4 February, 1938, the first person to be called that year. He was the 496th person called to the Bar since 1852, when the Roll of Advocates and Attorneys was opened.10 His contemporary, George Oehlers, who had gone overseas for his studies earlier than David, was already a member of the Bar, having been called in 1932. In 1938, ten other lawyers were called to the Singapore Bar: Ee Yew Lin, Tan Sim Eng, Mowlray Garden, John Lucien Rotburgh Pillai, Frederick Claude Rowsing Martens, Rolla Douglas Walls Edwardes-Ker, Liew Swee Cheng, Arumugam Ponnu (A.P.) Rajah, Radhakrishnan Ramani, and Wee Eng Lock.

9

David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 22 (Singapore: National Archives).

10 The very first ‘lawyers’ to practise in Singapore were known as Law Agents. Many of them were not legally trained but were respected European merchants. When the law was formalized to admit lawyers for practice, they were originally known as Advocates and Attorneys. It was only in 1907 that they were known as Advocates and Solicitors.

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

88

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

89

STARTING LEGAL PRACTICE IN SINGAPORE

The last three were to become very much a part of David’s legal life in the years to come. A.P. Rajah (1911–1999) later joined the firm of Rodyk and Davidson, where he met C.C. Tan. Together, they formed the Progressive Party that David railed against in the 1955 general election. Rajah and Tan later teamed up with Cheah Heng Sin (called in 1939) to establish the firm of Tan, Rajah, and Cheah, which survives to this day. A.P. Rajah went on to have a distinguished career as Speaker of Parliament, diplomat, and judge of the Supreme Court. R. Ramani (1901–1970) was born in India and had been called to the Bar in England in 1929. In Singapore, he joined the firm of Braddell Brothers where he practised with the great Sir Roland Braddell, another lawyer whom David admired greatly. Ramani later practised mainly in Malaya, at the Kuala Lumpur Bar, and rose to become one of its greatest lawyers. A serious, austere man, he lived for the law. He became president of the Malayan Bar Council (1961–1963) and later in life was appointed Malaysia’s permanent representative to the United Nations.11 Among his contemporaries, Ramani was the one who commanded David’s greatest respect for his knowledge of the law.12 Wee Eng Lock was the son of Wee Swee Teow (called in 1912), one of Singapore’s pioneer Chinese lawyers. The younger Wee was a brilliant conveyancing lawyer and was one of David’s closest associates during his days in practice. In 1989, Wee’s firm, Wee Swee Teow & Company, merged with Oehlers & Choa, the firm that George Oehlers and Eric Choa had formed just after World War II. DEBATE ON THE SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE

Shortly after David returned from London, he engaged in his first overtly political act. He made a speech criticizing the British for their

11 INSAF 34.1 (2005): ii–iii. 12 Interview with Geoffrey Abisheganaden, 2 Oct 2006.

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

89

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

90

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

colonial attitudes. David has related this incident many times, but the exact date on which he gave the speech is unknown. Most accounts have the year as 1927,13 when he first returned from convalescing in Switzerland. Even David himself kept mixing up the dates, but since the speech concerned the debate over the Singapore Naval Base, the most likely year in which David made the speech is 1937. The Singapore Naval Base was a massive undertaking by the British Government,14 conceived as part of its overall review of naval policy and strategy in the Far East in the face of Japan’s rise as a naval power. Known as the Singapore Strategy, the plan to construct in Singapore a naval base capable of handling the largest warships in existence was mooted under David Lloyd George’s Labour government in 1921. The whole scheme did not really take off until 1928, when the contract for the building of a graving dock was put up.15 The massive project dragged on for almost ten years at a cost of some £60 million and was finally completed in 1938. The problem was that there was no naval fleet to make use of it.16 By 1937, the 13 See, for instance, Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 29. 14 The literature on the Singapore Strategy and the Naval Base is copious. See, for example, James Neidpath, The Singapore Naval Base and the Defence of Britain’s Eastern Empire, 1919–1941 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981); W. David McIntyre, The Rise and Fall of the Singapore Naval Base, 1919–1942 (London: Macmillan, 1979); C. Northcote Parkinson, Britain in the Far East: The Singapore Naval Base (Singapore: Donald Moore, 1955); Ian Hamill, The Strategic Illusion: The Singapore Strategy and the Defence of Australia and New Zealand, 1919–1942 (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1981); and Malcolm H. Murfett, John N. Miksic, Brian P. Farrell & Chiang Ming Shun, Between Two Oceans: A Military History of Singapore From First Settlement to Final British Withdrawal (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1999). 15 See Tristan Buest, “The Naval Base at Singapore”, Pacific Affairs 5.4 (1932): 309. 16 See Raymond Callahan, “The Illusion of Security: Singapore 1919–42”, Journal of Contemporary History 9.2 (1974): 80.

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

90

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

91

STARTING LEGAL PRACTICE IN SINGAPORE

global political situation presented the Singapore Strategy with a huge dilemma: Only two basic questions needed to be answered. First, how could Britain afford to send off the bulk of its capital ship fleet on a foray into Southeast Asian waters for an indeterminate period of time to confront the IJN [Imperial Japanese Navy] when a potential military foe of some substance existed just across the North Sea and could launch a surprise attack on the United Kingdom at any time? Second, if war erupted in Europe before it did in the Far East, was there any chance that the ‘Singapore Strategy’ would still be implemented once war with Japan broke out?17

In the midst of the big debate that ensued, as David read in a report in The Straits Times, a member of the House of Commons referred to Singapore as “a pestilential and immoral cesspool”. He was furious. What utter nonsense. He had been to London, dined and jousted with the best the English had to offer, and come through triumphant. Most of the British people he met had treated him fairly and on equal terms, not as some inferior, second-class human being. What was this arrogance but colonialism writ large? He decided to act. He paid a visit to the YMCA where he had taught night classes in French before leaving for London and offered to give a talk. The British reaction was immediate, as David recalled: In 1937 I think it was, there was a debate in the House of Commons about the Singapore naval base. And one member referred to Singapore as a pestilential and immoral cesspool. That made my belly boil. I went to the YMCA and the next day I gave a talk in which I said, ‘If the British felt that Singapore was a pestilential and immoral cesspool, they were welcome to leave and we will clear up the cesspool and the immorality that they had left in our home.’ I gather that was a bit rude. Their reaction was not late in coming. The Director of Education issued a directive to all schools and educational institutions: Henceforth David Marshall was not to be

17 Murfett, Miksic, Farrell & Chiang, Between Two Oceans, p. 163.

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

91

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

92

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

permitted to talk on any of the premises in the jurisdiction of the Director of Education.18

This was David’s first experience clashing with the colonial authorities. By this time, he had begun to really despise colonialism, in which the colonial masters treated their subjects with contempt and derision. For a Jew who had been in the “pinching shoes of discrimination” most of his life, this was a lesson he never forgot. However, David did not go further than that. He was realistic. Now already twenty-nine years old, he had to make up for lost time and “break through the sonic barrier” of discrimination that had kept the Jews impoverished and marginalized. Getting himself established as a lawyer was paramount in his mind. A LAWYER AT LAST

In 1938, there were just over seventy lawyers in practice in Singapore. Many of them were Europeans, while an increasing handful were local-born, English-qualified men like David. There were no women actively practising at the Bar at this time. Most law firms were located in the vicinity of Raffles Place since it was the commercial hub of Singapore and close by to the Supreme Court, which was until 1939 located in what is now the Old Parliament House. In 1939, the new Supreme Court building, designed by Frank Dorrington Ward and located at St. Andrew’s Road, was declared open by Sir Percy McElwaine, Chief Justice of the Straits Settlements. Being just across from the Cricket Club, it was still considered a very short walk from Raffles Place. Even today, many leading law firms continue to maintain offices in the Raffles Place area. David tried hard to get a position as an assistant in one of the established firms. The most prominent of these firms were, quite

18 Talk by David Marshall at the Substation on 17 Jan 1994, transcribed by the author. Transcript on file with author.

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

92

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

93

STARTING LEGAL PRACTICE IN SINGAPORE

naturally, the oldest ones. The oldest of these firms was Rodyk & Davidson, founded in 1877 by Bernard Rodyk and James Guthrie Davidson. Donaldson & Burkinshaw was the next oldest, having been established in 1879 by Alexander Leathes Donaldson and John Burkinshaw. Then came Braddell Brothers (1882);19 Drew & Napier (1889);20 and Allen & Gledhill (1901). Many of the seventy or so lawyers then practising were either solo practitioners or in two-men partnerships. Only the big, old firms had three or more partners. David had a very tough time getting a position in any firm and he put this down to the racism then prevalent. He recalled: I went round from office to office; nobody was interested in having me. I wasn’t a Chinese; the Chinese weren’t interested. I wasn’t European; Europeans won’t have me. Finally Rodyk & Davidson, out of respect for my father, who was at that time, a real estate broker. I knew them … A tall, very nice man … C.V. Miles. He offered me a job at $500 a month as an assistant. And I discovered that that was much less than what the European assistants were getting. Was even less than the Chief Clerk. And I said, ‘No. I would not be junior to the Chief Clerk.’ I made this tremendous effort in order to break through the sonic barrier of racial discrimination. In business, in the professions, I refused to accept racial discrimination.21

Charles Valentine Miles was a very senior member of the Bar. He had been called to the Singapore Bar in 1903, five years before David was born. By 1938, he had become senior partner of Singapore’s oldest law firm, Rodyk & Davidson, which he ran with John Christopher

19 The firm was founded by brothers Thomas de Multon Lee Braddell and Robert Wallace Lee Braddell, sons of Sir Thomas Braddell, first Attorney General of the Straits Settlements. 20 This firm started as a partnership between Sir Walter Napier and Alfred Drew. 21 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 22 (Singapore: National Archives).

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

93

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

94

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

(J.C.) Cobbett, a man some ten years his junior. Cobbett would later become a prominent member of the Bar and was president of the Bar Committee in the 1950s. The firm, located at 4 Raffles Place, had in 1938 two European assistants, Francis George Vaux and Gilbert McCallum Coltart. They had both been among the bumper crop of fourteen lawyers called to the Bar in 1929. They were just slightly older than David and he was absolutely incensed that he should start his legal practice on a substantially lower salary scale than they. To be absolutely fair to Miles, Cobbett, and their ilk, their offer of $500 a month for a new assistant was fairly generous. When senior counsel Michael Hwang joined the firm of Allen & Gledhill in 1968, some thirty years later, his starting pay was $900 a month — $100 a month more than the norm since he had been a lecturer at the university for a year and a half before that. The colour bar, which was not in evidence in the public sector, did not pay much more than that either. When Lim Koon Teck returned from his studies and was called to the Singapore Bar in 1928, the Malayan Civil Service offered him $500 a month when he took on the job of deputy registrar of the Supreme Court. However, expatriate civil servants got housing and transport allowances while locals did not.22 Saul Marshall pulled out all the stops. He decided to take his son to see an old friend, the venerable Sir Song Ong Siang (or Sir OngSiang Song in its anglicized order), doyen of the local Bar. Born on 14 June, 1871 to well-known Straits Chinese community leader, Song Hoot Kiam, the younger Song was educated at Raffles Institution where he held the Guthrie Scholarship from 1883 to 1887. A precocious student, Song sat for the Queen’s Scholarship in 1886, at age fifteen. He topped the examination but could not take up the scholarship as he was underaged. He repeated his performance the next year but

22 Lim Koon Teck, Oral History Interview, undated (Singapore: National Archives).

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

94

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

95

STARTING LEGAL PRACTICE IN SINGAPORE

again could not take up the scholarship on account of his age. He yielded the honour of being the first Chinese boy to win the Queen’s to his friend, Lim Boon Keng. In 1888, Song sat for the Queen’s yet again, topped it for the third time, and left for Cambridge to read law. His academic brilliance was much in evidence even in the tough, scholarly environment of Cambridge, where he studied at Downing College. A member of the Middle Temple, Song won a 100-guinea prize for constitutional law and international law in 1889 and another studentship of 100 guineas in jurisprudence and Roman law in June 1890. On his return to Singapore, he teamed up with his old classmate from Raffles Institution, James Aitken (another Queen’s Scholar from the class of 1885) to form the firm Aitken & Ong Siang. Song was the first Chinese barrister to be called to the Singapore Bar, in 1894, and also the first Chinese to be knighted by the British, in 1936. When Saul and David went to see him, Song was already sixtyeight years old and on the verge of retirement. He had spent a lifetime in service of the Straits Chinese community and his church. Saul and David met Song at his firm’s office at 9 Bonham Building. Song was, David recalled, “a man of exquisite courtesy, a true Chinese gentleman of the old school, a Mandarin of gentleness, of personal quiet charm, of total integrity and fairly wide reading.”23 Song did not turn David away, but he knew that he did not really want to take on another assistant.

23 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 22 (Singapore: National Archives). Lim Koon Teck, who went into practice in 1928, remembered Song as follows: He was the most gentle, fair-minded man I’ve ever met. His life was dedicated not to make money but in helping the social service. He was in the Legislative Executive Council, member of the church and doing all the charity work. See Lim Koon Teck, Oral History Interview (Singapore: National Archives).

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

95

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

96

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

By this time, Song was the sole partner of the firm, Aitken having retired some time previously. He already had three young Chinese assistants with him: Isaac Hunter Hoaling, Koh Choon Joo, and Koh Choon Hong, three lawyers who had more than thirty years of practice between them. Hoaling, a native of Guyana, had been called to the Bar in 1923, while Koh Choon Joo (C.J. Koh) and Koh Choon Hong (C.H. Koh) were called in 1928 and 1931 respectively. C.J. Koh was later to become the most generous benefactor of the Faculty of Law at the National University of Singapore. C.H. Koh was later to be a major player in the Labour Front which David was to lead. In response to Saul Marshall’s pleading, Song told him: Mr Marshall, I’ll give him an office. He can have a desk. He can use my staff. And he can give me one third of what he earns. And if he earns less than $500 a month, he can keep the $500 a month. But if he earns more, then he can contribute one third of his income.24

David, who was not one to back down from an offer like that, jumped at it. In his own words, “I started with Aitken and Ong Siang as really a semi-independent lawyer” and “had an interesting time”.25 Although David was to become Singapore’s greatest criminal lawyer in the years to come, he did not start off by specializing in criminal work. His father, who was doing well in real estate brokerage, introduced him to his clients who required conveyancing services. His first ever criminal case came to him through Richard Lim Chuan Hoe, better known as R.C.H. Lim. Lim, who had originally qualified as a teacher from the University of Hong Kong, switched to a law career after being called to the Bar at the Middle Temple. He practised law in Hong Kong from 1931 to 1936 and returned to Singapore that year to be called to the Bar, joining the firm of Mallal & Namazie. He established his own

24 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 22 (Singapore: National Archives). 25 Ibid.

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

96

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

97

STARTING LEGAL PRACTICE IN SINGAPORE

firm, R.C.H. Lim & Co. in 1942. In later years, Lim would be an important part of Singapore’s political life and served as Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly under David’s government. David vividly recalled Lim’s telephone call: I got a telephone call from Richard Chuan Hoe Lim to say, ‘David, will you take a running down case for $75?’ I thought … $75! You piker! Even those days … that was pretty poor. I said, ‘Why don’t you do it yourself?’ And he said, ‘It’s before Forrer. He’s the mad Magistrate; you know, the one who carries a certificate of sanity from Woodbridge! I hate him.’ … Anyway, I took the case.26

Henry Auguster Forrer (1886–1969) was a former Swiss national who had joined the Malayan Civil Service in 1909. A man of considerable intelligence, he was described as “very cutting” and often struck fear into the hearts of lawyers and prosecutors.27 He was impatient with bad lawyers and poor arguments and had a reputation for rushing through his cases.28 However, no judge, no matter how mad, impatient, or “cutting”, was going to deter David. With his characteristic thoroughness, David left no stone unturned. The case he agreed to take on was simple. The accused was driving a car to Johor with two passengers one rainy night when he allegedly knocked down and killed a motorcyclist. The car somersaulted, ended in a river, and the two passengers were knocked unconscious. His client was charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as a result of a rash or negligent act. The penalty was severe — a possible prison term of up to twenty years! But with his client as the sole witness, what could the prosecution possibly be relying on?

26 Ibid. 27 Derek Mackay, Eastern Customs: The Customs Service in British Malaya and the Opium Trade (London: Radcliff Press, 2005), pp. 52-53. 28 See Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 40.

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

97

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

98

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David assumed that the prosecutor would in all probability rely on the dictum of res ipsa loquitur (quite literally ‘the thing speaks for itself ’), often used in circumstances when the facts themselves point to a self-evident truth. David dashed to the library, found “seven of the juiciest cases on res ipsa loquitur”, and appeared before Forrer with his impressive list of authorities. David recalls that day vividly: Forrer came in, tall, lean, craggy, white thatch of hair, white smudge of moustache. He tapped with a stub of pencil on his desk. The clerk of the Court looked up. ‘What name did you say? Marshall? Never heard of him.’29

Then Forrer proceeded to write something on a scrap of paper and passed it on to David. The note read: To those who plead guilty, I try to be as lenient as the circumstances permit. To those who waste the time of my court with pleas of not guilty, I try to give the maximum where I can. TEAR THIS SLIP!30

David was not intimidated. He was incensed: I was shocked into wondering what kind of jungle I was in. ‘You lousy scarecrow!’ I thought, ‘If I hand this to the Attorney-General you are in for the high jump.’ Ostentatiously, I tore up the note and flung the pieces of paper on the ground, wanting him to tell me to pick them up. I would then refuse and we would have a battle royal. He had the good sense not to order me to pick them up and the grace to acquit me without calling on my defence.31

Forrer had wisely allowed David to proceed with the not guilty plea and dismiss the case without the need to call on David’s defence. There was no battle royale and David’s faith in the courts and the rule of law remained intact. 29 David Marshall, “Some Thoughts on Legal Ethics”, Singapore Law Review 79.6 (1985): 83. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid.

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

98

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

99

STARTING LEGAL PRACTICE IN SINGAPORE

If Forrer and the other judges had never heard of David Marshall until now, they would soon know him very well in the days to come. David was professional, thorough, meticulous, and courteous to the court. His advocacy was persuasive and powerful — he had the ability to pace his words and to vary his volume to match the cadences of his logic. His clients were often in awe at the way he plunged himself into their cases, in his bid to do his best for them. He was a legal genius with the industry of a beaver, the tenacity of a pit bull, and the fearlessness of Achilles. Right from his earliest days in practice, David established for himself the highest standards of lawyering. As an advocate and an officer of the court, he believed that it was his sacred duty to tell the truth and to lead the court honestly. Thus, he would never lie to the court nor mislead it. At the same time, he never felt it his place to judge his clients. As far as David was concerned, that was the job of the courts. His duty was, first and foremost, to do his best for his client, come what may. Like Lord Henry Brougham of a century past, David believed that a client, no matter how odious, deserved the benefit of the best counsel available and that counsel’s job was to fight for the client’s best interests, regardless of the consequences. Brougham, who defended the notorious and licentious Queen Caroline in her divorce proceedings against King George IV, was prepared to do everything possible to win her case, even if it meant endangering the monarchy by proving that the King himself had been a philanderer and that he had secretly married a Catholic woman while still married to his consort. In his famous speech to the House of Lords, Brougham said: [A]n advocate, in the discharge of his duty, knows but one person in all the world, and that person is his client. To save that client by all means and expedients, and at all hazards and costs to other persons. And in performing this duty he must not regard the alarm, the torments, the destruction which he may bring upon others. Separating the duty of a patriot from that of an advocate, he

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

99

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

100

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

must go on reckless of consequences, though it should be his unhappy fate to involve his country in confusion.32

David did the same. He was determined to pour the same amount of energy, time, and effort to fight for his client’s best interests, whether it was a $75 running-down case or a multi-million-dollar embezzlement suit. At the heart of this professionalism was his attention to detail, a mastery of the facts, and a sound knowledge of the law. And the only way to acquire all three was pure, hard work. David explained: The very core is to know your case. That’s the first: to know all the facts of your case. And above all, to be able to assess the strengths of your adversary and to face the weaknesses of your own case. That’s where many of us fail, because we kid ourselves: We are strong, we cover up our own witnesses; and we’re not ready when those witnesses are breached in open court. We’re not ready with the second and third defence to meet that onslaught. I have always made it a point, maybe over emphasized, because my client, poor man usually has a bad time with me just before the hearing when I bash into him for every possible weaknesses that could exist in our case. Then of course, the other aspect is an in-depth study of the law that might apply. Despite almost 41 years of practice, every time I had a charge under section 121, or I had to look at section 124, I would religiously re-read what I knew by heart, just in case … there was a fresh angle in my mind to what I was reading. Just in case it’s part something and just in case I might miss something by trying to memorize. I’d look at every case though I knew which might be relevant and re-read. … I assessed that for every hundred authorities I prepared for a case, I usually used between five and seven cases. And all the rest went to waste. To waste, that’s to say, they were not used but they were there, ready. Well, ready in case of need. And also strengthen

32 (1821) 2 Trial of Queen Caroline 3, quoted in Lovat Fraser, “Brougham as an Advocate”, Law Mag. & Rev. Quart. Rev. Juris. 5th ser. 36 (1910–1911): 40–41.

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

100

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

101

STARTING LEGAL PRACTICE IN SINGAPORE

my own understanding of the law in my submissions. We don’t always have to bash a court with cases that surfeit. No, you refresh the court’s memory and just in case it has forgotten or isn’t fully conscious of certain authorities. And also to place on record in case of appeal. You don’t have to bash it with all the cases that are relevant. You must use a lot of discretion in presenting a case to a court. You must temper the sails to the wind. And you’ve always got to watch the Judge. After all, we are human beings in court, you know, with our own weaknesses, even judges. And you’ve got to be able to assess the atmosphere of the court, how far you can go and what you should do.33

At the end of David’s first month at the offices of Aitken & Ong Siang, he found that he had made $700. It was certainly more than the $500 Rodyk & Davidson had been prepared to pay him. For a rookie lawyer, it was a great success. Things were looking up for him. JOINING THE SINGAPORE VOLUNTEERS

By the time David left London for Singapore, the world was in turmoil. In Europe, Hitler was beginning to flex his muscles. He reversed the Treaty of Versailles by rebuilding the German army and began moving troops into the Rhineland. He also tried to unite Germany and Austria, all the while making rabble-rousing and jingoistic speeches about expanding German territories. Germany’s European neighbours had cause for concern. The situation in Asia was not much better. After fighting in a number of small skirmishes and “incidents” for some six years, Japan invaded Manchuria in 1937, following the Marco Polo Bridge incident. This marked the official beginning of a full-scale war between China and Japan. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, this Sino-Japanese War merged into the wider conflict that was the Second World War.

33 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 22 (Singapore: National Archives).

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

101

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

102

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

On his way back to Singapore, David saw firsthand the pernicious effects of Hitler’s anti-Semitic policies. While on the ship that brought him back to Singapore, he caught sight of Nazi flags being used to decorate a German passenger’s party. Infuriated by the display, David proceeded personally to rip down all the flags and throw them into the ocean.34 A furore ensued but David had made his point. It thus came as little surprise when, at the time of the Munich Crisis fomented by Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in October 1938, David decided to sign up with the Straits Settlements Volunteer Force (SSVF) as a private soldier. David always maintained that this development in Europe, coupled with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement strategy, was what prompted him to volunteer. His official biographical note from the time he was chief minister in 1955 always read as follows: At the time of the Munich crisis in 1938, moved by an intense hatred of all forms of dictatorial government he joined the Singapore Volunteer Corps as a private soldier.35

Prescient observers of the international scene such as David were sure that the world would soon be at war again. The fact that Japan was able to get Germany to recognize its puppet state of Manchukuo and to stop its military and economic cooperation with China signalled the forming of an alliance that spelt trouble. David himself recalled: What made me join the Volunteers was the fall of Czechoslovakia. When Czechoslovakia fell, 1938, I said to myself, ‘This is going to be the next great war. Germany on one side and Japan on the other. Japan is going to come here. This is my country’ (geographically). And I went to the Volunteers and I said I wanted to join.36

34 See Bieder, The Jews of Singapore, p. 133. 35 David Marshall’s brief biography as sent by his private secretary R.C. Hoffman to Mrs O’Neill, editor of Europe Publications, 18 May 1955, DM/10/188. 36 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 3 (Singapore: National Archives).

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

102

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

103

STARTING LEGAL PRACTICE IN SINGAPORE

Though a voluntary force, the SSVF held regular military practices and extended field camps that took its members away from their work for long spells of time. It was no different with David. He found that these extended absences had a deleterious effect on his one-man practice and decided it would be far better to take a salaried position in an established law firm, where there would be better administrative and legal support. Some time in 1940, he left the offices of Aitken & Ong Siang.37 By this time, Song Ong Siang was in virtual retirement and his firm was run by Isaac Hunter Hoaling, C.J. Koh, and Liew Swee Cheng, this last of whom had joined Song’s firm the same time David did. Liew, a Queen’s Scholar, died during the Japanese Occupation.38 David joined the firm of Allen & Gledhill, then located at 22A Raffles Place.39 With three European partners — David Keri (D.K.) Walters, William Munro and Lowthian Hume (L.H.) Chidson — and two European assistants — Frederick Roger Nedham Hamilton (F.R.N.H.) Massey and Murray Bruce (M.B.) Brash — it was the largest firm in Singapore. The lawyers at the firm were all fairly young. Walters, the most senior, had been called to the Singapore Bar in 1920, while his partners Munro and Chidson were called in 1927. Massey and Brash were called in 1933 and 1937 respectively. The firm, which had never had a local-born or Asian assistant, offered David a salary of $750 a month. He gladly accepted and became the first-ever Asian assistant at Allen & Gledhill. The firm had been founded in 1901 by Rowland Allen and John Joseph Gledhill, when the latter arrived to practise in Singapore. By

37 Writing to Mrs Mickey Boxer in 1956, David explained that his two periods of two-month military training “so destroyed” his practice that he joined another firm. David Marshall to Mrs Mickey Boxer, 3 Jan 1956, DM/196/9. 38 See “In Memoriam”, Malayan Law Journal 12 (1946): xliv. 39 Most of the following account of the firm is gleaned from Julian Davison, Allen & Gledhill: Centenary (Singapore: Allen & Gledhill, 2002).

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

103

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

104

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

1912, both the original founders of the firm had retired and a new generation took over. D.K. Walters (1897–1950)40 joined the firm in 1929 from Malacca at the time when Richard Page was senior partner of the firm. Walters, who had previously practised with the firm of Hogan & Ivens in Malacca, was an excellent criminal lawyer and a fairly erudite man, having authored the Municipal Ordinance of the Straits Settlements in 1937.41 He succeeded Page as senior partner in 1939, just a year before David joined them. In 1940, Allen & Gledhill took on another Asian assistant, a young Cambridge-educated lawyer from Penang. His name was Wee Chong Jin and he was destined to become Chief Justice of Singapore. As the only Asian lawyers and the two most junior ones at that, both David and Wee were made to carry their own baskets of books to court — the Europeans had office peons to carry their baskets for them.42 David got along very well with Wee and they were firm friends to the end of their days. Indeed, when Wee joined the firm, David actually went to D.K. Walters and got Wee’s salary raised from $600 to $750 a month — the same as his own.43 The details of David’s practice at Allen & Gledhill are sketchy at best. Much of his time was devoted to his SSVF activities, but he remained ever the consummate professional at law. In 1941, he made headlines in a kidnapping case. His client, Ghouse bin Haji Kader Mastan was convicted and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment for kidnapping Isah, a girl under the age of sixteen, from her father’s

40 See “In Memoriam David Keri Walters”, Malayan Law Journal 16 (1950): xx. 41 According to his former partner William Munro, Walters woke up every morning at four o’clock to work on this book and most of his writing was done between 4:00 and 7:00 a.m. Ibid. 42 Interview with Mrs Jean Marshall, 28 Feb 2008. 43 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 24 (Singapore: National Archives).

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

104

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

105

STARTING LEGAL PRACTICE IN SINGAPORE

lawful guardianship. In the appeal before the Straits Settlements Court of Appeal, David advanced a novel argument. He argued that Isah — who was aged fourteen and a half at the time of the alleged offence — had run away with Ghouse on the evening of 25 July, 1941, in order that they be married the following day. That being the case, David argued, it was not a case of kidnapping but merely that of a runaway marriage. He further argued that since Isah had already attained puberty, she was by Mohammedan law no longer a minor and could marry anyone she liked without parental consent. C.H. Butterfield, the prosecutor, pointed out that the maximum sentence for such an offence was seven years’ imprisonment and that this was nothing more than nominal punishment. The case was argued before Sir Percy McElwaine, CJ, who reserved judgement.44 The Chief Justice delivered his decision on 3 November, 1941, complimenting David on the way he had argued the appeal. He added that the government should consider enacting an ordinance to fix the age of majority of young persons in Singapore and that there was already such an enactment in the Federated Malay States. McElwaine, CJ, allowed the appeal, holding that under the Third Charter of Justice — which directed the Court to pay attention to the “several religions and manners and usages of the native inhabitants” — Isah had indeed attained puberty and thus had no need for a guardian. As such, she could not be said to have been taken out of her guardians’ keeping. He relied on the evidence of the kathi who had performed the marriage ceremony, who said that a Muslim girl who had attained puberty was, according to the Hanafi school, a major in all matters with no guardian.45 This decision set the legal profession and the Muslim community abuzz. Some lawyers were concerned

44 “Judgment Reserved in Appeal”, Malayan Tribune, 31 Oct 1941. 45 “Age of Majority at Issue in High Court”, The Singapore Free Press, 4 Nov 1941.

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

105

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

106

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

that the effect of the judgement was to create an exception to the crime of kidnapping insofar as Muslim girls were concerned, while others that it went against the grain of the offence of kidnapping since it is intended for the protection of all children.46 Realizing that war was imminent, and wanting to act in the best interests of his clients, David advised several of them to transfer their money to Australia for safety. When D.K. Walters found out about this, David was summoned to the senior partner’s office for a dressing down: Certainly newly-appointed legal assistant, David Marshall, felt that the signs were ominous. When, however, he advised some of Allen & Gledhill’s clients to transfer their money to Australia in anticipation of an impending attack by Japan, he was promptly summoned by the senior partner for a sharp dressing down. Walters, like most of the British community in Singapore, believed that the island’s military defences were equal to anything that the Japanese or any other enemy could throw at them. ‘Fortress Singapore’ was, in the eyes of the British, impregnable, ‘the Gibraltar of the East,’ Consequently, he viewed Marshall’s advice to the firm’s clients as nothing short of defeatism — a grave and disloyal act that would not be tolerated by the firm.47

David, who had experienced his first internment at the age of six, could not understand the ostrich-like mentality of men like Walters. The signs were there for all to see and yet they sought to turn a Nelsonian eye to reality, preferring to place their blind trust on the might of the British Empire. When the Japanese did finally march into Singapore in February 1942, Walters and Chidson were both arrested and incarcerated as civilian internees, while Murray Brash managed to escape to India. William Munro and David, being SSVF volunteers, were taken prisoners-of-war by the Japanese. 46 “Local Courts & Mohammedan Law”, The Singapore Free Press, 12 Nov 1941. 47 Davidson, Allen & Gledhill: Centenary, p. 23.

05 Marshall_S'pore Ch 5

106

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the WAR 107 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

6 War

RUMBLINGS OF WAR

J

apan long had expansionist designs on the territories of Southeast Asia. Plans to invade the Southeast Asia were drawn up as early as the beginning of the twentieth century. However, the Japanese are patient and methodical people. Much time was spent planting spies and intelligence personnel throughout the region in the guise of petty businessmen, shopkeepers, photographers, and even doctors and dentists. Japanese spies were planted throughout the Malayan peninsula and Singapore. Singapore had always had a small Japanese population, many of whom lived in “Little Japan” in the Middle Road area. Japan’s military efforts had, since the late 1920s, been concentrated in China. In 1931, it invaded China and set up the puppet state of Manchukuo. In 1937, following the Marco Polo Bridge incident, Japan launched the Second Sino-Japanese War. The British Government and the European community were blasé about these developments. Confident that once the Singapore Naval Base was complete the Japanese would be kept at bay, British strategists and politicians made a series of fatal mistakes and errors of judgement that would lead ultimately to the fall of Singapore in February 1942. The local community, especially the Chinese, took the Japanese threat more seriously. In 1937, following the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War, local business leaders, led by the formidable Tan Kah Kee, established the Singapore China Relief Fund. A year later,

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

107

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

108

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Tan also set up the South Seas China Relief Fund Union. In 1939, at the request of the Chinese Government, Chinese volunteers from Nanyang (Southeast Asia) were recruited as mechanics and drivers to help transport supplies to China across the Burma Road. This was necessary as many of China’s ports had been blockaded by the Japanese. These efforts and activities sensitized large segments of the Chinese community to the imminent threat of Tokyo. Astute observers of the international situation such as David were becoming increasingly concerned. But the British ruling classes were intoxicated by their own propaganda and luxuriated in their halcyon existence. It was not a question of whether the Japanese would attack, but what could be done to fend them off when that eventuality came to pass. JOINING THE VOLUNTEER FORCE

In 1854, in response to the Hokkien-Teochew riots, Singapore’s European community had initiated the Singapore Volunteer Rifle Corps as an internal security force. It was essentially a private military force until 1857, when the Indian Government — which at that point was still administering Singapore as part of the Bengal Presidency — passed the Volunteer Ordinance, leading to the establishment of the Singapore Volunteer Artillery.1 By 1901, the Volunteer Artillery was reorganized as the Singapore Volunteer Corps (SVC). It comprised the Singapore Volunteer Artillery; the Singapore Volunteer Rifles; the Singapore Volunteer Engineers; and the Singapore Volunteer Infantry Companies, Nos. 1 and 2. All except the last — the Infantry Company No. 2 — were made up of European volunteers. Each company was

1

See Wan Meng Hao, “Malay Soldiering in Singapore, 1910–1942” in Khoo Kay Kim, Elinah Abdulah & Wan Meng Hao, eds, Malays/Muslims in Singapore: Selected Readings in History (Singapore: Pelanduk & AMP, 2006), pp. 185–87.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

108

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

109

WAR

run along racial lines, with the Europeans as officers while the locals made up the enlisted ranks. In 1921, another major reorganization took place and the SVC, the Penang Volunteers, and the Malay States Volunteer Rifles were brought together as the Straits Settlements Volunteer Force (SSVF) and the Federated Malay States Volunteer Force (FMSVF). There were four battalions in the SSVF: 1st and 2nd Battalions (Singapore); 3rd Battalion (Penang and Province Wellesley); and 4th Battalion (Malacca).2 The two Singapore battalions were made up of six companies: Company A and Company B (Europeans); Company C (Scottish); Company D (Eurasians); Company E (Chinese); and Company F (Malays). From the earliest days, the entire volunteer apparatus had been set up along racial lines. When David went to sign up as a volunteer, he ran into some difficulty. He was certainly not a European and there was no Jewish company in the SSVF. The recruitment office simply did not know which pigeon-hole to slot him in. When he declared to them that he was a Jew and “an Asian”, they registered him as an Asian and shunted him off to the Eurasian Company. David was offended: In due course I was put in the Eurasian Company. And I said, ‘I’m no Eurasian.’ Suddenly my own racial arrogance got on its high horse and, ‘I’m as pure as any other race. I am not a Eurasian. I refuse to be in the Eurasian Company.’ I don’t know why, because I had a lot of Eurasian friends and I like them. They wouldn’t put me in the English Company. The Scottish Company turned up its nose.3 … ‘Where the hell can we put you then?’ asked the commanding officer. ‘Well, you’ve got ‘B’ Company of Czechs, Yugoslavs, Poles

2

Ibid., p. 205.

3

David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 3 (Singapore: National Archives).

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

109

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

110

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

and odds and sods. I’m not asking to be in your snob British ‘A’ Company or your Scottish Company, but I don’t want to be considered of mixed race.’4

David was then assigned to B Company as a private soldier. Among the people he met there was William Almond Corrington Goode, or Bill Goode as he was more popularly known. Goode was to become the last British governor of Singapore. The regime of training for the SSVF was fairly rigorous.5 The volunteers were all issued Lee Enfield .303 rifles and were taught how to handle it as well as to conduct drill smartly. As a group, they were also taught how to handle other light machine-guns such as the Lewis gun, the Bren gun, and the Thomson sub-machine-gun. Training was usually conducted on Tuesday evenings and Saturday afternoons, leading the volunteers to be called “Saturday night soldiers” by the regulars. This was supplemented by a few weekend camps. Once a year, there would also be a fortnight’s worth of in-camp training. By all accounts, David appeared to have enjoyed his training although he was not a natural soldier. Bill Goode recalled: I had seen a great deal of David Marshall before, because he was with me in B Company. In peace-time soldiering, (I don’t think David Marshall would mind my saying it) he was not a very smart soldier. He was inclined to drop the Lewis gun in some pig-pond in the back of Changi and we’d all have to clean it afterwards.6

4

Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 42.

5

The following is reconstructed from a vivid account by Eurasian volunteer Lionel de Rosario in his book, Nippon Slaves (London: Janus Publishing, 1995); and Paul Gibbs Pancheri in his Volunteer! The Story of One Man’s War in the East (London: Paul Gibbs Pancheri, 1995).

6

Siva Choy, “The Last Governor: Sir William Goode looks back”, The New Nation, 19 Jul 1974, p. 9.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

110

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

111

WAR

In mid-1940, the volunteers heard that they would be called up for a two-month, in-camp training session in July and August that year. This came as a bit of a shock as many of them were, like David, holding down full-time jobs. Furthermore, many employers were very unhappy about having members of their staff absent for such a long period of time. A compromise was reached with the SSVF — employees such as mercantile assistants would be allowed to return to their work places at 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon, but they had to be back on parade at the camp by 5:15 p.m. from Monday to Friday. As Telok Paku was located in the far eastern part of Singapore, the volunteers needed to make a very quick dash of almost 26 km from town to training camp each weekday.7 The volunteers were accommodated in huts and shower facilities were provided. Each day began with a parade at dawn for physical training, followed by a shower, a shave, dressing, breakfast, and inspection. In the evenings, there were lectures and indoor gun-drills. After dinner, the men were free to rest, though many of them entertained themselves with bridge and other card games.8 On weekends, passes were available for married personnel to sleep out, but they had to be back just before midnight on Sunday.9 The first of these two-month camps was held in July–August 1940 and the second in April–May 1941. By this time, things had begun to get very serious and talk was everywhere of the inevitability of war with Japan.10 During this second two-month camp, training intensified. The training, which was conducted by regular British Army instructors, included mock battles using blank ammunition and thunder flashes staged in the rubber estates of Sembawang and

7

Pancheri, Volunteer!, pp. 22–23.

8

Ibid., p. 23.

9

Ibid., p. 24.

10 Ibid., p. 34.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

111

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

112

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Tampines. The volunteers were also trained in unarmed combat. Weekly route marches with full battle gear were organized to build up their endurance. They were made to march 25 km within three hours.11 Each platoon had one Lewis light machine-gun and, later on, they were also issued with a Boys Rifle, which fired 0.55-inch bullets capable of penetrating the armour of light tanks. The gravity of the situation became all the more apparent to the volunteers when, from their Telok Paku camp, they saw the RMS Queen Mary and, a few days later, the RMS Queen Elizabeth sailing towards the Malay peninsula. Both ocean liners had been painted battle grey and refitted as troop ships by the British. They were, at this time, ferrying thousands of troops from Australia to Malaya.12 At the same time, new volunteers no longer had their kit measured out and tailored by Chinese contractors. From now on, standard kits were issued to all volunteers. Paul Gibbs Pancheri, a Scottish volunteer in C Company, recalled that at the end of each week, there would be a pay parade, when the men received the few dollars they had earned. It was at one of these pay parades that David once again encountered the racism that provoked his ire. He discovered on pay day that Europeans in his B Company were all paid $1.04 a day for full-time service, but he only received half the amount — 52 cents a day — because he had put himself down as an Asian. David recalled: My colleagues all got $1.04 a day and my envelope contained 52 cents a day. So I said to the Captain Paymaster, ‘Why do I get less than the others?’ The reason is you put yourself down as Asian. $1.04 is for European volunteers; Asian pay is $0.52. I’m afraid I got rudely angry and I flung my envelope on the table and I said I refused to accept it. He said, ‘You’re confined to barracks for insolence.’ I said, ‘I want to see the General.’ That was a real

11 Rosario, Nippon Slaves, p. 9. 12 Pancheri, Volunteer!, pp. 38–39.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

112

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

113

WAR

shock. There was a big crowd in that square. We were waiting to be paid, … the sergeants, the officers. I had already prepared my section of the military manual. I demand to see the General. You see, I had studied my military manual and I knew that every British soldier had a right to see the general if he had a complaint. He dismissed me and I saluted and I was confined to barracks all Saturday, all Sunday. Sunday evening at seven o’clock, a grumpy Sergeant-Major came and said, ‘You are released from confinement, here is your $1.04.’13

We have no records of how subsequent payments were made to non-Europeans after David’s outburst. For a lawyer making $750 a month, this was small change, but David was anxious to make his point to the colonials that everyone had the right to be treated equally. For himself, he dutifully sent each pay packet of his volunteer stints to The Straits Times under his own name as a contribution to the Imperial War Fund. SAFETY AND PATRIOTISM

Even before the SSVF began intensifying its training sessions, David knew that war with Japan was inevitable. He knew it was imperative to get his family to safety and manoeuvred them out of Singapore, one by one. His brother Sonny had left Singapore in 1937. By 1939, most of the rest of his family had also left. His father, Saul, was difficult to persuade, so David tricked him into going. Once Saul was on his way, David sent his youngest brother Reg to Perth by drawing a cheque for his passage on his father’s account, over which David had power of attorney. David recalled: I tricked my father into going. I saw the war coming. And my poor father, he wouldn’t go. So I sent him away for just two weeks. ‘Just two weeks, Dad.’ He wrote me a furious letter! Then as soon as he

13 Talk by David Marshall at the Substation on 17 Jan 1994, transcribed by the author. Transcript on file with author.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

113

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

114

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

left, I sent my youngest brother away and Dad said, ‘I’ll charge you for every dollar, no every cent, it costs to send Reg to Perth.’ Well, he didn’t charge me because war came and they were saved.14

By 1940, only David and his mother were left in Singapore. Flora refused to leave Singapore as David had chosen to remain. By this time, she had become quite estranged from her husband and other family members and made David the central focus of her life. It was a difficult and stultifying relationship. David later moved out of the family home in Katong to keep a comfortable distance from her.15 David had the whole thing worked out, emotionally at least. He was gripped by the idea that Singapore was his homeland, warts and all, and it was therefore his duty to fight. At the same time, David was ever conscious of the fact that the Jews had, in the First World War, acquired a reputation for refusing to fight: It seems that during the First World War, a committee of the Jewish Community went to the governor and said that according to the Torah, Jews were not allowed to fight but could contribute to the war effort. The European community looked down on us as not being prepared to give our lives, but prepared to give some money for the protection of our way of life. I joined the Volunteers in the Second World War because I wasn’t going to have them say again that the Jews were cowards.16

He was determined to show that not all Jews preferred to run away — he would stay and do his duty. Shortly after his return from London, David had developed an interest in another “delightful” Jewish lady then living in either Surabaya or Batavia, but as war loomed on the horizon he refused even to consider getting married. He assessed the risk to himself:

14 Chew, Leaders of Singapore, p. 71. 15 Interview with Jean Marshall, 25 Jun 2008. 16 Isaac, “Marshalling the Times”, p. 9.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

114

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

115

WAR

I calculated in all seriousness I’d have one third chance of being dead, one third seriously injured, one third I’d come out a healthy human being. Well, I got the last third. I don’t know how!17 EMERGENCY AND A CALL TO ARMS

Towards the end of November 1941, war with Japan was imminent. After British intelligence discovered that the Japanese were preparing to launch an attack on the Malay peninsula, a state of emergency was declared in Malaya and Singapore on 1 December, 1941. Governor Sir Shenton Thomas then issued a mobilization order calling up all members of the SSVF for active service.18 Volunteers began reporting for active service at the SSVF headquarters on Beach Road. After completing all administrative procedures, each volunteer was issued with his army books, identity discs or “dog tags”, rifles and bayonets, and ammunition. Once the volunteers had been processed and kitted up, they collected the company’s general stores before being transported to Geylang English School, requisitioned for use as headquarters for the 1st Singapore Battalion, which comprised A, B, C and D companies. The 1st Battalion had been assigned to defend the beaches on the southern side of Singapore island, from Bedok to just past the Singapore Swimming Club at Tanjong Rhu. The defence of the stretch of shore from Bedok eastwards to Changi was in the hands of the Manchester Regiment.19 Bill Goode, who served with David in B Company recalled: I was in B Company. We were in reserve in Geylang English School. We spent the first two months digging trenches and putting up many barbed-wire strongpoints.

17 Ibid. 18 De Rosario, Nippon Slaves, pp. 9–10. 19 Choy, “The Last Governor”, p. 9.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

115

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

116

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

We were, in fact, working all day as labourers. As it turned out, it was probably a good thing for we shortly afterwards found ourselves working as labourers under the Japanese. So we were much better prepared for all that was to come than those who came straight from their offices to prisoner-of-war life.20

B Company was stationed out on the southeast coast of Singapore from December 1941 to early February 1942. When it became quite clear that the Japanese were not going to land on Singapore’s southern beaches, the high command decided to move the SSVF troops northwards to halt the Japanese attacks. On 11 February, 1942, B Company was moved to Peirce Road, in the middle of the island, to reinforce an Australian battalion.21 The reality of war had not sunk in with many of the officers and men who bore the responsibility of defending Singapore. Indeed, when B Company reached their Peirce Road destination, one of their officers told the SSVF troops that they should not have driven up Holland Road as it was under fire. To the consternation of all, the troops were actually told to get back on the lorry and repeat the operation, just as if they had fouled up during training! This time round, the troops were truly under fire and now had to inch their way to their destination. After a long while, they managed to get to a tennis court. It was a frightening experience for the volunteers, who had never experienced anything close to this, not even in the most realistic of simulated battles. They were dodging mortars and enemy fire and staring mortality in the face. Fear had sapped their morale and, just when a feeling of hopelessness and despondency began to set in, David Marshall appeared out of the blue carrying a bucket of tea. Goode recalled: Mortars were going off all round us and we were very frightened. At least I was.

20 Ibid. 21 Ibid.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

116

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

117

WAR

We were suddenly revived, in the midst of all that mortaring, by the appearance of David Marshall who came walking up the drive with a bucket of tea! How he had the courage to be walking around with a bucket of tea under those unpleasant circumstances, I don’t know! But it was a most encouraging sight. In peace-time soldiering, …he was not a very smart soldier … But there was absolutely no doubt at all, when it came to being under fire, that you realized what a tremendously brave man David Marshall was.22

Whether his superiors thought him foolhardy, reckless, or brave, David’s company commander decided to make him the company runner. By David’s own admission, he was rather clumsy and could not be counted on to move stealthily through the lallang, since he could be heard “as clearly as though it was a baby elephant on the rampage”.23 However, he had a particular quality that made him ideal for the job: I felt, ‘Look, if you got a job to do, do it. There’s risks in the slit trench where you are, just as almost as much as running cross country. So I used to run cross country, carrying messages but without shitting in my pants. I was the Company’s courier …24

In one of his last courier missions, David had to take shelter very near the Cathay Building. There he met a young British soldier named Cox, who took shelter in the same doorway as David. In 1969, Cox wrote David to remind him of the incident: Can you take your memory back to February 1942 when, during a heavy raid, you stopped for shelter very near the Cathay Building, and was joined by a young soldier who quickly brought a staff car

22 Ibid., p. 9. 23 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 3 (Singapore: National Archives). 24 Ibid.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

117

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

118

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

to a halt and joined you in a doorway. At that time I was with the ‘British Battalion’ and was taking people to the blood donor station.25 SINGAPORE FALLS 26

B Company spent the next twenty-four hours on the tennis court, securing Holland Road from elevated ground. Later, the men moved further towards town into Ridout Road, where they spent four days supporting the troops in front. On 14 February, a Saturday, news came that the Japanese had broken through the defence right down to the Khong Guan Biscuit Factory on Alexandra Road. The volunteers were told to prepare for a counter-attack at dawn the next morning. They would finally be encountering the enemy face to face. But that evening, at around seven o’clock, David was summoned to company headquarters, where he was told that the British were surrendering and that they were to lay down their arms that evening. He was shocked, but the greater shock came the day after, on “Black Sunday”, 15 February, when he cleaned up the slit trench: Such a shock for the first time in my life. The next morning as I was picking up bits of broken glass and bottles from my slit trench, I suddenly had a hysterical hiatus and began hiccupping tears. I cried. I couldn’t understand. I couldn’t control. It was a shock to me when I watched myself hiccupping and weeping …27

25 F. Cox to David Marshall, 7 Apr 1969, DM/222/16/1–5. 26 The literature on the fall of Singapore is copious. Among the best accounts are: Alan Warren, Singapore 1942 (Singapore: Talisman, 2002); Brian Farrell, The Defence and Fall of Singapore 1940–1942 (London: The History Press, 2006); Colin Smith, Singapore Burning: Heroism and Surrender in World War II (London: Penguin, 2006); Peter Thompson, The Battle for Singapore: The True Story (London: Portrait, 2005); and Frank Owen, The Fall of Singapore (London: Penguin, 2001). 27 Ibid.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

118

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

119

WAR

Even for someone as prescient as David, it was unbelievable that the British could have been defeated so quickly and soundly by the Japanese, who were outnumbered three to one. It was a “traumatic” and “unbelievable” shock that left the men “like zombies”.28 The shock was soon replaced by anger and indignation. The British, with their mightier-than-thou attitude, their racial superiority, their snobbish clubs, and condescending sneers, were nothing but pale weaklings with feet of clay. The British army — guardians of the citadel, of an empire on which the sun never set — was well and sorely beaten by Japanese soldiers whom they had regarded as little better than short-sighted, buck-teethed monkeys in the trees. David now had confirmation for what he had felt since he was sixteen — “God was not white!”29 B Company spent another two nights camped out in Peirce Road before its men were made to march out to Changi.30 The SSVF forces gathered at the Goodwood Park Hotel on Scotts Road. The day was bright and sunny. The soldiers brought along whatever belongings they had that they thought would be useful to them in internment. British and Australian soldiers marched smartly, eight abreast. As there was no logistical support, the men did not even have a quick breakfast before setting off. Most of them had exhausted their rations and had to march on empty stomachs. They had not bathed in the last seven days and had nothing but the haversacks on their backs, containing their eating utensils and the ground-sheets that doubled as rain capes. All their helmets were confiscated, to be shipped back to Japan for recycling as part of the spoils of war.31

28 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 3 (Singapore: National Archives). 29 Ibid. 30 Choy, “The Last Governor”, p. 9. 31 De Rosario, Nippon Slaves, p. 40.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

119

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

120

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

B Company marched all day and through the night “like drugged bees”.32 Many people stood by and watched them glumly. Some, perhaps trying to impress their new Japanese masters, even jeered the troops as they passed by. But David remembers in particular the acts of kindness by many Chinese who dashed out and offered the soldiers some food and drink: You know the night that they marched us from Peirce Road to Changi, 30,000 or more, formation of eight with Japanese guards for every 200 of us or so. And those humble Chinese along Serangoon Road bringing out basins of water with tin cups for us to drink, and getting slapped for it. And having the buckets … kicked and overturned. They showed a lot of courage. And during the time when I was in prison there in Singapore, little Chinese boys would slip through and hand us a loaf of bread … That touched me very deeply. Because, look at them. There was nothing for them. There was not even recognition. You didn’t know who the boy was. You didn’t know where he came from. You didn’t know his name. You could never thank him afterwards. That was an act of spontaneous thoughtfulness and helpfulness and sympathy which touched me very, very much. Because here was an anonymous person risking limb if not life, risking very sharp injuries, in order to give a little assistance to a total stranger whom he’ll never see again from whom there was nothing he can expect. That was good.33

By six o’clock of the morning of 18 February, David’s right ankle gave way. He could march no further. He waited by the side of the road for someone to pick him up. Lo and behold, who should drive right up to him in a jeep but his commanding officer who curtly told him that equipment was more important than men, stripped him of his things,

32 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 3 (Singapore: National Archives). 33 Ibid.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

120

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

121

WAR

and left him stranded on the roadside. Half an hour later, an Australian vehicle stopped and offered him a ride to Changi.34 With the fall of Singapore, all legal practice came to a standstill and the courts shut down. Towards the end of 1941, the Air Raid Precaution (ARP) — an organization established to protect civilians from the danger of air raids — made arrangements with the Supreme Court to use part of its building as their headquarters. As part of the preparation for war, sacks of rice were stored in the court building, stacked up along the walls in the entrance hall and in the court registry. On 26 January, 1942, the Court of Appeal sat for the last time even though an air raid alert had gone off. By this time, civil litigation had come to a practical standstill. The last sitting of the Court took place with Chief Justice Sir Percy McElwaine sitting in the Bankruptcy Court on 13 February, 1942. McElwaine, who was incarcerated when Singapore fell, recalled: In the last few days preceding the fall of Singapore many people including several of the Judges whose houses were in outlying parts of the City brought foodstuffs and slept in the [Supreme Court] building. Water had to be carefully conserved as the main water supply at Pontian Kechil in Johore was in Japanese hands. On the afternoon of Sunday the 15th a battery of twenty-five pounders was firing from the far side of the Padang almost over the Court. Next afternoon the Japanese occupied the Supreme Court.35 PRISONER - OF - WAR

By the time David got to Changi, the situation was chaotic. Some 30,000 prisoners-of-war (POWs), of whom 22,000 were Australian,

34 David Marshall, interview with Empire, undated (most probably 1955), transcribed by author. Transcript on file with author. 35 Sir Percy McElwaine, “Last Days of the Singapore Courts, 1942”, Malayan Law Journal 12 (1946): lxxvii.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

121

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

122

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

were crammed into three main British army barracks. Civilian internees were sent to Changi Gaol or Changi Prison. The largest of these military barracks was Selarang Barracks, which had been completed only in 1938. It consisted of eight main buildings and was set in some 162 hectares of farm land. The Australian POWs were mainly housed in Selarang Barracks, while British and Dutch POWs were distributed among Roberts Barracks, Kitchener Barracks, and a set of wooden barracks called India Lines. Part of Roberts Barracks was used as a hospital. David was, in all probability, interned there at the start of the Japanese Occupation. Initially, David had a problem locating his unit but after some time, he came upon his group of men “buzzing around aimlessly”. In the amidst of this chaos, he witnessed something rather surreal. One of his shell-shocked and traumatized officers sat in front of a pocket mirror endlessly combing his hair. The man had cracked. For the first month or so, the POWs at Changi were free to roam throughout the area and to organize their daily lives according to military formation. There were few Japanese guards and movement was fairly unrestricted. In March 1942, fences were constructed around each individual camp and this limited their movements somewhat. Even so, life was generally quite peaceful and tranquil in the POW camps until about August 1942, when all officers above the rank of colonel were moved to Formosa and a dedicated Japanese POW staff arrived. Even though Japan was not a party to the Geneva Conventions, they did in fact treat the POWs quite benignly up to this point. Between February and August 1942, Changi’s POWs remained responsible for running their own day-to-day chores. They tried to organize themselves according to rank and file and to units. Most of the time, they were ordered to perform some kind of fatigue work or manual chores to keep them as a unit and keep morale up.36 36 Thomas H. Silcock, Oral History Interview, 29 Apr 1982, Reel 6 (Singapore: National Archives).

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

122

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

123

WAR

A few enterprising ones among them organized a “university” at Changi. Charles Simon recalled that a small discussion group had led to the creation of this university. The informal group consisted of Simon, Alexander Oppenheim, Max Broder, John D’Fowler, and David Marshall. The group gathered after meals to talk about everything under the sun. After about three or four weeks, Oppenheim started up the nucleus of a university.37 The prime initiator of this fascinating enterprise was Alexander Oppenheim (1903–1997), a lance-corporal with the volunteers and Professor of Mathematics at Raffles College. Oppenheim got together a few of his Raffles College friends, including Thomas Silcock, Professor of Economics, and Charles Fisher (1916– 1982), later Professor of Geography at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, to organize the university.38 Oppenheim and his friends rescued books from the Raffles Library and then from Raffles College, established a small library — with Francis Thomas as librarian — and began to hold open-air classes. Oppenheim remembered that, although the university started in ad hoc fashion, it soon became structured with some fifty to sixty students who would attend each lecture on a fairly strict timetable. Some lecturers, like Oppenheim and Silcock, were in great demand. Among the students was David Marshall.39 The lectures covered a wide range of subjects — art, music, literature, mathematics, economics, and even law.40 To get the university going. He was lucky to find enthusiastic supporters in Percy McNeice and Charles WithersPayne, who was Deputy Judge-Advocate General. Both McNeice and 37 Charles Simon, Oral History Interview, 18 Feb 1984, Reel 19 (Singapore: National Archives). 38 Alexander Oppenheim, Oral History Interview, 18 Sep 1982, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives). 39 When interviewed in 1982, Oppenheim was convinced that David still had the library cards of the camp library with his name on it as a student and the signature of Francis Thomas as the librarian. Ibid. 40 Ibid.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

123

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

124

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Withers-Payne were instrumental in persuading the Japanese senior officers to allow them to organize the classes. Beyond this, some prisoners also started a camp newsletter that was published once a week with ordinary cartridge paper and a typewriter. Because of the great shortage of basic materials, only one copy of the newsletter was published and pinned on the notice-board for all to read and enjoy. David decided to contribute to this newsletter. Unfortunately, since no copies of these newsletters survived the war, no detailed study of them has been possible. The article was a particular gem and Thomas Silcock remembered it in great detail: And then there was a very nice article which came in which we treasured by … a brother of one of my students and his name was David Marshall. And he wrote and sent in a very nice little article, very sensitive about some orioles … golden orioles which had been flying about the camp. And a couple of young boys from about 18 or 19, made themselves a catapult. And they brought these two things down and killed them and were frying them up to eat. It was a very passionate little article in which he explained to all of us … that in the long run, it was more important than just being a little less hungry but it was difficult to explain this to young people that the orioles meant to most of us a great deal more than just a little extra to eat and how sad it was that we couldn’t persuade people, they shouldn’t do this kind of thing. It was written with such felicity that … I always thought he was a very sensitive person …41

Though food was in short supply, POWs in Changi were fed every day. Each day, they were each served 238 grams (8 oz) of rice with traces of sugar, together with pickles or vegetables and occasionally shreds of meat or fish. After six months, vitamin deficiencies among the prisoners began to show and tropical diseases like malaria, dysentery, and dengue fever were quite common. The Japanese practised “calculated malnutrition” so that the prisoners would be

41 Thomas H. Silcock, Oral History Interview, 29 Apr 1982, Reel 6 (Singapore: National Archives).

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

124

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

125

WAR

less likely to give trouble.42 The rice was of a poor grade and was often made into a thin gruel containing much foreign matter, including weevils,43 which the prisoners were told to eat for their protein content.44 Although Red Cross food parcels were dropped, some Japanese officials refused them or stashed them away and never handed them out to the prisoners. Many camps delayed issuing the food and then gave out only small amounts at a time. When canned goods were issued, the Japanese punctured them to force their immediate consumption. Almost all parcels were opened and ransacked by the Japanese before they reached the prisoners.45 To entertain themselves, the prisoners got together in groups and took turns to stage concerts, plays, and skits. Chess became a very popular game in camp, with many prisoners picking it up for the first time. Competitions were organized among seasoned players.46 Alexander Oppenheim remembered once playing a simultaneous game against more than twenty POWs.47 David, who was an excellent chess player himself, became captain of the Singapore team. After the Singapore team defeated the Australians, he was presented with a machine-turned-wooden castle as a souvenir. He later gave it to Professor Lim Kok Ann, Singapore’s top chess player in the 1960s.48

42 Van Waterford, Prisoners of the Japanese in World War II (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co, 1994), p. 39. 43 Ibid., p. 40. 44 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 50. 45 Waterford, Prisoners of the Japanese, p. 41. 46 See Olimpiu G. Urcan, Surviving Changi — E.E. Colman: A Chess Biography (Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society, 2007). 47 Alexander Oppenheim, Oral History Interview, 18 Sep 1982, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives). 48 David Marshall to Lim Kok Ann, 18 Sep 1969, DM/222/48.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

125

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

126

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

HAY FOR HORSES AND MORE

Some time in August, the Japanese began organizing groups of men into work parties to perform manual labour tasks outside Changi. David was included in one of these work parties and was thus lucky not to have been caught up in the notorious Selarang Barracks incident of 2 September, 1942.49 David’s work detail was sent to the race course at Bukit Timah, where they were required to cut grass to make hay for the horses of the Japanese cavalry stationed in Borneo.50 When David’s work group arrived at the Turf Club, which had been open only since 1933, they were accommodated in the grandstand. The grandstand had two levels of tiered seats and was open on three sides to the elements, but was shaded by a huge, cantilevered roof. The POWs, now having a luxury of space they never had at Changi, made themselves comfortable in the stands. The men were divided into groups. One group, which comprised about one-third of the POWs, was stationed at the enormous, metalled car park where they would be responsible for making hay and baling it. The rest of the work party was further divided into three groups, each under an

49 In late August 1942, the Japanese commandant requested all POWs to sign a statement declaring that they would not attempt to escape their captors. This was against military practice and ethics and the prisoners refused en masse to sign. On 2 September, 1942, all 15,400 Australian and British prisoners were assembled and then confined to the Selarang Barracks area in a bid to brow-beat them into signing the declaration. The conditions were deplorable, with insufficient shade, shelter, sanitary facilities, and medical facilities. After three days, with many men dying or seriously ill, a compromise was reached whereby the Japanese would order the POWs to sign the declaration, thus making it clear that the POWs were acting under duress. Thereafter, the prisoners were returned to their original locations. 50 This part of David Marshall’s POW experience is reconstructed from a detailed account by Paul Gibbs Pancheri in his book Volunteer! Pancheri was also a member of this work detail although he does not mention Marshall in his account.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

126

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

127

WAR

officer and a small detachment of Japanese guards. Pancheri recalled their experiences: To cut the lalang, or whatever scrubby growths came to hand, we were given an old scythe and a honing stone. The Japanese could not demonstrate the art of scything as they were all too short, but the idea was for us to go in pairs, one to cut and the other to bale. Trucks had to be loaded with grass till both sets of springs were flat and the truck body was resting on the axles, rendering the springs unnecessary. To ensure the heaviest possible load, we soon devised a drill. If we could cut and bale while the dew was still on the grass, it weighed much more, and if we were lucky we would find the odd piece of stone, or a log or even an old discarded rifle, and these were deftly inserted into the bale, when the guard was attending to something else.51 On good ground we reckoned to have finished our task by eleven in the morning (Tokyo time), and subject to being careful, we could get quietly around to see if there were any friendly Malays or Chinese about. By this means, we often supplemented our diet with various Malay delicacies, hot chilli sambals, Rojak, sundry vegetables cooked with belachan (very strongly flavoured paste made with dried prawns) and whatever fruit was in season: jack fruit, rambutans, mangoes and so on. We did pretty well. One day, we were sent to the Chinese cemetery at Bukit Brown, and apart from blunting the scythe blade on concealed gravestones, we did very well, and as there had been a lot of fighting over the territory, there was an abundance of suitable rifles and stones to make up a good load. I never found out what happened to the ‘make-weights’ in the hay-making yard, but there must have been a goodly stack by the time we finished.52

The grass-cutting exercise lasted some six weeks and was probably the most pleasant period in the three-and-a-half years of internment for David and his fellow POWs. The only problem was food. Instead of giving the POWs their usual diet of vegetables with rice, the

51 Pancheri, Volunteer!, p. 82. 52 Ibid., pp. 82-83.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

127

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

128

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Japanese found molasses in the Turf Club store and added it to the rice. These molasses were used to supplement horse fodder and tasted quite vile. Even so, it did wonders for the men’s bowels. Another ingredient the Japanese added to the poor-quality rice was fish fertilizer, originally intended for use on the turf and course tracks. It had a dreadful stench, but the fish bones and scales became unsolicited bonuses to the POWs’ diet.53 Towards the end of this grass-cutting period, the work detail was sent over to the Alexandra Hospital and to the Depot Road area. Around this time, a number of the “bright back-room boys” succeeded in building a wireless set, which they kept hidden in different parts of the Turf Club buildings. This allowed the POWs to listen occasionally to news broadcasts for news of how the war was proceeding. At the end of October, David’s work detachment had completed its tasks and was sent to the old, burnt-out Royal Air Force headquarters at Sime Road.54 The buildings had all been destroyed by bombing raids during the Battle of Singapore. There was absolutely no place the POWs could take shelter under. It was necessary to rebuild the broken-down structures, but in the absence of raw materials this proved a challenge. Timbers that had escaped being charred were salvaged and old nails were extracted and straightened for reuse. The Japanese soldiers provided some attap leaves for the roofing. Before long, the POWs managed to get some huts built. They also found some rice-milling machinery driven by an electric motor — the engineers managed to adapt these motors to grind rice and power refrigerators. Soon, they had bread and cool drinking water. A little chapel was created out of a small building with asbestos sheets that were decorated by artistic POWs, including Ronald Searle, who

53 Ibid., p. 82. 54 Ibid., p. 85.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

128

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

129

WAR

would later be famous for his sketches and drawings of POW life in Singapore. The POWs also managed to conceal their wireless set in a manhole below the substation floor, right under the noses of their Japanese captors. It was never discovered.55 The POWs were told that the camp they were rebuilding was meant for the civilian European internees in Changi Gaol, but this was not true. It was in fact meant for Indians being recruited by the Japanese for the Indian National Army, the aim of which was to liberate India from the British. In reality, the offer of training was a Japanese ploy to get Indians into a camp from which they would then be sent to work on the Bangkok-Moulmein railway, where many of them died.56 David himself might well have been sent there if it had not been for the fact that he was ill and the Japanese wanted fit men for the job.57 Even though David and his colleagues were at Sime Road for just two months, they found time to stage an entertaining and memorable skit that everyone later remembered, even long after the war. One person who remembered the skit and who wrote David in 1955 was Ivor J. Sanderson, an Australian POW who returned to Australia to become a saw miller. In his letter, Sanderson recounted the long and “frequent talks” he had had with David in Sime Road Camp and the ribald and rip-roaring skit entitled “B.E.D.O.K.” or rather “Bed OK?”58 The idea for this skit came out of a big debate among the POWs as to what they would do once they were free again. During this

55 Ibid., pp. 85–86. 56 Ibid., p. 88. 57 C.M. Turnbull, “Notes of Interview with Datuk David Marshall in Singapore in June 1994”. I am grateful to Mrs Jean Marshall for sharing this two-page document with me. 58 I.J. Sanderson to David Marshall, 9 Feb 1967, DM/220/6/1-2.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

129

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

130

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

debate, a number of them, including the medical officers, posited that because of the prolonged malnutrition they were all suffering, they would be “quite impotent, at any rate, for some appreciable time”.59 Paul Gibbs Pancheri, who was among the POWs there at the time, recalled in vivid detail: It took a very short while for some of our more literary and theatrically minded chaps to devise a sketch, the theme of which was just this impotence and the diverting consequences arising therefrom. The idea was that a newly released POW had taken a girl to Bedok (pronounced ‘Bedoh’) a favourite beach resort on the East Coast of Singapore. Subsequently she had found herself in what is called ‘an interesting condition’. The irate father of the girl discovered the supposed culprit and took him to court. The principal witness for the prosecution was a Tamil goat-herd, one ‘Daddy’ Lamb, an up-country planter, who was of mixed blood, and who, with some simple make-up and the appropriate dhoti and singlet, with the inevitable yellow cloth on the shoulder, looked the part to perfection. The court interpreter was Smart, an MCS officer in the Labour Department (the dept that looks after Indian labour affairs). In a white duck suit he was the part to a Kenneth Seth, a leading lawyer in Singapore in civilian life who was the Judge. The girl was a young man, the son of the proprietor of the Capitol Cinema, by name Fisher. He, too, was well cast. The defence lawyer was one David Marshall, of considerable fame as a prospective political leader in later years.60

What made the skit even more unforgettable was what happened just before it was due to begin. When everyone had assembled at the natural auditorium, the “witness”, the “interpreter” and the “girl” had gone missing. After a brief search, it was discovered that they had been arrested by the camp guards for “unauthorized entry”. It took quite a while for Smart (the interpreter) to explain to and convince the Japanese guards that they were in fact POWs who were dressed

59 Ibid., p. 87. 60 Pancheri, Volunteer!, p. 87.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

130

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

131

WAR

and made up for the skit. The play was allowed to proceed and it concluded on a rapturous and hilarious note.61 The days at Sime Road were short-lived. Just before Christmas 1942, David and the rest of his work detail were sent back to Selarang Barracks in Changi.62 By this time, conditions at Changi were much better. The quality of the food had improved and POWs were able to supplement their diets with vegetables and fruits that they had planted. There were gramophone records, musical instruments, and books from Raffles College in the library.63 But just when the POWs were beginning to get comfortable and adapt to their situation, things started to change around April 1943.64 Indeed, the change of heart had occurred in April 1942, when the bureau chiefs of the Ministry of the Army decided that prisoners would no longer be referred to as POWs or treated as such.65 In September 1942, Lieutenant General Mikio, then chief of the Prisoner of War Control Bureau, stated that “war prisoners should not pass a single day eating the bread of idleness” and announced Japan’s intention to use POW labour to increase production in Japan.66 TO HOKKAIDO

From the time of their Manchurian campaign of 1931, Japan began suffering a shortage of manpower. With so many men committed to the fighting forces, there were fewer and fewer able-bodied men to run the mines, docks, and manufacturing plants. Furthermore, Japan’s

61 Ibid. 62 Turnbull, “Notes of Interview with Datuk David Marshall”, p. 2. 63 Pancheri, Volunteer!, p. 88. 64 Ibid., p. 89. 65 Waterford, Prisoners of the Japanese in World War II, p. 36. 66 Ibid., p. 37.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

131

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

132

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

quick successes had been achieved at the cost of high casualty rates. By August 1942, the labour shortage was acute. Since Japan was not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, the High Command had no qualms about forcing POWs to do manual labour.67 From the middle of 1942, the Japanese began shipping POWs from Singapore and Java to Japan, Manchuria, Burma, Sumatra, and other parts of the empire to work as labourers.68 The first transfer of personnel from Singapore to Japan was on 4 July, 1942 when 700 POWs were put on the Asaka Maru, bound for Japan. Unfortunately, the ship was wrecked in a typhoon just south of Formosa (Taiwan) on 13 August and had to be rescued by Japanese destroyers.69 The next group of POWs to be sent to Japan from Singapore was G Force, comprising 1,500 Dutch, 300 British, and 200 Australian POWs.70 David was among the 300 British POWs in this batch who were placed on the Kyokku Maru.71 These prison ships were later known to military historians as “hell ships” because of the appalling conditions on board these vessels and high fatalities incurred during transit. Indeed, some 62,000 POWs were transported in fifty-six ships. Of these, nineteen were torpedoed or bombed and sunk while one was lost in a typhoon. More than 22,000 men — more than one in three — lost their lives as a result of this massive transportation of POWs on board these “hell ships”.72

67 Charles G. Roland, Long Night’s Journey into Day: Prisoners of War in Hong Kong and Japan, 1941–1945 (Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001), pp. 207-8. 68 Hank Nelson, P.O.W. — Prisoners of War: Australians Under Nippon (Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1985), p. 35. 69 Waterford, Prisoners of the Japanese in World War II, p. 155. 70 Ibid., p. 160. 71 Ibid. David Marshall himself called this ship the Mucky Maru. See Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 51. 72 Waterford, Prisoners of the Japanese in World War II, p. 151.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

132

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

133

WAR

The Kyokku Maru left Singapore on 26 April, 1943, and after almost four weeks at sea arrived in Japan on 21 May, 1944. Despite the fact that 500 men were loaded into each hold of the cargo trip and that each man was given only twenty minutes a day to take a bath on deck by hauling sea water with a pail, there were no casualties. The Kyokku Maru was the first prison ship to arrive with everyone alive. David always attributed this achievement to the very high and sometimes severe standards of hygiene imposed by the medical officer, Major Frank Murray, who, for example, offered rewards for dead rats and other pests.73 Landing on the island of Honshu, David and his fellow POWs were processed and transported by train to Hokkaido, Japan’s northernmost island. Not all the men who arrived on the Kyokku Maru were destined for Hokkaido. Each POW camp in Japan was attached to some industry, such as shipbuilding, steel manufacturing, coal mining or even the wharf of a large port. David’s camp, known as Hakkodate Camp 1B, was attached to a company known as Mitsui Kozzan or Asano Coal. The camp had originally been established on 1 December, 1942, in Chiribetsu in the seaside city of Muroran, but was moved to Nakajima, also in Muroran, on 15 January, 1942. When David arrived, he would have been taken from the port city of Hakkodate to Nakajima. According to Chan, David’s group, which comprised 349 British, 155 Dutch, and 5 American POWs, were moved to another seaside town called Yakumo (Yagumo), where conditions were better. On 7 Jun, 1945, Hakkodate Camp 1B moved for the last time to Nisi-Ashibetsu, where it remained till the end of the war.74

73 Interview with Mrs Jean Marshall, 29 Jul 2008. 74 This information was provided to me by Roger Mansell, Director of the Center For Research Allied Pows Under The Japanese, , a website dedicated to the research and documentation of the prisoner-ofwar experience under the Japanese.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

133

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

134

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David and the other POWs were originally made to work in the coal mine. However, David, who by this time had been reduced to 118 lbs, became too weak to work as a miner and was assigned to move earth with a pick and shovel for the construction of an airfield. Later, he was detailed to smash iron ore that came in huge blocks from Manchuria with a 40-lb hammer and an anvil. These blocks had been sluiced from the mountain and were frozen solid.75 Although their food quotas were the same as that of Japanese manual labourers, they were still underfed. However, it was the bitter cold — with the mercury dipping below –15° F (–26° C) in winter — that made life miserable for the POWs. After the war, David often told friends and relatives that he was sure he would not have survived another winter at NisiAshibetsu, had the war not ended when it did. When they reached their camps, they were each issued with uniforms made of rough, sack-like material that was grossly inadequate, since most people in Hokkaido wore fur in winter. No shoes were issued — the POWs had to cut up rubber tyres and use straw to tie these pieces of rubber onto their feet as sandals. They were, however, issued with cotton gloves to prevent their hands from being burnt by the cold. David remembers several POWs losing digits from their hands and feet and even their ears to frost-bite. Despite these hardships and the harsh punishment meted out for minor infractions, morale was high.76 At camp, David achieved the distinction of being at one and the same time the most sought-after and the most reviled soldier, because of his prized possessions — three books earlier acquired at Changi

75 David Marshall’s discussion with Kazuo Sugino, Secretary-General of the Singapore Japanese Association, 19 Sep 1995. I am grateful to Sugino-san and the Japanese Association for making the video recording of this discussion available to me. 76 Ibid.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

134

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

135

WAR

through a clever trade — half a tin of condensed milk and $5.00 — with a British soldier. These books were Chess for Beginners by Alexander Complete Works of Shakespeare, and The Bible to be Read as Literature.77 The bored men at the camp, craving some intellectual stimulation, sought out David to borrow his books. To keep the whole exercise fair, David started a lending service that forbade any individual from hanging onto any book for more than a week.78 Naturally, this drew the ire of the slow readers who could not finish reading their borrowed volume on time. Surviving photographs from this period show David to have been thin and sallow, with a thick moustache and his signature mane of wavy hair. A fellow prisoner, Selby Fawcett — known as Sergeant Jock Adams — recalled how David used to walk around the prison camp wearing a pair of jodhpurs.79 Aaron Williams, who was also a prisoner with David in Japan, remembered him for his kindness. Meeting up with David during David’s trip to London in December 1955, Williams told The Evening News: I and many others owe a great debt of gratitude to Mr Marshall. He would come into the hospital and cheer us up. Always he used his personality to gain us a few privileges from the steel-hard camp commandant.80 Even the cruel camp commandant fell for his tactful and persuasive appeals for improving conditions. He always comforted the sick in our little ‘hospital’ and by word and deed, radiated courage and confidence.81

77 Transcript of David Marshall’s interview with John de Souza for The Straits Times, October 1985, DM/503/12/1. 78 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 51. 79 Selby Fawcett to David Marshall, 17 Dec 1955, DM/26/10/1–3. 80 The Evening News, London, 17 Dec 1955. 81 “Big-hearted Mr M — by former Jap captive”, The Straits Times, 13 Dec 1955.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

135

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

136

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Throughout the Pacific War, Japan put some 16,000 POWs to work in its shipyards, mines, and manufacturing plants, in 160 POW camps scattered throughout the country.82 In absolute terms this was a large number, but it was never really significant in their overall war effort.83 In the coal mines, for instance, the total number of POWs made up less than two per cent of the total mining force.84 By late 1945, David noticed a change in the behaviour and attitude of his Japanese captors. The war was going badly for the Japanese and their allies, the Germans. Before long, a new Japanese colonel was appointed to take charge of their camp. Soon, Red Cross parcels, hitherto withheld from the prisoners, were being let into the camp and little luxuries were allowed, such as a canteen selling tit bits and biscuits.85 LIBERTY AT LAST

On 6 August, 1945, the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and, three days later, another on Nagasaki. The Japanese emperor surrendered unconditionally and the war quickly came to an end. At David’s camp, news of the surrender filtered out to the POWs through a prisoner who had been cleaning the camp commandant’s quarters. As he could read the Kanji script, he managed to decipher enough words in the Japanese newspaper declaring that the war was over. One morning, the 5:00 a.m. bugle did not sound. Suddenly, there were no more parades or roll calls and the omnipresent guards suddenly disappeared.86 American bombers began

82 Roland, Long Night’s Journey into Day, p. 225. 83 Ibid., p. 208. 84 Ibid., p. 209. 85 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 52. 86 Ibid., p. 53.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

136

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

137

WAR

swooping over the various Japanese POW camps, dropping food and supplies to the beleaguered and bedraggled POWs. Whole kitbags full of food — bread, cookies, candy bars, and spam — were airlifted and dropped into the waiting arms of the grateful Allied POWs. David was jubilant and relieved. He remembered picking up the many packets of cookies, walking to a nearby village, and distributing them to the children there, as he noticed that the Japanese civilian population was also facing severe food shortages. The Allies had established a special organization called the Repatriation of Allied Prisoners of War and Internees (RAPWI) to recover the thousands of Allied POWs in the different parts of Japan and her former empire. RAPWI took control of the POW camps, expatriated the prisoners, and detained enemy personnel who were to be charged for mistreatment of their prisoners. David was flown out of Hokkaido on an American transport plane, first to Okinawa and then onto Manila, where he and his comrades were “processed”.87 This meant receiving medical attention, being deloused, bathed and re-clothed and, if well enough, debriefed and questioned. All POWs had to give an account of their detention and details of any ill treatment or cruelty on the part of the Japanese forces, so that the latter might be prosecuted for war crimes. The ex-POWs were also fed high-fat diets to “fatten” them up before being put on vessels for further repatriation to Australia or elsewhere.88 David requested to be repatriated to Perth, where his father and brothers were living. He had been out of touch with his family for three-and-a-half years and he missed them terribly. The Americans put him on an aircraft carrier that took him to Sydney, where he

87 Turnbull, “Notes of Interview with Datuk David Marshall”, p. 2. 88 Australia’s War 1939–1945: Coming Home, available at (accessed 9 May 2008).

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

137

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

138

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

remained for about three weeks before taking a train to Perth.89 David spent six months recuperating in the warm and stable environment provided by his father and loving brothers. But he never planned to stay in Australia. In February 1946, he arrived back in Singapore by ship. He had not seen his beloved Singapore for almost three years. Interestingly, David has never mentioned in any interview, what happened to his mother after the war, although we know that she remained in Singapore until 1948. It was quite clear that by the late 1930s relations between Flora and Saul Marshall were strained and they began living apart. And when David tricked his father into leaving for Australia, Flora decided to remain in Singapore because of her devotion to David. After her release from internment at Sime Road Camp, Flora stayed at a small hotel used by the British Military Administration as temporary housing for former internees. She later boarded with a Jewish family called Daniels. When the state of Israel was created in 1948, Flora, with David’s support, left Singapore for Jerusalem, where she lived until her death in 1952, with her maternal relatives, the Sadkas.90 David’s sister Rose had married Jack Minnie before the war. They lived on the island of Macassar in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia). During the war, she was interned there, but left for Perth immediately with her husband after they were released.91 The war had brought out worst in his captors, but it had also brought out the best in David. In the darkest days, when the bleak and blistering winter of northern Japan had threatened to obliterate all hope and plunge him into despair, David found a seemingly

89 Turnbull, “Notes of Interview with Datuk David Marshall”, p. 2. 90 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 1 (Singapore: National Archives); and interview with Jean Marshall, 25 Jun 2008. 91 Interview with Jean Marshall, 25 Jun 2008.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

138

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

139

WAR

endless reservoir of strength within himself. Never one to back down from a fight, David was determined that he would triumph over the perils he faced each day. Thinking back, David ruminated: I learnt the importance of closing in on myself to survive. It was almost automatic. At the beginning I was almost … ticking on two cylinders with just eyes and walking through life like a zombie, not expending too much energy on thought or anything else … Perhaps I learnt most of all the frailty of human beings, the absurdity of the status symbols of carrying a Captain’s star or a Major’s crown and turning out to be a long streak of piss; whereas the cook who was a Lance-Corporal turned out to be a really worthwhile human being. I learnt to survive.92

92 Ibid.

06 Marshall_S'pore Ch 6

139

11/21/08, 9:11 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE Institute of140 Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

7

Rebuilding Broken Lives PICKING UP THE PIECES

J

apan’s official surrender took place on 2 September, 1945, on board the American battleship USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. Thus officially ended the Second World War. In Singapore, a second surrender ceremony was staged at the Municipal Building (now known as City Hall) on 12 September, 1945. With this surrender, Japan’s occupation of Southeast Asia came to an end. Returning British troops were welcomed back as conquering heroes and everyone was anxious for a return to normalcy. But the island was in ruins and its economy in shambles. Basic necessities such as food, shelter, and clean drinking water were all in short supply. All Japanese currency was declared worthless. The infrastructure was also seriously damaged, with electrical, gas, water, and telephone services in an utter state of disrepair. A black market in basic essentials was flourishing, as were other vices such as prostitution and gambling. There was acute overcrowding in the tenements that were left standing. The sudden end of the war came as a surprise for the British, who had not made any detailed plans for the post-war occupation and administration of Singapore. Indeed, General Douglas MacArthur’s insistence that Operation Zipper — to reoccupy Japan’s Southeast Asian territories — be delayed meant that Allied troops entered these territories some two weeks later than was planned. During the war, the Colonial Office had decided that its Malayan territories —

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

140

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

141

REBUILDING BROKEN LIVES

comprising the Straits Settlements, the Federated Malay States, and the Unfederated Malay States — should be consolidated to resolve the anomalous constitutional situation occasioned by the territories’ differing political status. The Colonial Office decided to create a federation called the Malayan Union that would include all these territories except for Singapore, which was to be kept separate as its overwhelmingly Chinese population might frighten the Malay rulers into rejecting the Malayan Union altogether. The plan was for Singapore to be a kind of administrative capital city, something akin to Washington, DC, where the British Commissioner-General for Southeast Asia would be based. After the Japanese surrendered, Singapore was placed under the British Military Administration (BMA) under Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten, Supreme Allied Commander of the Southeast Asian Command (SEAC). The BMA administered Singapore under military law, though civil affairs were delegated to the general leadership of Sir Ralph Hone, Chief Civil Affairs Officer for Malaya, and his deputy, Patrick McKerron, who was in charge of Singapore.1 Unfortunately, the BMA was a military and not a political outfit and it quickly demonstrated its ineptness in managing the situation in Singapore. As Spector observed: In Malaya, Southeast Asia Command quickly established a British Military Administration and confined the Japanese to POW camps. However, the BMA did so poorly at managing critical food shortages and other economic problems that locals declared that BMA must stand for Black Market Administration.2 1

On the difficulties experienced by Mountbatten with Hone and McKerron with respect to Singapore, see John Springhall, “Mountbatten versus the Generals: British Military Rule of Singapore, 1945–46”, Journal of Contemporary History 36.4 (2001): 635–52.

2

Ronald H. Spector, “After Hiroshima: Allied Military Occupations and the Fate of Japan’s Empire, 1945–1947”, The Journal of Military History 69.4 (2005): 1135.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

141

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

142

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Despite its inadequacies and inefficiencies, the BMA managed to accomplish several important things before civilian rule was restored in April 1946. The public utilities were restored; ships of the Royal Navy were returned to civilian control; schools were reopened; measures were taken to revive the economy; and the police department was reorganized, with known collaborators and corrupt officers being replaced.3 In February 1946, David Marshall returned to Singapore from Perth. It was a very different city from the one he had left in 1943. The devastation and deplorable living conditions saddened David. Even his rented house was gone — demolished by bombing. He remembered: I didn’t have a home. My home was looted, and demolished. It was at the junction of Changi Road and Bedok. A lovely home, right on the water. I had no home.4 There was a lot of privation. A lot of limitation. Food was very short. The British Military Administration was running the place. It was very difficult, especially for the workers whose wages couldn’t keep up with the price of things. You had to buy everything from the black market and there was soaring inflation.5 BACK TO THE LAW

David found himself temporary accommodations and headed downtown to see what had happened to his old law firm, Allen & Gledhill. Just before the Japanese Occupation, the firm’s junior partner,

3

Turnbull, A History of Singapore 1819–1988, p. 221.

4

It is not known when David acquired this home. His recollection could also have been faulty since the junction of Bedok Road and Changi Road was about 2 km inland. In all probability, this house he spoke of was located at the junction of Upper East Coast Road and Bedok Road, near the old Bedok Resthouse.

5

Chew, Leaders of Singapore, p. 71.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

142

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

143

REBUILDING BROKEN LIVES

Murray Brash, had managed to escape to India, but its three senior partners — David Keri Walters, Lowthian Hume Chidson, and William Munro — were all interned by the Japanese. Like David, Munro had been a volunteer with the SSVF and was also taken prisoner-of-war and sent to Japan, though not to the same camp as David. After the war, Munro was repatriated to Hong Kong — he returned to Singapore in a flying boat in mid-October 1945.6 A day after his return, Munro hitched a ride from the old Seaview Hotel in Katong to his firm’s old premises at 22A Raffles Place. He found it occupied by a Chinese firm. However, the part of the office that abutted The Arcade had been occupied by some of the firm’s old staff. They were absolutely delighted to see him. Though some documents had been lost or destroyed, most of the firm’s library and documents were intact. In the meantime, Murray Brash had also returned to Singapore as a Royal Air Force legal officer. Over the next few months, Munro managed to get the firm back in order once again and slowly the practice resumed. At this time, Munro was the only member of Allen & Gledhill’s staff to resume legal practice. Brash could not as yet obtain his release from the Air Force; Walters and Chidson were still recuperating in England and Australia respectively. The firm’s pre-war assistant, Frederick Massey, had been a POW in Germany and was serving as a legal officer in Kuala Lumpur. David had yet to return from Australia. In February 1946, David returned to the firm as legal assistant. He and Munro were both joined by Brash shortly afterwards when the Air Force released him. By April, Munro felt that the firm was in good hands and left to see his family in England. In the coming months, Walters and Chidson recovered sufficiently to return to Singapore and take the helm together.7 By the end of 1946, the whole

6

Davison, Allen & Gledhill: Centenary, p. 27.

7

Ibid., p. 28.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

143

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

144

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

team was back. The partnership consisted of D.K. Walters, William Munro, L.H. Chidson, and Murray Brash (in order of seniority), with David Marshall, Frederick Massey, and Wee Chong Jin as assistants. The Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements had been closed since 1942. By 1946, the Straits Settlements had been abolished and Singapore was a separate Crown colony. During the BMA period, the legal system was administered by the BMA’s legal and judicial officers. With the return to civilian rule, it was necessary to reopen the courts, but many of the key personnel were still recovering abroad or had not returned to Singapore.8 So when the Supreme Court was officially reopened on 8 April, 1946, it was the Supreme Court of Singapore.9 It was presided over by an acting Chief Justice,10 who was welcomed by an acting Attorney General,11 all in borrowed

8

The Chief Justice designate of the Supreme Court of Singapore was Justice Charles Murray-Aynsley who returned to Singapore in June 1946 to assume his new post. See “The Chief Justice, Singapore”, Malayan Law Journal 12 (1946): xxxvii. Murray-Aynsley was knighted in 1950. See “Sir Charles Murray-Aynsley” Malayan Law Journal (1950): xv.

9

A separate Supreme Court of the Malayan Union had been constituted with Harold Curwen Willan as its first Chief Justice. See “The Chief Justice, Malayan Union” Malayan Law Journal 12 (1946): xxxvi. The Court officially opened on 1 June, 1946 at a ceremony in Kuala Lumpur. See Malayan Law Journal 12 (1946): xlvi.

10 The Acting Chief Justice was Cecil William Victor Carey who had been a puisne judge before the war, sitting in Penang. Like most judges who remained when the Japanese invaded Malaya and Singapore, he was interned. He returned to Singapore from home leave in England on 3 March, 1946. See “Our Acting Chief Justice”, Malayan Law Journal 12 (1946): xxviii. 11 The Acting Attorney General was Guy Wilmot McLintock Henderson. Henderson, who was transferred to the Malayan Legal Service in 1945 from Nigeria, was a member of BMA legal team. In June 1946, he was officially appointed Singapore’s new Solicitor-General. See “The Solicitor-General, Singapore”, Malayan Law Journal 12 (1946): xxxvii. Interestingly, H.A. Forrer, whom David disliked, was Acting Registrar of the Supreme Court.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

144

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

145

REBUILDING BROKEN LIVES

robes and wigs.12 Many members of the legal profession had perished during the war in both Malaya and Singapore. Heading the list was Justice Joseph Howard Pedlow, Puisne Judge of Singapore, who was most probably lost at sea. Other law officers who had died included Charles Gough Howell, Singapore’s Attorney General before the war; Adrian John Clark, Legal Adviser to the Federated Malay States; Trevor Davies Hugh, Legal Adviser to Johor; Rajah Musa bin Rajah Haji Bot, Lecturer in Law at Raffles College; and Robert Carne Redman, Registrar of the Supreme Court of the Federated Malay States. Some twenty-eight lawyers also perished, including David’s old colleagues at Aitken & Ong Siang, Isaac Hunter Hoaling and Liew Swee Cheng.13 THE JEWISH COMMUNITY

Having got his career back in equilibrium, David now had time to employ his talents for the benefit of his community and those around him. His experience as a prisoner-of-war had humbled him immensely. He was ever conscious of the preciousness and precariousness of life. He had survived and was grateful now to be able to deploy his energies and talents in the service of those less fortunate than himself. Even before the war, David had been seen by many of the younger generation of Jews as their natural leader. His charisma, charm, professional qualifications, and outstanding physical appearance made him a compelling figure. Great things were expected of him. Just before the war, around 1938–1939, the Jewish population in Singapore had reached its peak of some 2,000 members. However, unhappy with the discrimination they experienced in Singapore and Malaya and sensing better prospects abroad, many middle-class Jews

12 See “Re-opening of Supreme Court, Singapore”, Malayan Law Journal 12 (1946): xxix–xxxi. 13 See “In Memoriam”, Malayan Law Journal 12 (1946): xliv; and also “Malayan Bar Memorial”, Malayan Law Journal (1950): xviii–xix.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

145

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

146

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

migrated to Australia as the threat of war loomed large. Another group of Jews escaped Singapore just before the Japanese invaded the island in 1941–1942, with many heading either to Australia or India. Among this group were the wealthiest Jews of Singapore, the traditional leaders of the community. Of those who remained in Singapore, quite a number were locked up as civilian internees. By the time David returned to Singapore, the community had shrunk, morale was low, and many were in very poor circumstances. The Jewish minyan had all but disintegrated. David recalled: It [the Jewish community] was melting very rapidly. They were leaving Singapore mainly to California and Australia. They had been interned and when they came out, they had no work, no money and life was difficult. Many of them were not willing to start over in Singapore. The ones that remained were not very ambitious. They did not have the spirit of adventure to try new climbs. I kept pleading with them to stay. I did not want our Community to disappear and I felt that there was a lot of room to prosper. There is still a lot of room to prosper here in Singapore — even now. If we have the initiative and the ability we should be able to make it, and make it well. We should never run away from competition. We have survived well.14

Jacob Ballas — who later became an important Jewish community leader — recalled that the disintegration was caused in part by the rich-poor divide amongst the Jews and mainly by the emigration that had taken place just before the war. One other reason he gave was that the Chinese businessmen proved “too clever” for the Jews, thus making competition unusually difficult.15 Luckily, both the Maghain Aboth and Chased-el Synagogues survived the war with little damage. The former was used by the

14 Isaac, “Marshalling the Times”, pp. 8–9. 15 Jacob Ballas, Oral History Interview, 6 Dec 1983, Reel 1 (Singapore: National Archives).

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

146

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

147

REBUILDING BROKEN LIVES

Japanese as a store while the latter was converted into a Shinto shrine. On 21 October, 1945, twenty-seven members of the Jewish community gathered to hold their first post-war meeting at the Maghain Aboth Synagogue. Absent from this historic meeting were the three wealthy trustees of the synagogue: E.S. Manasseh, Joe Elias, and David J. Elias. Manasseh had died while incarcerated at Sime Road Camp while the Eliases (cousins and brothers-in-law) had yet to return to Singapore.16 It was time for the ordinary, middle-income Jew to take the reins. As Bieder noted: According to minutes of the meeting, former internee E.B. Solomon, who had been a grocery clerk before the war, was duly elected chair of the meeting. He started by outlining the community’s dilemma: of the 600 men, women and children interned at Sime Road, about 70 had left to join relatives, while the rest ‘found themselves in a state of helplessness.’ British authorities had helped reinstate many people in their homes, but the government was still supporting 130 Jewish community members. Most were poor families housed in the Empress Hotel while the British rebuilt the mahallah (Jewish quarter). The British authorities had asked Solomon to help in organising their rations and other arrangements. At the end of the meeting, the men elected officers and appointed specific committee members to oversee community finances, meet the immediate needs of the synagogue and maintain the burial grounds.17

David, who had helped Mrs Mozelle Nissim with fund-raising for her Singapore Jewish Women’s League in the pre-war years, had long felt that the old “beggar-bowl” approach of ad hoc fund-raising and welfare for the community’s poor was outmoded and demeaning. Far too much depended on the magnanimity and generosity of wealthy Jews who were not keen to associate themselves with their poorer brethren. It was not a good situation. Jacob Ballas described the divide that existed before the war:

16 See Bieder, The Jews of Singapore, p. 110. 17 Ibid.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

147

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

148

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

You see, you had the rich Jews who didn’t want to mix up with the poor ones. The problem was of course, the English system which accepted the rich Jews to become Europeans and the poor Jew to be considered Asians. And so there was that barrier and they didn’t want to mix up too much with the poor Jews. They were willing to support the poor Jews; they were willing to give them school fees, but other than that, they didn’t want to mix up with them. So there was a bit of a barrier.18

A better-organized institution with a proper income stream and programme of welfare was needed. Within a few months of his return, David got together with six other members of the community to put his plan into action. On 27 June, 1946, the group — comprising David, M.J. Nassim, Saul Ezekiel, S.E. Sherida, E.B. Solomon, E.M. Sharbanee, and M.M. Cohen — met at M.J. Nassim’s residence at 89 Wilkie Road to establish the Jewish Welfare Association. David was elected as its first president. Those early days were the toughest. David remembered: Together with Mrs Nissim and a few others, a Jewish committee was set up to bring about a certain cohesion and coordination in communal life before the war. Financial assistance and hampers were given haphazardly. After the war there was a need to formalize the communal structure and the JWB was created and registered.19 We had to beg for money. Mrs Nissim was very supportive. She was very much our tower of strength and she managed to persuade ‘the others’ to give us a little money. People were very mingy in those days. We kept begging for money for the Synagogue, the cemetery and for our destitute. It was very tough. Nothing like today when we can talk in millions. We had peanuts.20

The association set itself the task of taking care of the indigent poor and of looking after other aspects of communal life, such as the

18 Jacob Ballas, Oral History Interview, 6 Dec 1983, Reel 1 (Singapore: National Archives). 19 Isaac, “Marshalling the Times”, p. 7. 20 Ibid., p. 8.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

148

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

149

REBUILDING BROKEN LIVES

cemetery, the synagogue, and other communal activities. At the inaugural meeting, the association took stock of its finances and discovered that it had only $911.71 in the bank. The founding members of the association donated among them another $425 by the end of the meeting. David agreed to draft a constitution for the association. He promised to obtain permission from the remaining but absent trustees of the Maghain Aboth Synagogue to manage the synagogue and cemetery as well as to care for the community’s poor.21 One of the first things David did after the meeting was to inform the Colonial Secretary P.A.B. McKerron, that the association had been formed to coordinate the religious, educational, and charitable activities of the Jewish community, as well as to tend to its welfare needs. Another immediate task for the association was to take stock of the various charitable trusts that had been created by wealthy, deceased Jews and to ensure that these trusts were properly administered and audited. The group also worked with the colonial authorities to recover moneys from the Sir Manasseh Meyer Talmud Torah Trust.22 Professional men like David were able to get quickly back on their feet after the war. However, there were many illiterate and impecunious Jews whose lot was made worse by the deprivations of war. Many of them had nothing but the rags on their backs. They had no food, no money, and nowhere to live. Many impoverished Jews moved into the grounds of the Maghain Aboth Synagogue, where they found temporary shelter and food. It was a desolate and depressing sight — the association vowed to do something about it. David took up the cudgels when, in September 1946, he wrote to the

21 At this time, the Jewish Cemetery was in Thomson Road, where Novena Square now stands. The earlier cemetery on Orchard Road, where the Dhoby Ghaut MRT Station stands, was already full by the turn of the twentieth century and was no longer in use. 22 See Bieder, The Jews of Singapore, p. 110.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

149

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

150

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

British Government requesting textiles to make clothes for twentyfive persons, including seven women. They were all illiterate exinternees. David urged the government to act quickly so that they would have “one decent suit to appear in the Synagogue” during the Jewish high holy days.23 In 1949, the Jewish Welfare Association reconstituted itself as the Jewish Welfare Board with an enlarged executive committee. David was again elected its president, with I.B. Abbett and J.N. Shohet as his vice-presidents. D.S. Soloman was secretary and E. Reuben the treasurer. Other members included Ms E.R. Brisk, I.A. Elias, Saul Ezekiel, Mrs S. Green, Mr & Mrs M. Lewis, Ms Esther Menasseh, Ralph Sassoon, E.B. Solomon, Mrs & Mrs E. Woday, and Eze Nathan.24 In years to come, the board would become engaged in a large number of undertakings, including the taking of a census in 1949 by Max Menahem;25 the establishment of the Benevolent Committee to investigate the plight of impoverished Jews and approving monthly allowances for them;26 and facilitating and providing free passage for poor Jews to emigrate to Israel.27 From 1949 to 1950, a large number of young Jews sought assistance from the Board for migration to Israel. Many of them were, as David explained, “of Mesopotamian stock who find the economic structure which classifies them as Asiatics an exclusion from opportunities of attaining a European standard of living.”28 Between 1948 and February 1950, the Board assisted some fifty persons to migrate to

23 Ibid., p. 111. 24 Ibid. 25 Minutes of the Jewish Welfare Board, 29 Mar 1949. 26 Minutes of the Jewish Welfare Board, 25 Apr 1949. 27 Minutes of the Jewish Welfare Board, 9 Sep 1949. 28 David Marshall to Charles H. Jordon, Director, American Joint Distribution Committee, European Emigration Headquarters, Paris, 14 Feb 1950, DM/520/6.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

150

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

151

REBUILDING BROKEN LIVES

Israel and about seventy more were awaiting assistance in 1950.29 The passage assistance of £45 would take the intended migrant from Singapore to Naples. Their passage from Naples to Tel Aviv was taken care of by Jewish organizations at Naples. Of the early accomplishments of the Jewish Welfare Board, two stand out. The first was the purchase of a house at 60 Waterloo Street for use as an old folks’ home to house the poor, infirm, and aged members of the community. The second was the recruitment and installation of Singapore’s first-ever rabbi. Even though Singapore had two synagogues, the Jewish community had never had a rabbi to guide its spiritual life. Members of the community took turns to lead religious services and rituals with the help of a hazan or cantor who led the minyan in songful prayer. The synagogue’s hazan, Eliyahu Shalome, who had arrived in Singapore from Baghdad in 1926, had died in 1941. This meant that, at the time the Jewish Welfare Association was established in 1946, the community had been without a religious guide for five years. It was thus a matter of utmost urgency that the Association find a rabbi for Singapore. In July 1946, David, as president of the association, wrote to the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish Synagogue of London, asking them to recommend a suitable, “occidental” rabbi. The London synagogue does not appear to have responded. For the next three years, the Association searched in vain for a suitable rabbi. In May 1949, the Board found a candidate in Rabbi Jacob Shababo (1895–1973), then the rabbi of Port Said in Egypt. The Board raised funds and approved a sum of $5,940.50 for expenses in the appointment and habitation of Rabbi Shababo.30 His credentials were later approved at a Board meeting of 2 August, 1949.31 A controversial and fascinating figure, Rabbi Shababo served the Singapore Jewry as its rabbi for an incredible twenty-four years until his death in 1973. 29 Ibid. 30 Minutes of the Jewish Welfare Board, 10 May 1949. 31 Minutes of the Jewish Welfare Board, 2 Aug 1949.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

151

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

152

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

As president of the board, David was tough and decisive. He had little time for hidebound traditions and attitudes and was prepared to thump his fist if necessary to push things through.32 As Harry Elias recalled: I remember vividly seeing his name in the era of 1948–1950 when he rode roughshod over objections, pettiness, squabbling to bring about the changes that he knew were needed. … the Community under his leadership was able to house, feed and look after the welfare of the needier and older members of our Community. This by itself was an incredible achievement.33

Lawyer Joseph Grimberg, who served on the Jewish Welfare Board for a couple of years while David presided, remarked that he was “very imperious” and had “very little patience”. He was certainly no “committee man” and “tended to cut to the quick and disregard formalities”.34 David completed his second term as president in 1952 and begged to be let off a third term. He had dedicated the past six years to restoring pride, meaning, and self-respect to the Jewish community. Now he wanted to move on to contribute elsewhere. S.E. Sherida succeeded David as president of the Board in 1953. Though officially no longer a member of the board, David maintained throughout his life an active interest in the affairs of the community. He remained the Board’s legal adviser for many years, made monthly monetary contributions to the Board for the rest of his life, and returned to serve two more stints as president of the Board — in 1967 and from 1969 to 1970. In 1953, when the Constitutional Commission was convened by Governor Sir John Nicoll, the Board nominated David as the Jewish community’s representative. Unfortunately, his nomination was not 32 Interview with Harry Elias, 27 May 2008. 33 Harry Elias, speech to the Jewish Welfare Board, 10 Apr 2008 (on file with the author). 34 Interview with Joseph Grimberg, 5 May 2008.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

152

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

153

REBUILDING BROKEN LIVES

accepted and there was no Jewish representation on the Rendel Commission.35 In 1954, David proposed to the Board to write to the governor, requesting him to appoint Eze Nathan Justice of the Peace.36 The suggestion was duly accepted and Eze Nathan became Justice of the Peace in March 1954. David was especially keen to support the initiatives of young people. He believed that the betterment of the future always lay in the hands of enterprising and right-minded young people. He always found time for them, no matter how busy his schedule was. Within the Jewish community, this was nowhere more evident than in his support for the formation and activities of the Menorah Club. In 1953, a group of Jewish teenagers got together and voted to form a club of their own. They named it the Menorah Club. Its objective was to provide “social, recreational, cultural and spiritual activities.”37 Elias Shababo was elected president of the club, while Elias Meyer Elias was secretary and Ralph Sassoon the treasurer. Among the charter members was 15-year-old Frank J. Benjamin, who never forgot how helpful and open David was with the group. David became the Club’s honorary legal adviser “without even being asked”, helped the group to draft a constitution, and had it registered with the government under the Societies Ordinance. He even helped them with their fundraising activities.38 And when Benjamin visited his Changi home one Sunday to recruit members, David welcomed him with open arms and told him that they had “caught all the lions in the den”.39 Benjamin struck up a friendship with David and later volunteered to canvass votes for him in Cairnhill during the 1955 general elections. 35 Minutes of the Jewish Welfare Board, 7 Dec 1953. Members of the Commission were: Sir George Rendel (Chairman); E.J. Davies; T.P.F. McNeice; Tan Chin Tuan; Lim Yew Hock; N.A. Mallal; C.C. Tan; Ahmad bin Mohamed Ibrahim; C.F. Smith; and John D. Higham (Secretary). 36 Minutes of Jewish Welfare Board, 4 Jan 1954. 37 See Bieder, The Jews of Singapore, p. 119. 38 Interview with Frank J. Benjamin, 22 Feb 2007.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

153

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

154

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

In later years, especially after his third stint as president of the Jewish Welfare Board in 1970, David became less directly involved with the community’s day-to-day affairs. Even so, his heart was always open and his time always on call whenever his brethren needed him. His last official contribution to the community was when he accepted Frank Benjamin’s invitation to be the chairman of the Jewish Charities Trust after his return from France in 1993.40 THE WAR PRISONERS

( SINGAPORE )

ASSOCIATION

Another issue that absorbed David’s energies in the immediate aftermath of his return to Singapore was the old problem of discrimination in the government’s treatment of volunteers and prisoners-of-war. The BMA had declared all Japanese currency worthless. This left a large segment of the population penniless. Many volunteers were similarly affected — they wanted to claim back-pay and compensation for their internment from the British Government once civilian rule was restored. The European volunteers had got back-pay for the time they were incarcerated, but not the Asians. To fight for equal treatment, a group of European volunteers, led by lawyer J.C. Cobbett of Rodyk & Davidson, decided to form an organization to fight for and protect war prisoners’ rights. Cobbett contacted David as well as Leslie C. Hoffman of The Straits Times to

39 Ibid. 40 The Singapore Jewish Charities Trust was a combined trust comprising the Jewish Properties Trust and the Synagogue and Cemetery trusts established in the late 1970s. In 1975, the Jewish Welfare Board sold part of its used cemetery property in Thomson Road to a private developer for $3 million thus enlarging the Jewish Properties Trust. This largesse was further enhanced by the sale to the Government of the Board’s old folks’ home in Waterloo Street and several other shops along that same road which the Board owned. See Bieder, The Jews of Singapore, p. 162.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

154

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

155

REBUILDING BROKEN LIVES

help get the organization going. On 24 April, 1946, the War Prisoners (Singapore) Association was inaugurated with about one hundred members, at the Adelphi Hotel’s roof garden. Cobbett was elected president of the Association and David was made honorary secretary. Other members of the executive committee were: Dr M. Bain, J.A. Gale, O.C. Smally, L.C. Hoffman, A. Jugas, B.P. Nerva, and D. Philip. As secretary of the association and because of his prominent public persona, David became the voice of the association. The Association was concerned with two main issues: the question of back-pay for former POWs and the matter of accommodation for returning POWs, including the right to re-occupy their preOccupation premises. Sometime in July 1946, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, George Hall stated that the British Government was not liable to pay any civil claims made by Malayan ex-volunteers, since the Malayan government had ceased to exist with the fall of Singapore. The absurdity of this assertion infuriated the former prisoners. Arnold F. Thorne, a lawyer in private practice, criticized Hall’s statement, arguing that the British Government was contradicting itself by, on the one hand, arguing that the fall of Malaya extinguished all liability and, on the other hand, making payments to civil servants and defence personnel on the basis of contract: It is difficult to see what contractual liability there could be binding on a non-existent body. But it is quite clear that from the fact that payments have been made, and charged to the Malayan Governments that it is not seriously contended that these Governments ceased to exist. On this basis volunteers were also Government employees and civil liability was one of the agreed terms of payment for services. It was never made conditional on the continuance of any particular circumstances and if Government failed to consider the possible ramifications of its promises to pay, it is their mistake and they should pay for it.41 41 Ibid.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

155

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

156

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

The association wrote letter after letter, presenting its claims and case to the governor. Three months later, David gave an interview to The Straits Times, in which he announced that when he and three other members of the association met up with the governor, Sir Franklin Gimson, on 18 September, 1946, the latter had promised to “go into the matter thoroughly with the Attorney-General”.42 The slowness with which the government reacted drew a sharp jibe from David: I must be forgiven if I sometimes gather the impression that there is no government in this colony, only a bureaucracy of lazy clerks.43

As a last resort, and after more than a year of agitation, the Association decided to send an air-mail letter to “a well-known British MP”, to draw attention to their demands.44 The Association held its first annual general meeting on 10 March, 1947 and new office-bearers were elected. Stuart Lowrie replaced Cobbett as president while Ms. M.M. van Hein was elected as treasurer. David was re-elected as secretary.45 At this meeting, the new committee raised a new issue that had been festering for some time. This pertained to a new piece of legislation the government had introduced the year before — the Leases and Tenancies Bill. Indeed, when the bill was introduced, David had already attacked it for the “cynical disregard” it showed for the rights of pre-war tenants to reoccupy their old premises. As secretary of the association, he requested the government to give priority right of premises that had fallen vacant or were being derequisitioned to ex-POWs if they could prove that the premises they required were of a similar character to those previously occupied by them.46 The governor informed the 42 The Straits Times, 2 Nov 1946. 43 See The Straits Times, 27 Mar 1947; see also Chew, Leaders of Singapore, p. 71. 44 The Straits Times, 30 Apr 1947. 45 See The Straits Times, 11 Mar, 1947; and Malaya Tribune, 11 Mar 1947. 46 “Cynical Disregard of POWs & Internees”, The Straits Times, 11 Jul 1946.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

156

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

157

REBUILDING BROKEN LIVES

association that he and his advisory council members had considered their memorandum on 4 July, 1946, and concluded that the Leases and Tenancies Bill would actually help ease the acute accommodation problem. David went ballistic, as the Malaya Tribune reported: ‘I can only think,’ said Mr Marshall, ‘that the members of the Advisory Council did not read the bill in question and did not know that ex-POWs and ex-internees would have absolutely no right to claim possession of their pre-occupation premises.’ This bill, he said, was copied word for word from the Malayan Union Bill, but the Malayan Union, however ‘had the decency to amend its bill which now enables ex-POWs and internees to claim their preoccupation premises if the balance of hardship is in their favour.’47

David took the association’s fight to the press. In a careful and considered legal article entitled “Tenancies Bill” that he contributed to the Malaya Tribune, David urged that section 4(g) of the proposed bill be redrafted, because it: virtually requires an applicant for possession of his preoccupation premises to pay not only his lawyers and court fees but also the landlords’ lawyers and court fees and the tenant’s lawyers and court fees, even if he wins the case. This blatantly iniquitous provision is a measure of the jaundiced justice which is being meted out to some of Singapore’s loyal citizens.48

The War Prisoners (Singapore) Association held a committee meeting on 3 July, 1947, to discuss the bill, with a view to making representations to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject of the government’s attitude towards war prisoners. Commenting on the bill, David observed that there was a general impression that only Europeans would be affected by the omission of the clause to give relief to pre-Occupation tenants. This was wholly untrue, as the largest body affected were low-income, Eurasian volunteers. For two years, the ex-prisoners and ex-internees had been 47 The Straits Times, 11 Mar 1947. 48 “Tenancies Bill”, The Malaya Tribune, 14 May 1947.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

157

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

158

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

struggling for the legal recognition of their moral right to premises they had occupied before they lost them, due to military duties or internment. This right had been recognized by the Malayan Union through legislation, but did not appear to have been correspondingly recognized in Singapore.49 The Singapore Government’s refusal to tackle the housing shortage and the financial situation of ex-POWs and ex-internees was frustrating. At the association’s first annual general meeting on 10 March, 1947, David once again criticized the government’s lack of interest in resolving the prisoners’ claims and housing problems. Association chairman, Stuart Lowrie, censured the government for failing to tackle the problem a year previously, instead of allowing it to fester. For almost a year, the association had published notices in the press, calling on its members without accommodation to provide the association with particulars of their need. These had been sent in batches to the Colonial Secretary. David told the meeting: “As far as I am aware, the Colonial Secretary has not replied, or even attempted to help a single one of our members to find accommodation.”50 The outcome of the association’s appeal to the British colonial authorities is not known. After 1947, little can be discerned about the work of this association or David’s role in it. OTHER CIVIL SOCIETY ACTIVITIES

In addition to his leadership of and involvement in the Jewish Welfare Board and the War Prisoners (Singapore) Association, David also found himself involved in several other civil society activities. One of them was the Automobile Association, of which he was an active member. In 1948, motor insurers throughout Singapore decided comprehensively to revise their premium rates and the terms and conditions of insuring motor vehicles. This invited a broadside from 49 “Tenancies Bill Protest to Whitehall”, The Free Press, 27 Jun 1947. 50 The Straits Times, 11 Mar 1947.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

158

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

159

REBUILDING BROKEN LIVES

David at the Association’s annual general meeting on 8 April, 1948. With his characteristic frankness and eloquence, David lambasted the insurance companies, which he alleged had a “water-tight combine” amongst themselves and were pursuing a “hard selfish policy of earning profits”.51 He pointed out that “the average comprehensive motor insurance policy in Malaya today is about as comprehensive as a French swim-suit”.52 David’s main argument was that the so-called, “comprehensive” policies being offered were nothing like what they had been in the pre-war period, as there were now a large number of exclusions that the insurance companies felt they could impose because of their cartel.53 It appears that David’s outburst was to no avail. When the issue was revisited by the association in April 1949, its president, Clemetson, told its members that he had taken up the question with insurance companies in England and that all insurance companies around the world were sustaining heavy losses on motor car insurance, especially in Malaya.54 Another public issue that attracted David’s attention was the imposition of income tax. Up until 1947, no tax on personal income had ever been collected. The first attempt at collecting port levies in 1862 failed and all subsequent attempts to introduce income tax met with vehement objection from Singapore’s business community. When Governor Sir Laurence Guillemard tried to introduce the Straits Settlements Tax Ordinance in 1921, the measure was so unpopular and so universally denounced by members of the Legislative Council and Executive Council that it was withdrawn. However, Britain had emerged at the end of World War II an impoverished empire. These

51 “Exploitation: Charge Against Motor Insurance Firms”, The Morning Tribune, 9 Apr 1948; and “No ‘Cover’ ”, The Straits Times, 9 Apr 1948. 52 “Motor Insurance in Malaya”, The Straits Times, 12 Apr 1948. 53 “No Comprehensive Policy says Mr Marshall”, The Straits Times, 14 Apr 1948. 54 “A.A.M. and Motor Insurance”, The Straits Times, 28 Apr 1949.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

159

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

160

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

measures could not be put off any longer. In 1947, the Income Tax Ordinance was again introduced. David, like many other professionals and businessmen, opposed the introduction of income tax. He reasoned that, if the colonial government needed funds, these could be raised through various other means, instead of resorting to something as draconian as taxation, especially when the economy was just recovering and many individuals could barely afford to support themselves and their families. On 10 May, 1947, David wrote an open letter to The Straits Times on the matter. He proposed two simple alternatives for the government’s consideration: The first suggestion is that all military liquor and tobacco should be subject to the same duties as those destined for civilians. I cannot understand the concession of duty free liquor and tobacco to peace time troops in a large garrison town like Singapore. It is not so in England. Why should it be so here? I understand that a high Custom official has stated that if military liquor is liable to duty, that would mean an income of a million dollars a month to the Colony. The second suggestion is that the moneys sent out of the Colony otherwise than for services rendered or for goods delivered should be subject to a small tax. It is not unreasonable to ask those who make their money in this Colony and wish to spend it elsewhere that they should pay a small proportion of their money which they take out of the Colony, thereby impoverishing it, to meet the expenditure of the Government.55

On 13 June, 1947, at a meeting of the Singapore Association — the successor of the Straits Settlements (Singapore) Association and one of Singapore’s most important non-government bodies — lawyer Arnold F. Thorne proposed the setting up of an inquiry committee or commission to study the whole question of taxation more

55 The Straits Times, 10 May 1947.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

160

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

161

REBUILDING BROKEN LIVES

thoroughly.56 By this time, David was a committee member, having been elected in June 1947, alongside Roland Braddell, D.H. Mundell, J.F. Lowin, L. Cresson, S.H. Peek, P.S. Hunter, Lim Bock Kee, Sandy G. Pillay and F.G. Lundon (mostly lawyers). Braddell, by now the doyen of the Bar in Singapore, was elected president. At that meeting, David made in person the same arguments he had previously articulated in his letter to the press.57 David’s proposals were supported by another lawyer, Sandy G. Pillay, especially on his point that a levy be imposed on all liquors imported into Singapore by the military.58 Alas, none of these protestations dissuaded the British Government. At this time, the governor ran Singapore with the assistance of the Advisory Council and was legally authorized to pass legislation by decree. The Income Tax Ordinance was passed and has remained in the statute books ever since.59 David was also an active member of the Singapore Ratepayers’ Association, a group made up of those who paid utility rates and were concerned with the betterment of utilities and services. He was in addition invited by the British Government to serve on the Standing Committee on the Malayan Other Ranks, to look into the training and welfare of non-commissioned officers. THE GROWING PUBLIC FIGURE

Within a few years of his return to Singapore, David had established himself as a major public figure. At this time, he was not terribly 56 At the AGM, the office-bearers of the Association were: Roland Braddell (President); H.D. Mundell (Vice-President); J.F.L. Cowin (Hon. Secretary & Treasurer); L. Cresson, S.H. Peek, P.S. Hunter, Lim Bock Kee, David Marshall, Sandy G. Pillay, & F.G. Lundon (members). 57 “Tax Committee Proposed”, The Straits Times, 14 Jun 1947. 58 “Alternatives to Income Tax Suggested”, The Malaya Tribune, 14 Jun 1947. 59 Ordinance 39 of 1947. The Bill was read for the first and second time on 27 November 1947 and passed on 4 December, 1947. It came into force on 1 January, 1948.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

161

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

162

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

interested in politics but was concerned to help society at the ground level. His wartime experience and his innate kindness and generosity ignited in him a deep desire to serve humanity. So long as he could, he would do his best to better the lot of his fellow men. David was not strategic in the organizations he chose to involve himself in — he did what came naturally. He was a Jew — the plight of the poor Jews, who were the victims of circumstance and of official anti-Semitism in the Third Reich, commanded his attention. He was a former POW — the less fortunate among his fellow volunteers called out for help. David responded instinctively. He was, in modern-day parlance, a major civil society actor. David’s work with the Jewish Welfare Board as well as with the War Prisoners (Singapore) Association brought him into contact with key players in the upper echelons of Singapore society: everyone from the governor down, including tycoons in the private sector. His successful law practice gave him money, status, and a social standing he had not previously enjoyed, certainly not in the years before the war. He became a person to be watched. As colonialism began receding around the world, men like David Marshall were seriously considered as possible new leaders to be cultivated and groomed. This recognition and reverence came not only from his own Jewish community, but also from the British Government. In September 1947, David was asked to be part of a special committee, headed by Yap Pheng Geck, to recommend a suitable wedding present for Princess Elizabeth.60 David had arrived.

60 “S’pore Giving Princess Jewel Box”, The Free Press, 1 Oct 1947. Other members of this committee included L. Cresson, Ahmad bin Ibrahim, and P.E. Perera. The committee recommended the presentation of a gold jewel casket embossed with Singapore’s coat-of-arms on one side and the crest of the municipality on the other, with the motto “Majulah Singapura”. The lid had a small relief map of Singapore island. Made of beaten gold, the design was chosen from six submitted by Singapore’s goldsmiths.

07 Marshall_S'pore Ch 7

162

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the LEGALAsian LEGEND 163 Institute ofTHE Southeast Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

8

The Legal Legend THE LAW IS A JEALOUS MISTRESS

A

lthough David had always wanted to be a doctor, it was law that was his true calling. In the few years he had practised law before the Japanese Occupation, it had already rewarded him with an interesting career and a social standing that enabled him to do what he enjoyed most: to serve others. David returned to Singapore in February 1946 and immediately rejoined his old firm of Allen & Gledhill. For a short while, only William Munro and David ran the firm. By the latter part of 1947, all the firm’s other partners had returned and David continued as legal assistant. The post-war rehabilitation and reconstruction brought along with it an economic recovery that guaranteed much work for the lawyers. It was not long before David started taking on news worthy cases. One of the first cases David handled in 1946 gave him news exposure. It was heard before District Judge and First Magistrate Paul Storr, who in 1948 became puisne judge in Malaya.1 The case concerned the ownership of a steamer. The question before the court was the meaning of “ownership” under section 328 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. David argued that the king of England was not specifically included in the categories of owners mentioned in the Act,

1

See “New Federation Judges”, Malayan Law Journal 14 (1948): xviii.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

163

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

164

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

which included “any naturalised British subject”. In response to Storr’s question whether or not the king could be a British subject, David replied that as sovereign he was not. Storr persisted: But His Majesty was born a naturalized British subject. He was not King when he was born. He wasn’t even given the heir to the throne.2

David knew he was stumped and backed down: Of course, your Honour. I did not realise that angle of reasoning. I beg to withdraw the objection.3

Even though David was to become Singapore’s greatest criminal lawyer in the years to come, he did not start out specializing in criminal law, especially after the Japanese Occupation. Indeed, a quick look at his early cases shows that many of them were in fact marine collision cases. The collision of the Bentong was another case that hit the headlines. The 957-ton rice ship collided with a submerged object while on the way to Singapore from Bangkok. The ship’s principal officers were charged with negligence. David successfully defended Captain C.J.S. Agate and Chief Officer G.F. Heaton,4 persuading the court of inquiry to declare the accident unforeseen, thereby absolving all parties of blame.5 David’s success made him popular with the shipping community. In Feburary 1947, he was engaged to defend Captain George Patterson, master of the Marudu, which also struck a submerged object off the coast of Merudung in Borneo. The Singapore Marine Court, again presided over by Storr, held that although Patterson and his Chief Officer were “not entirely blameless for the mishap”, the damage was

2

“Is the King A British Subject”, The Straits Times, 30 Jun 1946.

3

Ibid.

4

The Straits Times, 9 Oct 1946.

5

The Straits Times, 29 Oct 1946.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

164

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

165

THE LEGAL LEGEND

not serious enough to warrant the cancellation or suspension of the certificates held by the two officers.6 David was not so successful in the next major maritime case, involving the Matang, a 1,463-ton vessel that ran aground near Tanjong Embang, off the coast of Kuching, on 23 January, 1947.7 His defence of the master of the ship, Captain W.S. Stoker, failed when the case went on appeal to the High Court before Justice Brown and two assessors.8 Captain Stoker was suspended for three months.9 In June 1947, David was called in to represent the Straits Merchant Service Guild in the inquiry over the death of Captain E.C. Cleaver, who had died under most unusual circumstances. Cleaver, who was master of the vessel SS Perak, had plunged thirty feet into the hold of his own ship, while the ship was unloading rubber at the Singapore Harbour. He died at the General Hospital. Cleaver had apparently been leaning forward over the hold when his chief officer, R.G. Ogden had come out of the bathroom, opened the door behind Cleaver, hit him, and tipped him over. David, obviously relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, argued: “There has been gross negligence somewhere and a fine man has gone to his death.”10 While maritime cases were very lucrative and profitable, it was the criminal cases — especially murder — that got the newspapers’ attention. David’s first criminal case on record was heard before the Singapore Assizes on 26 November, 1946.11 In this case, seven Indian 6

The Straits Times, 25 Feb 1947.

7

The Straits Times, 18 Mar 1947.

8

The Morning Tribune, 22 May 1947; and The Morning Tribune, 31 May 1947.

9

The Straits Times, 22 Mar 1947.

10 The Straits Times, 15 Oct 1947. 11 The Assizes was the name for the Supreme Court when it sat to dispose of criminal business. Under section 25(1) of the Courts Ordinance 1907 (Ordinance No. XXX of 1907) provided that “Sessions for the despatch of the Criminal business of the Supreme Court to be called Assizes shall be

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

165

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

166

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

men were charged with murder. Four of them — Arumugam, Periyanan, Vidamuthu, and Suramuthu — were represented by David and acquitted. The other three were convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder by Justice Geoffrey Jobling and sentenced to between eight and ten years’ imprisonment.12 Prosecuting for the Crown was a young Murray Buttrose, who would later become Singapore’s last expatriate judge.13 Before long, clients were lining up to see David. His professionalism, sound command of his case and the law, magnetic court presence, and whole-hearted devotion to his clients made him popular. Most importantly, David had an enviable reputation for winning most of his cases. SINGAPORE ’ S GREATEST CRIMINAL LAWYER

David had no natural predilection towards criminal law. After all, his favourite subject, or at least the one that fascinated him most, was the law of tort — that branch of law dealing with civil wrongs such as trespass, negligence, and nuisance. But he had within him the seeds of a great criminal advocate. David was passionate about liberty and freedom. He abhorred the death penalty and believed strongly in equality, fairness and, above all, human dignity. He was also a firstclass courtroom lawyer, with a keen eye for contradiction and for held in each of the Settlements of Singapore and Penang not less than six times in each year, and in Malacca not less than three times”. This provision was amended in the post-war period to apply only to Singapore under section 49 of the Courts Ordinance, Cap 3, Statutes of the Colony of Singapore, 1955 revised edition. The Assizes were abolished with the passing of the Court of Judicature Act 1964 when Singapore was part of Malaysia. 12 Justice Geoffrey Lionel Jobling had been Attorney General of Sierra Leone since 1939 and was transferred to Malaya as puisne judge in 1946. See “New Puisne Judge, Singapore”, Malayan Law Journal 7 (1946): lxxi. Jobling resigned his post as judge in September 1948. See Malayan Law Journal 9 (1948): xix. 13 The Straits Times, 27 Nov 1946.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

166

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

167

THE LEGAL LEGEND

weaknesses in argument. He was a commanding presence, a Cicero of the modern world.14 David also had a silver tongue and he instinctively understood how courtroom psychology worked. More importantly, he was prepared to leave no stone unturned in the defence of his clients. His capacity for research and hard work was awe-inspiring. Blessed with an excellent visual memory and extraordinary native intelligence, David Marshall had all the tools he needed to become the best criminal lawyer Singapore had ever seen. All he needed now were the right cases to come along. In the remaining years of the 1940s, David handled quite a number of headline-grabbing criminal cases. They ranged right across the spectrum: cheating,15 fraud,16 illegal possession of firearms,17 violation

14 Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE – 43 BCE) was a Roman statesman, lawyer, and philosopher. He was considered one of Rome’s greatest lawyers, orators, and politicians. It is interesting that Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong referred to Marshall as the Cicero of Singapore. See Chan Sek Keong, “David Marshall and the Law: Some Reflections on His Contribution to Criminal and Civil Justice in Singapore”, speech delivered at David Marshall — His Life and Legacy, a Symposium in Commemoration of the 100th Birth Anniversary of Mr David Marshall), 12 Mar 2008, Shangrila Hotel, Singapore. 15 “Defence Disputes Cheating Charge”, The Straits Times, 20 Jan 1948; “Cheating Charge ‘Improper’ ”, The Malaya Tribune, 20 Jan 1948; and “Charge Against European is Withdrawn”, The Morning Tribune, 3 Feb 1948. 16 Malaya Tribune, 23 May 1947. This case involved Leo Dye, a former manager of the Atomic Club whom Marshall successfully defended against a charge of defrauding the club by storing 120 dutiable bottles of Vat 69 whiskey on the club premises. The case went before the Third Police Magistrate, Kenneth M. Byrne, later Singapore’s first Law Minister. 17 “Steps out of court a free man, rearrested”, The Morning Tribune, 17 May 1947. In this assigned case, one Goh Kian Seng was acquitted and discharged after being charged with carrying arms on 16 May, 1947. He was re-arrested under a Johor warrant of arrest. Marshall submitted that there was no proper identification of the accused and the prosecution’s evidence was flimsy and the jury acquitted Goh on a 5–2 majority.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

167

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

168

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

of liquor licensing rules,18 wrongful charge,19 armed robbery,20 accidental death,21 assault,22 criminal breach of trust, and, of course, murder. Of his early murder cases, four are worth recounting in some detail.23 It was in murder trials that David scored his most spectacular successes, made all the more stunning by his ability to turn a case completely around and save his client from the hangman’s noose. Murder cases were special to David because of his deep revulsion against the death penalty. He believed that no matter how heinous a crime the accused had committed, the state had no right to take another life “in cold blood”. Recounting his first-ever murder case, David explained: It’s not intellectual. There is deep in my belly an emotional reaction to the death sentence. It is beyond logic. The death sentence gets me, tortures me. My stomach is all churned up and twisted. It doesn’t matter whether he’s done it or not. I mean, that to me is

18 “To Cut Liquor Licences”, The Sunday Times, 6 Jul 1947. 19 “Confusion Over a Name”, The Malaya Tribune, 10 Sep 1947. 20 “RAF Man Denies Arms Allegation”, The Straits Times, 13 Apr 1948; “Had Trouble with a Taxi Driver”, The Straits Times, 14 Apr 1948; and “Airman on Trial for Attempted Armed Robbery”, The Morning Tribune, 14 Apr 1948. In this case, one William Reid of the Royal Air Force was charged with attempting to rob a taxi driver. After a three-day hearing, Reid was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for attempted robbery. Marshall’s plea for clemency was taken into consideration. See “Airman Gets Three Years for Attempted Armed Robbery”, The Morning Tribune, 15 Apr 1948; and “Three Years for Airman Who Had Pistol”, The Straits Times, 15 Apr 1948. 21 “Lawyer Alleges Army Excuse in Road Mishaps”, The Straits Times, 23 Apr 1948; and “Lawyer Flays Army ‘Excuses’ ”, The Morning Tribune, 23 Apr 1948. 22 “Woman Cleared of Beating Doctor with Broom”, The Straits Times, 18 Aug 1949. 23 “Handled $800,000, No Safe in Office”, The Straits Times, 16 Sep 1949; and “28 Years’ Service Ends in Gaol”, The Straits Times, 14 Oct 1949.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

168

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

169

THE LEGAL LEGEND

such an irrelevance in view of the fact of taking his life in cold blood. It’s … in fact, I think that is what led me into criminal practice.24

The first case concerned a Lieutenant Geoffrey R. Breed of the Royal East Kent Regiment (“the Buffs”) who had been charged in Java for allegedly shooting to death a number of Indonesians under his command while stationed in Surabaya to restore law and order after the Indonesian uprising. Breed was arrested in Java on 13 August, 1946, charged with murder on 9 October, 1946, and later brought to Singapore, where he was locked up in Gillman Barracks.25 However, he was never tried. It took David, whom he appointed as his legal adviser, close to a year to obtain his release. Breed was finally released on 30 April, 1947. He was told by the Army’s legal authorities that the charges had been dropped and that he would not be tried by court martial. Breed celebrated his release by holding a dinner party at the Airport Hotel with David, who had raised the case to the highest levels. Indeed, John Freeman, War Office Financial Secretary, was reported as saying that “energetic measures” were being taken to eliminate delays in bringing men to trial.26 The second criminal case that made the headlines also involved delay in bringing the accused to justice. In this case, David represented one Tiow Toh, who was charged with murder in Malacca. David became so livid at the constant adjournments and delays that he lambasted the Malaccan police: The police have asked and have had all the time they wanted and this case has come up this morning. The accused’s brief counsel came up from Singapore and stayed over the weekend for this case. The accused is in prison on a charge of murder for a considerable length of time and the prosecution has not shown any reason why 24 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 24 (Singapore: National Archives). 25 The Free Press, 1 May 1947. 26 The Straits Times, 15 May 1947.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

169

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

170

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

they should obtain any indulgence from the court. Inefficiency is not a reasonable ground for an adjournment. I therefore ask that the accused should be discharged and that the prosecution should not be accorded the indulgence they have asked. The fact that a prosecution witness has briefed a counsel shows what the police are doing. In my ten years before the bar, this is the first time a witness briefs a counsel. The prosecution can get their case ready by next X’mas and we will come back then.27

The case involving Chong Peng Heng was the first case on record in which David appeared before the Court of Criminal Appeal. Chong had been sentenced to death by the Singapore Assizes for the alleged possession and use of a firearm. Chong was allegedly a member of an armed gang that had robbed a Chinese jewellery store on Arab Street of $24,000 worth of jewels on 10 February, 1947. Chong was alleged to have fired a gun at a shop employee who had given chase. David successfully argued that the trial judge had misdirected the jury. Chong’s conviction was quashed.28 The final case of note occurred in June 1949. Tan Kim Fung was a shoemaker charged with the murder of his wife. David argued that it was actually Tan’s wife who had attacked him with a stool after a quarrel. He had instinctively pushed her away, not realizing that he had his cobbler’s knife in his hand, thus stabbing and killing her. The case went before Justice Laman Evan Cox Evans. Tan was convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.29

27 “Attack on Continued Postponements of Case”, The Malaya Tribune, 26 Jun 1947. 28 “Death Sentence on Chinese Quashed”, The Straits Times, 10 Dec 1947. 29 “Dying Woman’s Alleged Words”, The Straits Times, 28 Jun 1949; and “He Showed Jury How Wife was Stabbed”, The Straits Times, 29 June 1949; and “7 Years for ‘Man Who Poured Oil on Troubled Waters’ ”, The Straits Times, 30 Jun 1949.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

170

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

171

THE LEGAL LEGEND

THE MASTER ’ S METHODS

David had, from the earliest days, developed a very tough work regime and ethic. His research was thorough and he kept himself up to date with the latest developments in the law. Without fail, David would set aside time each week to read through the numerous law reports and journals to which he subscribed. He would then summarize the relevant cases in his indices — his “bibles” — which gave case authorities and citations for the various propositions of law, listed in alphabetical order: All England Reports, Criminal Appeal Reports with the United Kingdom, Malayan Law Journal of Singapore, Pakistan Criminal Law Reports, All-India Reports, Indian Criminal Law Journal, Australian Law Reports, New Zealand Law Reports, Modern Law Review … which came out monthly. There were others. There is the Criminal Law Review, I think, was another from England. These would be read every month thoroughly and annotated in my … what I call my legal bibles.… And so, quite apart from what I carried in my memory, I looked up the index, ‘Provocation’, for example, and there would be whole reams of cases. Each one with its little sub-title about, first the name of the case and the reference where I can find it. And then what particular point was dealt with in respect of Provocation.30

David had six sets of index books or legal “bibles” covering the various aspects of substantive law and legal procedure. David was absolutely convinced that to be a good lawyer one had to approach the law not as a business but as a calling. The lawyer had to be interested in his work and be honest with his or her client. It was not a matter of payment, for as David had demonstrated in his very first case for which he only got $75, the thoroughness or preparation was paramount. In later years, when David’s work load became much

30 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 22 (Singapore: National Archives).

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

171

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

172

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

heavier, he adopted a new approach. He would get a preliminary opinion from a London Queen’s Counsel for £50 to £100 and use this as a starting point for his own research. He might even send for a supplementary opinion later on. This sped up his research immensely and allowed him to be thoroughly prepared and on top of his cases.31 Then he had to master the facts of the case and prepare his questions for examination and cross-examination. David’s work regime in this regard became legendary. When he was not preparing for a big case, he would often wake up and go for his early morning swim by 6:00 a.m. This would be followed by breakfast. By 8:00 a.m., he would be in his office. If he did not have to attend court in the afternoon, David would wrap up all his office work around noon, leave for lunch, and then go home, armed with his basket of books. He would then take a short nap in the afternoon to recharge and hit the books until about 6:00 p.m. when he would have a light meal. David would then typically work or read till about 1:00 a.m. before turning in. On days when he was preparing for a big case, the routine would be varied. He would be in bed by 8:00 p.m. and he would get the telephone company to wake him up at 2:00 a.m.32 He would get dressed to go to court and prepare his case. Breakfast would be at 6:00 a.m. when he would be briefed by his legal assistant, and by 8:00 a.m., he would be in court, awaiting the trial which usually began at 10:00 am or 10:30 a.m. David always believed it was crucial for counsel to arrive in court early instead of huffing and puffing to get there on time. The court was the battleground — David needed to

31 Ibid. 32 Mohammed Esa bin Abdullah, who used to work as a night telephone operator, remembered that “important people” like David Marshall would often ask for a wake-up call because they did not trust their mechanical alarm clocks to go off on time. See Mohammed Esa bin Abdullah, Oral History Interview, 16 Sep 1995, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives).

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

172

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

173

THE LEGAL LEGEND

feel its ambience, soak in its atmosphere, and prepare for battle.33 By the time the trial began, David would have been at work on the case for a full eight hours, while his poor opponent would probably just have picked up the files from the office before dashing to court. By the time the trial began, David was master of his whole case. He knew it backwards and forwards. He had prepared all his questions and anticipated all the witnesses’ answers. He even anticipated the questions that the opposing counsel would pose. He was ready to meet them on any point they could raise. He knew the strengths and weaknesses of his own as well as of his opponent’s case. He had all the legal authorities to back him up. For every authority his opponent might cite, he had five in hand. After he retired, David recalled: I used to say, ‘I’ll give a dollar to anybody who knows more about my case, the facts of my case, than I know, for every fact he can show me, which I may have omitted or forgotten.’ … when I am in court, I really am on top of every single aspect, no matter how minute, I have assessed its value and the overall argument, I have decided which I will disclose and which I will ignore, how I will need cross examination which may reveal those weaknesses which I am trying to ignore. I’ve got all that ready. As regards questioning, you must be very careful to recognise that it is not your duty to extract the truth from your client. That’s a terrible thing that lawyers do again and again.… It’s your duty to tell your client, ‘I am your agent. I am your loyal agent to put into form and procedure what you want me to put to the court. What you don’t want the court to know, you don’t have to tell me.’34

To get the facts right, David insisted on actual, on-the-ground research. Not only must the defence counsel have total mastery of the law, he had to have total mastery of the facts. This could only be

33 Interview with Marshall’s former pupil, Charles Tan Wee Beng, 28 Feb 2008. 34 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 22 (Singapore: National Archives).

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

173

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

174

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

attained through personal investigative work. Counsel could not rely on the reports or statements taken by the police. He had to be his own detective: It’s your duty to explore every avenue which can support the strong points of your client’s case. To be your own detective, to send out your clerks, to search for witnesses. And above all, it’s your duty, no matter how boring and how routine the case is, to go and visit the scene.35

With such preparation, formidable presence, and years of trial experience, it was no wonder that he caused young deputy public prosecutors to shudder when they appeared opposite him. He always looked as though he was ready to devour them for breakfast. At trial, David revealed himself a true master. He had great courtroom presence, with his height and thick, bushy eyebrows. Although David did not have a big, booming voice — in fact it was rather high-pitched and became more so as he got excited — it had a stentorian presence. He modulated his voice like a virtuoso pianist, sometimes with the caressing pianissimo of a bare whisper and sometimes with a thundering shout like the crashing chords of the loudest fortissimo. Those who saw him in action felt they were in the presence of a great Shakespearean actor at the apogee of his powers. David’s ability to persuade the jury to see his client’s point of view was legendary. The magic he weaved was born neither of chicanery nor of sophistry, but of an acute sense of court psychology. He could, as his first pupil Geoffrey Abisheganaden noted, “talk to them in their own language”.36 David explained: When I have a jury, I watch every face all the time, all the time, to get reactions as to how I’m going down, and how the prosecution is going down and how the witnesses impact. And you’ve got to watch the witness like a hawk. You must be very careful, especially 35 Ibid. 36 Interview with Geoffrey Abisheganaden, 2 Oct 2006.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

174

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

175

THE LEGAL LEGEND

if you are cross-examining young girls. That’s a very sensitive subject with juries. … You pay attention to what he [the prosecutor] says in order to use it against him. You are on the lookout for the way you can throw back, throw in his teeth, any slip-ups that he may make. Of course, you’re on the quiver. You don’t know what the climate is like; you don’t know what the weather is like; you don’t know what the time is; you don’t know anything else, but the drama that is unfolding there and the impact that you are making. … … you must know your weaknesses and the strength of your opponent. Otherwise you’ll fall flat on your face. If you think yourself above your own strength, you are inviting disaster. You must be very conscious of your weaknesses.37

David understood people and how they thought and reacted. He knew how to use the right words and the right tone. He delivered his arguments with the most exquisite pauses to drive his point home. When Charles Tan, David’s former pupil, sought his advice on appearing before a jury in Australia, David told him to look them in the eye and talk to them. Since it was an all-white jury, David suggested, “throw in one or two words they cannot understand”. At one point, Tan threw in the word “diabolical” and stumped the jury. His client was acquitted. When Joseph Grimberg was assigned to defend someone in a murder trial before a jury, he went to David for advice. Among other things, David told him: Joe, pick a couple of members who look sympathetic and address your submission to them. They can turn your case, especially the women; especially if the criminal is good looking.38

To see David in court was to witness a master in action, but to appear with him as junior counsel was rather more difficult. Joseph

37 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 22 (Singapore: National Archives). 38 Interview with Joseph Grimberg, 5 May 2008.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

175

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

176

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Grimberg remembered how he had the most difficult time as David’s junior. David was, as Grimberg remembered, “a most mercurial leader” — it was particularly difficult being his junior when things went against him. He wanted research done instantly. When one line of questioning was unsuccessful, he would change tack completely, leaving his junior befuddled. He was extremely demanding — of himself and of his assistants and juniors — and was very theatrical in court. There was always a high sense of drama about David.39 Indeed, as his former assistant Annie Chin recalled, he was dramatic even in the office. Whenever he wanted make an important point, he would stand on his tiger rug and speak loudly like a Shakespearean actor.40 Another lawyer who appeared as David’s junior was Harry Elias, who recounted his experience: To have been fortunate to witness David in the cases of Nonis or of the Watts-Carter case would have been equivalent to watching the leading trials of the world. To have seen David in action in any case was to be treated to an exercise of utmost exhilaration. To take part in a case with David was an adventure. I was fortunate to have been David’s junior in or around 1973/74. I still feel the heavy booted kick on my shin. I received this from him when I interjected/ interrupted him during his submissions. When, after the hearing was over, I meekly protested about the painful kick. David’s clear and precise reply was, ‘Next time I will kick a lot higher.’41

David’s mastery of the jury and his very high success rates in getting acquittals made him a natural choice for those accused of criminal acts, especially murder. Indeed, it was three major murder trials in 1950 and 1951 that sealed his reputation as Singapore’s greatest criminal lawyer.

39 Interview with Joseph Grimberg, 5 May 2008. 40 Interview with Annie Wee, 27 Apr 2008. 41 Speech of Harry Elias to the Jewish community on 10 Apr 2008, on file with author.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

176

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

177

THE LEGAL LEGEND

THANAMANI ’ S CASE 42

On 17 April, 1950, Thanamani, a ten-year-old Indian girl, was put on trial for murder. She was the youngest person ever to be charged for murder in Singapore. Earlier, on 25 March, 1950, David had received a call from the Registrar of the Supreme Court telling him that the Chief Justice had assigned to him a case in forma pauperis, meaning that the defendant was a pauper and that his fees would be met by the state at a rate of $100 a day. Thanamani had been accused of murdering Navamani, a twenty-day-old baby, by throwing her into a well and drowning her. Thanamani was a difficult client for David, who was much more used to talking to adults. Thanamani, who was in the care of the Salvation Army was taciturn. She had answered enough questions and was reluctant to say more to David. But David was not deterred; he was determined to get through to her. He employed a special translator — J.C. Corera, who later became David’s chief clerk — to speak to her in Tamil, the only language Thanamani understood. He brought her cakes and icecream but she would not touch them. He sent a psychiatrist to examine her — the report came back that though she was ten years old, she had a mental age of seven and a half. David could not take advantage of the provision that children under the age of seven are not guilty of crimes because they do not have the capacity for mental malice.43 So how was he to get her to talk? The psychiatrist advised him to bring some “sewing things”. David recalled:

42 This account of Thanamani’s case has been reconstructed from Alex Josey, The David Marshall Trials (Singapore: Marshall-Cavendish International, 2004), pp. 1–6, as well as from David Marshall’s own recollection of the case as recounted in his speech at the Substation on 17 January, 1994. Transcript of the latter, on file with the author. 43 Section 82 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) provides that “Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above 7 years of age and under 12, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequence of his conduct on that occasion.”

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

177

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

178

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

I went to Robinson’s and I bought the largest box of sewing things. Several thimbles in gold, and silver and metal, several threads of many hundred colours, and a lot of squares of cloth, various colours. I opened it. I just placed it on her lap. I tried talking, ‘Have you got a dog?’ ‘Where do you live?’ Suddenly, my clerk nudged me. She had picked an ordinary needle, white cotton thread and white cotton square and she was sewing.

Through his patient questioning, David discovered that Thanamani had a father in Perak. David sent for the man. When he arrived, David interrogated him and discovered that he was not in fact Thanamani’s father but that he had found her all alone in their village after the Japanese raided it. He had taken her in and looked after her for a year before bartering her to another man for some food. That man in turn had sold her to a young couple in Singapore. Thanamani worked for the young couple, cooking, washing, and helping to look after their baby. They did not treat her well. The wife would beat Thanamani with a frying pan if she misbehaved or failed to listen to instructions. On the morning of the baby’s death, David discovered, Thanamani had stolen an egg which she hid under a pile of rice in a frying pan. She had never tasted an egg in her life while the family she worked for ate eggs every day. Eggs were expensive: they cost seventeen cents each. Thanamani longed to taste an egg, but that morning, she was found out. Again, she was beaten on the head with a frying pan. So what happened to the baby? Thanamani told David that she had hidden the baby in the well, hoping that if the family could not find the baby and she revealed where she was hidden, perhaps they might give her an egg. In court, David asked Thanamani, “Didn’t you know that if you put the baby in the well she would die?” Thanamani replied: No, why should I? I knew the water wouldn’t hurt her. Water doesn’t hurt people. I throw water over myself every morning. It’s nice. It doesn’t hurt you. I didn’t want to hurt Navamani. I just wanted to hide her so that I could have an egg.44 44 Josey, The David Marshall Trials, p. 5.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

178

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

179

THE LEGAL LEGEND

At the close of the prosecution’s case, David asked the judge, Justice Thorogood, to retire the jury while he made a submission to the court. David submitted that he had no case to answer since the prosecution had provided no evidence to prove that Thanamani threw the baby down the well in anger; nor were there any witnesses who had seen her take the baby from the cot that morning. Indeed, there was no evidence to connect Thanamani to the death of the baby. Justice Thorogood agreed, recalled the jury, and instructed them to find Thanamani not guilty. The case was sensational for the fact that such a young person would be charged for murder. It made headline news but did not grip the public’s attention in the way the Nonis case did. THE NONIS CASE 45

If any single case made David Marshall the most famous lawyer in Singapore, it was the Nonis case. The facts were quite simple. Joseph Michael Nonis, a 25-year-old Eurasian man, was accused of raping and murdering his 10-year-old neighbour, Winnie Spencer. When he was questioned by the police, Nonis confessed to the crime and led them to a spot on the seashore where Spencer’s body was found. He told them where he had hidden her knickers and her satchel of school-books. Furthermore, four of Spencer’s classmates told the police that they had last seen her alive in Nonis’ company after he called for her at school. The case against Nonis seemed water-tight. The odds were heavily stacked against him. The shocking and lurid details of the murder made for great copy. The local media played the case up to the hilt. Winnie Spencer’s body had been found on the early morning of 30 June, 1950, on a beach inside Keppel Harbour. She was semi-naked and had been raped — her death had been caused by strangulation with the cord of

45 This account of the case has been summarized from Josey, The David Marshall Trials, pp. 16–89.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

179

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

180

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

her knickers. David was “quite thrilled” to be assigned this case by the registrar on 16 September, 1950,46 some two and a half months after Nonis had been arrested. It was another case in forma pauperis. What could he do to save Nonis from the noose? With his characteristic thoroughness, David meticulously went through all the reports, statements, and pieces of evidence that the prosecution planned to adduce. He visited the crime scene and the homes of Nonis and Spencer. His defence of Nonis would rest on four main grounds. First, as Nonis had retracted his confession, David planned to render it inadmissible. Second, even if the confession remained admissible, David would cast doubt on the veracity and accuracy of the confession by arguing that it had been made under duress. Third, David obtained a psychiatric opinion to the effect that Nonis was particularly susceptible to the influence of strong personalities — he would argue that Chief Inspector Rayney had influenced him to make the confession. Finally, David would present the court with an ironclad alibi showing that Nonis was at home on the fateful night of Spencer’s murder. David’s first salvo — to render the confession inadmissible — failed when the court rejected his objection. Undeterred, he launched a virulent attack on Chief Inspector Rayney’s character. David brought witness after witness from the Katong area who told the court that Rayney was an unpopular officer, much feared for his ability to extract confessions from suspects. David then rounded it off by arguing that Rayney had in fact placed Nonis under undue pressure to confess to something he did not do. Nonis next came on the stand and denied everything he wrote in the confession. Next, David called a psychiatrist, Dr Brown, who testified that if Nonis’ confession were true, it had been written by a psychopath and he was convinced Nonis was not a psychopath. The confession did not accord with Nonis’ character profile. Dr Brown further added 46 David Marshall’s diary, 16 Sep 1950.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

180

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

181

THE LEGAL LEGEND

that Nonis’ character was such that another person could have a strong influence over him and this influence could last for up to oneand-a-half hours. David saved the best for last. After punching holes in the prosecution’s case, he proceeded to produce an unbreakable alibi. One after another, Nonis’ mother, siblings, and friends came on the stand and swore that they had seen him at his home on the night in question. The prosecution tried to discredit these witnesses by questioning the fact that they had waited until the trial to declare themselves alibis — had the police known of Nonis’ alibis, they would never have charged Nonis with Spencer’s murder. Emotions ran high throughout Singapore as the public read with intense curiosity the case as it unravelled in the court. The case against Nonis, David summed up, was entirely circumstantial — the jury agreed. After retiring for forty minutes, they returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty and Nonis was freed. Walking out of the courtroom, he went to a nearby church to pray and give thanks. David was now Singapore’s greatest criminal lawyer. Throughout the trial, David had worried that he was not doing a thorough enough job. At points, he was disappointed with his own cross-examination.47 Unknown to the many who followed the trial, David was actually quite ill with a heavy bout of influenza at the beginning of the second week of the trial, but he could not ask for an adjournment, especially not with his client’s life at stake. He recalled: None of you will be aware that at the beginning of the second week of the trial, I had a very heavy bout of flu with a fever that went up to 104.5°F. I was sweating, coughing, muffled up with a scarf beneath my shirt. Dr Goldberg-Curth, who later became Lady MurrayAynsley told me: ‘David, I am giving you half-million units of penicillin daily. You must get an adjournment. If you do not rest, there is a real risk of brain haemorrhage that could be fatal.’

47 David Marshall’s diary, 23 Oct 1950.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

181

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

182

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

How can you ask for an adjournment when your client’s life is at stake; when your hands are tightening round the throat of the prosecution, and the tension is thundering to a climax that may blow open the gates of prison? Maybe I was not wise. But where does wisdom come in? When you take a brief, your client’s interests takes priority over yours.48 THE WAT TS - CARTER CASE 49

If the Nonis case sealed David’s reputation in Singapore, the WattsCarter case made his reputation in Malaya. Even though the Supreme Court of Singapore was administered separately from the Supreme Court of the Malayan Union — renamed in 1948 as the Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya, in accordance with political and constitutional changes – lawyers were free to practise on either side of the Causeway.50 Since 1948, the British Government had literally been at war with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), which vowed to end colonialism and take the reins of government by violent force. This war was euphemistically called The Emergency51 and lasted until

48 David Marshall, “Some Thoughts on Legal Ethics”, Singapore Law Review 6 (1985): 79–80. 49 This account of the case has been summarised from Josey, The David Marshall Trials, pp. 90–132. 50 The Causeway is the land bridge linking Singapore island to the Malay peninsula. It was completed in 1923 after four years of construction. 51 The literature on the Malayan Emergency is voluminous. Among the best works are: Richard Clutterbuck, Long, Long War: The Emergency in Malaya, 1948–1960 (London: Cassell, 1967); Anthony Short, The Communist Insurrection in Malaya, 1948–1960 (London: Muller, 1975); Richard Clutterbuck, Conflict and Violence in Singapore and Malaysia, 1945–1983 (Singapore: Graham Brash, 1984); Richard Stubbs, Hearts and Minds in Guerrilla Warfare: The Malayan Emergency, 1948–1960 (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1989); and Brian Stewart, Smashing Terrorism in the Malayan Emergency: The Vital Contribution of the Police (Subang Jaya, Selangor: Pelanduk, 2004).

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

182

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

183

THE LEGAL LEGEND

1960, when, in Malaya’s post-independence period, the Internal Security Act was enacted. Among the targets of the communist guerillas were the European planters who managed the many rubber and oil palm estates dotted throughout the Malay peninsula. Jeffrey Watts-Carter was an Australian-born Malayan planter, the manager of the Bedrock Estate in Perak. On paper, he was a typical target for the communist guerillas, which is why his arrest on 26 April, 1951, on charges of consorting with the communists created such a sensation. At the time of his arrest, Watts-Carter was forty-one years old and engaged to be married to a nursing sister, Mary Johnstone. David created news when he walked into the Perak Supreme Court on 12 July, 1951, and requested that the judge, Mr Justice Hill, move the trial venue out of Perak. He told the court that the severity of the charges, coupled with the fact that communist terrorist activity in the state had led to much suffering among the people, made it difficult for Watts-Carter to get a fair trial because of “local prejudice and hostility”.52 Justice Hill was quite certain that the trial would not be prejudiced, but he could not shut his eyes to such a possibility, and so ordered the trial to be moved to the Kuala Lumpur High Court. Four days later, the trial opened at the Kuala Lumpur High Court with Justice Wilson presiding. He was joined by two European assessors, P.C. Barr and W.J. Ward. There was no jury. Watts-Carter faced three charges of consorting with armed persons — one Nadesan and Chai Mee Yong, who were both armed with pistols and Kuppan who was armed with a hand grenade — between 1 October, 1950, and 28 February, 1951. If convicted, Watts-Carter faced the death penalty or life imprisonment, under the draconian Emergency Regulations. Prosecuting for the Crown was N.G. Neal, the deputy

52 Josey, The David Marshall Trials, p. 91.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

183

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

184

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

public prosecutor from Perak. In this trial, David was assisted by J. Desmond Donnelly.53 The trial lasted eleven days with forty-six witnesses (mostly for the prosecution) called to the stand. David’s strategy from the outset was to attack the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses and paint a picture of police conspiracy before the court. As usual, David was devastating in cross-examination, catching witnesses out one by one. More importantly, he capitalized on the fact that many of the prosecution witnesses were in fact liable for the same offences as Watts-Carter but had not been similarly charged. Instead, they had been held in protective custody by the police for months, suggesting that they were saving their own necks by pinning the offences on Watts-Carter. The turning point of the Watts-Carter case occurred midway through the trial in the most dramatic fashion. One of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and told the court he had been beaten up by the police sergeant and forced to make false allegations against Watts-Carter. David addressed the court for two hours. After both sides summed up, it took the assessors only thirty-five minutes to reach a decision. They returned a verdict of not guilty. Justice Wilson acquitted and discharged Watts-Carter on all three charges. An emotional scene erupted in the court room. Watts-Carter wept with relief while his fiancée, Mary Johnstone, collapsed, recovered, rushed over to kiss him, and then collapsed again. David then asked the court to drop the remaining seven outstanding charges against Watts-Carter. Justice Wilson reminded David that it was not the court’s but the public prosecutor’s prerogative to make that decision.

53 By this time, David was with the firm of Battenberg & Talma and Desmond Donnelly was hired as an assistant in 1951. Donnelly later left Singapore for Hong Kong, where he became an eminent Queen’s Counsel and a doyen of Hong Kong’s arbitration community. He died in Hong Kong just two weeks short of his 90th birthday on 2 Apr 2006. See Asian Dispute Review, July 2006, p. 74.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

184

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

185

THE LEGAL LEGEND

Watts-Carter was released on $20,000 bail and the seven remaining charges were subsequently withdrawn. David was jubilant. On that last night of the trial, David had felt extremely tense. He felt he had not been on his best form and that he had not been sufficiently prepared.54 Every time a client faced the hangman’s noose, David would get all knotted up and he would ask himself if he had done all he could; whether he could have done better; whether he should have asked this question or that; and whether the appeal to the jury and the assessors had been sufficient. Whatever David might have felt, his efforts were certainly enough to save Watts-Carter. LIFE IN AND OUT OF THE LAW 1946–1954

Settling Back in Singapore When David returned to Singapore in February 1946, all his worldly possessions were gone. He does not appear to have made much contact with his mother, Flora, after his return. When asked by interviewer Lily Tan about what had happened to her after the war, David could not recall much except to say that he had not seen her much and that she had first left for Australia and then for Jerusalem in 1948 where she died in 1952.55 She was apparently very happy in Israel, spending her time on charitable works. In a note of April 1950, Dr J. Vainstein of the Israeli Immigration Department told David that he had met his mother on the way to Jerusalem and that she had been “happy and well”. He added that the “grand old lady” was a “veritable Woman of valour” who looked “fit and contented” and “charity seems ever to have been her guiding principle in life”.56

54 David Marshall, diary, 27 Jul 1951. 55 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 1 (Singapore: National Archives). 56 J. Vainstein to David Marshall, 30 Apr 1950, DM/520/11.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

185

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

186

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David’s own rented home had been bombed to ruins and he had lost everything, including his precious photo albums. He now needed somewhere to live. It is not clear how long he took to find a place, nor in what circumstances this happened. It may well have been through his friends in the Jewish community, but this is just speculation. We do know that before long, David had found a flat at 17 Meyer Mansions on North Bridge Road, opposite the St Andrew’s Cathedral and right where the Peninsula Shopping Centre stands today. As David was a bachelor and the least domesticated of beings even in the best of times, he often ate out and had a domestic helper to take care of his home. Marshall Brothers While in Australia, David’s brothers, initially George and Sonny and later Reg, established a small trading company called Marshall Brothers. They dealt mainly in clothing and textiles but also dabbled in leather goods, a business in which their father Saul was very much involved.57 When David returned to Singapore, they sought to move some of the business back there and wanted to establish a local office in Singapore.58 David helped recruit an old family friend, Arshak Galstaun, to act as manager for Marshall Brothers in Singapore. Galstaun was an Armenian who had arrived in Singapore in 1937 to work for the trading firm of Edgar Brothers Limited. Galstaun also knew Saul Marshall quite well. Before the war, he had become very friendly with David and was a fellow volunteer in B Company of the SSVF. Galstaun worked for the Marshall brothers for a year and a half, helping them handle imports and exports. Galstaun recalled: I was very friendly with David Marshall from pre-War, and his brothers came to Singapore, and they had started a company in

57 Interview with Jean Marshall, 25 Jun 2008. 58 Ibid.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

186

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

187

THE LEGAL LEGEND

Perth (they had been in Perth during the War). So they saw this was a good opportunity to start the company where I could participate and be a manager. So I was talked into joining them which I did for a year, a year and a half.59

Marshall Brothers capitalized on the shortage of consumer goods in Singapore. The shortage was so acute that if you brought a shipment of even poor-quality stuff into Singapore, it would be snapped up for want of any other alternative. Galstaun remembered that in the early days, they brought in some Piper’s High Hat Gin — the “lousiest stuff ” — and he managed to sell the first shipment without any problems. Later, the Marshall Brothers diversified: with David Marshall’s brothers (we called it Marshall Brothers) we used to bring in a lot of potatoes and onions, fruits from Australia, all from Perth. Then, glassware, we had a lot of glassware, crockery. Actually what I believe the two brothers used to do is to go to department stores and practically wipe everything off the shelves, have them packed and sent them here.60

The Marshalls’ involvement in trade and in the import of goods from Australia perhaps explains a rather peculiar speech David made when he went to Perth on holiday in April 1947. A report in the Perth newspaper, Daily News, stated that David had opined that the quality of goods being exported from Australia was not up to specification and that this caused ill feeling in Malaya and Singapore. David added: Chinese consumers have a lot of fads. Usually, they know only one brand of any type of goods and nothing but that brand will satisfy them. A lot of them will not look at Australian goods, but only British. If Australian exporters made an honest attempt to abide by specifications, and promise dates of shipments, they could count on a lot of worthwhile business in Malaya. There are unlimited

59 Arshak Galstaun, Oral History Interview, 14 Apr 1982, Reel 14 (Singapore: National Archives). 60 Ibid.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

187

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

188

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

opportunities in Singapore and Malaya for anyone with energy and ideas, but I would not make the trip unless they were practically certain of accommodation.61

David also told the Australian press that the people of Singapore were so hungry for consumer goods that looting had become quite prevalent on the wharves so much so that the Harbour Board had to recruit a special police force of 200 Europeans to patrol the area. What part David took in the import business of Marshall Brothers is hard to discern, but David had never really had a head for this kind of business and was probably quite happy just to lend whatever support he could to his more entrepreneurial brothers. Galstaun left Marshall Brothers in 1947 to join Arathoon and Sons and later became a very successful trader in his own right. Even so, he and David remained good friends. David was best man at Galstaun’s marriage to Joy Mathews.62 Law Practice: Partnership and Beyond While David’s brothers were busy playing entrepreneur, David was busy with his legal practice and his community work. By this time, he was a man about town, a well-known lawyer and respected younger leader of the Jewish community. What he desired most now was respect from his brethren within the legal profession. At his firm of Allen & Gledhill, it was still the Europeans who ruled the roost. Some time in 1948, senior partner D.K. Walters had made what his partners considered a most preposterous proposal: he wanted to make Wee Chong Jin the firm’s first Asian partner. Walters was soundly outvoted and left in a huff, taking Wee along with him to set up his own law firm, Walters & Co., at Rodney House in Battery Road. Sadly, Walters died two years later, in 1950 and Wee joined Wee

61 Daily News, Perth, 12 Apr 1947. 62 The Straits Times, 28 Jan 1947.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

188

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

189

THE LEGAL LEGEND

Swee Teow & Co. It is interesting to speculate why Walters had decided to push Wee, who was junior to David, to the forefront. David always kept a respectful distance from Walters and openly disapproved of the older man’s penchant for gambling. Wee, on the other hand, had been hand-picked by Walters to join the firm back in 1940. As Davison observed, Walters treated Wee like a son and, upon his death, bequeathed all his books to him.63 Wee’s shy personality and preference for back room work also better complemented Walters’ personality. In David’s words: He was a very good back-room boy; a superb back-room boy, the punching bag of D.K. Walters. And he was quite happy to be a back-room boy.64

Later that year, the firm offered David a partnership and he accepted. He was their star performer and, after the Walters-Wee debacle, they could not afford to lose an able hand like David. However, one of the great mysteries of David’s career emerges at this point. According to his political biographer Chan Heng Chee, David remained a partner in Allen & Gledhill until 1950, resigned his partnership, and decided to study medicine. Chan wrote: In January 1950, at the age of forty-two and the height of his career, … he made the amazing decision to fulfil his lifelong ambition of studying medicine.65

David himself always stated that he had resigned from Allen & Gledhill in order to pursue medicine. However, a study of David’s papers and correspondence seems to indicate otherwise. By October 1948, he had already left Allen & Gledhill. From the tone of a letter

63 Davison, Allen & Gledhill: Centenary, p. 31. 64 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 24 (Singapore: National Archives). 65 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 70.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

189

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

190

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

he wrote to Mrs Elizabeth Lee, his dance instructress with whom he was then romantically involved, it appears that the parting had been acrimonious: My departure from A&G has been a keen disappointment, darling. I have not deserved it and it sticks in my gullet. Should I waste the rest of my life in the arid sands of racial conflicts and tensions. I love the work and opportunities for work that I had. I cannot duplicate that here [in Australia]. It is with considerable trepidation that I face the future I have planned for myself. It is a quarter of century late.…66

Exactly what transpired at the firm is hard to know. If the European partners were anxious to get rid of him, they could simply not have offered him a partnership and David would probably have got the not-so-subtle message. What is possible is that, having been made partner, David began exercising his partnership rights. This would have riled the senior members of the firm into ganging up and getting rid of him. Whatever the reality, one thing was certain: the altercation had racist overtones and David could not take it any more. Some two months earlier, he had written Elizabeth: Elizabeth I am tired of the artificial life of Singapore; tired of perpetually unceasingly asserting my right to live though an Asiatic. I want a substantial life, a home, friends, a place in the community. I want to settle somewhere decent. I am not really on holiday free of all cares — I am seeking to make something of the rest of my life. And I have not met a single human being yet, to whom I have warmed.67

To be sure, David had had a good run at Allen & Gledhill. His billings were excellent and he had managed, despite his free-spending habits, to amass some $80,000, which he figured could easily see him through a course of medical studies. Finding himself jobless in October 1948,

66 David Marshall to Elizabeth Lee, 10 Oct 1948 (DM/227/44/1). 67 David Marshall to Elizabeth Lee, 11 Aug 1948 (DM/227/24/3), p. 3.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

190

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

191

THE LEGAL LEGEND

David left for Perth on his annual holiday to visit his brothers and his father. But at this point, David did not appear ready to abandon law for medicine. It appears that he may have been approached by Hugh Ramsay Wilson, sole partner of Battenberg & Talma, to join his firm towards the end of 1948 or very early in 1949. David had always told interviewers that it was only when he was convinced that he did not have the capacity to study psychiatry that he accepted Ramsay Wilson’s offer of an equal partnership and dashed back to Singapore to commence his new job in January 1950. However, the March 1949 minutes of the Jewish Welfare Board listed David’s address as “c/o Battenberg & Talma at 30/31 Chartered Bank Chambers”. Furthermore, there is among his papers a file marked “Correspondence” from the firm of Battenberg & Talma, opened in 1949 and closed in 1955. So while documentary evidence seems to suggest that David was already at Battenberg & Talma in 1949, the situation is made even more confusing by an entry in his diary for 26 Jan, 1950, that reads: “First day Battenberg & Talma”. An Attempt to Study Psychiatry The story of David’s failed quest to study psychiatry is well known and was oft-repeated by him. According to his own version of events, he resigned his partnership at Allen & Gledhill and left for the University of Sydney, but not before stopping by Perth to see his father and brothers. However, as we have seen above, there is a gap of more than a year between David’s departure from Allen & Gledhill and his arrival in Perth. In any case, David met a Dr White, a psychiatrist who was treating David’s brother Rothschild (Reg). David characterized his brother as being “totally unconventional and rambunctious” and “couldn’t care less about money”.68 On his encounter with White, David recalled: 68 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 24 (Singapore: National Archives).

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

191

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

192

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

After dinner, I confided to White, a germ that was worrying me and had been worrying me for a long time as to whether I had the intellectual equipment to cope with major intellectual research. And I told him of my ambition, not that I feared being able to pass medical examinations or to get through a psychiatric course, no. But my ambition was research into this very nebulous field of ‘why the goodwill of adolescence is transformed into the sour vinegar of middle and old age, and what are the measures one can take to counter this unhappy development? I recognised it was a very major field of research which included an extensive knowledge of mental processes. I didn’t know whether I had the intellectual equipment. And he said to me, ‘Come with me to the hospital’. He was then a psychiatrist in a mental hospital in Perth. ‘I’ll give you a couple of books and see me on Monday morning!’69

The two books were An Experiment with Time by John William Dunne and The Concept of Mind by Gilbert Ryle.70 It was one of the most torturous and miserable weekends David had ever lived through. Reading these books was a titanic struggle. By the early hours of Monday morning, David surrendered: I said to myself: Here is a respected philosopher. He obviously understands his subject and he thinks that what he’s saying is logical. Not only that, but his publishers think that what he says is worthwhile. Not only that, but vast numbers of other philosophers and serious readers, understand him and respect him. And here am I totally incapable of even beginning to understand. I obviously haven’t got the intellectual equipment to cope with rarified research. I must face the realities. So Monday morning, I returned the two books with my thanks and no comment.71

69 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 24 (Singapore: National Archives). 70 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 71. 71 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 24 (Singapore: National Archives).

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

192

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

193

THE LEGAL LEGEND

Battenberg & Talma It was at this time that David decided to send a cable to Ramsay Wilson: I went to the telegraph office and telegraphed Ramsay Wilson to say ‘Your very generous offer of an equal partnership I have seriously considered. I refuse to accept half, I’ll take 40%. And I insist on contributing to the capital.’ He was very generous; he was going to give me half a share in the partnership without any capital.72

So the mystery deepens. What happened between October 1948 and January 1950? Some facts are unassailable. David did leave Allen & Gledhill before 1949 since the 1950 edition of Singapore and Malayan Directory does not list him as a partner in the firm, while the 1949 edition does. He certainly went to Australia towards the end of 1949, changed his mind about reading psychiatry, then returned to Singapore in January 1950 to join Battenberg & Talma. The fact that he told the Jewish Welfare Board to send correspondence to him care of Battenberg & Talma in March 1949 suggests that, after leaving Allen & Gledhill, David “parked” himself at Ramsay Wilson’s office and took stock of his options. It may have been akin to the time he was a semi-solo practitioner while operating in the offices of Aitken & Ong Siang on first starting out in 1938. He probably made use of their facilities and secretarial staff without being formally a partner of the firm. Indeed, the 1950 edition of the Singapore and Malayan Directory lists Ramsay Wilson as the sole partner in the firm and it is only in the 1951 edition that David is listed as a second partner. David most probably kept his options open when he went to Australia. David left Perth on 17 January, 1950, on the Charon. He arrived home on 25 January and was greeted by Ramsay Wilson at the pier. The very next day, he reported for work filled with self-doubt. Nervously, he penned in his diary, “Will I fail?” The firm of Battenberg

72 Ibid.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

193

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

194

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

& Talma was relatively new, having been established only in 1924 by William Alexander Newton Battenberg and Edwy Lyonet Talma. Little is known about Battenberg, who had been called to the Singapore Bar in 1899. Of Talma, we know that he was born in Barbados and came to Malaya in November 1896 as a member of the Malayan Civil Service (MCS). It was after he retired from the MCS in 1924 at the age of fifty that he commenced private practice with Battenberg. The firm does not appear to have grown beyond the two main partners, with the possible exception of Hugh Ramsay Wilson. He was called to the Bar in 1924 and probably joined the firm shortly after that. Wilson was sole partner of the firm for a number of years before he persuaded David to join him in partnership.73 David’s return to legal practice was initially slow, but by the end of January, after barely a week’s work, he had registered the impressive takings of $1,009, which he kept.74 David’s absence from the Bar between late 1948 and 1950 did not appear to have diminished his reputation in any way. In February 1950, he noted in his diary that he had “many clients” and that work was piling up. By the end of March, David had made $5,580 for the firm and he had saved his eighth alleged murderer from the gallows. He allowed himself the satisfaction of recording in his diary, “My eighth alleged murderer saved from gallows and not one lost”.75 Any doubts David may have harboured about his ability to return to the law at the level at which he had left now evaporated. He was back in his element. By the end of 1950, David toted up his innings. He had made $66,701.86 for the firm — a staggering figure by any standard.76 From 1951 to 1954, David 73 In Singapore, the firm lasted until 2005 when its last proprietor, Robert Yap Tyou Min, retired on 30 September, 2005. A firm of the same name remains actively in practice in Sarawak, Malaysia. 74 David Marshall’s diary, 31 Jan 1950. 75 David Marshall’s diary, 23 Feb 1950. 76 David Marshall’s diary, 3 Nov 1950.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

194

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

195

THE LEGAL LEGEND

averaged a monthly income of $11,300 a month, making him one of the highest paid lawyers in town.77 Soon, he was turning down cases, even assigned murder cases,78 as they were taking a toll on his health. Already, David was an incessant worry-wart79 — the stress of a big case, especially if the death penalty was involved, would give him stomach upsets, colds, and other illnesses. His diary entries reveal him to have suffered all sorts of medical problems, from unaccountable fevers, stomach upsets, and lumbago to coughs and colds. By 1952, the work David brought to Battenberg & Talma had grown to such an extent that the firm needed to hire more assistants. The first one David recruited was Geoffrey Abisheganaden, followed by John Desmond Donnelly and then Frederick Benjamin De Souza. All three were called to the Singapore Bar in 1952. This was followed by the recruitment of Nigel Livingstone Macassey on 1 April, 1952, and then Harold Leonard Wrigglesworth in 1954. David was impressed by the work of Abisheganaden and Donnelly, but felt that Maccassey did not pull his weight and was “shedding difficult civil cases” on him.80 Wrigglesworth, who was called to the Bar in 1954 and joined

77 The accounting firm of Rennie, Lowick & Co certified that David’s income from the practice of law from 1951 to 1954 averaged $11,344.42 per month. See Rennie, Lowick & Co to DM, 25 Apr 1955, DM/11/7. 78 David Marshall to T. Rajan, Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court, Johore Bahru, 9 Nov 1953, DM/4/6. 79 Alex Josey, who saw Marshall regularly, commented that Marshall worried “himself into all sorts of illnesses, cold after cold and shingles and things like that”. See Alex Josey, 16 Mar 1983, Reel 3 (Singapore: National Archives). 80 David Marshall’s diary, 17 Aug 1953. Maccassey joined Battenberg & Talma on 1 Apr, 1952, and from the outset, seemed to have been unhappy with the partnership arrangements and the matter became personal with David. See David Marshall’s diary, 1 Apr, 1952, and 26 Apr, 1952.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

195

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

196

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

the firm on 26 April, 1954,81 did not impress David, either as he was always “wriggling out of mundane work”.82 Sometime in 1952, David toyed with the idea of becoming a puisne judge.83 After all, he had been in practice now for ten years and had an enviable reputation as an outstanding lawyer. It appears that his preliminary inquiries drew a blank. The Chief Justice, Sir Charles Murray Murray-Aynsley, considered the matter and demurred, feeling either that the time was not ripe or that David did not possess the desired judicial temperament. A disappointed David wrote in his diary, “CJ does not approve my being Judge.”84 Louis Rabinowitz — the South African rabbi who visited Singapore in 1951 and who wrote the book Far East Mission,85 in which David was featured — offered a possible reason for why David was denied the judgeship: I remember so vividly how the cognoscenti in Singapore shook their heads sadly at the fact that your constant championing of the underdogs, especially the Malayans86 [sic] would deprive you of the judgeship to which your brilliant talents entitled you to.87

In the years to come, David’s practice at Battenberg & Talma flourished. In August 1953,88 David signed a new partnership agreement with the 81 David Marshall’s diary, 26 Apr 1954. 82 David Marshall’s diary, 6 May 1954. 83 Marshall told a group of eighteen law students at the University of Delhi that “the British would have saved themselves a lot of trouble” had they made him a judge. See “Marshall’s Ex-Ambition”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 11 Jan 1956. 84 David Marshall’s diary, 10 Mar 1952. 85 Louis Rabinowitz, Far East Mission (Johannesburg: Eagle Press, 1952). 86 Rabinowitz probably meant “Malays”, whom Marshall had long called the “Cinderella Race”. 87 Louis Rabinowitz to David Marshall, 7 Jun 1955, DM/6/35. 88 David Marshall’s diary, 25 Aug 1953.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

196

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

197

THE LEGAL LEGEND

firm, but cracks began to show towards the end of the year. By January 1954, there was talk of dissolving the partnership89 and on 25 January, David had a big row with his senior partner, Ramsay Wilson. The two European partners in the firm were uncomfortable with David’s “undignified relations with the masses”, which they thought “reflected upon the credit of the Office”. Under the terms of the partnership agreement, Wilson was scheduled to retire on 30 June, 1954, but obviously decided to stay on. Nigel Macassey then “ganged up with Ramsay Wilson” and conspired to terminate David’s association with the firm, giving him six months’ notice from 15 September, 1954.90 In March 1955, as he became increasingly involved in politics and the Labour Front, David left the firm. By this time, David had filed his papers as a Labour Front candidate for Cairnhill constituency, but voting — scheduled for 2 April — had yet to take place. David himself made no note of this in his diary, but his candidacy is clearly alluded to in two letters written to him by his brothers Sonny91 and Reg.92 David the Society Gent Socially, David was a much sought-after party guest and companion. He was kind, generous, gregarious, enjoyed the company of others, and possessed a captivating and charming personality. He was a man about town, one of Singapore’s most eligible bachelors, and his public persona drew many women to him. His diary was chock-full of appointments — professional and social — and it is a marvel how he got any legal work done.

89 David Marshall’s diary, 20 Jan 1954. 90 David Marshall to M.H. MacDougal, 21 April 1955, DM/195/46. 91 Sonny Marshall to David Marshall, 21 Mar 1955, DM/10/139 92 Reginald Marshall to David Marshall, 10 Apr 1955, DM/10/216.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

197

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

198

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

He appears to have dated many women, though the only one with whom he was consistently seen was Elizabeth Lee, a tall, bespectacled, titanium blonde whom David first knew as his dance instructress. However, he was not in any hurry to settle down and get married. He had seen too many failed marriages — including those of his parents and brothers — and was in no rush to add his to the count.93 Indeed, when David did finally decided to get married in 1961, everyone was stunned, for they had all written him off as a “confirmed bachelor”. David enjoyed the company of intelligent and stimulating personalities. He became good friends with Alex Josey, the journalist who had originally come to Singapore with the British Air Force to launch psychological warfare against the communists. He was also friends with S. Rajaratnam, who was then a reporter with the Tiger Standard. Other well-known personalities in David’s social circle were the two film magnates, Loke Wan Tho and Run Run Shaw; the British High Commissioner for Southeast Asia, Sir Malcolm MacDonald; and the Eurasian doctor and writer, Han Suyin. They would often be invited to his convivial home, where good food and drink lubricated the fascinating and intellectually stimulating conversations and arguments that took place.94 Likewise, David was a regular guest at the best parties around town, being much sought after for his great party personality. On the family front, his brothers were doing well. Sonny did fabulously well as a salesman and made a fortune. Meyer, who became a doctor, returned and practised in Singapore. David’s sister

93 Indeed, when David visited his family in Perth in November 1952, he remarked, “Sonny, Meyer, Reg and Rosy all there and Dad. No Marshall is settled.” David Marshall’s diary, 29 Nov 1952. 94 For example, Marshall found a party he hosted for Malcolm MacDonald, Alex Josey, and Han Suyin at his flat “interesting”. David Marshall’s diary, 6 Nov 1953.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

198

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

199

THE LEGAL LEGEND

Rose also settled in Singapore where she worked for Qantas Airlines. His youngest brother Reg remained in Perth for a time before leaving for Sydney. David’s mother, Flora, who had left for Jerusalem shortly after the war, died there in March 1952.95 His father Saul died a year later, on 16 February, 1953, after falling out of a window.96 The coroner returned an open verdict on his death, but it was quite possible that Saul, having suffered many years of poor health, had taken a leap from the window. Tumasek Throughout this period, David kept up with his French. He ordered French books through the local City Bookstore97 and even made enquiries to the French consul-general on how to join French book clubs in France. He also started looking around for a new house for himself. Though he was quite comfortably ensconced in his Meyer Mansions flat, David was on the lookout for a larger house, preferably outside the town area. He saw several bungalows, including one at Caldecott Hill, but they did not meet his satisfaction. Preferably, it should be along the seafront — like Bluebell Cottage had been — so that he could take an early morning or evening swim whenever the fancy struck him. In January 1952, David rented a house at 778D Wing Loong Road in Changi and spent his weekends there. On his first Sunday there on

95 David Marshall’s diary, 20 Mar 1952. 96 David received a call from the cable company at 11:15 p.m. on 16 Feb, 1953, informing him that his father died after falling out of a window at 4:00 p.m. that day. David Marshall’s diary, 16 Feb 1953. 97 In November 1953, for example, he ordered three books, Andre Maurois, Destins exemplaines (Plon of Paris); Yvonne Chauffin, Les Rambourt Que votre volonte Soit faite (Amot-Dumon); and Serge Groussard, La ville de Joie (Gallimard), through the City Bookstore at Winchester House, Collyer Quay. See David Marshall to City Bookstore, 17 Nov 1953, DM/4/13.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

199

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

200

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

13 January, 1952, thirty guests showed up for a curry lunch and waffle tea.98 David lived in this house until 1955, when he moved back to his Meyer Road flat. The landlord apparently disapproved of David’s politics and a parting of ways was inevitable. David would, however, move back to Wing Loong Road in 1956. As a young boy, he used to take walks along Changi beach with his father and often remarked how wonderful it would be to live in a house that was set up on a small cliff overlooking the sea. This house, at 48A Tanah Merah Besar Road (later renumbered and named 276 Wing Loong Road), belonged to the well-known accountant Osborn Robert Sacheverel (O.R.S.) Bateman, of the firm Gattey & Bateman. David fell in love with the house and offered to buy it from Bateman, but the latter refused his offer as being too low.99 Some time in late 1956, Bateman, who was planning to retire in England, contacted David and told him that he would accept his offer of $86,000 for the house. David was as “thrilled as a schoolboy” and arranged to borrow $8,600 from his brother Meyer as deposit for the property.100 He then went to the Chartered Bank — that bastion of colonial capitalism — who surprisingly gave him an unsecured loan for the rest of the mortgage. The documents were signed on 21 December, 1956, and David officially christened his new home Tumasek. David took great pains to furnish his new home properly and engaged Mrs Marie Lim, of Duchesse Salon De Beauté at Raffles Hotel, as interior decorator. From now on, David could relax by the sea and easily get away from the hurly-burly of the daily office routine. Sundays were special, as he would often invite his friends over at high tide for a swim and a curry lunch. Over time, David’s Sunday lunches became legendary.

98 David Marshall’s diary, 13 Jan 1952. 99 Interview with Jean Marshall, 25 Jun 2008. 100 David Marshall’s diary, 28 Nov 1956.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

200

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

201

THE LEGAL LEGEND

Friends would come and mix in the most informal of atmospheres and enjoy David’s hospitality. Occasionally, David would even rent a movie or two for screening at his home. In David’s own words, these Sunday lunches “just evolved”: I was earning a fair amount. I had this lovely home in Changi. And so I used to invite them when there was high tide. And then after a time, it just evolved. ‘Look, you don’t have to phone me to say you want to come. You come any Sunday you want to. And if you’re no longer welcome, I bloody well will tell you.’ And on one occasion I think I had 78 people. And the beer ran out. Only the beer, not the food. And we had to rush the car down to some provision store to get warm beer on which we put ice in order to serve. I’m a gregarious animal. And there’re people who used to say, ‘Oh, your friends come to binge on you.’ So what? They give me pleasure. Their presence give me pleasure. Friends, acquaintances, what have you, I like this. A colourful Sunday morning where we swim and have curry lunch and chat. I mean, I like it and it just grew.101

Though not married and with no children of his own, David was always extremely kind to the children living around him. He would always offer children — especially the poorer children of servants and housekeepers — chocolates, cakes, and sweets. At the Meyer Mansions, he had got into an altercation with the property managers, the Hongkong & Shanghai Trustees Bank (Malaya) Limited. The reason for this was that they issued a circular to all residents, seeking their cooperation to discourage the children of servants from loitering around the corridors in the hope of receiving gifts or sweetmeats from residents.102 David, who had obviously given these children chocolates and sweets in the past, protested vehemently:

101 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 25 (Singapore: National Archives). 102 HSBC Trustees to Tenants of Meyer Mansion, circular, 31 Mar 1954, DM/4/144.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

201

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

202

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

The children of servants are as much human beings as you, and you have no right whatsoever to try to prevent your tenants from inviting them to their homes. I reject the suggestion that you are entitled to place my flat ‘out of bounds’ to anybody. I hereby formally request that you do by return withdraw the suggestion that you are entitled to forbid these children from entering my flat.103

David’s kindness towards children manifested itself once more when he began living out in Changi. In 1954, he watched and thoroughly enjoyed the production “Holiday on Ice” that had been brought in by Fraser & Neave. David then wrote to the firm asking it to arrange — at his expense — a special matinee for about one hundred children from Kampong Gemuroh in Wing Loong Road and another sixty children from the servants’ quarters in Meyer Mansions.104 A Brush with Politics As his career returned to an even keel and then surpassed every other height it had seen previously — especially after the Nonis case — David could give thought to engaging in civil society more generally. He was already president of the Jewish Welfare Board, honorary secretary of the War Prisoners (Singapore) Association, a member of the Rotary Club and the Singapore Ratepayers’ Association. In 1953, he even became president of the Old Rafflesians Association.105 In the late 1940s, the local political scene had been unexciting. Most people were much more concerned with getting their broken lives together again. It was only those who were either involved in the trade union movements or the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) that seemed politically attuned.

103 David Marshall to Secretary, HSBC Trustees, 5 Apr 1954, DM/4/145. 104 David Marshall to Fraser & Neave, 6 May 1954, DM/4/172. 105 David Marshall’s diary, 7 May 1953.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

202

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

203

THE LEGAL LEGEND

In December 1945, a new political party — the first ever in Malaya — was organized by a number of lawyers whom David knew quite well. The party was the Malayan Democratic Union (MDU) and was headed nominally by Philip Hoalim, a senior member of the Bar who was originally from British Guyana. Hoalim had practised, when he first arrived in Singapore, in the same law firm as David — Aitken & Ong Siang. The prime movers behind the MDU were Lim Kean Chye, Hoalim’s nephew and son of Lim Cheng Ean, a highly respected lawyer in Malaya, who was himself a lawyer; and Lim Hong Bee, a former Queen’s Scholar who had lost interest in his law studies and now devoted his life to promoting “socialism”. Accompanying them was Wu Tian Wang, a CPM representative. According to Hoalim, even if his nephew had not approached him to form a party, he had already had in mind to form one with three other lawyers, Srish Chandra (S.C.) Goho, Nazir A. Mallal, and E.R. Koek.106 Indeed, both Mallal and Koek joined the MDU but left after “a brief period”.107 David’s old Katong neighbour, Gerald de Cruz, approached him to join the fledgling organization. David demurred but his reasons were not altogether clear. In his 1984 oral history interview, as well as in Chan Heng Chee’s Sensation of Independence, David stated that it was Gerald de Cruz’s coarse, “strident phrases of brutality” that had jarred him and completely put him off joining the party. Gerald de Cruz, on the other hand, remembered that David was anxious to rebuild his life and his legal career and this led to his decision to reject de Cruz’s invitation.108 Chan is probably

106 Philip Hoalim, Senr, The Malayan Democratic Union: Singapore’s First Democratic Political Party (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1972), p, 5. 107 See Cheah Boon Kheng, The Masked Comrades: A Study of the Communist United Front in Malaya 1946–48 (Singapore: Times Books International, 1979), p. 76. 108 De Cruz, Rojak Rebel, p. 169.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

203

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

204

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

right in surmising that David’s own recollections are in fact an ex post facto rationalization of the situation as it stood in 1946. At that time, the party had yet to be thoroughly infiltrated by communists and pro-communist elements and their public utterances were still fairly moderate. David was certainly anxious to rebuild his life and make up for lost time, especially after the privations of the Japanese Occupation. The last thing in his mind at that time would have been the starting of a new political party. Three years later, when David had got his life back on track, he was prepared to take the plunge into politics and joined the Progressive Party. Though not religious, David did believe in divination — or at least, he often liked to consult diviners. For many years, he was known to be a regular patron of the late Rajamanickam, the noted Indian astrologer of Subramaniam Astrology House in Ceylon Road. In 1950, he went with his friend, E.J. de Vries, a restaurant director, to have their fortunes told by a Buddhist priest. The priest confidently predicted that David would become “the head of a state”.109

109 E.J. de Vries to David Marshall, 16 May 1955, DM/23/25/1–2.

08 Marshall_S'pore Ch 8

204

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the THE POLITICAL 205 Institute of Southeast AsianTYRO Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

9

The Political Tyro SINGAPORE POLITICS 1946–1953

C

ivilian government was restored in Singapore in April 1946 with the withdrawal of the British Military Administration. By this time, the Straits Settlements, of which Singapore was an important component, had been disbanded.1 Singapore was a separate Crown Colony with a constitution of its own.2 Under this new constitution, the governor retained veto and reserve powers over legislation. As with previous colonial constitutions, a distinction was made between “officials” and “unofficials”. Officials were senior government servants, such as the Colonial Secretary or the Finance Secretary, while unofficials were nominated from among members of the public, usually community leaders and prominent business personalities. The Executive Council comprised six officials and four nominated unofficials; while the Legislative Council consisted of four ex officio members, seven officials, between two and four nominated unofficials, and nine elected members. The balance was weighted very much in favour of the government and elected members were in the minority. While this clearly epitomized the Colonial Office’s desire for a gradual

1

See the Straits Settlements Repeal Act 1946, 9 & 10 Geo VI, c 37.

2

Singapore Order-in-Council 1946, 27 Mar 1946, Statutory Rules and Orders, 1946, No. 462.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

205

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

206

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

transition to self-government, the new Constitution was heavily criticized as failing to encourage local people to play an effective role in public affairs.3 No elections were held in 1946 as Singapore’s economy and infrastructure were still in shambles. The 1946 Constitution provided for a transitional period in which the governor could “make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Colony”,4 after consultation with the Advisory Council. The latter comprised the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney General, the Financial Secretary, and “such other persons as the Governor may … appoint”. Members of this council held their appointments “during the Governor’s pleasure”.5 In all, seventeen persons were appointed by the governor to sit on the Advisory Council, including prominent local banker Tan Chin Tuan and lawyer C.C. Tan. One of the government’s first tasks was to work out the proper balance of nominated and elected unofficials and how the seats would be filled. Gimson convened a Reconstitution Committee comprising official and local representatives for this purpose in 1946. That same year, the committee presented its report and all but two of their recommendations were accepted.6 The government increased the number of nominated unofficials from two to four to safeguard minority interests. Of the nine elected seats, three were allotted to the Singapore Chamber of Commerce, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and the Indian Chamber of Commerce, which respectively

3

Yeo Kim Wah, Political Development in Singapore 1945–1955 (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1973), p. 55.

4

Section 40, Singapore Order-in-Council 1946.

5

Section 41, Singapore Order-in-Council 1946.

6

See Report of the Committee for the Reconstitution of the Singapore Legislative Council, as reproduced in Appendix A of Annual Report on Singapore for 1st April to 31st December 1946, pp. 17–25.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

206

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

207

THE POLITICAL TYRO

represented European, Chinese and Indian economic interests. The other six seats would be filled by democratic elections based on universal suffrage. The revamped Legislative Council thus comprised four ex officio members, five officials, four nominated unofficials, three chambers of commerce representatives, and six popularly elected members. These reforms were significant in two respects: first, there was now an unofficial majority of thirteen to nine members in the legislature; second, democratic elections were being introduced for the first time.7 The amended Constitution came into effect on 1 March, 1948, and elections were held for the first time on 20 March, 1948.8 Originally, the Colonial Office envisaged that representation in the Legislative Council would be based on race. The Malayan Democratic Union, then the only organized political group, vehemently opposed this ethnicity-based proposal. Likewise, the Advisory Council insisted that elections be based along geographical lines.9 While the trajectory of Singapore’s political and constitutional development deviated from that of Malaysia’s after 1946, politicians on both sides of the Causeway constantly looked askance to see if they could push their own agendas in tandem with neighbouring developments. The British plan to unite all their territories in Malaya under the umbrella of the Malayan Union was extremely unpopular with the Malay community, especially with the United Malays Nationalist Organization (UMNO), which had been formed in March 1946 to “lead a massive movement against the scheme”.10 In the

7

Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, pp. 55–56.

8

See Order-in-Council dated 24th February 1948, Statutory Instruments, 1948, No. 341.

9

Turnbull, A History of Singapore, p. 235.

10 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 17.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

207

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

208

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

meantime, the MDU, which had been formed back in December 1945, became increasingly engaged in local politics. The party became actively involved in making representations on the Malayan Union scheme, originally backing it with caveats but later rejecting it altogether. The Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) which had initially been recognized as a legal entity in 1945, was eventually proscribed in 1948. With that came the demise of the MDU, which had been infiltrated and spearheaded by communists and pro-communists such as John Eber, Gerald de Cruz, Lim Kean Chye, and Wu Tian Wang.11 In June 1948, the CPM decided to return to the jungles and wage a guerilla war against the British and the Malayan Emergency was proclaimed. Fearing reprisals against its members, the MDU voluntarily dissolved itself on 24 June, 1948. THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY

Prelude to the 1948 Elections Although David had turned down Gerald de Cruz’s invitation to join the Malayan Democratic Union (MDU) back in 1946, he was by 1949 amenable to taking a more active part in political life. By this time, his career was blossoming and he took an interest in wider political happenings. In October 1949, David applied to become a member of the Progressive Party and was duly elected a member on 3 November, 1949.12 With the demise of the MDU, the Progressive Party (PP) was the only organized political body in Singapore. David recalled that it was the “only available organisation to which you could volunteer for public service other than communal service”.13 The PP was formed in 11 Ibid., pp. 88–98. 12 Amy Laycock to David Marshall, 10 Nov 1949, DM/2/1. Amy Laycock was the adopted daughter of John Laycock. At this time, she served as the Honorary Secretary of the Progressive Party. 13 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives).

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

208

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

209

THE POLITICAL TYRO

April 1947 by three leading lawyers — Tan Chye Cheng (better known as C.C. Tan), John Laycock, and Nazir A. Mallal, all of whom David knew professionally. The party was created by key leaders of the Singapore Chinese British Association (SCBA), such as Thio Chan Bee and C.C. Tan, and of the Singapore Association (SA), including Roland Braddell and E.R. Koek. These men were concerned that no one would voice their respective interests in the new legislature to be inaugurated after the 1948 elections. The resultant Singapore Progressive Party was a decidedly conservative organization. It was determined to work closely with the British Government to move Singapore towards greater representation on the ground. Quite naturally, the British Government viewed the founding of the PP favourably, especially as a counterweight to the left-wing radicalism of the MDU.14 The PP won three of the six contested seats in the 1948 polls, the others being won by independents. At this time, the electorate was very small, with only British subjects being allowed to vote. This automatically denied suffrage to the majority of the immigrant Chinese population. Furthermore, voting was not compulsory and voter turnout was disappointing. Nonetheless, this election established the PP as the leading political organization in Singapore and it again dominated the elections in 1951. David’s isolation from these developments demonstrates the extent of his politicization, or lack thereof. Indeed, in 1984, when asked about the 1948 elections, he was surprised to be reminded that it had taken place at all and figured that this was probably because everybody including him “treated the whole thing as a bit of a farce”.15 David’s stint with the PP was a short one. He wanted very much to serve people on a wider platform than he had hitherto been able to 14 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 99. 15 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives).

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

209

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

210

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

do and the PP was his chosen vehicle. He got along well with its main leaders — C.C. Tan, whom he thought rather austere and reserved; A.P. Rajah, whom he liked for his “lively intellect” and ability to understand contrasting points of view; John Laycock, whom he thought “delightful” and friendly; and Nazir Mallal who was “an able lawyer” with a “strong character”.16 The Rent Control Issue David eventually resigned from the PP in December 1952 after a series of disagreements with the party and, in particular, with C.C. Tan himself.17 The first sign of discord came during a debate on the party’s approach towards the Rent Control Ordinance. The Ordinance was put in place in the immediate aftermath of the war to prevent unscrupulous landlords from levying higher and higher rents on their tenants in the face of acute housing shortages. This immediately created a rift between landlords on the one hand — represented by the Singapore Ratepayers’ Association (SRA) of which David was a member — and tenants on the other. At that time, David, along with other SRA committee members, submitted a representation to the Rent Control Committee advocating a decontrol of rents in the central business district and a flat twenty per cent increase on rents of controlled premises. The question of rent control was a big issue with politicians in the run-up to the 1951 Legislative Council elections. On 22 March, 1951, the PP’s committee decided that it would take the tenants’ position on this issue. David strongly disapproved, not only because of the inconsistency with his own stance at the SRA, but also because he thought it was hypocritical since the PP really stood for business 16 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives). 17 David Marshall to C.C. Tan, President, Progressive Party, 18 Dec 1952, DM/2/7.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

210

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

211

THE POLITICAL TYRO

interests, not those of the workers.18 During the meeting, David suggested that the rent control issue should not be used against Goh Hood Kiat (better known as G.H. Kiat), an independent candidate who was also an SRA member and who supported the memorandum to the Rent Control Committee that David had earlier signed. It was a very heated emergency meeting and David was clearly exasperated. That night, he wrote in his diary: Heated emergency meeting of Progressive Committee. Sole dissentient on landlord-tenant policy. Cooked my goose with CC Tan.19

In a telephone conversation with Kiat, David told him about the PP’s meeting and what he had said, but little else. Kiat then made capital of this and issued a press statement, citing the content of their conversation to bolster his election campaign. David was furious to learn about this and even more furious when C.C. Tan wrote to the press on 2 April, 1951, implying that David had lied to the PP’s committee on behalf of Kiat. This was a major issue for David. His integrity and loyalty had been challenged and compromised and he was not about to take it sitting down. He fired off a letter to C.C. Tan, expressing his “most unpleasant shock” on reading his letter to the press, which had carried the “completely unjust imputation” that he would “lie on behalf of G.H. Kiat to the point of misleading” his “own colleague”.20 At the same time, David wrote to G.H. Kiat, chastising him for making use of privileged information for his own political ends, and expressing his “contempt” for his “abuse of confidence”.21 C.C. Tan apologized to David, stating that the letter could have been “more happily worded” and that he regretted hurting David’s

18 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, pp. 72–73. 19 David Marshall’s diary, 21 Mar 1951. 20 David Marshall to C.C. Tan, 2 Apr 1951, DM/2/2. 21 David Marshall to G.H. Kiat, 2 Apr 1951, DM/2/3.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

211

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

212

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

feelings.22 But David would not be appeased. The next day, he again wrote C.C. Tan, telling him that it was “more than a question” of hurt feelings. Tan had, in David’s eyes, “publicly stigmatized” him “as one whose word could not be believed”.23 David demanded a public retraction and apology, which he was happy to accept “immediately after Polling Day” so that it would not prejudice Tan’s election campaign.24 Tan would not be pushed into a corner and refused to make the apology, instead telling David that he had to report to the committee when it next met, on how the information had got into G.H. Kiat’s hands.25 Change from Within? David did not resign immediately after this rather serious tiff with C.C. Tan, but continued to try to change things from within the party. This was because David did not really see the PP was an outand-out political party like the Singapore Labour Party, for example, which had been inaugurated on 1 September, 1948. David explained: Well, again we … never looked on the Progressive Party as a political party, whereas the Labour Party was exclusively a political party. … …The idea of independence had not been born … The idea of possible achievement within a reasonable time of independence was not on the cards. And our attitude was amelioration of what is, not to throw the British out, which was way beyond our strength, but to try to improve local conditions as public-spirited persons with no axe to grind and no political ambitions of any character. Whereas the Labour Party was born with the idea of seeking to take power. We didn’t seek to take power, none of us was. At least not to my knowledge was in the Party for purposes of seeking to take

22 C.C. Tan to David Marshall, 2 Apr 1951, DM/2/4. 23 David Marshall to C.C. Tan, 3 Apr 1951, DM/2/5. 24 Ibid. 25 C.C. Tan to David Marshall, 4 Apr 1951, DM/2/6.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

212

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

213

THE POLITICAL TYRO

power over from the British. We were interested in income tax, for example. You know things like that that affect our daily life.26

Even so, the personal rift that occurred at this point was to culminate in David’s personal crusade against C.C. Tan in the 1955 elections. In 1950, the PP demanded three additional elected seats in the Council, a request to which the British acceded. By an Order-in-Council dated 21 December, 1950,27 this change was made. It was implemented in early April 1951 in time for the triennial elections. This amendment left the basic constitutional structure intact, with the thirteen ex officio and nominated members retaining their majority. The April 1951 elections were again a resounding success for the PP. It won six of the nine contested seats, with the new Singapore Labour Party (SLP) winning two seats,28 and one seat going to an independent candidate, housewife Valasani Menon. Only fifty-two per cent of the eligible voting population turned up at the polls. One British initiative that the PP supported was the introduction of compulsory savings through a Provident Fund scheme. David was most enthusiastic about this fund as he felt that it was something that would benefit the masses. He explained: I do remember that I was trying very hard to introduce what is now known as the Central Provident Fund. I did try to get them interested in assisting labour. I said, ‘You mustn’t treat the worker like an orange to be squeezed for its juice and to throw the rind in the gutter.’ They weren’t interested and I spent some money myself to get the Queen’s Counsel’s opinion on how we could start a fund by deducting part of workers’ salary and getting the employer to contribute. I think I did submit a memorandum to the Progressive Party…29 26 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives). 27 Statutory Instruments, 1950, No. 2099. 28 These seats were won by Lim Yew Hock and C.R. Dasaratha Raj. 29 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives).

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

213

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

214

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

According to his political biographer, Chan Heng Chee, David spent £20 of his own money to get an English Queen’s Counsel to determine how best to operate this scheme.30 The government introduced the Central Provident Fund Ordinance31 before the Legislative Council on 22 May, 1951 (first reading). It was referred to Select Committee and finally passed on 24 November, 1953. The ordinance came into operation on 1 July, 1955. Temperamentally, David was at odds with his PP colleagues. Most of them were comfortable, upper-class professionals and businessmen who were quite happy to cooperate with and work alongside the British. There was, as David recalled, a “stultifying atmosphere” and their attitude towards their fellow men was elitist: Their attitude was a singular one that we are the elite and we’ve got to be very careful of this rabble — the China-born Chinese, the coolie with the one trouser up one leg. We have got to protect our interests and this is Singapore. These others are all immigrants, non-citizens; don’t really belong to Singapore. They’re the immigrants; we are Singapore. It was a very stultifying atmosphere, and progressively, I got very tired of it.32

By the end of 1952, David had had enough of the PP and decided that he would resign. But if anyone in the PP thought that this was the last they would see of David in politics, they couldn’t have been more mistaken. THE RENDEL COMMISSION

Singapore’s constitutional and political development moved at a petty pace between 1948 and 1953. The British Government inched slowly

30 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 74. 31 Ordinance 34 of 1953. 32 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives).

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

214

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

215

THE POLITICAL TYRO

towards greater local participation in government but in view of the menacing communist threat, Whitehall was reluctant to move any more quickly. The British were also preoccupied with constitutional developments in the Federation of Malaya.33 With the clubby, uppercrust PP as their trusted and anointed allies, the colonial government’s instinct was to hasten slowly. In 1953, the PP announced a ten-year target date for achieving self-government, to be followed by full independence through merger with the Federation. In the meantime, it advocated introducing a Legislative Council with a preponderance of elected as opposed to nominated members, similar to the member system in the Federation. The colonial authorities greeted this proposal enthusiastically as they regarded the PP as a reliable and responsible group that could be counted on ensure the smooth and peaceful transfer of power. Throughout this period, the general public was apathetic about politics. The British considered this to be the major impediment to developing democratic government in Singapore.34 Changes in the constitutional system were necessary to widen political participation both in central and local government. To this end, a constitutional commission headed by Sir George Rendel was set up in 1953. The commission was charged with “a comprehensive review” of Singapore’s Constitution, as well as of the “relationship between the Government and the City Council” and it was to make its recommendations to the government.35 The Rendel Commission issued its report in February 1954 and the government accepted most of its recommendations. To encourage political participation, the commission proposed an automatic voter

33 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 56. 34 Turnbull, A History of Singapore, p. 241. 35 See Letter from Governor Sir John Nicoll to Sir George Rendel, as reproduced in the Annex to Report of the Constitutional Commission, Singapore, 1954.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

215

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

216

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

registration system since only about twenty-five per cent of the citizens had taken the initiative to register themselves in the 1951 elections. The legislature would be transformed into a mainly elected Legislative Assembly comprising thirty-two members. Of these, twenty-five would be elected Unofficial Members, three ex officio Official Members holding ministerial posts, and four would be nominated Unofficial Members. No seats would be reserved for the chambers of commerce. The Commission also recommended creating a Council of Ministers to replace the old Executive Council. This would consist of three ex officio Official Members and six Elected Members appointed by the governor on the recommendation of the “Leader of the House”, the leader of the largest party in the Assembly or of a coalition of parties assured of majority support. English was retained as the sole official language of the Assembly. The commission also recommended that the functions of local and central government be carried out by separate bodies. Going beyond their terms of reference, the commission noted that “a closer association” of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya “will … be necessary in order to justify the removal of … reserved and veto powers”.36 A new constitution — popularly known as the Rendel Constitution, after the Commission’s chairman — was enacted in 1955.37 A CRASH COURSE IN POLITICS

The proceedings of the Rendel Commission piqued David’s interest in national politics. Now out of the Progressive Party, he watched and listened to the proceedings of the Commission with much curiosity and abiding interest. After all, the Jewish Welfare Board, of which he was president, had earlier unsuccessfully nominated him as a member

36 Paragraph 141 of the Report. 37 Singapore Colony Order-in-Council 1955, Statutory Instruments, 1955, No. 187.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

216

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

217

THE POLITICAL TYRO

of that commission. David had within his circle a number of politically minded friends. One of them was S. Rajaratnam, the journalist of the Singapore Tiger Standard whom he had known from the late 1940s. Another was Alex Josey. Through Rajaratnam, David got to know some of the men who would later found the Peoples’ Action Party — Harry Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Ong Pang Boon, and of course Rajaratnam himself. With Alex Josey, he discussed and debated political issues, but right until 1955, he was not sure exactly where he was headed. As Josey recalled: He said, ‘I know nothing about politics.’ The Rendel Report was just about out. He said, ‘I don’t know. I am just a lawyer and I know nothing about politics. What shall I be? A Conservative? Labour or what? A Liberal? Shall I be a Liberal?’ I said, ‘Well, here is the book which tells you all about Socialism; how to be a Socialist in other words.’ And David took this book, waved it at meetings and quoted from that. He couldn’t do better than that. He never took it seriously. He thought that if he did get into Parliament [sic], he would simply be on a part-time basis and being able to interject his feelings and thoughts and thunder away. He never had any idea of becoming a full-time politician and becoming a Chief Minister or anything like that.38

David himself was not overly concerned with labels. He had a vague idea of what needed to be done. What was relevant, he argued, was “getting rid of racial domination, getting to work … people who are equal before God in harmony together as fellow citizens”.39 He recalled: I certainly had no grounding in socialist dogma, let alone a strong dogmatic socialist’s views about nationalisation. My idea … understanding of socialism, my own approach was an effort to create the foundations for the opportunity of all people to attain conditions of living compatible with human dignity.

38 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 3 (Singapore: National Archives). 39 Ibid., Reel 5.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

217

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

218

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Why did I call it socialist? Because it moved away from the concept of wealth to the concept of human qualities and respect for the human individual, and not respect for his bank account.40

David never thought of forming a new political party to contest the 1955 elections. He was quite content to be on the fringe of politics, doing good whenever opportunities presented themselves. But the stars were not thus aligned. Providence had other plans for him. THE LABOUR FRONT COMES TOGETHER

The Singapore Labour Party (SLP) was formed in 1948 by M.A. Majid, president of the Singapore Seamen’s Union. He was later joined by M.P.D. Nair and P.M. Williams. The three of them inaugurated the party at a public meeting on 1 September, 1948. Francis Thomas, a Fabianite English schoolteacher who had been teaching at St Andrew’s School for the past fourteen years, attended this meeting and, to his surprise, found himself elected into the party leadership.41 The SLP modelled itself after the British Labour Party and its constitution was almost word-for-word the same as the latter’s. In its early years, the SLP was split into two factions, each centred around the key personalities of P.M. Williams and Francis Thomas.42 Thomas’ moderate wing was strengthened by the defection of Lim Yew Hock from the Progressive Party in 1949. From the outset, the SLP was a fractious party and there were press reports of the numerous machinations and fights within it. In 1951, Lim Yew Hock and C.R. Dasaratha Raj won two of the nine seats for the SLP.

40 Ibid. 41 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 105. 42 Indeed, while Marshall was busy working on with the Lim Yew Hock faction, he received a request from V.K. Nair to join the Victor Mendis faction. See V.K. Nair to David Marshall, undated (most probably 8 Feb 1954), DM/4/93; and David Marshall to V.K. Nair, 10 Feb 1954, DM/4/97.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

218

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

219

THE POLITICAL TYRO

The SLP also won three out of the six seats in the 1951 City Council election. The party, never very cohesive to begin with, finally selfdestructed when a huge fight over the nomination of candidates for the City Council elections led to the expulsion of Lim Yew Hock, the SLP’s president at that time. Lim Yew Hock’s faction, which included Francis Thomas and the English-educated, non-Indian members of the SLP, decided in October 1953 to set up a new party called the Democratic Labour Party. They called upon David to draft its constitution. Writing to David in November 1953, Thomas told him that they needed “very clear and realistic suggestions for a programme to lay before members of the public” and that if he cared to help, he “could do a lot”.43 David was happy to help in any way, but told Thomas he was “conscious of the fact that” he was “a complete tyro in politics”.44 David concluded by assuring Thomas that he had his goodwill and “earnest desire to help” in all efforts “for the public good”.45 By December 1953, Lim and Thomas had persuaded David to join them. David discussed his political involvement with Malcolm MacDonald, UK Commissioner for Southeast Asia, on 30 December, 1953. Probably acting on MacDonald’s suggestion, he “agreed to unite with Raja’s group”,46 a clear reference to the group that would eventually form the People’s Action Party (PAP). The next few months were hectic ones. Lee and Raja’s group, which included Goh Keng Swee, Kenneth M. Byrne, and Toh Chin Chye, began meeting in the basement of Lee Kuan Yew’s Oxley Road home to discuss the formation of a mass-based, left-wing political party. David, Lim Yew Hock, and Francis Thomas also began engaging

43 Francis Thomas to David Marshall, 6 Nov 1953, DM/4/3. 44 David Marshall to Francis Thomas, 9 Nov 1953, DM/4/8. 45 Ibid. 46 David Marshall’s diary, 30 Dec 1953.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

219

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

220

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

them in discussions to join forces. Their first meeting took place on 21 January, 1954. Francis Thomas and David met up with Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, and Kenneth Byrne. It was not a happy occasion, for David remarked in his diary that it left a “bitter taste”.47 Lee and his team were clearly not enamoured of David and his colleagues, whom they saw as “shallow characters”: we found it difficult to take Marshall seriously. A mercurial, flamboyant Sephardic Jew, he was then the leading criminal lawyer in Singapore, but when he made what he considered a sound proposal, we often could not help laughing at him. He was apolitical and naïve. We knew he was a prima donna who loved to be centrestage and would be uncontrollable. On one occasion, he was so furious when we laughed at him at the wrong moment that he flounced out of the room in a tantrum, and then out of his own flat altogether. We found ourselves left with his friends and a lot of food and drink. We ate, drank, exchanged pleasantries, thanked the maid, and left. After the third meeting, we decided that it would be ruinous to be in any way associated with these people. What we were looking for were serious-minded men for a long-term enterprise, men who would take with equanimity the ups and downs of politics in pursuit of our objectives.48

The talks went on for the next two or three months but nothing came out of them. Francis Thomas recalled: We hoped it might be possible to work with the newly-formed PAP; or even to get them to come into our Front. But this was a vain hope. We had some discussions, but it soon became clear that they had a very low opinion of us. We found them offensive; Lee Kuan Yew in particular. I thought they were only interested first to get an idea of our possible effectiveness, and second to reduce our effectiveness by keeping discussions open as long as

47 David Marshall’s diary, 21 Jan 1954. 48 Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore: Times Media, 1998), pp. 177–78.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

220

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

221

THE POLITICAL TYRO

possible so as to waste our time and make us late in getting the necessary work done.49

In the meantime, Francis Thomas and Lim Yew Hock proceeded to launch the Singapore Socialist Party (SSP) in April 1954. However, the party was unable to make much headway and, by July that year, could only attract a membership of some 300 persons.50 They offered David the presidency yet again and he refused.51 Subsequently, Thomas accepted a proposal from several quarters to form an alliance with his old party, the SLP to contest the 1955 general elections. Under the banner of the People’s United Front, the two parties got together and their respective leaders temporarily buried the hatchet. Thomas recalled: Elections for the Legislative Assembly were coming, and under their influence we managed to patch up the Labour Party and the Socialist Party disagreements enough to form the Labour Front, drawing in some new members, of whom David Marshall was the most prominent. I had the pleasure of suggesting the word Front, which was meant to convey that we were putting aside personal aims to unite in the fight for the workers. In the interests of unity the Labour Front operated under a troika of VJ Mendis, CH Koh and myself. We pledged not to seek election. We were to stand above the political fray, giving impartial guidance to the party.52

David was asked to draft the constitution for the Labour Front in preparation for its registration as a political party. The triumvirate of Francis Thomas, Victor J. Mendis, and Koh Choon Hong (C.H. Koh) — the latter two being lawyers — could not agree between themselves

49 Francis Thomas, Memoirs of a Migrant (Singapore: University Education Press, 1972), pp. 94–95. 50 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 114. 51 David Marshall’s diary, 28 Apr 1954. 52 Thomas, Memoirs of a Migrant, p. 94.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

221

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

222

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

as to who the president of the Front would be. Lim Yew Hock and Francis Thomas were keen to make David Marshall its president, but David was reluctant. What was needed was a catalyst to ignite the fire in his belly. This occurred on 24 June, 1954, when C.C. Tan made a speech at the PP’s annual general meeting. Tan urged moderation in the quest for independence and remarked that only “petty demagogues” and “rabble-rousers” would seek the immediate and full transfer of power.53 For some reason, these words made David apoplectic. Years later, he would recall the speech differently. Speaking to Professor Josef Silverstein in 1975, David reminisced: The spark came when a man called CC Tan said only fools and criminals would want independence for Singapore less than 10 years. And that really hit me because I didn’t consider myself a fool and I wasn’t a criminal … and I got dragged in. Lim Yew Hock came to me and I was very partial to trade unions, political parties … There was a break up of their Labour Party, and he wanted a new Labour Party and would I draw the constitution for him. And then they wanted me in and I didn’t want in because I had no great respect for Lim Yew Hock really. He was then a secretary to Mr Tan Chin Tuan. Francis Thomas and all these people pleaded with me, indicating that I would be this catalytic force to bring the fragments of the breaking up labour movement, which was then various parties, into one group as a whole. So finally I agreed to it.54

As the most neutral among the prominent members of the new alliance, David was now the president of the People’s United Front, subsequently renamed the Singapore Labour Front.55 The Front expected to win just a few of the twenty-five seats up for grabs in the elections because it was not a real political party as such. It was, as

53 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 82. 54 David Marshall’s interview with Josef Silverstein, 19 Jul 1975, transcribed by the author. 55 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 114.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

222

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

223

THE POLITICAL TYRO

Thomas said, “a haphazard collection of men brought together to contest the elections”.56 Theoretically, the Front had a mass base, but it did not have a competent administrative infrastructure to mobilize these masses. For better or worse, David had now impetuously committed himself to being the head of a political party. He had absolutely no political experience and was uncomfortable in the shifting sands of political fortunes, allies, and foes. But having decided to enter the political fray, and seeing this as his opportunity to do something worthwhile for the people of Singapore, David steeled himself for the battles ahead. It would be a roller-coaster ride that would send him into the stratosphere of elation and the plunging depths of depression — and it would be, as he recalled years later, the most rewarding period of his life.

56 Thomas, Memoirs of a Migrant, p. 94.

09 Marshall_S'pore Ch 9

223

11/21/08, 9:12 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the 224 MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

10

Igniting a Spark ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

D

avid Marshall was not one for half measures. Finding himself the president of the Labour Front, he now plunged furiously into trying to get the semblance of a party going. The constituent groups within the Front were fractious to begin with. Indeed, the Singapore Labour Party (SLP) pulled out of the Front in October 1954 after the list of candidates for the 1955 general elections was announced. Under the Rendel Constitution, the newly constituted Legislative Assembly would comprise 32 members, of whom 25 would be elected by popular ballot. David looked about him and realized that, though he was surrounded by a number of men who had some labour union experience, none of them had actually held any significant position in government or served in any significant capacity in the public service, save for Lim Yew Hock who had previously served on the Municipal Commission. David himself was nervous about his lack of political pedigree. He was anxious to galvanize his troops, equip them for battle, and win the war. David turned to his old friend Malcolm MacDonald — Britain’s Commissioner for Southeast Asia — for help. MacDonald, who himself came from an illustrious political family and whose father, Ramsay MacDonald, had twice been prime minister of Britain, suggested that the Front should bring someone out from the British Labour Party to be full-time organizing secretary. This suggestion did

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

224

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

225

IGNITING A SPARK

not go down well with David’s colleagues in the Front and was abandoned.1 David decided that he would have to take matters into his own hands and get himself a political education. He decided to spend four months in early 1955 learning the ropes at Transport House — headquarters of the British Labour Party in London — all at his own expense. In the meantime, a delegation of British Labour members of parliament was scheduled to visit Singapore on 7 August, 1954. At 7:15 p.m., David went to Kallang Airport to receive the group that included Aneurin Bevan, Edith Summerskill, Morgan Phillips, Ernest Earnshaw, Burke, and Franklin. That night, he took both Earnshaw and Phillips to the Raffles Hotel for drinks and found them both solid but unimpressive.2 The next day, he hosted the group for lunch and was suitably impressed by Edith Summerskill and Morgan Phillips. Summerskill “poured cold contempt” on David’s idea to spend four months at Transport House,3 but the “intelligent, solid, hardworking, well-integrated” Phillips promised to help David if he decided to go to England.4 Within the Labour Front, much discussion was taking place on strategies and the recruitment of people who could do canvassing for the various candidates. At this time, David consulted mostly with C.H. Koh, Francis Thomas and Lim Yew Hock. Getting party organizers and canvassers was particularly difficult. David spent much time talking to potential “helpers” and “organizers” such as one Lim Boon Kim,5 who had been recommended by Lim Yew Hock as being

1

David Marshall’s political diary, 30 Aug 1954.

2

David Marshall’s political diary, 7 Sep 1954.

3

David Marshall’s political diary, 8 Sep 1954.

4

Ibid.

5

David Marshall’s political diary, 16 Sep 1954.

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

225

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

226

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

someone who could work the Chinese-educated ground, and one Freddy Tan, who had apparently helped out in campaigning while living in England.6 Many of the “volunteers” for canvassing were little more than opportunists who were only prepared to go out to work for a fee. Indeed, a group he met at his flat in February 1955 was “scandalised” by David’s refusal to give them drinks and pay them $50 a week for canvassing.7 It was an endless source of frustration for David. Lim Yew Hock sent him two men who were secret society members and who were charged with murder the day after they showed up at David’s flat.8 But David did get genuine help from people around him. His sister, Rose, who vehemently disagreed with him for going up against the British Government, nonetheless helped with the canvassing as did the entire family of his first law pupil, Geoffrey Abisheganaden. As for the Chinese-speaking crowd, he had the capable and bilingual Wee Kiat Neo, chairman of the Women’s Section of the Army Civil Services Union, by his side as his election agent. As president of the party, David was now a major public figure. On the morning of 3 September, 1954, David received a call from the governor’s secretary to call on the governor that afternoon. No reason was given. When David got there, Sir John Nicoll was cordial and friendly, seeking his opinion on how to deal with the increasing unrest among the Chinese school students. By way of background, the government had introduced the National Service Ordinance in December 1953 to provide for the compulsory enlistment for national service of all male British subjects

6

David Marshall’s political diary, 26 Sep 1954.

7

David Marshall’s political diary, 16 Feb 1955.

8

David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 5 (Singapore: National Archives).

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

226

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

227

IGNITING A SPARK

between the ages of eighteen and twenty. When the ordinance came into operation in April 1954, the Chinese school students protested against the law, calling it an “imperial ploy”. In May that year, the students demonstrated outside Government House and the police used force to repel them. Naturally, this created a major rift between the student body and the government. Nicoll was anxious to see how the rift could be bridged. David told the governor that he thought it had been very unwise of the police to attack “school children” and to prosecute for sedition the editors of Fajar, the publication of the University of Malaya’s Socialist Club.9 One way to heal the wound David thought, was to do “some honour” to Harry Lee Kuan Yew, their “official leader and one who had the confidence of the intransigents”.10 This advice reflected a growing political maturity in David. He was quick to acknowledge that Lee was fast becoming the key political player in mass politics. Though he told Nicoll that he was “no friend” of Lee’s and that they were not on “speaking terms”, David openly admitted that the colonial authorities had no choice but to engage Lee in dialogue. As a parting shot, David suggested that the governor increase grants to Chinese schools as soon as possible.11 David later called C.H. Koh to apprise him of the conversation he had had with Nicoll and, in particular, sought his advice about how best to understand and satisfy the needs of Chinese youth.12

9

The Fajar trial was one of the most celebrated trials in modern political history. Originally, the accused had approached David Marshall to act for them, but he waved them off because he was “very strongly against the utilization of our courts for political tub-thumping”. See David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives).

10 David Marshall, political diary, 3 Sep 1954. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

227

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

228

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

The question of David himself standing for election was discussed among the Labour Front’s big wigs. David himself wanted to contest the seat in Cairnhill against C.C. Tan, whom he was beginning more and more to see as the epitome of servility to colonial interests. The rest of the party leadership, especially Lim Yew Hock, was not so sure. Lim was particularly concerned about losing “a good man”13 and urged David to contest Nazir A. Mallal in Stamford constituency instead.14 Victor Mendis and Lim Choon Eng, on the other hand, felt that if David contested in Cairnhill, C.C. Tan would be sent scurrying back to Tanglin constituency.15 David himself was adamant about contesting against C.C. Tan. His outlook was rather different from those of his colleagues in the Labour Front, for his main motivation in standing for election was less to win a seat in the Legislative Assembly than to awaken the masses to the political change about to take place. David recalled: I chose Cairnhill because I wanted to dramatise the election, to awaken our people to challenge what I called ‘the dried lizard who thought he was a dragon’ — CC Tan — the head of the Progressive Party, the standard bearer of capitalism and the pro-British inhabitants of Singapore. I fired a lot of people. They did catch fire. … None of them understood. I wasn’t interested in getting into Parliament [sic] that was in any event going to be a castrated assembly. I was interested in awakening the people. And you awaken them with drama. You don’t awaken them with just somnolent sentences. You awaken them with drama. And the drama of David and Goliath is something that would work. Okay, I won’t be elected. So what? Where is the great tragedy? They thought … It never entered any of our consideration that we would be the party in office. I thought we would have about two or three [seats].16 13 David Marshall’s political diary, 27 Sep 1954. 14 David Marshall’s political diary, 4 Oct 1954. 15 David Marshall’s political diary, 14 Sep 1954. 16 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 7 (Singapore: National Archives).

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

228

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

229

IGNITING A SPARK

Divisions within the Front were beginning to show, with C.H. Koh and Victor Mendis on one side and Francis Thomas on the other. Thomas found working with C.H. Koh and Victor Mendis very difficult and agreed with David that the Front was not a real political party but — “just a group poor in human material and organising ability”.17 Thomas was so disillusioned that he wanted to step down from the leadership and form a Christian Socialist movement instead.18 While this upset David somewhat, he was determined to press on. The wheels had already been set in motion and he could not stop. Besides, he was enjoying himself tremendously, especially delighting in the thought that he was playing an important part in changing the social and political life of Singapore. “ I BELIEVE ”

Having pronounced himself a socialist and having formalized his links with the British Labour Party, David now needed a political manifesto, a statement of his political aims and vision. None of the other leaders of the Labour Front seemed concerned with this facet of party politics. The opportunity for him to put his mind to the matter came during a cocktail party hosted by Nigel Macassey on 8 October, 1954. There, David met Ronnie Baxter, a journalist from the Sunday Times who asked him for a 1,000 word article on what he believed in.19 On 18 October, David sat down and wrote “I Believe” for the Sunday Times. He fashioned it after J’accuse, by the great French writer and activist Émile Zola, first published on the front page of the Paris daily, L’Aurora on 13 January, 1898. In that famous tract, Zola accused the highest levels of the French Army of obstructing justice and of anti-Semitism in their conviction of the artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus. 17 David Marshall’s political diary, 25 Sep 1954. 18 Ibid. 19 David Marshall’s political diary, 8 Oct 1954.

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

229

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

230

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

The next day, David showed the draft to several people, including his brother Meyer. C.H. Koh and Victor Mendis were quite happy with the draft, while Francis Thomas and Meyer offered “constructive criticisms”. David amended the article that evening.20 A few days later, on 23 October, David met up with some friends for lunch at the Cockpit Hotel. These friends included Ronnie and Ken Hilborne who were both opposed to David’s anti-British stance. His law partner, Nigel Macassey, was “sour” and “obviously very unhappy” with David’s piece. Han Suyin thought that it was “very sincere but unwise”.21 David was hurt that those whom he considered friends were unwilling to support him in the course he had embarked upon. That night, he wrote in his diary: Feel sore and unhappy … these are my friends … cannot regret … almost the inevitability of a Greek tragedy … always fighting a bitter minority struggle … never swimming with the tide … why. I foresee acute personal unhappiness and possible physical danger in this.22

Having embarked on this path, David would not back down, notwithstanding kind advice from George Thompson that the piece was “too emotional”23 and Han Suyin calling him up for tea to dissuade him from publishing it.24 Not only were his friends urging caution, but Governor Sir John Nicoll also called David up to Government House to berate him over his anti-colonial attitude. When David arrived at Government House on 22 October, 1954 at 2:50 p.m., the atmosphere had “radically and intentionally changed”

20 David Marshall’s political diary, 19 Oct 1954. 21 David Marshall’s political diary, 23 Oct 1954. 22 Ibid. 23 David Marshall’s diary, 24 Oct 1954. 24 David Marshall’s diary, 25 Oct 1954.

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

230

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

231

IGNITING A SPARK

from their previous meeting. Nicoll was in no mood for niceties. He was “grim and icy”. He fiddled nervously with his pipe but did not give David permission to smoke. Nicoll harangued David for over forty minutes, chastising him for rocking the boat and generating a crisis in which hordes of “dissatisfied expatriates will leave in disturbing numbers”, leaving the civil service depleted. Nicoll ended by telling David that in any event he had to respect and cherish the civil servants, especially the permanent secretaries. Abruptly, Nicoll told David to leave his draft of “I Believe” and that he would send for him if he wanted to see him about it. Nicoll then turned and left the room in a huff, leaving David in no doubt that the governor had just given a dressing down to his wayward and rebellious colonial subject.25 If anything, this encounter — which David never forgot — made him even more determined that “I Believe” should be published. On 31 October, 1954, Marshall’s “I Believe” appeared on the inside pages of the Sunday Times alongside “ugly pictures”.26 It read: self-government is better for a people than Colonial Government, however enlightened. Colonialism is by definition the domination and exploitation of one country by and for another. I BELIEVE that the future welfare of the inhabitants of the Federation of Malaya and the Colony of Singapore depends upon the grant of immediate self-government for a United Malaya. I BELIEVE the Colonial Power’s basic interest in this territory is twofold — as the military fulcrum for the whole of the Western Pacific sea-board from Japan to New Zealand and westward to Pakistan and economically as the gold mine that supports the sterling bloc. I BELIEVE that if we concede these two basic interests and agree not to undermine them for the next fifteen years, the Colonial Power will immediately grant full internal self-government (as distinct from independence) including control of export of wealth from this territory. I BELIEVE

25 David Marshall’s political diary, 22 Oct 1954. 26 David Marshall’s diary, 31 Oct 1954.

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

231

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

232

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

I BELIEVE we as a practical and peaceable people should in those circumstances concede the two basic interests, as any effort to obtain complete independence today can only result in bloodshed, regression and misery for the people of this territory. I BELIEVE the Progressive Party, inspired by the money interests it represents is anxious to delay indefinitely the grant of selfgovernment and has convinced the Colonial Office and many transients that there is no urge for self-government in the Colony. I BELIEVE the Rendel Constitution of next year is out of date today. The retention of the portfolios of Finance, Administration and Internal Security and Law means the retention of the pivotal positions controlling the direction, pace and content of our development. It is fraught with dangers born of bitter friction and frustration if strong men are elected. It is Colonialism unchanged in character with local men to receive opprobrium for unpopular measures. I BELIEVE that in the last seven years, India has evolved a Government of stability and a civil service effective in its understanding and consideration for Indian needs. There is no reason why Malaya should not emulate its great neighbour. I BELIEVE the racial context of Colonialism in this territory and the arrogance it spawns in official, business and social circles create deep welling antagonisms gravely endangering all concerned. It is vital for the welfare of the country and for the future of friendly cooperation we all hope that the balance should be immediately redressed. I BELIEVE that except for special reasons and with full and fair safeguards for the transients now in public service, every new and every vacant post in the public services should be occupied by a domiciled officer and by domiciled I mean a person of any race — Malay or Chinese or European or Eurasian or Indian — who has made his home, for himself and his children, in this territory. I believe racial discrimination is evil. I BELIEVE the Immigration Ordinance should be equally applicable to all races, and no new transient should be permitted to work in this country except where his aptitudes qualify him for a role no available domiciled person can perform. I BELIEVE that Colonialism has, incidentally and principally through truly Christian endeavour of many fine transients who

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

232

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

233

IGNITING A SPARK

have lived amongst us, brought to this country benefits and concepts of living — individual justice, security of person and property, integrity of public officials, medical and public health services, education, amongst many others — for which we are all deeply grateful. I BELIEVE that Colonialism has meant unhindered wholesale carting away of the wealth of this country and it is imperative that controls be introduced immediately along the lines of the Australian Foreign Exchange Regulations so that the major part of the wealth of this country should perform its proper role of feeding, clothing, housing and tending to the needs of our growing population. I BELIEVE there is urgent need for a drastic re-orientation of our official outlook with the greatest possible emphasis on land distribution, housing, slum clearance, adequate free medical services, unemployment insurance, more technical and elementary education, protection of strikers, strengthening of unions, free legal services. I BELIEVE dynamic socialism is this country’s only answer to the creeping paralysis of Communism. The great majority of those who turn to that tyranny do so because they know no other outlet for the antagonism to Colonialism. I BELIEVE time is fasting running out and we are late, very late, but not too late for men of stature to inaugurate an era of happiness for this country and of profitable goodwill for the Colonial Power. All this I BELIEVE as a human being seeking justice in peace for all.

David’s clear, direct, and evocative language had its desired impact. “I Believe” was not just about the future, but about the present. It was about the repressive weight of colonialism and the desire to be free from it. It was about the human condition in Singapore, in which racism, discrimination, and exploitation were integral. It was about the craving to exterminate these ills. “I Believe” was about freedom — it hit home at the solar plexus and set the tone for the electoral battles to come. Never before had any politician been so strident, forceful, eloquent, and direct. It was a call to arms and could not be ignored.

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

233

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

234

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

TO TRANSPORT HOUSE AND BACK

David left for the United Kingdom on the MV Asia two days after “I Believe” was published. He planned to get himself adequately educated in the intricacies of running a political party and contesting an election. Years later, he recalled: I thought one way, perhaps, the only way and the quickest way to learn about politics, my brand of politics that emphasizes right to human dignity of the mass of the people was to go and study at the headquarters of the Socialist Party in the United Kingdom, the Labour Party. And then I discovered the headquarters was in fact, the trade union organisation called Transport House.27

Travelling through Colombo, Bombay, and Rome, he arrived in London on 13 November, 1954, settled into comfortable accommodations at 44 Curzon Street, and then reported to Transport House on 16 November. He was met by Morgan Phillips, the general secretary of the Labour Party. Phillips was “friendly” and suggested that David look around first before meeting with him.28 He also met up with Saul Rose, the international chief, whom he thought was“young, keen, interesting, knowledgeable”. Rose suggested meetings with a whole host of people, including Arthur Creech Jones (former Secretary of State for the Colonies); Lady Hilda Selwyn-Clarke (secretary of the Fabian Colonial Bureau); Kenneth Younger, MP; and Fenner Brockaway, MP. Rose also suggested that David read G.D.H. Cole’s seven-volume History of Socialist Thought29 and Francis Williams’ 50 Years March: The Rise of the Labour Party.30 They sent 27 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 6 (Singapore: National Archives). 28 David Marshall’s diary, 16 Nov 1954. 29 G.D.H. Cole, A History of Socialist Thought, 7 vols (London: Macmillian, 1953–1960). 30 Francis Williams, 50 Years March: The Rise of the Labour Party (London: Oldhams Press, 1949).

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

234

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

235

IGNITING A SPARK

David round to the various branches where he spent about a month studying how the different branches and party headquarters were organized. At the Fabian Colonial Bureau, he met Lady Hilda SelwynClarke, who impressed him greatly.31 The stint there enabled him to pick up some tips on “how to canvass, organise canvassers, get up the lists, divide the lists between them” and so on.32 Other valuable contacts David made included Labour members of parliament such as Patrick Gordon Walter and Richard H.S. Crossman. Most of them were very sympathetic about the colonial question and self-government for Malaya. David persuaded them to dispatch a parliamentary mission to Malaya and Singapore to study the Emergency situation and to support the fight for self-government.33 While David was in London, the Labour Front in Singapore was busy gearing up for the forthcoming elections. Its leaders had worked up a manifesto entitled The Labour Front: Its Principles and Aims and Four-Year Programme, which was issued on 27 December, 1954. The programme of action bound the Front to create a welfare state with free education and medical services.34 Among the Front’s more interesting promises was the creation of a law faculty in Singapore.35 The Front further promised to revoke the Emergency Regulations, which it regarded as an “unnecessary and undemocratic restriction on the liberty of the people”.36 The party’s manifesto had clearly been

31 David Marshall’s Transport House diary, 23 Nov 1954. Marshall noted that Selwyn-Clarke was an “extraordinary woman elderly wide awake solid decent and intelligent”. 32 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 6 (Singapore: National Archives). 33 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, pp. 87–88. 34 See Singapore Labour Front: Its Principles and Aims and Four-Year Programme (Singapore: Singapore Labour Front, 1954), p. 5. 35 Ibid at 6. 36 Ibid.

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

235

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

236

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

drafted without David’s inputs, for when he returned on 8 January, 1955, he was stunned and appalled that as extravagant a promise as repealing the Emergency Regulations had been made. He confronted Lim Yew Hock: When I came back, I found to my shock that we had issued a platform in which we said we will abolish the Emergency Regulations. I said, ‘Yew Hock, how can you? How can you abolish Emergency Regulations with the communists seeking to subvert the whole country?’ He said, ‘Oh, David, we’re not going to win the elections … but this will win a few votes.’ ‘I say, it’s a dishonest way of winning a vote.’ He said, ‘What do you want to do now? You want to publish a denial, and make things much worse?’ There, he had a point. He had a point. I couldn’t publish anything at that moment and torpedo our entire campaign; except that I never at any moment in any of my speeches support that plank in the platform.37

David was shocked at Lim’s lackadaisical attitude towards politics and promises. Clearly, they were not fighting the same battle nor playing by the same rules. In the meantime, the People’s Action Party was inaugurated with much fanfare at the Victoria Memorial Hall on 21 November, 1954, at “the biggest political rally since 1948”.38 It too produced a manifesto that was even more radical that that of the Labour Front. The Progressive Party, also gearing up for the elections, issued their party programme in January 1955 and set the date of 1963 as a possible date for Singapore’s independence. A fourth political party appeared in February 1955: the Democratic Party, dubbed by many the “Millionaire’s Party”. Sponsored and supported primarily by wealthy Chinese business leaders and most notably by the Chinese Chamber

37 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 6 (Singapore: National Archives). 38 John Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success (Singapore: Times Books International, 1984), p. 87.

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

236

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

237

IGNITING A SPARK

of Commerce, this party sought to represent Chinese business interests in the Legislative Assembly, now that the reserved seats were abolished. UNDER THE OLD APPLE TREE

By February 1955, most of the key political parties and actors had showed their hands and laid their cards on the table. Nomination Day was on 28 February, 1955. By this time, the entire slate of candidates of all the parties was known to all. In all, there were 79 candidates for the 25 seats. The Progressive Party, fully expecting to continue dominating the political landscape, fielded 22 candidates. The Democratic Party, whom the Progressives saw as their main rival, fielded 20 candidates. The Labour Front had 17 candidates, followed by the UMNO-MCA-Malay Union Alliance with 5 candidates, and the People’s Action Party with 4 candidates. Ten days earlier, David had drafted his election address to the people of Cairnhill. It was now time for him to launch his election campaign in earnest. The criticism that David was receiving in the press prompted him to up the ante. He decided that he would go right to the heart of colonial Singapore and blast the authorities. He recalled: the press, the English press, … started bashing me. And that gave me a wonderful idea. I make a speech everyday. I make it as provocative as possible and as full of quotable quotes as possible in order for the press to pick it up and to slash me with it and to make me wider known throughout the country. And so I got M & E Nathan, friends of mine who had an electrical shop to lend me their little van. And I had a loudspeaker mounted on it. And I went … just eating place where hawkers’ centre was, opposite the Cricket Club and … near the river. And I turned the loudspeaker towards the Cricket Club. And I had a field day, every day, you know, haranguing the clerks there who had this wonderful tamasha free of charge. And they thoroughly enjoyed it. It was aimed neither at the clerks, nor really at the Cricket Club, but for the press. And the silly asses of The Straits Times and the Malayan Tribune, they fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

237

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

238

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

And every morning there was this diatribe against David Marshall who wants blood in the river, blood of the English to run in the streets. I don’t know. All sorts, a monkey up a tree. Whatever it was, it put our people’s back up. And it dramatised the entire political scene. … I had a lot of fun. I created a lot of excitement. I was happy having achieved what I set out to do. And that’s to awaken us to the fact, ‘Hey, we are human beings. Hey, we have got the right to vote. Hey, we have got a right to elect our own representative. We’ve got a right to, a voice in how we are to live.’ Now, that is something they don’t understand today. But that was very, very radical at that time. You know, it’s like a four-legged animal suddenly finding himself standing straight and looking upwards instead of looking to the ground. It really was a radical change of psychological atmosphere, to awaken the people to … ‘Hey, we are standing on two legs.’ That was the approach. Anyway, that was what I sought and that was what I achieved.39

David’s electioneering “under the old apple tree” electrified the political stage. Never had the crowds seen anyone as charismatic, as vocal, and as trenchant in his criticism of the colonial authorities. More importantly, here was someone who you could believe. He wanted you to believe that you were a master of your own destiny and that the time to stand up and be counted was now! William Goode, who was then Colonial Secretary and later to become Singapore’s last colonial governor, recalled the excitement of those early days and fully credits David for awakening the masses: The person who did more than anybody else to arouse popular interest in the elections was David Marshall. He held a series of popular meetings and rapidly attracted larger crowds to hear him. One of his favourite meeting places was a tree outside the front of the government offices in Empress Place. At his lunch-time

39 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 7 (Singapore: National Archives).

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

238

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

239

IGNITING A SPARK

meetings there ‘under the old apple tree’, he used to make the most absorbing exciting speeches, directed to some extent to the government officers who flocked out in their lunch hour to listen to him. There was no doubt at all in my mind that David Marshall made those elections come alive. He promised all sorts of things when he was elected; and an exciting time he later gave us. It was all this that made these elections different from the previous ones, and which brought David Marshall to power.40

Polling day was fixed for 2 April, 1955. Although the law provided for automatic voter registration, getting the public to vote was another matter. In all, there were 300,199 voters, but despite the fact that many candidates borrowed cars to ferry voters to the voting stations, only 158,075 or 52.7% of the total number of voters turned up at the polls. As the results were announced, the pundits’ faces turned ashen grey. The pro-British Progressive Party was routed, with only 4 of their 22 candidates winning their seats. Five of them lost their $500 deposits and their leader C.C. Tan lost his seat to David Marshall. The Democratic Party won only 2 seats. By the time the votes were counted, the Labour Front emerged as the largest party in the Legislative Assembly with 10 seats. Next came the Progressives with 4 seats, then the PAP and the UMNO-MCA-Malay Union Alliance with 3 seats each, and the Democratic Party with 2 seats. Three independents were also elected into the assembly. Over 5,000 people had turned up at the Victoria Memorial Hall to see the outcome of the Marshall versus C.C. Tan battle. There were shocked faces all round, both among the victors and the vanquished. David was euphoric with disbelief. He stood at the balcony of the Victoria Memorial Hall clasping his hands in gratitude to the cheering

40 “The Last Governor: Sir William Goode looks back”, Part II, The New Nation, 20 Jul 1971, at 9.

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

239

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

240

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

hordes below. David and his party had won a victory they never thought possible. Overnight, they were catapulted from the back of the orchestral pit to centrestage and David was clearly the man of the hour. It was, as David recalled, “a miracle” and “a tremendous evening”. If only his father were there to share his sweet hour of victory!41 Speaking to the press that evening, David said: By electing a member of the smallest domiciled community here they have proved that Singapore can work, think and act noncommunally. By electing a stranger to politics in preference to the founder President of the longest established party in Singapore, the people have proved that Singapore has a spirit which can be touched by ideals.42

41 David Marshall to D. Bassous, 3 May 1955, DM/10/100: “It would have been a very proud day indeed for me — a day of far greater enjoyment if my father could have been around to know of it.” 42 Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 99.

10 Marshall_S'pore Ch 10

240

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the INTO THE DEEP END 241 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

11

Into the Deep End: The Struggle for Survival CRAFTING A COALITION

M

ost newly elected political leaders can expect their first few months in office to be smooth, even uneventful — the proverbial honeymoon period. David and his Labour Front team had no such luxury. From the outset, they were beset by one crisis after another. In retrospect, it is amazing that David was Singapore’s chief minister for only fourteen months, for he lived those months with an intensity that is simply awe-inspiring. After the cheering hordes had gone to bed, David and the members of the Labour Front and the UMNO-MCA Malay Union Alliance adjourned to his nearby flat in Meyer Mansions. No party had sufficient votes to command a majority in the assembly. Even though the Front had 10 out of the 25 seats, there was no way it could form the government without seeking a coalition with the other parties. David had several choices. All he needed was three more seats to command a majority of the house. The Progressives held 4 seats, the UMNO-MCA Malay Union Alliance (Alliance) 3, and the PAP another 3. It was not likely that Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP would work with him to form the government. That left the Progressives and the Alliance. David decided to work on the Alliance, whose leader was Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat, leader of UMNO in Singapore. Years later, David explained his decision:

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

241

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

242

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

I felt that the Malays have at all times been the Cinderella in Singapore … and that it was vital, absolutely, symbolically, vital that the Malay people should understand they are part and parcel of Singapore as much as the rest of us, and they should take their place now, in common with the others, as fellow citizens of Singapore and no longer as Cinderella, sweeping the cinders out of the fireplace — gardeners, drivers, small engine repairers — that they were an integral part of Singapore. Therefore I bashed into UMNO … Oh, I remember working till about 3 o’clock in the morning, screaming and shouting and bashing into them to try to understand that they’d got to get out of personal interests and recognise that I wanted them in — I don’t know whether they believed me — not because I wanted the majority, but because I wanted the Malays in Government.1

The inclusion of the Alliance in his coalition had an added advantage. He could use this partnership as the basis for working with politicians across the Causeway towards a union with the Federation of Malaya in the years to come.2 In any case, it would have been inconceivable for David to forge a coalition with the Progressive Party or the Democratic Party as he saw them as “the money bags, the bankers, bully boys” and he thought that “they stank”.3 The next two days were hectic ones for David. Members of the Labour Front had unanimously named him chief minister on the night of the election results. The team was slowly coming together. On 4 April, 1955, David felt ready to pay the Governor Sir John Nicoll a visit at Government House to discuss the possible cabinet line-up. Even if David could swing the Alliance to his side, he did not truly

1

David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 7 (Singapore: National Archives).

2

Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 97.

3

David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 6 (Singapore: National Archives).

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

242

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

243

INTO THE DEEP END

have a majority since the Governor could appoint up to four unofficial members in the assembly — these unofficial members might possibly vote against the Labour Front. David decided to ask Nicoll to nominate four members of his Labour Front to the assembly to strengthen his position. Nicoll was not prepared to accede to David’s request as it would set a precedent for minority government rule. As a compromise, he agreed to appoint two Labour Front stalwarts, Francis Thomas and Richard C.H. Lim, as members of the Assembly. His two other nominees were G.A.P. Sutherland of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China (representing European business interests) and Ong Piah Teng, a ship chandler and former banker (representing Chinese business interests).4 On 5 April, 1955, Hamid Jumat and Wong Foo Nam (the MCA president) met with David and concluded a formal agreement on the coalition. The Malay Union refused to be part of the Labour Front5 and thus was born the Labour Front-UMNO-MCA government. The next item on David’s agenda was the allocation of cabinet portfolios. Under the Rendel Constitution, the Council of Ministers comprised the governor, the Attorney General, the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary, and six other ministers. As the leader of the Front, David would necessarily reserve one ministry for himself. That left him with five ministries to divide among his coalition’s leaders. David was well aware that the most ambitious opportunists in his coalition were eyeing the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing because it had the largest budget and hence the most opportunities for corruption and kickbacks. For that ministry, he

4

Ibid., p. 98.

5

“Coalition — Minus Malay Union: Marshall’s Midnight Dash to See Governor’ The Straits Times, 6 Apr 1955.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

243

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

244

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

chose his most trustworthy colleague, Francis Thomas. Lim Yew Hock was the natural choice for the Ministry of Labour and Welfare, given his trade union background, while Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat got the Ministry of Communications and Works. Accountant Chew Swee Kee was given the post of Minister for Education, a post he did not relish given the seething unrest in the Chinese middle schools. Armand J. Braga, a lawyer, was allocated the Ministry of Health. David himself took up the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and was chief minister as well. He appointed Jumabhoy Mohamed (J.M.) Jumabhoy his assistant minister. At the last minute, at the insistence of the Alliance, a switch was made between Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat and Francis Thomas. Hamid became Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing.6 David’s ministerial line-up was significant. Ever one to capitalize on symbols and images, David wanted to establish an important precedent for the future of Singapore governance — even though Singapore was primarily a Chinese city, there was a place for everyone. Race and religion did not matter. Indeed, David’s first cabinet line-up comprised two Chinese, one Eurasian, one Malay, one European, and one Jew — a remarkable combination and an important, symbolic start to Singapore’s modern political history. The new cabinet was sworn in on the morning of 6 April, 1955. Later that afternoon, David took the unheard-of step of presenting his cabinet (minus the governor’s officials) to the people of Singapore “under the old apple tree”. It was a popular move and it endeared David to the crowds. David wanted very much to demonstrate symbolically that this was a government of the people. In his short speech, David said: Whether you are rich or whether you are poor, this is your Government. The Government of the entire people of the Colony

6

“Last Minute Change in the Ministry”, The Straits Times, 9 Apr 1955.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

244

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

245

INTO THE DEEP END

of Singapore and its one single aim is not the welfare of the people who believed in its ideals, but the welfare of the people of Singapore. It is with joy that we receive this responsibility and this task from you. It is with humility that we face the future. It is with confidence, looking at our colleagues, that we say, ‘We hope, we will be adequate to our responsibilities.’ People of Singapore, we thank you for making your victory possible. We thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve you.7

David had found a way to communicate with the masses. He knew well how to work a crowd and he knew how to get his message through, even to those who did not understand English. Getting through to the colonial authorities was quite another matter. CONFRONTING THE COLONIALS

Symbolism and Representation For David, the Labour Front’s victory in the 1955 elections — as epitomized by his victory against C.C. Tan — symbolized much more than the attainment of political office. It signified a real shift in the political paradigm. For David, the old paradigm in which the Progressives had been happy to tag along with Britain as it hastened slowly towards the transfer of power had now given way to a more dynamic and radical nationalist movement. It also signified a change in the balance of power between the unelected colonial authorities, who foisted themselves on an innocent people, and the people’s representatives. It was a real change in the status for the people of Singapore, who should no longer have to bow and scrape before their colonial masters. While this change was quite clear to someone like David, it was not as apparent to many in the colonial bureaucracy. This led to a number of colourful symbolic clashes between David and the authorities.

7

Speech of David Marshall at the presentation of his cabinet, Empress Place, 6 Apr 1955, transcribed by author.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

245

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

246

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

These fights became all the more personal to David because he found it difficult to get along with the British governor, Sir John Nicoll, whom David thought was “ivory from the neck up” and “extraordinarily stupid”.8 Nicoll was a difficult man who had led a tragic life. His wife had been declared insane after childbirth and was confined to an asylum. Nicoll’s own withdrawn and introverted personality did not endear him to David nor, for that matter, to many others. He was not voluble and was often taciturn to a fault. Furthermore, Sir John was proud of colonialism’s achievements in Singapore — something David absolutely abhorred. David had also not forgotten the dressing down he got from the governor some weeks back when he had ranted at David and chastised him like a schoolboy. Now it was time to show the governor that the power relationship had changed. Bush Jackets in the Assembly David had to find a symbolic way of putting the message through to the governor that things had changed and that they would be speaking to each other as equals, not as master and servant. David chose the occasion of his first visit to Government House to ram the point home. Instead of the customary morning suit that prime ministers wear for such formal occasions, David decided that he would turn up in a bush jacket. It was smart but informal and seemed to register the right tone. The governor was aghast but kept a stiff upper lip. David explained his move to his cousin Nissim Marshall in Bombay: You were right in suggesting that the bush jacket was worn intentionally. You may not be aware that just before I left for Europe, the Governor called me up, sat me across the table and for an hour and twenty-five minutes he ‘went to town’, in criticizing me and my attitude towards the British Civil Service. I wasn’t even

8

David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives).

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

246

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

247

INTO THE DEEP END

allowed to smoke then, and when he called upon me to form a Government, I thought I must do something to place our changed status very prominently to the forefront, and I chose deliberately to go in a bush shirt and to make it an issue immediately should he criticize me, so that there would be a clear indication that I came not as a guest, not as a stooge, not as a spaniel, but as a representative of the people who would take no orders from him and who would issue orders if necessary. I must say for the Governor, he took it extremely well.9

While the governor did not criticize David, the press did, with the pro-British Straits Times leading the charge by accusing him of insulting the Queen.10 David’s reaction was predictable. The more he was criticized, the more he upped the stakes. David recalled months after the episode: according to the newspapers, I insulted her [the Queen’s] proconsul, and therefore I insulted her. And I said, ‘Alright,‘if that’s the reaction, then I will continue wearing that bush shirt until we get independence.’ And the Governor said, ‘Please Marshall, the press will be at the Assembly, and the international press, look, please Marshall, don’t. Don’t come in a bush shirt.’ And the more they did this sort of meaningless pleading which had no validity to it because it had no understanding in it, the more stubborn I became. And I went to the Assembly in a bush shirt and I continued in a bush shirt. Very comfortable.11

On 22 April, 1955, at the opening session of the Assembly, David strode into the chamber in his bush jacket. To lend him support, Francis Thomas, the governor’s own nominee for a seat in the Assembly, also came in a bush jacket but went one up on David by wearing open-toed sandals! Two other assemblymen, Lim Chin Siong

9

DM to Nissim Marshall, 9 May 1955, DM/194/169.

10 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 100. 11 David Marshall’s interview in BBC’s Empire radio programme, undated, but most probably 1955. Transcribed by the author.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

247

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

248

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

and M.P.D. Nair, turned up in open-necked shirts, sans ties.12 The die was cast but Nicoll was not prepared to allow the prestige of the British Empire to evaporate on his watch. He refused to deliver the governor’s speech “from the throne” to the chief minister as normal protocol prescribed, but instead instructed his aide-de-camp to hand it to David.13 Red Ink and Green David and his cabinet were sworn in by Chief Justice Charles Murray Murray-Aynsley in a short, solemn ceremony on 6 April, 1955. The swearing-in took place in the cabinet room in Government House. Thereafter, the Chief Justice and the Clerk of Court left and the rest proceeded to discuss the day’s agenda. Presiding over the meeting of the Council of Ministers was Sir John Nicoll, the governor. As chief minister, David sat opposite the governor and was flanked on both sides by the Attorney General, E.V. Davies, the Chief Secretary William A.C. Goode, and Financial Secretary Tom Hart. The rest of his cabinet was scattered on both sides of the table. The atmosphere was pregnant with expectation. For David, it was a momentous occasion and he expected the governor to start the proceedings with some customary gracious greeting and sagely platitude. Instead, the first words Sir John blurted out were: “I use red ink.” David was flummoxed. “I beg your pardon?” he enquired. Sir John laconically repeated himself: “I write with red ink.” By now, perplexity was fast turning into irritation. David, with as much control as he could muster intoned again, “I beg your pardon?” The governor replied, once again, voice slightly raised, “I said I write with red ink!” William Goode, who was watching the scene with increasing concern, then chipped in: 12 “Show of Pomp Heralds A New Era for The Colony”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 23 Apr 1955. 13 Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 102.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

248

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

249

INTO THE DEEP END

His Excellency means that our minutes, the last minute is always in red. And a red minute indicates that it is His Excellency’s final decision. And no one else is allowed to write in red ink.14

This really got David’s back up and he was ready to start a fight then and there with the governor. He remembered: I thought, ‘You lousy bastards. You are trying to tell me right at the commencement even what ink I can and can’t use. And I need to cooperate with you. Am I going to start a fight right now? A confrontation, which would be counter-productive? … Suddenly the voice of EV Davies from the corner on the right, ‘And I write with green ink, Mr Marshall.’ I thought the lousy bastard, really. ‘Ah Mr Attorney-General, I’m grateful to you for reminding me of the delightful colour. Henceforth, I will write with green ink and no one at this table will.’ It was a bit of a shock, me giving orders to the Governor and to the others because that was symbolic!

David stuck resolutely to his promise. He used green ink to sign all documents and even to write letters right to the end of his days. Like his pipe and his bush jacket, these symbols of his personal struggle against colonialism became part and parcel of his personality. The Office of the Chief Minister Perhaps the most famous of David’s confrontations against the authorities was over the question of his physical office. When he was sworn in as chief minister, David realized that the colonial authorities had made no provision for a separate office or staff for the chief minister. As Minister for Commerce and Industry, David had an office in Fullerton Building, but that was in the premises of his ministry. It was not the chief minister’s office. When he enquired about this, Nicoll told him, “Mr Marshall, you’re the Minister for

14 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 7 (Singapore: National Archives).

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

249

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

250

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Commerce and Industry. We will send you the invitations for the Chief Minister to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.”15 It was quite clear that the British Government had never anticipated having a pro-active chief minister who wanted to wield real power even though the Rendel Commission had recommended quite clearly that the “Leader of the House”, who is the leader of the largest party in the assembly, “would exercise many of the functions which would normally devolve on a Prime Minister in a fully self-governing State.”16 When the 1955 Constitution was enacted, the term “Leader of the House” was not used, but instead the post of chief minister was created. The role of the chief minister was not clearly set out in the Constitution, but in many matters the governor was empowered to act, only “in consultation with” the chief minister. When David pressed his point that the chief minister should coordinate the activities of all ministries, Nicoll told him: Bill Goode will do that, Mr Marshall. Bill Goode, as a Colonial Secretary has his fingers on the pulse of the activities of this colony and he will coordinate.17

When David told Nicoll in no uncertain terms that it was he who would coordinate the activities of all the ministries, Nicoll told him that he did not need an office since he already had one at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Time for another battle royal. David recalled: Then I blasted. I said, ‘You won’t give me an office, right? Will you give me a chair and a table under the old apple tree? You won’t give me that? I’ll supply them. You just supply me with a telephone!’

15 Ibid. 16 Report of the Constitutional Commission Singapore 1954 (Singapore: Singapore Government Printers, 1954), para. 68. 17 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 7 (Singapore: National Archives).

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

250

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

251

INTO THE DEEP END

At this point, Bill Goode intervened and urged David not to be so rash as to sit in public conducting official business. The next day, 8 April, was Good Friday and he promised David that he would have an office by the Monday following Easter. On Monday, 11 April, David moved into a small cubicle on the ground floor of the Assembly building, just under the staircase: It’s no more than 14 foot long by about 12 foot wide. It had one lamp, one table, two chairs, one calendar. And no books, no other furnishings. Maybe it had more than two chairs. Maybe it had three chairs. I mean, George Thomson insisted it was his office. But as I understood, at that time it was the Sergeant-at-Arms’ Office. It doesn’t matter whose office it was. It’s the office under the staircase. It was a cubicle.18

Bill Goode, then chief secretary explained that the reason why David had not been allocated a separate chief minister’s office was because the Rendel Constitution had assumed all ministers would run a department and would thus have their offices in their respective departments. Since the chief minister would likewise be running his own department, there was no need for a separate office. He was merely regarded as “the senior of a number of ministers”. After all, he was not a prime minister and could not expect to be provided with the usual, attendant trappings.19 Nonetheless, Goode agreed that David was right to demand an office of his own: David Marshall argued, quite fairly, that he was the Chief Minister and that in order to recognize his position, it was quite essential that he be provided with an office of his own where he could be serviced with telephones and secretaries, and conduct business with his ministers.

18 Ibid. 19 “The Last Governor: Sir William Goode looks back”, Part II, The New Nation, 20 Jul 1971, p. 9.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

251

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

252

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

So we had to get busy and get an office for him. This may sound a small problem, but it showed the way things were going to go.20

Not everyone agreed with Goode. Acting Financial Secretary Harold Anthony Shaw, who had a tempestuous relationship with David, felt strongly that it was only right that no office had been provided because that was not what the Rendel Constitution had envisaged. Furthermore, the permanent secretaries, who had the best offices, had to clear out to make room for the minister. Shaw felt it was because David did not want to do the ministerial job he had chosen but instead wanted to sit on top directing everyone else that he demanded an office for the chief minister.21 It took a long time for the colonial authorities as well as for the establishment in Singapore to appreciate the change in the political scene. Singapore now had its own chief minister and the people had their true representative. David was not going to let anyone forget it. On quite a few occasions, David was placed seventh or eighth on the protocol list and this incensed him greatly. At a private party, he really could not care less where he was placed, but at official functions he asserted his right to be there as number two, after the governor. Years later, Bill Goode recalled some of these problems: In those early days, we were all learning. We colonial officials had to adjust ourselves to the new scene. It was good that we had as the first Chief Minister a man with the personality and character of David Marshall. He ensured that this change of scene was a dramatic change and that all Singapore realized there had been a change. It wasn’t all that easy to get the bulk of the Singapore population to realize that there had been a very significant change when the Labour Front government came in.

20 “The Last Governor: Sir William Goode looks back”, Part II, The New Nation, 20 Jul 1971, p. 9. 21 See Harold Anthony Shaw, Oral History Interview, Reel 7 (Singapore: National Archives).

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

252

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

253

INTO THE DEEP END

I can remember having a certain amount of worry in the early days because I could not ensure that the syces who drove the official cars recognized that they now had a Chief Minister. For years there’d been a protocol in attending functions whereby the Governor’s car went first, then the Chief Justice’s and then the Colonial Secretary’s, and then that of the President of the City Council and then the bishop’s. Now of course, we had a Chief Minister. To my horror, when I came out of some function, I would find the car lined up by the drivers in exactly the same way! The Chief Minister’s car wasn’t even in the row! It took a great deal of effort to persuade the drivers of all these cars that we now had a Chief Minister and that he must take precedence. This was the sort of difficulties that we had, and David Marshall was not a person to take lightly what would appear to be a public affront to the dignity of the Chief Minister.22

David himself recalled how he was slighted at a private event, a film premiere hosted by the movie magnate, Runme Shaw. He was placed eighth, after some junior naval officer. People who did not understand what David was driving at thought he was a prima donna throwing his weight around. While he certainly had a big ego and was apt to blow up when it was pricked too unceremoniously, that was not what drove David to take on these issues of protocol. He personified the office of chief minister, the representative of the people of Singapore, and any affront to the chief minister was an insult to the Singapore people. At the Runme Shaw event, David told Mrs Richardson, the lady in charge of seating arrangements, that he would not go in until she had rectified the seating order. If she did not do so, he was going home. Finally it was resolved, after half an hour, and David took his place next to Nicoll.23 22 “The Last Governor: Sir William Goode looks back”, Part II, The New Nation, 20 Jul 1971, p. 9. 23 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 7 (Singapore: National Archives).

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

253

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

254

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

There was even talk of the government offering to buy Coleman House, at No. 3 Coleman Street, as the chief minister’s official residence. David apparently refused this offer, believing it to be a trapping that did not necessarily elevate the status of an elected government.24 David had single-handedly transformed what the British had assumed to be an appointed office into one that wielded real power and could claim to represent the people’s aspirations. In a private note to A.M. MacKintosh, head of the Southeast Asia Department of the Colonial Office, Governor Robert Black remarked: The Chief Minister started off by being an Appointed Minister, with no special privileges. Early on, however, he was given an office with separate staff and, by the time I arrived and was met by him, he was already a Chief Minister in the sense of using the word ‘chief ’ more correctly. He arrived at this partly on account of the position of the Parties in the Assembly, partly because his fellow Appointed Ministers were insignificant persons, and partly because of his own dynamic personality.25 CHALLENGES

The Seething Chinese Masses David’s initiation into government was nothing like his initiation into politics. His door-to-door campaigning, even his riveting and fiery speeches “under the old apple tree” in Empress Place had been genteel, polite affairs compared to the real mass-based politics that was about to hit him in the face like a left hook. The British believed in playing politics by Queensberry rules as far as possible, but the communists and their sympathizers saw politics as a matter of life and death, with no quarter given and none expected. Even before the Labour Front took office, the Chinese-educated and Chinese-speaking population, which mostly occupied the lower strata of society, was seething with anger and resentment against the 24 “Coleman House for Mr M?”, The Sunday Times, 24 Jul 1955. 25 Sir Robert Black to A.M. MacKintosh, 23 Jul 1955, CO 1030/79.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

254

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

255

INTO THE DEEP END

British. Several factors accounted for this discontent that constantly threatened to boil over into chaos and anarchy. The first was the fact that the British had long neglected the overwhelming numbers of lower-income Chinese migrants who now made Singapore their home. The second was that the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) had been driven underground in 1948 when it was declared an illegal party. The third factor flowed from the second — the Chinese Communist Party had succeeded in capturing power in China and promised to make China great again. When these three ingredients were combined, the resultant brew was explosive, as David was soon to find out. Many Chinese youths were attracted by the ideals of communism. Not only did communist ideology advance egalitarianism above privilege and status, it also promised a fairer and less exploitative world. In Malaya and Singapore, the CPM emerged as heroes of the war against the Japanese and their self-sacrificing valour brought them many admirers and recruits. If the oppressive and negligent British were to be kicked out of Singapore, who better than the communists to do it? Support for the CPM came directly from Peking — and by 1949, China had become the most populous communist country in the world. Even though the CPM had returned to the jungles to fight in 1948, they adopted a plan to infiltrate the various civic organizations, especially the trade unions and political parties. In October 1951, the CPM’s central committee issued a directive ordering all its members to adopt a united front by concentrating their efforts on expanding and consolidating the party’s mass organization and destroying “the enemy” through politics rather than force. The CPM already had a strong foothold in the unions, so the directive concluded by asking cadres and members to focus on the Chinese middle (secondary) school students.26 This was a masterly strategy for, as Yeo Kim Wah

26 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 112.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

255

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

256

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

noted, the Chinese middle schools were particularly susceptible to communist infiltration: During the first postwar decade Chinese schools were extremely receptive to communist influence. To a great extent this stemmed from the rise of China as a major world power. The impressive success of the Chinese communist revolution, reinforced by the influence of a Chinese education system oriented to grooming men for public life, inspired Chinese school students to play a leading role in Malayan national affairs. In fact their views on local politics were generally accepted by their less well-educated parents most of whom belonged to the lower strata of Singapore society.27

Although the Labour Front was nominally socialist, most of its members, especially David Marshall, were anti-communists. The People’s Action Party, on the other hand, were non-doctrinal and were prepared to court the communists if advantage could be gained from such a collaboration. As Lee Kuan Yew himself had observed back in 1955, “Any man in Singapore who wants to carry the Chinesespeaking people with him cannot afford to be anti-communist?”28 By the time David and his party came to power, the communists had already penetrated deep into the trade unions and Chinese middle schools. They would use these legal bodies and entities to battle the colonial authorities through strikes, lock-outs, and even violent clashes and riots. To be sure, there were real grievances to be addressed. Many of the Chinese-educated milieu felt marginalized in an Englishspeaking, colonial world. Prospects for higher education were limited as the University of Malaya (inaugurated in 1949) offered instruction only in English. There were no Chinese-medium universities in the region to absorb those who were inclined to further their studies. Chinese-educated students faced bleak prospects in the job market as big business was dominated by European firms or internationally

27 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 175. 28 The Straits Times, 5 May 1955.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

256

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

257

INTO THE DEEP END

oriented firms that required a command of English. The CPM knew that they could capitalize on this discontent to foment discord between the Chinese youths and the government. As Yeo noted: As in prewar days, Chinese school teachers were China-oriented and mostly China-born. Most of them transferred their sympathy to Peking when the Nanking Government collapsed in China. Poorly-paid, insecure, and nursing a bitter grievance against British discrimination against Chinese education, these teachers invariably helped create an atmosphere of discontent and rebellion in the schools. Among them were hard-core communist cadres and many pro-communist elements in both the Chinese middle and primary schools.29

From the early 1950s, the CPM began agitating the Chinese schools through the Singapore Students’ Anti-British League (SSABL), especially in opposition to the School Registration Ordinance 1950, which the students felt was aimed at eliminating or destroying Chinese education.30 And when the Chinese middle school students began helping to raise funds for the proposed Nanyang University in 1953,31 they were seen by the masses as defenders of Chinese education.32 The next rallying point for the Chinese students and the CPM was the passage of the National Service Ordinance in 1955 and the government’s plan to enlist some 2,500 students for part-time military training. This led to widespread boycotts and demonstrations. On 11 May, 1955, a day before registration was closed, students from the

29 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 186. 30 Ibid., pp. 188–89. 31 Marshall himself donated to the establishment of Nanyang University, donating $1,000 at the behest of Tan Eng Joo of the Democratic Party because he felt that the “entire education system had been geared to the need of colonial commercial enterprises, for clerks and peons, and the aim of the educational system was to supply robots for the commercial machine”. See David Marshall, “Contribution to Sin Chew Jit Poh”, DM/44/20-10-2. 32 Ibid., p. 189.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

257

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

258

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Chinese High School and Chung Cheng High School sent a petition to William Goode, then acting governor, requesting exemption from the call-up. On 13 May, 1954, Goode granted the student leaders an audience. A huge crowd of some 900 students arrived in twenty lorries and queued up along Clemenceau Avenue, just outside Government House, to “give moral support” to their eight representatives who had gone to see Goode. Fearing a riot, the police ordered the students to disperse within five minutes. When they refused, the riot squad was brought in to break up the crowd. A riot ensued and forty-eight students were arrested. Later, twenty-six of them were convicted of unlawful assembly and rioting under the Emergency Regulations.33 This was the incident on which Governor Sir John Nicoll sought David’s counsel when he asked to see him at Government House for the very first time. The Emergency Regulations & PPSO Although one of the Labour Front’s election promises was the repeal of the dreaded Emergency Regulations of 1948, David was most reluctant to make good on it.34 This promise had been included in the Labour Front’s election manifesto, crafted while David was away in London studying electioneering and party management. Naive though David may have been, he was staunchly anti-communist and immediately saw the dangers of such a rash promise which had clearly been meant to outdo the People’s Action Party in radicalism. Of course, the Labour Front’s leaders did not imagine that they would have to make good on this election promise, since they never thought that they would be forming the government. This left David

33 Ibid., p. 191. 34 Even his old Raffles Institution classmate, V. Ambiavagar, who shared debating honours with Marshall, wrote him to urge him not repeal these Regulations: V. Ambiavagar to David Marshall, 4 Apr 1955, DM/10/125.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

258

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

259

INTO THE DEEP END

the onerous task of ridding his government of the very arsenal it would need to handle the disruptive forces about to be unleashed by the communist-infiltrated trade unions and Chinese middle schools. These Emergency Regulations were promulgated in 1948 following the proclamation of a state of emergency in both Malaya and Singapore. Pursuant to the Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948,35 Governor Franklin Gimson had proclaimed a state of emergency for Singapore on 22 July, 1948. Under the ordinance, the governor had power to proclaim a state of emergency, while section 4 gave him general powers to legislate during an Emergency. In the exercise of his section 4 powers, the governor then promulgated the Emergency Regulations, 1948,36 which, among other things, gave the police power to enforce a curfew37 and the Colonial Secretary discretion to order the detention of any person that he thought “necessary or expedient for securing the public safety or for the maintenance of public order”.38 The power to detain without trial was one of the government’s principal weapons against the communists and would-be troublemakers — who might find themselves incarcerated without recourse to the usual channels of judicial review. This was the power that the communists feared most and were anxious to see repealed. As the Labour Front had made an election promise to repeal the Emergency Regulations, the matter came up for discussion in the

35 Ordinance No. 17 of 1948 as amended by Ordinance No. 39 of 1948. 36 The Emergency Regulations, 1948 No. S 220 made on 28 July 1948 pursuant to the Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948. The most complete set of all Emergency Regulations made pursuant to the Ordinance is Reprint of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1948 as amended together with Proclamations, Orders, Rules and Regulations made thereunder as amended up to the 1st May 1953, and a Table of Contents (Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1953). 37 Section 6(1), Emergency Regulations, 1948. 38 Section 20(1), Emergency Regulations, 1948.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

259

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

260

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

governor’s opening address to the Legislative Assembly on 22 April, 1955. As is traditional with the opening of any legislative assembly founded on the Westminster model, the head of state reads an address to the assembly, stating the policies to be pursued by the government in power and oftentimes parroting the election manifesto. In his opening address, Governor Sir John Nicoll said: In the realm of legislation, the Government has turned its immediate attention to the matter of the Emergency Regulations, which in accordance with the law are due now for consideration by this Assembly. Yesterday, I extended by Proclamation the period of Emergency for another three months. It remains for this Assembly to decide at this meeting whether or not this extension is to be confirmed by adoption of the Proclamation by a resolution of this Assembly. Meanwhile I have revoked certain of the Emergency Regulations which the Government after a preliminary examination is satisfied can be dispensed with immediately. The Government, anxious not to damage the fabric of security, has decided after earnest consideration to submit to you this Proclamation for adoption at this meeting, and is in the process of exhaustively examining the Emergency Regulations and the Banishment Ordinance with a view, in so far as is practicable, to dispensing with such powers as are no longer necessary and to the exercise of powers essential for the maintenance of law and order within the framework of normal legal procedure. In considering this matter, regard will be had to all the factors involved, including the Emergency situation in the Federation of Malaya.39

On 27 April, David rose in the Assembly to move a motion supporting the governor’s decision to extend the Proclamation of Emergency by another three months. Although David admitted his disdain for the regulations, as he had developed “a strong distaste for arbitrary executive power and the abuse to which it was prone”,

39 Speech of Sir John Nicoll, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 22 Apr 1955, col. 9.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

260

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

261

INTO THE DEEP END

he felt it necessary to show solidarity and collective responsibility with the Council of Ministers to move the motion.40 David then informed the Assembly why the Council of Ministers supported the governor’s decision: In this particular matter we are strongly advised by persons responsible for internal security that there is, in fact, a continuing danger, and that the continuance of the Emergency is essential for the security of the territory. We say frankly, Sir, that we have not had the time to investigate these matters ourselves …41

It was a serious personal dilemma for David. On the one hand, the continued existence of the Emergency Regulations deeply offended his liberal impulses and instincts. On the other hand, he was now chief minister and knew that it would be utterly irresponsible for him to get rid of the very weapon he needed to maintain law and order. Indeed, even before he was elected to office, David was well aware of the danger of repealing these regulations and had quarrelled with Lim Yew Hock over the Labour Front’s election manifesto — drafted in his absence — that had promised the repeal. David opted to “do the right thing” and got his cabinet to support the governor’s decision to extend the Proclamation of Emergency. At the same time, they also got the governor to repeal eight of the regulations after a “cursory investigation of the workings of the Emergency Regulations”.42 One of the regulations that the governor repealed related to the power to proclaim a curfew43 — this later had to be restored.

40 Speech of David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 27 Apr 1955, cols. 141–42. 41 Speech of David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 27 Apr 1955, cols. 143. 42 Speech of David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 27 Apr 1955, col. 143. 43 Section 6(1), Emergency Regulations 1948.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

261

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

262

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David and his cabinet asked for three months to review the Emergency Regulations.44 Sir John Nicoll, who knew that David was not one to go back on his promises, offered him a solution that had worked well in many other colonial territories. He suggested that David could repeal the regulations and he, as governor, would reintroduce them under his reserve powers. David was furious. On 22 July 1955, he went before the assembly and openly revealed to his colleagues Governor Nicoll’s Machiavellian proposal: Then came the Emergency Regulations, and it was graciously conceded that we were in an awkward position, having promised to repeal them, if we now thought that they might be necessary for the welfare of the people. And as you have read in the correspondence, it was officially suggested that we should blithely come to this Chamber, repeal those Emergency Regulations, gain the credit from our electors, and then the Governor would impose

44 Following the passage of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948, and the enactment of the Emergency Regulations 1948, the British Government enacted a further eighteen sets of Regulations between 1948 and 1953 covering various issues relating to internal security. These were: Emergency (Registration) Regulations 1948; Emergency (Registration) Order, 1948; Emergency (Control of Ships’ Crew and Passengers) Regulations, 1948; Emergency (Special Constabulary) (Personal Injuries) Regulations, 1948; Emergency (Prohibition of Discharge of Firearms and Explosives) Regulations, 1948; Emergency (Explosive Substances) Regulations, 1948; Emergency (Strikes and Lock-outs) Regulations, 1948; Emergency (Travel Restriction) Regulations, 1949; Emergency (National Emblems — Restriction of Display) Regulations, 1949; Emergency (Arms and Explosives — Movement Control) Regulations, 1950; Emergency (Publications — Import Control) Regulations, 1950; Emergency (Publications — Control of Sale and Circulation) Regulations, 1950; Emergency (Publications — Control of Sale and Circulation) (Advisory Committee) Rules, 1950; Emergency (Harbour Craft Navigation) Regulations, 1951; Emergency (Newspaper) Regulations, 1951; Emergency (Injury Allowances) Regulations, 1951; and Emergency (Restriction of Movement — Johore Straits) (Singapore) Regulations, 1953.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

262

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

263

INTO THE DEEP END

them under his special powers. That was perhaps the biggest shock I have ever suffered — that there should be such contempt for the people’s representatives; that it should be assumed that we would act in so filthy and dishonest a fashion; cheating you on this side of the House, cheating the public, only to gain dishonest kudos and to evade our own responsibility to our people.45

While David could not in good conscience move to repeal the Emergency Regulations, he could work towards its refinement and improvement. After all, his most trenchant critic in the Assembly, the PAP’s Lee Kuan Yew, made the point time and again that his party’s platform had been that the Emergency Regulations would be amended and not repealed.46 David’s solution was the introduction of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance (PPSO).47 The bill for this new ordinance was first read in the Assembly on 18 August, 1955, debated in August, and eventually passed on 21 October, 1955.48 The PPSO was based on Indian, Pakistani, and Burmese precedents. Section 3 gave the Chief Secretary the power to direct that a person be detained for a period not exceeding two years, if the Governor-in-Council was satisfied that the detention was necessary to prevent that person from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of Malaya, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of essential services.49 Significantly, the PPSO gave the final decision on whether a person should be detained to a panel of three judges.50 Power was also given to the

45 Speech of David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 22 Jul 1955, cols. 406–7. 46 See exchange between R.C.H. Lim and Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 27 Apr 1955, cols. 154–55. 47 Ordinance No. 25 of 1955. 48 The PPSO was passed on 21 Oct, 1955, as Ordinance 25 of 1955. 49 See section 3, PPSO. 50 See sections 5(4), 6 & 7, PPSO.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

263

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

264

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Commissioner for Police to declare a curfew.51 In moving this bill, David said: In order to give the citizen the greatest sense of security possible, Sir, this law requires that the Appeal Tribunal should consist of three Judges, men whose traditions of impartiality, integrity and responsibility through the decades in this territory have earned the respect of every single member of every community. It is three Judges, Sir, who will form the Appeal Tribunal. There is no such protection in any other law in any other territory which provides for preventive detention and arrest.… … We are proud to have sloughed away many of the provisions of the Emergency Regulations. What remains is essential. It is with a heavy heart that I introduce this Bill, Sir, which does not completely remove the existing inroads in the rule of law as I had hoped in the early days of my government. I believe this law is necessary for the protection of the people of Singapore and the people of the Federation of Malaya whom we should never forget.52

David was roundly attacked by the opposition, most notably by Lee Kuan Yew and Lim Chin Siong of the People’s Action Party. Lim told the Assembly that the substitution of the PPSO for the Emergency Regulations was just as undemocratic and would do nothing to solve the “deep-rooted political, social and economic diseases of colonialism.”53 Lee attacked him for going back on his party’s promise to scrap the Emergency Regulations and challenged him to get a mandate from the people to introduce something as draconian as the PPSO.54 By now, David was wise to their baiting and concluded the debate on a realistic note: 51 See section 19, PPSO. 52 See speech of David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 21 Sep 1955, cols. 705-8. 53 Speech of Lim Chin Siong, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 21 Sep 1955, col. 715. 54 Speech of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 21 Sep 1955, cols. 722–23.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

264

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

265

INTO THE DEEP END

The Emergency Regulations of the past and the Public Security Bill of today will not cure this country of Communism. All it can do is to contain it, to lessen its possible effect until such time as the tender growth of democracy in this territory is sufficiently strong and flourishing that the forces of evil and their vitriolic hatred, which pours out of them like sap out of a rubber tree, cease to have the vicious effects they have in blinding the people of the country to their true welfare. This is all this Bill is expected to do.55

The bill was considered in committee, went through its third reading, and was passed on 12 October, 1955, by a vote of 19–4, with seven abstentions. The trade unions, supported by the Chinese school students, launched a “virulent campaign” against the PPSO that lasted seven weeks. On the day the bill was passed, workers and students donned “mourning” clothes and observed ten minutes of silence outside the Legislative Assembly.56 At the same time the Labour Front was moving the PPSO through the Legislative Assembly, the colonial authorities pushed through the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Bill. Chief Secretary William Goode, in moving the bill, explained that it was necessary “to strengthen the law against those who seek to overthrow the lawfully elected Government by violence, or who seek to subvert the minds of the people by intimidation, away from genuine democracy and constitutional advance to self-government, to the rule of fear and to ultimate Communist domination”,57 Interestingly, this legislation reintroduced and reinstated many of the provisions of the various Emergency regulations that had been repealed. The main difference, as Goode almost apologetically explained, was the temporary nature of this legislation: 55 Speech of David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 21 Sep 1955, col. 754. 56 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 247. 57 Speech of W.A.C. Goode, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 21 Sep 1955, col. 756.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

265

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

266

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

all are measures which we hope and believe will only be required for a limited period, a period during which we hope that the citizens of Singapore will learn by experience to distinguish between liberty and licence, between good leaders and bad leaders, and will learn to see the dangers into which the Malayan Communist Party and those who compromise with them are likely to lead this country. These measures, we think, are necessary during a period of immaturity in understanding and practicing democracy to safeguard us from the dangers that beset us on the path to maturity. We hope, therefore, that they will no longer be needed after that period and, accordingly, all these various matters have been put together into this one Bill which, by sub-clause 2 of clause 1, is to remain in force for a period of only three years. As the title of the Bill indicates, these are temporary additions to our criminal laws.58

Like David’s PPSO, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance was sent to committee, read a third time and passed on 12 October. It was supported by all the members of the Assembly except for five members — John Ede, Goh Tong Liang, Rajabali Jumabhoy, Lim Choon Mong, and Lim Koon Teck — who abstained. By October, the emergency powers that the Labour Front had whittled down in April were restored. The colonial authorities now had the power to deal with the troublesome, left-wing agitators and strikers. The Singapore Chinese Middle School Students’ Union (SCMSSU) One upshot of the 1954 National Service Ordinance protests was a decision among the leaders of the nine Chinese Middle Schools to form a students’ union to protect their interests. Some months later, in January 1955, the SCMSSU applied to the Registrar of Societies for registration. Their constitution was based on that of a Chinese cultural association, with aims to promote student welfare, establish close relations between teachers, students, and management committees, and sponsor literary, recreational, and other social

58 Ibid.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

266

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

267

INTO THE DEEP END

activities.59 The wording of the constitution belied the union’s true intent, which was to train students to help carry out a future communist revolution in Malaya.60 Predictably, the registrar, who had been monitoring the union’s pro tem leaders and their activities, rejected the application. This sparked a one-day strike on 20 March, 1955, just four days before the general elections. Organized groups of students stood at the gates of seven Chinese middle schools to “dissuade” their classmates from entering the school for their examinations.61 The Chinese students then made capital of this rejection and accused the colonial authorities of discrimination. Citing the fact that the government had allowed the University of Malaya Students’ Union to be registered but not the SCMSSU, they accused the British of discriminating against Chineseeducated students and Chinese education.62 Things were coming to a head when — as historian Yeo Kim Wah asserts — the SCMSSU reached an agreement with the Labour Front. In exchange for Chinese student support for the Front during the elections, the Front would register the SCMSSU if it came to power: It has been alleged that at this stage an understanding was reached between student leaders and the Labour Front. In return for student support during the 1955 election the Labour Front promised to register the student union should it capture power. When the Labour Front-Alliance Government assumed office in April 1955, it agreed to register the SCMSSU provided the latter refrained from participating in politics and industrial disputes.63

59 Ibid., p. 198. 60 Ibid. 61 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 114. 62 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 198. 63 Ibid.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

267

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

268

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

At first, the student leaders rejected the “no politics” clause but the CPM directed them to get themselves registered first and then to continue political activities thereafter. In May 1955, the SCMSSU was registered.64 Whether the Labour Front had in fact offered the SCMSSU a “votes for registration” deal is difficult to fathom beyond this point, but Drysdale quotes a “private source” that confirms this.65 Indeed, if there was such a deal, David was probably unaware of it. In any case, he was sympathetic to the Chinese student body, as evinced from his advice to Governor Nicoll when asked about the National Service Ordinance clash. David’s own justification for registering the SCMSSU was that he preferred to have “the malady out in front, instead of working underground”.66 He felt that it was far better not to confront a runaway horse and be trampled to death by it, but to run alongside it until it began to lose steam and could be guided it to a stop.67 By late 1954, the Chinese middle school students were well and truly embroiled in radical political action and had begun supporting trade unions in their industrial disputes.68 The whole political atmosphere was charged like a powder keg, ready to blow. This was the atmosphere into which David and his Labour Front ventured in April 1955. Hock Lee Bus Riots — May 1955 The Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) had long had a foothold in the labour unions. However, with the proscription of the CPM in

64 Ibid. 65 Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 125. 66 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 8 (Singapore: National Archives). 67 Ibid. 68 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 196.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

268

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

269

INTO THE DEEP END

1948, many of the communist-controlled and affiliated unions — especially those affiliated with the Singapore Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU) — were dissolved. It was only in 1953 that the Singapore City Committee — the central body coordinating and directing CPM activities on Singapore island — made a clear policy decision to penetrate the labour unions and the Chinese middle schools.69 The tools for this policy would be two of Chinese High School’s student leaders, Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan. By 1955, they would become the most powerful union leaders in Singapore. Fong left school in 1952 and became a bus conductor in the Green Bus Company. By 1954, he had worked himself into the post of general secretary of the Singapore Bus Workers’ Union (SBWU). Lim, who joined the Changi Bus Company as a clerk in 1953, formed the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers’ Union (SFSWU) with Yong Kok Kim, a known CPM cadre, and Lim Chin Kok, a member of the Gi Ho Secret Society. Both young men were modest and self-effacing. For many Chinese youth, they characterized the ideal of selfless, altruistic leadership. They were also charismatic and extremely influential rabble-rousers and were capable of fanning the Chinese-speaking crowds into a state of white-hot rage. By 1955, Fong had managed to bring 10,000 workers in the six Chinese bus companies under his SBWU, while Lim had brought the membership of the SFSWU from a meagre 375 in April 1954 to almost 30,000 by the end of 1955.70 Between them, they controlled the two most powerful unions in Singapore. Both these unions had Lee Kuan Yew as their legal adviser. Fong and Lim’s modus operandi was simple and effective. Discussing Lim’s method with the SFSWU, Yeo Kim Wah writes:

69 Ibid., p. 238. 70 Ibid., p. 241.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

269

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

270

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

The usual method they adopted was to instigate unorganized workers to strike, form a union to lead them, and then affiliate the union to the SFSWU. At other times, established unions were taken over by the SFSWU which provoked and then took over control of strikes among their members. In both cases, the strikers were provided with financial assistance as well as rice, sugar, coffee and other necessities. As the strikes snowballed after April 1955, so the membership of the SFSWU multiplied. Membership increased from 375 in April 1954 to 1,500 in February 1955. By the end of the year the SFSWU members had totalled nearly 30,000, half of whom were enrolled through the 135 sympathy strikes staged in support of the Hock Lee strike in May and the protest strike in June …71

In February 1955, Fong instigated a strike at the Paya Lebar Bus Company that would set the pattern for strikes to come as it involved the Chinese middle school students who were mobilized in support of the workers. By April 1955, Fong was planning another major strike. This time, it was at the Hock Lee Bus Company. The dispute arose when Hock Lee’s management successfully thwarted attempts by Fong’s Singapore Bus Workers’ Union (SBWU) from taking over the Hock Lee Employees’ Union. The latter, which had the support of the secret societies as well as trade unions loyal to Labour Minister Lim Yew Hock, comprised some 200 bus drivers. They remained loyal to the company and refused to join Fong’s SBWU. This was a major affront to Lim and Fong. Fong appointed a picketing team of Hock Lee workers loyal to him and declared an official strike of Hock Lee workers. At the same time, he urged all other bus companies to stage a sympathy strike if the Hock Lee dispute could not be settled. The Hock Lee management was not intimidated. They dismissed 229 workers belonging to Fong’s SBWU. These workers promptly went on a hunger strike and picketed the bus depot all night. They were soon joined by students from the

71 Ibid.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

270

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

271

INTO THE DEEP END

Chinese middle schools who were ferried to the bus depot to provide the strikers with entertainment. Hock Lee’s loyal employees defied the picket and managed the next day to get 40 of the firm’s 70 buses out of the depot and onto the streets. As the picket line had been breached, a confrontation between the SBWU and Hock Lee’s management was inevitable. Early on 27 April, the police attempted to break up the picket. In the ensuing altercation, fifteen strikers were injured. By 9:30 a.m., some 1,000 workers and students converged on the depot and joined the picket, determined that no one be allowed to cross the line. Fong warned that if anyone was arrested, all the other bus companies would strike in sympathy. Within a week, Hock Lee’s management offered to reinstate the sacked workers pending the outcome of a Court of Inquiry ordered by the Minister for Labour. As 1 May approached, six companies, including the Singapore Harbour Board, went on sympathy strikes. On May Day, the People’s Action Party (PAP) held a rally at the Singapore Badminton Hall attended by 6,000 supporters, including 2,000 students. The meeting called upon the government to compensate the workers injured in the police crackdown and threatened to call a general strike. The colonial authorities wanted David to call in the army to quell the striking workers, but he refused. In retrospect, he offered two reasons for this. First, it was completely against David’s personality to use force against the working masses, people whose sweat and toil had been exploited by the colonial government. He truly sympathized with the underdogs and the downtrodden — calling in the troops was the last thing he wanted. Second, internal security was a portfolio over which he had absolutely no jurisdiction or control. It was one of the three official ministries still in colonial hands and Chief Secretary William Goode, was specifically in charge: Bill Goode asked me whether I would give authority to call in the British troops and I said no. The Governor then sent for me and I said, ‘No. I would not.’ I said, ‘You are responsible for internal

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

271

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

272

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

security. You damn well work and carry out your own responsibility. Don’t ask me for permission. I have no right to control anything about internal security or to know anything about it. I am not giving you any excuse to get in with your troops.’ I was … so lonely in those days; lonely and lost. I was trying very hard to settle the excuse for the riots rather than to deal with the rioters themselves which were being handled by the police.72

One other reason for David’s refusal to use force was the fear that he would lose out in the popularity stakes. This could prove disastrous since his party was running a minority government.73 The Court of Inquiry’s decision on 5 May, 1955, did nothing to assuage the students and unions, who were being whipped into a frenzy by Fong Swee Suan and Lim Chin Siong. The truce negotiated by David and Lim Yew Hock broke down after a few hours and no one abided by the decision of the Court of Inquiry. By 8 May, the riot squad had to be brought in to disperse the huge crowd picketing the Hock Lee Bus depot. Those buses that were able to cross the picket line were boarded by strikers and sympathizers, who proceeded to rip up all the seats and ring the bells incessantly. On 10 May, plain-clothes policemen were posted around the depot and hoses were used to disperse the pickets. Nineteen picketers were injured. Lim Chin Siong convened an emergency meeting of his SFSWU to denounce the use of force and threaten a general strike if the Hock Lee dispute was not settled “reasonably”.74 The next day, Fong’s SBWU met at the SFSWU premises and declared a two-day

72 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 8 (Singapore: National Archives). 73 See James Low, “Kept in Position: The Labour Front-Alliance Government of Chief Minister David Marshall in Singapore, April 1955 – June 1956”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 35.1 (2004): 47. 74 Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 107.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

272

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

273

INTO THE DEEP END

strike, giving the Hock Lee management forty-eight hours to settle the dispute. By this time, practically no buses were running and Singapore’s public transport had come to a standstill. Lim and Fong had it all planned out. They would pretend to persuade the unions and the students to accept the compromises offered by the Hock Lee management and the settlements brokered by the government. But on the slightest excuse, they would then renege on their pledges. Then they would build the crowd’s emotions to the next level. Their orchestration was masterly — these two maestros of the masses intoxicated and mesmerized their audience with flaming rhetoric, building crescendo upon crescendo, chorus upon chorus, until everyone bayed for blood and sought martyrdom as salvation. Their plan was to inflame the crowd to a fever pitch that would culminate in a major showdown on 13 May, 1955, the anniversary of the Chinese middle school students’ clash with government forces over the National Service Ordinance the year before. The situation was getting out of hand, even for the PAP’s moderate wing led by Lee Kuan Yew. Despite David’s best efforts to reach a compromise, there was no reasoning with Lim and Fong’s unions. On the morning of 12 May, the police were ordered in to disperse the crowds. Some 2,000 students and between 300 and 400 strikers clashed with the police, throwing stones and bottles. The battle raged all day and it was not until the early hours of 13 May that the rioters melted away. Four persons were killed and another thirty-one injured. In the immediate aftermath of the clashes, David went on the radio to address the people of Singapore, to inform them of the gravity of the situation and explain why the government had no choice but to order police action: We are of the view that the manoeuvres by these dismissed employees, under guidance, was originally intended to provoke the police to use such force as to give an excuse for an island-wide strike on May Day. Our restraint frustrated this move. Now it

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

273

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

274

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

seems they are working for a day of violence tomorrow, May the 13th, in celebration of the student’s clash with the police last year. No government can ignore its duty to maintain law and order. And although my colleagues and I are deeply unhappy to use force of any nature against workers, there is now only one course open to us, and that is to make it clear that we cannot tolerate physical intimidation whereby a small group can jeopardize the welfare of the whole country. The police were told to enforce the law as gently as possible, and to this end, water hoses were used. Our action has been misrepresented as using violence against peaceful strikers. This is a vicious falsehood. … Today, the police have had to use hoses again in order to remove the physical and unlawful obstructions of the dismissed employees from the running of the buses. These workers ignore the inconvenience to the public, and flout the due process of the law. If the law is inadequate, there is procedure to amend it. And we will amend it where it is proved to be unfair to the workers. … I urge the workers of this country, who have suffered for so long, to be awake to the dangers of being used for political ends by political opportunists, who seek not their welfare but the destruction of the government, your government. I appeal to parents, principals and teachers to use their influence with the youth of this territory, and to draw attention to the way their idealism is being used for vicious, abused for dangerous ends. Ends inimical to the welfare of the country, and to our aspirations for self-government and independence.

For someone like David — who believed in the intrinsic goodness of human beings and who assumed that good reason and common sense would always prevail — dealing with the left-wing, procommunist trade unions and student organizations proved extremely exasperating and wearisome. He could not believe that men would choose anarchy over order or crisis over harmony. Like many in his Labour Front government, David had yet to awaken to the power and ruthlessness of the CPM, working through two long-marginalized and frustrated groups — the trade unions and the Chinese middle

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

274

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

275

INTO THE DEEP END

schools.75 He was, as he admitted to the Legislative Assembly, “ingenuously quite shaken” by the SBWU’s refusal to accept the compromise struck and the solutions he wrought.76 It had taken the tragedy of the Hock Lee Bus riots for David to realize that there was a small group of men who were prepared to destroy democracy and overthrow his government, no matter what the cost. It was a sobering and heartbreaking experience. What was even more painful was the fact that someone like Lee Kuan Yew, whom he regarded as highly intelligent and capable, was a willing “cat’s-paw of forces which he knew to be evil”.77 The communists’ show of strength in the Hock Lee riots dealt a mortal blow to David’s credibility. The British authorities saw him as being indecisive and weak and unwilling to take a tough stance in serious law and order situations. However, any other alternative at that time would have been untenable. As Nicoll himself expressed in a secret note, the “possibilities are so unattractive that it is important to keep Marshall in office”.78 While David was himself genuinely sympathetic to the poor working conditions and pay of the workers and the bleak future that Chinese middle school students faced when they left school, his

75 Indeed, in a confidential memorandum written by A.R. Lazarous to David Marshall in the immediate aftermath of the Hock Lee Bus riots, no mention was even made of the need to deal with the communist threat, but instead ascribed the seething frustration to economic conditions and labour relations. See A.R. Lazarous, “A Paper on the Present Industrial Unrest in Singapore with a Study of Its Causes and a Fighting Programme for the Labour Government”, 15 May 1955, DM/9/46/1–4. 76 Speech of David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 16 May 1955, col. 236. 77 Ibid., col. 237. 78 Note by Governor Sir John Nicoll, 31 Jul 1955, CO 1039/79.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

275

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

276

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

failure to take decisive action was also in part motivated by selfinterest. He was, as Yeo pointed out, also trying to “woo the support of the student-labour movement for his anti-colonial policy”.79 In the long term, this hurt David more than he imagined. The British, who insisted that any withdrawal from their former colonies be managed peacefully and with dignity, were not sure if David could be counted on to protect their interests when push came to shove. Epidemic of Strikes The left-wing trade unions emerged from the Hock Lee Bus riots stronger than ever before. All the dismissed workers were reinstated without loss of pay and the Hock Lee Employees’ Union was smashed. From now onwards, few employers would dare defy the picket lines.80 As recounted above, Lim Chin Siong’s SFSWU swelled to almost 30,000 in membership as a result of the sympathy strikes. Fresh from their victory in the Hock Lee riots, the SFSWU planned a new campaign on an even larger scale. The target was the Singapore Harbour Board, the infrastructural hub of Singapore’s entrepôt trade. The Harbour Board controlled the port. Its workers were split among five different unions, the most important of which were the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association (SHBSA), comprising white-collar workers, and the Singapore Harbour Labour Union (SHBLU), comprising mainly industrial labourers.81 The leader of the SHBSA was Jamit Singh, a left-wing trade unionist with known communist sympathies. Following the pattern established by Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan with respect to the SFSWU and SBWU, Singh tried to unite all the port workers

79 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 245. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid., p. 236.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

276

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

277

INTO THE DEEP END

under the umbrella of the SHBSA. As early as 1952, Singh and his colleagues had put forward demands for better pay and service conditions. Like the Hock Lee Bus Company, the Harbour Board did not cave in but resisted negotiating a settlement with Singh and his union. They were confident that they could successfully avert a major strike since the port workers were spread out over five different unions. Furthermore, the Board did not want to buttress Jamit Singh’s standing among the port workers and the rest of the port workers’ unions. On 30 April, 1955, Jamit Singh called for a strike among the port’s white-collar workers, but his union could not single-handedly force the hand of the Harbour Board. Lim’s SFSWU then jumped into the fray, threatening to call a general strike unless the Board agreed to negotiate with the SHBSA by 13 June. Despite the spectre of another Hock Lee Bus riot situation, David was still not prepared to take draconian action, even though the colonial authorities had plans to arrest some 300 key organizers and agitators.82 David opened a dialogue and sought compromise with the union leaders whom he referred to as “a clique of PAP politicians who masquerade as trade unionists”.83 On 10 June, he received an ultimatum to the government, stating that if the dispute was not settled, more than twenty trade unions would join in a sympathy strike. That evening, he met with the PAP clique. When they left his office at 8:00 p.m., he had reason to believe that he had negotiated a truce and that there would be no sympathy strike. He then persuaded the colonial authorities to restrict the arrests to just eight persons, including Fong Swee Suan and his right-hand man, Ng Hock Guan.84

82 Ibid., p. 246. 83 Speech of David Marshall, 29 Jun 1955, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, col. 338. 84 Ibid.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

277

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

278

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

The arrests hardened the unions — on 14 June, 1955, the general strike was on. However, the number of strikers fell far short of the estimated 70,000 workers who were expected to lay down their tools and take to the streets. This was partly due to the fact that some unions, such as the Singapore Trades Union Congress and the Army Civil Service Union, remained loyal to the Labour Front government and refused to join in.85 About 17,000 workers mounted a protest strike, demanding the release of the six detained unionists. This strike completely crippled Singapore’s public transport system. David and the authorities allowed the strike to play itself out, believing that if overly drastic action were taken, the common worker’s “traditional antipathy” towards the government would be exacerbated and there would be “irreparable harm to the cause of democracy”.86 He also believed that with the security forces on constant alert and with the government’s willingness to deploy them, the strike would peter out without any real violence. As David later told the Assembly: It was an open effort to substitute mob government for government by the people’s elected representatives. Widespread intimidation and rumour-mongering were resorted to. The security forces were constantly on the alert, Sir, and the knowledge of the strength of these security forces and of Government’s readiness to use them, as well as the few arrests which had been made, are believed to have been the reasons for the absence of violence during those days. As Hon. Members are aware, large numbers of workers, reaching a maximum of 15,000, excluding those who were on legitimate strike, were induced during those days to go out on strike, dislocating passenger transport and considerably inconveniencing the public. The threat by this PAP clique to the democratic process collapsed, Sir, after five days, when the workers under their domination, led

85 See Francis Carnell, “Political Ferment in Singapore”, Far Eastern Survey 24.7 (1955): 99–100. 86 Speech of David Marshall, 29 Jun 1955, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, col. 342.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

278

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

279

INTO THE DEEP END

by the Singapore Traction Company workers, openly revolted against being used as pawns in a political game, and the threat to reinstate a general strike on the 26th of June failed to materialize.87

This second major clash left Lim Chin Siong and his SFSWU weaker than after the Hock Lee Bus riots. Lim realized that there was a substantial segment of workers who were not willing to do his bidding regardless of the cause. Times were tough and people had to make a living. The fact that many of the disputes did not really concern the mass of striking workers also made it difficult to sustain strike action as a weapon in the long run. By this time, David had shown himself capable of tough action, even though it made his heart ache to take a confrontational stance against underdogs like workers and students. The Chinese Students Radicalism in the Chinese middle schools grew out of legitimate concerns. The colonial government had never considered the status of Chinese-medium education and the poor prospects these students faced in a colonial setting where a premium was placed on an English education. As Jason Tan noted: The only schools where children of different ethnic backgrounds were enrolled were the English-medium schools, which catered for only a small minority. These schools were favoured by the colonial authorities in terms of funding and opened doors to clerical employment in the colonial civil service or in trading firms. The overall effect of such a system was socially divisive, accentuating racial, linguistic and cultural differences as well as the gap between rich and poor.88

87 Speech of David Marshall, 29 Jun 1955, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, col. 340. 88 Jason Tan, “Education and Colonial Transition in Singapore and Hong Kong: Comparisons and Contrasts”, Comparative Education 33.2 (1997): 304.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

279

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

280

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

We have seen how the Chinese middle schools, teeming with discontent, became the obvious target of the Communist Party of Malaya. After the National Service Ordinance clash with government troops on 13 May, 1954, the Chinese middle school students became increasingly involved in labour disputes and supported the trade unions when major strikes were organized. Indeed, in the bloody Hock Lee Bus riots of 12 May, 1954, the number of student sympathizers outnumbered strikers by three to one. In the aftermath of the Hock Lee riots, the government arrested several students and blacklisted another 70. The Council of Ministers met with the management committees of the three major Chinese middle schools — Chinese High School, Chung Cheng High School, and Nanyang Girls’ High School — and told them that unless the blacklisted students were expelled and school discipline reinforced, the government would have to ask them to show cause why they should not be deregistered and shut down. This riled the students into further action. On 16 May, 1955, over 2,000 students forced their way into Chung Cheng High School and threatened to camp there until the government abolished the “colonial educational policy”, released the student detainees, and repealed the School Registration Ordinance. Stanley Spector, who witnessed these events first hand, noted: Once more the students struck, barricading themselves in the high schools, working themselves into frenzies through dances and chants, and inviting police attacks. The press rushed to the support of the students. The once conservative and later neutral Chamber of Commerce, now a frightened tool of the PAP, sent dire warnings to Marshall. The community voiced indignation at Marshall’s alleged attempt to wipe out Chinese education.89

89 Stanley Spector, “Students and Politics in Singapore”, Far Eastern Survey 25.5 (1956): 70.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

280

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

281

INTO THE DEEP END

This time, it was the trade unions who joined in and threatened to call a general strike in support of the students if David closed the schools.90 Not wanting another major confrontation, David relented, but not before appointing an All-Party Education Committee to look into the problem of Chinese education. The committee immediately recommended that David drop his threat to close the schools and any planned disciplinary action against the arrested students so that they could work in an atmosphere that engendered cooperation and trust. The radical forces saw this as a complete capitulation on David’s part and celebrated in triumph. CONCOCTING A CRISIS

Sir John Nicoll left Singapore at the end of June 1955 and was succeeded by Sir Robert Brown Black (more popularly known as Sir Robin Black), who had been governor of Hong Kong. When Black arrived in an RAF plane, he was greeted at the airport by David, Chief Secretary William Goode, the press, and picketing employees from the Singapore Harbour Board.91 In July, after barely three months in office, David approached the new governor, requesting him to appoint four assistant ministers to assist in the running of ministries under his charge.92 The genesis of this request was infighting among key members of his Labour Front over David’s nomination of cabinet ministers. C.H. Koh had threatened to resign over R.C.H. Lim’s nomination by the governor while Mak Pak Shee, A.R. Lazarous, and Lim Choon Eng were upset that Francis Thomas had been nominated as a minister. To prevent the Front from splintering, David promised to secure appointments for the disgruntled members after three months.93 On

90 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 200. 91 “Welcome, Sir Robert — By Pickets”, The Straits Times, 1 Jul 1955. 92 “Marshall Plan for Assistant Ministers”, The Straits Times, 8 Jul 1955. 93 See Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 309.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

281

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

282

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

4 July, David wrote to Black asking him to appoint Mak Pak Shee, Lee Choon Eng, Mohamed Sidek bin Haji Abdul Hamid, and M.P.D. Nair as assistant ministers. David argued that the Rendel Constitution had empowered the governor to create up to nine junior ministerships he was now asking only for four and would in due time ask for the rest. David offered three reasons for his request: firstly, it was necessary to relieve the heavy workload of the existing ministers; secondly, he was concerned to widen the circle of administrative experience among local politicians in order to create a corps of trained men for self-government; thirdly, he was seeking to strengthen his hold over the ‘non-domiciled’ civil service to ensure the correct implementation of his policies.94

David called on the governor on 6 July. Black, who was a much nicer man than Nicoll and who was genuinely keen to move Singapore towards self-government, was not convinced by David’s arguments. Nonetheless, he told David on 9 July that he was prepared to appoint two assistant ministers. This was bad news for David who had hoped to quell the infighting within his party by making these four new appointments. Like any sharp-witted lawyer, he turned adversity into advantage. He seized upon this “rejection” and made it a constitutional issue. It was no longer a question of whether David would be allowed to have four or two ministers. It was a question of constitutional law: did the governor have absolute discretion on the appointment of assistant ministers? It was a question “as to who, under the Rendel Constitution, is going to govern the country — the Governor or the ministers”.95 In a political master stroke, David had managed to stay the hand of the dissidents in his party; challenge the workability of the Rendel Constitution; seize the initiative from the pro-communists and the

94 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 115. 95 See The Straits Times, 3 Aug 1955.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

282

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

283

INTO THE DEEP END

PAP by pressuring the British for a revised timetable for selfgovernment; and “portray himself as the avant garde of anticolonialism”.96 The disputed constitutional provision was section 32 of the Rendel Constitution, which read: 32. The Governor after consultation with the Chief Minister may from among elected members in the Assembly appoint Assistant Ministers to assist ministers in the discharge of their duties and functions. [emphasis added]

David argued that the word “may” in section 32 should be read as “shall” or “must”, given that discretion was not the issue. On 19 July, Governor Black replied that “consultation with the Chief Minister” under section 32 did not require the governor to accept the chief minister’s recommendations, especially since the situations in which the governor was bound to accept the chief minister’s advice were already set out specifically in section 19(2). David’s arguments were plausible but not very strong and it was clear that he was pushing the issue as far as he could. Vernon Bartlett, the leading political commentator of that time, called it a “deliberately organised constitutional crisis”.97 When David threatened to resign as chief minister unless the governor accepted his interpretation of section 32, many people panicked. The British were reluctant to hold fresh elections so soon after David had taken office. Even if they did, there was no guarantee of what might happen. Black urged David to withhold his threat of resignation until he had spoken to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, who was due in Singapore in August 1955. Many others, including David’s parliamentary colleagues,

96 See Navtej Singh, Singapore’s Fight for Self-Government Under David Marshall, 1955–1956 (Academic Exercise, Department of History, University of Singapore 1973), p. 34. 97 See The Straits Times, 22 Aug 1955.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

283

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

284

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

ordinary citizens, Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, and Governor-General Malcolm MacDonald, persuaded him to stay his hand. On 22 July, David summoned an emergency meeting of the Legislative Assembly to break the impasse. He presented a “highlyskilful motion” in three parts.98 The motion read: That the Speaker do convey to His Excellency the Governor the view of this House that the people of Singapore are determined to end colonialism and to rule themselves through their elected representatives. And that as a demonstration of the good faith of Her Majesty’s Government in its oft-repeated promise to the people of Malaya that they would grant self-government at the earliest possible moment, the most liberal construction legally permissible in favour of the elected representatives of the people in the interpretation of the Singapore Colony Order in Council 1955, should be adopted. And that where the Governor is required by the provisions of the said Order in Council to consult with the Chief Minister before taking any action, he should act in accordance with such advice.99

Only the PAP supported the motion wholeheartedly. Lee Kuan Yew had, at David’s request, risen to second the motion. The debate raged for two whole days and David was in top form. His oratory, complete with the most vivid imagery, was as dramatic as it was sensational. He called the Rendel Constitution “the scraggy hand of death clutching at the brakes of progress”.100 He also told the house that “the tempestuous honeymoon” between the Labour Front coalition and the opposition was over and that they now faced a common enemy — the colonial administration — that had now shown its true colours, or as David put it: “The claws of the beast show through the velvet glove.”101 He also warned the colonial authorities that the elected 98 Ibid. 99 See Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 22 Jul 1955, col. 404. 100 Ibid., col 405. 101 Ibid.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

284

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

285

INTO THE DEEP END

government was not and “will never be, prepared to be nothing but gold-plated shock absorbers for colonial rule”.102 Despite his blistering rhetoric, David was not all sound and fury. As a lawyer, he marshalled his legal facts cleverly. He pointed to several English decisions103 that held that when a statute confers a judicial power or authority, the word “may” should read “must”. David concluded from this analogy that since section 32 of the Order in Council conferred on the governor power to appoint “in consultation with the Chief Minister”, he was bound to do so. On a construction of the entire constitution, David pointed out: If the Governor is supposed to have a discretion, which is alleged on his behalf, there are 17 times in an Order in Council of 79 sections which say: ‘The Governor may in his discretion’. Why could they not put in for the 18th time ‘may in his discretion’ after ‘consultation with the Chief Minister’? 104

It was, David added, “a matter of constitutional law and constitutional practice that where you are required to consult someone, you act on his advice, and that being so, it was thought important not to leave it at that but to make a very vital provision for an exception”.105 When David finished his speech, Lee Kuan Yew rose to support the motion as the “de facto leader of the Opposition”.106 Lee avoided being drawn into the legal arguments, presenting the problem as a political one instead. In his characteristically cold, analytical style, Lee drew three scenarios for the Assembly:

102 Ibid., col. 407. 103 During the debate, Marshall referred to Alderman Backwell (1683) Vernon’s Chancery Reports 152; McDougal v. Patterson (1852), and R v. Mitchell (1913) 1 King’s Bench 561. Ibid., col. 410. 104 Ibid. 105 Ibid., col. 413. 106 Ibid., col. 417.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

285

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

286

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

I can see only three possible developments: the first, a new coalition; the second, a suspension of the constitution; the third, fresh elections.107

The first alternative, argued Lee, would still end in a deadlock because “whatever permutations and combinations of Progressives, Independents, and deserters from other ranks, no coalition could give this constitution any chance, if it ever had any, of working”.108 A suspension of the Constitution would strengthen the hand of the communists and the third alternative was too risky. If the Progressives won, the Constitution would work, but the progress towards selfgovernment would be set back. If the same old issues were canvassed again as they had been four months earlier, the various parties might be returned in roughly the same numbers and they would be back to where they started. Finally, Lee argued that an election could be fought on this issue alone and when the twenty-five members were “returned with a mandate to negotiate on this issue, we shall then have a new constitutional position, and we shall face the British Government, not in Singapore, but in Whitehall, with a solid phalanx of representatives who have been directed to do a specific task”.109 One by one, the other members rose to support the motion. The debate came to a close at 4:00 p.m. on 22 July, and was adjourned to 25 July. Shortly after the second session began, Lim Koon Teck, a Progressive assemblyman, proposed an amendment to David’s original motion that shocked everyone in the chamber.110 The amendment read:

107 Ibid., col. 418. 108 Ibid., col. 419. 109 Ibid., col. 422. 110 Some members took this opportunity to criticize the Progressive Party for its volte-face. Lee Kuan Yew called it “a piece of political chicanery”, and J.M. Jumabhoy, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Commerce and Industry, described it as “political acrobatics”.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

286

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

287

INTO THE DEEP END

that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for a transfer of power from the Government of the United Kingdom to the people of Singapore, and that a new constitution providing for independence should be granted immediately.111

On hearing this proposed amendment, the Assembly broke out in derisive laughter. Could this be the same Progressive Party that considered independence achievable only in eight years’ time? Surely this “unpremeditated and blundering move” was “made solely for reasons of political one-upmanship”.112 And although David condemned this “political somersault”,113 he knew that he now had the upper hand. He proposed an amendment to the amendment, substituting the word “independence” with “self-government”. When the vote was finally taken, twenty-eight members of the House, including all the opposition and independents, voted for David’s resolution. Only G.A.P. Sutherland voted against the motion while the three colonial officers, E.J. Davies, W.A.C. Goode, and T.M. Hart abstained. The call for immediate self-government sent headlines screaming in Singapore and London. Having secured his motion, David withheld his threat of resignation so that he could hold talks with Secretary of State Alan Lennox-Boyd, who was due to arrive on 31 July. David held several meetings with Lennox-Boyd, and, on the morning of 18 August, 1955, the long-awaited response to David’s motion was read in the Governor’s Message to the Legislative Assembly.114 As far as the governor’s powers were concerned, the colonial authorities did not accept David’s arguments, but nonetheless agreed that it would be

111 See Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 25 Jul 1955, col. 469. 112 See Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 119. 113 See Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 25 Jul 1955, col. 470. 114 Lennox-Boyd stopped over in Singapore on 31 Jul, 1955, held discussions with the Governor and Marshall and then left for the Federation. He returned on 15 Aug, 1955, whereupon further discussions took place.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

287

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

288

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

“preferable, at this stage of Singapore’s constitutional progress, if the present legal requirements connected with the exercise of the Governor’s discretionary powers after consultation with the Chief Minister are modified in certain respects”. By royal instruction, the governor was now required to act according to the advice tendered by the chief minister after consultation, except in respect of the discretion to prorogue and dissolve parliament.115 David got his four assistant ministers. As for the motion for self-government, the British Government invited Singapore to send a delegation to London to discuss “the situation in the light of a year’s working of the Constitution”.116 The 1955 constitutional crisis turned out well for David. He had beaten the colonial authorities at their own game, extracted considerable concessions from them, and boosted his prestige and position as an anti-colonialist. However, the crisis also exacted a high price from him. His party dissidents were still unhappy with his appointment of the four junior ministers, especially the appointment of M.P.D. Nair, a non-LF member, as junior minister. In November 1955, after an LF Party Congress, two leading LF members — Lee Choon Eng and A.R. Lazarous — resigned the party and crossed the floor to join the opposition. With the defection of two key members, David lost his majority, but managed to carry on as chief minister when Lee Kuan Yew pledged to support the government in the Assembly. The debate on David’s motion highlighted two major inadequacies of the British paradigm in general and the Rendel Constitution in particular. First, while the British were anxious to engage the masses in politics, they were only prepared to do so on their own terms and

115 See section 67(1) Singapore Colony Order in Council 1955. 116 See Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 18 Aug 1955, col. 537.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

288

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

289

INTO THE DEEP END

according to their own timetables — a process they had worked out carefully with the Progressives. David’s victory shattered that paradigm. As Sir William Goode, chief secretary during David’s tenure as chief minister and the last British governor of Singapore, was to reminisce years later, David’s election victory hurt British plans because it would have been better to have people with six or seven years’ experience who could have “gentled the constitution along in a nice, steady, progressive, bureaucratic, civil service way”.117 David short-circuited the British constitutional timetable and spurred the British to respond more urgently to the power of the masses that had exploded unexpectedly in their faces. Secondly, the British paradigm and its institutions proved inadequate to the task of sensing the public pulse. Periodic elections did not provide a sufficient avenue for the public to express their collective will and, as Lee so rightly pointed out in his supporting speech on David’s motion, unless an election were held on a specific issue, Singaporean political leaders could not really speak for the people of Singapore and confront their colonial masters in demanding a greater say in government.

117 See Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 101.

11 Marshall_S'pore Ch 11

289

11/21/08, 9:13 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE Institute 290 of Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

12

Building a New Singapore PLANNING AND ORGANIZING

D

avid Marshall and his Labour Front government spent most of their time quelling fires and conflicts and being hounded from pillar to post. The slew of explosive issues that confronted them from the moment they took office would have felled many a government, but David was not one to back down in the face of adversity. Despite the many problems he faced, he was determined to put his government on a proper footing to advance its election promises. One of the first things he tried to do was to get a party organizer to strengthen his party’s organization and management.1 For this, he turned to his old friend, Gerald de Cruz, who was at the time principal of Osborne House, a school for intellectually disabled children in Hastings, England. De Cruz had written David a congratulatory note on his election victory and, two weeks later, received an invitation from David to return to Singapore to work for the Labour Front. David, in typical fashion, had told de Cruz that he was “surrounded by crooks” and needed someone he could trust to help him run the party as organizing secretary.2 David was even prepared to dip into 1

Incidentally, Marshall also received a short aerogramme from one Kenneth Topley of London offering to help him enquire about someone to help in party organizing. Topley to David Marshall, 14 Jun 1955, DM/6/155.

2

De Cruz, Rojak Rebel, p. 161.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

290

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

291

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

his pocket to fund de Cruz’s appointment. In a letter to de Cruz in June 1955, David wrote: You can help. You can come out here as organizing secretary of the Labour Front and the TUC [Trades Union Congress]. It may well be that once here your somewhat impatient nature would prefer the PAP. I do not know, but I do think that your place is here to take a hand in guiding the future. I have known you to be corroded with bitterness to the point where you were no longer useful as a human being. The tone of your letter does indicate that your soul is now healed, and that you have attained maturity. If that is true, you can be a very very real help. If you are interested I would indicate that the present Labour Front is an extremely tenuous organization and it has no money in its coffers. I will be personally responsible for such expenses as may be incurred for the first year, including your salary.3

De Cruz was keen but anxious about leaving a stable job that he enjoyed. His wife, Coral, would need a job, and he could not afford the passage back for his wife and two children.4 In this regard, he asked David for a loan that would be returned by way of salary deductions.5 David’s party colleagues did not share his confidence that de Cruz had abandoned his communist ideology.6 Indeed, the Labour Front executive rejected David’s proposal in July 1955 as it was not convinced that de Cruz “could have changed from the extremism which they all fear”.7 3

David Marshall to Gerald de Cruz, 14 Jun 1955, DM/16/2.

4

Coral de Cruz was a top flight secretary and was confidential secretary to T.P.F. McNiece when he was Director of Social Welfare in Singapore. She would later join David as his confidential secretary — probably the very best he ever employed.

5

Gerald de Cruz to David Marshall, 23 Jun 1955, DM/16/4.

6

David Marshall to Gerald de Cruz, 1 Jul 1955, DM/16/5. In this letter Marshall told de Cruz that: “It has been freely stated that you are a sympathizer of communism and unstable.”

7

David Marshall to Gerald de Cruz, 18 Jul 1955, DM/16/8.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

291

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

292

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David then became cautious and asked Lady Hilda Selwyn-Clarke to meet up with de Cruz to ascertain if he really was a changed man. The report from Selwyn-Clarke was not positive, as she felt de Cruz had prevaricated and was evasive about his past. This hardened David’s stance as he would never countenance dishonesty. In January 1956, he wrote de Cruz offering a contract. In addition, David wanted de Cruz’s assurance that he was “firmly anti-communist” in his views, that he would “wholeheartedly support” the Labour Front’s progamme, and that he would, throughout his stay in Singapore “fight against the establishment and growth of communist ideologies and communist form of government”.8 It took almost a year of negotiations before David finally managed to get de Cruz to come to Singapore with his family and work as the Labour Front’s organizing secretary. Prior to de Cruz’s departure, David also arranged for him to receive six weeks of party organization training at the Fabian Colonial Bureau at his personal expense.9 In March 1956, slightly more than a month before the Singapore all-party delegation was due to leave for constitutional talks in London, de Cruz returned to Singapore on a plane ticket paid for by David.10 As organizing secretary, de Cruz managed a small office located on the first floor of the Bank of China Building. His job was to “stabilise whatever branches there were and to build new branches”, as well as to run the annual meetings and conference of the Labour Front. He spent his evenings visiting the branches.11 One startling

8

David Marshall to Gerald de Cruz, 11 Jan 1956, DM/16/27.

9

“De Cruz Cables: I’ll Take the Job”, The Straits Times, 25 Jan 1956.

10 On 6 March, Marshall received a receipt from the Labour Front for his donation of $1,500 towards the cost of airplane tickets for Gerald de Cruz to fly from London to Singapore. See Labour Front to David Marshall, 6 Mar 1956 (DM/16/51) 11 Oral History Interview, Gerald de Cruz, 23 Sep 1981, Reel 9 (Singapore: National Archives).

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

292

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

293

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

discovery de Cruz made while sorting through the paper work at the Labour Front office was that there were some 10,000 application forms, ostensibly filled in by members of the party. But when he started chasing them up for particulars, he discovered that most of them were false application forms. They had been filled up by bogus members who would then technically have the right to elect party leaders.12 Other than getting the party organized, David was most anxious to get proper advice on economic matters. He was, after all, Minister for Commerce and Industry but knew next to nothing about economics and fiscal policy. David scouted around openly for a suitable person to be his personal economic adviser. Looking within the civil service, he was told that Goh Keng Swee, a brilliant economics graduate, would be suitable, but when he discovered that Goh was then finishing up his Ph.D. studies at the London School of Economics, David felt that Goh would serve Singapore better after he finished his studies and resolved not to recall him to Singapore.13 Then an excellent suggestion came from his distant cousin Dr Emily Sadka — herself a brilliant Queen’s Scholar and historian — who suggested that he consider Professor Arthur Lewis, Professor of Economics at Manchester University. Lewis, she argued, was a brilliant West Indian economist who had advised the new government

12 Ibid. 13 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 8 (Singapore: National Archives). In his letter to Goh Keng Swee upon the latter’s retirement from politics in 1984, Marshall recounted this incident: “Are you aware that in 1955 I learned of your presence in London and I was advised to recall you to be part of the team which I was trying to form to help me evolve an economic policy for Singapore? I looked into the matter and realized that you had little more than a year to go to finish your doctorate and I said: ‘No, in fairness to him, let him remain. He will be more useful to Singapore after he has completed his course.’ ” See David Marshall to Goh Keng Swee, 30 Aug 1984, DM/503/2/1–2.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

293

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

294

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

in the Gold Coast and was a socialist to boot.14 David loved the idea and followed it up with a quick note to Lady Hilda Selwyn-Clarke of the Fabian Colonial Bureau, asking her to approach Professor Lewis. Lewis was not keen to come out to Singapore, feeling that the salary offered was too little and that in any case Singapore’s economic problems were “quite straight forward” and that David did not require a “high-powered economist” to advise him permanently.15 Eventually, he offered the post to Dr Frederic Charles Courtenay Benham (1900– 1962), who had been economic adviser to the Comptroller for Development and Welfare in the West Indies (1942–1945), as well as to the United Kingdom’s Commissioner-General for Southeast Asia (1947–1955). Having found himself a personal economic adviser, David now set about establishing a national committee to advise on general economic policy. This was known as the Economic Advisory Unit and was established in November 1955. The Unit was mandated to “give advice to the Government on general economic policy, on the programme of capital investment, and on the broad economic aspects of social policy”.16 David’s choice for the chairmanship of this unit was Sir Sydney Caine (1902–1990), Vice-Chancellor of the University of Malaya. Prior to his becoming Vice-Chancellor in 1952, Caine had acted as a consultant to the World Bank. When he left Singapore in 1957, he was appointed Director of the London School of Economics, where he remained until 1967. In November 1955, David also appointed Caine to head a Committee on Minimum Standards of Livelihood to:

14 Emily Sadka to David Marshall, 22 Apr 1955, DM/194/96/1–2. 15 W.A. Lewis to Selwyn-Clarke, 27 Apr 1955, DM/194/106. 16 See statement by David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 21 Nov 1955, col. 962.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

294

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

295

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

examine and report upon the desirability and feasibility of Government action to promote the establishment of minimum standards of livelihood for the people of Singapore, including the institution of unemployment insurance, the prescribing of minimum wages, either generally or in selected industries, and the extension of the existing measures of social security through pensions, provident schemes or otherwise.17

Members of the Committee included P.A. Wilson, assistant economic advisor and secretary; Cheong Hock Hai; Dr Huang Kai-Loo; Dr Lim Tay Boh; Mr S. Rajaratnam and Ms Jean M. Robertson. G.J. Brocklehurst, an expert from the International Labour Organization, was also on hand to assist the Committee.18 MEET - THE - PEOPLE SESSIONS & THE PUBLIC ADVISORY BUREAU

During his election campaign, David had made a seemingly outrageous promise to the people of Cairnhill constituency — that if elected he would devote one day a week to meet the people of his ward directly, to hear their problems and their suggestions for improving government. Unlike the Labour Front promise to abolish the Emergency Regulations, David fully expected to keep this promise.19 When he presented his cabinet to “the people of Singapore” at Empress Place, “under the old apple tree”, David again reiterated his intention to keep this promise: I said to you that if elected, I would dedicate a day in every week to receive the people of Singapore, whether voters or not, whether from Cairnhill or not. Rich or poor, in order to enable me to understand your problems, to receive your advice, and to assist

17 Ibid. 18 “Sir Sydney will explore welfare state”, The Straits Times, 22 Nov 1955. 19 “One Day A Week — Marshall’s Pledge”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 16 Mar 1955.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

295

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

296

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

where I can assist. I did not then realise; I did not anticipate, that I would shortly receive the privilege of the responsibility of dedicating 7 days a week to your welfare and probably many nights of that week. But I will still keep faith with you in spite of the onerous nature of the duties of the Chief Minister. And insofar as the pressure of my official duties permit, I shall receive you one day a week, with or without appointment. The time and the day of the week would be indicated in the press and so far as it lies within the power of human endurance and my other duties, I shall do everything to assist all.20

It was a brilliant idea. How else could David make it understood to the people of Singapore that political leaders and civil servants were no longer lords and masters of the realm but servants of the people? In 1984, when asked about the origins of the meet-the-people sessions, David stated that he could not recall if he had borrowed it from anyone else.21 However, Leonard Francis (Leon) Comber — who helped David establish the Public Advisory Bureau (PAB) in July 1955 — speculated that it may have been subconsciously imbued from his reading of the autobiography of Sir Mirza Ismail,22 who had served as Diwan or Chief Minister of several Indian states, the last of which was Hyderabad.23 Comber had seen a copy of Mirza Ismail’s My Public Life on the shelves of David’s office and surmised that it could well have been this book that inspired David to start his weekly meet-the-people sessions.24 Mirza Ismail, like David, was 20 Speech of David Marshall at the presentation of his Cabinet, Empress Place, 6 Apr 1955, transcribed by author. 21 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 8 (Singapore: National Archives). 22 Leon Comber, “David Marshall and ‘Meet the People’ — Singapore 1955– 56”, Asian Studies Review 18.2 (1994): 112. 23 Sir Mirza Muhammad Ismail (1883–1959) served as Diwan of Mysore from 1926 to 1941, Diwan of Jaipur from 1942 to 1946, and Diwan of Hyderabad from 1946 to 1947. 24 Sir Miza Ismail, My Public Life (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1946).

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

296

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

297

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

anxious to narrow the gap between the governors and the governed and he also set aside Saturdays to take the Diwan out of his palace to meet his people: Gone are those days. Now a democrat is enthroned in the seat of power. On every Saturday men and women go to see their President … to everyone the Prime Minister listens, and each man returns home satisfied and happy.25

In any case, the objective was the same. The whole idea, David recalled, “was that the people should realize this is their government, and these arrogant civil servants were their servants in truth and in fact”.26 The first Meet-the-People sessions were started in June 1955 in the air-conditioned press conference room on the ground floor of the historic Assembly House. Initially, it was conducted by J.C. Corera, David’s former law clerk from Battenberg & Talma, and Encik Noordin, David’s personal stenographer. David would preside at the head of a long table, with Corera and Noordin — and later Comber — flanking him. Oftentimes, these men also acted as David’s interpreters, as his main language of communication was English although he could understand and make himself understood in bazaar Malay. Corera was a Tamil, Noordin a Malay, and Comber was fluent in Malay, Mandarin, and several Chinese dialects, including Cantonese. The first few Saturday sessions were packed with between 100 and 150 persons waiting to see the chief minister about their problems. The press was there in full force. Comber described the atmosphere: There was no formality and the room had something of a theatrical atmosphere about it, with the Chief Minister taking the main role, sitting at the centre of a long table, facing the assembled crowd. At the end of the day, after the Chief Minister had completed the

25 The Bombay Chronicle, 30 Dec 1946, quoted in Comber, “David Marshall and ‘Meet the People’ — Singapore 1955–56”, Asian Studies Review, p. 112. 26 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 8 (Singapore: National Archives).

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

297

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

298

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

session, about 60–70 persons whose problems could not be solved on the spot were referred to the Public Advisory Bureau.27

However, as the novelty wore off, the numbers dwindled to between sixty and seventy persons weekly. Other Meet-the-People sessions were also held weekly in the various other divisions, most manned by cabinet ministers — David in Cairnhill on Tuesdays; A.J. Braga in Katong on Mondays; Francis Thomas covering Seletar, Sembawang, and Serangoon on Mondays and Wednesdays; J.M. Jumabhoy in Stamford every day; and Chew Swee Kee in Whampoa on Thursdays and Fridays.28 All sessions were expected to be conducted in accordance with a fixed format, some of which is still part of the PAP’s meet-thepeople procedure. A guide to the Meet-the-People sessions was prepared and the assemblyman concerned were expected to follow a general procedure where constituents are treated as “clients”: When a person comes to any branch for some help, it is important that at the first interview, the facts of the case are recorded. The information given by the client is confidential, so the client would confide with the interviewer, and the interviewer win his confidence. Once the client has made clear his problem, it is left to the leader and his assistants to take necessary action. As far as possible, the action should begin after the interview. If letters are to be written referring the client to any Ministry or Agency, it should be done on the spot. This brings in the personal factor, when the client can take something away with him, and the Ministry or Agency could deal with the client direct.29

To support the work of these weekly sessions, David established the Public Advisory Bureau (PAB), staffed by Corera and Noordin, who were already on his personal payroll, and then later by Comber as well. Comber remembered being offered the job on a whim while 27 Comber, “David Marshall and ‘Meet the People’ ”, p. 107. 28 Singapore Labour Front, “Meet The People” Sessions, DM/30/5. 29 Singapore Labour Front, Guide to ‘Meet the People Sessions’, DM/30/40/ 1–4.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

298

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

299

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

David was on a social visit to his home in Johore Bahru, where he then lived with his wife, Han Suyin.30 The PAB — located on the first floor of the Assembly House — was not a constitutionally sanctioned or official institution but a personal support office for David’s work. It closed down very soon after he stepped down from his post as chief minister. Corera and Comber ran the PAB and reported directly to David, since they were not part of the civil service but were members of his “personal staff”, paid for out of his own pocket.31 Other than the Saturday Meet-thePeople sessions conducted by David himself, the PAB also entertained requests for assistance throughout the week, except for Sundays. On the average, they received nineteen requests a week, but this number went up to 68 on Saturdays.32 As Comber recalled, the greatest number of enquiries came from unemployed persons seeking jobs; the second largest category concerned immigration and social welfare matters; and the third largest category concerned applications for subsidized Singapore Improvement Trust flats.33 The PAB filed its final report on 1 March, 1956,34 a few months before David resigned as chief minister. Comber and Corera stated that the work of the PAB should be institutionalized as a selfgoverning unit, organized by the community for the community and depending largely on cooperation with statutory and voluntary bodies. It should be easily accessible to the public and be open at convenient times, especially in the evenings when persons seeking assistance could come after work. Other recommendations that Comber recalled were: 30 Leon Comber, Oral History Interview, 31 Mar 1995, Reels 4 (Singapore: National Archives). 31 Ibid. 32 Comber, “David Marshall and ‘Meet the People’ ”, p. 108. 33 Ibid. 34 CMO 266/55, DM/31/1/1–6.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

299

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

300

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

It was envisaged that the office could be run by a small number of professional social workers, and a much larger number of volunteers. The financial upkeep of the Bureau should depend on substantial government grants-in-aid and voluntary contributions from wealthy philanthropists as well as from the ordinary man-in-the-street … The Bureau should always make a clear distinction between questions which it could properly deal with and those which should be referred to a specialist or technical adviser. It was suggested that the Free Legal Aid Section, which David Marshall had in mind, could well be associated with the Bureau.35

David held his final Meet-the-People session on Saturday, 2 June, 1956. The room was filled with reporters, and even if David had sought a more dramatic finale, he could never have dreamt that Rose Chan,36 the legendary strip-tease queen of Singapore, would call in on him.37 Chan’s entrance stole the limelight from David, who cheekily asked her if she was there to give them a free performance. “No!” said Chan, adding, “at least not in broad daylight”. But she did need his assistance to re-obtain her performance permit for Singapore. She assured David that she only wanted a licence to sing and act and

35 Comber, “David Marshall and ‘Meet the People’ ”, pp. 109–10. 36 Rose Chan (1925–1989) was born Chan Wai Chang in Soochow China. She arrived in Kuala Lumpur in 1931. Largely uneducated, she worked in a number of small jobs before becoming a cabaret dancer at the Happy World Cabaret in Singapore in 1942. In 1950, she was runner-up in the Miss Singapore beauty contest and two years later, she transformed herself into the ‘Queen of Striptease’, performing throughout Malaya and Singapore. In 1967, she was banned from performing in Kuala Lumpur and she took her act to Perth. She retired in 1976 in Kuala Lumpur and died of breast cancer in 1987 in Butterworth, Penang in pecuniarous circumstances. See

(accessed 15 Jan 2008). 37 Bill Campbell, “Mr M Out of the Limelight: In Wriggles Strip Queen Rose with Peeling Appeal”, Sunday Times, 3 Jun 1956.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

300

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

301

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

dance38 and promised that she would keep all her clothes on. In that case, David said, “Please see Mr Corera on Monday, will you. He will take you along and have the matter dealt with”.39 As Chan stepped out of the Assembly House, camera flashes went off, as did the cacophony of wolf whistles that usually accompanied her public appearances. For a moment, David was a forgotten man. The PAB officially closed down on Saturday, 3 November, 1956.40 J.C. Corera, the officer-in-charge, rejoined the firm of Battenberg & Talma as David’s chief clerk, while Leon Comber joined the government’s Citizenship Bureau. While the first series of meet-thepeople sessions disappeared with David’s resignation as chief minister, they were later to be adopted as a key feature of the People’s Action Party’s modus operandi. Once David had opened the floodgates of populist democracy and broken down the elitism of governance, there was no turning back. MULTI - LINGUALISM & CITIZENSHIP

The Hock Lee Bus riots of May 1955 represented David’s fiery initiation into the world of the Chinese-educated masses. In 1955, Singapore had a population of 1.3 million, of whom 75% were Chinese. Even though Chinese businesses and workers contributed to the bulk of Singapore’s wealth and prosperity, the Chinese community had never traditionally been in the mainstream of political participation. This was because priority had always been accorded to those who acquired an English education, resulting in a stratified social order with the

38 This was no idle boast for Chan had previously been runner-up in the AllWomen’s Ballroom Dancing Championship in Singapore in 1949. 39 “I can Also Sing, Act & Dance, Stripper Tells Mr M”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 3 Jun 1956. 40 “Bureau Closes Down”, The Sunday Times, 4 Nov 1956.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

301

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

302

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Europeans at the very top, followed by the Eurasians, the Straitsborn, English-educated Chinese, and then the China-born, Chineseeducated Chinese. The lack of social standing and status for the great majority of the Chinese population was exacerbated by two related issues: citizenship and the right to political participation. The primacy of an English education and British citizenship were sine qua non for political participation. Under the Rendel Constitution, those seeking election to the Legislative Assembly had to fulfil the following conditions: (a) be a citizen of the United Kingdom and the Colonies; (b) be aged 21 or above; (c) have resided in Singapore for a period of at least seven of the ten years immediately preceding the date of nomination; (d) be able to speak and read the English language with a degree of proficiency sufficient to take an active part in the Assembly’s proceedings.41 Furthermore, under article 55 of the Constitution, English was stipulated as the official language of the Legislative Assembly. When the Straits Settlements was disbanded in 1946 and Singapore became a separate Crown colony, its inhabitants did not enjoy any special citizenship status. Because the UK Nationality Act 194842 applied to Singapore,43 those born in Singapore acquired citizenship of the United Kingdom and the Colonies by birth, while others could acquire it by registration or naturalization. Section 4 of the Act provided that “every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies” after the commencement of the Act was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth. This meant that most of the Chinese adults in Singapore who had been born in China were not

41 See Article 44, Singapore Order in Council, 1954. 42 British Nationality Act, 1948, 11 & 12 Geo 6, Cap 56. 43 See Sinnadurai Visuvanathan, “Singapore Citizenship Laws”, Malaya Law Review 12 (1970): 160.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

302

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

303

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

British subjects within the meaning of the Act. They could thus acquire UK citizenship only by registration or naturalization. For a person to acquire citizenship by naturalization, he must show that: (a) he had been resident in the United Kingdom or any colony or protectorate for at least four of the seven preceding years; (b) he was a person of good character; (c) he had sufficient knowledge of the English language; and (d) he intended to reside in the United Kingdom or any of its colonies or protectorates. The underlying basis of citizenship under British law was jus soli, citizenship based on the soil on which one was born. This was at odds with China’s policy of basing citizenship on jus sanguinis, citizenship based on descent. Successive Chinese governments had thus conferred citizenship on all persons born in China and on the children of those born of Chinese parents. Thus, a Chinese person who had been born in Singapore could technically be a British subject under the UK Nationality Act and a Chinese citizen on account of his parentage at one and the same time. This was not a situation that pleased the British authorities since they were extremely anxious not to allow the radical and nationalist politics of mainland China and, after 1949, the Chinese Communist Party, to be exported to its colonies and territories. This meant the marginalization of a large segment of the Chinese population, especially those who were not born in Singapore. Not unnaturally, this state of affairs bred increasing resentment among the local Chinese population and upset even the traditional Chinese business leaders who held high office in the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and always cooperated with the British authorities. Turnbull explained: The traditional leaders of the Chinese-educated resented the colonial government’s harshness towards Chinese patriotism. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce, which had been the most influential spokesman for the Chinese community before the war, was considered in 1950 to be the ‘premier society of the Chinese in

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

303

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

304

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Singapore’ with 2,000 individual members and more than sixty associations representing a further 10,000. The Chamber’s confidence increased with the emergence of China as a big power, and many of its leaders, such as Lee Kong Chian and Tan Lark Sye, made new fortunes during the Korean War. Yet they felt excluded from the local political scene and nervous about their future in a self-government Singapore or an independent Malaya. They resented paying taxes to support measures which detracted from what they conceived to be the interests of the Chinaborn, particularly an English-medium education system which hit at the roots of their own language and culture. The regulation confining participation in politics to Straitsborn or naturalized British subjects who were literate in English excluded the mass of immigrant and vernacular-educated Singaporeans, who constituted about half the adult population in the immediate post-war years. In 1946 the Chinese Chamber of Commerce began agitating for multi-lingualism in the Legislative and Municipal Councils and for Chinese to be admitted as an official language. The Chamber was incensed at an Immigration Bill passed in 1950 which was designed primarily to restrict the immigration of Chinese who might have communist sympathies, and from 1951 it campaigned for a special local citizenship to give political rights to long-term residents who were not British subjects. But the colonial authorities refused to waive naturalization requirements and in this they had the support of the Progressive Party and the Straits Chinese British Association.44

Being English-educated and moving in an elite professional circle, David was totally cut off from this important facet of Singapore society. His lack of politicization and his inability to communicate in any Chinese dialect also kept him apart from this vibrant and energetic community. It was only much later, when he had become chief minister, that his eyes were opened to what had been going on. David recalled:

44 Turnbull, A History of Singapore, pp. 240–41.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

304

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

305

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

Believe it or not, I was at that time 47 years old and 47 years in Singapore, and I was not aware of this major injustice to the Chinese community in spite of being a lawyer also for all these years. It was only at the invitation of Tan Lark Sye, when I went to the Millionaires’ Club with Yap Pheng Geck, that they explained to me that a Chinese resident of 20, 30 years could not become a citizen unless he had English qualifications, and then there would have to be an oral English examination, and anybody could fail him without any recourse. I thought that was not only unfair but so utterly stupid that we should not seek to attract the loyalty of this vast group to our country, and to keep them feeling that they were aliens. And I plugged very hard at this citizenship issue.45

Interestingly, this issue was not lost on his Labour Front colleagues who had hammered together the party manifesto for the 1955 elections. Indeed, among the Front’s “principles and aims” was the “creation of a Singapore Citizenship which will give the right to vote and stand for election to those persons who are domiciled and have permanent interests in this country and the provision of multilingual facilities in Government and local Councils”.46 There were many obstacles in the creation of a unique Singapore citizenship.47 David’s political opponents, the People’s Action Party, opposed this move as it feared that the newly enfranchised citizens would merrily cast their votes for the communists. These fears were shared by the British who were extremely uncomfortable about China’s policy of basing citizenship on jus sanguinis. The conclusion of the

45 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 9 (Singapore: National Archives). 46 Singapore Labour Front: Its Principles and Aims and Four-Year Programme (Singapore: Labour Front, 1955), para. 9, p. 1. 47 For a detailed account of the difficulties faced by the Labour Front government in this regard, see Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, pp. 149–53.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

305

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

306

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Sino-Indonesian Treaty on Dual Nationality in 195548 offered a possible way out of the dual citizenship quagmire for the British. In that agreement, the parties agreed that all persons holding dual citizenship had to choose which nationality they preferred to be registered under,49 but that the choice would be entirely up to the individual concerned. The creation of this important precedent made the British more amenable to offering citizenship to the large number of China-born Singapore residents. Even David’s own political allies, the United Malays Nationalist Organization (UMNO), opposed this move since it would immediately enfranchise hundreds of thousands of Chinese. In the event of a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, the Chinese voters would outnumber the Malay voters — a scenario that brought horror upon horror for the Malay nationalists. Indeed, Malaya’s Chief Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman told David that if the proposals were adopted, a merger between the two states would be very difficult.50 Both the PAP and UMNO also argued that, with David’s proposals, there would be two kinds of voters — British subjects and “aliens” with citizenship rights. Despite these objections, David pressed ahead. As far as he was concerned, it was more important to remedy the injustice than to worry about its effects, because the perpetration of “an injustice

48 For the text of the treaty, see “The Sino-Indonesian Treaty on Dual Nationality”, Far Eastern Survey, 24.5 (1955): 75–76. See David Mozingo, “The Sino-Indonesian Dual Nationality Treaty”, Asian Survey 1.10 (1961): 25–31; and Ko Swan Sik & Teuku Moh. Rahdie, “Nationality and International Law in Indonesian Perspective”, in Ko Swan Sik, ed., Nationality and International Law in Asian Perspective (The Hague: TMC Asser Instituut & Martinus Nijhoff, 1990), pp. 125–76. 49 Article 2, Sino-Indonesian Treaty on Dual Nationality, 1955. 50 See Singapore Standard, 30 Sep 1955, cited in Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 151; and Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 157.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

306

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

307

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

cannot bring about justice”.51 Even so, he was anxious that his efforts not be wasted if the resulting law was vetoed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. David explained: Any law of this nature passed by the Legislative Assembly can be vetoed by Her Majesty on the advice of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and therefore I had conversations with the Secretary of State for the Colonies in Singapore in August of 1955, and in London in December of 1955 to ascertain whether if such a law were passed, he would veto it. Because it was just and fair, I was willing to force through this measure, despite UMNO’s objection, but I did not want to lose UMNO’s valuable co-operation and then find that the Colonial Office made a dead-letter of the citizenship law.52

To swing his UMNO colleagues around, David proposed to the British that, in the overhaul of the Rendel Constitution, Singapore should be accorded the status of a state rather than of a colony. This would mean the creation of a self-governing State of Singapore. On that basis, UMNO’s chief Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat gave David “a solemn assurance” that “he would agree to the creation of a single citizenship of Singapore with rights for the non-domiciled aliens voluntarily to apply for citizenship of that state”.53 The Singapore Citizenship Bill was sent to Select Committee and further refinements were made to the requirements for citizenship. These included an oath renouncing and abjuring all loyalty to any other country and a residency requirement that was raised to fifteen out of the preceding twenty years. David’s efforts eventually paid off in the form of the Citizenship Ordinance 1957,54 passed after he had

51 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 9 (Singapore: National Archives). 52 David Marshall’s speech at Kwong Hwa School, 10 Mar 1957, DM/44/5/1. 53 Ibid. 54 Ordinance No. 35 of 1957.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

307

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

308

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

stepped down as chief minister. This ordinance not only accorded Singapore citizenship, but also accorded Singapore nationality to the bulk of China-born local residents. The distinction is difficult to discern today, but in the context of a colonial setting Singapore was not in a position to grant nationality to its residents since everyone would technically become a British national. The ordinance was made possible on the impending transformation of Singapore’s status from colony to self-governing state in 1958. Citizenship was only half the battle. There was still the issue of languages in the Assembly. From the 1940s, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce had expressed disquiet over the use of English as the sole language of government and political participation. The Chamber was formed in 1906 to advance the interests of Chinese merchants in Singapore.55 With an initial membership of 500 members at its founding, it quickly grew to 2,000 members by 1909. All the most important and wealthiest Chinese businessmen were prominent leaders of the Chamber — initially named the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and later the Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry. For almost a decade, the Chamber had pressed for the recognition of Chinese as an official language in government and in the Legislative Council (predecessor of the Legislative Assembly). From November 1953, the Chamber became the “most ardent protagonist for a multilingual policy in the legislature”.56 In 1955, the Chamber petitioned the Queen to remove the language barrier in the legislature, but the British were hesitant as they did not wish to offend Malay opinion in the Federation. The net effect of this restriction was that 198,000 non-English speaking voters were excluded from participating in the

55 See Sikko Visscher, The Business of Politics and Ethnicity: A History of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry (Singapore: NUS Press, 2007), especially pp. 19–40. 56 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 166.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

308

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

309

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

elections and political participation was thus confined to the 83,500 English-speaking voters.57 David empathized with the anguish felt by the Chinese-educated: I felt very strongly that a man who denies his roots is really a worthless human being. A man who denies his Chineseness is a superficial human being, basically weak. Whereas what I wanted to see was the strengthening of that ethnical roots through Chinese education, they feel the pride of race and I kept on saying, ‘I don’t want to melt everybody into one … morass. I wanted four strong pillars, each standing straight — Chinese, Malay, Indian, English. And we would put the roof of Singapore on those four pillars, to be sustained of inter-racial cooperation and harmony. Just as four pillars of a hall, weld in the complete architecture.’58

As we noted above, the Labour Front had committed itself to multilingualism during its election campaign — it was now time to realize this promise. During the hearings of the Rendel Constitutional Commission, many representations had been made to establish a multilingual Legislative Assembly — including David’s own representation as a private citizen — but these suggestions were rejected for several reasons. First, after studying the demographic make-up of Singapore, the Commission concluded that more than a third of the 600,000 voters understood English,59 and this number would continue to grow given the number of youths in Englishmedium schools.60 Second, of those who did not speak English, none of them actually spoke a common tongue61 and English was thus spoken by “a greater proportion of persons qualified to vote than any

57 Ibid., p. 167. 58 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 8 (Singapore: National Archives). 59 See Report of the Constitutional Commission Singapore 1954, para. 121. 60 Ibid., para. 129. 61 Ibid., para. 121.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

309

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

310

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

other single language”.62 Third, the Commission was concerned about opening the floodgates to calls to make more and more languages “official”. Already, some representations urged the Commission to make Malay an official language. The Commission feared that “[w]ere any one language besides English to be made an official language, we feel that it would be difficult to stop at this, and that other languages could put forward a claim that would be difficult to resist”.63 The Commission was also concerned about the practicalities of arranging for simultaneous translations and even “consecutive interpretation” in which a speech might have to be made four times over.64 On 8 February, 1956, David officially raised the issue of multilingualism before the Assembly. At the end of the day’s session, he rose to speak, not as chief minister, but as the member for Cairnhill. As it was a private motion, the Whip was lifted to enable every assemblyman to speak according to conscience. David told the chamber that he was “proudest of this motion” which he had the privilege of moving. Drawing from the analogy of Switzerland with its four national languages, David outlined his rationale for introducing four official languages into the Assembly: Language, Sir, has been and is an instrument of racial culture. To impose one language on the whole population is to impose the domination of that one race. In this plural society of ours, if we seek justice for all, we must reject mono-lingualism and accept the principle of multi-lingualism. We must, Sir, give equal respect to as many of the major languages as meet the essential needs of the people. I am advised and I believe that Mandarin will satisfy our Chinese people of all dialects. I know that Malay will satisfy our Malays and Indonesians. I believe that Tamil will satisfy our Indian domiciled community, and English will satisfy the Eurasians, the

62 Ibid., para. 123. 63 Ibid., para. 124. 64 Ibid., paras. 125–26.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

310

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

311

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

domiciled Europeans, of whom there are a few, and the other English-speaking groups. Sir, I am not unconscious that, in this fascinating city of ours, we have many other races and many other languages but like true Singaporeans, they are reasonable and they realize their small numbers and, by virtue of the progressively growing difficulties of additional languages, it would be impossible to give consideration to more than four languages. I ask this Assembly therefore that we should recognize the four principal cultures of this country by accepting as official languages for oral debate the four principal languages.65

The motion which he moved read: That this Assembly is of the opinion that for the purpose of oral debate the languages of the Assembly should be English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil; and that a Select Committee be appointed to examine, report upon and make recommendations in respect of matters necessary to enable effect to be given to the proposal.66

The Assembly adjourned for the day at 5:30 p.m. and resumed debate on David’s motion the next morning. More than ten other assemblymen rose to speak in favour of the motion and when the Assembly adjourned for lunch, the motion was passed with twentynine ayes and no objections. Only the official members — C.H. Butterfield, W.A.C. Goode and T.M. Hart — abstained. In March 1956, the Queen-in-Council gave her blessings to the proposed multilingual Assembly.67 The Select Committee, headed by Speaker George Oehlers was convened and published its recommendations in 1957,68 after David had resigned as chief minister. When the new

65 Speech of David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 8 Feb 1956, cols. 1490–91. 66 Ibid., col. 1501. 67 “Queen Gives Approval to 4-Tongue Assembly”, The Straits Times, 2 Mar 1956. 68 See Report of the Select Committee on Languages in Legislative Assembly Debates, LA 20 of 1957 (Singapore: Government Printers, 1957).

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

311

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

312

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Constitution for the State of Singapore was passed in 1958, article 49 proudly provided that all debates and discussions in the Assembly should be conducted in the English, Malay, Mandarin, and Tamil languages.69 GOODWILL TRIP TO INDONESIA

Indonesia, which had been independent since 1945, was undergoing a democratic experiment. In 1950, the original federal constitution of 1949 was replaced by a provisional, parliamentary-style constitution. The almost yearly change in governments had made the system unstable.70 In August 1955, Burhanuddin Harahap of the Masjumi Party became prime minister of Indonesia. The Harahap government, which held office from August 1955 to July 1956, was meant to have been an interim cabinet, holding office until elections scheduled for September 1955. Throughout the 1950s, Singapore was Indonesia’s largest produce market largely because of barter trade. Singapore’s free port status, coupled with a series of Indonesian legal restrictions on exports, made Singapore all the more attractive as an outlet for primary produce. As Huff explained: Singapore’s free port status became a magnet even more powerful than it had been in the inter-war period. Indonesian exporters able to trade with Singapore, if only by smuggling, benefited substantially in comparison to dealing through legal channels, due to both considerable official Indonesian underpayment for exports and artificially high import prices. As a result, Indonesian traders could

69 Article 49(1), The Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, SI S293, No. 1956 of 1958. 70 The governments were led by: Mohammad Hatta (Dec 1949 to Aug 1950); Mohammad Natsir (Sep 1950 to Mar 1951); Sukiman Wirjosandjojo (Apr 1951 to Feb 1952); Wilopo (Apr 1952 to Jun 1953); Ali Sastromijojo (Jul 1953 to Jul 1955).

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

312

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

313

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

obtain more manufactured goods if rubber and produce were bartered in Singapore than marketed legally, and could sell these manufactures at a large profit in Indonesia. Thus, Indonesian regulation set up a ‘virtuous’ circle for both the Singapore economy and Indonesians in contact with the port: high 1950s world rubber prices stimulated Outer Province smallholder production; Singapore Chinese traders provided the means for Indonesians to realize these prices; and Singapore’s trade in rubber and the reshipment of manufactures expanded accordingly, with further important benefits for the island’s large remilling industry …71

Indonesia’s own economic problems, coupled with the traditional Javanese dislike of the Singapore Chinese and Indonesia’s heavy reliance on Singapore for its exports, led to Indonesian attempts to establish alternative free ports in competition against Singapore.72 Under the previous Ali Sastromijojo cabinet, the benteng policy — the protection of certain markets for indigenous sellers — was openly perverted and the issuing of licences became a means of income for the Nationalist Party. The Sastromijojo government was also openly averse to foreign enterprise.73 This brought trade between Singapore and Indonesia to a virtual standstill. It was to break this deadlock that David led a delegation to Jakarta in September 1955. By the time David went to Indonesia, a new government under Burhanuddin Harahap had taken office. David visited Indonesia in his capacity as Minister of Commerce and Industry and was accompanied by his assistant minister J.M. Jumabhoy and Minister for Housing and Local Government Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. The five-day goodwill mission was very successful and David returned

71 W.G. Huff, The Economic Growth of Singapore: Trade and Development in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 280–81. 72 Ibid., p. 281. 73 Bruce Glassburner, “Economic Policy-Making in Indonesia, 1950–1957”, Economic Development and Cultural Change 10.2 (1962): 125–26.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

313

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

314

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

with his reputation significantly enhanced.74 In Jakarta, he met Ide Anak Agung Gde Agung (1921–1999),75 foreign minister in the Burhanuddin Harahap caretaker government. Ide Anak Agung was initially distant, but quickly warmed up to David’s ebullient personality and told him that Indonesia would happily use Singapore as the major port for its imports even though it was still a British colony. David assured him that Singapore would be independent one day and that in any case the British were friendly towards the Indonesians, to which Agung replied: Yes. But you know, Marshall, no great country can ever depend upon another great country for long, with regards to friendly reactions. But when you are independent, why, we would have nothing to fear from you. We would be very glad to use you as … a major trading outpost for us.’76

There were three main tangible results from David’s goodwill visit. First, at least 5,000 unskilled workers would be kept engaged in the re-milling factories through the import of 10,000 tons of slab rubber from Sumatra. Second, there would be greater employment for the Malayan fishing industry as the ban on the import of dried fish from Singapore into Indonesia was relaxed; and third, the discrimination against imports from Singapore — especially of textiles — would be officially removed.77 In addition, Indonesia’s national bank, Bank Negara, would open a branch in Singapore. During the trip, David also met up with Indonesian President Sukarno. Originally, Sukarno had planned to give David an audience 74 “Mission Prosperity for Singapore”, The Straits Times, 15 Sep 1955. 75 For a brief sketch of the life this fascinating man, see Frederick Bunnell, “An ‘Administrator’s’ ”, View of Indonesian Foreign Policy, Indonesia 18 (1974): 71. 76 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 11 (Singapore: National Archives). 77 “Mission Prosperity for Singapore”, The Straits Times, 15 Sep 1955.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

314

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

315

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

of only fifteen to thirty minutes, but the two men ended up meeting for some two exhausting hours. David recalled that Sukarno was “totally uninterested in discussing” trade or any agreement, but instead took him through all his rooms discussing his collection of paintings. David, a deep admirer of the visual arts, was taken in and the two men spent the two hours totally engrossed in discussing the paintings. David described Sukarno as a “very ebullient, high strung person who hadn’t a clue, certainly not the slightest interest in economics of any kind or trade or industry”.78 MALAYANIZATION

One of the Labour Front’s principles and aims, as stated in its manifesto, was the “complete and rapid Malayanization of the public services by domiciled officers”.79 It was not a new election platform or issue since the move towards Malayanization — the replacement of expatriate government officers by locals–– had been discussed since 1946. That year, the British issued Command Paper 197 of 1946, which declared: If progressive advancement along the road to self-government within the framework of the British Commonwealth of Nations, is to be a reality, the public services of the Colonies must be adapted to local conditions and must to the greatest extent be staffed by local people.80

Following the release of this Colonial Office White Paper, the British Government established a Public Services Salaries Commission of

78 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 11 (Singapore: National Archives). 79 Singapore Labour Front: Its Principles and Aims and Four-Year Programme (Singapore: Labour Front, 1955), para. 6, p. 1. 80 Colonial Office, Organization of the Colonial Service (London: HMSO, 1946), p. 3.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

315

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

316

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Malaya under the chairmanship of Sir Harry Trusted — known commonly as the Trusted Commission — that recommended the establishment of a public service commission for Malaya and Singapore.81 Unfortunately, little was done to advance the process of Malayanization between 1947 and 1950. In 1948, N.A. Mallal of the Progressive Party called on the Legislative Council to create a Public Service Commission. This was finally accomplished only in January 1951 after the convening of another Select Committee. However, the pace of progress was slow and the uneven implementation of promotions and recruitment soon led to intense friction between local and expatriate civil servants.82 The impasse was broken with the election of David’s Labour Front-Alliance government in 1955. David’s staunchly anti-colonial attitude made the British officers nervous about what he might do. Furthermore, they had been returned to power promising to push for a rapid Malayanization of the civil service within four years.83 Indeed, when David was summoned to Government House for a dressing down by Governor John Nicoll, the bulk of the latter’s tirade had centred on how he should not rock the boat and upset the expatriates in the civil service, especially the permanent secretaries. Sir Robert Brown Black, who succeeded Nicoll as governor in June 1955, also had serious misgivings over the fact that the pace of Malayanization had not kept pace with that of constitutional reform. He felt that if self-government were granted early, there would not be enough local men in the higher echelons of the civil service to run the country, especially as there were so few local men of the calibre of Goh Keng Swee or Kenneth Byrne in the administrative service. Black recalled:

81 See Public Services Salaries Commission of Malaya Report (Kuala Lumpur: Government Press, 1947), pp. 12–13. 82 See Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, pp. 74–81. 83 Ibid., p. 83.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

316

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

317

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

If David Marshall had gone ahead, pressed hard for self-government at that stage, and someone had given it to him and said, ‘Alright, three months from now, or whatever, what would he have done?’ The Malayanisation, which was a very important aspect of the whole thing, really hadn’t made very much progress. There were only a very limited number of Chinese or Malays in government service at the top level. … That had to be accelerated, of course. I think on the whole, probably, it should have been started sooner. If you would have had self-government, Bang, like that, where would have been the men to man all the departments that were necessary to look after a population of a million people in Singapore?84

In August 1955, David established a Malayanization Commission to be headed by Dr B.R. Sreenivasan, a medical practitioner and known PAP supporter. The Commission was charged with recommending “measures to ensure the more rapid, systematic and complete Malayanisation of the Public Service”.85 In March 1956, the Commission published its report. The majority report, which was strongly influenced by the elected officials and local officers, urged rapid Malayanization starting with the Administrative Service, whereas the minority report restated the British position that the upper reaches of the senior service should be Malayanized only gradually.86 Even though the Sreenivasan Report was released in February 1956, the Labour Front government did not act on it for the next nine months, pre-occupied as it was with the upcoming Merdeka talks. Indeed, it was only in November 1956, after David had stepped down as chief minister, that the Report became the

84 Oral History Interview, Sir Robert Brown Black, Jul 1995 (Singapore: National Archives). 85 See Interim Report of the Malayanization Commission, Dr B.R. Sreenivasan (Chairman) (Singapore: Government Printer, 1956). 86 See Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, pp. 84–85.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

317

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

318

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

basis for the Labour Front’s Malayanization programme. By 1957, the Public Service Commission was fully reconstituted with full powers over appointments, promotion, and discipline. It also established a retirement scheme for expatriate officers starting from 1 January 1957. By 1959, when the PAP came to power, almost the entire public service had been Malayanized.87 LEGAL AID

During his election campaign, David had visited the City Council labourers’ quarters in Mount Emily Road and told the residents in Malay that, if elected, he would fight to set up a free legal aid bureau.88 David had long been concerned with the need to make legal remedies and services more easily accessible to the man in the street. Very shortly after his swearing-in as chief minister, he again brought up the matter: Sir, to some, the question of free legal aid may seem minor. I am of the view that it could have a tremendous influence on the life of the people of this country, and a truly beneficial influence. Those of us, Sir, who know our system of justice, know the comfort and the pride we take in it, recognise that it is one of the principal pillars of the development of this territory. It is unfortunately true, Sir, that the heavy cost of legal assistance in many instances makes it impossible for the common man to obtain the full protection and seek the full advantage of our magnificent system of justice.… It is the intention of the Government to take the law to the people, to decentralise our law courts as far as possible, and by making available fully-trained qualified Government employees in a legal aid bureau, to assist the poor both in civil and criminal cases, and in advice out of Court.89

87 Ibid., p. 85. 88 “Free Lawyers — By a Labour Lawyer”, The Straits Times, 24 Mar 1955. 89 Speech of David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 26 Apr 1955, cols. 37–38.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

318

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

319

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

When the Legal Aid and Advice Bill was first drafted, it received some adverse reaction from the Bar Committee, which felt that the scheme should be administered in the same way as the legal aid scheme was run in Britain, allowing lawyers to recover 85% of taxed costs whenever they acted for aided persons.90 The Bar Committee also felt that the scheme should be run by lawyers and not by a new government department.91 This was never the intention. As David explained, the Singapore version was based on the Free Legal Aid and Advice system in New South Wales, Australia, which had been studied by Supreme Court Registrar Tan Thoon Lip.92 The Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance93 was passed on 6 June 1956.94 Under the ordinance, anyone earning less than $1,000 a year or who did not possess or was not entitled to a disposable capital exceeding $500 would be entitled to free legal assistance. Because of financial constraints, such aid only applied to criminal cases in the Supreme Court and district courts, but not the magistrates’ courts. The scheme would be run by a new department, headed by a Director of Legal Aid. Lawyers were also unhappy that the bill had not been sent to Select Committee and had been rushed through just before David had to step down as chief minister. The Bar Committee’s initial lack of cooperation caused some delay in implementing the ordinance, and this led to David launching a blistering attack on the Bar Committee for stonewalling the process, saying that the conservative Bar had been resisting such a measure for nearly two decades.95 It was

90 “Mr Lim Explains to the Lawyers”, The Straits Times, 10 Aug 1956. 91 “Legal Aid Plan Should be Run by Lawyers”, The Straits Times, 21 Aug 1956. 92 “Mr Marshall and the Legal Aid Bill”, The Straits Times, 20 Feb 1957. 93 No. 19 of 1956. The Ordinance has been renamed Legal Aid and Advice Act (Cap 160, 1985 Rev Ed) — hereinafter referred to as the Act. 94 See “They All Like Marshall ‘Baby’ ”, The Straits Times, 7 Jun 1956. 95 “Bar Committee is Attacked”, The Straits Times, 15 Feb 1957.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

319

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

320

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

only on 1 July, 1958, that the Legal Aid Bureau was established as the government department charged with providing legal aid to the indigent. This ground-breaking piece of legislation made Singapore the first country in Southeast Asia to provide legal aid in furtherance of the principle of equal protection for all.96 BALING PEACE TALKS

The jungle war had not been going well for the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). By 1955, they had been fighting in the jungles for over seven years. In July, the Alliance, comprising the United Malays Nationalist Organization (UMNO), the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA), and the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC), under the leadership of Tunku Abdul Rahman (“the Tunku”) swept 51 of the 52 seats in the Malayan federal elections. With a huge mandate and a stable alliance, the Tunku was poised to push Malaya towards independence. During the campaign, the Tunku announced that if the Alliance came to power, he would offer the CPM amnesty and negotiate to bring an end to the Emergency. In June 1955, the Tunku had received a letter signed by Ng Heng (alias of CPM leader Chin Peng) offering to negotiate for a settlement at a round-table conference of political leaders.97 The British Special Branch was sceptical about the offer, believing it to be nothing more than a propaganda ploy by the CPM to steal a march on the Alliance for ending the Emergency. Having made the promise of an amnesty, the Tunku decided that Chin Peng’s offer was worth exploring and proceeded to make arrangements to meet with him. In preparation for the meeting, the Tunku prepared and distributed 12 million amnesty passes in English, Chinese, and Malay and showered them

96 See Lim Ewe Huat, “Legal Aid System in Singapore”, Law Times 3.2 (1967): 8. 97 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 144.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

320

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

321

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

on the Malayan jungle. He offered to absolve all those who surrendered of their murderous crimes during the Emergency. For those who refused to recant their communist beliefs, arrangements would be made for them to be repatriated to China. The CPM responded in September by asking for immediate ceasefire talks.98 The British were extremely concerned about the talks and about the Tunku’s position. Sir Donald McGillivray, British High Commissioner to the Federation of Malaya, was particularly concerned that the Tunku — the “doubtful quantity” in these talks — was “in a tearing hurry” to obtain self-government and might give away more than the British were prepared to concede.99 Indeed, McGillivray seemed confident that David could be counted on “to do what he can for his own sake to prevent Rahman from being too rash”.100 And if all else failed, he felt that suspending the Constitution might “be a prudent exercise because it may be forced upon us by Rahman in any case”.101 In addition to conferring with his MCA counterpart, Sir Tan Cheng Lock, the Tunku also made a trip to Singapore where he held high-level, secret talks with David.102 He later invited David to come along for the talks. David remembered that it was the British who intimated to him that the Tunku wanted him along for the talks and he immediately indicated his “complete willingness” to participate.103 The talks were scheduled to take place at the end of December 1955. David’s inclusion in the Baling Talks boosted his prestige immensely.

98 Ibid., p. 145. 99 McGillivray to Lennox-Boyd, 23 Oct 1955, CO 1030/27/63–67. 100 Ibid. 101 Ibid. 102 “Marshall, Rahman Talks for 2 Hours”, The Straits Times, 5 Nov 1955. 103 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 9 (Singapore: National Archives).

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

321

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

322

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Other members of the Assembly, most notably Lee Kuan Yew, noticed this and wanted all other leaders of the various parties to be included in the talks as well.104 His motion was overwhelmingly defeated.105 On 27 December, 1955, David and the Tunku left by the 8:25 p.m. night mail train from Kuala Lumpur to Bukit Mertajam. From there a car took them to Kulim to meet up with Tan Cheng Lock who had arrived there earlier. The three leaders were then taken to Baling. The venue for the meeting was the newly built Baling English School. The three leaders were taken to the Government Rest House while the CPM leaders were billeted in the headmaster’s quarters.106 On the afternoon of 28 December 1955, the meeting began. David, the Tunku, and Tan Cheng Lock were ushered into the conference room and sat at one of the two long tables set parallel to each other. After they had been seated, the CPM delegation, comprising Chin Peng, Chen Tien, and Rashid Mydin, were brought to the room and they sat at the other long table, facing the government trio. No one came to the table expecting very much. Indeed, David told his brother Reg that he thought it a “long shot” but there was just “a possibility that something constructive might come out of it”.107 On the government side, the Tunku took the lead in the discussions, with David playing an active second fiddle. Tan Cheng Lock, who had recently suffered a fall, was not quite his usual self and hardly said anything during the whole proceedings. The Tunku’s terms were clear. There would be no recognition of the CPM as a political organization and the only items for discussion were the terms of the 104 For the debate on the motion, see Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 25 Nov 1955, cols. 1370 et seq.; see also Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 145. See also, “Marshall: I’m Just a Junior Partner”, The Straits Times, 19 Nov 1955. 105 “ ‘Meet MCP’ Proposal Thrown Out”, The Straits Times, 26 Nov 1955. 106 Ibid., p. 146. 107 David Marshall to Rothschild Marshall, 14 Oct 1955, DM/18/148.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

322

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

323

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

amnesty and surrender. David agreed. All the CPM members would be held temporarily for investigation before release or repatriation, and there would be absolutely no question of establishing a communist political organization under any guise. Chin Peng hoped for a complete amnesty and a total assimilation of his troops back into Malayan society. He did not want any investigation or loyalty checks. The air of cordiality and civility may have given the stenographers and other onlookers a false sense of optimism, for behind the smiling faces lurked tough men determined not to cede an inch if they could help it. While Chin Peng had appeared to be softening towards the end of the first day, he suddenly hardened up on the second day. To the utmost consternation of the Tunku and David, he declared that he was not empowered to accept the Tunku’s requirement that the guerillas be investigated as it implied surrender and was a humiliation to the CPM.108 Chin Peng further added that he and his colleagues had interpreted the terms of the amnesty thus — that the “downing of arms” did not mean the surrender of arms and that the CPM would only surrender its arms if the troops were not subject to any restriction of liberty and if the CPM were recognized as a legal entity.109 Chin Peng himself recalled: The Tunku replied: ‘Would you ask for any terms before you throw down your arms? I responded:‘‘This question is very simple. The answer is very simple. If the CPM is recognised, if members of the CPM are not subject to detention and investigation, they can throw down their arms at once. The question of weapons is solved easily.’ The official interpreter informed the meeting that he did not understand what I meant by the term ‘throw down their arms.’ In fact, I used the Chinese term which describes the ‘setting aside of

108 Transcript of Baling Peace Talks, 29 Dec 1955, CO 1030/29. 109 Ibid.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

323

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

324

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

weapons.’ This is not equivalent to the English phrase ‘surrendering arms.’ All sense of optimism dissipated immediately and from then on the talks unravelled. The chance for peace had gone.110

By this time, the die was cast. There was no way the Tunku or David would officially recognize the CPM or abjure investigations and loyalty checks. That morning, the talks broke down and Chin Peng and his men returned to the jungles. Both the Tunku and David had given their word that Chin Peng and his men would be given a 24-hour immunity from arrest or molestation. Apparently, British military headquarters had other ideas. Years later, David met a security officer who had been at the Baling Talks who told him that he and his men had instructions to pursue Chin Peng immediately and assassinate him. However, they lost track of the CPM leadership and were unable to execute their assignment.111 Years later, Chin Peng blamed David for the failure of the Baling Talks. He did not like David and obviously felt that his aggressive, attacking mode of negotiation had soured the atmosphere: Why did the Baling talks fail? Unquestionably the dogmatic outbursts by the grandstanding Marshall made the search for that elusive formula extraordinarily difficult. Any glimmer of rapport between myself and the Tunku was repeatedly snuffed out by the Singapore Chief Minister. I felt constantly under attack by him. It was as though he regarded the talks as a fairground sideshow at which I was there as a target for his political pot-shots. Had the British not been lurking behind the scenes and had it been left to the Tunku and myself, and perhaps Tan Cheng Lock, the promise of an honourable resolution might have been reached at Baling. From my side’s point of view we were surely seeking a settlement. I went to the talks because I believed the Tunku’s private

110 Chin Peng, My Side of History (Singapore: Media Masters, 2003), p. 385. 111 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 10 (Singapore: National Archives).

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

324

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

325

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

message to me was a genuine statement of intent and that he, too, was committed to reaching a fair conclusion. It was never a matter of the CPM seeking special privileges on the basis of our willingness to end the fighting. Rather, after so many years of struggle and deprivation and after so many deaths and casualties, we sought a peace agreement whereby we could at least retain our dignity. At what point would the humiliation cease? Unquestionably it would continue just as long as it was deemed politically useful. In this context, it is valid to note that the communist bogey has been kept alive and well by both Malaysia and Singapore to this day. In the years to follow I noted the Tunku took flak for the failure at Baling. Finally, he came out and openly placed the blame on Marshall. Marshall, of course, strongly denied the accusation. During the Party discussions the CPM thoroughly traversed this ground. On numerous occasions our underground people asked me whether it was true Marshall had sabotaged the talks. My response was always the same. In a sense this was true. Marshall poisoned the atmosphere.112

Looking through the minutes of the Baling Conference,113 it is unfair to place the blame for its failure on David. While it is true that David took a more aggressive stance than the Tunku, he was not particularly vitriolic or offensive. Oftentimes, he paraphrased what the differing positions were and then sought a straight answer, in the way of a lawyer seeking to obliterate ambiguity. The reason the talks fell apart was simple. Tunku and David wanted the CPM to “surrender” — and it did not really matter what euphemistic word was used in its stead — and the CPM was too proud to do so for it was considered a major humiliation, especially if its members had to be quarantined or detained for investigation into their loyalty to Malaya. For David, it was a major lesson. For the first time, he began to realize the cold-blooded ruthlessness of his communist foes. He openly

112 Chin Peng, My Side of History, p. 390. 113 Great Britain, Colonial Office, Record of Baling Talks in December 1955, CO 1030/29.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

325

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

326

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

admitted to the Legislative Assembly that he had gone to the talks believing he could “appeal to their decent instincts not to hamper the economic and political advance” of Malaya. He had hoped that his silver tongue could persuade them over to his point of view, but the reality had hit him between the eyeballs: I have come away from the meeting believing with all my heart and absolutely convinced in my own mind that neither the independence of these territories nor the welfare of the people matters in the slightest to the Malayan Communist Party. They do not care a hoot! All they want is to obtain control of the country. All they want is the expansion of their own imperialist Communism and their own foreign ideology. They have more contempt for the people than Colonel Blimp!114 TROUBLE IN THE LABOUR FRONT

While David was busy charging ahead with his many reforms and pushing every button possible to realize the Labour Front’s election promises, all was not well within his party. Since its formation, the Labour Front had been run by an executive committee comprising Francis Thomas, C.H. Koh, and Victor Mendis. They had agreed among themselves that none of them would contest the 1955 elections or assume any ministerial post. This pact was broken when Francis Thomas accepted the governor’s nomination as minister. The executive committee members were unhappy with Thomas’ appointment but reluctantly acquiesced since the nomination had come from the governor. However, they began pressuring David to appoint more of their acolytes to ministerial posts. Among the key opposition leaders were C.H. Koh, Lee Choon Eng, and Mak Pak Shee. Indeed, David had requested Governor Sir Robert Black to appoint the latter two as assistant ministers in April

114 Speech of David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 8 Feb 1956, cols. 1458–59.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

326

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

327

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

1955. From this time on, the Koh faction members plotted to take over the party leadership to boost their chances of ministerial appointment. By October 1955, Lee Choon Eng, A.R. Lazarous, and Mak Pak Shee controlled three of the Front’s eight strongest branches as well as a large number of its rank and file.115 On Saturday, 29 October, 1955, the Labour Front held its annual two-day conference at the Robinsons department store’s café. It was attended by 172 delegates. While David had long known of the discontent among his party stalwarts, he had no idea that Lazarous and Lee were planning to take over the leadership of the party. David, as president, declared the meeting open at 3:00 p.m. and everyone observed a moment of silence in memory of the late Victor Mendis. David announced that he would not contest the presidency of the Front, paving the way for either Lim Yew Hock or Francis Thomas to succeed him. The meeting agreed to adopt a voting procedure whereby “all delegates be called up branch by branch to collect their ballot papers and return to their seats to mark them after which their ballot papers would be collected”.116 After the vote was counted, A.R. Lazarous received 92 votes as opposed to Lim Yew Hock’s 72, while C.H. Koh garnered all of 8 votes. Lazarous was thus declared president. Everyone was stunned. What followed was a scene almost reminiscent of a circus sideshow. Lazarous immediately took the chair of the meeting and launched into a speech denouncing David’s administration, calling the Labour Front a “middle-class” party and criticizing the coalition government for “going too fast in carrying out its Election pledges”.117

115 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 116. 116 Minutes of Labour Front Annual Conference, 29–30 October, 1955, para. 17. 117 Report of Labour Front Annual Conference, 29–30 October 1955, para. 10.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

327

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

328

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

During the election for the two vice-presidents and secretary-general, many delegates raised objections over the bona fides of the delegates present. David moved that the credentials of all those present be checked against their identity cards. Lazarous resisted the motion from the chair. Nonetheless, David’s motion was carried 77 to 66.118 For six minutes, Lazarous refused to act on the vote. Felix Abisheganaden, who was present at the meeting, recounted: Mr Marshall signaled the crowd to be quiet. Then he said slowly: ‘Mr Lazarous, the Press of the world is upon you. Will you obey the delegates?’ He repeated: ‘Will you obey the delegates?’ Still, Mr Lazarous made no move. Then Mr Marshall shouted: ‘There were cries of fraud when the president was elected. But I said let it be. And there were cries of fraud when the secretary was elected. But I again said let it be. Now we have 77 delegates against 66 saying they want a check to be made.’ Mr Lazarous ‘If they will allow me to check their identity cards I have no objection.’ At this stage a number of Mr Lazarous supporters began moving towards the door, but they were stopped when Mr Francis Thomas (Minister for Communications and Works) shouted ‘Close all doors. Don’t allow anyone out.’ Mr Marshall called back the crowd, about 60 of them, and said, ‘Since Mr Lazarous will not carry the orders of delegates. I declare all elections null and void.’119

Lazarous was furious. He had been caught red-handed, packing the party conference with persons who were not even registered Labour Front members. He decided to walk out of the meeting with his fifty odd supporters. David ordered the doors open to allow them to exit peacefully. Among the debris left behind by Lazarous’ supporters was

118 Ibid., para. 11. 119 Felix Abisheganaden, “Astounding Scenes at The Labour Meeting”, The Sunday Times, 30 Oct 1955.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

328

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

329

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

a typewritten paper of voting instructions that marked Lazarous as president and C.H. Koh as secretary-general. The plot had been unravelled. The remaining delegates nullified Lazarous’ election and elected Lim Yew Hock as the Front’s new president and Francis Thomas as secretary-general. C.H. Koh, who was clearly implicated by the voting instructions, then sought an amendment that the conference be adjourned on grounds that “many divisions” were not present and that the remaining delegates “could not adequately represent” the party’s membership. Instead, he called for a mass meeting of the 5,000 members in lieu of the annual party conference to decide on the leadership. This was clearly unconstitutional and Koh’s motion was defeated 76 to 3 with 5 abstentions. Koh then walked out of the meeting. By the end of the Party conference, C.H. Koh, A.R. Lazarous, and Lee Choon Eng had resigned from the Front and walked away with almost half the party membership.120 Lim Yew Hock was elected president. His two vice-presidents were Francis Thomas and J.M. Jumabhoy, while Keng Ban Ee became secretary-general and Yeo Yong Poh treasurer-general.121 The defection dealt a serious blow to David’s already fragile coalition.122 After all, Lazarous and Lee had both been elected assemblymen under the Labour Front banner. This left Labour Front with only eight seats in an assembly of twenty-five. Its alliance with UMNO-MCA gave them eleven seats. They were able to sustain their majority only on account of the votes of the nominated members, Francis Thomas and Richard C.H. Lim. David was much distressed

120 Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 117. 121 Report of Labour Front Annual Conference, 29–30 October 1955, paras. 33–35. 122 The Front soon recovered from the defection and by August 1956, it claimed to have some 14,000 members and twenty-one branches. See Singapore Labour Front, Report of the Labour Front General Council, 8 Mar 1959, cited in Yeo, Political Development in Singapore, p. 117.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

329

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

330

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

by the fractious, self-seeking behaviour of his erstwhile party colleagues. He simply could not understand why anyone would sacrifice Singapore’s future at the altar of self-interest. It left a sour taste in his mouth. PREPARATION FOR MERDEKA

Preliminary Talks in London Sir Alan Lennox-Boyd, Secretary of State for the Colonies, visited Singapore in August 1955 accompanied by his wife, Lady Patricia, and A.M. MacKintosh, head of the Southeast Asia Department of the Colonial Office. As we saw in the previous chapter, David hoped that Lennox-Boyd would help clear the air over the interpretation of the governor’s discretion to appoint assistant ministers. Lennox-Boyd had ruled in David’s favour and also invited him to London the following year to discuss the subject of self-government “in the light of a year’s working of the Constitution”.123 As a prelude to the fullblown meeting in 1956, Lennox-Boyd suggested that David might lead a small delegation to London towards the end of 1955 for preliminary talks. During these preliminary talks, David would not only clarify the British Government’s attitude towards the Labour Front’s citizenship proposals, but also officially fix a date for a constitutional conference and to agree on an agenda.124 David also received invitations from the newly independent governments of Ceylon and India to visit and thought it sensible to visit these countries en route to London. He would fly first to Ceylon and then to India where he would be met by his assistant minister, J.M. Jumabhoy. Thereafter, David would leave for London where he would be joined by his cabinet colleagues Lim Yew Hock

123 Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 18 Aug 1955, col. 537. 124 Statement of David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 23 Nov 1955, col. 1307.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

330

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

331

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

and Abdul Hamid Jumat. David left Singapore on 3 December for Ceylon, where he had talks with Sir John Kotelawala, prime minister of Ceylon, and the governor-general, Sir Oliver Goonetilleke, hoping to learn from the experience of “warriors who had fought for the independence of Ceylon”.125 From Colombo, David flew to Bombay, where he met up with Chief Minister Morarji Desai, and arrived in New Delhi on 5 December. At each stop, David began making speeches outlining his vision of what he understood by self-government and setting his own timetables for the full independence for Singapore. In New Delhi, for example, he warned that if Singapore did not get independence, it could turn into another tragedy like Cyprus.126 At Palam Airport in Bombay, David, who was greeted by his old friend Malcolm MacDonald, High Commissioner to India, expressed a hope that Singapore would achieve “complete independence” within four years and complete internal self-government by April 1957.127 This was a clear revision of an opinion he had expressed earlier, that it might take up to ten years for Singapore to achieve total independence. He told reporters that he preferred “the deep sea of accelerated freedom to the chaos of communism” as he could “make for land from the deep sea but from communism there is no hope”.128 David was beginning to tread on dangerous ground. He was clearly enjoying the attention of the world’s media and was getting carried away. Not only were his opinions purely personal, he seemed to be deliberately stealing a march on Malaya’s Chief Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, who was due in London on 18 January, 1956, for the

125 “Fight Reds the M Way”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 3 Dec 1955; The Times, London, 3 Dec 1955. 126 The Times, London, 6 Dec 1955. 127 Hindustan Standard, New Delhi, 6 Dec 1955. 128 Ibid.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

331

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

332

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

same purpose as he. David saw India as the beacon of the nonaligned world and a symbol of an independent, democratic, former British colony. With his usual bombast, he described his visit there as “a pilgrimage to the land of Gandhiji and Nehru” and was eager to seek inspiration at the “feet of those who have been the pioneer in the vanguard of the rebirth of Asia”.129 Indeed, he declared the day he met Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on 7 December as his “happiest day” since he had become chief minister. David hoped that Nehru would be sympathetic to Singapore’s cause and nudge the British into moving more quickly: We are now seeking self-government at a quicker pace. But we are told it is premature and risky. I am hoping that Mr Nehru as representative of a leading member of the Commonwealth can interpret our aspirations and our needs of the moment to the Commonwealth. They would certainly listen to him with respect than they would listen to me though I am the voice of the people of Singapore. … To us who live far away, India had been a midwife of the rebirth of Asia and the vanguard of Asian freedom. I want to sit at Mr Nehru’s feet to learn as much as I can and absorb all I can.130

Nehru was much too wily to be drawn into David’s hyperbolic hopes and stated, in quite neutral tones: We have always been in favour of freedom and independence for all countries in the world. We are against the rule of one country by another. The colonial pattern of government both in its political and economic aspect is completely out of date now, and does not solve any problem, apart from denying freedom to the people. Every country, and more specially Asian countries, has to face difficult problems and has to advance rapidly on social and economic plane. This cannot be done without the full co-operation of the people. That co-operation cannot be obtained except in terms of freedom and responsibility. If we have made considerable

129 Times of India, Bombay, 6 Dec 1955. 130 Searchlight, Patna, 6 Dec 1955.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

332

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

333

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

progress in India during the last 8 years it is because we have had full co-operation of our people. This has come because of freedom and democracy which produce a feeling of partnership in great understakings. There are no failures, only setbacks, in a right cause.131 It is not for me to advise on precise steps which a country or people should take. That is for the people and their leaders to decide, but I am sure that the problems of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya will be dealt with more adequately when the people there have the sensation of freedom and have to shoulder the responsibilities that follow it. I wish, therefore, all success to the people of Singapore and the Federation in their march to freedom.132

David’s speeches drew vociferous brickbats from his political opponents back in Singapore. Many of them found his remarks undignified, humiliating, and unnecessarily embarrassing to Singapore. His most biting critic was the PAP’s Lee Kuan Yew who called his speeches “humbug” and described his appearances as being akin to “an extravaganza from the Hollywood studios of Walt Disney”.133 David was shocked and furious at these criticisms, snapping back and asking rhetorically if his colleagues at home might prefer him to sit at the feet of Sir Anthony Eden or Sir Alan Lennox-Boyd.134 Even his UMNO-MCA colleague Hamid Jumat felt that he had spoken out of turn when he suggested citizenship for Indian migrants as well. It was during his trip to India that David first intimated that he might resign if his mission to seek self-government failed.135

131 Indian Nation, Patna, 7 Dec 1955. 132 National Herald, Lucknow, 8 Dec 1955. 133 “The Parties Tell Marshall: Don’t Talk So Much Before London”, The Straits Times, 7 Dec 1955. 134 “Mr Marshall Surprised at Singapore Reaction”, The Straits Times, 9 Dec 1955; see also, The Times, London, 9 Dec 1955. 135 “Marshall Says He Will Quit If Self-Govt Mission Fails”, Indian Express, Madras, 11 Dec 1955.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

333

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

334

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David arrived in London early on the morning of Saturday, 10 December, 1955, met by L.R.W. Newsam of the Far Eastern Department of the British Colonial Office (representing LennoxBoyd) and Inche Othman, Commissioner for Malaya in Britain, as well as his cabinet colleagues, Lim Yew Hock and Hamid Jumat. David and his team got down to business immediately and that same morning visited the Far Eastern Department where he met with Newsam and Sir John Martin, head of the Department. After lunching with Lady Hilda Selwyn-Clarke of the Fabian Colonial Bureau at Simpson’s, one of London’s finest restaurants, David took a detour from his usual round of meetings, speeches, and interviews to travel to Kew to honour Henry Nicholas Ridley,136 who was celebrating his hundredth birthday. Ridley was the first Director of Singapore’s Botanic Gardens and was credited with having introduced and promoted the cultivation of rubber in Malaya. David presented Ridley with a hand-beaten silver tea set. The Malayan rubber industry sent Ridley a gold medal for his outstanding achievement and the Rubber Growers’ Association commissioned a bronze head in his honour. A bowl of orchids was also sent from Malaya.137 From the day of his arrival, David was hounded by reporters and interviewers, hoping to catch a quotable quote or two. He did not disappoint them. Indeed, Leslie Hoffman of The Straits Times, who was covering his London trip and who was not particularly enamoured

136 Sir Henry Nicholas Ridley. CMG. was the first Scientific Director of the Singapore Botanic Gardens (1888–1911). He spent many years promoting rubber as a commercial product in Malaya and his enthusiasm was so great, many called him “Mad Ridley”. In 1895, he discovered a means of tapping rubber trees without damaging them and this method led to the boom in the rubber industry. By the turn of the century, Malaya became the world’s largest producer of rubber. He died on 24 Oct, 1956. 137 Evening Standard, London, 10 Dec 1955.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

334

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

335

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

of David, wrote that he had never seen David “so impressive and selfconfident as when he arrived in London”.138 Hoffman noted: He had the grand manner of the born politician, and even tough newspaper reporters who met him conceded his ability to ‘spin the words out’. He moved into his first television interview as if he’d been doing them all his life and when we saw the result, at his Curzon Street suite, Mr Marshall was very pleased. … I have never seen any Malayan politician so sure of himself when being interviewed by newsmen.139

The eight agreed points on the agenda for discussion were:140 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Dates and duration for constitutional talks in the spring of 1956. Addition of Minister to free up Chief Minister to direct overall administration of government. Citizenship. Multilingualism. National Service and local control of national servicemen. Indonesia’s request for more hard currency. Chief Minister’s control and access of civil servants. Self-government and dominion status?

The last item was a controversial one and seems to have come into David’s mind only after his visit to India.141 After talks with LennoxBoyd, which ended on 16 December, David was able to announce that, in addition to the Colonial Office’s agreement on the agenda for talks to be held starting from 23 April, 1956, Lennox-Boyd would recommend the amendment of the Constitution to introduce multilingualism and to appoint another cabinet minister, thus increasing the total number of cabinet ministers from six to seven. In

138 “Mr Marshall Impresses the Newsmen”, The Sunday Times, 11 Dec 1955. 139 Ibid. 140 The Straits Times, 12 Dec 1955. 141 “S’pore to be Dominion?”, The Straits Times, 12 Dec 1955.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

335

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

336

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

its official communiqué, the Colonial Office set out the following agreed agenda items for the April 1956 talks:142 a. b. c. d. e. f.

A definition of ‘internal self-government’; A date for the introduction of internal self-government; Structure of the Legislative Assembly; Future of the public service; External relations and external defence; and Any Other Business.

On 15 December, 1955, during a break in his meetings, David visited the Houses of Parliament where Lennox-Boyd presented him with a Tudor stone rose to be incorporated in Singapore’s Legislative Assembly building. The carved sandstone piece, which was about 400 years old and weighed 250 pounds, was carved from a block salvaged from Victoria Tower in the Palace of Westminster, the old House of Commons, after it had been damaged by a German bomb during World War II. During the presentation, Lennox-Boyd expressed the hope that the stone would be a “political symbol of the close and affectionate understanding between the British and Singapore peoples”.143 By the time David returned to Singapore, it appeared that he had more in mind than mere self-government; he wanted dominion status, something already alluded to in statements made in India.144 Indeed,

142 See Chief Minister’s Statement on “London Talks and Commonwealth Visit”, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 8 Feb 1956, at cols. 1439– 1440; see also “The Big Talks in April”, The Straits Times, 17 Dec 1955. 143 See Chief Minister’s Statement, ibid., at cols. 1444–45. 144 In New Delhi, Marshall told pressmen that he hoped to discuss selfgovernment for Singapore with the British in London in April 1956 and that Singapore would become independent in all matters except foreign affairs and defence by April 1957. See “Mr Marshall Hopes Singapore Will be Free by mid-1957”, Hindustan Standard, New Delhi, 10 Dec 1955.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

336

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

337

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

he told reporters at a press conference in Malaya House on 16 December that he would discuss his plan for dominion status for Singapore with the Tunku after his return:145 It would be a happy day for us if we could persuade the Federation of Malaya to seek jointly with us a single constitution of dominion status, because then the argument that we are a small territory with dependent areas around us would no longer be tenable.146

David indicated that dominion status, which left only external affairs and external defence in British hands, would be his ultimate aim. The Tunku was less sanguine about the suggestion, and had long argued that “fusion” with Singapore could be considered only after each territory had obtained independence on its own. Indeed, when he addressed the Legislative Assembly on 8 February, 1956, David explained that the term “internal self-government” had been used by the Colonial Office as a term of convenience and was “not intended in any way to limit the nature of our proposals or the consideration to be given to them at the constitutional conference”.147 David stopped over in Pakistan for a two-day visit on the way back to Singapore. There he met numerous government officials, including Pakistani Prime Minister Mohammad Ali and Foreign Minister Hamidul Huq Choudhury. Here again, David broached the subject of dominion status with Pakistani leaders. The success of the Tunku’s February 1956 mission to secure independence for Malaya inspired David to push the dominion status issue emphatically. However, there were many differences between the Malayan situation and that of Singapore. For one, the Tunku’s Alliance had an overwhelming majority in the legislature. Secondly,

145 “Marshall: Dominion Talk with Rahman”, The Sunday Times, 18 Dec 1955. 146 Ibid. 147 Statement by David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 8 Feb 1956, at col. 1439.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

337

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

338

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

the Tunku had demonstrated his ability to deal with the communists. Thirdly, Malaya was large enough to survive on its own, without the need to merge with Singapore or any other territory. David, on the other hand, had a tenuous majority in parliament. His own liberal inclinations had been manifested in the removal of many security measures that made effective handling of the communists impossible. Indeed, from the time David stepped into office, Singapore had been confronted by an epidemic of strikes and communist-instigated civil disruptions. Finally, despite her commercial and military importance, Singapore was much too small to exist as an independent state and had to seek merger with the Malayan Federation as a precondition to true independence. If he was to succeed in London in April 1956, David knew that he had to galvanize all the political forces in Singapore behind him — or self-government for Singapore would be difficult to obtain. David’s tenuous majority in parliament did not engender a great deal of confidence. As mentioned earlier, two of David’s Labour Front stalwarts had crossed the floor to join the opposition in November 1955. To boost his chances of success at the constitutional talks, he seriously considered a merger proposal — mooted by Tan Ek Khoo of the Democratic Party — between the Labour Front and the Liberal Socialist Party (which comprised the old Progressive Party and Democratic Party) to strengthen his majority in the Assembly,148 but this was rejected by his own party and the UMNO-MCA Alliance.149 Failing in his bid to secure legislative endorsement for his

148 David Marshall’s diary, 3 Feb 1956. 149 See Felix Abisheganaden, “It’s Merdeka”, The Straits Times, 26 Feb 1956. There were even totally unfounded rumours that the Labour Front was seeking a merger with the People’s Action Party. See “Marshall Denies PAP Merger”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 18 Jan 1956. Indeed, his friends Loke Wan Tho and Malcolm MacDonald also egged him along in this direction. See David Marshall’s diary, 7 Jan 1956.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

338

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

339

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

position, David tried to invoke the popular support of the people so that he could confront the British with a unanimous and vociferous demand for self-government.150 Back in Singapore David’s frenetic schedule took a toll on him. He returned to Singapore on 23 December and within a few days was off to Baling for the amnesty talks with the CPM. Over the new year, he contracted a very bad attack of influenza immediately upon his return. Just when he thought he was getting better, he suffered a relapse. On 17 January, 1956, David was admitted to the General Hospital and ordered to take complete rest.151 His doctor was concerned that he was working himself into a state of exhaustion: It is beyond the capacity of the average man to keep on working as Mr Marshall has been doing day and night for months.152

Even his old friend and teacher Frank James of St Joseph’s Institution was concerned. He wrote him to tell him that David the man was far more important to him than David the chief minister and that he felt very sorry that he was ill with overwork.153 Professor Gordon Ransome, who attended to David, sent him to hospital for four days and ordered him to rest at home until the end of January.154 David had returned to Singapore elated. He believed he had gained the confidence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sir Alan Lennox-Boyd, secured the tacit support of leaders in India, Ceylon, and Pakistan, and performed sufficiently well in the British media to raise Singapore’s profile. These achievements should stand 150 See Navtej Singh, Singapore’s Fight for Self-Government, p. 47. 151 “Admitted to GH for Rest”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 18 Jan 1956. 152 “Marshall: Go Easy says Doctor”, The Straits Times, 14 Jan 1956. 153 Frank James to David Marshall, 11 Feb 1956 (DM/196/87/1–2). 154 David Marshall’s diary, 17 Jan 1956.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

339

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

340

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

him in good stead for the April talks. However, when he got back to work, he was once again confronted by the petty infighting of his Assembly colleagues. This time, the opposition parties threatened to boycott the talks and, once again, David threatened to resign, saying that if he could not get independence for Singapore by 1957, he would quit.155 There were, David said, “many forces working against our efforts to achieve independence” and that these forces were “very strong”.156 Despite being told to work only half days, David was not recovering well. He had been ill on and off for the past two months and, in February, his doctors told him to take a vacation. On 13 February, 1956, David left Singapore for a quiet, two-week holiday in Switzerland.157 In his absence, Lim Yew Hock acted as chief minister. David was restless and was not one to obey doctors’ orders. He remained in constant touch with his colleagues in Singapore as well as with British officials in London, prodding them every now and then to bounce ideas off them and generally making plans for the historic April talks. Indeed, his brother Meyer, a medical doctor, consulted with Professor Ransome, who suggested that David extend his stay in Switzerland by another two weeks so that his health might be fully restored.158 Governor Robert Black, on the other hand, urged David to get well quickly and return to Singapore instead of going to London as he was urgently needed in Singapore for the sake of his coalition government and for the sake of his own party.159

155 “Boycott by Opposition Disheartens Marshall”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 31 Jan 1956. 156 “Marshall says: I May Resign”, The Straits Times, 31 Jan 1956. 157 “Swiss Holiday for Marshall”, The Sunday Times, 12 Feb 1956. 158 This message was conveyed to David through Acting Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock. See Lim Yew Hock to David Marshall, 23 Feb 1956, DM/196/109. 159 Sir Robert Black to David Marshall, 12 Feb 1956, DM/19/58/1–3.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

340

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

341

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

Visit of the British Delegation & Merdeka Week During his visit to Britain in December 1955, David invited an allparty parliamentary delegation to Singapore to judge “the extent and genuineness of our desire for independence”.160 The British all-party delegation — comprising three Conservative and three Labour members of parliament161 — was set to arrive in Singapore on 12 March, 1956. To “greet” them, David organized Merdeka Week to begin on 12 March, the day the British delegation would arrive, culminating in a mass Merdeka Rally on 18 March. During this frenzied Merdeka Week, David planned to distribute 500,000 Merdeka flags, handbills, and car-stickers carrying the message “End Colonialism Now”. At the same time, a “referendum” to collect thousands of signatures demanding Merdeka was also planned. This was to be done by circulating 1,200 loose-leaf books urging the people to put their names in the appropriate column in response to the question “Do you want Merdeka now?”162 This poorly conceptualized enterprise did not have the full support of the other politicians, including two of David’s own compatriots, Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat and Francis Thomas. The rally turned out to be a fiasco. It has been estimated that between 25,000 to 35,000 people gathered at the old Kallang Air Field where a rickety stage had been set up. The PAP extremists and their supporters were there in full force, ready to foment trouble. Lee Kuan Yew tried to stop Lim Chin Siong from addressing the already volatile

160 See Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 7 March 1956, col. 1660. 161 The members of the British delegation were: Geoffrey Lloyd, Herbert S. Morrison, G.J.M. Longden, Sir Leonard Ropner, A.J. Champion and F. Blackburn. 162 See Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 159. Eventually, Marshall sent eight bulky referendum books to London, volumes which he referred to as his “M-Bomb”. See Navtej Singh, Singapore’s Fight for Self-Government, p. 47.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

341

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

342

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

crowd, but Lim had given the signal to the crowd to confront the police. The agitated crowd then swarmed forward when David mounted the stage to give the merdeka salute. The stage collapsed but David escaped unhurt. In the ensuing chaos, fifty people, including twenty policemen, were injured. Initially, the six-man British parliamentary delegation had refused to attend the rally, fearing for their lives, but David had assured them that all would be well and that things were under control. As the crowd grew increasingly agitated, they began pelting bricks and bottles at the British delegation which had to be quickly spirited away to the safety of the old terminal building from which balcony they were briefly introduced to the crowds. This farcical event was politically damaging for David. As Chan Heng Chee pointed out: After this discreditable episode, public opinion turned totally against David Marshall. The Singapore Standard which had maintained a critical stance on the Labour Front Coaliton Government over the last eleven months took the lead in a vicious assault on Marshall’s leadership. He was accused of exhibiting tantrums, of breathing fire and brimstone instead of learning to administer, of being too intolerant of criticism against himself, too eager to tear down, too convinced that events, like a jury, would yield to eloquence. Above all, his critics accused him of generating a hysterical atmosphere, with his tendency to speak and act in terms of crisis.163

Needless to say, the British parliamentarians were unimpressed. Fortunately for David, the rest of the political parties were still behind him in so far as the self-government issue was concerned. As the date for departure approached, David moved a motion in the Legislative Assembly to seek the endorsement of the assembly for his plan to ask the British for self-government. He prefaced the operative part of his motion with a reference to the Washington Declaration, jointly made

163 See Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 161.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

342

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

343

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

by American President Dwight D. Eisenhower and British Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden, which in essence reaffirmed the right of self-determination.164 David called upon the Assembly to resolve:

164 The Washington Declaration reads as follows: We are conscious that in this year of 1956, there still rages the age-old struggle between those who believe that man has his origin and his destiny in God and those who treat man as if he were designed merely to serve a State machinery. Hence, we deem it useful to declare again certain truths and aims upon which we are united and which we are persuaded are supported by all free nations. Because of our belief that the State should exist for the benefit of the individual and not the individual for the benefit of the State, we uphold the basic right of peoples to governments of their own choice. These beliefs of ours are far more than theory or doctrine They have been translated into the actual conduct of our policy both domestic and foreign. We are parties to the Atlantic Charter, the United Nations Charter, the Potomac charter, and the Pacific Charter. In them we have, with other friends, dedicated ourselves to the goal of self-government and independence of all countries whose people desire and are capable of sustaining an independent existence. During the past 10 and more years 600 million men and women in nearly a score of lands have, with our support and assistance, attained nationhood. Many millions more are being helped surely and steadily toward self-government. Thus, the reality and effectiveness of what we have done is a proof of our sincerity. Further, we know that political independence cannot alone assure men and nations full opportunity to pursue happiness and to fulfil their highest destiny. There is, likewise, need for economic sustenance and growth. This, too, we have helped to provide. We seek to develop with others a large volume of mutually beneficial trade. Likewise we seek, through technical assistance, the Colombo Plan and other programmes we support, to help economic progress in the less developed countries and to raise the living standards of their peoples. In these programmes we have not sought nor desired extension of either economic or political power. The purpose is not to dilute but to enrich and secure their freedom.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

343

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

344

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

That this Assembly affirms, in the name of the people of Singapore, its belief in the principle of ‘the basic right of peoples to governments of their own choice’, as enunciated in the Washington Declaration signed by SIR ANTHONY EDEN, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and PRESIDENT EISENHOWER, President of the United States of America, on the 1st of February 1956; And its belief that the long term welfare of Singapore lies in close and friendly cooperation with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth territories; Therefore, the Assembly instructs its All-Party Delegation to the forthcoming Constitutional Talks in London to seek forthwith for Singapore the status of an independent territory within the Commonwealth, and to offer an agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Singapore Government whereby the Government of the United Kingdom would in respect of Singapore exercise control over external defence and give guidance in foreign relations other than trade and commerce.165

After two days of lengthy debates, the motion was unanimously carried. Only G.A.P. Sutherland, the European-nominated member, and the nominated officials abstained. Although the Legislative Assembly appeared united in its stand, it soon became clear that each political party was seeking something different. David wanted dominion status which meant virtual independence, with foreign affairs and defence under the control of the British; the LiberalSocialists wanted joint control between the British and Singapore

While resolutely pursuing these aims, which are the products of our faith in God and in the peoples of the earth, we shall eagerly grasp any genuine opportunity to free mankind of the pall of fear and insecurity which now obscures what can and should be a glorious future. DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER ANTHONY EDEN

See Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 4 Apr 1956, at col. 1778. 165 Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 5 Apr 1956, at col. 1863.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

344

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

345

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

over internal security, and the PAP sought full self-government in five years and eventual merger with Malaya.166 First Constitutional Conference 1956 On 14 April 1956, David led an all-party delegation comprising thirteen assemblymen (seven LF-Alliance, four Liberal-Socialists, and two PAP) to London for the constitutional talks that were scheduled to begin on 23 April, the first anniversary of the Singapore Legislative Assembly. Members of the delegation were Marshall, Lim Yew Hock, Armand J. Braga, J.M. Jumabhoy, Wong Foo Nam, and Seah Peng Chuan (Labour Front); Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat (Alliance), Lim Cher Kheng, Lim Choon Mong, Lim Koon Teck, and William Tan (Liberal-Socialist Party); and Lee Kuan Yew and Lim Chin Siong (People’s Action Party).167 To assist the Singapore delegation, David’s government engaged three constitutional law experts as advisers. The most famous of them was Sir Ivor Jennings,168 master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge University, and drafter of the Ceylonese and Pakistan constitutions. His availability for a fee of £2,000 was confirmed only in late February 1956.169 Jennings spent more than two weeks in

166 See Navtej Singh, Singapore’s Fight for Self-Government, pp. 50–51. 167 See “13 Men — All With One Aim”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 17 Mar 1956. 168 Sir William Ivor Jennings (1903–1965) was founder and vice-chancellor of the University of Ceylon in 1942. He subsequently became Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and then vice-chancellor of Cambridge University. He was a member of the Reid Constitutional Commission for Malaya (1956– 1957) and helped draft the constitutions of Ceylon, Pakistan, and the Federation of Malaya. 169 Lim Yew Hock to David Marshall, 23 Feb 1956, DM/196/109. Sir Ivor Jennings had first been introduced to Marshall by Sir Edward Fellowes, Clerk to the House of Commons, in December 1955 and through the good offices of Lady Hilda Selwyn-Clarke. See Hilda Selwyn-Clarke to David Marshall, 27 Oct 1955, DM/22/18.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

345

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

346

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Singapore helping the delegation frame the proposals on which it would base its independence claim.170 In London, Jennings was assisted by Walter Raeburn, QC,171 David’s former pupil master; and Stanley Alexander de Smith,172 constitutional law lecturer at the London School of Economics. The British came to the conference with four clearly defined objectives:173 1.

2. 3.

4.

to carry forward the devolution upon the people of Singapore of the direction of their own affairs in accordance with the central of British Colonial policy, endorsed by all parties in the United Kingdom; to ensure the maintenance of the democratic way of life in Singapore, and its defence against external or internal attack; to maintain the position of Singapore as a great commercial and trading centre in South-East Asia, since upon that position depends the livelihood of its people; and to maintain the position of Singapore as a major strategic centre and base in the defence system of the free world.

170 “Set Fair for Merdeka Men”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 8 Apr 1956. 171 Walter Augustus Leopold Raeburn (1897–1971) was born in West Hampstead, London. He originally read history at Christ Church, Oxford, and only qualified as a barrister after a brief career in advertising. A criminal law specialist, Raeburn had been David Marshall’s pupil master when he was studying law in London in 1934–1937. Remarkably, he took an LLB degree at the London School of Economics in 1955. 172 Stanley Alexander de Smith (1922–1974) taught at the London School of Economics (LSE) from 1945 to 1970. At the time of his engagement as constitutional adviser to the Singapore delegation, he held the post of lecturer at LSE. In 1970, he returned to his alma mater, Cambridge University, where he was Downing Professor of the Laws of England until his death in 1974, as well as editor of the prestigious Cambridge Law Journal from 1973 to 1974. 173 See Singapore Constitutional Conference, Cmd 9777 of 1956, pp. 4–5 [hereinafter Constitutional Conference 1956].

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

346

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

347

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

Discussions proper commenced on 23 April at No. 10 Carlton House where the thirteen-man Singapore delegation sat across the table from Lennox-Boyd and twenty-two others from the British side. The opening mood was not promising, with Lennox-Boyd stressing the need for Singapore to accept joint control over internal security. As far as the British were concerned, internal security and external defence were so inextricably entwined as to be inseparable issues. To illustrate his points, Lennox-Boyd referred to the subversive activities of the communists in Singapore, and proclaimed that: The British government will not allow the people of Singapore to fall under the domination of communist rule. We do not intend that Singapore should become an outpost of Communist China — in fact a colony of Peking.174

David then responded with an equally fiery statement. He stated that immediate self-government was necessary “if true nationalists are to have an opportunity to repel the threatened flood of an ideology that seeks to destroy the democratic process”.175 David then presented Singapore’s memorandum and a draft Heads of Agreement setting out the terms under which Singapore would become an independent state by 1 April, 1957, together with a draft Independence of Singapore Act. Of the various subjects dealt with, the most controversial concerned the responsibility for internal security and external defence. David proposed that the Defence Council — consisting of representatives of the British Government and the Singapore Government under the chairmanship of the British representative — be responsible for the external defence of Singapore.176 Internal security would be the sole purview of the Singapore Government which may,

174 See The London Times, 24 Apr 1956. 175 Ibid. 176 See Constitutional Conference 1956, para. 11, p. 16.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

347

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

348

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

“if in its view internal disturbance or the threat thereof so requires, call upon the Defence Council for assistance from the armed forces of the Commonwealth for the maintenance or restoration of order and such forces as the Defence Council may consider necessary shall be placed at the service of the Government of Singapore”.177 The British considered the proposals and rejected them two days later. Lennox-Boyd’s counter-proposal was very generous, agreeing to most of the Singapore memorandum except for the provisions relating to security and external defence. The British were prepared to remove the nominated, ex officio members and to enlarge the Legislative Assembly to fifty members, all of whom would be elected by popular vote.178 In place of the governor, the British would appoint a High Commissioner who would act in accordance with the Council of Ministers’ advice except in external affairs. The main contentious issue remained the question of internal security. The statement of the Secretary of State said: Her Majesty’s Government consider that joint machinery should be established in recognition of the concurrent interest of the Singapore Government and of the United Kingdom Government in the field of external affairs and defence; and equally in the field of internal security, because of the essential link between internal security and external defence, and of Her Majesty’s Government’s responsibility to assist Singapore in maintaining law and order. … While, therefore, Her Majesty’s Government are anxious to confer the greatest possible degree of self-government on Singapore, they are convinced that they must under present circumstances retain an ultimate authority in matters of external defence, internal security and external affairs.179

177 Ibid., para. 12, pp. 16–17. 178 Ibid., p. 20. 179 Ibid., p. 21.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

348

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

349

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

Lennox-Boyd counter-proposed that the British High Commissioner should be the Chairman of the Defence and Security Council, whose members would include representatives of the Council of Ministers and of the services and the Commissioner of Police, and that “there shall be parity between Singapore and United Kingdom representatives, but the Chairman should have a casting vote in the event of parity of votes”.180 The Commissioner of Police “will have the right of access to the High Commissioner” in his capacity as chairman of the Defence Council,181 and the High Commissioner would be empowered to call emergency meetings of the Defence Council if and when necessary. In the circumstances in which United Kingdom troops were called in to restore order, the troops would operate under the High Commissioner’s authority.182 These powers, said Lennox-Boyd, would only be exercised in cases of clear necessity, but it was essential that the High Commissioner be given “some reserve authority so that … he can ensure not only that prompt and effective action is taken in a crisis, but also that remedial attention is given to the potential causes of a breakdown in public order as they become apparent”.183 The British felt that these arrangements, “in the last resort can be exercised to save Singapore from Communism”.184 These arrangements, the British pointed out, were not necessarily permanent, but “would at least provide an ultimate reserve of safety until it was possible to see whether the union of Singapore and Malaya, in which context Her Majesty’s Government have always hoped Singapore would find her full independence, might come about”.185 180 Ibid. 181 Ibid. 182 Ibid. 183 Ibid., p. 22. 184 Ibid., p. 24. 185 Ibid.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

349

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

350

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

After almost a week of deliberations, the Singapore delegation counter-proposed a draft Independence Act. David proposed that instead of having a High Commissioner as the Queen’s representative, a Governor-General might be appointed as the Queen’s representative for a period of five years. In addition, a separate High Commissioner might be appointed as a representative of the British Government and empowered to: a. b.

act in relation to external affairs in so far as such affairs are not vested in the Government of Singapore; and provide for the external defence of Singapore.

The Governor-General would “be a symbol of the State, outside all political conflicts and on to whom … the people of Singapore should look up to and give their loyalty”.186 The Singapore delegation agreed that external defence and external affairs be vested in British hands, but recommended that the Defence and Security Council be established for a transitional period of up to six years (or up to the time when union with Malaya was achieved, whichever was the earlier), but without the High Commissioner’s casting vote. David argued that if things went horribly wrong, the British could always suspend the constitution and assume full responsibility for government.187 Generally, the British were prepared to concede a great deal — the creation of a State of Singapore, abolition of the ex officio and nominated members in the Legislative Assembly, increase in the size of the fully elected legislature, transfer of the key portfolios of Chief Secretary and Financial Secretary to elected ministers, a separate Singapore citizenship, Malayanization of the civil service — but they were not prepared to accept this proposal, as they considered the suspension of the Constitution far too drastic and inefficient a measure to be practically workable. They also knew that they had to remain in

186 Ibid., p. 27. 187 Ibid., p. 26.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

350

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

351

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

control of internal security, for David and his government were too weak to prevent the island from imploding through left-wing strikes and riots.188 They insisted on the High Commissioner holding the casting vote on the Defence and Security Council and it was on this point that the talks broke down. In many ways, Lennox-Boyd’s hands were tied.189 He was unable to persuade his own Conservative Party to give Singapore greater independence, especially when so much — both economically and militarily — was at stake. David stuck to his guns and refused to accept this compromise, which he saw as an infringement of the full sovereignty he sought. The other delegates were less obstinate and hoped to reach a compromise, to grab whatever they could get. Indeed, David appeared to have gone along with the majority until he went out to dinner with Lim Chin Siong on the night of 14 May. And somehow, by the end of that evening, Lim appeared to have convinced David that the composition of the proposed Internal Security Council was totally unacceptable. Naturally, Lim would have preferred the British out of the equation since that would clearly have been to the left-wing radicals’ advantage. As J.M. Jumabhoy recalled years later: And after all the haggling and with Lennox-Boyd on the other side, we came to certain understandings and agreement. There was only one crux of the matter left, and that was the Security Council — who should be the Chairman and should be tilted in whose favour; and Malaysia, Singapore and Britain and all that … And I think it came to a point where general consensus was that it could be worked out. And then we broke. It was about evening, 4 of 5 pm.

188 James Low, “Kept in Position: The Labour Front-Alliance Government of Chief Minister David Marshall in Singapore, April 1955 – June 1956”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 35.1 (2004): 60. 189 Lee Kuan Yew himself felt that Lennox-Boyd was “a prisoner of his own right wing in the Tory Party”, See Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 141.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

351

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

352

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

That evening, David Marshall went with Lim Chin Siong. Lim Ching Siong asked him for dinner. … Two a.m. he rings us up in our room (my wife was with me) and calls us up to his room. So we all went there. And he had a complete change of course. And we were really … many of us … Hamid Jumat, myself — we were very unhappy at this complete change.… So behind-the-scenes I think he went and turned Marshall’s mind away. He must have given him some different idea and so on. … Marshall was adamant that we could not accept. So I said, ‘Then we might as well chuck the whole thing. I’m going back. I’m not going to stay.’ And I went off the next day.190 And then he made the announcement that the British Government is giving a ‘Christmas pudding in arsenic sauce.’ Or was it a pock-marked beauty or something? Two famous quotations, you know. That means a package wrapped nicely but inside, it’s poison. You see that? So that’s how the talks broke.191

A vote was taken on 14 May and initially, only David and Lim Chin Siong voted against accepting the British terms. However, Lee Kuan Yew changed his mind and voted against the proposed constitution because he did not want to appear to be less intransigent than David or Lim. There was a deadlock. David made a telephone call to his Council of Ministers in Singapore inviting their views. Chew Swee Kee, the Minister for Education, then came on the line and suggested that the chairman of the Defence and Security Council should be a Malayan appointed by the Federation of Malaya government, instead of the British High Commissioner. Everyone in the delegation thought the idea inspirational.192 Lee Kuan Yew even proclaimed it “the only

190 J.M. Jumabhoy, Oral History interview 14 Nov 1981, Reel 8 (Singapore: National Archives). This account was repeated to the author during a personal interview with Jumabhoy on 15 Nov 2007 at his residence. 191 Ibid. 192 “Chew Rings London With A Solution”, The Straits Times, 15 May 1956.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

352

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

353

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

brilliant idea” he had ever heard from the Labour Front.193 This proposal was taken by Walter Raeburn to Lennox-Boyd’s home and they discussed it for two hours, until midnight.194 The next day, they returned to the conference table, but the British turned down their proposal for a Malayan chairman for the Defence Council. Lennox-Boyd told the delegation that Britain could not let another country share her responsibility of defending Singapore.195 David then took a vote of his delegation. Not one of them voted in favour of the British proposals, although three members of the Progressive Party — Lim Choon Mong, Lim Koon Teck, and William Tan abstained. On 15 May, a communiqué was issued announcing the breakdown of the talks. CLUTCHING AT STRAWS

Before heading for London, David had assured voters that if he failed to secure self-government for Singapore, he would resign. When he made this statement, David also expected that if he did resign, his whole government would resign with him. With dissension in the ranks and disunity in his coalition, it was now not entirely clear that his colleagues would take the leap with him. Indeed, David’s Labour Front colleagues in Singapore cabled him to say that they were prepared to carry on without him. David tried to save the situation. On the morning of 16 May, he pressed for and managed to obtain a meeting with British Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden who postponed a cabinet meeting by half an hour to receive him at 10 Downing Street. David attacked Lennox-Boyd for his intransigence but Eden stood firm. As Chan Heng Chee noted:

193 See Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 170. 194 Harry Miller, “Drama of the Last Hours”, The Straits Times, 17 May 1956. 195 Ibid.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

353

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

354

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Marshall attacked Lennox-Boyd for insisting on his formula on the Defence and Security Council. Eden, then interjected, ‘But Alan has given you …’ Marshall interrupted, ‘Yes, yes, yes, Alan has given me the Christmas pudding, but he insists on the arsenic sauce.’ Eden replied, ‘You must be patient, Marshall. You must be diplomatic. Marshall replied,‘‘I am not a diplomat, Mr Prime Minister, I am … I am … I am a missionary of democracy.’ ‘I am not a diplomat, either, Mr Marshall, I try to be patient.’196

That afternoon, David attended a House of Commons session in which the Labour MPs attacked Lennox-Boyd for the failure of the talks. Lennox-Boyd assured his colleagues that he was still open to any suggestions that would solve problems. Sensing an opening, David thought that he could reconvene the talks since Lennox-Boyd had openly told the House that he was still open to good suggestions. David returned to Carlton House and immediately called an emergency meeting of his delegation for 6:00 p.m., but only a few delegates turned up. He then called for another meeting at 9:00 a.m. the following morning. Again, none of the opposition parties were interested in re-opening the talks with the British Government since they had received party mandates not to do so. On his own initiative, David then wrote a letter to Lennox-Boyd, asking the Secretary of State for the Colonies for another meeting to discuss reopening the talks. He suggested three points as a basis for negotiation. First, David proposed that Britain’s overriding legislative powers be made subject to the approval of the UK House of Commons; secondly, that “to meet the very real need of the people of Singapore for an end of colonial rule”, Singapore should be transferred from the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office to some other ministry; and finally, that the Queen’s representative as Singapore’s head of state, “should be a Malayan and completely distinct from the political representative of Her Majesty’s Government in Singapore”.197 196 See Chan, A Sensation of Independence, pp. 191–92. 197 See Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 7 Jun 1956, at col. 2077.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

354

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

355

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

David’s initiative turned his whole delegation against him. This complete volte-face looked very much like a desperate chief minister trying to save his own job. Lee Kuan Yew called it “utterly mad” and was convinced that David’s ministers did not want to resign because they wanted to “hold on to their jobs and salaries and perks” and that David himself was not prepared to resign because “he loves the publicity and limelight” — for these reasons, the “conference may be reduced to utter ridicule”.198 Lim Chin Siong called David’s move nonsensical.199 Lim Yew Hock was totally aghast. Lennox-Boyd did not want to risk another breakdown in discussions. To test the waters, he invited David and his delegation to a tea party at his home the next day. All the other members of David’s delegation boycotted the tea party and only Lim Yew Hock and A.J. Braga accompanied David. As Lim Yew Hock so poignantly put it: His Ministerial colleagues in the delegation, out of loyalty for their leader, remained behind in the sinking ship; all the others left in disgust because to the Asian mind what David Marshall had done was to lick up what he had spat out… ….. If David Marshall had beaten the retreat and returned to Singapore as advised by me in London and by Party HQ in Singapore, a different trend would have taken place. If he had not written that fateful (I would not like to say disgraceful) letter to Dear Alan [Lennox-Boyd], we would have rallied around him to give him moral and, if need be, immoral (in the field of politics) support to show the British that we meant business.200

Lennox-Boyd greeted the small delegation courteously and seemed surprised that there were only three of them. He told David that he was not prepared to reopen talks unless the proposals came from the 198 See Letter from Lee Kuan Yew to Toh Chin Chye, 16 May 1956, quoted in Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 144. 199 See Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 172. 200 See Lim Yew Hock, Reflections (Kuala Lumpur: Pustaka Antara, 1986), p. 66.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

355

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

356

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

all-party delegation or from the Singapore Government. David returned to Singapore disappointed by his delegation’s rejection, but hopeful that the Colonial Office would still reopen talks.201 On 28 May, Lennox-Boyd cabled Governor Robert Black to inform David that it would “quite improper” for him to interfere along the lines suggested by David.202 Two days later, the Colonial Office cabled the official rejection to David’s three-point proposal. Of the talks’ failure, Lennox-Boyd felt that the Singapore delegation and in particular David Marshall were often “prisoners” of their “own original demands and statements made” before the conference began and that they would have a difficult time explaining with conviction to their own people why the United Kingdom could not do without certain powers.203 As members of the constitutional talks delegation began coming back to Singapore, a plan was forming to ensure that David would honour his promise to resign.204 David was not keen to resign,205 but at a closed-door emergency meeting of the Labour Front Executive Committee meeting on 23 May, 1956, it was decided that David would be requested to step down in favour of Lim Yew Hock when he returned to Singapore on 24 May.206 Indeed, Seah Peng Chuan, one of the Labour Front delegates at the London talks, revealed that even before the Labour Front candidates had left London for Singapore, they had already chosen Lim Yew Hock to succeed David as chief minister.207 On 30 May, 1956, David called on

201 Harry Miller, “Try, Try and Try Again”, Straits Times, 19 May 1956. 202 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 175. 203 “A Lesson in Politics”, The Straits Times, 20 May 1956. 204 “All-Party Bid to Make Mr M Resign”, Singapore Free Press, 23 May 1956. 205 “Quit? Who Agreed — Marshall”, Singapore Free Press, 25 May 1956. 206 “Marshall is Told to Go”, The Daily Worker, London, 23 May 1956. 207 See Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 147.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

356

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

357

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

Governor Robert Black twice in thirty-six hours and announced that his cabinet would be resigning with him on 6 June, 1956.208 RESIGNATION

David was sadly mistaken. Not only were his cabinet colleagues not prepared to resign, most of them placed the blame for the failure of the London talks on him. Furthermore, if David resigned, Lee Choon Eng and A.R. Lazarous, the two Labour Front members who had crossed the floor in November 1955, expressed their willingness to return to the Labour Front and thus strengthen its position in the Assembly. Alex Josey, writing for The Straits Times, commented that David had lost the city’s confidence not because the negotiations failed, but because of his behaviour in London.209 Perhaps the most honest and perceptive assessment of the situation came from Francis Thomas, who had written David a long, four-page letter when he was in Delhi. Thomas told David that his attempts to re-open talks with Lennox-Boyd “confused the picture and reduced” his status and that his remarks were often uncalled for and had upset many people, including those in the leper colony in the Trafalgar Home. Thomas continued: You carry a very heavy burden of responsibility to a great many humble people who see in you justice, sincerity and unshaken purpose, able to solve Singapore’s problems and save them from disruption and strife. You cannot carry this burden of responsibility alone. You did so carry it during 1955 and the consequence has been that, for the last five months, you have been a sick man, not able to give the people all the wise leadership that is required. You must, as a democrat, work through a political party and that means that your colleagues must work with you and not under you. As far as we are able to gather here, your handling of the rest of the

208 “Marshall: My Cabinet Goes with Me”, The Straits Times, 30 May 1956. 209 “Singapore Turns Against Its Leader”, The Straits Times, 21 May 1956.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

357

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

358

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Delegation after the talks had broken down, and after you had devised a new approach, was inadequate. What might have been successful if differently handled produced a situation which greatly strengthened our political opponents and the Colonial Office.210

Thomas then persuaded David that he had no choice but to resign his post as chief minister, but told him that after a period of rest and recuperation he could again rejoin the front ranks of the party. David left London on 21 May, stopping in India for two days for discussions with Nehru, who reluctantly met up with him. On the way there, his plane developed engine trouble and was forced to land in Bahrain, where a relief plane took him on to Bombay.211 He returned to Singapore on 24 May, 1956. David, true to his word, resigned on 7 June, 1956. In his last Assembly session, the Legal Aid and Advice Bill that was David’s “baby” was passed with both second and third readings done in one day. After the passage of the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance, David rose to propose a motion: That this Assembly approves the stand of its delegation at the Constitutional Conference in London.212

David sought the Assembly’s endorsement of the stance that the allparty delegation had taken in rejecting the British proposal. After a comprehensive recounting of the negotiations, David placed the blame for the failure of the talks squarely on the shoulders of the British authorities. He told the Assembly that the “Colonial Office is solely to blame and is solely responsible for this breakdown in insisting on

210 Francis Thomas to David Marshall, 21 May 1956, DM/34/1/2. 211 “Marshall’s Plane is Forced Down”, Evening News, London, 22 May 1956; see also “Marshall’s Plane Has Engine Faulty, is Diverted”, The Evening Standard, London, 22 May 1956. 212 Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 6 Jun 1956, col. 1977.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

358

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

359

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

overall supervision and control of future Singapore governments in the name of external defence and external affairs”.213 Immediately, William Tan of the Liberal-Socialist Party rose to oppose the motion, pinning the failure of the talks on David’s “inconsistent and ill-tempered” behaviour which had caused him to lose the confidence of his colleagues.214 Lee Kuan Yew jumped to David’s defence and offered quite possibly the most cogent and intelligent analysis of the political environment: one thing sticks out a mile, and that is that the Britain we went to negotiate with in April this year was a Britain which was in no mood for dynamic and imaginative colonial policies. After the slap in the face from Jordan, when they kicked out the Chief of the Arab Legion, after the outburst in Nicosia airfield the day following a statement from a high-ranking British official that they could hold Cyprus, whether the people of Cyprus were friendly or unfriendly, and after the failure of British policy in Ceylon by the Left Wing election success …215

What the British wanted, Lee added, was to “make quite sure that while they allow all the trappings of internal self-government, the reality of power was to be with Britain”.216 Lim Choon Mong, leader of the Liberal-Socialists, rose to move an amendment that effectively negated David’s.217 Lim wanted the Assembly to state that the allparty delegation should have accepted the British offer. This was roundly criticized by the Labour Front members and Lee Kuan Yew and was defeated.218 At 12:20 p.m. on 7 June, David’s motion was

213 Ibid., col. 1985. 214 Ibid., col. 2003. 215 Ibid., col. 2004. 216 Ibid., col. 2009. 217 Ibid., col. 2019. 218 Ibid., col. 2064.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

359

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

360

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

approved without a vote. That afternoon, David then put forward the last motion of the day and his last motion as chief minister, that the Assembly “takes note of the correspondence between the Chief Minister and the Secretary of State for the Colonies between the 17th and 30th May, 1956”.219 This was approved without a vote after a short debate.220 Years later, when asked if he had had any premonition that the talks would not succeed, David recalled: Lennox-Boyd took me to Brighton for the weekend, charming host. And he had his Deputy Minister drop in, I think, one evening. But at the dinner, he gave me at which there were only two of us at a little restaurant which he called his favourite restaurant in Brighton. A great deal of circumlocution which confused me at first. I got the impression that he was in fact suggesting that if I would cooperate with His Majesty’s Government or Her Majesty’s Government, it would be appreciated (and would indicate its appreciation). The thought of being Sir David Marshall rather tickled my sense of humour, and I laughed. And I could see immediately he crisped up. To him, it was rather, how shall I say, a barbaric reaction to a very civilized gesture. And that was from that moment a sense of distance. That was one. The other was when I rather rudely rejected the suggestion of the Permanent Secretary of the Colonial Office that I should have experts from the Bank of England to come and establish our central bank in Singapore. And I unfortunately mentioned that I might consider having experts from India or one of the dominions. That was taken very badly. Those were the two that I recognized immediately were faux pas on my part. But basically, the talks failed because I got the impression, and in fairness it’s not unreasonable, he felt that I wasn’t strong enough. He didn’t want to give me power which might slip out of my hands and into Communist hands. I got the impression they were not confident that I could hold my ground against the Communists. And any independence they gave me would merely seep through to strengthen the Communist position in Singapore. 219 Ibid., col. 2072. 220 Ibid., col. 2092.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

360

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

361

BUILDING A NEW SINGAPORE

Also there was a High Commissioner for Australia who very bluntly said that Singapore was a pivot of the defence of Australia,221 and they could not in any way condone any idea that the United Kingdom should relax its hold on the security of Singapore. Singapore was ‘the umbrella for Australia and New Zealand.’222

At 7:10 p.m. that evening, David went on Radio Malaya to bid the people of Singapore goodbye and to announce his stepping down as chief minister. He told the audience that the last fourteen months had been the most sustained ordeal of his life, even more difficult than the days when he was held prisoner-of-war. After reiterating the ideals for which he stood, he urged the people to be kinder on their chief minister and ended by assuring everyone that his resignation did not mean he was giving up the struggle for freedom from colonial rule.223 After the broadcast, David went to Government House and tendered his resignation to the governor.

221 In June 1956, Marshall wrote to his old friend Dr Herbert Vere Evatt, leader of the Australian Labour Party, complaining about Australia’s attitude towards self-government for Singapore: “I am disturbed by what I understand to have been Australia’s share in the activities behind the scenes which have brought about the failure of these talks. … the people of the country are growing conscious of an effort by the Government of Australia to extend its influence to the control of Singapore and the Federation, and that there is a growing resentment towards Australian political activities which is unhealthy both for you and for us.” See David Marshall to H.V. Evatt, 11 Jun 1956, DM/35/34/1–2. 222 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 11 (Singapore: National Archives). 223 “Farewell Broadcast by the Honourable Mr David Marshall, Before Resigning as Chief Minister, over Radio Malaya at 7.10 pm, Tonight, June 7 1956”, Public Relations Office Press Statement, No. JU 56/29.

12 Marshall_S'pore Ch 12

361

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the 362 MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

13

Politics on the Margins FROM CENTRE TO PERIPHERY

T

here were many who were saddened by David’s sudden resignation as chief minister. They had hoped that he might be persuaded to stay on, notwithstanding his pre-London promise to quit if he failed to secure self-government for Singapore. In the short fourteen months he was in office, he had single-handedly transformed the face of Singapore politics. David had, through the sheer force of his personality, rhetoric, and ideas, awakened the people of Singapore to politics and the meaning of nationalism and self-government. The British, used to taking the initiative in the decolonization process, were totally unprepared for a phenomenon like David Marshall. They had hedged their bets on men like C.C. Tan, N.A. Mallal, A.P. Rajah and Tan Chin Tuan, who were cooperative, proestablishment, and happy to work closely with the British in moving self-government forward. At first, they expected David to do the same. After all, he had studied in England, was a respectable, successful lawyer, and came from the privileged professional class. Such men were not known for their radicalism. Governor Sir John Fearns Nicoll was, despite his poor public image and aloofness, a fairly progressive governor who was anxious to devolve power as quickly as possible, but not as quickly as David wanted it.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

362

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

363

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

His ideal chief minister would have been a man like Sir John Kotelawala of Ceylon — one of Nicoll’s few friends — with whom he had discussed the Rendel Constitution and the future of Singapore. Kotelawala had offered Nicoll quite a fair bit of advice and told him what to expect. Nicoll came to expect all new chief ministers to be cut from the same cloth as the staunchly anticommunist and reliable Kotelawala — and measured them by that standard.1 Men like Kotelawala would, despite their strong anticolonialist tendencies, still consult with their governors before taking any drastic action. They would work closely with the departing colonial masters to ensure a stable and smooth transition of power. Nicoll had been, for example, extremely hurt when David had first sought the counsel of Sir Malcolm MacDonald, Britain’s High Commissioner for Southeast Asia, over the appointment of his cabinet members, instead of Nicoll. While David may well have simply thought this a small matter, since he and MacDonald were old friends, he had failed to consider the sensibilities of an insecure and insular governor who genuinely wanted to help.2 After all, MacDonald’s administration had little to do with day-to-day politics in Singapore. Indeed, as his personal secretary Dennis Duncanson recalled, Nicoll had even gone through the trouble of rebuilding Government House to house the Council of Ministers and arranged to build a small private lift that went straight up to the governor’s office so that the ministers could visit and consult with him privately.

1

Oral History Interview, Dr Dennis J. Duncanson, 10 Mar 1986, Reel 5 (Singapore: National Archives). Duncanson was private secretary to Sir John Nicoll from 1953.

2

Oral History Interview, Sir Robert Brown Black, July 1995 (Singapore: National Archives).

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

363

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

364

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Nicoll was extremely proud of this, but not one single minister availed himself of this facility during Nicoll’s term of office.3 David had obviously failed to impress Nicoll, who thought that he was unscrupulous in the way he exploited the media during his election campaign and felt that his demagoguery was not the mark of a responsible, serious political leader with a clear vision for the future.4 Nicoll’s successor Robert Black — a much friendlier and more avuncular man — could not help but feel that David was in too much of a hurry, making it difficult for policy-makers to catch up with him: There he was, accelerating the pace all the time and one had to try to get him to slow down and be less emotional. He was very sincere in what he wanted to do and he was very emotional about it. And he had a problem of great turbulence in internal security.5

David’s “politics of histrionics” was more dangerous than Byzantine Greek fire. Not only did it succeed in igniting the crowds and firing up the masses, it ultimately immolated David as well. His resignation was greeted with relief by the British authorities, who now looked to Lim Yew Hock to bring some stability back to government. The British civil servants were also relieved about no longer having to deal with so emotional and erratic a chief minister. Harold Anthony Shaw, who was Acting Financial Secretary, recalled how David was at times “impossible to deal with” because he simply refused to see a point.6 True to his farewell address, David’s resignation from the chief ministership did not mean the end of his political role. Key members

3

Oral History Interview, Dr Dennis J. Duncanson, 10 Mar 1986, Reel 5 (Singapore: National Archives).

4

Ibid.

5

Oral History Interview, Sir Robert Brown Black, July 1995 (Singapore: National Archives).

6

Oral History, Harold Anthony Shaw, Reel 7 (Singapore: National Archives). Shaw was Acting Financial Secretary during Marshall’s stint as Chief Minister.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

364

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

365

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

of his own party were pleased to have him out of the limelight so they could get on with their own agendas. David was relegated to the backbenches of the Assembly. Lim Yew Hock, a quiet, unassuming trade unionist took the reins of office without much fuss and quickly appointed Hamid Jumat his deputy chief minister. This was a shrewd move as it brought the Labour Front and Lim in particular closer to Tunku Abdul Rahman. This close relationship would form the basis for talks about the fusion of the two territories. Unlike David, Lim was not prone to making headline-grabbing speeches or grand gestures. He preferred to listen and act, rather than to speak. THE TRIP TO CHINA 7

But no sooner had David stepped down from the chief ministership than he jumped right into the limelight again. This time, it was in connection with his intended visit to communist China. On 19 June, 1956, at a meeting of the Thomson Road Branch of the Labour Front, David told branch members that he had received a telegram from the People’s Republic of China with an invitation to visit.8 This was part of the Chinese Government’s strategy of enhancing peaceful coexistence with the Afro-Asian states. David told the crowd that even though he was no longer the chief minister, he was confident the Chinese Government would listen to what he had to say, especially on the question of the citizenship of the Chinese in Singapore. The Trade Delegation At about the same time David made the decision to visit China, the Trade Advisory Council, headed by David’s old friend Yap

7

Marshall’s China trip has been documented thoroughly in his almost daily letters to his brother Meyer. See Michael Leifer, ed., Letters from Mao’s China by David Marshall (Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society, 1996).

8

“China Cables Mr M: You’re Welcome”, The Straits Times, 20 Jun 1956.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

365

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

366

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Pheng Geck, was also planning to organize a trip to China to improve trade. Yap persuaded David to head the delegation going to China and David, having now stepped down from the chief ministership, agreed. The purpose of the mission was modest, given the heightened sensitivities concerning China during this period. It was to open trade between China, Singapore, and Malaya and to expose local businessmen to the potential of China’s markets.9 The choice of David as adviser for the delegation was a clever one. After all, he was a former chief minister with very strong anti-communist and anti-colonial credentials that brought the delegation much respectability.10 David was to meet the delegation in Japan. As their adviser, he offered to render them all possible assistance to the “all communities and all chambers” group. There was some disquiet among some Chinese rubber traders who had originally thought that the group would be a small one only for the “rubber people”. Yap then met up with Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock and, after consultations, issued a statement explaining that David had been approached to lead the delegation since he had received official invitations to visit both Japan and China, but that David had strongly suggested that the delegation include members of all the different ethnic communities and representatives from all the different chambers of commerce.11 By 5 July, 1956, a final selection was made of the businessmen for the trade mission. The group was slated to leave for Japan in the third week of July and then proceed to China in the middle of August from

9

David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 13 (Singapore: National Archives).

10 Ibid. 11 “Doubts Raised on China Trade Mission”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 23 Jun 1956.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

366

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

367

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

Hong Kong.12 In all, sixty-one delegates were chosen. 13 They represented all the communities except for the Eurasians.14 David’s China trip was not without controversy. China was, after all, the most populous communist country in the world and the Chinese Communist Party had long been supporters of the revolution in Southeast Asia and of the Communist Party of Malaya. Would not a trip like this be sending out the wrong signals? What was more, many Chinese in both Malaya and Singapore still looked to China as their homeland. The Tunku was anxious that David not embark on this tour and called to dissuade him from going.15 If David led a Singapore delegation to China, there would be nothing to stop Chinese business leaders from the Federation from mounting their own business expedition there as well. The American consul also tried to dissuade David from going and offered to arrange a health-cumculture holiday for him to Taiwan instead.16 David’s invitation to visit China came from the Foreign Relations Institute while the trade delegation’s invitation came from the Zhonghua National Industrial and Commercial Association. Eventually, a joint delegation with businessmen from the Federation of Malaya, led by Lee Lien Yen, was organized. David’s formal duties in respect of the trade delegation occupied only about a week of his time in China. He was on hand — albeit with a heavy cold and fever — to greet the delegation when they arrived on 28 August. On 29 August, he toured the Forbidden City with them

12 “ ‘Impressive’ Lot to Make Peking Trip”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 6 Jul 1956. 13 Of these, 51 were Chinese, 4 Indians, 3 Europeans and 3 Malays. 14 “61 Delegates to Go to Red China”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 11 Jul 1956. 15 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 203. 16 Interview with Mrs Jean Marshall, 29 Jul 2008.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

367

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

368

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

and then later attended a reception given in their honour at the International Trade & All China Federation of Industry and Commerce. On 30 August, David also hosted a dinner for some members of the trade delegation and other foreign guests. Thereafter, David left the delegation to its own devices and left to tour the rest of China until early October when he met up with them in Beijing again for the official signing of the Joint Trade Communiqué on 4 October. While in Beijing, the Singapore delegation — made up of six distinct trade groups (rubber, native produce, textiles, building materials and metals, foodstuffs and transport and insurance and banking) — held daily morning discussions with their respective Chinese trade bureau counterparts while the four Federation teams held sessions with the Chinese bureaux in the afternoons.17 Into China On 20 June, 1956, David set sail on the German vessel Frankfurt for his three-month tour of Japan and China. He told the large crowd sending him off that he hoped to “bring back fresh air from a free and resurgent Asia to a Singapore which is politically and spiritually frozen”.18 The sea journey proved therapeutic for David, who was happy to unwind after the hurly-burly of the London constitutional talks and, party infighting in Singapore. He made a stop in the Philippines before arriving in Tokyo where he spent several weeks,

17 “Please Spread Your Buying, Marshall Tells China”, The Straits Times, 31 Aug 1956. 18 “Marshall off to Japan and China”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 21 Jun 1956. 19 “Mr M Sees His Old PoW Camp”, The Straits Times, 21 July 1956. 20 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 11 (Singapore: National Archives). 21 “Merchants Say Ban Japs: We Cannot Stand Their Competition”, The Sunday Times, 29 Jul 1956.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

368

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

369

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

even visiting his old prisoner-of-war camp in Nisi Ashibetsu.19 David felt that his visit to Japan would help “take the heat off ” his intended visit to China.20 While in Japan, David also met with Japanese trade representatives and officials, all anxious to establish branches in Malaya and Singapore.21 As chief minister, David had been sympathetic to Japanese efforts to re-establish business links with Singapore and issued licences to the Bank of Tokyo, Mitsubishi, and Echigoya & Co.22 to commence operations in Singapore. This was done for two reasons and despite the fact that he had received such unpleasant treatment at the hands of his Japanese captors during the war. First, David was totally averse to any policy that promoted hatred rather than friendship; and second, because he felt that post-war Japan “could be the bulwark of antiCommunism” and it would be in Singapore’s interest to help strengthen the Japanese.23 Even though David was the unofficial delegation leader, he would often travel alone and meet up with the delegation members at scheduled stops. On 14 August, he left Kowloon accompanied by a representative of the China Travel Bureau and crossed the border into Guangdong Province, where he was greeted by Zhao Xingyi, deputy secretary of the People’s Foreign Relations Institute. Zhao would be his host and would personally conduct David to the capital, Beijing. On 17 August, after a three-day journey by special coach,24 he arrived in Beijing and was met by Professor Zhang Xiruo, president of the

22 On the history of Echigoya & Co. in Singapore, see . 23 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 13 (Singapore: National Archives). 24 Marshall’s coach was equipped with a dining room and lounge, a commodious cabin with a desk, and a long bath; he was served by a cook and waiter. See Leifer, Letters from Mao’s China, p. 15.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

369

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

370

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs. David was billeted at room 423 of the prestigious Peking Hotel. Built in 1915, it was the oldest and most famous hotel in the Chinese capital and was the preferred address of visiting dignitaries and diplomats. David’s room was in the “new” wing, a Chinese-style, oriental building constructed in 1954 that was quite distinct from the older part of the hotel, built in French Art Deco style. A private dining room on the seventh floor of the hotel was made available for David’s exclusive use. The Citizenship Issue David stayed in Beijing for almost two weeks before leaving on 31 August for Shenyang. During that time, he did a lot of sightseeing and met with several important Chinese leaders, including Marshall Chen Yi,25 Premier Zhou Enlai,26 and Qiao Guanhua.27 Of particular significance were his meetings on 20 and 21 August. On the 20th, he had a very frank talk with Vice Premier Marshall Chen Yi in which David explained the fears of Southeast Asian countries over China’s citizenship policy that was based on jus sanguinis. As alluded to in preceding chapters, this was a major sticking-point for the hundreds of thousands of Chinese in Singapore who were not granted British

25 Marshall Chen Yi (1901–1972) was born in Sichuan Province and served as mayor of Shanghai (1949–1958); vice premier (1954–1972); and foreign minister (1958–1972). He was a jovial man of great culture and learning, a first-rate poet, and an excellent diplomat. 26 Zhou Enlai (1898–1976) was the first premier of communist China. A skilful and capable diplomat, Zhou was the urbane face of Chinese communism. He also served as China’s foreign minister from 1949 to 1958. Zhou was by far the most popular and respected political leader in Mao’s China. 27 Qiao Guanhua (1913–1983) served as assistant foreign minister and viceforeign minister (1964–1974); and foreign minister from 1974 to 1976. A native of Jiangsu Province, he was educated in Germany where he earned a Ph.D. degree. Qiao was a noted journalist and political commentator.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

370

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

371

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

nationality because they were born in China and China had long claimed all overseas Chinese to be Chinese nationals. A major shift in policy had taken place during the Asian-African Conference in Bandung in 1955, when Zhao signed a treaty with the Indonesian Government in which he declared that overseas Chinese owed their primary loyalty to their home nation and not China. At their meeting, Chen assured David that the Chinese Government wanted the overseas Chinese “to be nationals of the countries of their domicile” and that China wanted friendly relations with the countries of Southeast Asia. At the end of the three-hour meeting with Chen, David was “really elated” as the Chinese position now made it “possible to build stability in Singapore”.28 On 21 August, David lunched with Premier Zhou who impressed David with his sincerity and “the essential reasonableness of the policy of the Chinese Government towards Overseas Chinese”.29 David was concerned that, as Singapore was still a British colony, she could not enter into any treaties with China. He considered asking Zhou to make a unilateral declaration, even though he was speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of the Singapore Government.30 On 24 August, after dinner with Zhao and Chen, David pleaded with the Chinese authorities to end the activities of violence of the Communist Party in Malaya. He was told by Zhou that “China and the Chinese Communist Party had severed relations with overseas communist parties and Chinese nationals were forbidden from participating in political or Communist activities overseas”.31 David anxiously pressed Zhou for a unilateral declaration on the citizenship issue and this was finally issued in the form of a

28 Leifer, Letters from Mao’s China, pp. 26–27. 29 Ibid., p. 29. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid., pp. 34 and 40.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

371

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

372

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

communiqué just before David left for Singapore on 13 October, 1956. The Chinese, who were initially very warm to David, began to prevaricate on the communiqué and kept pressing him for his views on colonialism and independence for Singapore. It later turned out that they had been alarmed at the arrests and banishment of leftwing communist and pro-communist leaders under Lim Yew Hock’s Operation Liberation and were concerned that the Labour Front, of which David was still president, was really not much more than a “colonial stooge”.32 The final communiqué was published in the People’s Daily on 13 October, summarizing the Chinese position as follows: 1.

2.

3.

4.

The Chinese Government would like to see the Chinese in Singapore obtain Singapore citizenship voluntarily and be completely loyal to the country where they reside. The Government of China believes this will be helpful in promoting China’s interests, as well as the stability and peace of Singapore. This will also help the friendly relations and the development of such relations between China and Singapore. Any Chinese living in Singapore who voluntarily obtain Singapore citizenship will no longer possess Chinese citizenship even though their existing ethnic and cultural ties will remain. Any Chinese who has acquired Singapore citizenship, may obtain Chinese citizenship after repudiating Singapore citizenship in accordance with Singapore law. Chinese citizens who are local residents have to respect the law of local governments, and will not participate in local political activities. But their appropriate rights and interests will be respected and will not be discriminated against.

Jews in Shanghai33 At the beginning of World War II, there were between 26,000 and 36,000 Jews in China, but most of them left after the war to return to

32 Ibid., pp. 130–31. 33 See generally, Josef & Lynn Silverstein, “David Marshall and Jewish Emigration from China”, The China Quarterly 75 (1978): 647–54.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

372

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

373

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

their former homes in Western Europe or to Russia. By 1956, the number of Jews had shrunk to 543.34 Emigration to Israel was particularly problematic as there were no diplomatic relations between Israel and China. Cognizant of the plight of the Jews in China, Israel issued entry visas to all Jews from China regardless of their financial and physical condition, but most of them were unable to leave China because they could not obtain exit permits. As Josef and Lynn Silverstein explained: The Jews in China believed that the government was not issuing exit visas because the Soviet Union did not approve. Since most of the Jews in China, at that time, did not want to go to the USSR, the Soviet Union, despite its formal relations with Israel, did nothing to help them migrate to a third country. Thus, this tiny community of Jews found itself a pawn in world politics with no one to plead its case.35

The predicament of the Jews in China was first brought to David’s attention by R.D. Abraham, chairman of the Council of the Jewish Community in Shanghai. In a letter dated 25 June, 1956, Abraham, who had learnt of David’s impending visit to China through a BBC broadcast, asked David if he could “urge those Authorities with whom you may come in contact for permission for the granting of exit visas for all Jews who desire to leave China for Israel”.36 While already in China, David received another request to help the Jews in China. This request came from Leslie Hale, British member of parliament for Oldham West. Hale urged David to see if he could

34 Ibid., p. 648. Of these, 402 were Soviet citizens living in three cities: Harbin (207), Tientsin (105), and Shanghai (80). See R.D. Abraham to David Marshall, 25 Jun 1956, reproduced in Leifer, Letters from Mao’s China, p. 154. 35 Ibid., p. 649. 36 R.D. Abraham to David Marshall, 25 Jun 1956, reproduced in Leifer, Letters from Mao’s China, p. 153.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

373

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

374

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

do anything for this “kindly and worthy cause”, as it would be a “real contribution to international understanding”.37 On 9 October, in the midst of his discussions with Premier Zhou about the Chinese policy on overseas Chinese citizenship, David saw an opening to push home the Jewish question more forcefully: Zhou Enlai said he agreed with me that they should take local citizenship, that the Bandung Declaration was totally inadequate and ambiguous, and the thing had to be clarified. And then he said, ‘But of course we must have provision for Chinese who may wish to come back to China in their old age and to lay their bones in the province of their birth. It must always be understood that they are always welcome and that no matter what citizenship they are, they are free to come And I said, ‘Mr Prime Minister, I am so touched by your concern for this tradition of the elderly who have this nostalgia for the country of their birth and the birth of their ancestors. Because this is exactly the Jewish tradition, that they want to return to Jerusalem and bury their bones in the Holy Land. It so surprises me. Forgive me saying so, Mr Prime Minster, that you should be the one who feels this way and yet you should be the one to prevent those pathetic Jews in Shanghai from emigrating to Israel’.38

Zhou was at first incredulous, telling David that it was untrue the Chinese authorities were denying exit permits to Jews wishing to leave the country. However, David, who had visited the shelter in Shanghai where the near-destitute Jewish community was staying, urged Zhou to investigate as he had seen the condition of the Jews in Shanghai with his own eyes. Shortly after David left China, he received a note from Abraham informing him that the Soviet Government had changed its policy towards the Jews in China and were now

37 C. Leslie Hale to David Marshall, 11 Sep 1956, reproduced in Leifer, Letters from Mao’s China, p. 157. 38 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 13 (Singapore: National Archives).

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

374

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

375

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

allowing them to leave. Abraham himself was planning to leave Shanghai by November that year.39 Writing to David from Hong Kong in March 1957, Abraham told David: The only ones who have not got their exits thus far are the Chans (German/Chinese) and the Rosenfelds (Russian/Chinese). The others are all leaving Shanghai or about to leave. Harbin & Tien Tsin likewise are now receiving exits. I keep on repeating that it is your good work — God Bless You!!40

A.M. Begg, who had been chief clerk of the Council of the Jewish Community in Shanghai at the time of David’s visit, also wrote to him from Hong Kong: Of such Jews with Soviet papers who have applied for exit permits from China, very few are still awaiting their permissions, but it does not appear as if any of them would be detained. The situation in China has eased not only for Jews, but for all Soviet citizens, and it is a very generally accepted view there that your personal intervention in Peking, at the time of your sojourn there, has been the decisive factor in breaking the impasse. Needless to say all the Jews who benefitted from the change in policy are endlessly grateful to you, and I can only join my own thanks to theirs.41

Impressions of Chinese Law and Justice Like any curious lawyer, David was anxious to find out more about the Chinese legal system and to see how their courts operated. He tried many times to get his hosts to organize visits to the local courts,

39 R.D. Abraham to David Marshall, 24 Oct 1956, reproduced in Leifer, Letters from Mao’s China, pp. 158–59. 40 R.D. Abraham to David Marshall, 24 Mar 1957, reproduced in Leifer, Letters from Mao’s China, p. 166. 41 A.M. Begg to David Marshall, 27 Mar 1957, reproduced in Leifer, Letters from Mao’s China, p. 167.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

375

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

376

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

but they kept putting him off.42 On 27 August, David managed to meet up with a practising lawyer who agreed to take him on a visit of the courts. From his reading, David was perturbed by the fact that there were no codes of civil or criminal procedure or even civil or criminal law. Worse still, the legal system was not being administered by qualified lawyers and judges. After evading the issue for a long while, the lawyer finally took David to a court by car. He recalled: We went to a vast two-storeyed building that was empty. I think it was Shanghai. And we marched across the corridors where our footsteps echoed and re-echoed. ‘Where is everybody?’ ‘Oh, sessions of criticism and self-criticism.’ I said, ‘Where? These sessions?’ ‘Well, not here, Mr Marshall. But the court is sitting.’ The court is sitting. Finally, we go upstairs to a small room where there is a desk on a platform with three chairs. And chairs arranged in … I think there were six rows of chairs for us. And the court sat and it was a man and two women. And the defence counsel stood up and he said, ‘Thanks to our great and glorious leader Mao Zedong’s direction that every accused person should have the aid of someone capable and knowledgeable in the law, I have been appointed to look after this accused and, as you are aware, you Mr President and the Prosecuting Officer and I have been engaged in this case to study it in depth for about three months or more now. And we are all agreed that he was guilty. But he was suffering from the influence of his bourgeois ambience and therefore, he stole this money from a fellow passenger in a bus. And what I would suggest is we send him for rehabilitation for six months to a year in order that he should amend his ways and learn proper Communist ideals and idealism.’ And he was duly sentenced. The next case was a woman who said that her husband had bourgeois tendencies and she wanted to divorce him. I have forgotten what was the excuse that he was complaining about the government or something. She got her divorce. And when the court rose and the

42 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 13 (Singapore: National Archives).

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

376

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

377

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

newspaper men came round me, one of them said, ‘Look, what do you think of our justice?’ I said, ‘You call this justice?’ And he said, ‘This is the end of the interview.’ That was that. They didn’t ask me any more questions.43

David was aghast and did not ask to visit another court. Coming as he did from a common law tradition where it is axiomatic that an accused is presumed innocent till proven guilty and where a client’s lawyer is expected to defend his client to the best of his ability, this was a travesty. The whole visit, he told his brother Meyer, was “puerility rigged up for my benefit”.44 Back to Singapore David’s visit to China was a great success. Even though he was no longer chief minister, the Chinese leaders had treated him with the highest degree of respect and honour befitting a visiting head of state. Naturally, protocol had to be observed and David was sometimes left out of functions he felt he should have been invited to, such as a reception for Indonesia’s President Sukarno. He had accomplished what he had set out to do — to persuade Beijing to make a clear pronouncement on its policy and attitude towards overseas Chinese so that he could return to forge a national citizenship for Singapore. At the same time, he was able to help the beleaguered Jewish community in China which was desperately awaiting permission to migrate to Israel. There was really no telling what the reaction to his trip would be after he returned. A message from his brother Meyer warned him that some of his best friends and sympathetic supporters felt that his trip to China could come to no good:

43 Ibid. 44 Leifer, Letters from Mao’s China, p. 45.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

377

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

378

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

I met Jimmy Hale yesterday afternoon. He had just arrived back that day from Hong Kong. I must say that I was taken with him in the little time I had with him. I think he is a real friend. He showed an extraordinary clarity of thought. He was perturbed about your projected visit to China. He said he cannot see any good coming out of it, and perhaps a good deal of harm for yourself. He said that was the opinion in Hong Kong, and Sir Sydney Caine had expressed the same opinion to him too since his return that day.45

The Chinese authorities were much more enthusiastic about his trip. They saw it as an excellent opportunity to reach out to the nonCommunist world and to assure pro-Western leaders such as David that China had no imperialist designs. They had also hoped that when men like David, known for his critical and honest views spoke about China, he was more likely to be believed than a known sympathizer. Indeed, Marshall Chen Yi asked David several times to write a book about China and only asked that he be “fair” as China had been “much maligned”. If he did that, the West would believe him.46 They even encouraged him to make a worldwide broadcast of his impressions of China at the end of his visit. At first, David demurred, feeling it ungracious to criticize so courteous and friendly a host as the Chinese Government. Wu Maosun, general secretary of the Institute of Foreign Affairs, assured David that he should feel free to speak as he wished, adding that if “there were no criticism it would not be David Marshall”.47 Predictably, David’s two main criticisms concerned the inadequacy of the judicial and legal systems and the lack of press freedom and independence.48 David’s general health during this China trip was not good. He fell ill several times and needed to rest in bed in Shenyang for four days. He was also often depressed, mainly because he felt he was no 45 Meyer Marshall to David Marshall, 22 Jul 1956, DM/198/5/1–6. 46 Leifer, Letters from Mao’s China, p. 37. 47 Ibid., p. 134. 48 Ibid., pp. 150–51.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

378

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

379

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

longer useful to Singapore and that his efforts during his chief ministership had been in vain. It did not help that throughout the time he was in China, he received only one communication from members of his Labour Front. David felt marginalized and unwanted and that made him despondent. On 24 October, David arrived back in Singapore on board the vessel SS Glenroy to be welcomed back by Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock, J.M. Jumabhoy, and Mak Pak Shee. A handful of Labour Front supporters were among the more than 300 people who were on hand at the dock to greet him with deafening roars of “Merdeka!” David was pleased and told an eager press that he was absolutely convinced the Communist Party of Malaya was not receiving any direction from Beijing and that Premier Zhou Enlai had given him the “clearest possible assurance” that China had no wish to dominate Malaya or any other country in Southeast Asia. He was, however, reluctant to comment on the tough action Lim Yew Hock had taken against the pro-communists in Operation Liberation.49 David was a much sought-after speaker after his return. Numerous organizations, such as the University of Malaya Socialist Club, invited him to share his views and impressions of China. David, an avid amateur photographer, had also shot many rolls of film and over a thousand feet of 16-mm film which he now gladly shared with those who wanted to learn something up to date about China. BACK IN THE FRAY

In the Backbench of the Front For David, one of the first things he had to do after returning was reestablish himself in legal practice. He had, after all, given up a lucrative practice to take on the job of chief minister and had spent much of 49 Patricia Morgan, “Marshall Returns from Trip to China”, The Straits Times, 25 Oct 1956; see also, “Marshall, Back from China Says Chin Peng is No Ward of Peking”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 25 Oct 1956.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

379

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

380

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

his money in the course of his duties, such as establishing the Public Advisory Bureau. He often even dug into his own pockets to help impecunious constituents who came to his meet-the-people sessions seeking help. Shortly after David returned from China, he was back with his former law firm of Battenberg & Talma. While he was away, Singapore’s political climate had been transformed quite dramatically, mainly due to the tough measures Lim Yew Hock took against the left-wing and pro-communist elements. David’s departure as chief minister had had no apparent effect on the Chinese middle school students and the trade unions, who were still very much under the sway of men like Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan. One of the first things Lim Yew Hock did was to banish two teachers at Chung Cheng High School for their procommunist activities. This spurred Lim Chin Siong into action and on 23 September, 1956, he organized a rally of some 8,000 people at the Happy World Stadium to celebrate the anniversary of the founding of his Singapore Factory and Shop Workers’ Union (SFSWU). At the rally, he denounced Lim Yew Hock as a colonial stooge. Two days later, Lim Yew Hock shut down and deregistered the Singapore Chinese Middle School Students’ Union (SMSSU) which David had permitted to be registered just the year before. This precipitated more radical action and some 5,000 Chinese middle school students took control of their schools and threatened a sit-in until their union was reinstated. Lim was unmoved, maintaining his resolve, and the agitators noticed this. So when Chew Swee Kee, the Education Minister, told the students to “get out or face the consequences”, the Chinese students “went home without clenched fists or even a whimper”.50 The Special Branch — hitherto under the control of the British — acted in concert and detained Chia Ek Tian, a member of the PAP’s central executive committee, and Robert Soon Loh Boon, former president of the SMSSU.

50 Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 153.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

380

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

381

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

Not unexpectedly, the Lim Yew Hock government came under heavy fire by the PAP, who accused Lim of trying to decimate their party, paralyze them and render them a non-entity in the next elections. This did not deter Lim who was determined to show the British that he meant business and that he had the gall and gumption to govern an unruly island. He did not have to wait long to demonstrate his toughness. On 10 October, his government moved in on the Chinese middle schools. Education Minister Chew Swee Kee instructed the management committees of the Chinese High School and of Chung Cheng High School to expel 142 of their students for their subversive activities. Indeed, quite a number of those on the list were so-called “professional students” being already in their twenties. When news of this broke, the students in both schools staged a strike and Chew ordered the management committees to close the schools, which they did. However, this only led the radical students to adopt their old strategy of occupying their schools and staging a sit-in. Thousands of other students from other Chinese middle schools pledged their support, as did the trade unions. Some 2,000 students from Nan Chiau High School and Chung Hwa Girls’ School also staged a walk-out in support of the rebellious students in Chung Cheng and Chinese High. On 24 October, Lim went on the radio and gave the students an ultimatum. They were to leave their schools by 8:00 p.m. the following day or face the consequences. Riding high from his success in the Hock Lee Bus riots, Lim Chin Siong saw this as another opportunity to have a showdown with the colonial authorities. On the same evening of Lim Yew Hock’s radio broadcast, he organized a meeting of the PAP at Beauty World Park on Upper Bukit Timah Road, just 3.5 km from the Chinese High School. It was an incendiary meeting where Lim Chin Siong asked his supporters to “save our brothers”. Instead of shouting the salutary “Merdeka” (‘independence’), Lim urged them to shout “Pah Mata” (‘hammer the police’). The mood echoed that of the Chinese students hemmed in at Chung Cheng and Chinese High. The highly charged crowd moved to join the thousands

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

381

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

382

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

of people who had converged on Chinese High School. Meanwhile, another huge crowd had gathered at Chung Cheng High School. Soon, rioting broke out when students and protesters clashed with the police. Fighting soon spread to the Tanjong Katong Post Office and the Geylang Police Station which the crowds attacked. The 4,000strong crowd outside Chinese High School started turning on the police, overturning three police cars and setting two alight. A curfew was imposed at midnight, but the riots raged for three days in various parts of Singapore, with 7,000 workers going on sympathy strike.51 The rioting, which was even worse than the Hock Lee Bus riots, began on 25 October 1956 when police charged into the Chinese middle schools after Lim’s ultimatum to disband had expired and it spread rapidly throughout the island, with crowds of several thousands gathering at key points mapped out by the communist leaders. Six infantry battalions and their armoured vehicles were brought in from the Malayan jungles to restore order — by 28 October, the riots had all but dissipated. On the night of 26 October, the Special Branch made several raids and arrested almost the entire open front leadership, including Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan, Devan Nair, James Puthucheary, Sandra Woodhull, and Chan Chiaw Thor. In all, thirteen persons were killed and 123 injured. Much of the blame for the riots was placed at the feet of the People’s Action Party.52 David, who had arrived back in Singapore on the night Lim Yew Hock issued his ultimatum to the Chinese students, was saddened by the turn of events. There was little he could do personally except sit and watch on the sidelines as Lim and the British forces took control of the situation. There is nothing in his diary that reveals his thoughts on the situation nor any interview in which he discussed the actions of the Labour Front during this time. His legendary kindness and compassion showed itself when he contacted Devan Nair’s brother 51 Ibid., pp. 156–57. 52 Ibid., p. 157.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

382

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

383

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

on 14 November and accompanied him to visit Mrs Devan Nair at her home in Coronation Road. David did not know Devan Nair very well, but he knew that among all the unionists who had been detained, he was the only one who had a family to provide for. He advised Mrs Devan Nair to give up their home and live with her brother and offered her $100 a month to keep the family going.53 The debt was later paid back, but the family never forgot the generous gesture.54 When the detentions and banishment orders were discussed in the Assembly in November, David openly recognized that they had had a positive effect on the business community and the British: we must recognize that in these five months during which the Government has been in office,55 the Chief Minister has gained not only the confidence of large sections of the population of Singapore, including those who were timid about Merdeka, but what is of far more importance, he has gained the absolute confidence and trust of British military and commercial interests. Early last year I recognized that it was vital to gain that confidence in order to achieve Merdeka for the people. I tried desperately to gain that confidence by sweet reasonableness and ultimately by shock tactics. I failed. In five short months the Chief Minister has succeeded to an extraordinary extent. I personally am now convinced that the Chief Minister is the only man that Singapore has in today’s circumstances who can bring us Merdeka in the shortest possible time.56

53 David Marshall’s diary, 14 Nov 1956. 54 Speech of Janadas Devan on the occasion of the commemoration of David Marshall’s 100th birth anniversary, Shangrila Hotel, Singapore, 12 Mar 2008, as recorded by author. 55 It is interesting that David dates the commencement of the government’s life from the time of his resignation in June rather than from the opening of the Legislative Assembly session, which is customary. What he obviously meant was that it had been five months since Lim Yew Hock became chief minister. 56 Speech of David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 6 Nov 1956, col. 505.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

383

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

384

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Speaking to the Foochow Coffee, Restaurant and Bar Employees Union on 14 November, 1956, David once again defended Lim Yew Hock’s tough action: Your Chief Minister believes that unless immediate action is taken, the peace of Singapore and your own rice bowl would be threatened. It is for these reasons that some who are trade unionists were arrested. I believe the Chief Minister is sincere. I believe that there was no question in their minds of a desire to destroy the trade union movement or any part of it. This is a libel which the disaffected are maliciously spreading. The Chief Minister believed that by destroying those who wished to take evil political advantage of the simple worker, he is protecting and strengthening the trade union movement in its march for the protection and uplifting of the worker. Your Chief Minister is a sincere man, and I ask you to believe that he desires above all the welfare of the worker and the peaceful progress of the country.57

Foremost in David’s mind was that Singapore should move towards independence or Merdeka as quickly as possible and that if these tough measures were necessary, they had to be taken. He reminded the Assembly that they had to keep their focus on Operation Merdeka and expressed satisfaction on hearing that Lim Yew Hock had declared that he aimed to get a new constitution for Singapore and to have full and free elections no later than August 1957. Lim was clearly the man of the moment and even David realized this. The arrests had clearly strengthened Lim Yew Hock’s hand, especially since he was leaving for London in December 1956 to see Lennox-Boyd again, to discuss the agenda for another round of constitutional talks in 1957. That said, the person who benefited most from Lim Yew Hock’s action was Lee Kuan Yew, leader of the PAP and, more importantly, of its moderate, non-communist faction. Publicly, Lee lambasted the Labour Front for its pro-British, neo57 David Marshall, Speech to Foochow Coffee, Restaurant & Bar Employees Union, 14 Nov 1956, DM/44/2/1–6.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

384

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

385

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

colonial actions, but privately, he was relieved that the most radical elements within his own party were, for the time being, safely behind bars. Yet he knew he could not afford to lose their support, for that was the only route to power in post-British Singapore. London Talks II On 15 December, 1956, Lim Yew Hock left for London to meet with Sir Alan Lennox-Boyd, Secretary of State for the Colonies, to discuss the agenda for the second round of constitutional talks in 1957. David did not want to be at the sending-off party and made “some petty excuse” to be absent.58 When Lim returned, he triumphantly announced that constitutional talks would reopen in London in May 1957 on an all-party basis. High on the agenda was the matter of internal security. Lim explained that he had tabled essentially the same proposal as David had done the year before, except that now the Malayan representative on the proposed Internal Security Council would be an ordinary member instead of its chairman and that he had sought the Tunku’s concurrence on this proposal. Speaking before the Assembly in January 1957, Lim said: The proposal which I submitted to the Colonial Office under this heading calls for an Internal Security Council to be composed of equal representation by the Singapore Government and Her Majesty’s Government and a Minister from the Federation of Malaya, under the chairmanship or the representative of Her Majesty’s Government. Under the proposed set-up, it will be seen that the vote of the Federation member is the deciding factor in the Internal Security Council. My proposal is based on the fact that the Federation is more closely linked with us vis-à-vis internal security than the United Kingdom. In this connection, the people of Singapore remember with gratitude the assistance of the Federation during our October riots. As to be expected, Sir, the Colonial Office had some misgivings about this proposal. The opportunity was taken of the presence in London of Tunku Abdul Rahman, and

58 David Marshall’s diary, 15 Dec 1956.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

385

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

386

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

there was a joint informal discussion of the three parties — the Federation Chief Minister, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and myself. I am again indebted to Tunku Abdul Rahman for his fine and continued co-operation as a result of which the Colonial Office now considers that there is a basis for agreement.59

The reopened conference would also take note of the items that had already been agreed to in the previous talks. David was pleased with this announcement and pressed home only one further point. If the second talks were successful, would fresh elections be held in August 1957? David was anxious to be in the all-party delegation for the next round of London talks and was extremely hurt when members of his party were quite adamant about not including him in the delegation.60 Indeed, following a Labour Front Central Committee meeting on 23 January, 1957, Lim Yew Hock told David that not only all the ministers but also party stalwarts Keng Ban Ee and Wee Kiat Neo were both against his going to London.61 David’s pride was completely burst. Would it not be better that he resigned, given that they had no faith in him? “No”, replied Lim, their doubts pertained “only in this matter”.62 Less than a month later, Lim told David that the Colonial Office would “not stomach” his attendance at the talks.63 There was nothing David could do but swallow his pride and watch from the sidelines.

59 Speech of Lim Yew Hock, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 9 Jan 1957, col. 1203. 60 These sentiments were conveyed to Marshall by Lim Yew Hock on 21 Jan, 1957, at a private meeting, but Lim told Marshall that he would try to sell them the idea of allowing David on the delegation. See David Marshall’s diary, 21 Jan 1957. 61 David Marshall’s diary, 23 Jan 1957. 62 Ibid. 63 David Marshall’s diary, 14 Feb 1957.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

386

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

387

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

On 7 March, 1957, Lim Yew Hock tabled a motion, asking the Assembly to approve the recommendations of the all-party conference and instruct the “All-Party Mission to secure from Her Majesty’s Government for the people of Singapore the status of a self-governing state with all the rights, powers, and privileges thereto appurtenant in all internal affairs and the control of trade, commerce and cultural relations in external affairs”.64 After a brief debate, the motion was unanimously approved. Lim’s all-party delegation was considerably smaller than David’s had been. It comprised Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat (Alliance), Chew Swee Kee (LF), Lim Choon Mong (LiberalSocialist), Lee Kuan Yew (PAP), and of course Lim himself.65 After four weeks of meetings, the Singapore delegation accepted essentially the same terms that David’s team had rejected a year before. On the surface, it seems ironic that the British were now prepared to accept terms they had turned down only the previous year, but by then a number of things had changed. In an interview in 1980, Lennox-Boyd gave four main reasons for this change of heart. First, he felt that having been in the job for four years, he was better able to persuade cabinet colleagues as to the rightfulness of his decisions and choices — something that might not have been possible the year before. Secondly, the independence of the Federation under the Tunku’s leadership had bolstered the British cabinet’s confidence in the new nation and in its leaders. Third, Lennox-Boyd was convinced that Lee and his PAP would win the next elections and that he had the capacity to control the communists and, finally, he felt that “it was much easier to persuade cabinet colleagues to agree when the defence appreciation of Singapore showed a smaller role than what it had

64 See Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 5 Mar 1957, col. 1457. 65 See Appendix A to Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference Held in March and April, 1957, Cmnd 147, at p. 18 [hereafter Constitutional Conference 1957].

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

387

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

388

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

been before … the fact that defence considerations had diminished made it more easy for the cabinet as a whole to accept it”.66 There would be a fully elected, fifty-one-member legislature, with the British controlling external defence and foreign affairs.67 The main differences were in the appointment of the head of state and the composition of the Internal Security Council. Instead of appointing a governor as the Queen’s representative, the conference adopted David’s belated suggestion that the head of state be a Malayan-born representative — in this case, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara — who would be appointed for a term of four years by the Queen on the advice of Her Majesty’s Government.68 To represent the British Government, a High Commissioner would be appointed to “discharge Her Majesty’s Government’s responsibilities” as set out in the Constitution.69 The only cog in the wheel during the entire proceedings was the British insistence on preventing those persons known to have engaged in subversive activities from participating in the elections to the State of Singapore’s first Legislative Assembly. This requirement was imposed as a precondition to the grant of the new Constitution,70 a non-negotiable requirement. Lennox-Boyd was adamant on this point:

66 See Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 199. 67 See Constitutional Conference 1957, para. 22, p. 8. 68 Ibid., paras. 16–17, p. 6. 69 Ibid., para. 19, p. 7. 70 Ibid., para. 30 which states: At the final Plenary Session of the Conference Her Majesty’s Government made it clear that their agreement to the internal security arrangements in particular, and to the new Constitution as a whole, was dependent upon provision being made to ensure that persons known to have been engaged in subversive activity should not be eligible for election to the first Legislative Assembly of the new State of Singapore …

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

388

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

389

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

I am not prepared to vary my decision at all. It was arrived at after a great deal of consideration. I am convinced that if we are to give privileges to democratic communities in the Far East or anywhere else, we should see that they are provided with the means of defence against those who are contriving their subversion.71

The origin of this provision has been attributed to Lim Yew Hock,72 Chew Swee Kee, and Lee Kuan Yew.73 According to recently declassified documents from the Australian National Archives, the three politicians “in fact asked the United Kingdom Government to make this provision

71 See Debates of the United Kingdom Legislative Assembly, 17 Jun 1958, col. 878. 72 In a conversation Lim Yew Hock had with Australian Minister for External Affairs R.G. Casey on 3 Sep, 1957, he told Casey that: “He and Lee Kuan Yew had agreed that Lim Chin Siong and other left-wing leaders who had been detained for subversive activities should not be allowed to contest the next elections. They had privately exposed this difficulty to Lennox-Boyd explaining that it would be difficult for them (i.e., Lim Yew Hock and Lee Kuan Yew) to support an amendment to the elections ordinance banning participation in elections by Lim Chin Siong and the others. Lennox-Boyd had suggested that his own shoulders were broad and that he could carry the odium. Lim Yew Hock and Lee Kuan Yew had made it clear that they would have to attack any such proposal publicly although they would softpedal as far as they could.” See conversation between Minister for External Affairs and the Chief Minister of Singapore, 3 Sep 1957, Singapore TS383/ 5/3 (Part 2), pp. 90–93 (Canberra: Australian National Archives). 73 In his memoirs, Lee recalled that he had candidly told Lennox-Boyd that he “would not break up the conference because of any bar against the detainees’ standing as election candidates”. Lee also stated that it was only thirty-eight years later (in 1995) that Lim Yew Hock had already told Governor Robert Black that “neither he nor Lee Kuan Yew could possibly take this up themselves during the March talks” but “neither he nor Lee Kuan Yew would demur if the secretary of state laid down this condition”, and this had been passed on to London. See Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings & Marshall Cavendish, 1998), p. 259.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

389

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

390

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

but as it could not be admitted publicly that they had done so they requested United Kingdom Government to take onus of decision”.74 Since the Singapore delegation could not possibly be seen to be conniving and cavorting with the British in this fashion, it strongly opposed this “departure from normal democratic practice protested at the unilateral imposition of this condition”, but was left with no other option. However, unlike David’s delegation, the 1957 negotiating team did not reject the terms in toto for there was too much going for them. Instead, they “took note with regret of the intention of Her Majesty’s Government” without accepting it,75 offering to table the condition before the Legislative Assembly back in Singapore.76 On 26 April, 1957, Lim Yew Hock tabled a motion before the Legislative Assembly to “take note of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference” and to approve “the stand of the AllParty Delegation in not accepting the condition stipulated in paragraph 30 of the Report”. The debate raged for four days, with a very agitated and bitter David slinging mud at the entire delegation. He spoke for almost four hours and was in turn lambasted by the delegation members. David called the agreement “tiga suku busok Merdeka” (literally, ‘three-quarter rotten independence’) and castigated the Lim delegation for “rivet[ing] the chains on the people who trusted us, the people who had faith in us, the people who loved us, and hoped that we would know how to effect the freedom and the dignity which they desire”. David was excoriating and at times

74 Davis to Tange, 10 Apr 1957, TS 383/5/3 Part 2 (Australian National Archives). This was confirmed by Australian High Commissioner R.L. Harry on 17 Apr 1957, TS 383/5/3 Part 2 (Australian National Archives). 75 Ibid. 76 See Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 168. In fact, Lim Yew Hock was at pains to point out that the Report of the Conference was precisely that, a report, and “not an agreement signed by both parties”. See Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 26 Apr 1957, col. 1667.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

390

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

391

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

incoherent, spewing invective upon insult on Lim’s delegation for being too timorous in their negotiations with the British. But on 30 April, when a division was taken, the Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of the motion.77 A third all-party delegation — comprising the same members as the 1957 all-party team — went to London in May 1958 to finalize the terms of the new Constitution. Breaking with the Labour Front From the time of his resignation as chief minister, David felt increasingly marginalized within his own party. The sting was all the more hurtful given the fact that he was still president of the Labour Front, but his colleagues began to treat him more as an irritating appendage than as their leader. His being left out of the London talks of 1957 added insult to injury. On 26 December, 1956, Chew Swee Kee phoned David to inform him that he intended to contest the presidency of the Labour Front at the annual party conference in February 1957 and asked if David would mind. David replied diplomatically but confessed that “it did hurt”.78 Salt was rubbed into the wound when his brother Sonny told him that his good friend Malcolm MacDonald had stated that David was “unstable” and was “on his way out”, to be replaced by Chew Swee Kee. David was beside himself with anger and disgust and could not sleep the whole night.79 The day of reckoning came at the February conference. In a straight fight for the presidency, David obtained only half the votes Chew Swee Kee garnered. Erstwhile cabinet colleagues Francis Thomas and J.M. Jumabhoy were elected vice-presidents and Tang Peng Yue became secretary-general.80 All of David’s resolutions, including the creation

77 There were a total of 23 Ayes, 2 Nays, 5 Abstentions, and 2 Absentees (Lim Chin Siong and Francis Thomas). See ibid., 30 Apr 1957, col. 1868. 78 David Marshall’s diary, 26 Dec 1956. 79 David Marshall’s diary, 8 Jan 1957. 80 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 233.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

391

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

392

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

of a special fund of $5 million to assist Singapore Malays in industrial and economic development, were soundly defeated. Some delegates just walked out of the meeting. This was a tremendous blow to David, who was used to getting his way and who believed that the most sincere and capable men should always triumph. He did not realize that his failure to secure self-government in London and, more importantly, his volte-face in appealing to Alan Lennox-Boyd to reopen the talks after they had collapsed had brought much shame and embarrassment to his party colleagues. It was clear that David, with his constant threats of resignation and his strategy of always being on the attack, had overplayed his hand in London. Buoyed by his own early success in getting Lennox-Boyd to agree with his interpretation of the Constitution with respect to the governor’s discretionary powers, he thought that he was strong enough to hurry the British along in granting Singapore dominion status. David forgot that ultimately it was the British who held all the cards and, irrespective of the odium that would be piled on their shoulders, the British were prepared to weather the storm and wait for the right time to devolve power. It did not matter if nationalists such as David and Lee Kuan Yew heaped scorn on their delay in granting self-government. What mattered was that power be handed over in a peaceful and orderly manner and that Britain’s long-term interests in Singapore and Southeast Asia not be jeopardized in the process. David’s December 1955 meeting with Lennox-Boyd had convinced him that he could deal at arm’s length and in good faith with the British, but he did not seem to realize that British opinion of him had changed after he left. Lennox-Boyd, like many colonial officials, had found David contradictory and unpredictable. On the one hand, he found David statesmanly, passionate, and warmhearted, on the other hand, he worried about “the Levantine approach and almost psychopathic personality of the Chief

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

392

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

393

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

Minister”.81 Indeed, by the time the 1956 talks came around, LennoxBoyd had warned his cabinet colleagues that any major concessions to the Singapore delegation would be counter-productive.82 David, for all his talents and abilities, was no one-man revolution — in trying to push the British over the edge of the cliff, he had ended up in the chasm himself. For David, the agreement negotiated by Lim Yew Hock’s team at the April 1957 talks were the last straw. He felt that they were “bellychurning”, “shoddy”, and “cowardly”. On 12 April, 1957, David decided to attack his Labour Front colleagues and confront them with the ultimatum of his resignation from the party. Writing to Chew Swee Kee, he stated “the postponement of Merdeka and prolongation of Colonial rule to be a breach of faith with the people of Singapore of the gravest character.”83 His main grouses related to the appointment and qualifications of the proposed new head of state; the failure of the delegation to protest more strongly and reject Lennox-Boyd’s ban on known subversives from standing for election; and the constitution and powers of the proposed Internal Security Council. David continued: The Merdeka which this Mission is bringing back is a pock-marked beauty shrouded in chloroform. These are major matters of policy, and no doubt the Whip will be applied. If this is so, then I consider it my duty to and do hereby

81 Singapore: Memorandum by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, 23 Mar 1956, CAB 129/80. CP (56) 85, cited in Thum Peng Jin, “Thick Face, Black Hearts: British Policy and the Logic of Transition in Singapore, 1955–1959” (M.A. dissertation, Oxford University, 2006), p. 14. I am grateful to Mrs Jean Marshall and Mr Thum for making available a copy of this dissertation for my research. 82 Ibid., p. 23. 83 David Marshall to President, Labour Front, 12 Apr 1957, DM/52/69/1.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

393

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

394

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

tender my resignation from the Party as I cannot acquiesce in the destruction of ideals and principles which were the basis of our appeal to the electorate. … The question whether you will remove the Whip or accept my resignation is a matter for you. If my resignation is accepted I ask that it be deemed to have taken effect from today.84

Even though David’s resignation was phrased as an ultimatum, it was quite clear that he had made up his mind to quit the Labour Front, as evinced from the entry in his diary that evening.85 Five days later, he received a short terse note from his old friend Gerald de Cruz, as executive secretary of the Front, stating that the Central Committee of the Front had considered his demand for the withdrawal of the Whip and it had “unanimously agreed that the Whip should be used” — as such, his resignation “was therefore accepted”. De Cruz ended off with a perfunctory, “I am instructed by the Central Committee to thank you, on its behalf, for your past services to the Labour Front, first as Chief Minister and then as Party President”. It was a most ignominious and ungracious parting of ways and it hurt David deeply. Nobody had called on him to dissuade him from this rash action, nor had the party leadership sought counsel with him on his intended action. It was as if everyone was anxious to get rid of him and was thankful that the opportunity had presented itself so propitiously. THE WORKERS ’ PARTY (1957–1963)

Leaving the Assembly During his speech in the Assembly on 26 April — by which time he was no longer a member of the Labour Front but an independent member — David stated that he was prepared to fight a by-election

84 Ibid., DM/52/69/2. 85 David Marshall’s diary, 12 Apr 1957.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

394

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

395

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

in any constituency to test the support of the people for his points of view. Lee Kuan Yew shot up like a jack-in-a-box and shouted, “Accepted”. Though Speaker George Oehlers ruled the intervention as irrelevant, the die was cast. Lee announced that he would be resigning his seat as assemblyman for Tanjong Pagar and standing for a by-election in that same constituency. Unknown to David, the PAP had been gearing up for this. Indeed, Lee was certain that David would challenge him to a by-election. Earlier, Lim Yew Hock and Lee Kuan Yew had discussed the best method of eliminating David from Singapore’s political scene and Lee suggested that the best way was to challenge him to a by-election. David “played right into their hands by himself issuing the challenge”.86 After all, David had already painted himself into a difficult corner because he had received assurances of support from the extremist wing of the PAP if he attacked the constitutional settlement. On the other hand Marshall had decided to support the clause banning participation in elections by detainees. He, Lim Yew Hock, had full support of the Labour Front for the constitutional settlement including the subversive clause and Lee Kuan Yew managed, in spite of his suspicions within the PAP that he might have taken an independent course in London … to secure acceptance of the settlement apart from the subversive clause from the PAP.87

David was ready to do battle — or so he thought. His push to ensure elections be held in August 1957 had gone down well with the leftwing unions as they saw their chance to capture the majority of votes. For the time being, they were also prepared to support David and use

86 Conversation Between the Minister for External Affairs and the Chief Minister of Singapore, 3 Sep 1957, British Territories in Southeast Asia, Top Secret Papers, Singapore TS383/5/3 Pt 2 (National Australian Archives). I am grateful to Dr Geoff Wade for sharing this piece of research with me. 87 Ibid.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

395

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

396

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

him as a pawn to advance their own cause. David had been assured by several unions that they would support him in a head-on confrontation against Lee and David was confident of defeating Lee in the coming by-election. Lee surmised that the two key figures behind this assurance had been Jamit Singh, leader of the Singapore Harbour Board Workers’ Union, and Lim Chin Joo, leader of the Singapore General Employees’ Union.88 Ultimately, nineteen trade unions came out in open support of David.89 What David had imagined would be a simple contest between him and Lee Kuan Yew on a constitutional issue had snowballed into a battle between the left-wing unions and the proPAP unions. Jamit Singh told David that battle would be serious: “If blood flows, that will be good as it must flow. There must be an understanding that we are strong.”90 This frightened David, who could neither imagine nor understand the ruthlessness of the procommunists. He recalled: The whole approach was not what I understood we were trying to struggle for. To have the workers, the Labour Front trade unionists fighting PAP trade unionists, both sides citizens of Singapore. What was all this mess about? And I found that I was isolated from my own Party’s thinking and approach. I no longer belonged to the whole scene, and Parliament [sic] was no longer my scene. What the hell was I fighting for now? I was fighting my own people. I was going to be the cause of bloodshed. I think that was the major element. To hell with all this. I’m opting out. It’s a mistake.91

On 29 April, David decided not only to resign his seat in the Assembly as he had promised, but he also decided not to contest the by-election

88 Lee, The Singapore Story, p. 264. 89 The Straits Times, 27 Apr 1957, quoted in Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 240. 90 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 15 (Singapore: National Archives). 91 Ibid.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

396

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

397

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

that he had precipitated. The nightmarish spectre of gruesome clashes and rioting in the streets on his account chilled his blood to freezing point. In a terse note to the Speaker, David wrote: “I believe that I can best serve Singapore today by refraining from all public political activity.”92 In a longer note to the people of his Cairnhill constituency, David explained: No useful purpose can now be served by my fighting these byelections which I recognize entail the possibility of sparking disturbances of people frustrated in their deepest hopes by the representatives they trusted. I have for two years struggled with all I have and all I know to build something worthwhile. I have achieved success in minor matters but in the major issue of your freedom from daily colonial domination I have failed miserably, and there is nothing left I can do. In the circumstances I consider it necessary for the immediate welfare and tranquility of Singapore that I should cease all political activities. … … For me to continue in the political arena at this stage, a constant goad and irritant, could lead to disruption and possibly dangerous disruption in Singapore. I hate colonialism with every fibre in my body, but I have and fear communist dictatorship more, and I am not going to lend myself to communist agitation. It is in these circumstances that I have today tendered my resignation from the Assembly, and I have taken my decision to retire from political life at this stage. I shall continue to assist in every way I can, the trade union movement in this country.93

David’s decision to quit politics did not change the fact that Lee Kuan Yew fully expected to fight the by-election in Tanjong Pagar. He won with a 68.1% majority — defeating the Liberal-Socialists’ Chong Wee

92 David Marshall to Speaker, Legislative Assembly, 29 Apr 1957, DM/9/92. 93 Open letter from David Marshall to the People of Cairnhill, 30 Apr 1957, DM/9/91.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

397

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

398

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Ling and former Labour Front stalwart and independent candidate C.H. Koh — with minimal help from the left-wing, pro-communist trade unions. The Labour Front, however, lost its hold on Cairnhill constituency when the seat was won by Soh Ghee Soon of the LiberalSocialists in a five-cornered fight. Forming the Workers’ Party Even though David had now ceased to be an assemblyman, he was not totally out of politics. He was still adviser to a large number of trade unions and he continued to comment on political affairs at talks and speeches. The first intimation that he was returning to the political fray was when he addressed the delegates of the 16,000strong Army Civil Service Union — of which he was adviser — at their annual delegates’ conference and declared: “We can evolve a plan whereby we can create a political party whose membership is exclusively confined to members of the trade unions … and which would never be manipulated by the communists … I will co-operate with you in making this idea a reality.”94 Between June and November 1957, David was relatively quiet on the political front, concentrating largely on rebuilding his legal career, especially his own one-man practice, David Marshall and Co. However, he watched with increasing distress the events that were unfolding before him. Trouble was brewing for the moderate branch of the People’s Action Party as the pro-communists had decided that they would reassert their presence in the party during the Fourth Party Conference, held on 4 August 1957. In the election that ensued, the pro-communists captured six of the twelve seats in the Central Executive Committee (CEC), the party’s highest governing body. The next two-and-a-half weeks were harrowing ones for Lee Kuan Yew

94 Singapore Tiger Standard, 24 Jun 1957, quoted in Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 242.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

398

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

399

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

and his team of moderates. He and Toh Chin Chye — erstwhile secretary-general and chairman of the party — refused to assume any key posts and remained ordinary CEC members. After various attempts to get Lee and Toh to take office, Tan Chong Kim and T.T. Rajah of the left-wing group became chairman and secretary-general of the party respectively. Just when it looked as if the Lim Yew Hock government would proscribe the PAP, Lim ordered the arrest of thirty-five persons under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. These included 13 trade unionists, 4 journalists, and 18 members of the PAP, including five of the pro-communist group (except for T.T. Rajah).95 These arrests had two immediate effects. First, it restored Lee Kuan Yew’s moderate group to their dominant position within the PAP; and second, it convinced David that Lim Yew Hock had swung completely to the right and was becoming as autocratic as the British. Regarding the Trades Union Congress as only a “puppet” of Lim Yew Hock and the pro-PAP unions being totally infiltrated by communists, he decided to launch the Workers’ Party that he had spoken of in June. The Workers’ Party was inaugurated at the Hokkien Association Hall in Telok Ayer Street on 9 November, 1957, before a gathering of some 800 members. The party listed its guiding principles to be Merdeka, Democracy and Socialism.96 Among its stated objects was union with the Federation of Malaya on a basis of equal respect for all races; elimination of colonial exploitation; establishment of a government based on parliamentary democracy; uniting the workers of Singapore; promoting the political, social, and economic emancipation of the people of Singapore; improving food and living conditions to a standard of living compatible with human dignity;

95 See Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 182. 96 See Workers’ Party Constitution & Rules, 1957, Article 2.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

399

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

400

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

and promoting the unity of the Malayan people and establishing a united Socialist Malaysia.97 By forming this new party, David had hoped to swing the 40,000-strong Federation of Services Unions away from the Trades Union Congress.98 Membership in the party was open to anyone above the age of eighteen who was not already a member of another political party,99 even though David’s original idea was to restrict it solely to trade union members. The party was backed mainly by members of the Army Civil Service Union (ACSU) and David managed to persuade Ameer Jumabhoy (son of Rajabali Jumabhoy) and his chief clerk, J.C. Corera, to join the party as well. Upon registration, the party had twenty-seven “first members”, most of whom were Chinesespeaking.100 The bulk of the other members came from the ACSU and key members included V.R. Balakrishna, O.S. Rengasamy, N.S. Nair, Ameer Jumabhoy, Mohamed Tarman, Balwant Singh, A.K. Abraham and T.K. Chiam.101 Neither the Labour Front nor the PAP welcomed the birth of the Workers’ Party as it was thought that the party would further split Singapore’s already splintered left-wing forces. As political scientist Chan Heng Chee noted, the Workers’ Party “avoided a freewheeling ideological approach based on nationalism or socialism, but instead concentrated on support for specific programmes, all directed towards the welfare of working men which trade unions everywhere frequently champion”.102

97 Ibid., Article 4. 98 Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 176. 99 Workers’ Party Constitution & Rules, 1957, Article 5. 100 See Hussin Mutalib, Parties and Politics: A Study of Opposition Parties and the PAP in Singapore, 2nd ed. (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2004), p. 123. 101 Ibid. 102 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 244.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

400

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

401

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

City Council Elections 1957 The first political test for David’s new party was the City Council elections in December 1957. Under the local government system, the city of Singapore was run by the City Council consisting of thirtytwo members. The City Council replaced the Municipal Commission in 1951 as the main representational body for local government. It lasted until 1959 when it was abolished under the PAP government. In the 1957 elections, the Workers’ Party fielded five candidates: O.S. Rengasamy (in Cairnhill); J.C. Corera (Delta); Chang Yuen Tong (Kallang); Wang Tsun Hao (Telok Ayer); and Cheong Min Chew (Jalan Besar). All of them, except for Cheong, were duly elected city councillors. The PAP fielded 14 candidates and won 13 seats in a landslide victory, while the Labour Front fielded 16 candidates and won only 4 seats. The Liberal-Socialists fielded 32 candidates and won 7 seats while the UMNO-MCA Alliance fielded 3 candidates and won 2 seats. Everyone was surprised by the outcome on two fronts. First, it was quite clear that the Labour Front was fast losing support from the voters and that Lim Yew Hock would soon create a new vehicle for the next general elections. Second, it was quite stunning how a brand new party like the Workers’ Party could win four out of the five seats it contested, especially since David himself did not stand for election. At that time, it was not known, especially not to David, that the communists had temporarily switched their support to the Workers’ Party.103 The truth was driven home in stark and dramatic manner when in March 1958 Lee Kuan Yew met up with Fang Chuang Pi, an emissary of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) whom he and Goh Keng Swee called “The Plen” (short for “plenipotentiary”). To test the veracity of his claim that he actually represented the CPM, Lee asked him to procure the resignation of Chang Yuen Tong, David’s party vice-president. As Lee recalled: 103 Ibid., p. 245.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

401

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

402

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

I knew he [Chang] was one of the pro-Communist trade union workers. I told the Plen that I thought the Communists were trying to make use of David Marshall’s Workers’ Party to fight the PAP. They had used the Workers’ Party to fight us in Jalan Besar Division in the City Council election and they had lost in a close fight. I said that as evidence of his credentials that he was a real representative of the Communist Command in Singapore and his good faith in not wishing to attack the PAP by using the Workers’ Party as an instrument, he should give word for the resignation of Chang Yuen Tong from the Workers’ Party and the City Council and let the Workers’ Party and David Marshall go on their own. He said, ‘All right. Give us some time. We shall see that it is done.’104

In May 1958, while Lee was in London for the third constitutional talks, he read of Chang’s resignation: One afternoon, while still in London, I read on the front page of the Straits Times that Chang Yuen Tong, vice-president of the Workers’ Party, city councilor, and president of the Electrical and Wireless Employees’ Union, had resigned ‘because the demands of his employment made it impossible for him to find sufficient time for Council work.’ The Plen had given his orders and had been obeyed. He had proved that he was in charge.105

Chang’s resignation triggered a by-election. On 26 July, 1958, byelections for Chang’s seat in Kallang were held and the PAP’s Bung Omar Junid was elected with 4,278 votes against the Workers’ Party’s Lo Ka Fat who got a dismal 304 votes. The Plen had kept his word — left-wing support for the Workers’ Party evaporated overnight. Hereafter, David struggled to keep control of his party and rein in defections. Five of his executive committee members resigned and Workers’ Party members were seen canvassing for the PAP. When Lim

104 Lee Kuan Yew, The Battle for Merger (Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 27. 105 Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story, pp. 284–85.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

402

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

403

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

Yew Hock launched the Singapore People’s Alliance (SPA) in November 1958, another of the Workers’ Party’s executive committee members and three of their city councillors joined the new party. All David could do was to stand by and demand the resignation of the city councillor or the payment of a $50,000 bond for breach of responsibility that they had all been required to sign with the party. David had himself made generous contributions to the party’s funds and election expenses.106 But the party was falling apart. The 1959 General Elections The City Council elections of 1957 were but a prelude to the 1959 general elections that were to be held under the new the Singapore (Constitution) Order-in-Council, 1958.107 As we saw above, Lim Yew Hock tried desperately to revive the flagging fortunes of the Labour Front by forming the Singapore People’s Alliance, comprising the old Labour Front and stalwarts from the Liberal-Socialists. In the lead up to the SPA’s founding, Lim had urged David to join the Alliance so that they could fight the PAP together. David was initially interested, thinking that the SPA would accept the Workers’ Party’s platform. However, as things unfolded, his disgust at Lim Yew Hock’s efforts to cling onto power led him to reject the SPA outright. One particular incident recorded by Chan Heng Chee is worth recalling: Towards the end of 1958 Marshall received a rather urgent and secretive call from Lim Yew Hock. A meeting was arranged through the help of Yap Pheng Geck in the bank vault of the Four Seas Communications Bank. There in the silent vacuum and by themselves, Marshall learnt the reason for the elaborate arrangement. Lim Yew Hock did not beat about the bush. He wanted to arrest Lee

106 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 246. 107 SI No. 1956 dated 21 Nov 1958. This was the Constitution created for the new state of Singapore, created by the State of Singapore Act, 6 & 7 Eliz 2 Ch 59 passed on 1 August, 1958.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

403

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

404

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Kuan Yew and ‘a few other PAP stalwarts’ to forestall a probable PAP victory at the polls and the rise of a pro-communist government in Singapore. But he needed a promise from Marshall to remain silent, to refrain from making this a public political issue with the Government. Marshall exploded, furious that Lim should think he would be an accessory to such a plan. Marshall’s vigorous refusal to oblige stayed the Chief Minister’s hand and the PAP secretarygeneral was left alone to lead his party to victory at the 1959 elections.108

A record 194 candidates contested the 51 seats in the 1959 elections. To everyone’s surprise, the PAP contested all the available seats. These elections were epoch-making in several ways. First, it was the first time that no nominated or official seats were reserved for the Legislative Assembly — the increase in the number of elected seats from the 1955 elections, from 25 to 51, was more than double. Secondly, a record thirteen political parties took part in the elections. Finally, for the first time, voting was compulsory and the voter population increased from 300,292 in 1955 to 587,797 in 1959.109 After a blistering campaign, full of mud-slinging and rhetorical duels, the PAP won a landslide victory, claiming forty-three seats. The remaining eight seats went to the Lim Yew Hock’s new party, the Singapore People’s Alliance (SPA) (4 seats), three seats to the UMNOMCA Alliance and one to independent, A.P. Rajah. The Workers’ Party fielded just three candidates, including David who stood in his old Cairnhill constituency. David did not see his newly created party as forming the government but instead saw its role as that of a “strong and loyal opposition in the Assembly”.110 He

108 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, pp. 248–49. 109 See Ong Chit Chung, “The 1959 Singapore General Election”, Journal of Southeast Asian History 41 (1975): 62. 110 “Marshall: The Role My Party Will Play in Assembly”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 27 Apr 1959.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

404

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

405

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

was delighted to hear that Lim Yew Hock had also switched constituencies and was facing him in a head-on clash at Cairnhill. He saw the clash as an excellent opportunity for the people of Singapore to decide whether they preferred “my ways and policies to those of Tun Lim Yew Hock”.111 It was a disaster for David. In a four-cornered fight, David got just over half the votes that Lim Yew Hock secured and just over 600 votes more than the PAP unknown, Mdm Oh Su Chen. None of the other Workers’ Party candidates won a seat. David was stunned. He had expected to secure an easy victory over Lim especially after the outbreak of the “Chew Swee Kee scandal” in which it was revealed that the former Education Minister had received S$500,000 from American sources to further political causes in Singapore.112 Marshall was now out in the cold. The 1961 Anson By-Election David had started the Workers’ Party as the political vehicle for his deepest beliefs. It would be the vehicle to take Singapore to independence and to mould a Singapore he could be proud to call home. However, it was difficult to run a political party without a good team and infrastructural support. There was no one within the party who was David’s intellectual equal and he had problems communicating with the Chinese-educated milieu that formed a large segment of his party. What was more, David failed to be consistent in his utterances and often began to contradict himself as he launched tirade after tirade against Lim Yew Hock and his

111 “Marshall: The Role My Party Will Play in Assembly”, Singapore Tiger Standard, 27 Apr 1959. 112 See Commission of Inquiry into the $500,000 bank account of Mr Chew Swee Kee and the Income Tax Dept. Leakage in Connection Therewith (Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1959).

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

405

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

406

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

government. Indeed, some of the policies he now attacked had been intrinsic to the stance taken by the Labour Front when he was chief minister. This did him little credit. Now completely ousted from the Assembly, David saw himself as the opposition’s white knight slaying the dragons of humbuggery and deceit. He would now become the honest opposition outside the Assembly by taking on both the government and the opposition in public forums and speeches. On the role of a good opposition, David wrote: a political opponent is not an enemy — an honest opponent should be treated with respect however bitter the opposition of his views. It is the essence of democratic progress to recognize that political opponents have material contribution to make to the thinking and efficiency of the government process and the education of the people. Abuse, ostracism, refusal to speak to one another, vicious slander; these are the symptoms of infantile arrogance enshrined in the traditions of rigid dictatorships. They have no place in the conduct of any one who believes in the democratic process.113

David, never a great organizer to begin with, was having problems galvanizing his Workers’ Party and organizing it into a political force to be reckoned with. He was much handicapped by his inability to communicate in Chinese and, more importantly, he did not have any confidantes with whom he could plan and plot. He was like a lone general fighting with a rag-tag bunch of troops who did not — and sometimes chose not to — understand his commands. For the time being, the profile of the party was kept high in the media by David’s constant barrage of comments and speeches against PAP policies. As Chan Heng Chee noted: There was a great deal for Marshall to react to. The PAP Government, with Lee Kuan Yew as Prime Minister, was moving at a fantastic speed to restructure society and the economy whilst at the same time balancing the political support, appeasing the Chinese-

113 David Marshall to Punch Coomaraswamy, 29 Aug 1966, DM/219/50.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

406

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

407

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

educated voters who had brought them into power on the other hand, yet containing and circumscribing the incipient left-wing group within the party apparatus on the other. Marshall criticized the PAP Government for its campaign against the English-educated, the pay cuts for civil servants, and the amendments to the PPSO which removed the judges on the Judicial Tribunal who were the review body, empowered by the law of 1955 to interpose between the executive power and the citizen.… It was quickly recognized that although Marshall was outside the legislature, he was an influential critic often making more cutting points than the weak and disparate opposition within especially on points of abuse of political power.114

The opportunity to return to centre stage came in 1961. One of the most difficult issues the PAP had to grapple with in addition to the left-wing pro-communists within the party was their maverick mayor, Ong Eng Guan. Ong, an Australian-trained accountant, was treasurer of the PAP and a firebrand Hokkien speaker. Following the 1958 City Council elections, he became mayor of Singapore and set about destroying all vestiges of colonialism, even removing the mace from the City Council. Ong’s attempt to popularize government and his overbearing treatment of civil servants made him extremely popular with the crowds, but a handful to deal with at party level. In June 1960, conscious of his great popularity, Ong challenged the PAP’s collective leadership with his Sixteen Hong Lim Resolutions. Ong failed to gain support for his resolutions and was expelled from the party. In 1961, Ong resigned his seat in the Assembly and forced a by-election in his Hong Lim constituency. He immediately announced his intention to contest the ward. This ploy was designed to attack the PAP leadership directly. The Hong Lim by-election on 29 April, 1961, saw a straight fight between Ong and the PAP’s Jek Yeun Thong. Ong trounced Jek, securing over 73% of the vote. On 20 April 1961, just before the people of Hong Lim went to the polls,

114 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, p. 251.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

407

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

408

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

the PAP suffered another setback. Baharuddin Mohammed Ariff, PAP assemblyman for Anson, died of a heart attack. He was only twenty-eight years old. This meant that another by-election would have to be held. The timing could not have been worse for the PAP. On 27 May, 1961, Tunku Abdul Rahman, prime minister of Malaya, made a speech at the Foreign Correspondents’ Association of Southeast Asia luncheon wherein he intimated for the very first time that a “closer union” among the territories of the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, and Borneo was desirable. The Tunku, who had rejected repeated overtures by David as well as Lee Kuan Yew for merger in the past, appeared to have changed his mind because he feared the communist problem in Singapore. With Singapore’s entry into the Federation, the Tunku would have no compunction in using the tough Internal Security Act to detain all the communists and the left-wing of the PAP which sought to prevent merger at all costs. The pro-communists, still euphoric over Ong Eng Guan’s victory in Hong Lim, used this by-election as a tool to capture the PAP leadership. The first salvo was fired by the “Big Six” trade union leaders — Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan, Sandra Woodhull, Dominic Puthucheary, S.T. Bani and Jamit Singh — when they issued a press statement during the Anson by-election campaign calling for “genuinely full internal self-government”. They argued that the 1958 Constitution went against the “rights of full self-government” and that it should be replaced by a constitution that allowed government to “exercise all the rights over matters of internal security”.115 This implied the abolition or dismantling of the Internal Security Council (ISC). The next day, 3 June, 1961, Lee Kuan Yew called for “independence through merger” and from that point on, the battle lines between the two factions of the PAP were drawn.116

115 See The Straits Times, 3 June 1961. 116 See Drysdale, Singapore: Struggle for Success, p. 239.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

408

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

409

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

The open factionalism between the pro-communists and the moderates in the PAP drew David into the fray. Unwittingly or otherwise, David walked into the communist trap. Looking for a means to show the moderates that it was they who commanded the support of the masses, the pro-communists found a willing candidate in David, whose personal stand was that merger with Malaya was not possible and that Singapore should fight for independence and abolish the ISC. On 7 June, 1961, David was nominated as the Workers’ Party’s candidate for the Anson by-election. The PAP’s nominee was Mahmud bin Awang, the president of the Trade Union Council. A third candidate was Dr Chee Phui Hung of the SPA. Two other independents contested alongside them. Polling day was 15 July, 1961, and with communist support, David won narrowly, defeating the PAP’s Mahmud bin Awang by a mere 546 votes. A triumphant David then called on Lee Kuan Yew to resign as prime minister: The voice of Anson and of Singapore calls for sincere and honest efforts for freedom — Merdeka preferable with, if necessary, or without federation. We say to Emperor Lee Kuan Yew, ‘We have had enough of your humbug, hypocrisy and hates, your vanity and arrogance and ruthlessness. We are not the blind chicken you think we are. We have had enough of your cleverness. Resign. And may you in your retirement learn humility and humanity so that in years to come your undoubted abilities may unselfishly and honestly serve our people.117

David was now back in the Assembly and in the forefront of oppositional politics. His total lack of political guile or savvy had deluded him into thinking that he had won the election on his own merits. He had absolutely no idea that the communists were behind his victory since he had assumed that they were working hand-inglove with the PAP. David’s assessment of the PAP was overly simplistic:

117 “Marshall Wins, Calls on Lee to Resign”, The Sunday Gazette, 16 Jul 1961.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

409

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

410

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

somehow I had this image of a PAP totally and monolithically ‘anti-me’ over so long a period. I was not conditioned to thinking of any of them as being friendly. And I don’t think it occurred to me that they were. But they certainly didn’t come out in the open, not one, to support me, not one known PAP man ever supported me at any time. I was the black plague to them. I was the bubonic plague. You don’t touch me with a barge pole.118

True to form, David made a dramatic re-entry into the Assembly. After being sworn in and taking the oath of allegiance on 20 July, 1961, he let out a cry of “Merdeka” and was promptly called to order by the Speaker. David was in a fiery mood and could not wait to launch into his attack on the PAP. He could not have picked a better time as the prime minister had just moved a motion of confidence in his government. David spoke for almost two hours, denouncing the PAP for having lost the mandate to govern with their defeats in Hong Lim and Anson and once again called on Lee Kuan Yew to resign. It was not among David’s best speeches, although he argued that it would be better for Singapore to become independent on its own rather than to remain a British colony if merger with Malaya failed.119 After a two-day debate, the motion was carried by 27 to 8 votes, but 16 PAP assemblymen abstained. This abstention led ultimately to their break away from the PAP to form the Barisan Sosialis (Socialist Front). Many of David’s interventions were petty and he revelled in picking on the PAP. His argument on merger in November 1961 was so repetitive and circuitous that even Speaker George Oehlers felt that there was “confusion mounting on confusion”.120 Sometimes, he was just plain irritating. This is not to say that David did not raise

118 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 17 (Singapore: National Archives). 119 Speech of David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 20 Jul 1961, cols. 1720–21. 120 Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 23 Nov 1961, col. 575.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

410

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

411

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

good points. In the debate on the budget in December 1961, for example, he urged for the setting up of an autonomous University of Singapore121 and better pay for judges.122 Merger The Barisan Sosialis — which now contained most of the PAP’s leftwing group — was determined to avoid merger at all costs because the Federation government would arrest and preventively detain the bulk of their pro-communist leaders and members. As Barisan leader Lee Siew Choh astutely observed, the PAP “is now hoping … that such [merger] arrangements will allow the Federation Government to purge its political opponents before the next general elections”.123 However, they could not reject the idea of merger outright since that would mean favouring an independent Singapore, a scenario that no right-thinking Singaporean could have accepted as a viable option. The only way to demolish the PAP’s plan was to come up with an alternate merger plan that would be totally unacceptable to the Federation, thereby leading the Tunku to reject merger totally. To do this, the Barisan decided to capitalize on the citizenship provisions that would not give Singapore citizens automatic federal citizenship. Outside the Legislative Assembly, the pro-communists in the Barisan began a series of strikes and civil agitations among the Chinese-educated students in a bid to embarrass the government. At the same time, they began filibustering in the Legislative Assembly. Sessions went on until the early hours of the morning with lengthy speeches, numerous interruptions, and mud-slinging. The debate on the White Paper on Merger ran from 17 November, 1961, to 17 January, 1962, with very few interruptions. During this debate,

121 Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 16 Dec 1961, cols. 2346–51. 122 Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 16 Dec 1961, cols. 2422–23. 123 See Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 17 January 1962, col. 235.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

411

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

412

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Lee Siew Choh made a speech lasting seven hours, a record that has never been beaten.124 The Barisan was not alone in attacking the PAP’s White Paper (Heads of Agreement). They were joined by the entire opposition bench which included David and Ong Eng Guan (now in his new United People’s Party). The Barisan’s attack on the PAP’s merger plan was launched on two fronts. First, they argued that the PAP’s terms which amounted to no more than “phoney-merger” since the PAP “did not tell the people of Singapore they wanted to make [them] … second-class citizens”.125 David added that while every political party would have had the mandate for merger, the PAP certainly “never have or ever had any mandate for this type of absurdity”.126 This was especially so since the Heads of Agreement made it clear that Singapore citizens would not automatically become citizens of the Federation. The Barisan’s second objection attacked the PAP’s lack of consultation, in failing to convene an all-party Conference to discuss the terms of merger. Generally, the Barisan’s objections to the PAP’s proposals were problematic. All the Barisan members had previously gone along with the PAP’s merger plan while they were still members of the PAP and had never uttered a word of protest until they defected. Indeed, as the PAP MPs were at pains to point out in the Legislative Assembly, all the Barisan MPs had taken an oath “to abide by the Fourth

124 In June 1964, the Standing Orders of Parliament were amended to curtail lengthy and repetitious speeches in parliament. Members of the House are now limited to one hour. Incidentally, Dr Lee Siew Choh made another seven-hour speech during the debates described above. 125 See speech of the Barisan’s S.T. Bani in the Legislative Assembly, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 17 January 1962, col. 268. 126 See Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 17 January 1962, col. 278.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

412

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

413

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

Anniversary policy statement”127 which endorsed merger with the Federation as a main priority. Dr Lee Siew Choh, the Barisan’s secretary-general, called on the PAP to “place the matter before the people”.128 He pointed out that the PAP’s failure to convene an allparty conference denied the opposition parties “the right to participate in charting the course of our own constitutional future”129 and that: the people know only one road of constitutional advance, and that is that the future of Singapore should be planned and decided by the people of Singapore themselves and not by one political Party in conjunction with people outside Singapore.130

If the all-party conference failed to resolve the terms of merger, Dr Lee suggested that there should be general elections to resolve the problem.131 On the whole, the Barisan’s constitutional objections were not as dubious as some press reports made them out to be. The argument put forth by Lee Siew Choh, David, and Ong Eng Guan finds authority in constitutional theory. The Westminster parliamentary model of government utilizes general elections to renew a particular party’s mandate to govern in the next parliament — a mandate that is renewable periodically. On specific issues, a snap election is called to determine the issue and if the government is defeated, it resigns. Thus, while the PAP may have had the general mandate to negotiate terms for merger, it is doubtful that they ever

127 See speech of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore Legislative Assembly Official Reports, 17 January 1962, cols. 253–54 where he pointed out that Dr Lee Siew Choh, secretary-general of the Barisan Socialis, subscribed to this oath which endorsed the PAP’s policy of securing merger with the Federation. 128 See Singapore Legislative Assembly Official Reports, 17 January 1962, col. 227. 129 Ibid., col. 229. 130 Ibid., col. 232. 131 Ibid., col. 233.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

413

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

414

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

had the mandate to enter into an agreement on specific terms without prior consultation with the people. The opposition was right in calling for an election to determine the issue of citizenship under the merger terms once and for all. The PAP rejected Dr Lee’s suggestions, arguing that there was no need to go to an election or to constitute an all-party conference since it was merely carrying out its election promise to secure merger on terms that were as favourable to Singapore as possible. As the PAP’s S. Rajaratnam said: the PAP Government was elected on the merger platform. It was known to everybody. … It is quite clear … that we are carrying out a specific mandate which the people know, and, therefore, there is no need for an All-Party Committee to carry out an election programme… … because we were elected on this programme, … politically and morally, we have every right to negotiate to carry out our election programme, and there is no need for us to have an AllParty Committee to decide whether or not we should implement our political programme…. …. … the PAP will decide what to do and when to consult the people in its own way. But what will it do is carry through its election programme without any reference to whatever the Barisan Socialis might say…132

In any case, Lee Kuan Yew offered a most unconvincing argument against the calling of an election. He opined that a general election was not the way to resolve the problem because the voters would be further confused by the multitude of election programmes and party positions on Singapore’s constitutional future. Furthermore, Lee was convinced that by acceding to the Barisan’s demands of a general election he would have been falling into their trap. The PAP was also not entirely convinced that an all-party conference would achieve

132 Ibid., cols. 239–44.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

414

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

415

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

anything since parties such as the Barisan would arrive at the conference table with fixed minds and an immutable agenda. The PAP’s chairman, Dr Toh Chin Chye, further pointed out that he had written to all the opposition parties in August 1961 seeking clarification on their party’s stand on whether defence, external affairs, and security should come under the control of the central government; and whether they felt that Singapore should retain autonomy in education and labour. None of the replies he received had dealt directly with the two points raised.133 However, it was the manner in which the Barisan and the opposition put forth their arguments and the constant agitation, strikes, and civil unrest they were precipitating outside the Assembly that began to alienate both the Tunku and his government and the Singaporean public at large. Drysdale sums up the general reaction to the Barisan’s tactics as follows: By combining dubious argument with repeat performances of worker and student agitation of the 1950s, the Communists and their supporters were not only being unimaginative but they were beginning to alienate students who were more concerned about getting through their examinations, with hoped-for prosperity, than with misty ideas about colonialism which was becoming difficult to discern.134

The idea for a referendum was mooted in July 1961 at a regional conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association held in Singapore and that was attended by representatives from Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, Brunei, and Sarawak. The following month, Lee Kuan Yew met the Tunku and the formal agreement in principle was announced. The date for the referendum had been fixed for 1 September, 1962. Having been defeated on the parliamentary motion to establish an all-party conference to discuss merger and having 133 Ibid., cols. 285–86. 134 Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, pp. 297–98.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

415

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

416

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

failed to pressure the PAP into calling a snap election, the opposition parties pushed for a referendum to determine the issue. The UPP’s Ong Eng Guan offered perhaps the best rationale for the referendum: We support a referendum to thrash out the merger issue. Because it is only one issue, a referendum would be more suitable. The Liberal Socialist Party has the same views as the Workers’ Party, the Barisan Socialis and us on the merger proposals — automatic citizenship for all Singapore citizens. But in a general election, if the people want to vote for automatic Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens, they have to make up their minds whether to vote for the Liberal Socialists or the Singapore Congress who have the same stand, or to vote for the Barisan Sosialis or the Workers’ Party or the United People’s Party. Therefore … it is on that basis that we have called for a referendum to thrash out the matter of merger.135

During the entire run-up to this date, the Barisan tried every means imaginable to unseat the PAP government. David happily joined in the affray. Between 27 June, 1962 and 11 July, 1962, the Legislative Assembly met to decide the framing of the questions to be asked at the referendum. This was the Barisan’s last chance to topple the PAP government. They tried their best to pressure PAP assemblymen to cross the floor and join the opposition. If the PAP lost its majority, the government would have to resign. On 13 July, 1962, Dr Lee Siew Choh, leader of the Barisan, tabled a motion of no-confidence in the government. It was defeated by a majority of 24 votes against 16, with 7 abstentions.136 Before the Committee of 17 Beyond their exertions in the Assembly to topple the PAP, the opposition parties sought external intervention to block the proposed 135 See Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, 17 January 1962, cols. 247–48. 136 The seven Alliance members and the independent member abstained. Three MPs were absent.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

416

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

417

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

referendum. In June 1962, a Council of Joint Action was formed by the Barisan Sosialis, the Liberal-Socialist Party, the Workers’ Party, the United People’s Party, and the Partai Rakyat to take the referendum issue before the United Nations Committee on Colonialism.137 On 6 July, 1962, nineteen individual members of the Assembly138 signed a memorandum condemning the referendum on the grounds that the proposed constitutional changes were “devised by the British Government to assure its continued right to bases in Singapore, and to protect its privileged economic position”.139 The Council also criticized the terms and the lack of choice in the referendum and concluded that the transfer of sovereignty would be contrary to the spirit and letter of the United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.140 It ended by requesting the presence of a UN observer to “deter a major act of perfidy being perpetrated against our people”.141 David took a particularly active part in these manoeuvres and appeals. After the memorandum had been sent to the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, David wrote personally to Alex

137 The full name of the Committee was: The United Nations Special Committee on the Situation With Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 138 The nineteen members of the Assembly were: Lee Siew Choh, Low Por Tuck, Wong Soon, Fong, S.T. Bani, Sheng Nam Chin, Chan Sun Wing, Ong Chang Sam, Leong Keng Seng, Fong Yin Ching, Lin You Eng, Tee Kim Leng, Teo Hock Guan, Tan Cheng Teng (Barisan Sosialis); Ong Eng Guan, S.V. Lingam, Ng Teng Kian (UPP); David Marshall (Workers’ Party); Hoe Puay Choo and C.H. Koh (Independents). 139 Memorandum submitted to Secretary-General, United Nations, 6 Jul 1962, DM/106/1/1–4, para. 4. 140 Resolution 1514 (XV) of the United National General Assembly of 14 Dec, 1960. 141 Memorandum submitted to Secretary-General, United Nations, 6 Jul 1962, DM/106/1/1–4, para. 20.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

417

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

418

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Quaison-Sackey, Ghana’s ambassador to the United Nations and a member of the Committee on Colonialism, urging him to bring the letter to the attention of the Committee.142 Quaison-Sackey promptly replied to say that he had studied the memorandum “very carefully and thoroughly”, that he was of the view that the Committee should take up the matter, and that he would discuss it with Ambassador C.S. Jha of India, chairman of the Committee.143 David not only informed the other eighteen signatories of this development but also proceeded to write directly to Ambassador Jha. However, a positive reply was not forthcoming partly because members of the Committee were unsure if it was a matter that was within their jurisdiction, especially since they could not interfere in internal affairs. Indeed, that was exactly what Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew argued.144 As everyone was on tenterhooks, David tried many times to call Jha on the phone to urge him to commence a hearing.145 In the meantime, David had sent for a Queen’s Counsel’s opinion on the proposed citizenship terms under the referendum.146 On 19 July, 1962, the UN Committee on Colonialism voted 10–2 in favour of an Indian proposal not to take cognizance of the Singapore petition. Five members abstained.147 David was “distressed and depressed” as he felt that India — which he respected deeply and whose representative Mr Bhadkamar had moved the motion to ignore the

142 David Marshall to Quaison-Sackey, 6 Jul 1962, DM/106/23. 143 Quaison-Sackey to David Marshall, 12 Jul 1962, DM/106/27 144 “Referendum and UN: New Moves”, The Straits Times, 19 Jul 1962; see also “It is an Internal Matter”, The Malayan Times, 19 Jul 1962. 145 David Marshall to Chairman, Committee on Colonialism, 16 Jul 1962, DM/105/25/1–2. 146 See Dingle Foot, “Government of Singapore: Proposed Referendum Opinion”, DM/106/12/1. 147 “Petition is Rejected”, The Malay Mail, 19 Jul 1962; “Lee’s Triump”, The Straits Times, 20 Jul 1962.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

418

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

419

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

Singapore petition — had acted “as a tool of imperialists”.148 Late on the morning of Saturday, 21 July, David received a cable from New York from Dr Dragoslav Protitch, Under-Secretary for the Department of Trusteeship and Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories, informing him that notwithstanding the Committee’s decision not to take cognizance of the petition, “if any petitioner wishes to appear before it personally, it will be necessary to make a formal request for a hearing” that would be considered in accordance with “established procedures”.149 David and the petitioners immediately made a formal request for a hearing which was duly granted. On 24 July, a four-member team, comprising Lee Siew Choh (leader), Sandra Woodhull, Lim Hock Siew, and Wee Soo Bee, left Singapore for New York.150 David was unable to leave with them as he was handling a case in Sabah, but hoped to join them as soon as he closed his submissions. Lee Kuan Yew lost no time in also making a formal request to appear before the Committee as his government had a good case. Originally scheduled to leave New York for London, Lee decided to postpone his trip to await the arrival of the CJA members.151 Lee was sure that they had planned to be in New York after he had departed for London so that they “could have a big bash” at him. He thus decided to “call their bluff ” by postponing his departure.152 Hearings commenced on the morning of 26 July, with Lee Siew Choh leading the submissions. That afternoon, it was the turn of Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee to put forward the government’s case.

148 David Marshall to Quaison-Sackey, 20 Jul 1962, DM/106/8/1. 149 Cable from Protitch to David Marshall, 21 Jul 1962, DM/106/11. 150 “Four of the 19 Off to the UN”, The Malayan Times, 25 Jul 1962. 151 “Hear Both Sides — Our Case is Good, Lee tells UN”, The Straits Times, 25 Jul 1962; and “Lee Requests UN Hearing”, The Malay Mail, 25 Jul 1962. 152 “Kuan Yew: ‘I have Called their Bluff ”, The Malay Mail, 26 Jul 1962.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

419

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

420

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Lee led a brilliant point-for-point rebuttal of the CJA submissions and provided a lucid and comprehensive background to events153 that obviously persuaded members of the Committee.154 David wound up his case in Sabah, returned to Singapore, and flew off to New York on Sunday, 29 July, after being told by Lee Siew Choh that a hearing had been fixed for him for the afternoon of Monday, 30 July. David was not in an optimistic mood, but promised to “go down shouting”.155 David arrived in time to speak on the morning of Monday, 30 July. He spoke for over an hour and was at his lawyerly best. His mastery of the facts and of the law were beyond reproach, but whether it was enough to swing the vote — which had actually been cast against the CJA petition — around, no one was sure. The CJA’s main champion on the Committee was the Soviet Union’s Valentin Oberemko who felt that a “gross deceit” had been perpetrated against the people of Singapore.156 However, the rest of the Committee would not be swayed. The United Nations would not intervene or send an observer. Referendum The electorate was offered three options in the referendum. Since all the political parties in Singapore favoured merger, there was no question as to whether the people wanted merger or not. The question

153 See UN General Assembly, “Petition from Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore”, A/AC.109/PET.18/Add.1, 26 Jul 1962, DM/169/4/1; and UN General Assembly, “Verbatim Record of the Eight-Seventh Meeting”, A/AC.109/PV.87, 27 Jul 1962, DM/169/5/1. 154 India’s A.B. Bhadkamkar told Reuters that Lee had been “extremely convincing”. See “Victory for Lee Almost Certain”, The Malayan Times, 29 Jul 1962. 155 “A Shouting Marshall Off to UN”, The Sunday Times, 29 Jul 1962; “Marshall Leaves Gloomy”, The Malayan Times, 29 Jul 1962. 156 “Soviet ‘Gross Deceit’ Cries Raise No Echo”, The Straits Times, 2 Aug 1962.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

420

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

421

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

was on what terms and arrangements merger would be achieved. The first option, Option A, was the PAP’s proposal which in keeping with the Heads of Agreement set out in the White Paper gave “Singapore autonomy in labour, education and other agreed matters set out in Command Paper No. 33 of 1961 with Singapore citizens automatically becoming citizens of Malaysia”. Option B offered the voter “complete and unconditional merger for Singapore as a state on an equal basis with the other eleven states in accordance with the Constitutional documents of the Federation of Malaya” and Option C offered the electorate merger on “terms no less favourable than those given to the Borneo territories”. Both the PAP and the Barisan campaigned hard for their respective proposals. The Barisan’s proposal was to assure the people that if Singapore entered the Federation on the same terms as Penang and Malacca (two former Straits Settlements colonies) and as the twelfth state of the Federation, they would automatically qualify for federal citizenship. As Dr Goh Keng Swee gleefully pointed out, this would not be so since the law provided that only those persons born in Penang or Malacca automatically qualified as citizens. Out of the 634,000 voters in Singapore, only slightly more than half of them — about 320,000 — had actually been born in Singapore. Opting for the Barisan’s proposal would mean disenfranchising half the voting population. Furthermore, Lee had managed to secure the Tunku’s agreement to give all Singaporeans federal citizenship. Lee had blown the Barisan’s argument apart. Indeed, David had declared himself satisfied with the concessions Lee had wrung from the Tunku.157 Realizing the Barisan’s mistake, the communist back-seat drivers, led by the Plen, ordered the leaders of the open front to persuade voters to cast blank votes instead. This was really curious, especially

157 “No Secret Disadvantages in Common Citizenship — Lee”, The Straits Times, 20 Aug 1962; “Assurance Hailed”, The Malay Mail, 24 Aug 1962.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

421

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

422

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

as the terms of the referendum provided that anyone who cast a blank vote would be treated as being content to leave it to the Legislative Assembly to choose for him. Even with a slim majority in the Assembly, this meant giving the vote to the PAP’s Option A. This tactical change was calculated at achieving a propaganda victory if most of the votes were blank. In such an instance, the Barisan could easily allege that the PAP “faked the people’s wishes and were trying to bring about a phoney merger”.158 The PAP was quick to counter-attack by telling the people that if most of the votes were for Option B, they would have no choice but to count the blank votes as being in favour of Option B. This clever manoeuvre sent half the electorate who were not born in Singapore “into a state of confused panic, which Goh Keng Swee cultivated by sending out some 40 trucks fitted with loudspeakers to warn the flummoxed masses that if they cast blank votes, they stood to lose their citizenship”. 159 The final results of the referendum swung overwhelmingly in favour of the PAP’s Option A, with 71% of the voters opting for merger on the government’s terms. The Barisan was beaten.160 QUITTING POLITICS FOR GOOD

Failure to stop the referendum did not, for David, spell the end of the road for the Workers’ Party. He felt that there was still much to be done. After Lee Kuan Yew had secured the Tunku’s agreement on common citizenship, David publicly backed the government’s White Paper merger proposals but instead called for blank votes in protest:

158 Drysdale, Singapore: The Struggle for Success, p. 312. 159 See Dennis Bloodworth, The Tiger and the Trojan Horse (Singapore: Times Books International, 1986), p. 261. 160 Ibid.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

422

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

423

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

The Workers’ Party remains violently antagonistic to the shamelessly dishonest referendum provisions, deeply conscious of the importance of the issue, deeply anxious as we are for independence through merger, accepting as we do, subject to the draft constitution, the merger proposals as amended, we nevertheless consider the referendum so immoral that no honest person whatever his views, can take part in it except as compelled by law. The law compels our citizens to go to the polling stations and our citizens must go to the polling stations. The law does not compel the honest citizen to mark the shamelessly dishonest ballot papers and we will continue to advise them to throw blank ballot papers into the ballot boxes by way of protest.161

The official position was thus that while there was now “genuine merger”, people should not vote for it because the terms of the referendum offered no real choice. However, a clear rift had developed between David and his erstwhile Workers’ Party colleagues on this issue. Unbeknownst to him, two of his most hardworking members, Sum Chong Heng and Chua Chin Kiat, vice-president and secretarygeneral of the party respectively, had been misrepresenting his utterances and the Workers’ Party’s stance to the Chinese press. David only discovered this when the Minister for Culture, S. Rajaratnam, wrote a letter in The Straits Times accusing David of speaking “with two minds”.162 According to Rajaratnam, David had attacked the Government White Paper as “false merger” in two speeches at Workers’ Party rallies in Tanjong Pagar and Hong Lim on 26 and 27 August respectively. On Friday, 31 August, Rajaratnam repeated his allegations that David regarded the government proposals as “phoney merger” at a lunch-time rally at Fullerton Square. David, who was then working in

161 “Marshall Explains Party’s New Stand”, The Sunday Times, 26 Aug 1962. 162 S. Rajaratnam, “Merger: The Two Minds of Mr Marshall”, The Straits Times, 30 Aug 1962.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

423

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

424

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

his office in the Bank of China Building, within earshot, rushed down to the rally to confront Rajaratnam. David yelled at Rajaratnam, calling him a liar in public. The unflappable Rajaratnam then invited David to the microphone and asked him to explain himself. David was beside himself with rage and told the crowd that the newspapers had lied.163 He then attacked the crowd for being “dishonest” and lambasted the “dirty civil servants” as well. The crowd — which David suspected comprised members of work brigades organized by the PAP — booed him off the platform. He was a sad and lonely sight.164 David decided to investigate further and obtained recordings of his speeches and notes of the Chinese interpretations of his speeches. He also spoke to reporters from the two leading Chinese dailies, the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh. To his consternation, he discovered that Sum and Chua had deliberately twisted his words when translating his speeches and press releases. On 4 September, 1962, he wrote a letter to the executive council of the Workers’ Party outlining the misdemeanours of the two party stalwarts and moving to expel them from the party.165 Sum and Chua resigned from the Workers’ Party on 15 September.166 A week later, David announced their replacement with Wong Kui Yam and Chong Chee Chong, who were appointed joint secretaries of the party. On Sunday, 20 January, 1963, the Workers’ Party held its annual party congress and elections were held for its key posts. David was reelected chairman of the party while Chua Chin Kiat, who had resigned

163 Chan, A Sensation of Independence, pp. 262–63. 164 “A Lonely Man …”, The Straits Times, 3 Sep 1962. 165 David Marshall to Executive Council, Workers’ Party, 4 Sep 1962, DM/107/10/1–3. 166 “Two Top Workers Party Men Quit”, The Malayan Times, 16 Sep 1962; and “Two Top Workers’ Party Men Resign”, The Sunday Times, 16 Sep 1962.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

424

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

425

POLITICS ON THE MARGINS

in September 1962, was re-elected as its secretary-general. Half an hour after his election as chairman, David resigned from the Workers’ Party. David explained his reasons for leaving: The group which I allowed to take control of the party — the industrial Chinese-speaking people — had shown that they are deaf to reason and sense. I am unhappy to say that the Workers’ Party is no longer the appropriate medium for the destination of the concept of Democracy.167

The communist left-wing had succeeded in capturing the party and there was nothing David could do about it but walk out. He remained an independent member for Anson until the Assembly was dissolved in September 1963 for general elections. David’s attempt to stand as an independent in the 1963 elections was a disaster. He faced five other opponents in Anson and was roundly beaten by the PAP’s P. Govindasamy. David secured less than five per cent of the vote and lost his deposit. It was a humiliating defeat, but David would not fade into ignominy. David did in fact harbour hopes of making a political comeback. In 1967, he told a Hong Kong newspaper that he was ready to contest the 1968 general election as an independent Labourite168 but decided against it when his election agent suggested that his platform read too much like the PAP’s.169 In 1970, Gerald de Cruz confronted him with a rumour that he was going to form a new political party with Dr Gwee Ah Leng, Dr Arthur Lim, Dr Phoon Wai Onn, J.B. Jeyaretnam, and E.K. Tan.170 There was probably little basis for this rumour because

167 Soh Tiang Keng, “Marshall Quits as Workers’ Party Chairman”, The Straits Times, 25 Jan 1963. 168 “Marshall ‘ready to stand for next election’ ”, The Straits Times, 23 Nov 1967. 169 Bruce Wilson, “A One-Man Fire Still Burns in the Island”, The Western Australian, 11 Oct 1972. 170 Gerald de Cruz to David Marshall, 25 Nov 1970, DM/366/13.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

425

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

426

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David had, since 1963, come to see himself as a lone opposition independent. In 1976, he made plans to contest Katong constituency as an independent, but gave up the idea after he sustained a lifethreatening sting by a sting-ray while swimming with his son Jonathan. David had to be hospitalized and the two doctors treating him warned him that he had not sufficiently recovered from the sting to withstand the strains of election campaigning. Two years later, David was made ambassador to France — and with that went any remnant of his political ambition.

13 Marshall_S'pore Ch 13

426

11/21/08, 9:14 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the OF THE 427 Institute DOYEN of Southeast AsianBAR Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

14

Doyen of the Bar BACK IN THE LAW

D

avid had returned to legal practice soon after he resigned as chief minister. In November 1956, he was back at his old firm of Battenberg & Talma. It is not known under what terms he returned to the firm, but a partly decipherable entry in his diary in January 1957 suggests that he was ready to branch out on his own. By the middle of 1957, he had established his own firm, David Marshall & Co. at the Bank of China Building. Initially, David operated as a sole practitioner. In 1959, he took on Leo Anthony Joseph (L.A.J.) Smith as partner and the firm became Marshall & Smith. Smith was a tall, fiery Englishman with a bald pate who had been called to Singapore Bar in 1948. At the Bar, Smith had a reputation as a “brainy” lawyer whose command of every case was backed by a thorough knowledge of the law. This partnership did not last long. By 1960, Smith had left and David took on another partner, Chung Kok Soon (better known as K.S. Chung), who had been called to the Bar just eight years before. Chung was the son of Chung Thye Phin, last kapitan of Perak.1 A very capable civil lawyer, Chung stayed with David for two years before striking out on his own. From 1962 1

Chung Thye Phin (1879–1935) was a wealthy miner. Born in Taiping, Perak, he grew up in Penang and was the last of the Kapitan China or Chinese captains of Perak and of Malaya. The title was given to Chinese individuals appointed by local native chiefs and the colonial authorities to mediate between the Chinese population in their respective territories. The title was first used by the Portuguese in Malacca in the sixteenth century.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

427

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

428

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

onwards, the firm was David Marshall & Co. and remained thus until David retired from active practice in 1978. Towards the end of his legal career, David took on two partners, Amarjeet Singh and Mohideen P.H. Rubin, but the firm remained David Marshall & Co. Amarjeet Singh — who was from the first graduating class of the Law Faculty at the University of Malaya in Singapore — joined David as a legal assistant in 1969 following a short career in the Legal Service where he had been magistrate and district judge. He had heard from another criminal lawyer, R. Ramason, that David was looking for assistants interested in criminal practice. Amarjeet applied and was taken on as an assistant or, in Amarjeet’s words, David’s “kaki-tangan man”.2 In 1971, David offered him a partnership and he remained in the firm until David retired.3 Mohideen Rubin became a pupil with David shortly after he graduated in 1966, but interrupted his pupillage to take up an executive position in The Straits Times. In 1973, he decided to resume practice and was welcomed back by David as a pupil. He joined David’s firm as an assistant and two years later, in 1975, was offered a partnership in the firm. Rubin left the firm in 1977 to join the firm of Ironside & De Souza but when David was appointed ambassador to France in 1978, he asked Rubin to return and to take over the firm along with Amarjeet.4 The firm of David Marshall & Co. ceased to exist after 1978 and the business was carried on under the name and style of Amarjeet Rubin & Partners which wound up after its two principal partners were elevated to the bench.5 2

Literally, ‘accomplice’ or ‘accessory’ in Malay.

3

Interview with Amarjeet Singh, 16 Mar 2007.

4

Interview with M.P.H. Rubin, 10 May 2008.

5

Mohideen P.H. Rubin was made judicial commissioner in 1991 and Judge of the Supreme Court in 1994. He retired in 2005 and was appointed Singapore’s ambassador to South Africa. Amarjeet Singh was made judicial commissioner in 1992, a post he held until his retirement in 2000. He has also served as ad litem judge with the UN war crimes tribunal for the Balkans at the Hague.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

428

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

429

DOYEN OF THE BAR

As a politician, David may have been naïve and erratic, but in the law, he was nothing less than brilliant. David’s work ethic and his total dedication to his client’s welfare made him the most respected and sought-after lawyer in town. While his practice was mainly in criminal law, David was equally adept in other fields of law. Indeed, when he first returned to practice after the war, his main practice consisted of marine collision and negligence cases rather than crime. Blessed with a formidable native intelligence and an awesome intellect, David could master any legal topic he needed to. His great respect for research and precedent was tempered by good common sense and logic. David had a creative and original legal mind that, coupled with his almost superhuman capacity for hard work, made him difficult to beat. Of course, a lawyer is only as good as his case. A lawyer cannot be expected to be a magician or miracle worker — if a client comes along with a poor case, there is little his lawyer can do. The wonder of David was that he took on many cases where the situation looked hopeless for the client and turned them around against all the odds. This was what made him famous. There were many who felt that David’s forte was his ability to sway a jury and that when the jury system was abolished in 1969, he faded from the scene. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. While it is true that his most sensational successes came from getting persons accused of murder acquitted in front of juries, he also appeared in numerous appellate cases where seasoned and worldly-wise judges learned in the law were most unlikely to be impressed by big words and sweeping emotions. As Harry Elias puts it: Many would say that David’s success was because of the jury system. This is to ignore the vast plethora of his many non-jury cases, be it civil, appellate, constitutional or administrative law. His research was exhaustive, his expounding immaculate. David Saul Marshall was in every respect the personification of the best there was. Period. End of Story.6 6

Speech of Harry Elias to the Jewish Welfare Board on the occasion of the 100th birth anniversary of David Marshall, 10 Apr 2008, on file with author.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

429

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

430

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Even in the 1950s, David was highly respected for his appellate advocacy. On his retirement as Singapore’s Chief Justice in 1958, Sir John Whyatt — who was serious, dour, and not the easiest of men to please — wrote a most warm note to David, praising him for the quality of his advocacy: I am so very pleased that during the past few months I have had the opportunity on several occasions of listening to your advocacy in the Court of Criminal Appeal. I knew, of course, of your high reputation as a jury advocate but I had not heard so much of your advocacy in appellate work which in my opinion is a much more difficult form of advocacy. I once heard Lord Russell of Killowen7 speak of Simon’s8 advocacy before appellate tribunals, in which he said that, after the first half hour of Simon’s opening, you could usually hear all the members of the tribunal ‘purring’. This form of advocacy is a very subtle art but it is an art nonetheless, and I have no doubt at all, if you will permit me to say so, you have the touch. To me it was a most interesting and stimulating experience to preside over the Court which hear the appeals in which you appeared and I am really sorry that I shall not again have the opportunity of listening to your advocacy.9

In court, if not in political settings, David was the epitome of courtesy and respect. No matter how difficult the hearing or the judge, David remained composed and unflappable and for this he was much liked and respected by the judges. As he recalled:

7

Whyatt was referring to Frank Xavier Joseph Russell (1867–1946), the second Lord Russell of Killowen who was Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. He was the son of Charles Russell, the first Lord Russell of Killowen who was also a Law Lord. His son, Charles Ritchie Russell, was also a Law Lord and became the third Lord Russell of Killowen.

8

Whyatt was referring to Sir John (Viscount) Simon (1874–1954), the leading barrister of his age and twice British Home Secretary, and former Lord Chancellor. Before World War I, Simon was reputed to have made £50,000 annually.

9

Sir John Whyatt to David Marshall, 17 Aug 1958, DM/19/79.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

430

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

431

DOYEN OF THE BAR

You should be courteous but not subservient. Always courteous no matter what you think of the judge. I mean, there were times I’d liked to use Mr Justice Choor Singh for target practice.10 There were times when I had the utmost contempt for some of our magistrates. But never ever did I show it by word or act. For me, it wasn’t the individual, it was the post. And whilst in the court, I was the soul of courtesy. But the public realized I was not afraid, and that I would fight as hard as any human being could for their welfare, and that I’d act honestly towards them.11

Quite naturally, his opponents were less enamoured by him, being the butt of his cross-examination and attacks. By the time David returned to practice in 1956, his reputation at the Bar was second to none, especially in criminal matters. ACQUIRING IN - LAWS

On 3 April, 1961, to the surprise of many, an article entitled “Marshall to Wed” appeared in The Straits Times.12 At this time, David was already fifty-three years old and most of his closest friends and relatives had assumed that he would be a confirmed bachelor. David, as successful lawyer, former chief minister, and man about town certainly had no shortage of women admirers and friends. Indeed, one entry in his diary of 1 January, 1953 contained a New Year’s resolution to “reduce feminine attachments” and dedicate “more nights to work”.13 David was reputedly romantically linked to various women but this was to be expected for someone as gregarious, friendly, and generous as he. As L.A. Sheridan, founding dean of the Law Faculty at the

10 Despite these strong words, Marshall and Singh were in fact life-long friends and had tremendous respect for each other. 11 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 25 (Singapore: National Archives). 12 “Marshall to Wed”, The Straits Times, 3 Apr 1961. 13 David Marshall’s diary, 1 Jan 1953.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

431

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

432

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

University of Malaya, recalled, [o]ne could not but admire the way in which he attracted attractive women”.14 The woman he had picked to be his life’s mate was Jean Mary Gray, a lecturer in the Department of Social Work at the University of Singapore. Gray was born in 1926 in England and educated at the London School of Economics where she had obtained a degree in Economics and Sociology. She had worked briefly as an almoner (the old name for medical social worker) at the London Brompton Hospital in London before coming to Malaya to join the Red Cross as a field officer in Pahang in 1953.15 She had returned to London upon the completion of her one-year contract and spent time there recuperating from amoebic dysentery which she had contracted while in Pahang. Jean returned to Malaya in 1955 after obtaining a job in the colonial service and served as a medical social worker in the Selangor Medical Department in Kuala Lumpur where she worked for two years before accepting a lectureship at the Department of Social Work at the University of Malaya in Singapore.16 David had met Jean at a university convocation some time in 1959. As David himself told the press when their engagement was announced: Two years ago, I attended a University of Malaya convocation ceremony as a lecturer in criminal law. I saw her among the academic staff. She looked most attractive in her academic dress. I asked for an introduction and was duly introduced. That’s all.17

For a master wordsmith and loquacious raconteur, this was sparse comment indeed. The outgoing, flamboyant lawyer was laconic and

14 L.A. Sheridan to Kevin Tan, 6 May 2008, on file with author. 15 Oral History Interview, Mrs Jean Marshall née Gray, 3 May 1995, Reel 1 (Singapore: National Archives). 16 Ibid., Reel 2. 17 “Marshall to Wed”, The Straits Times, 3 Apr 1961.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

432

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

433

DOYEN OF THE BAR

almost bashful when he made the announcement. Jean remembers the meeting rather more vividly: How I met David is really rather a comic story. David used to teach in the Law Department for a dollar a year because he was very keen that there should be local training for lawyers. Not all Singapore senior lawyers at the time thought this but he had been behind the foundation of the Law Department from the beginning and he used to teach criminal practice … We had students getting their diplomas in the morning. So we all dressed up and went to convocation in the morning. Then our boss, Miss Jean Robertson said, ‘I expect you all to come in the afternoon as well as show your solidarity with other departments.’ As we had no choice we groaned but duly went in the afternoon too. And David and I noticed each other on that occasion and he always says that he enjoyed making me blush, sitting on the other side of the room. And then he asked somebody who knew me to introduce us and that’s how we met.18

It was love at first sight for Jean and David would go a-courting to her lecturer’s quarters in Dunearn Road. It was, as Jean recalled, rather awkward: He used to come and see me after his lectures. He used to come and see me at my house in Dunearn Road. Now my house in Dunearn Road was right at the far corner of the compound. If you know the Dunearn Road compound, you know you go in one gate and you drive or walk past a large number of houses in which students live until you get to the few staff houses in the corner. And David had a very distinctive car.

David’s distinctive car was a bright yellow, Jaguar, open-top car with a number plate that read SF1171. Indeed, David thought it a rather cute idea to own a yellow car at a time when the PAP government was attacking “yellow culture”.19 He and Jean found

18 Oral History Interview, Mrs Jean Marshall née Gray, 3 May 1995, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives). 19 Interview with Mrs Jean Marshall, 16 Jan 2008.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

433

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

434

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

much in common and would talk about all sorts of things, have tea, go to the cinema, and watch plays. Much as they were in love, David did not ask Jean for her hand in marriage until Jean’s contract with the university was about to come to an end in 1961 and when she was about to leave to pursue her masters degree at the University of Chicago (on a half-scholarship). The couple was engaged at the end of February 1961. Being still in government service and under expatriate terms, Jean would have had to seek official permission to get married and David would not condone this. They decided to wait until the expiry of her contract, since David “was not going to have LKY or anyone in government giving him permission to marry”.20 They announced their engagement on 2 April and were married on 5 April, 1961. In the meantime, David had written to Jean’s parents who gave their consent. They decided on a civil wedding since Jean was a Christian and a Jewish wedding was out of the question. Two days prior to the registry wedding, Jean stayed at the home of the Methodist bishop Hobart Amstutz where a private service was performed.21 On 5 April, David and Jean were married by Registrar Chan Kok Min in a simple ceremony at the Registry of Marriages. As Jean’s parents were not in Singapore, Professor Alexander Oppenheim, David’s old friend and vice-chancellor of the University of Malaya, gave away the bride.22 Also present at the wedding were David’s brothers Sonny (who was best man) and Meyer (who himself had married the year before) and his sister, Rose. After the ceremony, the couple drove to the airport to embark on a plane for Bangkok where they began the first leg of their honeymoon.

20 Oral History Interview, Mrs Jean Marshall née Gray, 3 May 1995, Reel 4 (Singapore: National Archives). 21 Ibid. 22 “David Marshall Kisses Bride”, The Straits Times, 6 Apr 1961.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

434

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

435

DOYEN OF THE BAR

The Marshalls’ honeymoon did not go according to plan. After spending a week in Bangkok, Jean was to fly to London and buy a car that they would use to drive around the United Kingdom and Europe for a few weeks. David had to dash back to Penang to deal with a pending murder case before joining Jean in London some ten days later. However, there was a retrial and Justice Rigby refused to postpone the case, so Jean had to fly back to Penang to be with David. Later that year, they went to Bali for a short vacation.23 The marriage took most people by surprise. David had been a bachelor for fifty-three years of his life. Earlier in his life, he had courted Miss Rose Solomon assiduously in London while studying for his law degree, but she had turned him down as he was financially unstable. In later years, in appreciation for the kindness Rose and her family had shown him in London, he bought a house for Rose and her widowed mother. Rose never married. Then there was the reputed courtship of a Miss Sophie Abbett, an adopted daughter of Manasseh Meyer. But David decided with the onset of war that he should not get married. After the war, David had given not the slightest indication that he intended to settle down with any of the women whose names occasionally cropped up alongside his. Those around him had simply assumed that the painful experience of seeing his parents’ marriage dissolve into hostile indifference and the failed marriages of brothers Sonny and Reg had put him off marriage completely. In any case, he had been a bachelor for far too long — or so everyone thought! But as with most things concerning David, he was apt to surprise. Having reached the pinnacle of his career and public life, he now decided that he wanted a wife and a family and he needed someone who was his intellectual equal, who had good maternal instincts, and who would be a suitable mother for his children. He had not given up on love and Jean was his choice.

23 Email communication with Mrs Jean Marshall, 26 Jun 2008.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

435

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

436

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David and Jean lost no time. Ruth was born on 13 December, 1961, and was followed a year later by Sara on 30 December, 1962. Their third daughter, Joanna was born on 24 October, 1964, and after two miscarriages, Jonathan, their only son, was born on 24 April, 1969. Jonathan was a sickly child and there was a danger that he would not survive. He suffered from hyaline membrane disease which brought on breathing problems. The Marshalls were at first also told that he suffered from a congenital heart condition and that, even if he survived, he would be permanently invalid. It was “an agonizing time” but that soon passed and Jonathan’s health improved as he grew older.24 In an interview concerning the changing roles of women in society, Jean described herself as coming from the last generation “which happily and with a sense of rightness gives up either temporarily or permanently a professional or semi-professional career on becoming wife and mother”.25 She ran a growing household in Changi that included a driver, a cook, a maid, a gardener and his wife, and Jean’s old helper, Bibi. For someone used to a life of independence with practically no accountability to anyone for his actions, David found the roles of father and husband very challenging. He had absolutely no idea on how children should be brought up and tended to over-indulge them. As Jean recalled: He has been very close to the children. He discovered children’s nursery rhymes and children’s stories. His family was Arabicspeaking in his childhood and he had never had them. … he would also make up stories to tell them. When they were older he would tell them gory stories about his cases. And story-telling and being read to by father was very much a feature of the children’s lives. He

24 David Marshall to Walter Raeburn, 13 May 1969, DM/222/24. 25 Oral History Interview, Mrs Jean Marshall née Gray, 3 May 1995, Reel 3 (Singapore: National Archives).

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

436

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

437

DOYEN OF THE BAR

discovered Dr Seuss with them and had a great deal of fun and enrichment himself, and the children by their story telling together. He was not a man who did much in terms of practical care or domestic work. He just never had the slightest skill in that field. But he wasn’t brought up that way. He would carry the children at night if they yelled. He cannot bear children yelling even if they are somebody else’s child. It really is something he cannot bear. I can be a bit harder sometimes but no child could ever cry without having Bibi or Daddy or me coming to rescue it from whatever it was. And if the children cried at night and wouldn’t sleep, he would carry them and walk up and down, which according to some childcare people, was not a very good thing to do. But it’s what he wanted to do and felt, it was a proper thing to do and there was not much point opposing something which goes as deep as that. The children always had the feeling that he was at their disposal. He indulged them. He couldn’t easily say no to them on many things. This is not the first time a mother felt she was left with all the hard discipline, which was often the case in our family!26

David came to fatherhood very late in life and sometimes acted more like a grandfather than a father. He was always on the lookout for good books and movies for his children and once even wrote to the Department of Broadcasting of the Ministry of Culture to suggest the acquisition of the ground-breaking Sesame Street programmes for children in Singapore, a move no doubt motivated by his belief — as a father — that good television programmes for children were important.27 And in 1968, while travelling in Australia, he chanced on some children playing gleefully on a trampoline. After many weeks of enquiries, he ordered a trampoline that he donated to the Good Shepherd Kindergarten, which the girls were attending.28

26 Ibid., Reel 4. 27 Lee Hoong Fong to David Marshall, 3 Dec 1969, DM/unclassified; Raymond T.H. Huang to David Marshall, 4 Dec 1969, DM/unclassified; and David Marshall to Raymond T.H. Huang, 9 Dec 1969, DM/unclassified. 28 Mrs M. Ho to David Marshall, 10 Jun 1968, DM/221/34b.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

437

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

438

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David was an “old-fashioned Asian husband” in many ways, expecting respect as the head of the household and having the lion’s share in any major decision. But he was not old-fashioned in the sense of requiring Jean to be homebound and to run her life around his.29 Jean admitted to being “an old-fashioned person” and was content to play a supporting role in the relationship. She did not develop a new social life that was independent of David and their children. Nonetheless, Jean found time and energy to do substantial voluntary work with the Singapore Children’s Society over a long period of time. A woman of strong intellect and ability, she and David had differences, but these were never aired in public: I am an old-fashioned person in many ways and David had a public career and I saw my role as a background one, socially. I am not given to being silent when I have views of my own. And David has never required me to agree with him when I didn’t, but I would not see it as very acceptable to disagree with him in public or on social occasions though I might do so privately. This sounds very unequal and perhaps it is and was, but I wasn’t inhibited from seeing and feeling that the husband was head of the outfit.30

Unlike Jean, who had been brought up in a fairly traditional, middleclass English family, David had struck out on his own from a young age. His parents’ marriage was not a successful one and his mother had practically placed him on a pedestal, while ignoring the rest of his siblings. From a young age, David was used to getting his way and his charm, persuasiveness, and lovable personality often led others to give in to him as well. There was not a bone of domestication in David’s body. He was not even capable of ironing his own trousers or brewing his own coffee. This lack of domestication spilled over into other aspects of his life as well. While he certainly doted on his family,

29 Ibid., Reel 6. 30 Ibid.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

438

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

439

DOYEN OF THE BAR

lavishing them with all the attention he could muster and satisfying their material needs, he often found family life difficult. For a public figure like David, who was used to the idea of going out into the world, debating big ideas, being counselled on matters of international importance, defending the underdog, saving men from the gallows, and inspiring law students to do the same, coming home to deal with mundane issues like whether the lawn was mowed or whether there was enough food for the next Sunday’s lunch was something he could never get used to. As the first-born in his own family who had assumed great responsibility very early on, he could also never understand the difficulties of adolescence as he had never gone through them himself. What was more, the first three of his children were girls and he could not understand the traumatic difficulties of adolescent girls growing up in the libertarian and permissive atmosphere of the 1960s and 1970s. David and Jean did have problems with their feisty daughters — it was, after all, a household of five individuals with strong, brainy personalities. Jonathan was somewhat sickly and withdrawn in his early years and was only nine years old in 1978 when the family left for France.31 David never hankered for the “marble palaces with swimming pools” that most able lawyers did. He was a big earner and a big spender and had always been prepared to give it all up for his ideals. He had, after all, abandoned an extremely lucrative career as Singapore’s top criminal lawyer for a political career that was over in all of fourteen months. And there was never any doubt that David would risk all again if the cause was right. He had an abstract notion of Singapore and what it stood for and was prepared to fight for these abstract principles in any way he could, even being prepared to go to jail for his beliefs if necessary. As his son Jonathan recalled,

31 Interview with Jonathan Marshall, 15 May 2008.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

439

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

440

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David thought it a reasonable price to pay.32 Jean, on the other hand, was primarily concerned with her duties and responsibilities as a wife and mother, in which security and familial stability were paramount. These divergences of concern were the cause of considerable tension at times, but there were also elements of a true partnership. In his later years, as his health deteriorated, David often drew on Jean’s perceptions and memory. The marriage lasted thirty-four years until David’s death in 1995. At the time of David’s death, they had two grandchildren — Miriam and Lola Rosenbaum, who were Ruth’s daughters.33 MAKING THE LAW

Over a career that spanned forty-one years, David handled hundreds of cases. A full study of his cases would be beyond the scope of this volume. Furthermore, a detailed study of his cases is made all the more difficult as most of the case files are no longer available. A perusal of the Malayan Law Journal, Singapore’s main law report from 1932 to 1989, yields 128 cases in which David appeared as counsel. The bulk of 82 cases were in criminal law, evidence, and criminal procedure.34 Of the rest, fifteen were in constitutional and administrative law, four each in contract, revenue or tax law, family and matrimonial law, and labour law. There were also a few cases in Muslim law, the legal profession, landlord and tenant, and election law. 32 Ibid. 33 Subsequently, Jean’s grandchildren have included Isis (born in 1997) and Anna (1999) — from Ruth’s marriage to Randall Koral — and Isla (2003) and Sara Rose (2005) — from Joanna’s marriage to Daniel Casson. Sara and Jonathan remain single at the time of writing. 34 In all, sixty-nine reported cases were primarily on criminal law, seven on issues of evidence in criminal cases, and sixteen on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

440

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

441

DOYEN OF THE BAR

Not all cases get reported in the law reports. Indeed, only cases that create new precedent or in which novel points of law are argued and decided upon find favour with the law report editors. As most criminal trials involve questions of fact rather than questions of law, most of David’s most famous cases — Nonis, Thanamani, and Watts-Carter — were not reported, but are captured only in contemporaneous press accounts and in the court records. In that respect, Alex Josey has done us a great service by collating four of David’s major cases with a selection of less sensational ones and publishing them in his book The David Marshall Trials.35 David’s legendary court craft, trial techniques, and case preparation have already been discussed in Chapter 8. In the words of Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, David was undoubtedly the greatest criminal advocate that has ever graced the halls of justice in Singapore and Malaya: a giant among pygmies at the criminal Bar, including the prosecutors. If Marshall had practiced in England, he would have been another Edward MarshallHall,36 definitely greater on a verdict count of acquittals.37

David never saw it as his role to judge a client. The judge was the proper person to pronounce the guilt of an accused. His starting

35 Alex Josey, The David Marshall Trials (Singapore: Times Editions, 1981), now available in a 2008 reprint by Marshall-Cavendish. 36 Sir Edward Marshall-Hall (1858–1927) was the most celebrated defence advocate in his time. His huge success in a large number of sensational murder trials led to his being called “The Great Defender”. Marshall-Hall was a great performer and an actor and his persuasive skills were legendary. However, unlike David Marshall, he was not reputed to have had a very strong grounding in the law, relying on his assistants to do his legal research. 37 Chan Sek Keong, “David Marshall and the Law: Some Reflections on His Contribution to Criminal and Civil Justice in Singapore”, speech delivered at David Marshall — His Life and Legacy, a Symposium in Commemoration of the 100th Birth Anniversary of Mr David Marshall, 12 Mar 2008, Shangrila Hotel, Singapore.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

441

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

442

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

point was that he was the client’s agent and he would always ask the client what he wanted the court to hear. As David explained: we are not Father Confessor, we are a conduit pipe, doing the best we can with what the accused wants to tell the court.38

In the strongest traditions of the Bar, David felt that he was dutybound to accept any case that came before him. In a thoughtful note to his old friend Punch Coomaraswamy in 1969, David wrote: I have always acted on the basis that I am normally bound to accept any brief however intensely I may dislike it, and only once in my 32 years in the profession have I refused a brief. That was when Ong Eng Guan wanted me to act for him in a matter relative to his political activities and I feared that the public inquiry might be transformed into a a political circus. I was so anxious about the propriety of my conduct that I went to Kuala Lumpur and saw Sir James Thomson, then Lord President, who advised me that I could technically plead that I have never appeared before tribunals of inquiry, which was true, and on balance he felt that if any charge was pressed against me by the Bar Committee I would find myself in considerable difficulty unless I could satisfy them that I had good grounds for my conviction that the parties were seeking to utilize the hearings before the tribunal as a platform for adumbrating political animosities. Fortunately, Ong Eng Guan did not report me to the Bar Committee.39

David would never lie to the court and if indeed a client confessed his crime to him, he would immediately urge the client to plead guilty and he would prepare the mitigation plea. David always told his pupils and assistants, “Never ask the client if he is guilty.” The job of an advocate is not to get at the truth of a matter, but to represent the client to his best ability, to tell the client’s version of what transpired. Through the adversarial process, the court would then be in the best

38 David Marshall, “Some Thoughts on Legal Ethics”, Singapore Law Review 6 (1985): 83. 39 David Marshall to P. Coomaraswamy, 31 Mar 1968, DM/377/49/1–2.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

442

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

443

DOYEN OF THE BAR

position to determine what happened and then pronounce on the guilt of the accused. Not everyone could internalize this logic. Tommy Koh, who worked for a year with David in 1961–1962, decided to abandon practice because he was sometimes not convinced that the client they had just got acquitted was in fact innocent.40 As so many of David’s clients were charged for murder — which attracted the death sentence — David had no issue with getting them acquitted, so greatly was he repulsed by the death penalty. It hit him so much in the gut that it mattered far less to David whether the accused had committed the crime than whether or not the state hanged him for it: I react negatively to the death sentence. And I react very vividly. And you know, the last day of a murder trial, I can’t even eat. I sometimes can’t even swallow a glass of milk … bite half a sandwich. It has happened. I am so tensed up. And when it’s over, and there is an acquittal, it’s like a cold shower. I am re-born.41

Geoffrey Abishenagaden, whom David had hired as his very first assistant in 1952, recalled how when arguing a murder case, David would get so tense that he would clench his fists tightly until his palms bled.42 Later on, David took to keeping a piece of jade in his pocket, so that he had something to hold onto in these moments of great stress and anxiety. As Jean Marshall explained, it was not a lucky charm or trinket and David would offer it to anyone who asked about it. He just wanted something cool and soothing to hold onto, such was the tension.43

40 Interview with Tommy Koh, 7 Apr 2008. 41 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 23 (Singapore: National Archives). 42 Interview with Geoffrey Abisheganaden, 2 Oct 2006. 43 Conversation with Jean Marshall, Teo Soh Lung, and Charles Tan, 28 Feb 2008.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

443

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

444

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David’s dedication to his client sometimes got him into difficult and sticky situations. One of his most difficult and persistent opponents was Abdul Wahab Ghows (later solicitor-general and judge of the Supreme Court). In the Wee Toon Boon case, Mohideen Rubin, who was assisting David, recalled: The court room was always full, half of it with law students, chambering pupils and lawyers, who came to watch the spectacle of an epic duel between the legendary David Marshall and equally an extremely combative and resourceful Wahab Ghows, the SolicitorGeneral. I was, well before the commencement of this long and absorbing trial, advised by Amarjeet to ensure that I occupied a seat between Marshall and Ghows, for Amarjeet was apprehensive of an unwelcome blow-up between the two old adversaries. True to expectation, the climate during the trial did lend itself to some very heated exchanges between the two, sometimes during proceedings and sometimes during the breaks. In fact, there was an occasion during a lunch break when Marshall challenged Ghows to fisticuffs over an acerbic comment by Ghows in reply to an early remark by Marshall. Loh Lin Kok, the DPP who assisted Ghows and I managed to bring the temper down before it could get worse.44

After he retired, David was asked if he had ever regretted defending any person. He named only one — Sunny Ang — who was eventually convicted for the murder of his girlfriend, Jenny Cheok, during a diving trip off the Sisters Islands in an insurance scam in 1963.45 Ang’s mother had come to David some time in 1960 to engage him to defend her son, who had been arrested for burglary. When David met Ang, he asked Ang what his defence was and the reply shocked him: I sent for them. And I said to him, ‘Here’s the report. What is your defence? And he said, ‘You tell me what to say. That’s what I pay you for.’ Oh boy! I’ve never ever been known for my sweet temper. But did I blast! And I think the poor mother … I can still recollect her face. She suddenly, I think, felt I was going to hit him although he 44 Interview with M.P.H. Rubin, 10 May 2008. 45 See Sunny Ang v. Public Prosecutor [1966] 2 MLJ 195; see also Alex Josey, The Trial of Sunny Ang (Singapore: Federal Publications, 1973).

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

444

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

445

DOYEN OF THE BAR

was a much younger man than I. But I bawled at them. And my Chief Clerk rushed in and somebody rushed in. ‘Get that man out of here! Take him and his mother out of here!’

Ang’s mother returned about a week later and pleaded with David to act for her son. This time, David told her that he would act only if he agreed to plead guilty, as he was not prepared to take instructions from a man he did not trust. They appeared before Choor Singh in the First District Court and David made an impassioned plea on Ang’s behalf, telling the court that Ang was a “poor young man of considerable ability buffeted between … an almost inhuman father and an over-indulgent mother and not knowing where he stood”. After forty minutes, Choor Singh accepted David’s plea: And I remember old Choor Singh, at the end of some 40 minutes, saying, ‘I’ve heard your client’s … your Counsel’s moving plea. I don’t know whether what I’m doing is right, but I will accede to his appeal for clemency. And I give you a conditional discharge, subject to two years’ probation. … And I remember going home and saying to my wife, ‘Today I got a man off, I think I’m going to live to regret it.’ And she remembers that.46 I felt that I had wasted myself on a man who didn’t deserve it.47

Although David did not defend Sunny Ang on the murder charge, he handled his petition for clemency after all appeals had failed. Ang was hanged on 6 February, 1967. Forensic skills can only be taught and honed up to a point. The greatest advocates, like David, are blessed with a rare and precious talent that is pressed into service for their clients. That facet of advocacy can never be taught nor passed from one generation to another. What then is David’s legacy in law today as it is studied and practised? Lawyers do not, as a matter of course, set out to make new

46 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 23 (Singapore: National Archives). 47 Ibid., Reel 24.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

445

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

446

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

law or to persuade judges to make new law. The legal profession is by and large, a conservative calling and if justice can be done without resort to changing the law, lawyers and judges will find innovative ways around difficult situations. In Singapore’s common law system, all cases have some kind of value as precedent and as any courtroom lawyer will happily confess, it is far easier to win a case by citing authoritative precedents and persuading the court that they apply in the case at hand. But when hemmed in by difficult facts and adverse precedents, the best lawyers will reason from basic principles and try to persuade the judges that the law should be changed or, at the very least, applied differently. Criminal Law Of David’s eighty-two reported cases on criminal law, fifteen are cited in the leading casebook on criminal law in Singapore: Criminal Law in Singapore and Malaysia: Text and Materials.48 They are used to illustrate important criminal law concepts and principles that continue to be studied by students to this day. What this means is that the arguments raised and considered in these cases have a substantial bearing on how the law is interpreted and applied today. Take for example the case of Tan Cheng Eng William v. PP,49 which went all the way up to the Court of Criminal Appeal. In that case, Tan, who was upset that his girlfriend had broken off their relationship, tailed the car she was riding in over a long stretch of road from Changi Beach to Bedok in so reckless a manner that he actually rammed into the car, causing it to zigzag diagonally across the road and kill a motorcyclist coming in the opposite direction. Tan was charged with murder under section 300 of the Penal Code. David successfully argued that to succeed in a charge of murder,50 the prosecution had to 48 See K.L. Koh, C.M.V. Clarkson, and N.A. Morgan, Criminal Law in Singapore and Malaysia: Text and Materials (Singapore: Malayan Law Journal, 1989). 49 Tan Cheng Eng, William v. PP [1969–1971] SLR 115. 50 See “Quashed: Death Sentence on William”, The Straits Times, 13 Feb 1970.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

446

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

447

DOYEN OF THE BAR

prove not only that the act would in all probability cause death but that Tan knew, when committing the act, that “it was so imminently dangerous that it would in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death”.51 Guilt thus turns on whether the court adopts an objective perspective of the offence or a subjective one. In this case, the Court of Criminal Appeal held that it was a subjective test. In other words, it did not matter whether the act appeared to any objective bystander that it would in all probability cause death. What mattered was whether William Tan, the driver and the accused, knew that it would in all probability cause death. This interpretation thus increases the burden of proof on the prosecution when charging someone with an offence of murder. Points like these are certainly much less interesting to the lay reader than the facts of the case and the way in which the lawyer gets the client off, but they are of great significance to students and practitioners of law. Several of these fifteen reported cases are not only noteworthy for the points of law they embody but were also sensational because of their factual situations or the personalities involved. One of these was the Mimi Wong case.52 In January 1970, Mimi Wong, a cabaret waitress, was charged alongside her estranged husband, Sim Woh Kum for the murder of one Mrs Watanabe, wife of Mimi Wong’s lover, Hiroshi Watanabe. This case seized the imaginations of Singaporeans, as lurid details of the affair between Wong and Watanabe were revealed in open court. David, who did not represent Wong at the trial, was engaged to handle the appeal. David lost both the appeal and the clemency petition and Mimi Wong was hanged. It hurt David deeply that he had lost this case. Charles Tan, who assisted David with the case, recalled how he was in the foulest of moods when he heard that he had lost the appeal and refused to talk to anyone for a long while. It was not because he had lost, but because someone was going to be hanged — David’s pathological aversion to the death 51 Ibid, at 118. 52 Wong Mimi & Anor v. Public Prosecutor [1972–1974] SLR 73.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

447

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

448

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

penalty tied his stomach up in knots. David was also very concerned about Mimi Wong’s young children and offered the family some financial assistance after the case.53 Beyond its sensational facts, the Mimi Wong case also concerned several important points of law, such as the requirements for common intention under section 34 of the Penal Code and the validity of mental illness in arguments of diminished responsibility. One of the arguments David raised on appeal was that Mimi Wong was suffering from encephalitis — an inflammation of the brain — to the extent that it had impaired her judgement at the time of the offence. The appeal was dismissed but the Court of Criminal Appeal made an important point, that even though Mimi Wong might have been suffering from encephalitis, it was not advanced enough at the time of the commission of the offence to have impaired her judgement to such an extent to render her non-culpable. David did not always argue purely from precedent. He often adopted very commonsensical and logical arguments but these did not always find favour with the court. One example is the triptych of cases — all heard at the Court of Criminal Appeal level — concerning the defence of “grave and sudden provocation” in murder cases. The first of these was Vijayan v. PP 54 in which the appellant, a Malaysian, was convicted for the murder of one Murthi. The nub of the case concerned the question of whether or not there was a need for a “reasonable relationship” between the act of provocation and the retaliation that ensued. In other words, must the act of retaliation be proportionate to the degree of “grave and sudden provocation”. David argued assiduously — and one might add, quite logically — that “the requirement of a reasonable relationship between the act of provocation and the act of retaliation was illogical and unjust because if the provocation was in the circumstances of the case sufficiently

53 Interview with Charles Tan, 28 Feb 2008. 54 Vijayan v Public Prosecutor [1975–1977] SLR 100.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

448

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

449

DOYEN OF THE BAR

grave and sudden to cause the appellant to lose control of himself he could not be expected to control his retaliation”.55 This argument was rejected and the appeal dismissed. David made the same argument in N. Govindasamy v. PP 56 and Wo Yok Ling v. PP.57 The public also found many of David’s cases fascinating or memorable because of the facts or the personalities involved. Among these were Maria Menado,58 the famous Cathay-Keris film star of Pontianak59 fame who later became the wife of the Sultan of Pahang; Wee Toon Boon,60 the former Minister of State for the Environment, who was charged for corruption; Tan Kheng Ann alias Robert Black,61 leader of the Pulau Senang rioters;62 Chua Ho Ann, the former 55 Ibid., p. 107. 56 N. Govindasamy v. Public Prosecutor [1975–1977] SLR 165. 57 Wo Yok Ling v. Public Prosecutor [1978–1979] SLR 78. 58 See Re Maria Menado (1964) 30 MLJ 266. 59 Cathay-Keris made a series of five movies about the Pontianak or Malay vampire. Maria Menado, whose real name is Liesbet Dotulong, played the lead role in all five movies, the first four of which were written for her by her first husband, A. Razak Sheikh Ahmad. 60 See Wee Toon Boon v. Public Prosecutor [1975–1977] SLR 498. 61 See Tan Kheng Ann & Ors v. The Public Prosecutor [1965] 2 MLJ 108. 62 The Pulau Senang case was Singapore’s largest ever criminal trial when fifty-eight persons were charged with rioting and murder on the penal rehabilitation island of Pulau Senang. The penal experiment began in May 1960 with fifty detainees and grew to 320 over the next three years. The underlying ethos was that detainees can be reformed through hard work and meaningful labour. On 12 Jul, 1963, a group of between seventy and ninety detainees burned down most of the buildings on the island and murdered Superintendent Dutton and two other officers. A special dock had to be constructed for the accused and the trial ran for an unprecedented sixty-four days. On 12 Mar 1964, the seven-member jury found 18 of them guilty of murder; 18 guilty of rioting with deadly weapons; and 11 guilty of rioting. The rioting brought to an end an idealistic, humanistic experiment. See Alex Josey, Pulau Senang: The Experiment that Failed (Singapore: Times Books, 1980).

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

449

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

450

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Chinese community leader and Justice of the Peace who was denied his citizenship; Onkar Nath Shrian,63 the mysterious Brazilian “businessman” who was rumoured to be in Singapore to marry the newly crowned Miss Singapore, Christina Lee, and, was charged for cheating; and Gopal Chjandra Kar Choudhury,64 former chairman of the local listed company Ben & Company, who faced 112 charges for share manipulation (incidentally the last reported case in which David appeared).65 David’s reputation was so formidable and his services so much in demand that he often found himself travelling the length and breadth of the Malay peninsula and Borneo, even arguing cases over weekends when these courts sat. There was one occasion when David was in court for an unprecedented ninety-three consecutive days. To stem the demand, David decided to raise his fees so that much as he hated charging exorbitant fees, he became the most expensive criminal lawyer in town. But that did not work — as with luxury consumer items, people seemed to demand more of his services as the price went up. David’s awesome reputation even led to “defensive” moves by the families of murder victims. As Michael Hwang recalled: His fame and effectiveness as a defence lawyer was such that he was getting briefs from the families of the victims in murder trials to hold a watching brief for them simply so that he would not be available to act for the accused, as the families feared that he might get the accused off. The best example of this was the Gene Koh

63 See Re Onkar Shrian [1969–1971] SLR 274. See also “Romance Denied, Shrian in Court on Fraud Charge”, The Eastern Sun, 13 Jul 1969. 64 Choudhury v. Public Prosecutor [1980–1981] SLR 293 (High Court); and Public Prosecutor v. Choudhury [1980–1981] SLR 146 (Court of Criminal Appeal). 65 Choudhury was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, being the first person to be convicted for insider trading under the Companies Act. See “Choudhury Gets Nine Months”, The Straits Times, 3 Aug 1978.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

450

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

451

DOYEN OF THE BAR

murder trial66 where Freddy Tan was tried for the murder of Gene Koh, and the victim’s family paid a huge sum to David for a watching brief for a long trial. As a result, the accused was represented by SK Lee (generally considered the next best criminal lawyer) who managed to get a verdict of diminished responsibility returned by the jury by introducing psychiatric evidence from several visiting psychiatrists who were in Singapore for a medical conference and had come to court as spectators for the case. This verdict was considered by the Government as a perversion of justice (possibly at the instigation Gene Koh’s father, who was a PAP supporter) and was one of the catalysts for the abolition of the jury system.67

Constitutional and Administrative Law It is perhaps in the field of constitutional and administrative law that David had the opportunity to be at his most creative and original. As Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong opined, David “was certainly the best public law (i.e. constitutional and administrative law) advocate of the day”.68 Having drafted numerous constitutions for trade unions and political parties and having been so much a part of Singapore’s developing constitutional framework, David was at home with constitutional arguments — something few of today’s lawyers seem to be — and often came up with subtle, clever, novel, and original

66 In January 1968, Gene Koh, son of millionaire Koh Bock Thye, managing director of Hindhede Co. Ltd. was murdered in Old Thomson Road. Freddy Tan Seng Keng, an unemployed advertising graduate, was charged with his murder. 67 Email communication with Michael Hwang, 21 Apr 2008, on file with author. 68 Chan Sek Keong, “David Marshall and the Law: Some Reflections on His Contribution to Criminal and Civil Justice in Singapore”, speech delivered at David Marshall — His Life and Legacy, a Symposium in Commemoration of the 100th Birth Anniversary of Mr David Marshall), 12 Mar 2008, Shangrila Hotel, Singapore.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

451

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

452

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

arguments on constitutional interpretation. The main cases in this regard concern the subject of preventive detention and the writ of habeas corpus.69 Interestingly, quite a number of these cases came under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance (PPSO) that David himself had taken through the Legislative Assembly while he was chief minister. The first of these cases was Re Choo Jee Jeng. David challenged the validity of the PPSO by arguing that it was ultra vires the Legislative Assembly established in 1955. In other words, the Legislative Assembly — in which David himself served as chief minister — had no power to enact the PPSO, because it “was a subordinate legislature and the legislature of a fully sovereign state and as such had no extra-territorial jurisdiction”.70 It was an original argument, founded on the principle that only a sovereign state had the power to enact legislation affecting actions taking place outside its territory. Mr Justice Ambrose rejected the argument on the ground that the proper test for the validity of section 3(1) of the PPSO — the relevant section in consideration — was whether it had in fact been enacted “for the peace, order and good government of the Colony”. If it was, it did not matter whether it coincidentally dealt with matters outside Singapore.71 Two other preventive detention cases in which David appeared — and lost — have become landmark decisions: Karam Singh v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri v. Malaysia;72 and Lee Mau Seng v. Minister for Home Affairs, Singapore & Another.73 In the first case, Karam Singh — a lawyer and legal adviser to several organizations 69 A prerogative writ to secure the liberty of a subject. It literally means ‘produce the body’. 70 Ibid., p. 218. 71 Ibid., p. 219. 72 Karam Singh v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri v. Malaysia [1969] 2 MLJ 129. 73 [1969–1971] SLR 508.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

452

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

453

DOYEN OF THE BAR

including the Malayan Workers’ Welfare Society and the Socialist Youth League — was detained under the Internal Security Act “to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of public order or essential services therein”. David challenged the detention order based on the fact that the detention order had stated three grounds in the alternative, while the grounds supplied to Karam Singh had stated only one ground. This, argued David, demonstrated a casual and cavalier attitude on the part of the detaining authority that showed that they had not given the matter adequate consideration and that this invalidated the detention order. He further argued that the allegations of fact were vague, insufficient, and irrelevant and that this made it difficult for Karam Singh to make proper representations to the Advisory Board. The Federal Court rejected both arguments, holding that the defect was procedural rather than substantial in nature, and upheld the detention order, maintaining that the sufficiency or relevancy of facts to warrant a detention lay solely in the province of the executive and was not reviewable by a court of law.74 The other important point established by the Federal Court in Karam Singh was that in any allegation of bad faith or mala fides, the onus of proof fell on the person making the allegation to prove bad faith. Lee Mau Seng was former general manager of the Chinese daily Nanyang Siang Pau (owned and controlled by his family). On Sunday, 2 May, 1971, Lee, together with Shamsuddin Tung Tao Chang, the paper’s editor-in-chief, and Ly Singko, its senior editorial writer, were picked up and detained under the Internal Security Act for “consciously knowingly and willingly, [having] veered the editorial policy” of his paper to “glamourizing Communism” and “stirring up communal and chauvinistic sentiments over Chinese language, education and culture”. David raised two key issues in his application for habeas 74 Ibid., p. 151.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

453

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

454

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

corpus: first, that the lapse of twenty days from the date of Lee’s arrest to the time he was allowed to consult his lawyer was a violation of his constitutional rights under Article 9; and second, that the detention order was ambiguous and ultra vires because the allegations of fact were “vague, inadequate and irrelevant” and the detention order had been made in bad faith. In the High Court, Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin reaffirmed the holding of the Federal Court in Karam Singh and held that: it is not open to a court in Singapore to examine the grounds and allegations of fact supplied to the applicant … for the purpose of deciding whether or not some or all of them are so vague, unintelligible or indefinite as to be insufficient to enable the applicant to make an effective representation against the order of detention.… To hold otherwise would, in my opinion, be wholly inconsistent with the scheme of the [Internal Security] Act under which the power to issue a detention order has been made to depend upon the existence of a state of mind in the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet which is a purely subjective condition so as to exclude a judicial enquiry into the sufficiency of the grounds to justify the detention.75

David’s argument with respect to the violation of Lee’s constitutional right to a counsel of his choice was also rejected. Wee CJ, held that while any person detained under the Internal Security Act could avail himself of the constitutional right to legal counsel, the remedy of habeas corpus was not available when he was denied such a right since he was under lawful detention.76 David’s only success in a habeas corpus application in preventive detention cases was in the Sarawak case of Re Datuk James Wong Kim

75 Lee Mau Seng v. Minister for Home Affairs, Singapore & Anor [1969–1971] SLR 508, p. 525. 76 Ibid., p. 517.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

454

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

455

DOYEN OF THE BAR

Min.77 Wong, the deputy leader of the opposition Sarawak National Party, was arrested at his home on 30 October, 1974, in Sarawak and escorted to mainland Malaysia where he was detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance (PPSO) and the Preservation of Public Security Regulations (PPSR) at a detention centre in Kuala Lumpur. The federal secretary of Sarawak then issued a detention order to the Superintendent of Prisons, Taiping, Perak, to detain Wong. David argued that the detention order was invalid because it only had effect within Sarawak and was ineffective in Taiping. After five days, Justice George Seah released Wong on the ground that the PPSO, which had been enacted by the Sarawak legislature before Malaysia Day (16 September, 1963), had no legal force outside Sarawak.78 Unfortunately, Wong’s freedom was shortlived as he was immediately served with another detention order upon his release in court on 10 March, 1975.79 The approach of local courts towards judicial review of executive action changed only in the late 1980s, a whole decade after David had retired from the Bar. In the seminal case of Chng Suan Tze v. Minister of Home Affairs,80 the Court of Appeal overruled the High Court’s decision in Lee Mau Seng, rejected the subjective discretion of the executive, and held that, while the court would not question the executive’s decision as to what national security required, it could “examine whether the executive’s decision was in fact based on national security considerations” and “whether matters relied on by the executive fall within the scope” of the purposes specified

77 Re Datuk James Wong Kim Min; Minister of Home Affairs, Malaysia & Ors v. Datuk James Wong Kim Min [1976] 2 MLJ 245. 78 See Paul Kho, “Datuk Wong to be Released in Court on Monday”, The Sarawak Times, 8 Mar 1975 at 1. 79 “Datuk Wong Arrested Under ISA”, The Vanguard, 11 Mar 1975, p. 1. 80 [1988] SLR 132.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

455

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

456

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

in section 8(1) of the Internal Security Act.81 David was a man ahead of his times and his excellent arguments might well have got a better reception had he made them at a later time, when the political climate was less tense and the judiciary more accepting of cosmopolitan trends of judicial reasoning. As Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong pointed out, “success eluded him, due to no fault of his, but because the structure of the law defeated him”.82 David seldom made a bad argument in court. He thought through the issues very carefully and he knew his case better than anyone else. However, as we have seen, the courts were not always ready to accept his arguments, no matter how persuasive. One particular case stands out in Lee Keng Guan v. PP,83 a case involving the juxtaposition of two offence-creating provisions — one in the Penal Code and another in the Arms Offences Act. In that case, Lee was arrested and convicted on three charges of using a firearm with intent to injure three persons under section 4 of the Arms Offices Act 1973. In his appeal against conviction, David argued that the act for which Lee was charged could also be prosecuted under section 324 of the Penal Code. The public prosecutor’s unfettered discretion to decide under which provision to charge Lee amounted to a violation of Article 8(1) (now Article 12[1]) of the Constitution which guaranteed equality under the law and equal protection of the law, especially since punishments under the Arms Offences Act were more severe than under the Penal Code. The Court of Appeal virtually ignored this argument and simply pronounced that section 4 of the Arms Offences Act did not

81 Ibid., p. 168. 82 Chan Sek Keong, “David Marshall and the Law: Some Reflections on His Contribution to Criminal and Civil Justice in Singapore”, speech delivered at David Marshall — His Life and Legacy, a Symposium in Commemoration of the 100th Birth Anniversary of Mr David Marshall), 12 Mar 2008, Shangrila Hotel, Singapore. 83 Lee Keng Guan v. PP [1975–1977] SLR 231.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

456

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

457

DOYEN OF THE BAR

violate Article 8(1) of the Constitution, which, regrettably, was to miss David’s point completely.84 Outside the courts, David also made significant contributions to the discourse on Singapore’s constitutional law. When Singapore left the Federation of Malaysia on 9 August, 1965,85 efforts were afoot to craft a brand new constitution. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew promised Singaporeans that a new constitution would be drafted. Lee was very clear whom he wanted to help Singapore draft this new constitution.86 By early September that year, Law Minister, E.W. Barker, secured promises from Australia and New Zealand to help Singapore in drafting the new constitution,87 while Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, back from the Commonwealth Law Conference in Sydney, indicated that the Chief Justices of Australia, New Zealand, and India were also willing to help out.88 Despite the many promises that the new constitution was ready and would be put before parliament and the people, no such document was publicly available.89 This led David to call upon the government to make available the draft constitution for public consultation. David’s appeal was backed by other opposition politicians such as Dr Lee Siew Choh (Barisan Sosialis) and Ahmad bin Haji Taff (UMNO).90 84 Ibid., p. 238. 85 See Independence of Singapore Agreement, 1965, GN No. 1824 of 9 August, 1965. 86 As early as 12 August, 1965, Lee indicated that he wanted Indian Chief Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar and Australian Chief Justice Garfield Barwick on this team. See The Straits Times, 13 Aug 1965, p. 1. 87 See The Straits Times, 8 Sep 1965. 88 See The Straits Times, 5 Sep 1965. 89 See “A Team of Experts to Draft Singapore Charter”, The Straits Times, 11 Sep 1965; “Singapore’s Constitution for Parliament soon”, The Straits Times, 4 Oct 1965; “Singapore Constitution”, The Straits Times, 16 Dec 1967; “Draft Constitution to be out soon”, The Straits Times, 16 May 1968. 90 “Marshall’s Call to Govt Backed”, The Malay Mail, 23 Nov 1965.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

457

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

458

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Instead, the temporary constitution adopted by parliament on 22 December, 1965, remains the only operational constitution Singapore has had since independence. This document was, in David’s words, the “untidiest and most confusing constitution that any country has started life with”.91 It was actually a conglomeration of three separate documents: the Constitution of the State of Singapore 1963, the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965,92 and portions of the Malaysian Federal Constitution imported through the Republic of Singapore Independence Act.93 In December 1965, Parliament appointed a Constitutional Commission to study how minority interests could be safeguarded.94 The twelve-member Commission was headed by David’s old friend, Wee Chong Jin, who in 1963, had become Singapore’s first Asian Chief Justice. The rest of the members were lawyers drawn from the various ethnic communities in Singapore. A.P. Rajah, the vicechairman, was Speaker of the House and a member of the Indian community, as was Geoffrey Abisheganaden, David’s former pupil and assistant. Kirpal Singh represented the Sikh community. Representing the Malay/Muslim/Arab community were Mohamed Javad Namazie, Syed Esa bin Hassan Almenoar, and Abdul Manaf Ghows. C.C. Tan, David’s old political foe, represented the Straits Chinese or Peranakan community; Graham Starforth Hill the Europeans; and Cuthbert Francis Joseph Ess the Eurasians.

91 See “Singapore’s Untidy Constitution”, The Straits Times, 21 Dec 1965. 92 Act 9 of 1965. 93 Most of the imported provisions pertain to the fundamental liberties provisions which are federal matters and were missing in the State constitution. 94 Members of the Commission were: Wee Chong Jin C.J. (chairman), A.P. Rajah (vice-chairman), C.F.J. Ess, M.J. Namazie, C.C. Tan, S.H.D. Elias, Syed Esa bin Syed Hassan Almenoar, G. Abisheganaden, Graham Starforth Hill, Abdul Manaf Ghows, Kirpal Singh, and S. Narayanaswamy (secretary).

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

458

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

459

DOYEN OF THE BAR

As a former chief minister and a leader of the Jewish community — certainly one of Singapore’s smallest communities — David fully expected to be invited to be a member of the Commission. Instead, the government appointed Simon Haigh David Elias of the firm of Elias Brothers, which he ran with his brother Joseph Ezra David Elias. The Elias brothers were nephews of the legendary Jewish millionaire, Joseph Elias. Though the Oxford-educated Simon Elias (or “Mickey” as he was popularly known) was an excellent lawyer who would also have made an excellent judge,95 he was not closely connected with the leadership of the Jewish community. David considered this as a major snub by the PAP government. Writing to A.K. Pang, a student of the University of Singapore, to explain the distinction between an opponent and an enemy, David wrote: In choosing the personnel for the Constitutional Committee on Minority Rights chaired by the Hon the Chief Justice, the PAP chose a lawyer from each of the communities. From the Jewish community they chose SHD Elias, an able lawyer who has at no time been associated with the Jewish community activities, although they were fully aware that I had been and am the President of the Jewish Welfare Board as well as having been interested and participated in the formulation of the Constitution for Singapore which, in amended form, took effect after my resignation.96

The commission’s terms of reference97 were limited to: a.

b.

Receive and consider representations on how the rights of the racial, linguistic and religious minorities can be adequately safeguarded in the Constitution; Consider what provisions should be made to ensure that no legislation which by its practical application is considered likely to be discriminatory, against members of any racial, linguistic

95 Interview with Joseph Grimberg, 5 May 2008. 96 David Marshall to A.K. Pang, 13 Dec 1967, DM/377/29/1–2. 97 See Singapore Parliamentary Debates Official Report, 22 Dec 1965, cols. 429–30.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

459

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

460

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

c.

d.

or religious group, should be enacted before adequate opportunities have been given for representation from parties likely to be aggrieved; Consider what remedies should be provided for any citizen or group of citizens who claim that he or they have been discriminated against by any act or decision of the government or the administration of any statutory board or public body constituted by law and to recommend the machinery for the redress of any complaints; and Consider how such provisions can be entrenched in the Constitution.

The fact of his having been left out of the commission did not stop David from submitting a twelve-page memorandum to the commission to express his concerns. It was a very well-considered and well-argued memorandum. In opening, David expressed concern over the malleability of the constitution. Citing the case of McCawley v. The King,98 he warned of the dangers of making the Constitution too easy to amend. Indeed, when parliament convened on 22 December, 1965, its first sitting after Independence, one of the things it did was to change the amendment procedure for the Constitution so that it would be amendable by a simple majority in Parliament, instead of a two-thirds majority. David proposed that “the only reasonable procedure for amendment of the Constitution which would give a measure of stability and security is amendment by Referendum to all voters”.99 Another innovative suggestion David put forth was the creation of a “supra national court formed by treaty with other similarly interested nations” to act as the final court of appeal on matters involving fundamental liberties — for an initial period of five years — and then extending to all matters in the Constitution.100

98 [1920] AC 691. 99 David Marshall, Memorandum of Constitutional Safeguards for Minority Groups, 15 Mar 1966, DM/38/13/1–12, p. 3. 100 Ibid.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

460

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

461

DOYEN OF THE BAR

For preventive detention cases, David also urged a return to the original position under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in which the detention was subject to the review of a Council of Judges presided over by the Chief Justice.101 David was also acutely concerned with the dangers of over-zealous proselytizing and “recognizing the realities, for the peace and welfare of the Nation there should be a prohibition against the propagation of other religions amongst Malays for a period of 15 years”. He also recommended that Malays be given special privileges but only for a period of fifteen years after which the equality provisions would kick in and apply to all.102 David’s submissions contained two more innovative and original suggestions that found favour with the commission. The first was the creation of a Council of State to advise the president in his scrutiny of all bills. He suggested that the president should be empowered to send all bills and subsidiary legislation to the Court of Appeal and to refuse assent to such Bills and subsidiary legislation pending a decision from the Court of Appeal.103 The Council of State was to be made up of ten persons from the various racial, religious, and linguistic groups to advise the president on his scrutiny of legislation. The second proposal was the creation of the post of an ombudsman — an idea drawn from Scandinavia — whose main function was to investigate complaints of racial discrimination or “unjust and discriminatory official conduct”.104 Finally, David advised against instituting a system of parliamentary democracy based on proportional representation as he feared that this would “emphasize and exacerbate racial differences by enshrining them with a political value that can be exploited by opportunists”.105 101 Ibid., p. 6. 102 Ibid., p. 8. 103 Ibid., p. 9. 104 Ibid., pp. 10–11. 105 Ibid., p. 12.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

461

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

462

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

In all, thirty-nine individuals and organizations submitted representations to the Wee Chong Jin commission. Even though none of these representations have been published, it is probably fair to say that David’s submission gave the commission the most food for thought. The Commission issued its report in 1966 and made a number of important recommendations, some of which were outside the ambit of its terms of reference.106 It was as anxious as David was to strengthen the Constitution and recommended the entrenchment of certain provisions to make the basic law much more difficult to amend. Provisions relating to fundamental liberties, for example, should only be amended by a two-third vote during a national referendum. The commission spent a great deal of time on David’s idea of the Council of State and recommended the creation of a similar body — along the lines of the Council of State in Kenya — but with rather different functions from those that David envisaged. They were very keen on the idea of the ombudsman and recommended it for inclusion in the Constitution. The commission members also advised against proportional representation in the same vein as David. Unfortunately, the government accepted few of the commission’s bold and original recommendations. There was a four-month delay from the time the commission submitted its report and the government’s reaction to it. David was particularly anxious about the delay and wrote to the press in December 1966 to ask the government to explain the reason for the delay in revealing the report: “Is it ever going to see the light of day? Are we to have a Constitution? Or must not I ask?”107 When it was finally released, David was heartened by the recommendations of the commission and disappointed that the government had failed to accept many of them. The entrenchment

106 See Report of the Constitutional Commission 1966 (Singapore: Government Printer, 1966) reproduced as Appendix D in Kevin Y.L. Tan & Thio Li-ann, Tan, Yeo & Lee’s Constitutional Law in Malaysia and Singapore, 2nd ed. (Singapore: Butterworths, 1997). 107 “Minority Rights in Singapore”, The Straits Times, 10 Dec 1966.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

462

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

463

DOYEN OF THE BAR

provisions were not accepted and the right to property was omitted from the Constitution. Proposals for the ombudsman were also kept in abeyance pending the results of experiments with this institution elsewhere. The Report was, as David put it, “a document of courage, of integrity and vision”, but was viewed by the government “with dismay”, producing “a façade of acceptance whilst denying the reality of the recommendations of the Commission”.108 The one recommendation they found of great interest and proceeded to adopt was the creation of the Council of State, known as the Presidential Council. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights The Wee Chong Jin Constitutional Commission recommended the establishment of a Council of State, made up of “mature and respected citizens who shall have either rendered distinguished public service or have attained eminence in their respective walks of life” and who are not, at the time of appointment, members of any political party.109 The function of this Council was to consider all proposed legislation except Supply Bills and bills presented on a Certificate of Urgency and report to parliament. This is to ensure that no legislation, “by its practical application is … likely to be discriminatory against members of any racial, linguistic or religious group”.110 This recommendation was accepted and in 1970, the Presidential Council was established. In 1973, it was renamed the Presidential Council for Minority Rights.111 108 David Marshall, Report of the Constitutional Commission on Minority Rights and the Government’s Reaction, unpublished, DM/371/3/1–12. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid., p. 13. 111 See below for a discussion of the Presidential Council. For an account of its development, see S. Jayakumar, Constitutional Law, Singapore Law Series, 1976, pp. 17–28; S.M. Thio, “The Presidential Council” [1969] 1 MLJ xli, reprinted in (1969) 1 Sing LR 2; and Papers by David Marshall, Francis K.S. Khoo, and Gerald de Cruz, (1969) 1 Sing LR 9–25.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

463

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

464

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

On 24 April, 1970, David was appointed a member of the newly created Presidential Council. The chairman was Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin and the permanent members were Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam, Francis Thomas, Tuan Haji Ismail bin Abdul Aziz, and David, while the temporary members were AttorneyGeneral Tan Boon Teik, Justice Choor Singh, Stanley Toft Stewart, D.D. Chelliah, Monsigneur Michael Olcomendy, C.C. Tan, Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Rahman, and Ong Swee Law.112 Members of the Council were sworn in at a ceremony at the Istana, with Justice Tan Ah Tah administering the oaths of allegiance and secrecy.113 The Council held its first meeting on 8 May, 1970, and in preparation for this meeting, David wrote to D.C. Mlamba, permanent secretary of Kenya’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for information of how the Kenyan Council of State was run and requesting annual reports of the Council of State.114 He received a copy of the 1959 annual report from D.W. Kaniaru of the ministry, who explained to David that the Council of State had existed only from 1958 to 1963.115 David was most apprehensive about his appointment on the Council as it was a “wee sleekit timorous beastie”.116 Writing to his brother Meyer, David said: I have been appointed to the Presidential Council as Senior Permanent Member immediately after the Ministers — Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, Rajaratnam — who are on this body of advisers. We hold our first meeting tomorrow. I am not optimistic about my value to the development of Singapore, but it is the only

112 See Government Gazette Extraordinary, Vol. XII, No. 44, 27 Apr 1970. 113 Liew Tiew Kee, Private Secretary to the President to David Marshall, 29 Apr 1970, DM/373/7–71. 114 David Marshall to D.C. Mlamba, 24 Mar 1970, DM/366/5. 115 D.W. Kaniaru to David Marshall, 22 Apr 1970, DM/366/5a. 116 David Marshall, “The Presidential Council”, Singapore Law Review 1 (1969): 9–13.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

464

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

465

DOYEN OF THE BAR

means I have of serving, and I intend to be patient until I am satisfied that I can be of no real benefit. The permanent aspect is a little ironical: It merely means that they cannot dismiss me but they can make it impossible for me to function as a human being and then I would be free to resign. In the meantime, they will have the benefit of being able to say that they are broad-minded enough to include their mortal enemy on their Presidential Council — an excellent bit of PAP window-dressing.117

He also told Thio Su Mien and Reverend Wong Hoon Hee — who both wrote to congratulate him on his appointment — that he feared that the Council might well turn out to be nothing more than a “hypocritical PAP façade”.118 K.S. Rajah, who knew David well, was also sceptical about whether David could do anything constructive on the Council: I know you must have made that decision after a great deal of soul searching. Premium men must sometimes sacrifice a great deal for the sake of conscience and whilst I salute your courage, I am sorry that a voice rich in courage and steeped in freedom will not be heard in the Council.119

On 7 October, barely five months into the life of the Council, David resigned. His decision to step down from the Council was precipitated by the passage of Constitution (Amendment No. 2) Act 1970 that effectively further reduced the already limited powers of the Council. In his press statement, David stated: The Constitution (Amendment No. 2) Act which was passed by Parliament on the 2nd September 1970 radically limits the existing limited powers of the Presidential Council. The effect of this new Act is, in my view, to enable the Prime Minister at any time to bypass the Presidential Council in respect of any Bill passed by

117 David Marshall to Dr Meyer Marshall, 7 May 1970, DM/234/77. 118 David Marshall to Thio Su Mien, 30 Apr 1970, DM/366/7a; and David Marshall to Wong Hoon Hee, 30 Apr 1970. DM/366/6a. 119 K.S. Rajah to David Marshall, 21 Oct 1970, DM/366/12.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

465

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

466

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Parliament. In these circumstances, as I see it, the Presidential Council is a façade without substance and there is clear indication that Government is not interested in dialogue. Believing this as I do, I consider it to be wrong to continue as a member.120

Many people were disappointed with his abrupt resignation. Even his wife, Jean, felt that he should have stayed on and struggled for what he thought was right.121 But David was not about to compromise, not especially since he now felt that the “brave concept of the Commission … has now developed into a thalidomide baby”.122 MENTORING PUPILS

David had taken in his first law pupil, Geoffrey Abisheganaden, in 1952 while at Battenberg & Talma. Over the years, he accepted many more pupils although very few of them stayed with him for very long. Indeed, he once told Abisheganaden that after a while he should go out on his own and practise, otherwise he would always be in David’s shadow.123 Among David’s notable pupils and legal assistants were: Alice Erh-Soon Tay (late Challis Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Sydney); Tommy Koh (later Dean of the Law Faculty and ambassador extraordinaire); Mohideen P. Haja Rubin (Judicial Commissioner and Judge of the Supreme Court); Amarjeet Singh (Judicial Commissioner); Eugene Phoa (Queen’s Counsel in Edmonton, Canada), and Judith de Cruz (daughter of his old friend Gerald de Cruz and Singapore’s second woman Supreme Court judge). Abisheganaden, who had been at school with David’s brothers Sonny and Meyer, first went to see David on the recommendation of

120 David Marshall, “Resignation from the Presidential Council”, press release, 23 Nov 1970, DM/372/24/1–2. 121 David Marshall to Tay Teck Eng, 2 Dec 1970, DM/366/16. 122 David Marshall to Chairman, Presidential Council, 7 Oct 1970, DM373/21. 123 Interview with Geoffrey Abisheganaden, 2 Oct 2006.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

466

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

467

DOYEN OF THE BAR

a friend from Rodyk & Davidson. By that time, David was already famous, having won the Nonis case. Abisheganaden was called to the Bar in February 1952 and stayed with David until 1955, when he left to joined Braga & De Souza as a partner when David became chief minister. Abisheganaden remembers the office as a small practice with only two lawyers — David doing criminal litigation and Ramsay Wilson handling conveyancing. They were later joined by Nigel Macassey, who ran away from Singapore leaving a large income tax debt. On his first day at work, David took him around town to meet the other lawyers, most of whom were located in the Change Alley area. Abisheganaden had great respect for David’s mentorship. David had a very quick temper and was used to shouting orders around the office. While he was away in Kuala Lumpur handling the WattsCarter case, Abisheganaden was left in charge of the office. Work was tough and David was a demanding master and partner. Abisheganaden remembered how he would even stay overnight in David’s apartment on the night before a big case and go through the authorities with him.124 As a teacher and mentor, David believed in “learning by doing” and “learning by watching”. He would sit his pupils at a small table facing his own and tell them to watch him while he worked. He kept nothing from the pupils, conducting telephone conversations, interviews, and discussions with clients in front of them.125 As Chew Swee Yoke, a pupil and subsequently assistant with David from 1970–1973, recalled: When I first started in his office, he made me and another pupil Ms Angela Lee … sit in his room at two tables side-by-side and we would hear all his conversations and discussions with clients and other lawyers and the AG’s Chambers. He would also regale 124 Interview with Geoffrey Abisheganaden, 2 Oct 2006. 125 Interview with Tommy Koh, 7 Apr 2008.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

467

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

468

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

us with interesting stories and jokes. As you may know, he could quote from Shakespeare off the cuff and tell juicy court room jokes, many of them true stories from cases he had handled. From his comments and his conversations, we got to know him and his principles. He never had to spend much time looking up the law. As he was always reading his law journals and making notes in his Bibles from A-Z, he had his authorities at his fingertips and was constantly updating his Bibles. We were also allowed to refer to his Bibles when we were doing our research. He came in early and left at lunchtime invariably with baskets of law books to read at home. Most mornings he would be attending to clients and visitors and immediately after that, he would dictate his notes of each meeting to his secretary who would type and file it in each relevant file. He later told me that it was a good way of keeping notes for use in taxation of costs. Time spent and matters discussed were summarised for each note. Whenever he wanted anything done, he would expect us to write him clear and concise notes on what we had researched. He would tell me later that he was delighted with my excellent notes, usually when I quoted him chapter and verse.126

Tommy Koh — who graduated at the top of his class in the inaugural cohort of students from the Faculty of Law at the University of Malaya in Singapore — joined David as a pupil in 1961. He remembers sitting in David’s huge room with its huge tiger rug, where he spent a “very exciting” year learning the art of criminal advocacy. David demanded “total commitment” to the law and this meant not only working weekdays but weekends as well, since the courts in Johor and Borneo sat on weekends. Koh remembers that one way in which David would mentor his pupils was to spar with them intellectually, discussing cases and legal arguments. While David demonstrated a remarkable command of the law, he was not ashamed to ask really basic questions if he was unfamiliar with a particular subject.

126 Email communication with Chew Swee Yoke, 17 Mar 2008.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

468

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

469

DOYEN OF THE BAR

David also had a most notorious temper and often blew up at the staff and yelled at them. Though never at the receiving end of David’s explosive temper, Koh was bothered enough to write to David about it, counselling him to keep his temper in check. Expecting a sharp rebuff for his irreverence, Koh was surprised when David thanked him for the letter and tried hard to curb his outward displays of annoyance. Annie Chin — who joined David in 1964 — also remembers his volatile temper, but understood that David never directed his wrath at any person in particular, but at the very often difficult situations he found himself in.127 Chin remembered: It was a very terrifying experience to work for David. As a pupil, I would spend days laboriously going through the files and drafting a statement of claim and then he would shout for you — he loves to shout — read your statement of claim and then unceremoniously toss it in the ‘Out’ tray. Then he would yell for his secretary, ‘Mrs Lee!’ who will come scurrying in from outside, and then David would sit there and just dictate the whole statement of claim, right off the top of his head with every single detail correct; just like that! It was amazing.128

David’s dictation skills were legendary and he insisted that all his pupils learnt to dictate, offering them two good reasons to do so. First, you could not write as fast as you could speak; and second, it is an excellent way to organize your thoughts and verbalize your arguments. David was extremely kind and generous towards law students. He, of all people, understood the difficulties law students faced in learning the practice of the law and was prepared to invest much time and energy in their work and welfare. Ever the champion of the underdog, he did not discriminate between candidates for pupillage. While he had taken in Tommy Koh — top of his class and

127 Interview with Annie Wee, 27 Apr 2008. 128 Ibid.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

469

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

470

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

the first person to get a first-class honours from the local law faculty — he was also prepared take in others who had not performed as well academically but who displayed spunk, verve, and a willingness to learn. Annie Chin — who obtained a third-class honours — was one such case. Chin had absolutely no interest in criminal work but, as she was interested in court work, she sought David out as he was the best litigator in Singapore and she should thus learn from him. As Chin recalled, the interview was a “hoot” as midway through the interview, David asked her for her father’s name. She asked him if it was relevant but told him anyway — Chin Chye Fong. David knew him and told Chin that her father was an “honest man”. The elder Chin was a stalwart of the Progressive Party and David had gotten to know him through some mutual friends. As chief minister, David had apparently tried to persuade Chin — an opposition member — to head the Public Service Commission to keep the commission honest. Chin, who was then the general manager of the Cockpit Hotel, turned down the job as he could not survive on the meagre salary offered. Then turning back to Annie Chin, David told her, “Your father is honest. Don’t worry, you are honest!” Chin was bewildered, thinking that she had just walked onto the pages of Alice in Wonderland. It was “crazy”.129 Crazy or not, Annie Chin stayed with David for three years even though she had absolutely no interest in criminal work and wanted to do civil litigation. She would never forget the time she spent there. David worked her — and everyone else — extremely hard. She recalled what her average day in David’s firm would be like: On court days, I would go to his house in Changi at 6.00 am in the morning to brief him on what I had researched the night before. He would be having his breakfast while you briefed him. Breakfast for him, not for you. Then it was to Changi Prison together and 129 Ibid.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

470

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

471

DOYEN OF THE BAR

then to court by 8.00 am. On court days, David would generally be home by about 4.00 pm and then I would need to head down to the Law Library to do more research. He was a real slave driver!130

Slave-driver or not, Chin remembers him also for his great generosity. After she had completed her pupillage, David wrote her an appointment letter offering her $1,500 a month — an unheard-of figure in 1964. Top students who were being recruited to the Legal Service and the Attorney General’s chambers were being paid only $900 a month. This was what Chin told David she would accept. David was aghast and told her that it was the very first time he had ever encountered anyone who negotiated downwards instead of up. David’s generosity with his time for trade unions and the Jewish community was such that he ended up doing a lot of pro bono work for them, and at one point it got to be that every Jew thought that they had a right to his time and service. From David, Chin learnt the true meaning of thoroughness in case preparation and to have an eye for details: David had a keen eye for details and was superb in court craft. As his assistant my job was to write down and think of every question and answer. He always said, ‘If you have to guess the answer, you need to think through if you need to ask the question. You must always anticipate.’ Part of the job was also to take statements from clients and witnesses. Again, he was very thorough. If a crime occurred at night, he would suddenly ask: ‘What was the moon like that night?’ Small but relevant details which could turn the case one way or another.131

To convince the court of his submissions, David would often conduct live demonstrations. He was quite well known for getting his assistants and pupils to demonstrate to the court how a particular act could have been carried out or that it was impossible to have

130 Ibid. 131 Ibid.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

471

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

472

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

been carried out in the manner suggested by the prosecution. Mohideen Rubin recalls: I was present, when Marshall made a female assisting counsel to lie at the backseat of a Volkswagen parked at the basement of the old Supreme Court and the accused on top of her — all with the leave of the court — to demonstrate to the trial judges how a sexual encounter between the accused and his wife or girlfriend could have taken place. I was not spared either. Once he summoned me from my seat and made me stand in front of the witness stand when the accused was giving evidence. He then invited the accused to show the judge how he tried to strangle his wife with a string of rope. To my relief, before the accused went really overboard with the tightening of the rope, Justice Winslow intervened and said that it would suffice.132

Thorough legal research and total command of the law and facts was something else David drummed into all his pupils, assistants, and partners. He knew from experience that a well-researched point, backed with cogent and persuasive authorities, could easily turn the case in his favour. Two instances are worth recalling. The first involved a shipping case — not David’s main subject of practice — and David was going up against Anthony Godwin, one of Singapore’s best known shipping lawyers. David recalled: All I remember is Godwin was against me and he came into court and said, ‘What are you doing here?’ And I said, ‘I am acting for the defendants.’ And he said, ‘Now, what have you got up your sleeve? The moment I saw you, I knew we were sunk. What have you got up your sleeve?’ So I said, ‘Okay Godwin, if you want to play it clean, here it is, here are the authorities. And we settled it without going on.133

132 Interview with M.P.H. Rubin, 10 May 2008. 133 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 24 (Singapore: National Archives).

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

472

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

473

DOYEN OF THE BAR

Another instance was recounted by Mohideen Rubin: The firm was acting for a defendant in a civil case and the issues straddled company law. The plaintiffs were represented by a very senior expatriate lawyer by the name of Denis Murphy (formerly of Murphy & Dunbar). We had a difficult defence. To make it worse, we found our client to have a nervous disposition. He would have been easy game for any reasonable cross-examiner. Fortunately, we found a procedural flaw in the plaintiffs’ pleadings. There was a failure on the part of the plaintiffs to particularize the alleged representations by the defendant. We enlisted the help of Mr Chan Sek Keong who was then practicing at Maybank Chambers with Shook Lin & Bok, who readily agreed to assist Marshall along with me. SK was able to find a recent case from a foreign jurisdiction that buttressed our intended contention that failure to provide particulars would prejudice our client’s defence. Marshall was at his elemental best. The submissions by him were vintage Marshall. Surprisingly though, Murphy was not up to his usual best. His reply was rather meek and lacked persuasion. Still, we did not expect the court to strike out the case. Our evaluation was that in all likelihood the court would grant time to the plaintiffs to provide the best particulars. To our joy though, Justice Kulasekeram dismissed the plaintiff ’s case with costs on the very first morning of the scheduled five-day trial. I can still remember walking back with Marshall and SK from the Supreme Court to our Chambers at Bank of China Building, each recounting the remarkable turn of events and the sheer good fortune of our client.134

What then was a typical day in the professional life of David Marshall? Mohideen Rubin, who was David’s partner in the last few years of legal practice, remembers: Marshall was an early riser. He came to office rather early, invariably in a light-coloured suit with a fresh orchid on his jacket lapel. He was usually at his desk between 7.30 and 8.00 am, even though it took him well over 30 minutes for him to travel from his house

134 Interview with M.P.H. Rubin, 10 May 2008.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

473

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

474

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Tumasek in Changi. If there was no hearing in the afternoons, he would leave office soon after 1.00 pm or thereabouts. Appointments were made generally in the mornings for him. He spent his time usually interviewing clients and dictating letters and notes to his secretary. Frequently, he would call in his assistants or pupils to meet the clients so that the client would know exactly who was assisting him in the case at hand. Marshall would also peruse and vet the legal authorities collated for him by the case clerk or his assistants. He would then refer to his own index of cases and fill in the gaps. He was a voracious and fast reader. Every legal journal subscribed to by the firm would invariably be read by him. Cases of significance and the dicta therein would bear his traditional green underlining and marginal highlighting. If there was a trial, be it in the lower courts or High Court, he would always be early at the well of the court before others. High Court hearings, when he was in practice started usually not earlier than 10.15 am in the mornings. When the trial was in train and when witness evidence was continuing, he would normally be in court by about 8.30 am or latest by 9.00 am. Except for civil cases, Marshall would always be wigged and would encourage his assistants to do the same. His advice to us was, ‘Wear your wig and don’t let yourself by out-wigged by the DPPs’.135

David also thought that all lawyers should be dressed as befitted their calling. He wanted even his pupils to be dressed properly — longsleeved shirt and tie for the men, smart black skirts and white blouses for the ladies. One of his former pupils Charles Tan recounted how, when David insisted that he put on a tie for work, he replied that he was too poor to afford one. The next day, David came to the office with a plastic bag of half a dozen ties and handed it over to Charles. When Charles took them out, he was astounded to find six beautiful, silk ties, some of David’s best, not cast-offs.

135 Interview with M.P.H. Rubin, 10 May 2008.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

474

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

475

DOYEN OF THE BAR

David continued to care for the welfare of his pupils even after they left his practice. Chew Swee Yoke remembered how, after she had left David’s firm and joined Shook Lin & Bok in Kuala Lumpur in 1975: I handled a trade mark case and had taken over a case in which the defence had already been filed. In preparing for the hearing, I found the defence wanting and decided to amend it about 2 weeks before the hearing. I gave notice to the opposing lawyer who had no objections to the late amendment but the judge was furious because it caused a postponement and I was rapped for being a ‘typical young lawyer’ who had not done her homework. This promptly came out in the headlines including in the Singapore edition of the Straits Times which came to Marshall’s attention. The following month he came to Kuala Lumpur for a talk by Lord Denning and I fetched him from the airport. In the car, he mentioned the press report and said he wanted me to write to the judge and explain that I had just taken over the case and it was not my fault that the defence had to be amended at the last minute. I said it was not important, but Marshall insisted that I produced a draft letter that evening during dinner for him to vet. I still have the draft letter with his amendments informing the judge that I had just left Marshall’s chambers for Shook Lin, etc. I sent the letter to the judge. Soon after the letter, I had a telephone call from the judge inviting me to tea in his chambers and even offering to get his driver to drive me from my office to the court. During tea, he apologized in the presence of his wife who was there.136

Clients, David believed, were, in his own words, not “milch cows for milk on the breakfast table”. They were human beings like all of us, entitled to be treated with humanity and respect. This lesson was passed on to his generations of pupils and those who were privileged to work with him. In 1992, shortly after being elected honorary fellow

136 Email communication with Chew Swee Yoke, 17 Mar 2008.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

475

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

476

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

for life of the Singapore Academy of Law, one of David’s former pupils, Kong Seng Kwong (now principal legal officer in the Public Utilities Board) who had pupilled with David in 1974, wrote: You will no doubt be a legend in the legal history of Singapore. Lawyers will remember you as a great lawyer at the Criminal Bar. But I will always remember you as a great lawyer of immense humanity. A great lawyer who brings a little bit of heaven to the common folks. A great pupil-master who teaches his pupils to find a niche their hearts for humanity and concern for his fellow human beings, and in particular, the humble common folks. I remember the case of the Indian newspaper vendor at the Malayan Banking Chambers. You assigned the case to me. The Indian newspaper vendor was charged for illegal hawking by the Minister of Environment. He approached you for legal aid. You took his case for free. I defended him at his trial. I lost. He was fined $30. Khoo Oon Soo was the magistrate. He commended you for taking the case for free and poor me for the thorough legal submission. … I also remember the case where you helped to negotiate a settlement for the poor factory worker who lost his thumb and index finger in one hand. The factory was only willing to settle at $5,000. You negotiated with (if I remember correctly) Mr Henry Hangchi for a good 11/2 hours and managed to convince him to persuade his clients to show some humanity to the poor man. You told him that you were willing to forego your legal costs. You got the poor man $10,000 and settled the case before the then Mr Justice D’Cotta.… … Humanity, I feel, is very lacking these days. The concern is money, money, money. Young lawyers are concerned with money. Very few with humanity. What impressed me most during my short term with you as a pupil and legal assistant was your sincere concern for down-trodden lawyers. I remember when I was with you in the High Court you met a senior Indian lawyer whom many lawyers shunned. He was later struck off from the Rolls. I cannot recall his name. I recall you walked up to him and greeted him warmly. In his depressed situation, he must have found warmth and happiness. At least momentarily. This incident was not lost to me. It helped me to try to find a niche in my heart for such a

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

476

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

477

DOYEN OF THE BAR

precious thing called humanity and care and concern for fellow human beings. … For these reasons, I will always remember you as a great lawyer of charity and humanity. A legend for showing kindness and humane concern for the common folks. 137 TEACHING THE LAW

David had a soft spot for law students and was fully behind moves to establish a Law Faculty in Singapore. Indeed, the establishment of a law faculty in Singapore was part of his Labour Front’s election manifesto of 1955. While he was not at the forefront of the movement, he fully supported the recognition of the local law degree for practice in Singapore and even taught at the faculty for some time. The Law Faculty was initially established as a Law Department in 1956, and only became a full-fledged faculty in 1959. The first batch of students was admitted in 1957 and they graduated in 1961. At the time of the faculty’s founding, the local university was still called the University of Malaya. Founded in 1949, it was the only degreeconferring institution in Malaya and Singapore. It was not until 1962 that the university split with the branch in Kuala Lumpur retaining the University of Malaya name and the Singapore branch being henceforth known as the University of Singapore. David was first introduced to the faculty’s founding dean, Professor Lionel Astor Sheridan, on 21 November, 1956, by J.B. Jeyaretnam. At the dinner, David found the Sheridans to be “very nice people” and “sincere socialists”.138 Sheridan, who was then busy recruiting parttime lecturers, asked David if he would agree to teach the students:

137 Kwong Seng Kong to David Marshall, 20 Apr 1992, DM/505/3/1–5. 138 David Marshall’s diary, 21 Nov 1956.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

477

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

478

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

He occasionally asked me to write an opinion in respect of a case in which he was engaged. In the course of working in that way, I formed a favourable impression of his grasp of the law. I thought the students would benefit from being taught to some extent by lawyers whose experience was not primarily academic and I believed that some practicing lawyers would be capable of a sufficiently systematic approach to teaching undergraduates. As, in any case, we had too few full-time members of staff in the Law Department to provide all the teaching required, I set out to persuade a number of private practitioners, members of the judiciary and lawyers in government service to take on part-time work. In the case of David Marshall, it was my opinion that the combination of his legal knowledge and his extensive experience in applying it would provide the students with both a proper coverage of the subjects they were studying and interesting insights which might not otherwise have come their way.139

David took up the challenge with gusto and offered to teach criminal law and criminal procedure. His students found him a spellbinding lecturer with a good grasp of the law and memorable anecdotes to illustrate the legal points, many of which were drawn from David’s own cases. He did not lecture from any prepared script or notes and students were astounded by his remarkable memory and eloquence. As T.P.B. Menon recalled, it “was like a real life drama unfolding before your eyes”. David was a real showman and students looked forward to his weekly classes.140 Tommy Koh, who was also in Menon’s class, remembered David’s charisma and powerful oratory. It was the performance of a true legal master in the guise of a folk storyteller.141 From the students’ viewpoint, David seemed to have the law at his finger tips, yet his stimulating and improvisatory performances from the lectern belied the meticulous and detailed pains he undertook

139 L.A. Sheridan to Kevin Tan, 6 May 2008, on file with author. 140 Interview with T.P.B. Menon, 25 Jun 2008. 141 Interview with Tommy Koh, 7 Apr 2008.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

478

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

479

DOYEN OF THE BAR

in their preparation. A quick perusal of his draft lecture notes and his draft notes for the students testify to the amount of time, energy, and effort he expended on them.142 David took his teaching seriously and was anxious to impart what he knew to his students. David made many friends at the Faculty and, throughout the time that he was in legal practice, continued to be engaged in the social and intellectual life of the local university. He was friendly with all the deans, from Sheridan to Jayakumar, and often made useful suggestions on how to improve the faculty and law teaching. For example, he wrote to Dean Professor G.W. Bartholomew in 1967 suggesting that he might consider asking the Registrar of the High Court to deposit records of all appeals in the Law Library143 and offering to deposit the entire case file of the Pulau Senang case in the Law Library.144 David keenly supported activities of the Law Faculty, including accepting students for long vacation attachments. He stated that his office was “the first in Singapore to open its door to students of your faculty during the long vacation, and it is with pleasure that I remember I had both Tommy Koh and Thio Su Mien in my chambers amongst many others”.145 David was also happy to engage the talents of faculty members for his own cases. As early as in 1956, he began asking Professor Sheridan for opinions on matters in which he appeared. For instance, in 1961, he told Yap Pheng Geck that he intended to seek the assistance of Professor Harry E. Groves, Visiting Professor of International Law, on the matter of Singapore’s union with Malaya;146

142 See Criminal Procedure Code Lecture Notes, Lectures 1–7, DM/67/10/1. 143 David Marshall to G.W. Bartholomew, 3 Feb 1967, DM/377. 144 David Marshall to G.W. Bartholomew, 31 Mar 1967, DM/377/20. 145 David Marshall to Herbert V. Morais, Sub-Dean, Faculty of Law, 6 Jan 1969, DM/222/4. 146 David Marshall to Yap Pheng Geck, 6 Nov 1961, DM/175/30.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

479

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

480

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

and in 1963, he engaged the services of Francis Trindade on constitutional and administrative law for his handling of the case of Lim Ko & Anor v. Board of Architects147 as well as on international law for his arguments in the clemency petition for the Indonesian bombers during Confrontation.148 Another member of the Law Faculty who was connected with David was Alice Erh-Soon Tay. Tay, who had been a pupil and assistant at David’s firm in the late 1950s, was interested in obtaining a teaching position at the university. She applied for a lectureship but was not shortlisted as she did not possess a university degree. Fate was on her side when David once again sought the opinion of law dean Sheridan who remembered: She applied for a post as assistant lecturer. In preparing my recommendations to the committee considering the appointment for a short list I did not include her because she had no degree. At that time, Alice was devilling for David Marshall. He asked me for an opinion on some case, the nature of which I have forgotten, and amongst the papers he sent me was an opinion Alice had written. I was so impressed by Alice’s work that I decided to change my mind and recommend that she be summoned for interview. The outcome was that she was selected, but, because she was not a university graduate, was appointed in the first instance for a fixed-term.149

Although Tay did not stay at the local faculty for long, she went on to carve a very distinguished academic career in Australia, where she became Challis Professor of Jurisprudence at Sydney University, a position she held until her death in 2004. David’s last major intellectual contribution to the university was his delivery of the 1978 Braddell Memorial Lecture. The Braddell

147 Lim Ko & Anor v. Board of Architects [1966] 2 MLJ 80. 148 See Stanislaus Krofan & Anor v. PP [1967] 1 MLJ 33. 149 L.A. Sheridan to Kevin Tan, 6 May 2008, on file with author.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

480

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

481

DOYEN OF THE BAR

Memorial Lectures were instituted in 1970 in honour of Sir Roland Braddell, scion of Singapore’s most illustrious legal family. The series was established to foster a tradition of legal scholarship in Malaya and Singapore by institutionalizing annual lectures to be delivered by eminent lawyers and jurists. These lectures alternated each year between Singapore and Malaysia. In 1977, to commemorate the distinguished public service of Malaysia’s second prime minister, it was agreed that henceforth when the lectures were held in Kuala Lumpur, they would be known as the Tun Haji Abdul Razak Memorial Lectures, while those lectures delivered in Singapore would remain the Braddell Memorial Lectures. The series ceased to be organized by the Law Faculty after 1986. Distinguished speakers of this series who preceded David were: Professor Ahmad bin Mohd Ibrahim; Professor G.W. Bartholomew; Justice Alfred Victor Winslow; Justice Ong Hock Thye; Justice A.P. Rajah; Lord Alfred Denning, MR; and Professor L.A. Sheridan. When David went to Kuala Lumpur to attend the 1975 Lecture delivered by Lord Denning — “a Sunday sermon from an avuncular Bishop” thought David150 — Tun Suffian, Lord President of Malaysia, approached David to deliver the next Braddell Memorial Lecture. David was keen and immediately suggested to Suffian that he could talk about marrying the accusatorial and inquisitorial systems of justice. This would have been for the lecture in 1976. However, David felt that the time was insufficient and Professor L.A. Sheridan was asked to speak instead. Suffian again broached the idea with David in 1976, urging him to speak in 1977.151 David was delighted but daunted and wrote back asking if he could be considered for the following year:

150 David Marshall’s diary, 9 Aug 1975. 151 Tun Mohd Suffian to David Marshall, 27 Jul 1976, DM/378/7/1.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

481

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

482

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

I am very touched by the honour you do me in inviting me to deliver the Braddell Memorial Lecture in Kuala Lumpur next year. Frankly, I would very much like to, and there is only one topic which I consider I might be able to discuss which is worthy of such an occasion: ‘The accusatorial and inquisitorial systems of criminal justice; and the utilisation of some of the concepts in the inquisitorial process in our system.’ This is a very wide subject. I remember I wrote a somewhat superficial paper on it many years ago when I was doing postgraduate studies at the University of London drawing attention to major distinctions between the English and French systems. I do not feel I am at present competent to deliver such a talk; I need to do a great deal of research, and at this stage, I do not know whether I would be able to produce a paper worthy of the occasion. In the circumstances, in fairness to the organizing committee, I do not think it fair to agree to deliver this lecture until I am much more certain of my capacity to give a talk which would be worthy of the attention of those who will be attending.152

David then suggested that Suffian might contact his former assistant, Professor Alice Tay, as speaker for 1977. Alas, by the time his suggestion reached the organizing committee, Suffian had been asked to approach Justice Enrique Fernando of the Philippines to deliver the 1977 lecture. David took this lecture very seriously. He personally spent a lot of time researching the law, scouring the law libraries worldwide for articles — in English and French — on the two systems. He even called upon old friends in and out of Singapore to assist, including Louis Blom-Cooper, QC, Professor Andrew Martin, Dr Albert Myint Soe; and Dr Leonard Leigh. He even got his pupils and assistants to help in the research and when he was done, he showed it around to various people for comments. David worked himself into a frenzy over the lecture and threw as much energy into it as he did for his most stressful capital cases. T.P.B. Menon remembered being summoned to David’s office urgently one day. Thinking that it was a

152 David Marshall to Tun Mohd Suffian, 2 Aug 1976, DM/378/79/1–2.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

482

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

483

DOYEN OF THE BAR

major crisis, he rushed over immediately. Instead, David greeted him with a sheaf of type-written script — the text of the lecture — and asked him to read through it and give him his views on the paper. David literally locked Menon up in his conference room to make sure he would finish reading it that day.153 David delivered the ninth Braddell Memorial Lecture on 6 October, 1978, at Lecture Hall 6 of the University of Singapore at Kent Ridge. It was a glittering event attended by all the legal notables of Malaysia and Singapore, including one serving Lord President — Tun Mohd Suffian – and one future Lord President — Raja Azlan Shah. The Singapore judiciary was, however, conspicuous in its absence and only Justice T.S. Sinnathuray attended along with District Judge Chandra Mohan.154 The lecture, finally entitled “Facets of the Accusatorial and Inquisitorial Systems”,155 went well and David was in fine form but the substance of the lecture did not reflect the time and trouble he had taken in preparing it. In preparation for this lecture, David had read no fewer than a hundred academic articles on the subject, of which about forty were in French, but this was not evident from the delivery or published script. He had sought the help and assistance of no fewer than twenty friends, academics, pupils, assistants, and fellow lawyers in the preparation of his final document, but he remained somewhat unsatisfied with it. David was not an academic lawyer but an advocate. He was much more comfortable arguing for a particular position than with setting arguments out in an impartial, scholarly manner. From the standpoint of academic content, his lecture was lightweight and consisted mainly of David’s own observations on the problems and advantages of the

153 Interview with T.P.B. Menon, 25 Jun 2008. 154 David Marshall’s diary, 6 Oct 1978. 155 David Marshall, “Facets of the Accusatorial and Inquisitorial Systems”, Malayan Law Journal 1 (1979): xxix–xxxiv.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

483

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

484

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

various systems of justice. The lecture was not without its controversies. David started with his personal view of the ends of criminal justice, arguing that “the only valid aim of any healthy system of criminal justice is deterrence, not punishment, and it must be compatible with human dignity”.156 He then argued that draconian sentences never achieve their aim of deterring would-be criminals. In particular, the death penalty actually “create[s] sympathy for the condemned man and alienation of the people from the Law”.157 The adversarial or accusatorial system of justice results in “many acquittals of the guilty”, but this, David argued, is fine so long as a larger and more important end is served, that is that “we should not kill the patient in the process of eliminating the germs”.158 David went on to suggest the appointment of two lawyers in assigned capital cases — one senior and another junior — to ensure that the case is expertly handled and the accused’s liberty not imperilled. Queen’s Counsel should also not be routinely used, David warned, as this “may well inhibit the emergence and development of local specialist talent”. 159 Another fascinating suggestion from David was that “all confessions during the investigative process be made inadmissible”, and that an accused person should be taken before a Magistrate in Chambers within 24 hours of arrest and in the presence of a Court stenographer and his counsel (if any) the Prosecution (and only the Prosecution) be permitted to question him for the record for a continuous period not exceeding 2 hours. Before the questioning commences he should be told that he can refuse to answer any or all questions, and after the questioning he should be asked if he wishes to add anything.160 156 Ibid., p. xxx. 157 Ibid. 158 Ibid., p. xxxi. 159 Ibid. 160 Ibid., p. xxxii. This suggestion found favour with some criminal lawyers; see Judith Hale, “Three Lawyers Back Marshall’s Call to Reject ‘Confessions’ ”, New Nation, 9 Oct 1978.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

484

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

485

DOYEN OF THE BAR

David’s description of the French inquisitorial system was clear and lucid, but bore little relation to his critique of the accusatorial system. The conclusion was thus left hanging in the air and the audience left pondering what David was actually arguing for. Even so, this was David’s legal swansong. He ended his lecture in classic fashion: And now I must say goodbye — goodbye to you and the past 41 years. I feel somewhat like the Roman gladiators in the arena marching past the imperial stand and saluting Caesar with the cry: Morituri te Saluent (We who are about to die salute you)[sic]. I salute you — who are continuing to carry into the Future the Torch of human justice. May your contributions enhance the peace and dignity of your fellow human beings.161

That said, the 400 odd lawyers, judges, and students cheered him as he brought his lecture to a close after an hour. David took up his new ambassadorial appointment a few days afterwards. THINKING ABOUT THE LAW

Of the Rule of Law, Justice, Humanity and Human Dignity In his many speeches and statements, David spoke often of several important concepts relating to the administration of law and of criminal justice. Words and phrases often used include “human dignity”, “human rights”, “equality”, “rule of law”, and “justice”. David used these words regularly in his submissions and public utterances, but nowhere does he really elucidate their meanings in his writings or speeches. David was an emotional rather than a cerebral lawyer in the sense that he was driven primarily by gut instinct and feel for the law rather than by technical definitions and rules. He drew much of his inspiration and notions about law from his reading of the Bible and of great European literature. He was, in his own words, a “missionary of democracy”.

161 Ibid., p. xxxiv.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

485

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

486

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

In his speech entitled “The Rule of Law”, delivered to the Rotary Club of Singapore in 1969, David told his audience that the rule of law was “Britain’s greatest contribution to civilization” and the injunction ‘love thy neighbour as thyself ’ or the golden rule ‘do unto others …’ This approach of Christianity to human relationship is the core and the spirit of what we lawyers speak of as the Rule of Law.162

In some ways, David’s conception of the rule of law goes beyond the classic Diceyan conception of the rule of law so popular among lawyers today. Albert Venn Dicey, the English jurist, posited that the rule of law comprises three main concepts. First, that law should predominate arbitrary power; second, that all persons are equal before the law; and third that the law of the constitution is a consequence of the rights of individuals defined and enforced by the courts.163 The third limb of Dicey’s definition is peculiar to England where there is no written constitution and thus it is the first two limbs that apply in countries with written constitutions such as Singapore. Certainly, David eschewed the operation of arbitrary power in favour of law and was particularly concerned with equality before the law, as evinced from his keen participation in the debates on the constitution. Indeed, in the same Rotary Club lecture, David stated that in Singapore there were two obvious breaches of the rule of law: the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. Both these statutes gave the executive the power to detain without trial.164 But David’s notion of the rule of law went somewhat deeper than the perfunctory and positivistic aspects of Dicey’s conception. For

162 David Marshall, “The Rule of Law”, Law Times 4 (1969): 3. 163 See A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1959), p. 187. 164 David Marshall, “The Rule of Law”, Law Times 4 (1969): 4.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

486

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

487

DOYEN OF THE BAR

example, Dicey would have found it difficult to protest even if there were a totally unreasonable law — for example, that anyone caught littering should be sentenced to death — that was equally applicable to everyone. David would have expected more. Citing Wolfgang Friedmann, David maintained that the rule of law in democratic society rested “on the three foundations of equality, liberty and ultimate control of government by the people”.165 In addition, “law” must enable every person “to expand his personality in the context of his own genius”. The individual should have maximum liberty to swing his arm short of his neighbour’s nose.166 What then of “justice”? David believed that “law” was the “pragmatic application of the concept of justice in everyday relations” which “must necessarily be unique in each sovereign territory — reflecting the traditions and the social economic and political conditions and aspirations of the people to whom it applies”.167 It is the responsibility of lawyers “to purify and strengthen and humanize these traditions and make it our own” and prevent it from following “the traditional Eastern pattern and become the handmaiden of despotism”.168 However, justice must be tempered by humanity and respect for human dignity and in this regard, he admired the British for “their genius for commonsense and decency”.169

165 Ibid., p. 3. 166 “In Conversation: An Interview with Dr David Marshall”, Singapore Law Review 15 (1994): 5. 167 Foreword to Koh Kheng Lian & U. Myint Soe, The Penal Codes of Singapore and States of Malaya: Cases, Materials, and Comments, Vol. 1 (Singapore: Law Book Co of Singapore & Malaysia, 1974), p. iii. 168 Programme Message, University of Singapore Law Society Dinner & Dance 1968, DM/377/42a/1–2. 169 Speech at University of Singapore Law Society Dinner, 6 Sep 1968, DM/377/43/1–4.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

487

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

488

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Any scholar hoping to make sense of David’s thoughts on these issues might find a systematic and coherent enunciation of legal principle problematic. Even so, several clear strands of thought are evident. First, he believed that the rule of law meant (a) the preference for law over arbitrary power; (b) equality of all persons before the law and equal protection of the law for all — there should be no discrimination; (c) fairness and humanity in the substance of laws enacted by parliament. Second, he believed that law had to be administered in a commonsensical and compassionate manner. Exactly what is commonsensical and compassionate is difficult to define positively. Indeed, David probably found it easier to say what was not commonsensical and compassionate when faced with a real-life situation. Third, the law should nurture and enable an individual to develop “fully in harmony with his own personality as a human being in the context of the equal rights of others”.170 In other words, individual freedom and liberty is paramount and should be respected so long as the rights of others are not adversely affected by the exercise of the individual’s rights. What then did David mean when he urged lawyers and judges to approach and apply law with “humanity” and with due regard to “human dignity”? David tended to use the words “humanity” and “human dignity” interchangeably. For him, they carried the JudaeoChristian idea that all men are brothers and that, no matter what a person has done, he should be treated as a fellow human being, not as an animal or some kind of leprous outcast: If you ever become a criminal lawyer, never look down upon your client. He may be a murderer or he may be a thief; he is a fellow human being. You must try and respect your client no matter what he has done. It is very important in your own self respect in your work, and to help who is helpless in seeking help.171 170 David Marshall, “Physicians and Human Values”, 8th Gordon Arthur Ransome Oration, Annals of the Academy of Medicine 16.2 (1987): 215. 171 “Meeting David Marshall in 1994”, The Singapore Law Gazette, November 2006, p. 13.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

488

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

489

DOYEN OF THE BAR

In dealing with fellow human beings, David felt that one should be compassionate and give the person the benefit of doubt since no person is immune from folly. He also believed in the idea of redemption, that no human being is wholly bad or incorrigible. If you treat someone with humanity, there is likelihood that he can reform and become a useful member of society. Furthermore, any form of punishment should deter and not demean a person as a human being — as in the case of corporal punishment and the death sentence. Capital Punishment David was probably Singapore’s best known opponent of the death penalty. His opposition to what he called state-sanctioned murder was not born of any particular religious belief, for David was not by nature a religious person. But the entire fibre of his personality reacted with disgust and revulsion whenever the death penalty was mentioned. David reacted physically whenever one of his clients lost an appeal and was sent to the gallows. He would be moody, irascible, and his stomach would churn until he felt very ill. It was both an emotional and physical reaction. The death sentence, David argued, retained “the vestiges of primordial animal blood-lust and the animal instinct for vengeance”.172 However, there is little rationality behind this “blood-lust” because the killing of another can never help the murder victim. “How”, asked David, “does it help that they, the innocent family of the murderer, should suffer?” True to his belief that all persons are redeemable, he pointed out that there can be “no element of reformation in death”.173 David pointed out that the death penalty was ineffective as a deterrent since there appeared to be no decrease in the numbers of individuals awaiting their turn at the

172 David Marshall, “Murder by Society — Or the Case Against the Death Penalty”, The Sunday Mail, 24 Apr 1960, p. 4. 173 Ibid.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

489

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

490

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

gallows. The only deterrent to crime, he argued, was the certainty of apprehension and conviction: The protection of society has never benefitted by barbaric or sadistic sentences. Apart from the major issues both economic and educational involved, there is but one direct road to the prevention of crime, whether murder or anything else, and this is the strengthening of the ability of the police force by giving them the best of our youth and our brains, by increasing their prestige, by jealously guarding their reputation for integrity, efficiency, and decency.174

David’s lifelong campaign against the death penalty was singularly unsuccessful. The PAP government never bothered to engage him in any dialogue and indeed, over the years, increased the number of crimes punishable by death, making the death penalty mandatory in many cases such as drug trafficking. Jury Trials175 Jury trials had long been part of Singapore’s legal system. The system was brought into Singapore under the general importation of English law under the Second Charter of Justice 1826. In 1959, trials by jury were restricted to capital offences and ten years later, the government proceeded to abolish jury trials altogether. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had long expressed his reservations about the jury system: After being called to the Singapore Bar in 1951, my first case was to defend four rioters charged with the murder of an RAF sergeant during the ‘jungle girl’ Muslim riots against whites in December 1950. I got all four men acquitted, but it left me with grave doubts

174 Ibid. 175 For a history of jury trials in Singapore and Malaysia, see Andrew Phang Boon Leong, “Jury Trial in Singapore and Malaysia: The Unmaking of a Legal Institution”, Malaya Law Review 25 (1983): 50–86.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

490

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

491

DOYEN OF THE BAR

about the practical value of the jury system for Singapore. Seven men, deciding by majority verdict, made for easy acquittals. The jury system had also been tried in India, failed and was abolished. Soon after I became prime minister in 1959, I abolished the jury system for all cases except murder. I retained this exception to keep in line with the law in Malaya at that time, In 1969, after separation from Malaysia, I asked Eddie Barker as Minister for Law to move a bill in Parliament abolishing the jury system for murder trials.176

Back in 1959, David was not involved in any campaign to stop the abolition of jury trials for offences other than those carrying the death sentence, even though a number of others were. One of them was his old friend and personal physician, Dr B.R. Sreenivasan. Another old acquaintance, Lim Kean Chye, also opposed the curtailment of the jury system. The Singapore Bar Committee also wrote in to voice their objections.177 The amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code were passed with a lone objection from A.P. Rajah. The Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill 1969 came up for its first reading in Parliament on 8 April, 1969. The second reading spread over two days with Law Minister E.W. Barker moving the bill. By this time, the ruling People’s Action Party held all the seats in parliament and it was unlikely that anyone would oppose the bill. The only reservation was voiced by N. Govindasamy. The bill was then committed to a Select Committee comprising Punch Coomaraswamy (speaker and chairman), E.W. Barker, N. Govindasamy, Lee Kuan Yew, Low Yong Nguan, Mohd Ghazali bin Islamil, Len P. Rodrigo, and Padmanathan Selvadurai. In all, eleven written submissions were sent to the Select Committee.

176 Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First — The Singapore Story: 1965–2000 (Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings & Times Editions, 2000), p. 241. 177 See Report of the Select Committee on the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill (Singapore: Government Printer, 1960).

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

491

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

492

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Unlike his fellow lawyers, Stewart Ashcroft, Amarjit Singh, and Lim Chor Pee, David did not file an individual representation. Instead he persuaded the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society (which succeeded the Singapore Bar Committee) to submit a collective representation. David, Singapore’s most successful criminal lawyer, was especially successful in front of a jury. He had the ability to speak to the jury in their own language and to persuade them to his client’s point of view; he was a master at punching holes in the evidence of the prosecution to create “reasonable doubt” in the minds of jurors; and his oratory and powers of persuasion, coupled with his meticulous preparation of his cases, made him extremely difficult to beat in front of a jury. Beyond the obvious self-interest in wanting an institution he flourished in to survive, David was moved to fighting against the abolition of the jury because he believed it to be a better system than trial before two judges. David, in a talk to the law alumni in April 1969, outlined six major advantages of the jury system:178 1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

That it is a very considerable safeguard to the citizen against pressure from Government on our courts and conviction of innocent people because of political motivation and personal animosities. Conclusions of fact are arrived at by ordinary members of the community who are anxious to protect the community against evil doers and to protect the innocent against injustice. It tempers harsh laws which have not caught up with growing social consciousness of the community. It brings the public into close association with the major arm of public life — the administration of justice — so that they can recognize their justice, not the Government’s justice. It brings the women and younger people into the administration of justice, which is not possible with judges.

178 David Marshall, “The Jury”, unpublished manuscript of speech given to the Law Alumni.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

492

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

493

DOYEN OF THE BAR

6.

The jury system is also a tremendous protection for the judges themselves and for the administration of the law. No one can blame a judge for the unpopular verdict of an anonymous jury.

At an extraordinary meeting of the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society attended by some seventy out of 300 members, it was resolved that the Society would support a memorandum to oppose the amendments. Graham Starforth Hill, then the president of the society, was personally in favour of abolishing the jury, but acted in a representative capacity to file the memorandum since the majority of society’s members were in favour. Recalling the episode, Hill wrote: I think the occasion that has remained most vividly in my mind from my four years in office was when the Government decided to do away with the jury in the only category of case in which it remained, namely capital cases. The Bar, led by David Marshall, who might have been said as a criminal lawyer to have had a vested interest in the retention of the jury, decided to oppose this proposal and I, as President, had to lead a delegation to a select committee to put their case with which, as it happened, I was not personally in agreement. We were carved up! The change, rightly in my view, came about.179

Hill led a delegation of six lawyers that included, in addition to David and himself, C.C. Tan, Stewart Ashcroft, Rajaratnam Muragason, and Kumar Lal to the Select Committee which gave evidence on two days, 23 September and 7 October, 1969.180 Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was in a combative mood and he was determined to tear their submissions apart. Lee accused the society of “politicking”181 and

179 “My Presidency as I Remember it …”, Singapore Law Gazette, November 2007, p. 7. 180 See Report of the Select Committee on the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill, Part 8 of 1969. 181 Ibid., col. 80.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

493

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

494

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

began attacking the bona fides of each member of the Society’s delegation, challenging their experience at the criminal bar and their standing to make representations. He began to isolate David from the rest. He went after David and accused him of turning the issue into a political one. It was almost as if the Society’s six representatives were in the dock, with Lee firing them questions much in the way as David would have done in cross-examination. It was not a pleasant experience but David was not cowed. He disagreed vehemently but it was difficult for him to get a word in edgewise. And when he did, the exchanges he had with Lee were reminiscent of the debates between the two men back in 1955–1956. On 22 December, 1969, the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act was passed and jury trials in Singapore ceased to exist. Legal Ethics The subject of legal ethics is a vast one.182 In Singapore, ethics within the legal profession are governed by the Legal Profession Act and a huge body of rules passed under that Act. These include the ninety or so Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules dealing with issues such as relationship and dealings with clients, conduct of proceedings in court, defending accused persons, and conduct of criminal prosecutions. Generally speaking, a lawyer owes a professional duty to several entities: the Court; the client; fellow lawyers; and the public. David regarded his duty to his client as paramount, but would not tolerate any dishonesty or lies. If his client confessed his guilt, David would immediately urge the client to plead guilty and work hard to ameliorate it through mitigation. He believed that his duty as an officer of the court was even more important and he would never lie

182 For an introduction to the subject with respect to Singapore, see Jeffrey Pinsler, Ethics and Professional Responsibility: A Code for the Advocate & Solicitor (Singapore: Academy Publishing, 2007).

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

494

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

495

DOYEN OF THE BAR

to the court or try to mislead the judge or jury in any way. David did not, however, believe that his duty to the court included a duty to help the prosecution prove the guilt of his client or the court to ascertain the truth of what had really happened. What then was his position when his duty to his client conflicted with his duty to the court? David tells the story of a case in which he acted for a man accused of a capital offence.183 David requested that he be remanded for six weeks at Woodbridge Hospital for observation. Two weeks after he was transferred to Woodbridge Hospital, the client’s wife and sister visited David at his office with reams of toilet paper on which the accused had written something using water and some dust. Getting impatient with this intrusion, David asked them what it said. The sister replied: It says that we are to ask X and Y to go in a car at 2 am tonight and to park in a lane near Woodbridge Hospital. The security is lax and he will try to escape with bedsheets tied together. X and Y are to be armed in case the hospital guards start shooting.

David was totally stunned and aghast: I said, ‘Take this back. Go home and stay home all today and all tonight. You will not contact X and Y, and if you disobey me, I promise you I will report you to the police and see you in prison. And in any case, I am going to have your brother transferred immediately to maximum security. If X and Y are in the side lane at 2 am, they will not find your brother but they will find the police.

David then rushed down to the magistrate’s court to ask for the cancellation of the remand order at Woodbridge Hospital but the magistrate was reluctant to do so in the absence of good reasons. David asked to see the magistrate in chambers where he explained what he had just found out. The order was rescinded. His client was transferred to Outram Prison that very morning. David remembered: 183 David Marshall, “Some Thoughts on Legal Ethics”, Singapore Law Review 6 (1985): 79–86.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

495

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

496

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

The next morning the Straits Times came out with headlines about how police intelligence foiled a dastardly conspiracy by a dangerous suspect to shoot his way out of Woodbridge with the aid of accomplices stationed outside. Police intelligence came in for fulsome praise. After the High Court adjourned that afternoon, I went to see my client and explained what I had done, and offered him a refund of fees. ‘Why did you do it, Mr Marshall?’ That was the outlet for my pent up anger. I blasted him. When I stopped, he said, ‘I don’t want my money back, I want you as my lawyer.’ I was unhappy, naturally. Your client trusts you, his relatives trust you, and to report him to the police sticks in the gullet. I sat down and reported myself to the Treasurer of my Inn, the Middle Temple. In due course, I received a letter saying that my report had been forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the Inns of Court. Months later, I received a letter from the Tresurer to say that the Disciplinary Committee had reported that it does not presume to tell the courts of foreign jurisdiction how their officers should conduct themselves. Nevertheless, had I acted in the United Kingdom as indicated, they would consider that I had acted according to the highest traditions of the English Bar. I should be satisfied. I did what I had to do, but it was, unpleasant. Very unpleasant.184

Insofar as the Court is concerned, the lawyer’s duty is to assist and not mislead. In another case, David recalled how a solicitor had come to his office to brief him on a criminal case. Taking one quick look at the charge sheet, David knew that it was duplicitous and told the solicitor that he would object to the charge before the magistrate. The magistrate would then advise the prosecution to amend the charge, and the accused would probably win the case on appeal. The solicitor then asked: Mr Marshall, don’t you think we shouldn’t take an objection in the Magistrate’s Court? If our client is convicted, then he could be acquitted on appeal. 184 Ibid., pp. 81–82.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

496

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

497

DOYEN OF THE BAR

David replied: “We are officers of the Court. Our duty is to assist not to mislead.” The following day, the solicitor asked for the charge sheet in return as he had decided to brief another lawyer.185 Although David’s fees were reputedly among the highest among criminal lawyers, the fees were only an adjunct consideration to the primacy of the relationship between the lawyer and his client. He did much work for trade unions and indigent Malays for a fee of just $1.00. This was to ensure that consideration had passed between lawyer and client and he would be liable in the event that he was negligent. In one case, he agreed to act for an accused in a murder trial in Ipoh. Shortly after accepting the case, he was approached by the family of the deceased to hold a watching brief in the same case. David apologized, saying that he could not do so as he had already agreed to act for the accused. The deceased’s family offered him a lot more money to switch sides, but David was resolute. He could not possibly ditch his client — no matter how much he was paid — because he had already accepted him as a client. Unfortunately, the client practically made a confession and David returned the $10,000 cheque to his family, saying that it would be unconscionable to charge them fees as he was unable to help the accused.186 In dealing with clients, David insisted on a purely professional relationship that allowed him to be objective and to ask the court to discharge him from the case should the client be involved in any attempt to subvert justice. One famous story that David liked to tell in relation to this point concerns an attempt by someone to bribe him with sex: You know the firm rule. ‘You may make a client of your mistress but never a mistress of your client’ — that is unacceptable abuse of confidential relationship.

185 Ibid., p. 82. 186 Ibid., pp. 82–83.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

497

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

498

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

An English woman came into my office one day. Twenty-nine/ thirty, attractive, well formed, even a little blousy, with a low-cut neckline and snowy shoulders. ‘Mr Marshall,’ she gushed, ‘I am so glad I can see you. They tell me you are compassionate (tears). He is such a brute (tears). I am trying to divorce him. My lawyer, he is my friend, he doesn’t charge me anything. He is slow I don’t think he knows … it is taking so long (tears). I can’t go to another lawyer … I have no money, my husband does not give me any money … (tears). You must help Mr Marshall’. If she’d stopped there, I would have been sunk.You know, I am a sucker. But suddenly, I don’t know how she did it — she was leaning on my desk, a pink cherry appeared on a mound of snowy blancmange, peeping invitingly. The spell snapped. I grinned. I leaned over confidentially and said, ‘M’am, I share my fees with my partners.’ She hitched up her dress and walked off in a huff. I do not know what she had against my partners — Amarjeet Singh and Rubin Mohideen. Nice chaps.187

David was absolutely scrupulous, honest, and transparent in all his dealings and demanded nothing less from his partners and assistants. Once, after getting a client off a capital charge, the client’s family delivered two gold bars to David in addition to his agreed fees. He returned the gold bars as he did not want to get into any trouble with the tax authorities.188 His only insurance claim for $8,000 — after losing a gold Rolex watch his friend Koh Bock Thye had given him — was immediately returned to the insurance company years later when he found the watch behind an old cupboard.189 It thus came as a huge shock to David when, after his handling of the Lee Mau Seng case, the Law Society took proceedings against him for “grossly improper conduct” under section 84 of the Legal Profession

187 Ibid., p. 85. 188 Email communication with Chew Swee Yoke, 17 Mar 2008. 189 Interview with Jonathan Marshall, 15 May 2008.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

498

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

499

DOYEN OF THE BAR

Act for a breach of undertaking. The legal aspects of this landmark case have been discussed earlier in this chapter and the following discussion will centre on the grounds for the proceedings against David. David acted for four detained newspaper executives and editors of the Chinese daily, the Nanyang Siang Pau, who had been arrested and detained under the Internal Security Act. Their detention attracted considerable press and media attention both in Singapore and abroad. The proceedings arose out of a conversation between the Attorney General, the Chief Justice, and David at the close of the habeas corpus hearing on 26 May, 1971, outside the Chief Justice’s chambers. Because of the high publicity involved in the case and especially since there was going to be a high-profile conference of the International Press Institute in Helsinki on 7 June, 1971, at which Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was due to speak, the Attorney General, Tan Boon Teik, was anxious that the affidavits affirmed by David’s four clients were not published before the adjourned hearing, which had been fixed for 7 June, 1971. Tan drew the Chief Justice’s attention to the fact that “affidavits and their contents had the habit of being leaked out to the press and the public at large the moment they were filed in the registry”.190 To this comment, David replied orally: The Attorney-General need have no anxiety about our office because we never gave any pleadings to the press before trial and I can assure him that neither I nor my office will give these affidavits to them for publication.191

Two days later, on 28 May, 1971, David sent by registered airmail post five sets of the affidavits together with explanatory documents to Martin Ennals, secretary-general of Amnesty International in London. On 29 May, 1971, David sent two further sets of the affidavits to

190 Re David Marshall; Law Society v. Marshall David Saul [1972–1974] SLR 132, p. 135. 191 Ibid.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

499

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

500

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Sir Elwyn Jones, QC, and another set to Harold Evans, editor of London’s Sunday Times. All the affidavits that were sent out had the word “Affidavit” as well as the jurats192 deleted. The words “Instructions to Counsel” were inserted in their place. On 1 June, 1971, David informed Tan that he had sent the affidavits to London as clients’ instructions. Tan was most annoyed and wrote a letter to David that same day accusing him of breach of the undertaking given on 26 May. On 2 June, David gave seven sets of the affidavits to Derek Round, a member of the Secretariat of the International Press Institute. David had given them to Round most reluctantly on the understanding that it should not be published in the press before the hearing on 7 June, 1971. On 6 June, 1971, at a press conference in Helsinki, Round handed copies of the affidavits to representatives of United Press, Associated Press, and Reuters News Agency. The Attorney General lodged a complaint against David to the Law Society and launched proceedings to determine if David should show cause as to why he should not be disciplined. Before the Law Society’s Disciplinary Committee — comprising Cuthbert Ess, C.C. Tan and K.T. Ooi — David argued that (a) he had not given an undertaking; and (b) even if what he said could be construed as a binding undertaking, it was restricted to the release of the affidavits for publication prior to the date of the habeas corpus hearings. David was represented by his good friend Joseph Grimberg at these hearings which were held in a room at the Shangrila Hotel. The Disciplinary Committee found David guilty of grossly improper conduct and recommended that he be censured. The showcause hearing came before a panel of three judges in the High Court in October 1972. By this time, Grimberg was in England on leave and

192 The jurat refers to that part of an affidavit containing the names of the parties swearing it, the actual statement that an oath or affirmation has been made, the person before whom it was sworn, the date, place, and other necessary particulars.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

500

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

501

DOYEN OF THE BAR

David was represented by his former partner, L.A.J. Smith, who was assisted by David’s former assistant, Eugene Phoa. The panel of three judges delivered their unanimous judgement on 7 October, 1972, and found David guilty of “grossly improper conduct” in the breach of his undertaking to the Attorney General. He was suspended from practice for six months.193 The legal profession was shocked by the decision and it did not help that the judgement of the three-man court — comprising Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, and Justices F.A. Chua and A.V. Winslow — failed to clarify what had amounted to “grossly improper conduct”. In the words of the court: The test of what constitutes ‘grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duties’ in s 84 had been laid down in many cases as meaning conduct which is dishonourable to him as a man and dishonourable in the profession. Applying this test, there was here abundant evidence on which the disciplinary committee could come to a conclusion that the respondent was guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duties.194

At best, the logic was problematic. It failed to deal with the ingredients of what constitutes a legally binding undertaking and the extent to which the undertaking had been breached. It was also too sweeping to simply state that there was “abundant evidence” of David’s grossly improper conduct since there was little attempt to apply the law to the facts. This decision was heavily criticized in a lengthy article published in INSAF, the journal of the Malaysian Bar Council.195 The suspension dealt a tremendous blow to David and his family. All his professional life, he had given wholeheartedly and sincerely to

193 See T.F. Hwang, “Marshall Suspended”, The Sunday Times, 8 Oct 1972. 194 Re David Marshall; Law Society v. Marshall David Saul [1972–1974] SLR 132, p. 138. 195 “The Dilemma of a Solicitor”, INSAF The Journal of the Bar Council 7.2 (1974): 13–25.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

501

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

502

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

the Bar, admonished his younger colleagues to view law as a calling, and to honour the highest traditions of the Bar. The cut was most unkind. He had honestly felt that he had not done anything wrong and he could not help but feel, once again, that his suspension was yet another attempt by the Singaporean elite to marginalize him. He was beside himself with rage and plunged into the darkest depression. His temper grew worse and he snapped at the slightest irritation or provocation. David was like a wounded animal who felt that he was being left to die slowly and excruciatingly. His wife Jean remembered how difficult those times were: He was suspended from practice and we went to England during that period, not quite knowing what the future of the family was. It then worked out that we came back to Singapore and David went back to practice. … I can remember one of the children coming home saying that a child had told her, ‘Your Daddy’s going to prison; my daddy said so.’ And ‘my daddy’ on that occasion was a PAP MP. The upheaval and stress of that time was also because David was extremely traumatized … I had, by then a little house, a cottage in England which I had bought so that the children could visit their grandparents who lived nearby and my mother was no longer well enough to have guests. And fortunately by then I had that cottage and we went to live there and the children went to the village school over that winter while David had to work out whether he should return to Singapore if the opportunity offered.196 … David had gone to London first because certain things happened which meant he wanted to leave Singapore. I too felt it was wiser that he left Singapore for the period. He went to London first and stayed in his brother’s flat in London. I went with the children and stayed at the cottage and David did a course at the London School of Economics but came down to the cottage at the weekends and for a lot of the time.… it was a fairly upheaving time for the children.197 196 Oral History Interview, Mrs Jean Marshall née Gray, 3 May 1995, Reel 5 (Singapore: National Archives). 197 Ibid.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

502

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

503

DOYEN OF THE BAR

In London, David took up a course on criminology with Dr Leonard Leigh of the London School of Economics and did voluntary work for the World Jewish Congress. In England, David had the support of his many friends. Several of them, including Morris Finer QC, ElwynJones QC, and members of the British Labour Party, Sir Hartley Shawcross, John Newey QC, Lord Selkirk, and Sir Malcolm MacDonald, all wrote to Law Minister E.W. Barker to intercede on David’s behalf. Even so, the entire family was on tenterhooks and rumours were rife that if David returned to Singapore, he would be arrested. Jean decided to leave her children with relatives, return to Singapore, and try to sort things out. Once back in town, she wrote to Barker for an appointment. It was agonizing as she heard nothing from him for a long time. Finally a letter from City Hall came and she went to see Barker, who told her that he had phoned the Attorney General who informed him that no further proceedings would be taken against David. He could come back and practise. Jean immediately contacted David who was absolutely overjoyed. He took the next plane back to Singapore.198 Even in his state of depression, David was very concerned to do the right thing. He wanted to be sure that even if he was “blackballed”, no other person or institution connected with him should suffer from the umbrage or odium. Shortly after the High Court announced his suspension, he placed a phone call to Dr Goh Keng Swee — then deputy prime minister and Minister for Defence — to resign his chairmanship of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS). Goh was adamant that David should stay on and did not regard his being suspended an embarrassment to the Institute. Back in 1968, Goh had persuaded his cabinet colleagues that a think tank for the study of Singapore’s Southeast Asian neighbours was imperative. By an act of parliament, the Institute was created in 1968.

198 Interview with Mrs Jean Marshall, 16 Jan 2008.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

503

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

504

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

To avoid any suggestion that it was just another government body, Goh appointed David as its first chairman. David served in this capacity from May 1969 until November 1974. THE MALAYSIAN BAN ON SINGAPORE LAWYERS

Just before the Federation of Malaya became independent in 1957, the Federation Bar Council and the Singapore Bar Committee recommended to their respective governments that rules of admission be relaxed so that lawyers from Malaya and Singapore could practise in each other’s jurisdictions. This arrangement continued even after Singapore’s exit from the Federation of Malaysia in August 1965.199 Singapore lawyers like David were often engaged and made their presence felt, especially in the southern states like Johor and Malacca. However, as Singapore lawyers began making an impact further north, discontent arose. The move to ban Singapore lawyers from practising in the Federation can be traced to a letter written by a senior Malaysian lawyer, Lal Singh Mukher, to the Malaysian Bar Council. Mukher suggested that the law be amended to stop Singapore lawyers from practising in the Federation. To study this issue further, the Bar Council set up a sub-committee headed by Dato’ Athi Nahappan and comprising John Skrine, Kam Woon Wah, and Richard Tallala. The sub-committee was not unanimous in its recommendations as Skrine dissented. The majority report stated that it was “the prerogative of every profession within a sovereign country to take such steps as are legitimate to defend itself ”.200 It warned of overcrowding and warned that if no steps were taken now to control the number of practitioners

199 Cyrus Das, ed., Justice Through Law: Fifty Years of the Bar Council of Malaysia 1947–1997 (Kuala Lumpur: Bar Council Malaysia, 1997), p. 49. 200 Ibid., pp. 49–50.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

504

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

505

DOYEN OF THE BAR

in Malaysia, there would be too many lawyers “chasing too few opportunities”.201 Skrine, on the other hand, argued that the public and the proper administration of justice demanded that the best professional advice be made available to all as cheaply as possible and argued for an open market. At the Malaysian Bar’s annual general meeting in February 1967, both reports were hotly debated. Radhakrishnan Ramani, former chairman of the Bar Council and at the time Malaysia’s permanent representative to the United Nations, suggested that the view of all lawyers in the peninsula be solicited before a decision was made. Six months later, the results of the poll were made known and the majority of lawyers in Malaysia were not in favour of excluding their Singaporean brethren from their Bar.202 This reprieve was only temporary. On 2 April, 1970, the Malaysian parliament passed Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 30, which restricted the right of all non-residents from practising in Malaysia. The ban would be effective from 31 December, 1970. This move was strongly supported by the Malaysian Bar Council.203 The ban on Singapore lawyers would affect some 135 practitioners who regularly appeared in Malaysia. Although David was then a member of the Singapore Advocates & Solicitors Society Council, he realized that this was not a representation the Council could make to the Malaysians. After meeting up with John Skrine — author of the minority report — he wrote to society president Graham Starforth Hill in June 1970. David suggested the establishment of a special ad hoc committee comprising those who practised in Malaysia to make representations to the Malaysian Bar:

201 Ibid., p. 50. 202 Ibid., pp. 50–51. 203 “Malaysian Bar Council approves Ban on Foreign Lawyers After Oct 1”, The Malay Mail, 7 Apr 1970.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

505

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

506

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

In view of the conversation we had recently, I am aware of, and concur with, your objection that our Council cannot in logic make any representations. A solution that occurs to me is that members of the Council who practise in Malaysia should form an ad hoc Committee and should circularize all non Malaysian called to the Malaysian Bar who are resident in Singapore calling a meeting. At such meeting, Skrine’s suggestion [to write to the Bar Council] can be considered. I am under the impression he would like to keep in the background as he hopes to be most effective when our representations are received.204

It appears that getting the ad hoc committee established was more difficult than imagined. In August 1970, David wrote a short, terse, and urgent message to Robert K. Booker of Allen & Gledhill: ‘Time is fleeting underneath our feet.’ I think we had better call a meeting.205

A meeting was eventually called and Booker was appointed chairman of the ad hoc committee, but David appears to have been its chief spokesperson. David was instrumental in drafting the representations. At a press conference, David said: We would like to cooperate with the Malaysian government in areas where the protection of the local Bar is called for. But our view is that a general ban of so stringent a character does not seem necessary on the fact available.206

Booker and David met up with the Malaysian Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Yusof on the matter, but was told that the Malaysian Government “will not go back on its decision and amend the law for them”.207 A group of fifteen Malaysian lawyers in Singapore even put

204 David Marshall to G.S. Hill, 1 Jun 1970, DM/234/115. 205 David Marshall to R.K. Booker, 13 Aug 1970, DM/3019/70. 206 “Malaysia Ban Appeal by S’pore Lawyers”, The Straits Times, 13 Nov 1970. 207 “Ban on Alien Lawyers to Stay — AG”, The Malay Mail, 15 Nov 1970.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

506

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

507

DOYEN OF THE BAR

up a joint memorandum to Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Razak suggesting that the legislation be amended to prevent non-Malaysian lawyers from setting up offices in Malaysia, but to allow them to continue to appear in Malaysia courts. The appeal failed. Tan Sri Abdul Kadir explained: Tun Razak has directed me to reply to this memorandum stating that he was considered their appeal very carefully, but he regrets that the Malaysian Government cannot accept any of the proposals to modify this ordinance. The action taken by the Government in implementing the ban is based on national interest and the interest of Malaysian lawyers.208

On 1 January, 1971, Singapore lawyers ceased to practise in Malaysia. In all, about 135 Singapore lawyers were affected by the ban and sixty-three of them had to either sell or close down their offices in Malaysia.209 Henceforth, only Malaysians were allowed to practise at the Malaysia Bar. Even so, it was possible for foreign lawyers to practise at the Bar if they obtained a certificate from the High Court under an ad hoc admission procedure. Just eleven days after the ban came into operation, an application was made in the Johor High Court to admit David as counsel in a corruption case.210 The application was unsuccessful. David’s last court appearance in Malaysia was in the much publicized Esther Chan murder trial. In that case, David held a watching brief for Chan’s family while his rival S.K. Lee — generally regarded as the next best criminal lawyer in Singapore —

208 “Ban on Singapore Lawyers Cannot be Modified”, The Malay Mail, 4 Jan 1971. 209 “Life Ban on Singapore Lawyers, Malaysia Urged”, The Straits Times, 4 Jan 1971. 210 “ ‘Waive Foreign Lawyers Ban’ Appeal in Graft Case”, The Straits Times, 12 Jan 1971; see also “Malaysian Appeal for Local Lawyer”, Eastern Sun, 12 Mar 1971.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

507

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

508

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

appeared for the accused, Lee Wong Tiang. After a thirty-day trial, Lee was convicted and sentenced to death.211 David retired from legal practice in 1978 after being appointed Singapore’s first ambassador to France. His final appearance in court was in a criminal appeal before the High Court on 26 September, 1978. His client, former police inspector Tong Keng Wah, was appealing against his conviction on a charge of misappropriating a service revolver and eleven bullets. Speaking to reporters after his last day in court, David said: I feel curiously empty standing by the graveside of my career. I don’t believe it and I don’t want to believe it. I can’t believe that I will never be in court again … that I’ll never be rude to the prosecution again. Why, I feel like a man walking over his own grave. I feel a … sadness and disbelief. I’m going to miss my career very much. But I’m excited by the challenge of my new venture.212

211 See Josey, The David Marshall Trials , pp. 200–22. 212 David Marshall’s last words on his retirement. “Marshall Leaves with Disbelief ”, The New Nation, 27 Sep 1978.

14 Marshall_S'pore Ch 14

508

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the VIVE LA FRANCE! 509 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

15

Vive la France! EARLY FORAYS IN DIPLOMACY

D

avid’s first foray in diplomacy had been back in 1955 when he was chief minister. At that time, he had led a delegation — in his capacity as Minister for Commerce and Industry — to Indonesia in an attempt to ease the trade tensions between Indonesia and Singapore. This trip was not without controversy since foreign relations and foreign affairs were still under the charge of the British. Yet the visit was a great success and added greatly to David’s stature as an international statesman. His attempts at forging a panAsian connection with India and Ceylon — while on his way to London in December 1955 for talks with the British — were less successful, even though leaders in the two countries gave him much support and encouragement from the sidelines. David remained in government for too short a time for more forays into diplomacy, although his post-chief ministership, two-month tour of China must also be considered a great success. Certainly, David had many attributes of a good diplomat. He was intelligent, charming, witty, a great raconteur, genuinely enjoyed the company of people, and understood politics as an insider. However, there were other aspects of his personality that did not make him the epitome of a diplomat. His tendency to wear his heart on his sleeve, his willingness to openly criticize things he did not like or which he thought were unfair, his quick temper and independent frame of mind made him less than ideal as a diplomat.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

509

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

510

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

It was therefore to his great surprise that in 1968 he was invited by Foreign Minister S. Rajaratnam to be part of the five-member Singapore delegation to the 23rd session of the United Nations General Assembly. The delegation, led by Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Rahim Ishak, included Ng Kah Ting (member of parliament for Punggol), Harry Chan Keng Howe (acting permanent secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Abdul Aziz bin Mahmood (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), and David.1 The team was joined in New York by Tommy Koh, who had been David’s pupil and assistant in 1961–1962. After leaving David’s firm, he had joined the teaching staff of the Faculty of Law, at the University of Singapore. In 1968, he was seconded to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to serve as Singapore’s permanent representative to the United Nations. The delegation arrived in New York in late October and as it was expected to be in New York for the better part of two months, Koh was able to sublet an apartment for David’s use. David, who was not used to living alone without domestic help, found it rather inconvenient. He once even called Koh over to teach him how to operate the coffee percolator and to help him iron his rather crumpled tuxedo before a formal function.2 Koh, knowing David’s deep interest and concern for human rights, assigned him to the Third Committee, which was responsible for social, humanitarian and cultural issues.3 David enjoyed himself thoroughly, taking a very active part in the proceedings and pressing

1

“Marshall in S’pore Team to UN Assembly”, The Sunday Times, 22 Sep 1968, p. 10.

2

Interview with Tommy Koh, 7 Apr 2008.

3

Under the United Nations system, there are six main committees: First Committee: Disarmament and International Security (DISEC); Second Committee: Economic and Financial (ECOFIN); Third Committee: Social, Humanitarian and Cultural (SOCHUM); Fourth Committee: Special Political and Decolonization (SPECPOL); Fifth Committee: Administrative and Budgetary; and Sixth Committee: Legal.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

510

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

511

his superb drafting skills into service. Koh remembered how David volunteered to help Saudi Arabian ambassador Jamil M. Baroody redraft a particular resolution. In the process, he made a good friend of Baroody. Indeed, Baroody openly told the meeting that he had had help from his “brother from Singapore”, a most ironic embrace of a Jew by an Arab.4 David had obviously done well diplomatically and Tommy Koh even suggested that he return for the 24th Session in 1969. However, that was entirely Koh’s personal suggestion and not an official overture. More importantly, rumours began circulating that David might well be offered an ambassadorship. After all, former politicians had been offered ambassadorial positions. David’s successor as chief minister, Lim Yew Hock, was made Malaysia’s High Commissioner to Australia in 1964, while former Law Minister Kenneth M. Byrne was appointed Singapore’s High Commissioner to New Zealand in 1966. Upon his return from New York, David wrote his brother Sonny: There is a very strong rumour amongst senior civil servants in Singapore that I am going to be asked to open our very first Embassy in communist countries — in Moscow. Jean is far from keen: she is worried about the education of the children and Our Government is particularly mean in financial remuneration for diplomats. I have an appointment with the Foreign Minister next week and will write you of any developments.5

David also intimated this in a letter to his friend Cecil Whitmont: The question of ambassadorship was a matter hinted at but not really discussed. If the offer ever comes it will mean an agonizing decision of a major character. Jean is very unhappy about the very considerable financial sacrifice involved in permanent public service particularly as, although I am a big earner, I have always been a big spender and my nest-egg is not one of adequate dimension to meet

4

Interview with Tommy Koh, 7 Apr 2008.

5

David Marshall to S.S. Marshall, 12 Feb 1969, DM/223/2.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

511

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

512

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

the requirement of four very young children — I say four because Jean is expecting a baby next May. I agree with you that this gesture on the part of the Government is one that indicates a very startling if unexpected maturity, but one swallow does not make a summer and I am keeping my fingers crossed.6

The rumours remained rumours and no moves were made to induct David into the foreign service. David was disappointed, not so much because he badly wanted to be a diplomat, but because the People’s Action Party government did not appear prepared to give him an opportunity to serve Singapore. Indeed, it would not be for another ten years before he was once again called upon to serve his country as its emissary. SINGAPORE ’ S FOREIGN POLICY

Singapore’s independence from Malaysia in 1965 meant that, for the first time, Singapore had to handle its own foreign relations and policy. The man whom the government picked to handle this new portfolio was Sinnathamby Rajaratnam, former Singapore Standard and Straits Times journalist, and an old friend of David’s. Rajaratnam served as Singapore’s foreign minister for fifteen years and it was he who was primarily responsible for formulating and shaping Singapore’s foreign policy for the first two decades of its existence.7 David was full of admiration for Rajaratnam as a person and his ability as a diplomat: Rajaratnam, quite unique; his dispassionate, cold intellect with an eagle’s eye-view of international relations. And the exquisite courtesy

6

David Marshall to Cecil Whitmont, 9 Oct 1968, DM/221/61.

7

See Barry Desker & Mohamed Nawab Mohamed Osman, “S. Rajaratnam and the Making of Singapore Foreign Policy”, in Kwa Chong Guan, ed., S. Rajaratnam on Singapore: From Ideas to Reality (Singapore: World Scientific & IDSS, 2006), pp. 3–20.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

512

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

513

of a truly civilized human being, even if he doesn’t like you. His sense of courtesy smooths many a ruffled feeling. He is a true gloved hand. You don’t know that there is an iron fist till it hits you. He’s a very unusual man. I call him the man with seven league boots because of his understanding of international relations, his capacity to go for the quintessence of an issue, the very core, and to find the simple solutions, and to build patiently and quietly. He has unique qualities that man, and absolutely no political ambition except for his party.8

Singapore’s foreign policy has been dictated by three key considerations: survival, national security, and economic well-being.9 The primary task of foreign policy, argued Rajaratnam, was to safeguard Singapore’s “independence from external threats”.10 He posed the question in this way: In a nutshell, our problem is how to make sure that a small island with a teeming population and no natural resources to speak of, can maintain, even increase, its living standards and also enjoy peace and security in a region marked by mutual jealousies, internal violence, economic disintegration and great power conflicts.11

The way to do this, he argued, was to establish “friendly relations with all countries, particularly those nearest to us as well as by ensuring that our foreign and our defence policy do not increase tensions and fears among our neighbours”.12 Singapore’s relationship with Malaysia was unique and special and was, from the outset, given special consideration and attention for, as Rajaratnam opined,

8

David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 6 (Singapore: National Archives).

9

See Amitav Archaya, Singapore’s Foreign Policy: The Search for Regional Order (Singapore: World Scientific, 2008), p. 17.

10 See Desker & Mohamed, “S. Rajaratnam and the Making of Singapore Foreign Policy”, p. 4. 11 Ibid., p. 4. 12 Ibid., p. 5.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

513

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

514

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

“[t]he survival and well-being of Malaysia is essential to Singapore’s survival” and vice versa.13 Singapore’s first High Commissioner to Malaysia was Ko Teck Kin (1906–1966), a highly respected rubber tycoon who had previously been the president of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce. Singapore’s policy towards Indonesia, its next nearest neighbour, were rather more complex, mainly because of Confrontation or Konfrontasi, President Sukarno’s undeclared war against the Federation of Malaysia that included Singapore. The lowest point in relations occurred when Singapore proceeded to hang two Indonesian marines responsible for the bombing of MacDonald House in Orchard Road. Even though President Suharto formally ended Konfrontasi in 1966, it was not until 1973 that relationships were on the mend, when Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew visited Indonesia and scattered flower petals on the graves of the two executed marines who had been buried in the Taman Makam Pahlawan Kalibata (Kalibata Heroes Cemetery) in Jakarta.14 Singapore’s relations with its other Southeast Asian neighbours was given a major boost with the establishment of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) — comprising Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand — in 1967. ASEAN, which has now expanded to include Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, provided an important framework for economic cooperation and dialogue among the Southeast Asian nations. Its status as an international entity was greatly heightened in the international crisis provoked by Vietnam’s invasion of Kampuchea in 1978. With the major superpowers, Singapore was suspicious of the designs of the Soviet Union and China — both being communist countries with a history of exporting revolution to Southeast Asia. To balance the influence of the Soviets and China, Singapore supported 13 Ibid., p. 15. 14 Ibid., p. 17; see also Lee, From Third World to First, pp. 295–302.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

514

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

515

a strong American presence in the region. Britain, its former colonial master, continued to be an important ally, especially since it stationed troops in Singapore and treated Singapore as a major military base. However, relations with Europe were practically non-existent even though Singapore had established its first European diplomatic contact in Sweden in 1968 with the appointment of an honorary consul.15 Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had had private meetings with some of Europe’s key leaders. He had met Willy Brandt as early as 1964 in Brussels and then again when Brandt was Chancellor of Germany in 1970. He had originally arranged a meeting with French President Charles de Gaulle in May 1969, but the meeting never took place after de Gaulle called a referendum, lost, and then retired. Instead, he met de Gaulle’s successor Georges Pompidou in 1970. It was not until the late 1970s that it became clear that closer diplomatic ties with Europe were essential, especially in view of the increased trade between Singapore and the European nations and trade between ASEAN and the European Community. In this respect, the key cities in which a presence was crucial were Brussels, home of the European Community, and Bonn and Paris, the capitals of the two largest and most influential European countries, Germany and France.16 In the 1970s, ASEAN in general and Singapore in particular were facing problems with the protectionist policies of the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1972, the EEC became ASEAN’s first international dialogue partner. Discussions were facilitated through the Special Coordinating Committee of ASEAN (SCCAN). In February 1977, at a special meeting of ASEAN foreign ministers in Manila, it was proposed that ASEAN establish ties with the Council of Ministers of the EEC — the EEC’s principal decision-making institution — and the Permanent 15 See Gretchen Liu, The Singapore Foreign Service: The First 40 Years (Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, 2005), p. 117. 16 Ibid.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

515

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

516

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Representatives Committee (COREPER)17 so that representations could be made against the growing protectionism of the EEC countries. A major step forward in ASEAN-EEC relations was made when German Vice-Chancellor and Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher proposed to Thai Foreign Minister — and chairman of ASEAN’s Standing Committee — Upadit Panchariyangkun that regular contacts between the two entities be raised to ministerial level. This suggestion precipitated the first ASEAN-EEC Ministerial Meeting in Brussels in September 1978. It was a significant and unprecedented event. As Hwang Peng Yuan, Singapore’s second ambassador to Brussels, explained: in 1978, the EC had agreed with ASEAN to try to conclude the first EC-ASEAN Agreement which is an unprecedented thing because the European Communities had always felt that the only Less Developed Countries that they were responsible for were the expoor colonies of the French. And when Britain joined, we said, ‘What about the British colonies?’ They said, ‘No, no, no, too many of them.’ So, they only accepted the poorest one in the Caribbean; and also Fiji and places like that, the small islands. But they wanted to exclude India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaysia and, of course, they didn’t want the Australians and the New Zealanders either, you see. But they took the Africans because, I think, they felt that we were competitive; these are the noncompetitive. These were a bit protectionist. So, for a long time, the EC had no policy towards, especially Asia. Because the more advanced LDCs were all in Asia but we felt that we also have links but the ASEAN governments felt that we need to bring the Europeans in to counter balance the American and Japanese influence.18

17 The COREPER consists of ambassadors of the member states of the European Union and is chaired by the member state that holds the Council Presidency. It is an important forum for dialogue and a means of political control of expert groups. 18 Hwang Peng Yuan, Oral History Interview, 1–30 Nov 2004, Reel 11 (Singapore: National Archives).

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

516

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

517

In view of the intensified dialogue between Singapore and ASEAN with countries in the European Union, it was necessary to strengthen diplomatic ties with Europe. By this time, Singapore had established an embassy in Belgium. Businessman Ho Rih Hwa presented his credentials to King Baudouin of Belgium in May 1972. Because of its close historical links to Britain, Singapore had had from 1965 a High Commission in London. David’s old friend A.P. Rajah was Singapore’s first High Commissioner to the UK. The next embassies were Bonn and Paris in 1978. Chiang Hai Ding, Singapore’s first ambassador to Germany, remembers: Back then, there were four to go. Jek [Yeun Thong] was already in place in London. ASEAN and the EEC were upgrading their relationship in view of the forthcoming AEMM; the ASEANEuropean Communities Ministerial Meeting sometime in 20 or 21 December 1978. The meeting was to have been held in Brussels in 1978, and at that point in time, ASEAN was beginning to hold dialogues with other developed countries. PY Hwang went to Brussels — that was pivotal as it was the headquarters of the EU. Germany was the major economic superpower, the wunderkind of Europe and was slated to be the next president of the EU, so they had to be in. Then of course, Paris had to be in. They were the next big power, and you couldn’t possible have London and Bonn and not Paris. They would never have forgiven us. To get into Paris, we needed a French speaker, someone with stature. David Marshall was just such a person.19 A MIRACLE

&

NEW LEASE OF LIFE

On 7 January, 1978, David was informed by the French Government that they were going to make him Singapore’s first ever Chevalier de la Ordre National de la Légion d’honneur (‘Knight of the National Order of the Legion of Honour’). This prestigious decoration was established by Napoleon Bonaparte in May 1802. It is France’s highest

19 Interview with Chiang Hai Ding, 7 Mar 2008.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

517

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

518

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

decoration and is divided into five degrees: Chevalier (Knight), Officier (Officer), Commandeur (Commander), Grand Officier (Grand Officer), and Grand-Croix (Grand Cross). This was a great honour from France and David was especially pleased as he had represented French business interests in Singapore since before the war and had a great love for France, its language and culture. Moreover, David had long considered Napoleon Bonaparte to be his hero: I would have liked to have been Napoleon. That man was both an intellectual and an activist. Nobody really gives him credit. Everybody only thinks of him as a general, and especially one who lost a great war. They don’t realize how much in advance of his time he was in his social ideas and in his ideas about organizing the French nation. He was a vibrant personality who managed to express himself in action, imagination, initiative and ideals.20

The decoration was bestowed on him by French Ambassador Jacques Gasseau on 5 April, 1978, David’s and Jean’s seventeenth wedding anniversary. Many of David’s friends were at the French Embassy to witness this historic occasion and to hear Gasseau pay tribute to the man he described as a “mixture of King Solomon,21 St Louis22 and Proudhon”;23 a humanist patriot; “citizen of the world, supporter of liberties and virtue, whose heart is filled with compassion and love

20 “Marshalling His People”, in Singapore Days of Old: A Special Commemorative History of Singapore Published on the 10th Anniversary of Singapore Tatler (Hong Kong: Illustrated Magazine Publications, 1992), p. 81. 21 King Solomon is the biblical monarch known for his wisdom, wealth, and writings. He was the son of King David and Bathsheba and his major achievement was to build the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. 22 Saint Louis was King Louis IX of France (1214–1270) who was legendary for his just and upright character and rule. He was also a fearless warrior and lived for the welfare of his people and the glory of God. 23 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) was a French mutualist political philosopher in the socialist tradition and one of the first anarchist thinkers.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

518

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

519

for his fellow men” and who had represented the French Government’s interests in Singapore for the past forty years.24 Barely a month earlier, David had celebrated his seventieth birthday. It was a glittering event with over a hundred guests, including his brothers Meyer and Reg from Sydney and local notables such as Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam, Eddie Barker, Choor Singh, A.P. Rajah, T.S. Sinnathuray, Tan Boon Teik, Tan Chin Tuan, and Runme Shaw. The ambassadors of the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Israel, and Malaysia were also there. To round off the evening, Rajaratnam gave a speech honouring David and ending cryptically with the phrase, “It’s later than you think”, quite possibly in oblique reference to the Guy Lombardi song, “Enjoy Yourself (It’s Later Than You Think!)”. Despite the fact that David was one of the People’s Action Party’s biggest critics, he had always maintained cordial, even warm ties with several of the PAP ministers, especially Eddie Barker and S. Rajaratnam. On 8 May, 1978, David met up with Barker about the possibility of an ambassadorship. It is not clear from David’s diary entry whether it was he or Barker who mooted the idea, but Barker told David that he had spoken to Rajaratnam about it; that Rajaratnam told him, “I want David Marshall”, and that he would be putting the idea to Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.25 David did not hold out much hope. After all, the same sorts of suggestions had been made from time to time to appoint him ambassador but nothing had ever come out of it. On 19 May, 1978, David was invited to Parliament House for a reception organized by Speaker Yeoh Ghim Seng. The reception was to thank David for his presentation of a set of valuable old maps of Singapore — that he had bought from the Folio Society — to the

24 “De Mr David Marshall” citation at the presentation of the Chevalier de la Ordre National de la Légion d’honneur to David Marshall, 5 Apr 1978, DM/495/9/1–9. 25 David Marshall’s diary, 8 May 1978.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

519

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

520

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

House. It was a very happy occasion and his brother Sonny, who was visiting from Australia, attended the function with him, which featured a three-piece band that David much enjoyed. Among the VIPs present at the reception was Labour Minister Ong Pang Boon, for whom David had the highest respect. Their meeting was most cordial although David “chided” Ong for not giving him “an opportunity to serve Singapore”.26 Recalling the afternoon’s events, David said: And Ong Pang Boon was there. He was a courteous man. Very courteously he said, ‘How are you, David?’ And I said, ‘I would be all the better, Mr Minister, if you would allow me to serve my country.’ And he said, ‘Aren’t you seeing Mr Rajaratnam this afternoon?’ I said, ‘Yes, how do you know?’ and he just grinned.27

At this point, if David had had any expectations following from his earlier discussions with Eddie Barker, he was not letting on. His brother Sonny dropped him off at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs where he met Rajaratnam at 4:30 p.m. What transpired next is not entirely clear. Rajaratnam recalled: He thought he was going to get another dressing down, probably by Lee Kuan Yew. It was as if I was the Chief Justice and he was the condemned criminal.28

But David had a different version of the encounter. He thought that Rajaratnam had wanted him to draft a will and took his notebook along with him. After exchanging pleasantries, David recalled: And in the course of conversation, he said, ‘Do you speak French?’ And I said, ‘Reasonably.’ He said, ‘Are you sure?’ And I said, ‘Yes. I read it and I speak it like a lame man walks, he gets there without elegance.’ He said, ‘Would you like to be our Ambassador to France?’

26 David Marshall’s diary, 19 May 1978. 27 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 26 (Singapore: National Archives). 28 “Marshall Lore”, Asia Magazine 32 (1994): 12.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

520

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

521

I think I said something like Wacko the Ducks. I was so excited at the thought of being able to come back into, at least, part of the stream that serves our people. You know, 23 years in the wilderness was long enough. And I really was excited. 29

David was beside himself with joy. Even if he had had any inkling of an idea that an ambassadorship was in the offing that afternoon, he did not expect it. He had, after all been on the margins of Singapore public life for twenty-three years. He rushed home to tell Jean all about it. Jean opened a bottle of champagne to celebrate even though she was rather less ecstatic. She was concerned about the children’s education and dislocation and about financial security. As David recalled: So I accepted without asking about … In fact, when I went home and told my wife, boy did I cop it! ‘How are we going to live? What salary are you going to get?’ And I said, I didn’t know what salary. I didn’t. ‘We have four children to look after.’ I don’t understand. I’m quite sure that even if I had a poor salary, and in fact it turned out to be a generous salary, the kids would not have suffered. Anyway, I’m afraid I gave short shrift to my wife’s anxiety. And I accepted it without … without question, without condition.30

That night David wrote in his diary: Rajaratnam offers me post of Ambassador to France. Stunned … excited. Gladly accept. Fantastic miracle for a new and exciting life at my age.31

The following day, David was up bright and early at 5:00 a.m. He called his brothers Meyer and Reg in Australia and Sonny in England to tell them the good news and was congratulated all round. On

29 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 26 (Singapore: National Archives). 30 Ibid. 31 David Marshall’s diary, 19 May 1978.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

521

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

522

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

23 May, David called on Chia Cheong Fook, permanent secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and was told that the ministry wanted David in Paris by August 1978. This was a big problem as it did not give David sufficient time to prepare his Braddell Memorial Lecture, wind up his practice, finish his trials, and hand his clients over to his partners or other lawyers before departing. He pleaded with Chia to allow him to go in December. At the meeting, David was also presented with a folder containing his terms of service.32 David was pleased. He knew that although Rajaratnam was the one pushing hard for him to be appointed ambassador, his appointment had had to be cleared by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. On 24 May, David wrote his old political foe:33 Dear Prime Minister I write to thank you for the opportunity to serve Singapore. To be given a new lease of life at 70 is a miracle I shall always be grateful for. I hope to be equal to my trust. With best wishes Sincerely David Marshall

Lee returned the courtesy, telling David that Charles de Gaulle had worked until he was eighty while Konrad Adenauer had worked until he was ninety. Lee wished him well, hoping that his “new challenges” would be rewarding.34 When the news of David’s appointment was made public, many people were truly surprised. Some of his friends even thought that he had compromised his principles and been coopted by his erstwhile political opponents. David was very clear in his mind as to why he was so quick to accept the appointment:

32 David Marshall’s diary, 23 May 1978. 33 David Marshall to Lee Kuan Yew, 24 May 1978, DM/505/12a. 34 Lee Kuan Yew to David Marshall, 25 May 1978, DM/505/11.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

522

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

523

As an old man — I’m 70, you know — whose absolute loyalty is to Singapore, I will not run away from a chance to serve my country.35 I could see no reason why I could not serve Singapore honestly in France. In fact, I liked France from the days when I studied French literature in the days when I was young. I have a lot of respect for French civilization. And I thought I could help France and I could help Singapore and I’d be doing great things.36

For someone who happily confessed that public service was what made life worthwhile, this was a dream come true. In the following months, David was busy preparing for his new job and winding up his old one. He was elated for three other reasons. First, having reached the pinnacle of his legal career, there were few challenges left for him. For someone who reveled in the struggle to overcome adversity, coasting on a plateau must have bordered on the boring. Second, the family situation was getting increasingly tense, especially with three daughters experiencing difficult adolescent years and with Jean becoming increasingly concerned about her ability to hold the whole family together. A change of environment and perspective might be just the trick to ease tensions and chart new courses for everyone. Finally, after the dark months following his suspension from law practice in 1972, David saw this as a recognition of his worth and a redemption made possible by a maturing government. The appointment had brought David “out of the wilderness into the main stream of people who are recognized as alive” — he “ceased to be a non-person”.37

35 “I Did Not Compromise My Politics To Be Envoy”, The Straits Times, 28 Oct 1978. 36 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 26 (Singapore: National Archives). 37 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 26 (Singapore: National Archives).

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

523

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

524

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

OFF TO PARIS

Closing Accounts On 12 June, 1978, David received a phone call from French Ambassador Jacques Gasseau who informed him that the French Council of Ministers had approved his appointment as Singapore’s ambassador to France on 7 June and that an agreement had already been sent to the Foreign Office.38 A compromise had been struck over his date of departure, which would now be in October. In the next four months, David was extremely busy. There were numerous briefings to attend at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well as at various statutory boards and government organizations, voluminous files, dispatches and correspondences to read, and a law firm to wind up. As if all that was not enough, Jean had to go to hospital for the removal of a cyst and the Marshalls decided that they should invest their compensation money from their old Wing Loong Road home on another property. They eventually bought — and a few years later sold — a house at 43 Victoria Park. Jaya Mohideen, the director of administration at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, remembers that David was extremely patient and reasonable during her briefing with him. The only unique thing he requested was that the ministry allocate $50.00 a week to fly a box of orchids to Paris for use in his lapel and at the embassy. She thought it a reasonable request and approved it, especially since it would have cost a lot more to buy flowers of any kind, much less orchids, in Paris.39 David was briefed by everyone from Prime Minister Lee and Rajaratnam40 — who spent forty gruelling minutes briefing David

38 David Marshall’s diary, 12 Jun 1978. 39 Interview with Mrs Jaya Mohideen, 19 Jun 2008. 40 David Marshall’s diary, 19 Aug 1978.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

524

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

525

on policy for the next ten years41 — to various career diplomats. David recalled: I spent days and days in Ministry reading through back files of correspondences and minutes and despatches between Paris and Singapore, and Singapore and Paris. And I got briefings from Ngiam Tong Dow, EDB, STPB, the Trade Development Board.… Neptune Orient Lines, Singapore Airlines, lots and lots of organizations. The Franco-Singapore Business Committee … I made the whole gamut of calls and made notes. I don’t think they were in anyway useful, but they sort of conditioned me to the atmosphere I’d be coming to.42

On 21 September, David received news that a house at 73 L’Avenue Foch had been confirmed as his ambassadorial residence.43 His scheduled date for departure was 12 October and in the next three weeks, he had to settle all outstanding matters. David had particular difficulties in winding up his practice. Originally, he had wanted his remaining partner Amarjeet Singh to take over the firm, but they could not come to an agreement on the terms of the takeover.44 In the midst of his negotiations with Amarjeet, David asked Mohideen Rubin — who had joined the firm of Ironside & De Souza in 1977 — to return to the firm and take joint control of it with Amarjeet. David also arranged for a Philips dictaphone and transcriber to be transferred from the firm to him for $500.00 so that he could take it with him to Paris. In the end, David decided that, while he would transfer the firm’s assets and clients to Amarjeet and Rubin, the name of the firm, David Marshall & Co. would cease to exist with his exit from the firm. 41 David Marshall’s diary, 10 Oct 1978. 42 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 26 (Singapore: National Archives). 43 David Marshall’s interview, 21 Sep 1978. The lease on this house was later not taken up and instead a flat was rented for Marshall’s residential use. 44 David Marshall’s diary: 25 Aug 1978; 16 Sep 1978; 4 Oct 1978; 5 Oct 1978; 7 Oct 1978; 10 Oct 1978; and 11 Oct 1978.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

525

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

526

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

After his last appearance in court on 26 September, David gave his gown to Rubin, along with his large, kidney-shaped desk and other personal paraphernalia. On the day of his departure for Paris, David woke up early, at 4:30 a.m. He had been restless the whole night. It was to be the last day at the office. David arrived there at 8:45 a.m. and went along with Amarjeet to sign the tenancy agreement for the firm and to settle the financial arrangements at the bank. His staff presented him with a pipe as a parting gift. He then delivered a speech to the Banque Nationale de Paris (BNP) Franco-Singapore Committee on Trade and told them he had set himself a two-year target to improve trade with France and to increase French investments in Singapore. He reached home at 5:30 p.m., packed, took a quick swim, had a light meal, and left for the airport with his family. He, Jean, and Ruth left in the car provided by the government while the rest rode there in David’s car. There were some sixty friends, ex-colleagues, and well-wishers at the VIP Lounge waiting to bid David bon voyage and good luck on his new mission. The French UTA flight was delayed until 10:20 p.m.45 David was alone as Jean still had some loose ends to tie up in Singapore and would leave later with the children to join him in Paris. Paris: Settling In David arrived in Paris via Dubai at 6:15 a.m. on 13 October, 1978, and was met by Joseph Leong and Thomas Tan of the Singapore Embassy. It was almost an hour’s ride from Orly Airport to David’s apartment at L’Avenue Foch. It was “delicately furnished but claustrophobic”, with one master bedroom, one double room, and two very small bedrooms, a “great deal of corridors”, corners, and wasted space. Iris Thien, second secretary at the embassy, met him for

45 David Marshall’s diary, 12 Oct 1978.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

526

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

527

coffee and walked with him to the embassy, located at 12 Square de l’Avenue Foch. David was then introduced to the embassy staff and a short staff conference was arranged. Daughter Sara, who was studying in the United Kingdom, telephoned to tell David that she would be arriving that afternoon at 4:30 p.m. David’s brother Sonny called him to say that he would arrive at 3:30 p.m. the next day. Sara’s arrival brightened his day. That evening they were guests of the embassy at Restaurant Chez Nous. At the end of the long and hectic day, the Marshalls and Iris Thien celebrated in his residence with a bottle of champagne.46 Over the next week, David was joined by his brother Sonny, cousin Grace, Jean, and Jonathan, although the latter two stayed only briefly before departing for the UK. When David arrived in Paris in 1978, the consulate in Paris had been in operation for five years. Back in 1973, Aziz Mahmood — who had been with David in the 1968 UN delegation — had opened and headed up the consulate as charge d’affaires. Aziz confessed to have found the first few years of running the consulate very challenging: Singapore was virtually unknown in Paris. We were a small little country, not a grand big power so we played according to size. With only a Charge, our profile was even lower.47

Singapore’s Paris mission functioned with a modest staff and budget and shared its rented premises with the Economic Development Board’s Paris office. The early chancery was located in rented premises on Avenue George V in the eighth arrondissement (district), off the Champs-Elysées, close to the swanky Hotel George V and a block away from the Crazy Horse cabaret.48 In anticipation of the eventual arrival of an ambassador, a second property, a townhouse at 12 Square de L’Avenue Foch, had been purchased in August 1974 at a

46 David Marshall’s diary, 13 Oct 1978. 47 See Liu, The Singapore Foreign Service, p. 119. 48 Ibid.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

527

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

528

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

cost of just over S$2 million. Aziz, who negotiated the purchase, remembered that they wanted a “building with enough character to stand by itself … in a good locality and not dwarfed by surrounding buildings”.49 However, as no ambassador arrived soon after its purchase, the Singapore Government converted the townhouse in L’Avenue Foch into the chancery and gave up the rented premises on Avenue George V. The Marshalls lived in a rented flat until 1981. On his arrival, David remembered that one of his first housekeeping tasks was to purchase and furnish a home and to transform the chancery from “an aseptic clinic, to being a respectable third world chancery”.50 The chancery building was, in David’s words, “a beautiful house”, “one of the most charming houses in Paris” and he tried hard to persuade Rajaratnam to restore it to its status as a residence: I came and for two years I pleaded that it should be restored to its status as a residence which would be of the stature of a Singapore Ambassador. Because this is … Paris is the snob capital of the world where countries are … to a very large extent, their influence depends on the image they project, inter alia, by the food they serve and the accommodation they have.51

The chancery building was originally designed and built as a “country cottage” in the 1880s for Count Nicolas Potocki on the former Square Bois de Boulogne. It was located in a most prestigious residential district and, during David’s tenure as ambassador, notable neighbours included the great pianist Arthur Rubinstein and Princess Grace of Monaco.52

49 Ibid. 50 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 27 (Singapore: National Archives). 51 Ibid. 52 See Liu, The Singapore Foreign Service, p. 118.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

528

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

529

In 1980, David got permission to transform this magnificent chancery back into a residence, but when Dhanabalan, who had succeeded Rajaratnam as foreign minister, visited Paris, he told David, “No Singapore Ambassador can afford to live in this place.” That was the end of his campaign to transform the chancery back into the ambassador’s residence. He then proceeded to at least transform it into a proper chancery with good security and “at least a certain grace” instead of “just benches and atmosphere of an outdoor clinic”.53 Another property at 78 Avenue Faisanderie was purchased for use as David’s residence. This was the first official residence of Singapore’s ambassador to France and had originally been built for the Russian-born artist Caran d’Ache in 1898 by Henri Granpierre. In April 1943, the house was used to host the first general meeting of the French Resistance Party. The Singapore Government sold the residence in 2004.54 Having settled in, David got down to business quickly. On 18 October, he met up with his Malaysian counterpart, Tan Sri Azman, who insisted on addressing him as “Datuk”, a title the Sultan of Pahang had bestowed upon him in 1965. The title, Dato Johan Kurnia Pahlawan, literally ‘Honourable Elder Champion Warrior’, had been specially created for David by Sultan Abu Bakar of Pahang and bestowed in recognition for his legal services. The following month, David was busy preparing for the ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) at which Rajaratnam would be present. From there, the team, which included David, Chiang Hai Ding, P.Y. Hwang, Tan Boon Seng, Tony Siddique, and Rajaratnam, journeyed to Brussels to await the arrival of Goh Chok Tong (Senior Minister of State for Finance) and S. Dhanabalan (Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs).

53 Ibid. 54 Ibid.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

529

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

530

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Because Singapore’s relations with the European countries were still in their early stages, David, like other ambassadors to Europe, felt the strain of low resource allocation, especially in terms of staffing. David recalled: We have two field officers, Councillor Mark Hong and myself. The next officer is Mr Oon, the Third Secretary. We have no First Secretary. We have no Second Secretary. We have no Minister/ Councillor. We have no Administrative Officer. We have no Registry Officer. So, Mr Oon covers administration as Third Secretary. My PA covers Registry Officer. … We are working on a shoe-string. Their [Ministry of Finance] attitude seems to be that France is peripheral to Singapore’s interest. There is still inadequate understanding of France’s importance in Europe and France’s importance in world international relations. We concentrate … mind you, we have a very, very limited manpower. For some reason, PSC [the Public Service Commission] does not like us. And they’re strangling us with the small numbers they allow us to recruit every year. I have urged Minister to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that it is, that though the military may fight a war and it’s important to have good men there, it’s the foreign office that prevents the war. And it’s more important to have good men there. And that we just are the Cinderella of the Ministries. But from year to year, the Embassy in Paris is being … how shall I say, eroded of personnel. And I am getting very restive.55

Although David had arrived in October, it was not until 30 November, 1978, that he presented his credentials to President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in a spectacular ceremony at the Élysée Palace. As David remembered, the presidential guard “stood to attention, presented arms, sabres flashed, bugles blew, drums rolled as I was greeted by the chief of protocol … a moment’s wait, then I was ushered into the presence of the president Mr Giscard d’Estaing”.56 It was a proud

55 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 27 (Singapore: National Archives). 56 See Liu, The Singapore Foreign Service, p. 119.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

530

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

531

moment for David and for Singapore and David was pleased when d’Estaing complimented him on his French. He told the president that Singapore had recently introduced the teaching of French in schools as a third language. He added that Prime Minister Lee had entrusted him “with the task of laying the foundation for the next 10 years to achieve a solid entrenchment of French economic influence in Singapore, and hopefully, in our region, although I could only speak for Singapore”.57 THE BUSINESS OF DIPLOMACY

Before departing for Paris, David had had an idealized picture of the job of an ambassador and of what he could do for Singapore and France. He felt that his love for his home country and for France would allow him to build bridges, forge a better understanding between the two countries and a “far warmer relationship and far greater French presence in Singapore and Singapore presence in Paris”. 58 David brought his inimitable style of leadership and management to Paris. Iris Thien, who was for a time second secretary at the embassy, remembers him as a most unusual boss: He was not a bureaucrat and I think he was not used to MFA [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] rules. We had to inform him that there were procedures to follow and, for some work, it was necessary to seek HQ’s approval for a decision. He welcomed our advice. All said, we worked under ‘marshall’ law for a while — it was an interesting period. We had a boss who spoke excellent French, who sought our advice, and at times did not listen to our advice. He established excellent relations with the French press and the community, including French businessmen.59

57 Ibid. 58 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 26 (Singapore: National Archives). 59 See Liu, The Singapore Foreign Service, p. 119.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

531

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

532

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Initially, David was not used to being an insider and a representative of the Singapore Government. Chiang Hai Ding, who was attending a Singapore delegation meeting along with other Singapore ambassadors as a run-up to the ASEAN-EC meeting, recalled a rather amusing incident: At one of these meetings, we were in Raja’s [Foreign Minister Rajaratnam] suite where we would gather every two afternoons to review the situation and devise strategies, I was seated next to David Marshall at the back of the room. A discussion was going on and he leaned over to me and whispered, ‘Hai Ding, they are discussing state secrets, in front of me!’ I replied, ‘But David, you’re an ambassador now.’ Marshall slapped his forehead and said, ‘Oh my, I’ve been out in the dog house for so long, I forgot.’60

Just six months into his job, David told a reporter that he wanted “to make Singapore known to the man in the street throughout France”. He had set himself a most difficult and formidable task since the French were “extraordinarily uninterested in Southeast Asia”.61 This did not stop David, who plunged into his work with great gusto and energy. With his trademark fresh orchid in his lapel, his leonine mane of hair, bushy eyebrows, and fluent French, he soon became a familiar face on the cocktail and reception circuit. Indeed, David often lamented that more work got done at receptions and dinners and lunches than when seated at the desk. And even with desk work, he found the lack of a reaction from home rather disconcerting: when you are seated at your desk, you’ll never get any reaction from Ministry. So you don’t know where the hell you are! You’re doing your best, you’re shadow boxing. You don’t know how fit you are and how effective you are. You’re never told. Either they are too courteous to tell you ‘You are bum’ or they think … They don’t like praising the work you are doing. Or they just haven’t got the

60 Interview with Chiang Hai Ding, 7 Mar 2008. 61 See Liu, The Singapore Foreign Service, p. 119.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

532

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

533

tradition of respecting you enough to communicate their ideas to you. You know, the desk-bound officer tends to think he is the king-pin and those in the field are the country bumpkins.62

While David may not have known how his reports were viewed back home, they were certainly much appreciated. His own foreign minister, S. Dhanabalan, recalled how he particularly enjoyed reading the diplomatic despatches of three ambassadors — David Marshall, Joe Conceicao, and Maurice Baker — not only for the insights they offered, but also for the wit, charm, and beautiful language in which they were crafted.63 S.R. Nathan, who joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as second permanent secretary in 1978, also remembered the very high quality of David’s despatches. They were not typical of the despatches and briefs written by career civil servants who often just reported events — David had the perception and insight of an insider, honed by his years of politics and his instinctive understanding of those around him.64 To get into the inner circle of French officials and civil servants, David often invited them to his home for dinner and cocktails. David’s friendly, gregarious nature, his colourful and flamboyant personality, and his imposing presence made him instantly recognizable and approachable. This made him popular among the French who appreciated these qualities.65 One of the first tests for Singapore’s European ambassadors came with the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea in December 1978. ASEAN’s efforts to build closer links and stronger relationships with Europeans were pushed into top gear, with ASEAN diplomats lobbying

62 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 27 (Singapore: National Archives). 63 Interview with S. Dhanabalan, 28 Feb 2008. 64 Interview with S.R. Nathan, 14 Jul 2008. 65 Interview with S. Dhanabalan, 28 Feb 2008.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

533

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

534

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

European governments to support ASEAN’s stance of condemning the invasion as a major violation of international law and state sovereignty. The French were particularly difficult to convince at this point since Vietnam had been its colony at one time and the French foreign minister had himself recently adopted a Vietnamese child. ASEAN’s main ally was German Foreign Minister Hans DietrichGenscher, who strongly supported ASEAN’s stance. It helped that Germany was then the president of the European Union. Before the Europeans, the Filipino foreign minister, the much respected Carlos Romulo, made such an impassioned plea that he began weeping. This moved the European delegates immensely. Genscher asked the ASEAN delegates to leave and managed to get a consensus among the Europeans to support ASEAN.66 Even though he regarded his work akin to “shadow-boxing”, David took his job very seriously and was absolutely punctilious about protocol and proper decorum. Chiang Hai Ding, Singapore’s ambassador to Germany and then later to Brussels, remembers two very telling incidents. The first was when Chiang had to travel to Paris for a meeting: It was an exceptionally cold winter and fearing that it might be too cold for the planes to take off, I went to Paris by train. To my utter surprise, there to meet him at the train platform was David Marshall, all bundled up in his thick overcoat. I felt bad. Here was a man almost twice my age on an extremely cold winter morning waiting to receive me. I asked him why he was there, ‘You should have just sent the driver.’ ‘No’ Marshall replied. ‘The Head of Mission must be met by a Head of Mission.’ That was the man.67

The second incident was when David and Chiang went out one evening with Permanent Secretary Chia Cheong Fook. It was a most pleasant and casual evening and, after coffee and small talk, David

66 Interview with Chiang Hai Ding, 7 Mar 2008. 67 Ibid.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

534

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

535

and Chiang accompanied Chia back to his hotel room. At the door, David suddenly stamped his foot, clicked his heels, and said, “Goodnight Sir”. Chiang recalled: He was so proper, meticulous and scrupulous. While he could be informal, he took this protocol seriously and never forgot that Chia Cheong Fook was his permanent secretary and treated him with the appropriate decorum.68

Foreign Minister S. Dhanabalan also recalled how hard-working David was and, more impressively, how his brain never ceased working, especially when confronted with a problem, even when it was not his responsibility. One evening, during one of the ASEAN-EC sessions, the Singapore delegation huddled in Dhanabalan’s room to hammer out a communiqué for the next day. The session went on for a long while and, at about 2:00 a.m., there was a knock on the door. It was David, looking a little dishevelled and dressed only in a singlet and his long underpants. He had not been able to sleep as he had been pondering over a point to be made. David had just thought of something and decided to go to Dhanabalan’s room to offer his proposals and suggestions. Dhanabalan and the rest of the team were truly amazed and impressed that David’s brain had continued to work on the issue long after anyone else in his position would have long gone to sleep.69 David also built up strong relations with his other ASEAN counterparts. Many of them looked to him for leadership, especially in dealing with the French. Several diplomats told S.R. Nathan that they would often tag along whenever David arranged a meeting with French officials, as he had access to them at the highest levels. Dhanabalan recalls how David would go out of his way to be the best ambassador he could possibly be. He did not allow the constraints of

68 Ibid. 69 Interview with S. Dhanabalan, 28 Feb 2008.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

535

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

536

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

a stringent budget affect his work, often dipping into his own pocket to pay for entertainment, food, and special things not covered in the Ministry’s budget, but that were extremely useful and meaningful in a diplomatic context. He would, for example, specially go to the Vietnamese market to make sure he could serve durians during a party and fly in frozen satay for his Singapore Day parties each December so that his staff and all Singaporeans in Paris could taste a bit of home. David spared neither effort nor expense in getting things done “properly”. Once, when he hosted an important lunch for Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and a French politician, he ordered a truly exquisite bottle of wine to accompany lunch. Later, when David was asked how the wine tasted, he declared that he had absolutely no idea since he had instructed the waiter to serve him the house wine, allowing the two VIPs to finish the bottle between them!70 David paid as much attention to all facets of his work as he did his legal cases. Nothing missed his attention. On a visit by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his wife in 1990, he arranged for a private dinner for them, himself, and Jean. It was at La Tour D’Argent (The Silver Tower), quite possibly Paris’ most famous restaurant. Among the dishes the quartet savoured that evening was the house specialty featuring duck, the Caneton Tour D’Argent. David, who had gone through a great deal of trouble to ensure that his prime minister had the best possible meal Paris could offer, was initially a little disappointed that Lee did not say much about the food. However, a couple of years later, he received a call from the Prime Minister’s Office, asking him where that special duck could be procured as Lee intended to serve it to an important visiting dignitary. The enquiry gave David great pleasure, for Lee had actually noticed the trouble he had gone to and the exquisite quality of the meal he enjoyed.71

70 Interview with Chiang Hai Ding, 7 Mar 2008. 71 Interview with S. Dhanabalan, 28 Feb 2008.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

536

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

537

RETIREMENT

David spent fifteen years in Paris. He was later also accredited to Spain and Portugal in 1981 and then to Switzerland in 1991. By the time he retired, David was eighty-five years old and almost blind. Indeed, it was his deteriorating eyesight that prompted him to step down after serving his final three-year term as ambassador. He needed help to navigate a flight of stairs because he could not see the steps. David was a fighter and would not give up without a good fight. He got the ministry to approve the purchase of a special optical reader that enabled him to blow up official documents to a size he could read. David’s wife, Jean, also engaged two secretaries to read documents to him — one for non-confidential material and another for confidential matter. As a last shot, David asked his fellow ambassador Chiang Hai Ding — who had been posted as ambassador to Moscow in 1986 — to see if he could help arrange for his eyes to be operated on by the famous Dr Svyatoslav Fyodorov, pioneer of the Lasik surgery. Unfortunately, the surgery did not help the situation and David’s eyes continued to deteriorate.72 In the time that he served in Paris, David had established a dignified presence for Singapore in Paris. He had run and operated a very efficient and smooth-functioning embassy despite staff shortage and tight financial budgets. Most importantly, he had raised the status of Singapore in the eyes of French politicians and officials and positioned Singapore as an honest broker and conduit for FrancoASEAN relations. As dean of the Commonwealth Diplomatic Corps, he presided over weekly lunches that further enhanced Singapore’s standing as an international actor. Even though David enjoyed his posting in France tremendously, he felt that it had been a “disaster” in personal terms because he could not tangibly see or feel what he was creating. The isolation and lack

72 Interview with Chiang Hai Ding, 7 Mar 2008.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

537

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

538

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

of feedback from the ministry left him with a sense of intense isolation.73 Soon after arriving, David learnt that, contrary to his own ideas about international relations, ambassadors do not “do great things”, but instead “place brick on brick slowly and meticulously, and try to and build goodwill, and try and build relations”.74 Speaking to The Business Times shortly before his retirement, David said: By and large it’s showing the flag, avoiding trade friction, seeking to build goodwill and, so far as my mission is concerned, seeking contacts for financial and commercial deepening of our economic relations with France, Spain, Portugal and Switzerland. You can credit me with SIA flying to Madrid. It took me 10 years. In 1981, I presented my credentials and I said to the King: ‘You know, Majesty, we import Spanish marble. But since we don’t have any direct route, we import it through Rome and we call it Italian marble.’ He was very surprised. So he was all in favour of SIA coming to Madrid.75

In 1990, after his visit to France, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew wrote to thank David for his service to Singapore:76 Dear David Thank you for the excellent arrangements made for my Paris visit. It was due not simply to the Quai d’Orsay. Your enthusiasm, energy and shrewdness have made the French government take note of Singapore as more than just another country in Southeast Asia. I sensed their regard for you from the attitude of French leaders I met, including Fabius and Raymond Barre. Your efforts have the imprint of excellence which Singapore needs to make its mark.

73 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 27 (Singapore: National Archives). 74 “The Art of Shadow-Boxing”, The Straits Times, 13 Jun 1992, p. 2. 75 “Flying the Flag in France”, The Business Times, 6–7 Jul 1992 p. 3. 76 Lee Kuan Yew to David Marshall, 14 Jun 1990, DM/505/10.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

538

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

VIVE LA FRANCE!

539

Your spirit is remarkable. You cannot read, you cannot see very clearly. From the back of my head, you mistook me for the Frenchman who chaired the meeting. But you have guts and gusto, and have carried on with your job. Before relinquishing the office of Prime Minister, I want to record my personal thanks and appreciation for your eleven years of good work. With best wishes to your wife and you. Yours sincerely Kuan Yew

David’s choice as Singapore’s first ambassador to France was an inspired one. He was known internationally and locally as an opposition figure and this made his advocacy of Singapore’s position all the more credible. His personality — flamboyant, charismatic, charming, full of joie de vivre (‘joy of life’) — endeared him to the French. His ability to read and speak French allowed him to connect with French leaders at the highest levels. The French affectionately referred to him as Ambassadeur à orchidée (‘the Ambassador with an orchid’). He was also blessed with the strong support of Jean, who played a most significant if unsung role as the quintessential hostess and ambassador’s wife. She threw the most perfect parties and made supportive contact with many lonely Singaporean women living in France. The Marshalls also provided hospitality to Singaporeans at all levels. David and Jean saw this as an important aspect of their role in France, to foster a “Singaporean community” outside Singapore. Their early attempts at community-building predated the Singapore clubs and communities that sprouted after the Singapore Government began pursuing an overt policy of maintaining links and ties with Singaporeans living abroad. David retired from the Foreign Service on 31 July, 1993. Even though he did not feel that he had contributed in a real and tangible sense to Singapore, he was grateful for the opportunity to serve Singapore and for his family to have lived abroad at this important point in their lives:

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

539

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

540

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

what has worked out is, I also recognized that it’d be a tremendous opportunity for my children. They were just at the age where contact with a radically different culture could spur the growth of their personalities and their understanding of the world. And it has worked. That part has worked. They are vivid human beings.77

By the time David left France, he was not in good health. In the last years of his ambassadorship, David probably never realized how much he had come to depend on his staff and on Jean’s support and her particularly acute memory. Indeed, in December 1992, the last time he celebrated Christmas in Paris, David was too ill to host the annual, year-end Singapore Night party. The tradition of year-end dinners — at which 200–250 Singaporeans would turn up to savour the sumptuous Asian buffet laid out by the embassy — ended with David’s departure from Paris. The first secretary, Dr Eric Teo — himself a Singapore government scholar who had studied in France — took temporary charge of the embassy while France awaited its next Singapore ambassador. Teo recalled that the most intense moment of his life in Paris was when David “handed the baton” to him on 30 July, 1993: He was not feeling well already. It was a most poignant moment for me when I escorted him right up to his seat on the plane. He told me I was now in charge.78

77 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 26 (Singapore: National Archives). 78 The New Paper, 13 Dec 1995.

15 Marshall_S'pore Ch 15

540

11/21/08, 9:15 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the THE END GAME 541 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

16

The End Game AVOIDING THE ANTECHAMBER OF DEATH

D

avid retired from Singapore’s Foreign Service at the end of July 1993, just four months past his eighty-fifth birthday. Only Chi Owyang (1897–1988) — Singapore’s ambassador to Thailand from 1974 to 1988 — had served as emissary beyond such advanced years.1 If anyone thought that David, with failing eyesight and poor knees, was going to happily fade from the public scene, they could not have been more wrong. Any man David’s age would have been content to retire happily, surrounded by family and good friends, kick up his feet, and savour a well-earned rest. Not so for David. “Retirement” was a word he hated. It was, he said, “the antechamber to death” and he had no wish to die.2 Indeed, death was something he had difficulties coming to terms with as he reached his twilight years. The last four years of his ambassadorship had been particularly difficult. David’s eyes deteriorated to the extent that he even had trouble reading with the closed-circuit text enlarger that enabled

1

Chi Owyang died at the age of ninety-one, nine months after he retired from active service. He was also Singapore’s first ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Burma.

2

Gerry de Silva, “Marshall Returns to Law Career”, The Straits Times, 23 Sep 1993.

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

541

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

542

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

him to enlarge text to six times its original size. In 1992, he was so depressed about his condition that he thought of stepping down as ambassador, but his friend and Singapore’s ambassador to Brussels, Mrs Jaya Mohideen, encouraged him to persevere and serve out his final term.3 In an interview with The Business Times in 1992, David told reporter Margaret Thomas (daughter of his old friend Francis Thomas), that there “is nothing good about old age”.4 For David, nothing could be worse: You lose the fire in your belly, you lose your capacity for passion, you lose a large part of your capacity for the joy and the miracle of living.5

He found the loss of “animal energy” the most debilitating for it was impossible to express one’s personality in action when old and sapped of animal energy. When asked how he would make the best of old age since it could not be avoided, he thought it was best just to ignore the fact that you are old and do what you’ve always done. Quite clearly, while the eyes may have dimmed, the spirit had not and David had every intention of practising what he preached. Two things worried David when faced with the prospect of retirement. First, the high cost of housing in Singapore, which he thought might make it difficult for him to find himself a “small onestorey house” with a swimming pool; and second, the lack of activity. Of the latter, David said: if I am healthy, I’d like some activity, not necessarily economic, not necessarily with a salary, but an activity that keeps me mentally alive. I don’t want to become a vegetable. I can’t see any function which does not require reading. As a lawyer I used to look at words with a magnifying glass and a

3

Interview with Mrs Jaya Mohideen, 19 Jun 2008.

4

“The Lion in Winter”, Business Times, 6–7 Jun 1992.

5

Ibid.

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

542

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

543

THE END GAME

dictionary, every phrase. … Whatever I do, I think in fairness to those who respect me and listen to me, I want to do it well. If I can’t do it well, no, nyet.6 BACK IN THE LAW

Of David’s two worries, the first was settled quite easily. On his return from France, he purchased an apartment in Balmoral Road that had a swimming pool as part of its common facilities. The price of single-storey houses with compounds large enough for a swimming pool had sky-rocketed out of David’s budget. The large, airy apartment he bought had plenty of space for David and Jean and for any entertainment David might have had in mind. David had made a nice profit from the sale of his house in Victoria Park, the value of which had appreciated greatly with Singapore’s soaring land prices, even in the mid-1980s when the house was sold. With the proceeds, David bought the Balmoral flat and distributed the rest among his family members. David need also not have worried about twiddling his thumbs. Davinder Singh, a partner in the firm of Drew & Napier and himself one of Singapore’s best courtroom lawyers, thought that it would be a great idea if David could be engaged as a consultant in the firm. David’s deep knowledge of the law, experience, and expertise was something that could and should be passed on to a younger generation of lawyers. Singh broached the idea with the firm’s managing partner, Dr Thio Su Mien. Su Mien, who had known David since her student days at the Law Faculty, thought it was a fantastic idea and discussed this with her other partners, including senior partner Sachi Saurajen. At this time, with some 200 lawyers, Drew & Napier was one of Singapore’s largest and most successful law firms.

6

Ibid.

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

543

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

544

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

When David returned to Singapore, Su Mien reconnected with David and took him to see Sachi Saurajen. After a brief, friendly discussion, David agreed to join them. Su Mien had first met David as her lecturer in criminal law when studying at the law department of the University of Malaya. She was among the pioneer batch of students to read law at the local university. During her university vacations, Su Mien also did a short attachment at David’s office. When asked to recall her experiences, Su Mien said that students like her “were just little dogs trailing behind their master”.7 Later, when she joined the University as an assistant lecturer, she again came into contact with David who participated actively in the university’s forums and debates. Later, she got to know him much better when she became the first local-born dean of the Law Faculty and she invited him to participate in many talks and functions, including an important debate on the Presidential Council in 1969. Thio, who was then the leading specialist in constitutional and administrative law, later left academia for private practice. In 1971, David approached Su Mien to act as his junior in one of the cases arising from the detention of the Nanyang Siang Pau editors. However, this engagement did not materialize as David was suspended and the family of Lee Eu Seng (brother of Lee Mau Seng) decided against proceeding with the case. Su Mien, her husband Gim Hock and their children, especially Li-ann, became firm friends with David and Jean. In 1978, the Thio family dropped in on Jean and David in Paris when they went to Europe on a skiing holiday. In 1988, Su Mien and Li-ann were robbed of all their valuables in Barcelona, Spain, and were left stranded with no travel papers. Calling the Singapore consulate, Su Mien suddenly recalled that David was also Singapore’s ambassador to Spain and rang him for help. Initially, the official at Singapore’s French embassy

7

Interview with Thio Su Mien, 19 Mar 2008.

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

544

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

545

THE END GAME

thought that it was a crank call, but when Su Mien mentioned Li-ann, David was quickly summoned to the phone. Temporary passports were issued and the pair flew into London and then to Oxford where Li-ann was to begin her law studies. It was not until David’s return to Singapore in 1993 that Su Mien met up once again with David. In October that year, David formally joined the firm and was given a room next to Su Mien’s. His old friend, Joseph Grimberg, was also a consultant at the firm and David felt wonderful to be among friends again. As with most things David did, his return to practice caught the eyes of the newshounds and, soon, the whole legal community was abuzz. For fifteen years, he had felt that he had been “shadow-boxing” as a diplomat. Now was his chance to return to the heat and the dust of the valley: I like the clash of arms, this fight in the court. The measure of your opponent, the instant reaction.8

Some lawyers were sceptical about whether David would make an appearance in court. After all, he was old and could hardly see and this made it extremely difficult to argue a case. Thio Su Mien and Joseph Grimberg remember an instance in which David actually tried to prepare for and argue a case. He had lots of help and a younger lawyer, Jeffrey Pinsler, was asked to assist him. Unfortunately, the experience was not a happy one for either one of them. One of David’s dreams was to argue an appeal before then Chief Justice Yong Pung How, but that never happened. As David himself admitted: I had hoped to continue fighting. And in fact I accepted one brief in the Court of Criminal Appeal. But towards the end I realized it would be both a burden to the court and to myself if I cannot read and I have to rely on my junior to read my cases and to answer the court’s queries. I will continue to give advice, but will not appear in court.9 8

“The Return of David Marshall”, The Straits Times, 5 Oct 1993, p. 6.

9

“The Lion in Winter”, Asiaweek, 6 Apr 1994, p. 28.

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

545

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

546

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David spent most of his time giving advice and sharing his insights and experiences with the numerous younger lawyers at Drew & Napier, something that Drew & Napier partner Jimmy Yim said, “he can do with his eyes closed”. David acted more like a senior lawyer at a Bar dinner, where young lawyers soak in the atmosphere, the traditions, and the values of the Bar through the process of formal and informal interaction. It was in this role that lawyers at the firm during David’s brief tenure, remember him. David came to the office every morning and usually left the office after lunch. He had no shortage of company or visitors as many friends and colleagues sought his conversation, advice, and insights on the law and matters writ large. He coped with his handicap without complaint and Grimberg remembered how heart-wrenching it was for him to watch David struggle with simple, everyday chores like moving in and out of the office. David stayed at the firm until late 1995 when he became too weak to get into the office. Beyond acting as a consultant to Drew & Napier, David was also very busy giving interviews and speeches. In these speeches and interviews, David revisited many of his major concerns that he had spoken about many times before — the death penalty; corporal punishment; human rights; equality of women; multi-racialism; the need for greater humanity in the administration of criminal justice; the crass materialism of modern lawyers; the dangers of the lack of an opposition; the hazards of having a compliant and unquestioning press; the lack of intellectual ferment; the pervading fear among young people that prevented them from speaking up — vintage David Marshall concerns. As always, he was a controversial and entertaining speaker and could be counted on to give totally honest, forthright views. Even though Singapore’s political environment had become more liberal than it had been in the 1970s, David’s sharp, barbed attacks were not always appreciated. The speech he made at the Substation on 17 January, 1994, was particularly memorable, especially when he

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

546

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

547

THE END GAME

lambasted the press, calling them “poor prostitutes” and “running dogs of the PAP”. David later told some friends that he regretted saying these things but had got carried away after the audience baited him. In fairness to the audience, they were a tame lot although they cheered every time David made a critical remark. David did indeed get carried away and was his old emotional self, once he found himself in front of a captive audience.

RECOGNITION AT LAST

For a man of David’s accomplishments, he received few honours and awards. Official recognition of David’s contributions to Singapore came first from outside Singapore. In 1965, the Sultan of Pahang conferred a Datukship on David in appreciation for his legal help and expertise. And after a hiatus of thirteen years, the French bestowed on David the Chevalier de la Legion d’Honneur in 1978 for his services to France in having looked after their legal interests in Singapore for forty years. David’s only national decoration was the Pingat Jasa Gemilang or Meritorious Service Medal which he received from the Singapore Government in 1990. The Medal, which ranks seventh in the hierarchy of national civilian decorations, was instituted in 1962 and is awarded to a person who has rendered “service of conspicuous merit characterized by resource and devotion to duty”. David received his greatest recognition from the legal fraternity and the National University of Singapore, where he had taught parttime back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The first of these came in 1978, just as David departed for Paris. That year, the Law Society — successor of the Society of Advocates and Solicitors of Singapore — made David an honorary member. In 1987, the National University of Singapore conferred on David an honorary Doctor of Laws degree. It was a grand occasion and David made a fantastic speech outlining four criteria he would use in ascertaining if a society had matured:

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

547

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

548

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

tolerance of those with different views; pride in one’s race and respect for every other race; equal treatment of women; and integrity and humanity of the judiciary and the civil service.10 In 1993, at the suggestion of Professor Arthur Lim — son of David’s old Labour Front colleague Richard C.H. Lim and fundraising chairman of the Universities Endowment Fund — a campaign was initiated to raise funds for an endowed chair in law named after David. To help raise funds for the David Marshall Professorship of Law, an appeal committee was established. It was headed by David’s good friend, Joseph Grimberg. In a matter of just eighteen months, the committee had secured the $1.5 million needed to launch the chair.11 It was the first named and endowed chair at the Faculty of Law. The first David Marshall Professor of Law was Professor Francis M.B. Reynolds, an Oxford-based academic noted for his work on the law of contract, agency, and shipping. The final honour David received was to be made honorary member and fellow for life of the Singapore Academy of Law in 1992, alongside his old friend, former Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin.12 Only Lee Kuan Yew had received such an honour before them. RAGE , RAGE AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT 13

In August 1994, David was diagnosed with lung cancer and was told that he had between eight and twelve months to live. It was a shocking 10 “Marks of a Maturing Society”, The Straits Times, 4 Sep 1987, p. 10. 11 “David Marshall Professorship in Law Established”, Campus News No. 111, Mar–Apr 1995. Plans for the launch of the David Marshall Chair were announced in 1993 12 Serene Lim, “Ex-Chief Justice Wee, Marshall Honoured by Academy of Law”, The Straits Times, 19 Apr 1992, p. 3. 13 This is the title and first line of Dylan Thomas’ famous villanelle, “Do not go gentle into that good night”, which he wrote for his dying father, urging him to fight on regardless of the perils ahead.

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

548

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

549

THE END GAME

blow to him and his family and it sent David into one of his black moods. At first, the cancer cells were fairly inactive and spread very slowly. But by January 1995, they attacked David’s aging body with a vengeance. He knew that, given his age and the damage wrought by years of smoking, he did not have long to live. David was still actively seeing friends and colleagues and though he need a bit of help to get around — mainly on account of his worsening eyesight — he did not look the least bit ill. Friends and colleagues rallied around him to cheer him up. On hearing of David’s illness, Lee Kuan Yew, now Senior Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, wrote a heartfelt note to David:14 Dear David Thank you for your hand-written letter of 10 Jan 95.15 I was deeply touched. Despite your poor eyesight, you put pen to paper instead of dictating your note. I am not much good at social talk to comfort friends who have imponderable problems, like cancer of the lungs. I do not know how to mention it, or better not to refer to it at all. But like many who know you, I felt a twinge of sadness when Tommy Koh told me of it. You looked good on that Saturday, 7 Jan 95. There was no trace of self pity, no introversion. It was David Marshall at his party best. That is the David Marshall I would like to remember. Thank you for what you did for Singapore in your years in Paris, and for the many hours you spent accompanying me around Paris. With warmest best wishes to Jean and to you. Yours sincerely Kuan Yew

14 Lee Kuan Yew to David Marshall, 13 Jan 95, DM/464/2. 15 David had written to Lee to thank him for his presence at the ceremony at which he was honoured with the Life Fellowship of the Singapore Academy of Law.

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

549

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

550

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

David had long been afraid of death — less of death itself than the pain, suffering, and possibility that he might be incapacitated during his terminal illness — and this would be a real test of his mettle. He was determined to “take it like a man” and do whatever necessary to get through it all as stoically as he could. He even approached some friends, asking them if they would speak at his funeral. Former television producer and presenter Viswa Sadasivan remembers: Earlier this year [1995] — as I was driving David home after a wholesome banana-leaf meal, he asked me with uncharacteristic politeness, if I would speak at his funeral. With some awkwardness — after all, this was not the kind of request you get normally — I said I would. I asked him if there was anything in particular he’d want me to talk about. He said ‘Talk about what we’ve talked about.’ But this time, we’d both accepted the inevitable — but I feel, he more than I.16

David was not a religious man and, much as he was moved by the lessons in the Bible, he did not believe in heaven. One day, during a conversation with Su Mien, David rhetorically asked her: “After all this, isn’t it awful to come to a point when you reach a black chasm?” Su Mien, a staunch and evangelical Christian, felt that she had to respond. She sought to persuade David that God did exist and that if he received God into his heart, death would be merely transitory. They spent many hours discussing God and religion and David began spending his Friday evenings at her home where many Christians met to discuss spiritual issues, sing, and celebrate. In the middle of July 1995, David suffered a bad fall and fractured his spine. He spent more than a week in hospital, but recovered well enough to be discharged. He was getting more and more frail, but his spirits were still high. David even told Jean that if he had to, he would attend the National Day Parade in a wheelchair. David never returned

16 “Remembering David Marshall”, eulogy delivered at the Memorial Service of David Marshall, Maghain Aboth Synagogue, 17 Dec 1995.

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

550

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

551

THE END GAME

to his office at Drew & Napier. His condition deteriorated and he went in and out of hospital several times and finally went home to rest. In September, David steeled himself to make one last public appearance and speech. The occasion was the launch of Lee Geok Boi’s What If? … Post-War Choices in Singapore, published by the Singapore Heritage Society. The cleverly written book offered students alternative trajectories of history and invited readers make choices at crucial junctions in Singapore’s history.17 It was a most difficult period for the family, especially for Jean, who marshalled everyone about her to make David as comfortable as possible. In the next few months, many old friends and well-wishers dropped in to visit David. He could not sit up for long periods of time and each visit energized him emotionally but drained him physically. His medication and painkillers had to be carefully regulated so that he would not be so sedated that he did not know who was talking to him. By early December, David’s condition was critical. He could only speak in a whisper and his strength had ebbed completely from his body. Friends and relatives came to pray with him and to cheer him up. His son Jonathan, who was studying at Stanford University, took a year off to be with and to look after his father. Among David’s visitors were Gim Hock and Su Mien who stayed and prayed with him. David appreciated the friendship of this evangelical couple, who earnestly wished him to convert to Christianity. On 16 August 1995 David wrote to them to clarify his religious views. He told them that although he was drawn to the atmosphere of their prayer group and its “total and sincere absence from snobbery, from money, from status, from race” — and had even wished for “a spark, [a] flash, [to] let me in amongst you” — he concluded, “It did not happen.” David remained an “agnostic Jew”,18 17 Roots: Official Newsletter of the Singapore Heritage Society No. 9, December 1995, pp. 1–3. 18 Interview with Mrs Jean Marshall, 29 Jul 2008; and personal correspondence in Mrs Marshall’s possession.

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

551

12/3/08, 10:15 AM

552

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

and in his last few days Dr John Isaacs, a member of the Jewish community visited him to offer prayers for the dying. David died at 7:30 a.m. on 12 December, 1995, surrounded by his loving family. His wife, Jean, and three of their four children, Sara, Joanna, and Jonathan, were at his bedside as he drew his last. Ruth, who was in Geneva, rushed back for the funeral. He was buried on 14 December at 3:30 p.m. at the Jewish Cemetery at Choa Chu Kang Road at a ceremony attended by some 300 persons. Among the pall-bearers were his brothers Meyer and Reg. Brother Sonny offered the final Kiddush prayer. Condolences poured in from around the world and obituaries in the world’s great presses paid tribute to David. Marshall, for the defence, finally rests. A SUMMING UP

In fairness, apart from a small segment comprising the commercial sector and their hangers-on, the British people, in my view, have a genius for a remarkable compound of commonsense and decency which is a joy. If in the hereafter I had to choose a judge of my life’s work, I would be happy to choose a British jury.19

It is very tempting to speculate on how life might have changed had different choices been made or alternatives been offered. Alternative trajectories and scenarios provide the historical pundit with a multitude of possibilities for how life might have been — for better or poorer. David himself often fuelled such speculation, especially when the politics of Singapore was discussed. Would he have made a better leader of Singapore than Lee Kuan Yew? The two men — bitter political rivals from the late 1950s — were, after all, the two towering intellects and politicians in the Legislative Assembly. Debates between the two men were ferocious, witty, and of the highest standard imaginable. Never before or since have two men so completely dominated the floor of the Assembly.

19 David Marshall to F. Cox, 18 Apr 1969, DM/222/20/1–2.

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

552

12/3/08, 10:15 AM

553

THE END GAME

Former Barisan Sosialis Secretary-General Lim Chin Siong, who had a front-row view of these debates and who also participated in them, felt that had David been in charge of Singapore, things would have been different: If David Marshall had been in charge of Singapore, we would have been economically less successful, but intellectually more vibrant; more humane and possibly more democratic. This is purely hypothetical, of course, knowing his character.20

Alas, one key preliminary question needs to be answered before we put David in the driver’s seat. Given his character, democratic instincts, humanity, preference for compromise rather than confrontation, and staunch anti-communist stance, it is highly unlikely that he would have survived once the left-wing-influenced and mobilized masses decided to turn against him, as was shown in the 1963 Anson election. David’s strong individualism, lack of a real connection with the masses, and “thin ears” made him susceptible to manipulation by those around him. He was not a good judge of character and the fact that he moved in professional, English-educated circles made it very difficult for him to attract the top talent prepared to work with him for the greater good. And even though David had spent six weeks studying party organization in London in 1954, he simply did not have the organizational ability sorely needed to forge a party that would be a force to be reckoned with. Had David been a Roman Senator in the days of Cicero, he might well have succeeded in making a difference in the political arena. But politics in a turbulent, twentieth-century, British colony called for a different kind of leader, someone who could not only inspire and rabble-rouse, but plan, scheme, plot, and mobilize. On all these fronts, Lee Kuan Yew proved himself superior to David. Most importantly, Lee had a first-rate team that was talented, capable, selfless, and totally dependable.21 20 “Marshall Lore”, Asia Magazine, 17–19 Jun 1994 8–12, p. 8. 21 See Lam Peng Er & Kevin Y.L. Tan, eds., Lee’s Lieutenants: Singapore’s Old Guard (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1999).

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

553

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

554

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Even so, Lee himself admitted that, even with all these assets, success was not guaranteed. He, too, might well have perished: They [David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock] paid for the lessons from which I profited. I say that without any reservation and with no malice. I say that if it had been my misfortune to become Chief Minister in 1955, I think I would have perished. And I say that sincerely.22

At one point, a desperate David had even asked Lee to take over as chief minister so that he could take on the job as assistant chief secretary and get security information about the communists: I said to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, ‘Look, the British won’t allow us any information on internal security. And when we are independent, it will mean that there’ll be no one who knows anything about the functioning of internal security. It’s very important that outside the civil service, which is in the hands of the British, one of us should have some information. And I suggest that you take over as Chief Minister and I take up the post of Assistant Colonial Secretary. Then, of course, as Assistant Colonial Secretary, I would have access to all internal security papers.’ It was then he perpetrated the lovely remark that ‘history proves that those who have taken office before independence never stayed in office after.23

David’s idea would never have worked. Had Lee agreed to accept his proposition, the Labour Front coalition would have collapsed and another constitutional crisis would have ensued. At the very least, fresh elections would have been called and the communistbacked People’s Action Party (PAP) could well have won more seats. This in turn would have greatly alarmed the British who

22 Alex Josey, David Marshall’s Political Interlude (Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 1982), p. xi. 23 David Marshall, Oral History Interview, 24 Sep 1984, Reel 9 (Singapore: National Archives).

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

554

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

555

THE END GAME

might well have suspended the Constitution and incarcerated some of the PAP’s leaders. It was not a simple case of getting another good man to take over the leadership. So many other issues needed tending to, such as the Malayanization process that was moving at a glacial pace. S.R. Nathan relates how,24 as a young medical social worker (almoner), he was suddenly summoned to appear before the chief minister one afternoon. The young Nathan was worried that he had done something wrong and was prepared for a dressing down when he appeared in J.M. Jumabhoy’s office to see David. What happened next shocked him. David told him that he had decided that Nathan would take over from T.A. White as the seaman’s advisor and asked if Nathan agreed. The dumbfounded Nathan told David that if he thought him capable of doing the job, he would agree. In retrospect, Nathan felt that as David did not know him personally at that time, the only “qualification” he possessed was that in the final year of his course for diploma in social studies at the university, he had written what his examiners thought was an excellent dissertation on the welfare of merchant seamen.25 Such was David’s modus operandi, which led many to doubt his stability and rationality. Later in life, David lamented that he had failed because he had been unequal to his opportunities. Had he been more willing to compromise and more willing to work with the PAP, things might have turned out differently. Again, this is counter-factual. Even if David had learnt to compromise on his anti-communist stance —

24 Interview with S.R. Nathan, 14 Jul 2008. 25 See Sellapan Rama Nathan, “A Research Paper on the Nature and Extent of Work Done” in Singapore for the Welfare of Merchant Seamen (Academic Exercise, University of Malaya, Department of Social Work, 1954). Jean Robertson, who was the head of the Social Work Department at the University, had in fact shown this thesis to Marshall, whom she knew quite well.

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

555

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

556

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

which would have taken quite some doing — there was no guarantee that the PAP would have worked with him. By this time, not only had David shown himself to be a mercurial and temperamental leader, he had also showed that he could not be relied on to be a good team member. His overt individualism and refusal to sublimate his own ideals and passions to those of others, much less an organization, would have made him a difficult partner in any political intrigue or enterprise. That David had even managed to get himself elected as chief minister is a marvel in itself. He was too honest, too principled, and too naive to have been a good politician. He may have been a great philosopher-king, but the hurly-burly, cloak-and-dagger world of realpolitik was alien to David’s entire being. Would Singapore have turned out very differently had David not been chief minister? The answer to the question must almost certainly be an unequivocal yes. Even with limited suffrage in 1955, David was a most unlikely candidate for political leadership. Indeed, when Lim Yew Hock told Assistant Colonial Financial Secretary Harold Anthony Shaw that he intended to invite David to be president of the Labour Front, Shaw was stunned. He told Lim that as Singapore was a Chinese colony, it would be far better to get a Chinese to lead the Front if he hoped to secure victory.26 The fact that a Jew, hailing from the smallest of racial community in Singapore, should emerge as chief minister signified the triumph of democracy and merit over self-interest and racism. The magnitude of this symbolic victory was not lost on David, who then proceeded to select a cabinet line-up that would give representation to all the major ethnic communities in Singapore. This precedent continues to influence the cabinet line-up to this day.

26 Oral History Interview, Harold Anthony Shaw, Reel 8 (Singapore: National Archives).

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

556

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

557

THE END GAME

His meet-the-people sessions were a major breakthrough in days when the masses felt alienated from their government. This too has survived David and is now a major means by which the People’s Action Party serves its constituents. David’s most important contribution to Singapore’s political life in the early years of nationhood was twofold. First, David succeeded in awakening the people of Singapore from their colonial stupor. Through his fiery, anti-colonial speeches “under the old apple tree”, his willingness to challenge British superiority by fighting them on their turf, and his championing of racial equality, David brought home the true meaning of colonialism to his people and urged them to break the chains that held them down. Second, through actions and policies that sought to enfranchise the Singapore population, David made people believe that they were masters of their own destinies and that a bright future was not some ever-receding mirage but a reality they could realistically forge for themselves. It is much easier to organize and scheme than to inspire. David’s talent lay in his ability to bring out the best in everyone. Through the sheer force of his personality and by his own example, he inspired generations of ordinary folk, giving them hope for a bright future in a Singapore they could call home. For someone who was chief minister for all of fourteen months, this was a fantastic achievement. David was able to do this because his message was always about values and humanity, rather than carrots and sticks. He believed, quite rightly, that values and ideals had the power to lift humanity above itself and to transcend its own prejudices, foibles, and limitations. David’s ideals spread well beyond the political firmament. He believed that the dignity of the human spirit demanded that people take in the “miracle of living”. In his later years, he was constantly disappointed by young people who, when asked what they would do if they suddenly came into a huge inheritance, religiously replied that they would save up for their education and families. None of them

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

557

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

558

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

told David what he wanted to hear, which was that they were prepared to use part of it for a holiday, a vacation to chase a dream, to see an exotic place, and to enrich the soul as a human being. For his part, David tried to infuse Singaporeans with a greater sense for aesthetics and the finer things in life. As chief minister, he constantly championed the arts and personally promoted young, local artists. David was a visual person and he loved the theatre, great paintings, photography, and especially good sculpture. David himself did not draw or paint, but he was an excellent amateur photographer. All these expressions of the human spirit uplifted and inspired him and he ardently wished that he could share these wonderful emotions with everyone, especially young Singaporeans. This was what prompted David to donate three Sidney Harpley sculptures — Girl on a Swing, Girl on a Bicycle, and Girl on a Hammock — to the Botanic Gardens. David hoped that these delightful, whimsical sculptures, which he commissioned from Harpley, would bring a smile to anyone seeing them. And even in this endeavour, David had Singapore in mind. David got Harpley to modify his original Girl on a Swing — depicting a young lady with European features — into a sculpture of a young Malay girl dressed in traditional sarong kebaya. Generations of lawyers and law students looked to him as the quintessential lawyer. In this regard, he was peerless. Most lawyers practising in criminal law happily acknowledge David to be the best there ever was. He was head and shoulders above the rest, with everyone else jostling for second place. But David’s contribution to the law was not only in the successes he won for his clients — and certainly they appreciated them — but in the solid advancement of legal ideas through innovative and original argument. Would the legal system have been very different without David at the Bar? Not a whole lot. While the quality of legal practice relies on the quality and training of its practitioners, the system of law is so well established that it is difficult for one or two lawyers to make a great difference. To be sure, the standard of criminal advocacy would have been much

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

558

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

559

THE END GAME

lower overall had David not been a lawyer, but the system would not have suffered too greatly either. David was a man of extremes. He was blessed with a towering intellect, but allowed his even stronger emotions to dictate his actions. He loved people but often found human relationships difficult, especially if he was not dominant. David had a huge ego that often needed to be stroked, to be assured that he was doing right. Yet, he could also show incredible humility in the least expected of circumstances. He enjoyed the good life but believed public service to be what made life worth living. Selfless in his devotion to his fellow human beings, to the underdogs, and for those too weak to speak for themselves, David believed that true greatness meant the love of a fellow human being “and the wisdom and ability to express it in action”.27 Despite its brief history, Singapore has been blessed with many remarkable and talented individuals, men and women who gave more than they received and who tried to make the world a better place. Even among this pantheon, David stands out as one of its brightest stars. His political biographer, Chan Heng Chee, began her account of his life with the line, “In April 1955, David Saul Marshall, a Sephardi Jew, came into Singapore politics like a shooting star and, as is in the nature of a shooting star, filled the sky with brilliance and disappeared.” Chan could not be more wrong. David was no shooting star. His sojourn into politics may have been very brief, but the impact he made, the ideals he espoused, and the values he stood for continue to fill the darkest skies with hope and vision. No, David was not a shooting star; he was like the aurora borealis, the northern lights, filling the sky with wondrous dancing hues: colourful, everchanging, fascinating, and awe-inspiring — a true wonder of nature.

27 Kahlenberg, “A Goliath of a David”, p. 23.

16 Marshall_S'pore Ch 16

559

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the 561 Institute BIBLIOGRAPHY of Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

Bibliography

Parliamentary Material Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates 1955–1962. Singapore Parliamentary Debates Official Reports, 1965. Commission of Inquiry into the $500,000 bank account of Mr. Chew Swee Kee and the Income Tax Dept. Leakage in Connection Therewith (Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1959). Debates of the United Kingdom Legislative Assembly, 17 Jun 1958 at col 878. Great Britain, Colonial Office, Record of Baling Talks in December 1955, CO 1030/29. Interim Report of the Malayanization Commission, Dr BR Sreenivasan (Chairman) (Singapore: Government Printer, 1956) Public Services Salaries Commission of Malaya Report (Kuala Lumpur: Government Press, 1947) Report of the Committee for the Reconstitution of the Singapore Legislative Council, 1947. Report of the Constitutional Commission 1966 (Singapore: Government Printer, 1966). Report of the Constitutional Commission, Singapore, 1954. Report of the Select Committee on Languages in Legislative Assembly Debates, LA 20 of 1957 (Singapore: Government Printers, 1957) Report of the Select Committee on the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill (Singapore: Government Printer, 1960). Report of the Select Committee on the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill, Parl 8 of 1969. Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference Held in March and April, 1957, Cmnd 147. Singapore Constitutional Conference, Cmd 9777 of 1956. Private Papers The David Marshall Papers, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

561

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

562

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Newspaper Articles ‘13 Men — All With One Aim’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 17 Mar 1956. ‘28 Years’ Service Ends in Gaol’ The Straits Times, 14 Oct 1949. ‘61 Delegates to Go to Red China’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 11 Jul 1956. ‘7 Years for “Man Who Poured Oil on Troubled Waters” ’ The Straits Times, 30 Jun 1949. ‘A Lesson in Politics’ Straits Times, 20 May 1956. ‘A Lonely Man …’ The Straits Times, 3 Sep 1962. ‘A Shouting Marshall Off to UN’ The Sunday Times, 29 Jul 1962. ‘A Team of Experts to Draft Singapore Charter’ The Straits Times, 11 Sep 1965. ‘A.A.M. and Motor Insurance’ The Straits Times, 28 Apr 1949. ‘Admitted to GH for Rest’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 18 Jan 1956. ‘Age of Majority at Issue in High Court’ The Singapore Free Press, 4 Nov 1941. ‘Airman Gets Three Years for Attempted Armed Robbery’ The Morning Tribune, 15 Apr 1948. ‘Airman on Trial for Attempted Armed Robbery’ The Morning Tribune, 14 Apr 1948. ‘All-Party Bid to Make Mr M Resign’ Singapore Free Press, 23 May 1956. ‘Alternatives to Income Tax Suggested’ The Malaya Tribune, 14 Jun 1947. ‘Assurance Hailed’ The Malay Mail, 24 Aug 1962. ‘Attack on Continued Postponements of Case’ The Malaya Tribune, 26 Jun 1947. ‘Ban on Alien Lawyers to Stay — AG’ The Malay Mail, 15 Nov 1970. ‘Ban on Singapore Lawyers Cannot be Modified’ The Malay Mail, 4 Jan 1971. ‘Bar Committee is Attacked’ The Straits Times, 15 Feb 1957. ‘Big-hearted Mr M — by former Jap captive’ The Straits Times, 13 Dec 1955. ‘Boycott by Opposition Disheartens Marshall’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 31 Jan 1956. ‘Bureau Closes Down’ The Sunday Times, 4 Nov 1956. ‘Charge Against European is Withdrawn’ The Morning Tribune, 3 Feb 1948. ‘Cheating Charge “Improper” ’ The Malaya Tribune, 20 Jan 1948 ‘Chew Rings London With A Solution’ The Straits Times, 15 May 1956. ‘Childhood Miracle of Awakening’ The Straits Times, 27 Jun 1982. ‘China Cables Mr M: You’re Welcome’ The Straits Times, 20 Jun 1956. ‘Choudhury Gets Nine Months’ The Straits Times, 3 Aug 1978. ‘Coalition — Minuse Mala Union: Marshall’s Midnight Dash to See Governor’ The Straits Times, 6 Apr 1955. ‘Coleman House for Mr M?’ The Sunday Times, 24 Jul 1955.

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

562

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

563

BIBLIOGRAPHY

‘Confusion Over a Name’ The Malaya Tribune, 10 Sep 1947. ‘Cynical Disregard of POWs & Internees’ The Straits Times, 11 Jul 1946. ‘Datuk Wong Arrested Under ISA’ The Vanguard, 11 Mar 1975 at 1. ‘David Marshall Kisses Bride’ The Straits Times, 6 Apr 1961. ‘De Cruz Cables: I’ll Take the Job’ The Straits Times, 25 Jan 1956. ‘Death Sentence on Chinese Quashed’ The Straits Times, 10 Dec 1947. ‘Defence Disputes Cheating Charge’ The Straits Time, 20 Jan 1948. ‘Doubts Raised on China Trade Mission’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 23 Jun 1956. ‘Draft Constitution to be out soon’ The Straits Times, 16 May 1968. ‘Dying Woman’s Alleged Words’ The Straits Times, 28 Jun 1949. ‘Exploitation: Charge Against Motor Insurance Firms’ The Morning Tribune, 9 Apr 1948. ‘Fight Reds the M Way’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 3 Dec 1955. ‘Flying the Flag in France’ The Business Times, 6–7 Jul 1992. ‘Four of the 19 Off to the UN’ The Malayan Times, 25 Jul 1962. ‘Free Lawyers‘– By a Labour Lawyer’ The Straits Times, 24 Mar 1955. ‘Had Trouble with a Taxi Driver’ The Straits Times, 14 Apr 1948. ‘Handled $800,000, No Safe in Office’ The Straits Times, 16 Sep 1949. ‘He Showed Jury How Wife was Stabbed’ The Straits Times, 29 June 1949. ‘Hear Both Sides — Our Case is Good, Lee tells UN’ The Straits Times, 25 Jul 1962. ‘I can Also Sing, Act & Dance’, Stripper Tells Mr M’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 3 Jun 1956. ‘I Did Not Compromise My Politics To Be Envoy’ The Straits Times, 28 Oct 1978. ‘ “Impressive” Lot to Make Peking Trip’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 6 Jul 1956. ‘Is the King A British Subject’ Straits Times, 30 Jun 1946. ‘It is an Internal Matter’ The Malayan Times, 19 Jul 1962. ‘Judgment Reserved in Appeal’ Malaya Tribune, 31 Oct 1941. ‘Kuan Yew: “I have Called their Bluff ” ’ The Malay Mail, 26 Jul 1962. ‘Last Minute Change in the Ministry’ The Straits Times, 9 Apr 1955. ‘Lawyer Alleges Army Excuse in Road Mishaps’ The Straits Times, 23 Apr 1948. ‘Lawyer Flays Army “Excuses” ’ The Morning Tribune, 23 Apr 1948. ‘Lee Requests UN Hearing’ The Malay Mail, 25 Jul 1962. ‘Lee’s Triump’ The Straits Times, 20 Jul 1962. ‘Legal Aid Plan Should be Run by Lawyers’ The Straits Times, 21 Aug 1956. ‘Life Ban on Singapore Lawyers, Malaysia Urged’ The Straits Times, 4 Jan 1971.

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

563

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

564

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

‘Local Courts & Mohammedan Law’ The Singapore Free Press, 12 Nov 1941. ‘Malaysia Ban Appeal by S’pore Lawyers’ The Straits Times, 13 Nov 1970. ‘Malaysian Appeal for Local Lawyer’ Eastern Sun, 12 Mar 1971. ‘Malaysian Bar Council approves Ban on Foreign Lawyers After Oct 1’ The Malay Mail, 7 Apr 1970. ‘Marks of a Maturing Society’ The Straits Times, 4 Sep 1987. ‘Marshall “Ready to stand for next election” ’ The Straits Times, 23 Nov 1967. ‘Marshall Denies PAP Merger’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 18 Jan 1956. ‘Marshall Explains Party’s New Stand’ The Sunday Times, 26 Aug 1962. ‘Marshall in S’pore Team to UN Assembly’ The Sunday Times, 22 Sep 1968 at 10. ‘Marshall is Told to Go’ The Daily Worker, London, 23 May 1956. ‘Marshall Leaves Gloomy’ The Malayan Times, 29 Jul 1962. ‘Marshall Leaves with Disbelief ’ The New Nation, 27 Sep 1978. ‘Marshall off to Japan and China’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 21 Jun 1956. ‘Marshall Plan for Assistant Ministers’ The Straits Times, 8 Jul 1955. ‘Marshall Says He Will Quit If Self-Govt Mission Fails’ Indian Express, Madras, 11 Dec 1955. ‘Marshall says: I May Resign’ The Straits Times, 31 Jan 1956. ‘Marshall to Wed’ The Straits Times, 3 Apr 1961. ‘Marshall Wins, Calls on Lee to Resign’ The Sunday Gazette, 16 Jul 1961. ‘Marshall, Back from China Says Chin Peng is No Ward of Peking’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 25 Oct 1956. ‘Marshall, Rahman Talks for 2 Hours’ The Straits Times, 5 Nov 1955. ‘Marshall: Dominion Talk with Rahman’ The Sunday Times, 18 Dec 1955. ‘Marshall: Go Easy says Doctor’ The Straits Times, 14 Jan 1956. ‘Marshall: I’m Just a Junior Partner’ The Straits Times, 19 Nov 1955. ‘Marshall: My Cabinet Goes with Me’ The Straits Times, 30 May 1956. ‘Marshall: The Role My Party Will Play in Assembly’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 27 Apr 1959. ‘Marshall’s Call to Govt Backed’ The Malay Mail, 23 Nov 1965. ‘Marshall’s Ex-Ambition’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 11 Jan 1956. ‘Marshall’s Plane Has Engine Faulty, is Diverted’ The Evening Standard, London, 22 May 1956. ‘Marshall’s Plane is Forced Down’ Evening News, London, 22 May 1956. ‘ “Meet MCP” Proposal Thrown Out’ The Straits Times, 26 Nov 1955. ‘Merchants Say Ban Japs: We Cannot Stand Their Competition’ The Sunday Times, 29 Jul 1956. ‘Minority Rights in Singapore’ The Straits Times, 10 Dec 1966. ‘Mission Prosperity for Singapore’ The Straits Times, 15 Sep 1955.

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

564

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

565

BIBLIOGRAPHY

‘Motor Insurance in Malaya’ The Straits Times, 12 Apr 1948. ‘Mr Lim Explains to the Lawyers’ The Straits Times, 10 Aug 1956. ‘Mr M Sees His Old PoW Camp’ The Straits Times, 21 July 1956. ‘Mr Marshall and the Legal Aid Bill’ The Straits Times, 20 Feb 1957. ‘Mr Marshall Hopes Singapore Will be Free by mid-1957’ Hindustan Standard, New Delhi, 10 Dec 1955. ‘Mr Marshall Impresses the Newsmen’ The Sunday Times, 11 Dec 1955. ‘Mr Marshall Surprised at Singapore Reaction’ The Straits Times, 9 Dec 1955 ‘No “Cover” ’ The Straits Times, 9 Apr 1948. ‘No Comprehensive Policy says Mr Marshall’ The Straits Times, 14 Apr 1948. ‘No Secret Disadvantages in Common Citizenship — Lee’ The Straits Times, 20 Aug 1962. ‘One Day A Week — Marshall’s Pledge’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 16 Mar 1955. ‘Petition is Rejected’ The Malay Mail, 19 Jul 1962. ‘Please Spread Your Buying, Marshall Tells China’ Straits Times, 31 Aug 1956. ‘Quashed: Death Sentence on William’ The Straits Times, 13 Feb 1970. ‘Queen Gives Approval to 4-Tongue Assembly’ The Straits Times, 2 Mar 1956. ‘Quit? Who Agreed — Marshall’ Singapore Free Press, 25 May 1956. ‘RAF Man Denies Arms Allegation’ The Straits Times, 13 Apr 1948 ‘Referendum and UN: New Moves’ The Straits Times, 19 Jul 1962. ‘Romance Denied, Shrian in Court on Fraud Charge’ The Eastern Sun, 13 Jul 1969. ‘S’pore Giving Princess Jewel Box’ The Free Press, 1 Oct 1947. ‘S’pore to be Dominion?’ Straits Times, 12 Dec 1955. ‘Set Fair for Merdeka Men’’Singapore Tiger Standard, 8 Apr 1956. ‘Show of Pomp Heralds A New Era for The Colony’ Singapore Tiger Standard, 23 Apr 1955. ‘Singapore Constitution’ The Straits Times, 16 Dec 1967. ‘Singapore Turns Against Its Leader’ The Straits Times, 21 May 1956. ‘Singapore’s Constitution for Parliament soon’ The Straits Times, 4 Oct 1965. ‘Singapore’s Untidy Constitution’ The Straits Times, 21 Dec 1965. ‘Sir Sydney will explore welfare state’ The Straits Times, 22 Nov 1955. ‘Soviet “Gross Deceit” Cries Raise No Echo’ The Straits Times, 2 Aug 1962. ‘Steps out of court a free man, rearrested’ The Morning Tribune, 17 May 1947. ‘Swiss Holiday for Marshall’ The Sunday Times, 12 Feb 1956. ‘Tax Committee Proposed’ The Straits Times, 14 Jun 1947. ‘Tenancies Bill Protest to Whitehall’ The Free Press, 27 Jun 1947.

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

565

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

566

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

‘Tenancies Bill’ The Malaya Tribune, 14 May 1947. ‘The Art of Shadow-Boxing’ The Straits Times, 13 Jun 1992. ‘The Big Talks in April’ The Straits Times, 17 Dec 1955. ‘The Last Governor: Sir William Goode looks back’, Part I, interview with Siva Choy, The New Nation, 19 Jul 1974. ‘The Last Governor: Sir William Goode looks back’ Part II, interview with Siva Choy, The New Nation, 20 Jul 1971. ‘The Lion in Winter’ Business Times, 6–7 Jun 1992. ‘The Parties Tell Marshall: Don’t Talk So Much Before London’ The Straits Times, 7 Dec 1955. ‘The Return of David Marshall’ The Straits Times, 5 Oct 1993. ‘They All Like Marshall “Baby” ’ The Straits Times, 7 Jun 1956. ‘Three Years for Airman Who Had Pistol’ The Straits Times, 15 Apr 1948. ‘To Cut Liquor Licences’ The Sunday Times, 6 Jul 1947. ‘Trousers loan’ Daily Mail, 26 Apr 1956. ‘Two Top Workers Party Men Quit’ The Malayan Times, 16 Sep 1962. ‘Two Top Workers’ Party Men Resign’ The Sunday Times, 16 Sep 1962. ‘Victory for Lee Almost Certain’ The Malayan Times, 29 Jul 1962. ‘ “Waive Foreign Lawyers Ban” Appeal in Graft Case’ The Straits Times, 12 Jan 1971. ‘Welcome, Sir Robert — By Pickets’ The Straits Times, 1 Jul 1955. ‘Woman Cleared of Beating Doctor with Broom’ The Straits Times, 18 Aug 1949. Abisheganaden, Felix, ‘Astounding Scenes at The Labour Meeting’ The Sunday Times, 30 Oct 1955. Abisheganaden, Felix, ‘It’s Merdeka’ The Straits Times, 26 Feb 1956. Campbell, Barry, ‘Mr M Out of the Limelight: In Wriggles Strip Queen Rose with Peeling Appeal’ Sunday Times, 3 Jun 1956. de Silva, Gerry, ‘Marshall Returns to Law Career’ The Straits Times, 23 Sep 1993. Hale, Judith, ‘Three Lawyers Back Marshall’s Call to Reject “Confessions” ’ New Nation, 9 Oct 1978. Hwang, TF ‘Marshall Suspended’ The Sunday Times, 8 Oct 1972. Kho, Paul, ‘Datuk Wong to be Released in Court on Monday’ The Sarawak Times, 8 Mar 1975 at 1. Lim, Serene, ‘Ex-Chief Justice Wee, Marshall Honoured by Academy of Law’ The Straits Times, 19 Apr 1992, p. 3. Lui, John, ‘He Pulled No Punches’ Straits Times, 10 Oct 1993. Marshall, David, ‘Murder by Society — Or the Case Against the Death Penalty’ The Sunday Mail, 24 Apr 1960.

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

566

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

567

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Miller, Harry, ‘Drama of the Last Hours’ The Straits Times, 17 May 1956. Miller, Harry, ‘Try, Try and Try Again’ Straits Times, 19 May 1956. Morgan,’Patricia’‘Marshall Returns from Trip to China’ Straits Times, 25 Oct 1956. Rajaratnam, S, ‘Merger: The Two Minds of Mr Marshall’, The Straits Times, 30 Aug 1962. Soh Tiang Keng, ‘Marshall Quits as Workers’ Party Chairman’ The Straits Times, 25 Jan 1963. Wilson, Bruce, ‘A One-Man Fire Still Burns in the Island’ The Western Australian, 11 Oct 1972. Periodicals & Journals Israelite 1934–1937 The Rafflesian 1924–1925. ‘David Marshall Professorship in Law Established’ Campus News No 111, Mar–Apr 1995. ‘In Conversation: An Interview with Dr David Marshall’ (1994) 15 Singapore Law Review 1–8. ‘In Memoriam David Keri Walters’ (1950) XVI Malayan Law Journal xx. ‘In Memoriam’ (1946) XII Malayan Law Journal xliv. ‘Malayan Bar Memorial’ [1950] Malayan Law Journal xviii–xix. ‘Marshall Lore’ (1994) 32(J-18) Asia Magazine 8–12. ‘Marshalling His People’ in Singapore Days of Old: A Special Commemorative History of Singapore Published on the 10th Anniversary of Singapore Tatler (Hong Kong: Illustrated Magazine Publications, 1992. ‘Marshalling the Times’ an interview with Sharon Sophie Isaac, (1995) 1 Shalom 8–9. ‘Meeting David Marshall in 1994’ The Singapore Law Gazette, November 2006, 8–13. ‘My Presidency as I Remember it …’ Singapore Law Gazette, November 2007. ‘New Federation Judges’ (1948) XIV Malayan Law Journal xvii–xix, at xviii. ‘New Puisne Judge, Singapore’ (1946) VII Malayan Law Journal lxxi. ‘Our Acting Chief Justice’ (1946) XII Malayan Law Journal xxviii. ‘Remembering David Marshall’, Eulogy delivered at the Memorial Service of David Marshall, Maghain Aboth Synagogue, 17 Dec 1995. ‘Re-opening of Supreme Court, Singapore’ (1946) XII Malayan Law Journal xxix–xxxi. ‘Sir Charles Murray-Aynsley’ [1950] Malayan Law Journal xv.

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

567

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

568

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

‘The Chief Justice, Malayan Union’ (1946) XII Malayan Law Journal xxxvi. (1946) XII Malayan Law Journal xlvi. ‘The Chief Justice, Singapore’ (1946) XII Malayan Law Journal xxxvii. MurrayAynsley was knighted in 1950. ‘The Dilemma of a Solicitor’ (1974) 7(2) INSAF The Journal of the Bar Council 13–25. ‘The Lion in Winter’ Asiaweek, 6 Apr 1994. ‘The Sino-Indoneisan Treaty on Dual Nationality’ (1955) 24(5) Far Eastern Survey 75–76. ‘The Solicitor-General, Singapore’ (1946) XII Malayan Law Journal xxxvii. Buest, Tristan, ‘The Naval Base at Singapore’ (1932) 5(4) Pacific Affairs 306– 318 at 309. Bunnell, Frederick, ‘An “Administrator’s” View of Indonesian Foreign Policy’ (1974) 18 Indonesia 71–75. Callahan, Raymond, ‘The Illusion of Security: Singapore 1919–42’ (1974) 9(2) Journal of Contemporary History 69–92. Carnell, Francis, ‘Political Ferment in Singapore’ (1955) 24(7) Far Eastern Survey 97–102. Comber, Leon, ‘David Marshall and “Meet the People” — Singapore 1955– 56’ (1994) 18(2) Asian Studies Review 105–112. Desker, Barry & Mohamed Nawab Mohamed Osman, ‘S Rajaratnam and the Making of Singapore Foreign Policy’ in Kwa Chong Guan ed, S Rajaratnam on Singapore: From Ideas to Reality (Singapore: World Scientific & IDSS, 2006) 3–20. Elias, Harry, Speech to the Jewish Welfare Board on the occasion of the 100th birth anniversary of David Marshall, 10 Apr 2008, on file with author. Fraser, Lovat, ‘Brougham as an Advocate’ (1910–1911) 36 Law Mag & Rev Quart Rev Juris 5th ser 36 at 40–41. Glassburner, Bruce, ‘Economic Policy-Making in Indonesia, 1950–1957’ (1962) 10(2) Economic Development and Cultural Change 113–133. Huff, WG, ‘Entitlements, Destitution, and Emigration in the 1930s Singapore Great Depression’ (2001) 54(2) The Economic History Review, New Series 290–323. Kahlenberg, M, ‘A Goliath of a David’ (1988) August Singapore Tatler. Ko Swan Sik & Teuku Moh. Rahdie, ‘Nationality and International Law in Indonesian Perspective’ in Ko Swan Sik ed, Nationality and International Law in Asian Perspective (The Hague: TMC Asser Instituut & Martinus Nijhoff, 1990) at pp 125–176. Koh, KL, Clarkson, CMV & Morgan, NA, Criminal Law in Singapore and Malaysia: Text and Materials (Singapore: Malayan Law Journal, 1989).

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

568

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

569

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Laskier, Michael M, ‘Aspects of the Activities of the Alliance Israélite Universelle in the Jewish Community of the Middle East and North Africa: 1860–1918’ (1983) 3(2) Modern Judaism 147–171. Lim Ewe Huat, ‘Legal Aid System in Singapore’ (1967) 3(2) Law Times 8. Low, James, ‘Kept in Position: The Labour Front-Alliance Government of Chief Minister David Marshall in Singapore, April 1955 – June 1956’ (2004) 35(1) Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 41–64. Marshall, David ‘Facets of the Accusatorial and Inquisitorial Systems’ [1979] 1 MLJ xxix–xxxiv. Marshall, David, ‘Physicians and Human Values’, 8th Gordon Arthur Ransome Oration, (1987) 16(2) Annals of the Academy of Medicine 213–216. Marshall, David, ‘Some Thoughts on Legal Ethics’ (1985) 6 Singapore Law Review 79–86. Marshall, David, ‘The Presidential Council’ (1969) 1 Singapore Law Review 9–13. Marshall, David, ‘The Rule of Law’ (1969) 4 Law Times 3–4. McElwaine, Sir Percy, ‘Last Days of the Singapore Courts, 1942’ (1946) XII Malayan Law Journal lxxvi–lxxvii, at lxxvii. Morgan, Lloyd, ‘The Marshall Story’, The Malayan Monthly, May 1955, 7–10. Mozingo, David, ‘The Sino-Indonesian Dual Nationality Treaty’ (1961) 1(10) Asian Survey 25–31. Ong Chit Chung, ‘The 1959 Singapore General Election’ (1975) Journal of Southeast Asian History 41. Phang, Andrew Boon Leong, ‘Jury Trial in Singapore and Malaysia: The Unmaking of a Legal Institution’ (1983) 25 Malaya Law Review 50–86. Roots: Official Newsletter of the Singapore Heritage Society No 9, December 1995. Schroeter, Daniel J, ‘The Changing Relationship Between the Jews of the Arab Middle East and the Ottoman State in the Nineteenth Century’ in Avigdor Levy ed, Jews, Turks, Ottomans: A Shared History, Fifteenth Through the Twentieth Century (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2002). Shohet, HD Account of the Jewish Community in Baghdad, 27 Feb 1910, quoted in Elie Kedourie, Arabic Political Memoirs and Other Studies (London: Routledge, 1974). Silverstein, Josef & Lynn, ‘David Marshall and Jewish Emigration from China’ (1978) 75 The China Quarterly 647–654. Simon, Rachel, ‘Jewish Female Education in the Ottoman Empire, 1840– 1914’ in Avigdor Levy ed, Jews, Turks, Ottomans: A Share History, Fifteenth Through the Twentieth Century (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2002) 127–152.

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

569

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

570

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Sinnadurai, Visuvanathan, ‘Singapore Citizenship Laws’ (1970) 12 Malaya Law Review 160–204, at 160. Spector, Ronald H ‘After Hiroshima: Allied Military Occupations and the Fate of Japan’s Empire, 1945–1947’ (2005) 69(4) The Journal of Military History 1121–1136. Spector, Stanley, ‘Students and Politics in Singapore’ (1956) 25(5) Far Eastern Survey 65–73. Springhall, John, ‘Mountbatten versus the Generals: British Military Rule of Singapore, 1945–46’ (2001) 36(4) Journal of Contemporary History 635–652. Tan, Jason, ‘Education and Colonial Transition in Singapore and Hong Kong: Comparisons and Contrasts’ (1997) 33(2) Comparative Education 303–312. Thio, SM, ‘The Presidential Council’ [1969] 1 MLJ xli, reprinted in (1969) 1 Sing LR 2. Wan Meng Hao, ‘Malay Soldiering in Singapore, 1910–1942’ in Khoo Kay Kim, Elinah Abdulah & Wan Meng Hao eds, Malays/Muslims in Singapore: Selected Readings in History (Singapore: Pelanduk & AMP, 2006) 182–222. Waterman, Stanley & Kosmin, Barry A, ‘Residential Patterns and Processes: A Study of Jews in Three London Boroughs’ (1988) 13(1) Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 79–95. Books Alfred, Hedwig, Living the Mission: The SJI Story 1852–2002 (Singapore: Archipelago Press, 2002). Archaya, Amitav, Singapore’s Foreign Policy: The Search for Regional Order (Singapore: World Scientific, 2008). Benjamin, Marina, Last Days in Babylon: The Story of the Jews of Baghdad (London: Bloomsbury, 2007). Bieder, Joan, The Jews of Singapore (Singapore: Suntree, 2007). Black, Edwin, Banking on Baghdad: Inside Iraq’s 7,000-Year History of War, Profit, and Conflict (New Jersey: John Wiley, 2004). Bloodworth, Dennis, The Tiger and the Trojan Horse (Singapore: Times Books International, 1986). Brand, Paul, The Origins of the English Legal Profession (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992). Brown, Edwin A, Indiscreet Memories: 1901 Singapore Through the Eyes of a Colonial Englishman (Singapore: Monsoon Books, 2007), reprint of 1935 edition by Kelly & Walsh.

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

570

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

571

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, Francis, Memories of SJI: Reminiscences of Old Boys and Past Teachers of St Joseph’s Institution, Singapore (Singapore: The Institution, 1987). Chan Heng Chee, A Sensation of Independence: David Marshall — A Political Biography (Singapore: Times Books International, 2001). Cheah Boon Kheng, The Masked Comrades: A Study of the Communist United Front in Malaya 1946–48 (Singapore: Times Books International, 1979). Chew, Melanie, Leaders of Singapore (Singapore: Resource Press, 1996). Chin Peng, My Side of History (Singapore: Media Masters, 2003). Chouraqui, Andre N, Cent ans d’histoire: l’Alliance Israelite Universelle et la renaissance juive contemporain (1860–1960) (Paris, 1965), cited in Norman A Stillman, Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991). Clutterbuck, Richard, Conflict and Violence in Singapore and Malaysia, 1945– 1983 (Singapore: Graham Brash, 1984). Clutterbuck, Richard, Long, Long War: The Emergency in Malaya, 1948–1960 (London: Cassell, 1967). Cole, GHD, A History of Socialist Thought, 7 vols (London: Macmillian, 1953–1960). Colonial Office, Organization of the Colonial Service (London: HMSO, 1946). Das, Cyrus, ed, Justice Through Law: Fifty Years of the Bar Council of Malaysia 1947–1997 (Kuala Lumpur: Bar Council Malaysia, 1997). Davison, Julian, Allen & Gledhill: Centenary (Singapore: Allen & Gledhill, 2002). de Cruz, Gerald, Rojak Rebel: Memoirs of a Singapore Maverick (Singapore: Times Books International, 1993). de Rosario, Lionel, Nippon Slaves (London: Janus Publishing, 1995). Dicey, AV, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10 ed (London: Macmillan, 1959). Drysdale, John, Singapore: The Struggle for Success (Singapore: Times Books International, 1984). Farrell, Brian, The Defence and Fall of Singapore 1940–1942 (London: The History Press, 2006). Goh, Robbie BH, The Metropolitan YMCA in Singapore: 1946–2006 (Singapore: Metropolitan YMCA, 2006). Hamill, Ian, The Strategic Illusion: The Singapore Strategy and the Defence of Australia and New Zealand, 1919–1942 (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1981).

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

571

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

572

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Hoalim, Philip Sr, The Malayan Democratic Union: Singapore’s First Democratic Political Party (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1972). Huff, WG, The Economic Growth of Singapore: Trade and Development in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Hussin Mutalib, Parties and Politics: A Study of Opposition Parties and the PAP in Singapore, 2 ed (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2004). Jayakumar, S, Constitutional Law, Singapore Law Series, (Singapore: Malaya Law Review, 1976). Josey, Alex, David Marshall’s Political Interlude (Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 1982) at xi. Josey, Alex, Pulau Senang: The Experiment that Failed (Singapore: Times Books, 1980). Josey, Alex, The David Marshall Trials (Singapore: Times Editions, 1981) reprinted by Marshall-Cavendish in 2008. Josey, Alex, The Trial of Sunny Ang (Singapore: Federal Publications, 1973) Kattan, Naim, Farewell Babylon: Coming of Age in Jewish Baghdad (Vancouver: Raincoast Books, 2005). Kedourie, Elie, Arabic Political Memoirs and Other Studies (London: Routledge, 1974). Khoo Kay Kim, Elinah Abdulah & Wan Meng Hao eds, Malays/Muslims in Singapore: Selected Readings in History (Singapore: Pelanduk & AMP, 2006). Ko Swan Sik ed, Nationality and International Law in Asian Perspective (The Hague: TMC Asser Instituut & Martinus Nijhoff, 1990). Kovilpillai, Daniel, A Short History of Saint Andrew’s School (Singapore, 1963). Kwa Chong Guan ed, S Rajaratnam on Singapore: From Ideas to Reality (Singapore: World Scientific & IDSS, 2006). Lam Peng Er & Kevin YL Tan eds, Lee’s Lieutenants: Singapore’s Old Guard (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1999). Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story 1965–2000 (Singapore: Times Editions, 2000). Lee Kuan Yew, The Battle for Merger (Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1962). Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore: Times Media, 1998). Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings & Marshall Cavendish, 1998). Leifer, Michael, ed, Letters from Mao’s China by David Marshall (Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society, 1996).

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

572

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

573

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Levy, Avigdor, ed, Jews, Turks, Ottomans: A Shared History, Fifteenth Through the Twentieth Century (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2002). Lewis, Bernard, The Jews of Islam (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984). Lim Yew Hock, Reflections (Kuala Lumpur: Pustaka Antara, 1986). Liu, Gretchen, The Singapore Foreign Service: The First 40 Years (Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, 2005). Mackay, Derek, Eastern Customs: The Customs Service in British Malaya and the Opium Trade (London: Radcliff Press, 2005). Malcolm H Murfett, John N Miksic, Brian P Farrell & Chiang Ming Shun, Between Two Oceans: A Military History of Singapore From First Settlement to Final British Withdrawal (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1999). Marshall, David, Foreword to Koh Kheng Lian & U Myint Soe, The Penal Codes of Singapore and States of Malaya: Cases, Materials, and Comments, Vol 1 (Singapore: Law Book Co of Singapore & Malaysia, 1974). McIntyre, W David, The Rise and Fall of the Singapore Naval Base, 1919–1942 (London: Macmillan, 1979). Mirza Ismail, My Public Life (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1946). Neidpath, James, The Singapore Naval Base and the Defence of Britain’s Eastern Empire, 1919–1941 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981). Nelson, Hank, P.O.W. — Prisoners of War: Australians Under Nippon (Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1985). Norden, Hermann, From Golden Gate to Golden Sun: A Record of Travel, Sport and Observation in Siam and Malaya (London: HF & G Witherby, 1923). Owen, Frank, The Fall of Singapore (London: Penguin, 2001). Pancheri, Paul Gibbs, Volunteer! The Story of One Man’s War in the East (London: Paul Gibbs Pancheri, 1995). Parkinson, C Northcote, Britain in the Far East: The Singapore Naval Base (Singapore: Donald Moore, 1955). Pinsler, Jeffrey, Ethics and Professional Responsibility: A Code for the Advocate & Solicitor (Singapore: Academy Publishing, 2007). Rabinowitz, Louis, Far East Mission (Johannesburg: Eagle Press, 1952). Raphael, Chaim, The Road from Babylon: The Story of the Sephardi and Oriental Jews (New York: Harper & Row, 1985). Rejwan, Nissim, The Last Jews in Baghdad: Remembering a Lost Homeland (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004). Roland, Charles G, Long Night’s Journey into Day: Prisoners of War in Hong Kong and Japan, 1941–1945 (Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001). Sachar, Howard M, A History of the Jews in the Modern World (New York: Vintage Books, 2006).

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

573

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

574

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Sho, Kuwajima, Indian Mutiny in Singapore, 1915 (Calcutta: Ratna Prakashan, 1991). Short, Anthony, The Communist Insurrection in Malaya, 1948–1960 (London, Muller, 1975). Singapore and Straits Directory 1938 (Singapore: The Mission Press, 1939). Singapore and Malayan Directory 1950 (Singapore: Straits Times, 1951). Singapore Labour Front: Its Principles and Aims and Four-Year Programme (Singapore: Singapore Labour Front, 1954). Smith, Colin, Singapore Burning: Heroism and Surrender in World War II (London: Penguin, 2006). Stewart, Brian, Smashing Terrorism in the Malayan Emergency: The Vital Contribution of the Police (Subang Jaya, Selangar: Pelanduk, 2004). Stillman, Norman A, Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991). Stubbs, Richard, Hearts and Minds in Guerrilla Warfare: The Malayan Emergency, 1948–1960 (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1989). Tan, Kevin YL & Thio Li-ann, Tan, Yeo & Lee’s Constitutional Law in Malaysia and Singapore, 2 ed (Singapore: Butterworths Asia, 1997). The Jewish Encyclopedia (Funk & Wagnalls 1901–1906). Thomas, Francis, Memoirs of a Migrant (Singapore: University Education Press, 1972). Thompson, Peter, The Battle for Singapore: The True Story (London: Portrait, 2005). Turnbull, CM, A History of Singapore 1819–1988, 2 ed (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1989). Urcan, Olimpiu G, Surviving Changi — EE Colman: A Chess Biography (Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society, 2007). Visscher, Sikko, The Business of Politics and Ethnicity: A History of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry (Singapore: NUS Press, 2007). Warren, Alan, Singapore 1942 (Singapore: Talisman, 2002). Waterford, Van, Prisoners of the Japanese in World War II (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co, 1994). Williams, Francis, 50 Years March: The Rise of the Labour Party (London: Oldhams Press, 1949). Wijesingha, Eugene, A History of Raffles Institution (Singapore: University Education Press, 1963). Yeo Kim Wah, Political Development in Singapore 1945–1955 (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1973).

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

574

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

575

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Unpublished Dissertations & Manuscripts Singh, Navtej, Singapore’s Fight for Self-Government Under David Marshall, 1955–1956 (Academic Exercise, Department of History, University of Singapore 1973). Marshall, David, ‘The Jury’, unpublished manuscript of speech given to the Law Alumni. Nathan, Sellapan Rama, A Research Paper on the Nature and Extent of Work Donein Singapore for the Welfare of Merchant Seamen, Academic Exercise (University of Malaya: Department of Social Work, 1954). Thum Peng Tjin, Thick Face, Black Hearts: British Policy and the Logic of Transition in Singapore, 1955–1959, unpublished MA Dissertation (Oxford: Oxford University, 2006). CM Turnbull, ‘Notes of Interview with Datuk David Marshall in Singapore in June 1994’. Speeches ‘Farewell Broadcast by the Honourable Mr David Marshall, Before Resigning as Chief Minister, over Radio Malaya at 7.10 pm, Tonight, June 7 1956’ Public Relations Office Press Statement, No JU 56/29. Chan Sek Keong, ‘David Marshall and the Law: Some Reflections on His Contribution to Criminal and Civil Justice in Singapore’, speech delivered at David Marshall — His Life and Legacy, a Symposium in Commemoration of the 100th Birth Anniversary of Mr David Marshall), 12 Mar 2008, Shangrila Hotel, Singapore. Janadas Devan, Speech on the occasion the commemoration of David Marshall’s 100th birth anniversary, Shangrila Hotel, Singapore, 12 Mar 2008, as recorded by author. Statutes Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, Cap 62, Statutes of the Straits Settlements, 1936 Rev Ed. The Straits Settlements Repeal Act 1946, 9 & 10 Geo VI, c 37. Singapore Order-in-Council 1946, 27 Mar 1946, Statutory Rules and Orders, 1946, No 462. Order-in-Council dated 24th February 1948, Statutory Instruments, 1948, No 341. Statutory Instruments, 1950, No 2099. Reprint of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1948 as amended together with Proclamations, Orders, Rules and Regulations made thereunder as

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

575

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

576

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

amended up to the 1st May 1953, and a Table of Contents (Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1953). Singapore Order in Council, 1954. Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955. Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955. Courts Ordinance, Cap 3, Statutes of the Colony of Singapore, 1955 Revised Edition Singapore Colony Order-in-Council 1955, Statutory Instruments, 1955, No 187. The Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, SI S293, No 1956 of 1958. Independence of Singapore Agreement, 1965, GN No 1824, 9 August 1965. Jewish Synagogue Ordinance, Cap 365, Singapore Statutes. Legal Profession Act, Cap 161, Singapore Statutes. British Nationality Act, 1948, 11 & 12 Geo 6, Cap 56. Cases Alderman Backwell (1683) Vernon’s Chancery Reports 152. Choudhury v Public Prosecutor [1980–1981] SLR 293 (High Court). Karam Singh v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri v Malaysia [1969] 2 MLJ 129. Lee Keng Guan v PP [1975–1977] SLR 231. Lee Mau Seng v Minister for Home Affairs, Singapore & Anor [1969–1971] SLR 508, at 525. Lim Ko & Anor v Board of Architects [1966] 2 MLJ 80. McDougal v Patterson (1851) 6 Ex 337. N Govindasamy v Public Prosecutor [1975–1977] SLR 165. Public Prosecutor v Choudhury [1980–1981] SLR 146 (Court of Criminal Appeal). R v Mitchell (1913) 1 King’s Bench 561. Re Datuk James Wong Kim Min; Minister of Home Affaris, Malaysia & Ors v Datuk James Wong Kim Min [1976] 2 MLJ 245. Re David Marshall; Law Society v Marshall David Saul [1972–1974] SLR 132, at 135. Re David Marshall; Law Society v Marshall David Saul [1972–1974] SLR 132 Re Maria Menado (1964) 30 MLJ 266. Re Onkar Shrian [1969–1971] SLR 274. Stanislaus Krofan & Anor v PP [1967] 1 MLJ 33. Sunny Ang v Public Prosecutor [1966] 2 MLJ 195

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

576

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

577

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tan Cheng Eng, William v PP [1969–1971] SLR 115. Tan Kheng Ann & Ors v The Public Prosecutor [1965] 2 MLJ 108. Vijayan v Public Prosecutor [1975–1977] SLR 100. Wee Toon Boon v Public Prosecutor [1975–1977] SLR 498. Wo Yok Ling v Public Prosecutor [1978–1979] SLR 78. Wong Mimi & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1972–1974] SLR 73. Miscellaneous Material Minutes of Labour Front Annual Conference, 29th/30th October, 1955. Resolution 1514 (XV) of the United National General Assembly of 14 Dec 1960. Report of Labour Front Annual Conference 29th/30th October 1955 Singapore Labour Front, Report of the Labour Front General Council, 8 Mar 1959. Singapore Labour Front: Its Principles and Aims and Four-Year Programme (Singapore: Labour Front, 1955) Sino-Indonesian Treaty on Dual Nationality, 1955 Workers’ Party Constitution & Rules, 1957. Websites Les Fleur de L’Orient genealogy website ‘Brief Historical Background to Middle Temple Library’’ Center For Research Allied Pows Under The Japanese, Australia’s War 1939–1945: Coming Home (accessed 9 May 2008) The Story of Rose Chan History of Echigoya & Co in Singapore

17 Marshall_S'pore Biblio

577

11/21/08, 9:16 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the 579 InstituteINDEX of Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

Index

A Abbett, I. B., 150 Abbett, Sophie, 435 Abdul Aziz bin Mahmood, 510 Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat cabinet posts, 244, 313, 365 citizenship issue, 307, 333 coalition with Labour Front, 242– 43 London talks, 331, 334, 345, 387 Merdeka Week, 341 Abdul Kadir Yusof, Tan Sri, 506 Abdul Manaf Ghows, 458 Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Rahman, 464 Abdul Rahman, Tunku David’s China trip, 367 end of Emergency, 320–26 legal training, 76 Lim Yew Hock and, 365, 385 merger with Singapore, 306, 408, 415, 421–22 press for independence, 331, 337 Abdul Razak, Tun, 507 Abdul Wahab Ghows, 444 Abisheganaden, Geoffrey, 174, 195, 226, 443, 458, 466–67 Abraham, A. K., 400 Abraham, R. D., 373, 375 Adams, Sergeant Jock, 135 Adenauer, Konrad, 522 Adis, Gracia, 57

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

579

Adis Road, 19–20 Administrative Service, 317 Advisory Council, 161, 206 Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance 1935, 86 Agate, C.J.S., 164 Ahmad bin Haji Taff, 457 Ahmad bin Ibrahim, 162 Ahmad bin Mohd Ibrahim, 481 Ahmad Shah Qajar, 12 Ah See Kah, 16, 17 Air Raid Precaution (ARP), 121 Aitken, James, 95 Aitken & Ong Siang, 95–96, 101, 103, 145, 193, 203 Alexandra Barracks, 19 Alexandra Hospital, 128 Alexandra Road, 118 Allen, Rowland, 103 Allen & Gledhill David and, 103–4, 106, 142, 163, 188–89 establishment, 93 Malaysian ban, 506 pay scale, 94 Alliance Israélite Universelle (AIU), 14–15, 22 All-Party Education Committee, 281 Amarjeet Rubin & Partners, 428 ambassadorship diplomatic business, 531–36 early experience, 509–12

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

580

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

end of political ambition, 426 legal practice and, 428, 508, 523 offer of, 520–23 Paris residence, 525, 526–29 personal traits, 509, 533, 539 Portugal, 537 preparations for, 524–26 presentation of credentials, 530– 31 resource allocation, 530, 536, 537 retirement, 537–40 rumours of, 511–12, 519 Singaporeans in France, 539 Singapore Day parties, 536, 540 Spain, 537, 544 Switzerland, 537 Ambiavagar, V., 39 Ambrose, Justice, 452 Amnesty International, 499 Amstutz, Hobart, 434 Anderson School, 36 Ang, Sunny, 444–45 Anson constituency, 408–9, 410, 425 anti-Semitism, 21–22, 63, 66, 102, 162, 229 Arabic language, 14–15, 17–18, 21 Arab Street, 170 Arathoon and Sons, 188 Arcade, The, 143 Armenian Street, 30 Arms Offences Act, 456 Army Civil Service Union, 226, 278, 398, 400 Arumugam, 166 Asaka Maru, 132 Asano Coal, 133 Ashcroft, Stewart, 492, 493 Asian-African Conference, 371 Associated Press, 500

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

580

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), 514, 515–16, 529, 533–34, 535, 537 Attorney General back-pay for volunteers, 156 chambers, 471 Constitution and, 206, 243 David’s suspension, 499, 503 Singapore Bar and, 86, 98 Supreme Court and, 144 Australia David’s visits, 137–38, 187–88, 191–92, 437 Jewish emigration to, 145–46 legal system, 175, 319 Lim Yew Hock and, 511 Marshall family in, 138, 185–87 Singapore constitution and, 457 World War II, 112 Australian National Archives, 389 Automobile Association (AA), 158– 59 Aw Boon Haw, 50 Aziz Mahmood, 527–28 Azman, Tan Sri, 529 B Baghdad, 1 n 1, 2–6, 10–11, 13–18 Baharuddin Mohammed Ariff, 408 Bahrain, 358 Bain, M., 155 Baker, Maurice, 533 Balakrishna, V. R., 400 Bali, 435 Baling, 322, 339 Baling English School, 322 Baling peace talks, 320–26 Ballas, Jacob, 146, 147–48 Bandung, 371

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

581

INDEX

Bangkok, 434 Bangkok-Moulmein railway, 129 Bangladesh, 516 Bani, S. T., 408 Bank Negara, 314 Bank of China Building, 292, 424, 427 Bank of Tokyo, 369 Bankruptcy Court, 121 Banque Nationale de Paris (BNP), 526 Barbados, 194 Barcelona, 544 Bar Committee, 88, 94, 319, 442, 491, 504 Barisan Sosialis, 410–13, 415–17, 421–22, 457, 553 Barker, E. W., 457, 491, 503, 519 Baroody, Jamil M., 511 Barr, P. C., 183 Barre, Fabius, 538 Barre, Raymond, 538 Bartholomew, G. W., 479, 481 Bartlett, Vernon, 283 Batavia, 26, 114 Bateman, Osborn Robert Sacheverel (O.R.S.), 200 Battenberg, William Alexander Newton, 194 Battenberg & Talma, 191, 193–97, 297, 301, 427, 466 Battery Road, 188 Battle of Singapore, 128 Baudouin, 517 Baxter, Ronnie, 229, 230 Beach Road, 115 Beauty World Park, 381 Bedok, 115, 129–30, 142, 446 Begg, A. M., 375

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

581

Behn Meyer & Co., 8, 53 Beijing, 368, 369–70, 377, 379 Belgium, 51, 517 Ben & Company, 450 Bencoolen Street, 6, 21 Bengal Presidency, 108 Benham, Frederic Charles Courtenay, 294 Benjamin, Frank J., 153 benteng policy, 313 Bentong, 164 Beurel, Reverend Father Jean-Marie, 22 Bevan, Aneurin, 225 Bhadkamar, Mr, 418 Bibi (family helper), 436–37 Bieder, Joan, 147 Bishop, David A., 36, 39–40, 45 Black, Robert, 449 Black, Sir Robert Brown, 254, 281– 83, 316–17, 326, 340, 356, 364 Black, Sir Robin. See Black, Sir Robert Brown Blom-Cooper, Louis, 482 Bluebell Cottage, 24, 25, 50, 85, 199 Boat Quay, 6 Bombay, 1 n 1, 4, 234, 246, 331, 358 Bonaparte, Napoleon, 517–18 Bonn, 515, 517 Booker, Robert K., 506 Borneo, 126, 164, 408, 450, 468 Botanic Gardens, 334, 558 Boustead & Co., 8 Braddell, Sir Roland, 89, 161, 209, 481 Braddell, Sir Thomas, 7 Braddell Brothers, 89, 93 Braddell Memorial Lecture, 480–85, 522 Braddell Road, 89

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

582

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Braga, Armand J., 244, 298, 345, 355 Braga & De Souza, 467 Brandt, Willy, 515 Bras Basah Road, 35 Brash, Murray Bruce (M. B.), 103, 106, 143–44 Breed, Geoffrey R., 169 Brinkmann & Co., 8 Brisk, E. R., 150 Britain. See also British Empire; British Government anti-Semitism in, 66 law, 302–3, 486, 487 legal aid scheme, 319 relations with Singapore, 515, 517 World War I, 16, 19 British Army, 119 British Civil Service, 246 British Commissioner-General for Southeast Asia, 141 British East India Company, 7 British Empire colonial attitudes, 39–40, 81–82, 90–92, 119, 359 Jewish trade, 5 Marshall family in, 10 post-war impoverishment, 159 power and prestige, 106, 248 Singapore’s place, 8, 90–91 British Government. See also Constitutional Conferences back-pay for ex-POWs, 154–58 Chinese and, 254–58, 267, 302–8 citizenship issue, 302–8, 330, 350 communism and, 303 defence arrangements, 90–91, 107, 108, 112, 353, 361 Emergency and, 182, 208, 321, 324

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

582

income taxation, 161 internal security and, 348, 349, 554 Jewish welfare and, 150 Lim Yew Hock and, 363, 389–90 Malayanization policy and, 315– 17 Malays and, 207, 308 Progressive Party and, 209, 213– 14, 215 representative in Singapore, 350, 354, 388 stance on Singapore, 250, 254, 336, 347, 383, 392 Tan Chin Tuan and, 32 view of David, 162, 275–76, 362 British Guyana, 203 British High Commissioner, 348–52, 388 British Labour Party, 218, 224–25, 229, 234–35, 503 British Military Administration (BMA), 138, 141–42, 144, 154, 205 British Special Branch, 320 British Union of Fascists, 64 Brockaway, Fenner, 234 Brocklehurst, G. J., 295 Broder, Max, 123 Brougham, Lord Henry, 99 Brown, Dr, 180 Brunei, 415, 514 Brussels, 51, 515, 516, 529, 534 Buckingham Palace, 63 Buckley, Brother Stephen, 23, 27, 29 Bung Omar Junid, 402 Burke, 225 Burkinshaw, John, 93 Burma, 132, 263, 514

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

583

INDEX

Burma Road, 108 Business Times, 538, 542 Butterfield, C. H., 105, 311 Buttrose, Murray, 166 Byrne, Kenneth M., 219–20, 316, 511 C Caine, Sir Sydney, 294, 378 Cairnhill constituency 1955 elections, 153, 197, 228, 237 1957 elections, 401 1959 election, 404–5 David’s representation, 310, 397– 98 meet-the-people sessions, 295, 298 Calcutta, 4, 6–7 Caldecott Hill, 199 Cambodia, 514, 533 Cambridge University, 42, 95, 104, 345 Canton, 4 Cantonese, 297 capital punishment. See death penalty Carey, Cecil William Victor, 144 Carlton House, 347, 354 Central Provident Fund (CPF), 213– 14 Central Provident Fund Ordinance, 214 Ceylon, visit to, 38, 330, 331, 339, 363 Chai Mee Yong, 183 Chamberlain, Neville, 102 Chan, Esther, 507 Chan, Rose, 300–301 Chan Chiaw Thor, 382 Change Alley, father’s shop, 2, 8

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

583

Changi, 115, 119, 121–25, 126, 131, 135, 199–200 Changi Beach, 446 Changi Bus Company, 269 Changi Prison, 122, 129 Changi Road, 142 Chang Yuen Tong, 401 Chan Heng Chee on constitutional conference, 354 on CPF Ordinance, 214 on David, 61, 84, 189, 203, 403, 559 on David’s family, 11 on Merdeka rally, 342 on Workers’ Party, 400 Chan Keng Howe, Harry, 510 Chan Kok Min, 434 Chan Sek Keong, 167, 441, 451, 456 Chased-el Synagogue, 146 Cheah Heng Sin, 89 Chee Phui Hung, 409 Chelliah, D. D., 464 Chen Tien, 322 Chen Yi, Marshall, 370, 371, 378 Cheok, Jenny, 444 Cheong Hock Hai, 295 Cheong Min Chew, 401 Chew Swee Kee confrontation with students, 244, 380, 381 constitutional talks, 352, 387, 389 LF leadership, 391, 393 meet-the-people sessions, 298 scandal, 405 Chew Swee Yoke, 467, 475 Chia Cheong Fook, 522, 534–35 Chia Ek Tian, 380 Chiam, T. K., 400 Chiang Hai Ding, 517, 529, 534–35, 537

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

584

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Chidson, Lowthian Hume (L. H.), 103, 106, 143–44 Chief Justice case assignments, 177 David’s suspension, 499 first Asian, 104, 458 internal security and, 461 protocol, 88, 92, 248, 253 Chief Minister Constitution and, 250, 283, 285, 288, 335 protocol, 248, 249–54 Sir John Nicoll’s ideal, 363 chief ministership. See also political career Baling peace talks, 320–26 cabinet, 243–44 Chinese mass politics, 254–58, 266–68 citizenship issue, 301–8 clashes with colonial authorities, 245–54 constitutional crisis, 281–89 constitutional talks, 345–57, 358– 61, 392 economic issues, 293–95 election, 239–42 hold on power, 338 internal security regulations, 258– 66 labour unrest, 268–79 legal aid, 318–20 Malayanization policy, 315–18 meet-the-people sessions, 295– 301, 557 multilingualism issue, 308–12, 335 press for independence, 330–39, 340, 341–57

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

584

relationship with Japan, 369 resignation, 299, 357–61, 362 threats of resignation, 283–84, 333, 340, 353, 356 visits to London, 334–36, 341, 345 visit to Indonesia, 312–15 visit to South Asia, 330–33, 337, 358 Chief Secretary, 243, 248, 265, 281, 350 Chin, Annie, 176, 469, 470–71 China citizenship, 303 immigration to Singapore, 7 internal politics, 255 invitation to David, 365 Jewish community, 372–75, 377 legal system, 375–77 overseas Chinese and, 372, 377 relations with Singapore, 366, 514 war effort, 108 war with Japan, 101–2 Chin Chye Fong, 470 Chinese Chamber of Commerce, 206, 236–37, 280, 303, 308, 514 Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 308 Chinese clan associations, 9 Chinese Communist Party, 255, 303, 367 Chinese community attitude to China, 367 Chinese-born and educated, 302– 4, 309, 405, 406–7, 411 Constitutional Commission and, 458 economic interests, 206–7, 236– 37, 243, 308

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

585

INDEX

English-educated, 302 Japanese Occupation, 120 Javanese dislike of, 313 mass politics, 254–58, 266–76 portion of population, 301 stratification, 214, 301–2 suffrage, 209, 255, 302–8, 370–71 war effort, 107–8 Chinese education, 279, 280–81. See also Chinese school students Chinese Government, 365, 371, 378 Chinese High School, 258, 269, 280, 381–82 Chinese language, 297, 308, 310, 453 Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs, 370 Chinese school students communist infiltration of, 255– 58, 266–68 Hock Lee Bus riots, 269–76 Lim Yew Hock and, 380–82 National Service ordinance and, 226–27, 257 unrest among, 244, 279–81 Chin Peng, 320–26 Chng Suan Tze v. Minister of Home Affairs, 455 Choa, Eric, 89 Chong Chee Chong, 424 Chong Peng Heng, 170 Chong Wee Ling, 398 Choudhury, Gopal Chjandra Kar, 450 Christian missionaries, 9 Chua, F. A., 501 Chua Chin Kiat, 423–24 Chua Ho Ann, 449–50 Chung Cheng High School, 258, 280, 380, 381–82

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

585

Chung Hwa Girls’ School, 381 Chung Kok Soon (K. S.), 427 Chung Thye Phin, 427 Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 167, 553 Citizenship Bureau, 301 Citizenship Ordinance 1957, 307 City Council, 219, 253, 318, 401, 407 City Hall, 140, 503 Clark, Adrian John, 145 Cleaver, E. C., 165 Clemenceau Avenue, 258 Clerk of Court, 248 Cobbett, John Christopher (J. C.), 93–94, 154–55, 156 Cohen, Joseph Dwek, 6 Cohen, M. M., 148 Cole, G. D. H., 234 Coleman House, as official residence for Chief Minister, 254 Colombo, 234, 331 Colonial Office constitutional talks, 335, 356 Far Eastern Department, 334 Legislative Council and, 207, 337 Malayan Union and, 140–41 self-government and, 205, 307, 354 Southeast Asia Department, 254 Colonial Office White Paper, 315 Colonial Secretary, 205, 206, 238, 253, 259 Coltart, Gilbert McCallum, 94 Comber, Leonard Francis (Leon), 296, 298, 299, 301 Commissioner for Police, 264, 349 Committee on Minimum Standards of Livelihood, 294 Commonwealth Diplomatic Corps, 537

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

586

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Commonwealth Law Conference, 457 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, 415 Communist Party of Great Britain, 64 Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) aims, 182 China and, 371, 379 end of Emergency, 320–26, 339 infiltration activities, 255, 257, 268–69, 274, 280 jungle war, 208, 320 negotiations with PAP, 401 political engagement, 202 support for Workers’ Party, 401– 2, 409–10 Compagnie des Messageries Maritimes, 54, 60 Conceicao, Joe, 533 Conservative Party (UK), 351 Constitutional Commission (Rendel), 152–53, 214–16, 250, 309 Constitutional Commission (Wee), 458, 459, 462–63 Constitutional Conferences preliminaries, 330–39, 341–45 first round, 345–56 second round, 385–91 third round, 391, 402 Constitution of Singapore. See also Constitutional Commission (Rendel); Constitutional Commission (Wee); Constitutional Conferences minority rights, 458–63 multilingualism, 309–12 post-independence, 456–58 post-London talks, 391 post-war, 205–7

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

586

provision for suspension, 350–51 Rendel, 214–16, 250, 281–89, 307 Constitution of the State of Singapore 1963, 458 Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus (CHIJ), 22, 28, 35 Coomaraswamy, Punch, 442, 491 Corera, J. C., 177, 297, 298, 299, 301, 400, 401 Council of Joint Action (CJA), 417, 419–20 Council of Judges, 461 Council of Legal Education, 71 Council of Ministers, 216, 243, 261, 280, 348–49, 363 Council of State, 461, 462, 463 Council of the Jewish Community in Shanghai, 373, 375 Court of Appeal, 121, 455, 456, 461 Court of Criminal Appeal, 170, 430, 446–48, 545 Court of Inquiry, 271, 272 Cox, F., 117–18 Cresson, L., 161, 162 n 60 Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 265 Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 486 Criminal Procedure Code, 491, 494 Crossman, Richard H. S., 235 Cyprus, 331, 359 D David Marshall & Co., 398, 427–28, 525 David Marshall Professorship of Law, 548 Davidson, James Guthrie, 93

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

587

INDEX

Davies, E. V., 248, 249, 287 death penalty, 168, 181–82, 443, 489–90, 546 de Cruz, Coral, 291 de Cruz, Gerald confrontation with David, 425 early acquaintance, 50 family, 466 Labour Front organizing secretary, 290–93, 394 political leanings, 203, 208, 292 de Cruz, Judith, 466 Defence and Security Council, 349– 52 Defence Council, 347–48 de Gaulle, Charles, 515, 522 Delta constituency, 401 Democratic Party, 236–37, 239, 242, 338 Denning, Lord Alfred, 481 Department of Trusteeship and Information from Non-SelfGoverning Territories, 419 Depot Road, 128 de Reuter, Baron Julius, 12 Desai, Morarji, 331 de Smith, Stanley Alexander, 346 De Souza, Frederick Benjamin, 195 de Vries, E. J., 204 D’Fowler, John, 123 Dhanabalan, S., 529, 533, 535 Dicey, Albert Venn, 486 diplomatic career. See ambassadorship Donaldson, Alexander Leathes, 93 Donaldson & Burkinshaw, 93 Donnelly, J. Desmond, 184, 195 Downing Street, 353 Drew & Napier, 93, 543, 545–56, 551

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

587

Dreyfus, Alfred, 229 Drysdale, John, 268, 415 Duncanson, Dennis, 363 Dunearn Road, 433 Dunne, John William, 192 Dutch East Indies, 138 E E. A. Brown & Co., 51 Earnshaw, Ernest, 225 Eber, John, 208 Echigoya & Co., 369 Ecole Pigier, 51 Economic Advisory Unit, 294 EDB (Economic Development Board), 525, 527 Ede, John, 266 Eden, Sir Anthony, 333, 343, 353 Edgar Brothers Limited, 186 Edwardes-Ker, Rolla Douglas Walls, 88 Ee Yew Lin, 88 Eisenhower, Dwight D., 343 elections 1948 elections, 209 1951 Legislative Council, 210–13, 218–19 1955 general, 221, 222, 224–40 1957 by-election, 394–98 1957 City Council, 401–3, 407 1958 by-election, 402 1959 general, 403–5 1961 by-elections, 405, 407–8 Elias, David J., 147 Elias, Elias Meyer, 153 Elias, Harry, 10, 152, 176, 429 Elias, I. A., 150 Elias, Joseph, 147, 459 Elias, Joseph Ezra David, 459 Elias, Simon Haigh David, 459

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

588

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Elizabeth I, 80 Elizabeth II, 162, 247 Elwyn-Jones, AC, 503 Élysée Palace, 530 Emergency, 182–83, 208, 235, 320 Emergency Regulations, 183, 235– 36, 258–65 Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948, 259 Empress Place, 238, 254, 295 English Bar, 67 English language constitution and, 302, 312 David and, 21, 27, 30 Saul Marshall and, 15 in Singapore, 245, 256, 279, 303– 5, 308–12 Ennals, Martin, 499 Ess, Cuthbert Francis Joseph, 458, 500 Eurasian community, 6, 23, 109, 157, 302, 310, 458 European Community, 515, 535 European Economic Community (EEC), 515 European Union, 534 Eu Tong Sen, 20 Eu Villa, 20 Eu Yan Sang, 20 Evans, Harold, 500 Evans, Laman Evan Cox, 170 Evatt, Herbert Vere, 361 n 221 Executive Council, 159, 205, 216 Ezekiel, A. M., 57 Ezekiel, Ezra Ezra, 6 Ezekiel, Saul, 148, 150 Ezra, Nassim Joseph, 6 F Fabian Colonial Bureau, 235, 292, 294, 334

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

588

Fajar, 227 family. See Gray, Jean Mary (wife) Fang Chuan Pi, 401, 421 Fawcett, Selby, 135 Federated Malay States, 105, 141 Federated Malay States Volunteer Force (FMSVF), 109 Federation Bar Council, 504 Federation of Malaya. See Federation of Malaysia Federation of Malaysia British High Commissioner, 321 constitution, 215 legal practice, 504 Singapore and, 216, 306, 352, 457, 504 Fernando, Enrique, 482 Financial Secretary, 205, 206, 243, 350 Finer, Morris, 503 1st Singapore Battalion, 115 First District Court, 445 Fisher, Charles, 123 Fong Swee Suan, 269–70, 272–73, 276, 277, 380, 408 Forbidden City, 367 Foreign Correspondents’ Association of Southeast Asia, 408 Foreign Relations Institute (China), 367, 369 Foreign Service, 539, 541 Formosa, 122, 132 Forrer, Henry Auguster, 97–99, 144 n 11 Fort Canning, 45 Four Seas Communications Bank, 403 France, 199, 485, 515, 517–19, 531– 36, 538, 547 Fraser & Neave, 202 Freeman, John, 169

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

589

INDEX

French language, 14–15, 48–49, 53, 57, 199, 531 French Resistance Party, 529 Friedmann, Wolfgang, 487 Fullerton Building, 249 Fullerton Square, 423 Fyodorov, Svyatoslav, 537 G Gahtan, 11–12, 13. See also Khan (maternal grandfather) Gale, J. A., 155 Galloway, Sir David, 26 Galstaun, Arshak, 186–88 Gasseau, Jacques, 518, 524 Gattey & Bateman, 200 General Hospital, 165, 339 general strike, 276–79, 281 Geneva Conventions, 122, 132 Genscher, Hans-Dietrich, 516, 534 George IV, 99 Germany alliance with Turkey, 16, 19 flight of Jews from, 63 POWs in, 143 prelude to World War II, 101–2 Singapore and, 515, 517, 534 Walter Raeburn’s origins, 83 Geylang English School, 115 Geylang Police Station, 382 Ghana, 284, 418 Ghouse bin Haji Kader Mastan, 104–6 Gi Ho Secret Society, 269 Gillman Barracks, 169 Gimson, Sir Franklin, 156, 206, 259 Giscard D’Estaing, Valèry, 530–31 Gladstone, Sir William, 69 Gledhill, John Joseph, 103 Godwin, Anthony, 472 Goh Chok Tong, 529

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

589

Goh Keng Swee David and, 217, 503–4, 519 PAP and, 401, 419, 421–22 Presidential Council, 464 talent, 293, 316 Goho, Srish Chandra (S. C.), 203 Goh Sin Ee, 36–37 Goh Tong Liang, 266 Gold, Minna, 74 Gold Coast, 294 Golders Green, 64–65 Goode, William Almond Corrington (Bill) chief secretary, 248, 258, 265, 271, 281, 287, 311 David and, 110, 115, 238–39, 250–52, 289 Goodwood Park Hotel, 119 Goonetilleke, Sir Oliver, 331 Government House, 9 n 23, 230, 246, 248, 258, 361, 363 Government Rest House, 322 Governor-General, 350 Governor of Singapore, 206, 253, 260, 282, 287, 348, 361 Govindasamy, N., 491 Govindasamy, P., 425 Granpierre, Henri, 529 Gray, Jean Mary (wife) biography, 432 children, 436 courtship and marriage, 432–36 on David, 443, 466, 502 David’s career and, 511, 521, 537, 540 David’s last days, 551–52 grandchildren, 440 health, 524 home life, 436–40, 523 in Paris, 527, 539

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

590

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Gray’s Inn, 66, 68 Great Depression, 51, 63 Green, S., 150 Green Bus Company, 269 Grimberg, Joseph, 152, 175–76, 500, 545, 548 Groves, Harry E., 479 Guangdong Province, 369 Gubbay, J. J., 57 Guillemard, Sir Laurence, 159 Guthrie & Co., 8 Guthrie Scholarship, 94 Gwee Ah Leng, 425 H Ha’cohen (mother of Flora), 2 Hale, Leslie, 373 Hall, George, 155 Hamid Jumat. See Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat Hamidul Huq Choudhury, 337 Hampstead Parliament, 74 Han Suyin, 198, 230, 299 Happy World Stadium, 380 Harahap, Burhanuddin, 312, 313 Harbour Board, 188 Harpley, Sidney, 558 Hart, Tom (T. M.), 248, 287, 311 Hayyim ben Eliahu Mazal-Tov, Joseph, 5 health attitude towards death, 550 exhaustion, 339–40 failing eyesight, 537, 541–43 lung cancer, 548–49 malaria, 17, 25–27 other problems, 195, 378–79, 426, 546, 550 tuberculosis, 44, 47–49, 51

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

590

Heaton, G. F., 164 Hebrew language, 17–18, 27 Helsinki, 499, 500 Henderson, Guy Wilmot McLintock, 144 Hewlett, Thomas Frank, 69–70, 76, 78–79, 86 High Court, 165, 454, 455, 474, 500, 503, 508 Hilborne, Ken, 230 Hill, Graham Starforth, 458, 493, 505 Hill, Justice, 183 History of Socialist Thought, 234 Hitler, Adolf, 63, 101 Hoalim, Philip, 203 Hoaling, Isaac Hunter, 96, 103, 145 Hock Lee Bus Company, 270–73, 277 Hock Lee Bus riots, 268–76, 279, 280, 301, 381–82 Hock Lee Employees’ Union, 270, 276 Hoffman, Leslie C., 154, 155, 334–35 Hogan & Ivens, 104 Hokkaido, 133, 137 Hokkien Association Hall, 399 Hokkien-Teochew riots, 108 Hakkodate, 133 Holland Road, 116, 118 Hone, Sir Ralph, 141 Hong Kong, 96, 143, 281, 367, 375, 378 Hongkong & Shanghai Trustees Bank (Malaya) Limited, 201 Hong Lim constituency, 407, 408, 410, 423 Honshu, 133 Ho Rih Hwa, 517

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

591

INDEX

House of Commons (UK), 74, 91, 336, 354 House of Lords (UK), 99 Houses of Parliament, 63, 336 Howell, Charles Gough, 145 Huang Kai-Loo, 295 Hu Chee Ing, 35, 39 Hugh, Trevor Davies, 145 Hunter, P. S., 161 Huttenhach Brothers, 8 Hwang, Michael, 94, 450 Hwang Peng Yuan (P. Y.), 516, 517, 529 I Ide Anak Agung Gde Agung, 314 Imperial Bank of Persia, 12 Imperial War Fund, 113 Income Tax Ordinance, 160–61 Independence, 460. See also Merdeka; self-government Independence of Singapore Act, 347, 350 India Bengal Presidency, 108 David’s visit, 330–33, 339 European Community and, 516 immigration to Singapore, 7 internal security laws, 263 Jews in, 4, 6 Marshall family, 10, 51 Singapore and, 332, 418, 457 teaching staff at RI, 38 World War II and, 129 Indian Chamber of Commerce, 206 Indian Mutiny, 19 Indian National Army, 129 Indonesia, 138, 169, 312–15, 371, 514

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

591

Inner Temple, 66, 68 Inns of Court, 66–67, 68–70, 79 Institute of Foreign Affairs (China), 378 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), 503–4 Internal Security Act, 183, 408, 453, 454, 456, 499 Internal Security Council (ISC), 351, 385, 408, 409 International Labour Organization, 295 International Press Institute, 499, 500 international trade, 312–15, 365–66 International Trade & All China Federation of Industry and Commerce, 368 Iny, Frank (uncle), 51 Iran, 11 Iraq, 2, 16 Ironside & De Souza, 428, 525 Isaacs, John, 551 Isah, 104–6 Isfahan, 11 Ismail, Sir Mirza, 296 Israel, 138, 373, 377 Israelight, 57–60, 85 Israeli Immigration Department, 185 Istana, 464 Istanbul, 16 J J’accuse, 229 Jakarta, 313, 514 Jalan Besar constituency, 401, 402 James, Frank, 339 Japan David’s trip to, 366, 368–69

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

592

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

defeat, 136–37, 140 expansionism, 107 invasion of Manchuria, 101, 102, 131 rise as naval power, 90 treatment of POWs, 122, 124–25, 127–28, 131–34, 136 Japanese Occupation, 103, 106, 122, 140, 142, 204 Java, 132, 169 Jayakumar, S., 479 Jek Yeun Thong, 407, 517 Jennings, Sir Ivor, 345–46 Jerusalem, 138, 185, 199 Jeshurun, 57 Jewish Cemetery, 149, 552 Jewish Charities Trust, 154 Jewish Welfare Association, 148–49, 150, 151 Jewish Welfare Board, 150–54, 158, 162, 191, 193, 202, 216 Jews in Shanghai, 372–75, 377 Jews in Singapore Constitutional Commission, 459 emigration, 145–46, 150–51 mahallah, 1, 6, 7 organization, 56–60, 145–54 origins, 2–3 stratification, 55 Jeyaretnam, J. B., 425, 477 Jha, C. S., 418 Jobling, Justice Geoffrey, 166 Johnstone, Mary, 183, 184 Johor, 468, 504 Johore Bahru, 299 Johor High Court, 507 Jones, Arthur Creech, 234 Jones, Sir Elwyn, 500 Jordan, 359 Josey, Alex, 198, 217, 357, 441

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

592

Joshua, Joshua Rafael, 6–7 Jugas, A., 155 Jumabhoy, Ameer, 400 Jumabhoy, Jumabhoy Mohamed (J. M.) assistant minister, 244, 313, 330 constitutional talks, 345, 351, 391 Labour Front, 329 meet-the-people sessions, 298 Jumabhoy, Rajabali, 266, 400 jury trials, 490–94 jus sanguinis, 303, 305, 370 jus soli, 303 K Kalibata Heroes Cemetery, 514 Kalifa, 54 Kallang Airport, 225, 341 Kallang constituency, 401, 402 Kampong Gemuroh, 202 Kampuchea, 514, 533 Kam Woon Wah, 504 Kaniaru, D. W., 464 Katong, 7, 15, 32, 57, 114, 143, 180, 298 Katong constituency, 298, 426 Keng Ban Ee, 329, 386 Kenya, 462, 464 Keppel Harbour, 179 Khan (maternal grandfather), 2, 11, 12, 13, 17 Khong Guan Biscuit Factory, 118 Kiat, G. H. (Goh Hood), 211–12 King Edward VII College of Medicine, 9, 41, 61 Kitchener Barracks, 122 Koek, E. R., 203, 209 Koh, Gene, 450–51 Koh, Tommy, 443, 466, 468–70, 479, 510–11

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

593

INDEX

Koh Bock Thye, 498 Koh Choon Hong (C. H.) by-election in Tanjong Pagar, 398 David and, 227, 230 Labour Front, 221, 225, 229, 281, 326–29 law career, 96 Koh Choon Joo (C. J.), 96, 103 Kong Seng Kwong, 476–77 Ko Teck Kin, 514 Kotelawala, Sir John, 331, 363 Kowloon, 369 Kuala Lumpur, 143, 322, 432, 455, 467, 475 Kuala Lumpur Bar, 89 Kuala Lumpur High Court, 183 Kyokku Maru, 132, 133 L Labour Front 1955 elections, 237, 239, 245 1957 election, 401 Chinese students and, 267–68 C. H. Koh and, 96 citizenship issue, 305 coalition with Alliance, 221, 224, 241–45, 284, 316, 329, 554 Communist Party of Malaya and, 274 constitution, 221 David and, 197, 222–24, 353, 356, 394 Emergency Regulations and, 258– 66, 295 Gerald de Cruz and, 290–93 infighting, 281–82, 326–30, 340 Liberal Socialists and, 338 Malayanization policy, 315–18 manifesto, 229, 235–36, 258, 305

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

593

multilingualism issue, 309 party congress, 288 treatment of David, 379, 386, 391–92, 394 unions loyal to, 278 Workers’ Party and, 400 labour unions, 268–69 Lal, Kumar, 493 La Salle Brothers, 22 Law Society, 500, 547 Laycock, John, 209, 210 Lazarous, A. R., 281, 288, 327–29, 357 Leases and Tenancies Bill, 156–58 Lee, Elizabeth, 190, 198 Lee, Reverend James Romanis, 29–30 Lee, S. K., 451, 507–8 Lee Choon Eng, 282, 288, 326–27, 329, 357 Lee Eu Seng, 544 Lee Kong Chian, 50, 304 Lee Kuan Yew, Harry. See also PAP government; People’s Action Party (PAP) Academy of Law fellowship, 548 Baling peace talks, 322 briefing of David, 524 by-election against David, 395–97 Chinese school students and, 227, 256 communists and, 256, 401–2 constitutional crisis, 284–86, 288– 89 constitutional talks, 345, 352–53, 359, 387, 389 criticisms of David, 333, 355 early acquaintance, 217 Emergency Regulations and, 263, 264 European leaders and, 515 formation of PAP, 219–20

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

594

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

historical perspective, 553–55 jury trials, 490–91, 493–94 labour unions and, 269, 273, 275 Merdeka rally and, 341 merger with Malaya, 411, 414–15, 418, 419–22 Presidential Council, 464 press for independence, 408 radical faction of PAP and, 384– 85, 398–99 relationship with David, 220, 241, 494, 522, 536, 538–39, 549, 552 relations with Indonesia, 514 Senior Minister, 549 threat of arrest, 403–4 Lee Lien Yen, 367 Lee Mau Seng, 453–54, 544 Lee Mau Seng case, 452, 455, 498 Lee Siew Choh, 411–13, 416, 419, 420, 457 Lee Wong Tiang, 508 Legal Aid and Advice Bill, 319, 358 Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance, 319, 358 Legal Aid Bureau, 320 legal career. See also legal cases abhorrence of death penalty, 168– 69, 181–82, 443, 489–90 Aitken & Ong Siang, 96–101, 103 Allen & Gledhill, 103–6, 142–44, 163, 189–90, 191 Battenberg & Talma, 193–97, 380, 427 Constitutional Commission, 459, 462–63, 465 Drew & Napier, 543, 545–46, 551 ethics, 494–98 jury trials, 492–93 Law Faculty, 477–85, 544

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

594

Marshall & Smith, 427 mentorship of others, 466–77, 544, 546 pro bono work, 471, 497 public law, 451–63 regrets, 444–45 reputation, 450, 558 retirement, 508 scope of practice, 440–41 suspension from practice, 498– 504 training, 67–72, 76–82, 83–84 traits as lawyer, 99, 166–67, 171– 76, 429–31 view of the law, 442–43, 485–89 legal cases criminal cases, 96–100, 165–76, 449–50 Karam Singh v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri v. Malaysia, 452–53, 454 Lee Keng Guan v. PP, 456 marine collision cases, 164–66 Mimi Wong, 447–48 N. Govindasamy v. PP, 449 Nonis, 179–82, 202, 441, 467 Re Choo Jee Jeng, 452 Re Datuk James Wong Kim Min, 455 Tan Cheng Eng William v. PP, 446–47 Thanamani, 177–79, 441 Vijayan v. PP, 448 Watts-Carter, 182, 441, 467 Wee Toon Boon, 444 Wo Yok Ling v. PP, 449 Legal Profession Act, 67, 494, 498– 99 Legislative Assembly building, 336

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

595

INDEX

David and, 228, 247, 251, 275 Democratic Party and, 237 governor’s address, 260 Labour Front and, 239, 265 languages, 308–12 make-up, 216, 224, 348, 350, 388, 404 PPSO and, 452 requirements for election, 302 Legislative Council 1951 elections, 210 legislative issues, 159, 214, 308, 316 make-up, 205, 207, 215 Leigh, Leonard, 482, 503 Lennox-Boyd, Sir Alan David and, 339, 392–93 first constitutional conference, 335, 347, 349, 351, 353–56, 360 Lim Yew Hock and, 384 second constitutional conference, 385–91, 393 visit to Singapore, 283, 287, 330 Leong, Joseph, 526 Leong Yee Soo, 36 Lewis, Arthur, 293–94 Liberal Socialist Party, 338, 344, 359, 397, 398, 401, 417 Liew Swee Cheng, 88, 103, 145 Lim, Arthur, 425, 548 Lim, Marie, 200 Lim Bock Kee, 161 Lim Boon Keng, 95 Lim Boon Kim, 225 Lim Cheng Ean, 203 Lim Cher Kheng, 345 Lim Chin Joo, 396 Lim Chin Kok, 269 Lim Chin Siong

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

595

arrest, 382 constitutional talks, 345, 351–52 Legislative Assembly, 247 Merdeka rally and, 341 union activities, 269–70, 272–73, 276, 279, 380–81, 408 views of David, 264, 355, 553 Lim Choon Eng, 228, 281 Lim Choon Mong, 266, 345, 359, 387 Lim Chor Pee, 492 Lim Chuan Hoe, Richard (R. C. H.), 96–97, 243, 281, 329, 548 Lim Hock Siew, 419 Lim Hong Bee, 203 Lim Kean Chye, 203, 208, 491 Lim Ko & Anor v. Board of Architects, 480 Lim Kok Ann, 125 Lim Koon Teck, 94, 266, 286, 345 Lim Peng Siang, 52 Lim Tay Boh, 295 Lim Yew Hock anti-communist actions, 372, 379, 380–85 British and, 364 chief ministership, 366 constitutional talks, 330, 334, 345, 385–91 defection from Progressive Party, 218 Democratic Labour Party and, 219 High Commissioner to Australia, 511 Labour Front, 222, 226, 236, 261 LF leadership, 327, 329, 356, 364 Ministry of Labour and Welfare, 244 Municipal Commission and, 224

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

596

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

plot against PAP, 403–4 relationship with David, 225, 355, 379, 395, 403–4, 556 Singapore People’s Alliance and, 403, 405 Singapore Socialist Party and, 221 trade unions and, 270 use of PPSO, 399 Lincoln’s Inn, 66, 68 Lloyd George, David, 90 Lo Ka Fat, 402 Loke Wan Tho, 198 London, 63–64, 65, 66, 225, 234 London Brompton Hospital, 432 London Chamber of Commerce (Incorporated), 47, 53 London School of Economics, 293, 294, 346, 432, 502 Lowin, J. F., 161 Lowrie, Stuart, 156, 158 Low Yong Nguan, 491 Lundon, F. G., 161 Lyne, Rowland, 46 Ly Singko, 453 M Macassey, Nigel Livingstone, 195, 197, 229, 230, 467 Maccabees, 74–75 MacDonald, Ramsay, 224 MacDonald, Sir Malcolm, 198, 219, 224, 284, 331, 363, 391, 503 MacDonald House, 514 MacKintosh, A. M., 254, 330 MacRitchie Reservoir, 9 n 22 Maghain Aboth Synagogue, 6, 7, 20, 21, 25, 146–47, 149 Mahmud bin Awang, 409 Majid, M. A., 218 Mak Pak Shee, 281, 282, 326–27

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

596

Malacca, 104, 109, 169, 421, 504 Malaya. See also Federation of Malaysia; Malaysia ban on Singapore lawyers, 504–8 British administration, 141, 207–8 China and, 379 Chinese community, 367 communists, 267 David’s reputation in, 182 economy, 40–41 Emergency, 182–83, 208, 320–26 first prime minister, 76 independence, 320, 387 internal politics, 255 Internal Security Act, 183 merger with Singapore, 306, 337– 38, 365, 408 motor insurance, 159 rubber cultivation, 334 self-government, 235, 304 World War II, 112, 115 Malaya House, 337 Malayan Bar Council, 89 Malayan Chinese Association (MCA), 237, 243, 320, 321 Malayan Civil Service (MCS), 94, 97, 194 Malayan Democratic Union (MDU), 203, 207–8, 209 Malayan Indian Congress (MIC), 320 Malayanization Commission, 317 Malayanization policy, 315–18, 350, 555 Malayan Law Journal, 440 Malayan Union, 141, 158, 182, 207–8 Malayan Workers’ Welfare Society, 453 Malaya Tribune, 157, 237, 512 Malay community, 207, 242, 308, 391–92, 461

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

597

INDEX

Malay language, 297, 310, 312, 318 Malay/Muslim/Arab community, 458 Malay peninsula, 450 Malaysia, 207, 421, 453, 514, 516. See also Malaya Malaysian Bar, 505 Malaysian Bar Council, 501, 504, 505 Malaysian Federal Constitution, 458 Malay States, 42 Malay States Volunteer Rifles, 109 Malay Union, 237, 243 Mallal, Nazir A., 203, 209, 210, 228, 316, 362 Mallal & Namazie, 96 Manasseh, E. S., 147 Manchester Regiment, 115 Mandarin language, 312 Manila, 137, 515 Mansoor, Kassim, 19 Mao Zedong, 376 Marseilles, 60 Marshall, David. See also ambassadorship; chief ministership; health; legal career; legal cases; political career ambitions, 35, 41–47, 61–62, 189, 191–92 awards and honours, 517–19, 529, 547–48 bar mitzvah, 32, 33 birth, 1, 12–13 civil society activities, 158 early employment, 51, 52–54 early writings, 38, 58, 59, 60, 124 education, 22–32, 35–45 English language and, 27, 30 experiences of racism, 21–22, 28, 31–32, 39–40, 66, 93, 112–13

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

597

family background, 9–18 French language and, 48–49, 53, 57, 199, 518, 531, 539 gifts to Singapore, 519, 558 on his children, 540 homes in Singapore, 142, 186, 199–200, 524, 542–43 Jewish community and, 57–60, 74–75, 145–54, 503 lack of domestication, 186, 438, 510 love of the arts, 315, 379, 558 marriage and children, 432–40 mother Flora and, 15, 20, 114, 138, 185 other languages, 17–18, 21, 27, 32, 48, 304 political formation, 48–49, 55, 89–92 post-war experiences, 142 POW experiences, 120, 122–36, 138–39, 145 racial identity, 61, 109–110 religious observance, 21, 27–28, 33–35, 55, 551–52 romantic entanglements, 54–55, 72–73, 114, 190, 198, 431 seventieth birthday, 519 social life, 197–98, 199–201 taste in literature, 24–25, 27, 48– 49 trip to Baghdad, 17–18 war effort, 102–3, 104, 106, 109, 116–18 work ethic, 40, 43–44, 70–71, 73– 74, 77, 100 Marshall, Flora (mother) David and, 22, 29, 30, 138 death, 199 education, 15

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

598

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

emigration to Israel, 138 family background, 1–2, 11–12 health, 16 refusal to leave Singapore, 114, 138 religious zeal, 15, 20, 33–34 trip to Baghdad, 14, 16–18 Marshall, George (brother), 14, 57, 186 Marshall, Jean (wife). See Gray, Jean Mary (wife) Marshall, Joanna (daughter), 436, 551, 552 Marshall, Jonathan (son), 426, 436, 439–40, 527, 551, 552 Marshall, Meyer (brother) David and, 230, 340, 377–78, 464, 519, 521, 552 David’s wedding, 434 Geoffrey Abisheganaden and, 467 Gerald de Cruz and, 50 personal details, 14, 198 Marshall, Nissim (cousin), 246 Marshall, Rose (sister), 14, 15, 138, 198–99, 226, 434 Marshall, Rothschild “Reggie” (brother) David and, 197, 322, 519, 521, 552 personal details, 14, 113, 186, 199, 435 Marshall, Ruth (daughter), 436, 552 Marshall, Samuel “Sonny” (brother) David and, 197, 391, 434, 511, 520, 521, 527, 552 Geoffrey Abisheganaden and, 466 Gerald de Cruz and, 50 personal details, 14, 113, 186, 198, 435

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

598

Marshall, Sara (daughter), 436, 527, 552 Marshall, Saul Nassim (father) arrival in Singapore, 1–2, 8, 14–15 Arshak Galstaun and, 186 business, 2, 15, 16, 40–41, 50, 51, 85 David and, 34, 54–55, 94–96, 240 death, 199 departure from Singapore, 113 family background, 2, 6, 10–11 homes in Singapore, 1, 15, 19, 24 religious observance, 27–28 Marshall, Victoria Rachel (sister), 1, 13, 15, 33 Marshall Brothers, 186–88 Marshall family name, 10, 26 Marshall & Smith, 427 Martens, Frederick Claude Rowsing, 88 Martin, Andrew, 482 Martin, Sir John, 334 Marudu, 164 Mashal. See Marshall Mashal, Hannah (paternal great grandmother), 11 Mashal, Nissim (grandfather), 10–11 Mashal, Nissim Heskiel, 10, 11 Masjumi Party, 312 Massey, Frederick Roger Nedham Hamilton (F.R.N.H.), 103, 143 Mathews, Joy, 188 McCawley v. The King, 460 McElwaine, Sir Percy, 92, 105, 121 McGillivray, Sir Donald, 321 McKerron, Patrick A. B., 141, 149 McNeice, Percy, 123 Menado, Maria, 449 Menahem, Max, 150

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

599

INDEX

Menasseh, Esther, 150 Mendis, Victor J., 221, 228, 229, 230, 326–27 Menon, M. R., 46 Menon, T. P. B., 478, 482–83 Menon, Valasani, 213 Menorah Club, 153 Merchant Shipping Act 1894, 163 Merdeka, 317, 341–45, 384, 393 merger with Malaysia Barisan Sosialis, 411–16, 421–22 David and, 242, 338, 409, 410, 413, 416, 417–22 Malay nationalists and, 306 PAP and, 345, 408, 411–16, 421– 22 Progressive Party and, 215 reasons for, 338 referendum on, 415–18, 420–22 Tunku Abdul Rahman and, 306, 408, 415, 421–22 Meritorious Service Medal, 547 Mesopotamia, 2–3, 6, 10, 15, 17 Meyer, Sir Manasseh, 6–7, 56, 58, 149, 435 Meyer Brothers, 7 Meyer Mansions, 186, 199, 201, 202, 241 Meyer Road, 200 Middle East, 2, 14 Middle Road, 6, 19, 107 Middle Temple, 66, 68–70, 71, 76, 78–84, 86, 96 Mikio, Lieutenant General, 131 Miles, Charles Valentine (C. V.), 93, 94 Millionaires’ Club, 305 Minister of State for the Environment, 449

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

599

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 244, 249–50 Ministry of Communications and Works, 244 Ministry of Culture, 437 Ministry of Education, 244 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 510, 520, 522, 524, 533 Ministry of Health, 244 Ministry of Labour and Welfare, 244 Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing, 243–44 Minnie, Jack (brother-in-law), 138 Mitsubishi, 369 Mitsui Kozzan, 133 Mlamba, D. C., 464 Mohamed Sidek bin Haji Abdul Hamid, 282 Mohammad Ali, 337 Mohan, Chandra, 483 Mohd Ghazali bin Islamil, 491 Mohideen, Jaya, 524, 542 Mountbatten, Admiral Lord Louis, 141 Mount Emily Road, 318 Mowlray Garden, 88 Mukher, Lal Singh, 504 Mundell, D. H., 161 Munich Crisis, 102 Municipal Commission, 401 Munro, William, 103, 106, 143–44, 163 Muragason, Rajaratnam, 493 murder trials. See under legal cases Muroran, 133 Murray, Major Frank, 133 Murray-Aynsley, Lady, 181 Murray-Aynsley, Sir Charles Murray, 144 n 8, 196, 248

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

600

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Muslim community, 105–6 MV Asia, 234 Mydin, Rashid, 322 Myint Soe, Albert, 482 N Nahappan, Dato’ Athi, 504 Nair, Devan, 382 Nair, M. P. D., 218, 248, 282, 288 Nair, Mrs Devan, 382 Nair, N. S., 400 Nakajima, 133 Namazie, Mohamed Javad, 458 Nan Chiau High School, 381 Nanyang Girls’ High School, 280 Nanyang Siang Pau, 424, 453, 499, 544 Nanyang University, 257 Nasser al-Din Shah Qajar, 12 Nassim, M. J., 148 Nathan, Eze, 39, 58, 150, 153 Nathan, Gladys, 57 Nathan, S. R., 533, 535, 555 National Health Service, 64 National Service Ordinance, 226–27, 257, 266, 268, 273, 280 National University of Singapore, 547 Navamani, 177 Nazism, 102 Neal, N. G., 183 Nehru, Jawaharlal, 332–33, 358 Neptune Orient Lines, 525 Nerva, B. P., 155 New Delhi, 331 Newey, John, 503 Newsam, L. R. W., 334 New York, 419, 420, 510 Ng Heng. See Chin Peng Ng Hock Guan, 277

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

600

Ngiam Tong Dow, 525 Ng Kah Ting, 510 Nicoll, Sir John Chinese students and, 226–27, 258, 268 Constitutional Commission and, 152 David and, 226–27, 230–31, 242, 248–50, 275, 316, 362 departure from Singapore, 281 Emergency Regulations and, 262 Legislative Assembly and, 243, 248, 260 personality, 246, 363–64 Nisi-Ashibetsu, 133, 369 Nissim, Mozelle, 56–57, 60, 147, 148 Nkrumah, Kwame, 284 Nonis, Joseph Michael, 179–82 Noordin, Encik, 297, 298 Norden, Hermann, 41 North Africa, 14 North Borneo, 415 North Bridge Road, 186 N.V. Straits Java Trading Company, 52 O Oberemko, Valentin, 420 Oehlers, Sir George lawyer, 88, 89 at Raffles Institution, 30–31, 35, 37, 39, 43, 44 Speaker of Assembly, 311, 395, 410 Oehlers and Choa, 89 Ogden, R. G., 165 Oh Su Chen, 405 Olcomendy, Mgr Michael, 464 Old Rafflesians’ Association, 202

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

601

INDEX

Ong Eng Guan, 407, 408, 412, 413, 416, 442 Ong Hock Thye, Justice, 481 Ong Pang Boon, 217, 520 Ong Piah Teng, 243 Ong Swee Law, 464 Ooi, K. T., 500 Operation Liberation, 372, 379 Operation Merdeka, 384 Operation Zipper, 140 Oppenheim, Alexander, 123, 125, 434 Optimists, The, 57–60 Orchard Road, 6, 32, 45, 514 Order of the Coif, 68 Osborne House, 290 Othman, Inche, 334 Ottoman Empire, 3–4, 16 Outram Prison, 495 Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC), 32 Owyang, Chi, 541 Oxford University, 42, 83, 545 Oxley Road, 219 P Pacific War, 136 Page, Richard, 104 Pakistan, 263, 337, 339, 516 Palace of Westminster, 63, 336 Pancheri, Paul Gibbs, 112, 127, 130 PAP government. See also Lee Kuan Yew, Harry; People’s Action Party (PAP) abolition of City Council, 401 Chan Heng Chee on, 406–7 death penalty, 490 treatment of David, 395, 512, 523 Paris, 14, 515, 517, 527. See also ambassadorship

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

601

Parliament House, 519 Partai Rakyat, 417 Paterson Simons, 8 Patterson, George, 164 Paya Lebar Bus Company, 270 Peall, George Thomas, 36 Pearl Harbor, 101 Pedlow, Joseph Howard, 145 Peek, S. H., 161 Peking Hotel, 370 Penal Code, 446, 448, 456 Penang, 104, 109, 421, 435 Penang Free School, 35 Penang Volunteers, 109 People’s Action Party (PAP) 1955 elections, 236, 237, 239, 241 1957 election, 401 1961 by-elections, 407–8 Barisan Sosialis and, 410–11, 416 citizenship issue, 305, 306 civil unrest and, 382 constitutional crisis and, 284 criticism of Lim Yew Hock, 381 formation, 217, 219, 236 meet-the-people procedure, 298, 301, 557 Merdeka rally and, 341 merger issue, 408, 412, 413–14, 421–22 platform, 236, 258, 263 pro-communist faction, 398, 407– 9 self-government issue, 345, 408–9 unions and, 271, 273, 277–78 Workers’ Party and, 400 People’s Daily, 372 People’s Republic of China. See China People’s United Front, 221, 222

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

602

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Perak, 178, 182, 184, 427, 455 Peranakans. See Straits Chinese community Perera, P. E., 162 Periyanan, 166 Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER), 515– 16 Persia, 3, 6, 11–12 Perth, 113, 137, 142, 187, 191 Philip, D., 155 Philippines, 38, 368, 482, 514 Philips, Charles McGowan, 36 Phillips, Morgan, 225, 234 Phoa, Eugene, 466, 501 Phoon Wai Onn, 425 Pillai, John Lucien Rotburgh, 88 Pillay, Sandy G., 161 Pinsler, Jeffrey, 545 “Plen,” The, 401, 421 Plowden, Edmund, 80 political career. See also chief ministership 1955 elections, 228–40 anti-colonial stance, 228, 230–33, 237–38, 245, 276, 284, 316, 557 anti-communist stance, 256, 258, 265, 369, 555 commerce and industry portfolio, 293, 313, 509 criticism of Lee Kuan Yew, 409 criticism of PAP, 406–7, 410–11, 519, 546–47 Democratic Labour Party and, 219 formative experiences, 203–4 historical perspective, 553–57 inability to speak Chinese, 304, 405, 406, 423–24

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

602

as independent, 394–98, 425, 426 leadership of Labour Front, 222– 23 Lim Yew Hock and, 383–84, 399, 403–5 merger issue, 412, 413 personal traits, 325–26, 409–10, 429, 556 Progressive Party, 208–14 relationship with Lee Kuan Yew, 220, 227, 241, 494, 552 second constitutional conference, 386, 390–91, 393 support of trade unions, 396 training, 224, 234–35 values, 217–18, 256, 546, 557–58 visit to China, 365–79, 509 visit to Japan, 366, 368–69 writings, 229–34 Pompidou, Georges, 515 Portugal, 537, 538 Preservation of Public Security Ordinance (PPSO), 263–66, 399, 407, 452, 455, 461, 486 Presidential Council, 463–66, 544 Prime Minister’s Office, 549 Prisoner of War Control Bureau, 131 prisoners-of-war back-pay, 154–55 housing, 122, 128–29 labour, 126–27, 128–29, 131–34, 136 liberation, 136–37 morale-boosting strategies, 123, 125, 129–131 treatment by Japanese, 122, 124– 25, 127–28, 131–32 Proclamation of Emergency, 260, 261 Progressive Party 1955 elections, 236, 237, 239, 241

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

603

INDEX

conservative, pro-British stance, 209, 215, 228, 242, 245, 304 David and, 204, 208–14, 216 formation, 89, 208–9 Liberal Socialist Party and, 338 Public Service Commission, 316 self-government and, 286–87, 289 Pro Juventas, 48 Protitch, Dragoslav, 419 Public Advisory Bureau, 296, 298, 299–300, 380 Public Service Commission, 315–18, 530 Public Services Salaries Commission, 316 Pulau Senang, 449 Pulau Senang case, 479 Puthucheary, James, 382, 408 Q Qiao Guanhua, 370 Quaison-Sackey, Alex, 417–18 Queen. See Elizabeth II Queen-in-Council, 311 Queen’s Counsels, 172, 484 Queen’s Scholarships, 35, 42–45, 51, 95, 203, 293 R Rabinowitz, Rabbi Louis, 12–13, 196 Radio Malaya, 361 Raeburn, Dora, 83 Raeburn, Walter Augustus Leopold, 83–84, 85–86, 346, 353 Raffles, Sir Stamford, 7, 35 Raffles College, 41, 61, 123, 131, 145 Raffles Hotel, 200, 225 Rafflesian, The, 36, 38, 40, 45 Raffles Institution (RI), 30, 35–45, 58, 94, 95

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

603

Raffles Place, 2, 8, 92 Raffles Square, 8 Rahim Ishak, 510 Raj, C. R. Dasaratha, 218 Raja Musa bin Raja Haji Bot, 145 Rajah, Arumugam Ponnu (A.P.) David and, 210, 519 David’s 70th birthday, 519 High Commissioner to UK, 517 legal career, 88, 89, 481 Legislative Assembly, 404, 458, 491 Rajah, K. S., 465 Rajah, T. T., 399 Rajamanickam, 204 Rajaratnam, S. (Sinnathamby) committee work, 295 David and, 198, 217, 423–24, 512, 519–20, 522, 524 David’s 70th birthday, 519 foreign minister, 512–14, 528, 529 on merger issue, 414 Presidential Council, 464 UN delegation, 510 Ramani, Radhakrishnan, 88, 89, 505 Ramason, R., 428 Ransome, Gordon, 339, 340 Rautenberg, Schmidt & Co., 8 Rayney, Chief Inspector, 180 R. C. H. Lim & Co., 97 Reconstitution Committee, 206 Redman, Robert Carne, 145 referendum on merger, 415–17, 420–22 Registrar of Societies, 266–67 Registrar of the Supreme Court, 177, 319 Registry of Marriages, 434 Rendel, Sir George, 215

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

604

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Rendel Commission, 152–53, 214– 16, 250, 309 Rendel Constitution chief minister’s office, 251–52 Council of Ministers, 243 crisis, 282–84, 288 Legislative Assembly, 224, 302 status of Singapore, 307 Rengasamy, O. S., 400, 401 Rent Control Committee, 210, 211 Rent Control Ordinance, 210 Repatriation of Allied Prisoners of War and Internees (RAPWI), 137 Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965, 458 Reuben, E., 150 Reynolds, Francis M. B., 548 Ridley, Henry Nicholas, 334 Ridout Road, 118 Rigby, Justice, 435 Roberts Barracks, 122 Robertson, Jean M., 295 Rodrigo, Len P., 491 Rodyk, Bernard, 93 Rodyk and Davidson, 89, 93, 101, 154, 467 Roltray, Dr, 44 Rome, 234 Romulo, Carlos, 534 Rose, Saul, 234 Rosenbaum, Lola (granddaughter), 440 Rosenbaum, Miriam (granddaughter), 440 Rotary Club, 202, 486 Round, Derek, 500 Royal Air Force, 128, 143, 198 Royal Navy, 142 Rubber Growers’ Association, 334

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

604

Rubin, Mohideen P. H., 428, 444, 466, 472, 473–74, 525–26 Ryle, Gilbert, 192 S Sabah, 419, 420 Sadasivan, Viswa, 550 Sadka, Emily, 293 Sadka, Farha (paternal grandmother), 10 Sadka family, 138 Salvation Army, 177 Samrah, Dr Maurice, 74 Sanderson, Ivor J., 129 Sarawak, 415, 454–55 Sarawak National Party, 455 Sassoon, H. M., 57 Sassoon, Joyce, 57 Sassoon, Ralph, 150, 153 Sassoon, Terence A. D., 57, 58 Sastromijojo, Ali, 313 Saurajen, Sachi, 543–44 Scarman, Leslie George, 84 Schapiro, Lou, 74 School of Oriental and African Studies, 123 School Registration Ordinance 1950, 257, 280 Scotts Road, 119 Sea Avenue, 15, 24 Seah, Joseph, 32 Seah, Justice George, 455 Seah Peng Chuan, 345, 356 Searle, Ronald, 128–29 Second Charter of Justice 1826, 490 Secretary-General of the United Nations, 417 Secretary of State for the Colonies, 307, 386. See also LennoxBoyd, Sir Alan

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

605

INDEX

Selangor Medical Department, 432 Selarang Barracks, 122, 126, 131 Select Committee, 214, 307, 311 Selegie Road, 1, 6, 19 self-government. See also Constitutional Conferences British concerns, 316–17, 321, 392 Chinese concerns, 304 preliminary moves, 265, 282, 287, 315, 330 press for, 274, 331–39, 362, 408 Selkirk, Lord, 503 Selvadurai, Padmanathan, 491 Selwyn-Clarke, Lady Hilda, 234, 235, 292, 294, 334 Sembawang constituency, 111 Sensation of Independence, 11, 203 Seow Siew Jin, 36, 40 Sephardic Jews, 3, 6, 9–10 Serangoon constituency, 298 Sergeants-at-Law, 68 Sergeant’s Inn, 68 Shababo, Elias, 153 Shababo, Rabbi Jacob, 151 Shah, Raja Azlan, 483 Shalome, Eliyahu, 151 Shanghai, 372–75, 376 Sharbanee, 148 Sharma, R. K., 35, 39 Shaw, Harold Anthony, 252, 363, 556 Shaw, Runme, 253, 519 Shaw, Run Run, 198 Shawcross, Sir Hartley, 503 Shenyang, 370, 379 Sherida, S. E., 148, 152 Sheridan, L. A. (Lionel Astor), 431, 477, 478, 480, 481 Shohet, Haron Da’ud, 5 Shohet, J. N., 150

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

605

Shook Lin & Bok, 475 Shrian, Onkar Nath, 450 Siddique, Tony, 529 Sikh community, 458 Silcock, Thomas, 123–24 Silverstein, Josef, 72, 222, 373 Silverstein, Lynn, 373 Sime Road Camp, 128–29, 131, 138, 147 Simon, Charles, 123 Sim Woh Kum, 447 Sin Chew Jit Poh, 424 Singapore. See also Constitution of Singapore; Singapore Government British Empire and, 8, 91 Chinese community, 52, 120, 141, 209, 214, 244, 301–2 citizenship, 302–8 communist threat, 347, 349, 367, 408 defeat and fall, 106, 107, 115–121, 155 defence, 347–50, 353, 361, 387–88 economy, 8, 40–41, 50, 52, 293– 95, 312–13 education, 9, 22, 29, 279–81, 304, 309 Eurasian community, 6, 23, 109, 157, 302, 310, 458 European community, 107, 108, 207, 243, 302, 311 foreign policy, 512–17 health care, 9 independence, 331 Indian community, 207 Japanese community, 107 Japanese Occupation, 103, 106, 140 Jewish community, 1, 4, 6, 50–60, 145–54, 240

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

606

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

legal system, 320, 446 Malay community, 207, 242, 308, 391–92, 461 multi-ethnic nature, 244, 556 official languages, 302, 335 political apathy, 202, 215, 557 political parties, 208–10, 212, 217–23, 236–37, 404 post-war administration, 140–42, 144, 205, 214–16, 302 relations with China, 365–66, 367, 368 relations with Europe, 530 relations with Indonesia, 312–15, 509, 514 relations with neighbours, 513–14 self-government, 282, 286–87, 304, 317, 336, 408 social stratification, 301–2 status, 306–8, 307–8, 336–38, 365, 408, 411–22 Straits Chinese community, 95, 458 tax policy, 159–61 war effort, 107–9 Singapore (Constitution) Order-inCouncil 1958, 403 Singapore Academy of Law, 476, 548 Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society, 492–93, 505, 547 Singapore Airlines, 525 Singapore and Malayan Directory, 193 Singapore Assizes, 165, 170 Singapore Association, 160 Singapore Bar, 67, 85, 87–88, 93, 94, 95, 195, 427 Singapore Bus Workers’ Union (SBWU), 269–72, 275, 276 Singapore Chamber of Commerce, 206

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

606

Singapore Children’s Society, 438 Singapore China Relief Fund, 107 Singapore Chinese British Association (SCBA), 209 Singapore Chinese Middle School Students’ Union (SCMSSU), 266–68, 380 Singapore Citizenship Bill, 307 Singapore City Committee, 269 Singapore Cricket Club, 92, 237 Singapore Factory and Shop Workers’ Union (SFSWU), 269–70, 272, 276, 277, 380 Singapore Federation of Trade Unions (SFTU), 269 Singapore General Employees’ Union, 396 Singapore Government. See also PAP government constitutional talks, 356 David and, 532, 547 Paris consulate, 528–29 responsibilities and powers, 347– 48, 371 Singaporeans abroad and, 539 treatment of ex-POWs, 158 Singapore Harbour Board, 271, 276, 277, 281 Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association (SHBSA), 276–77 Singapore Harbour Board Workers’ Union, 396 Singapore Harbour Labour Union (SHLU), 276 Singapore Heritage Society, 551 Singapore Improvement Trust, 299 Singapore Jewish Women’s League, 56, 147 Singapore Labour Party (SLP), 212– 13, 218–19, 224

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

607

INDEX

Singapore Marine Court, 164 Singapore Naval Base, 89–92, 107 Singapore People’s Alliance (SPA), 403, 404, 409 Singapore Ratepayers’ Association (SRA), 161, 202, 210, 211 Singapore Seamen’s Union, 218 Singapore Socialist Party (SSP), 221 Singapore Strategy, 90–91 Singapore Students’ Anti-British League (SSABL), 257 Singapore Swimming Club, 115 Singapore Traction Company, 279 Singapore Trades Union Congress, 278, 291, 399 Singapore Volunteer Corps (SVC), 108–9 Singapore Volunteer Engineers, 108 Singapore Volunteer Infantry, 108 Singapore Volunteer Rifle Corps, 108 Singh, Amarjeet, 428, 466, 525, 526 Singh, Amarjit, 492 Singh, Balwant, 400 Singh, Choor, 445, 464, 519 Singh, Davinder, 543 Singh, Jamit, 276–77, 396, 408 Singh, Karam, 452–53 Singh, Kirpal, 458 Sinnathuray, T. S., 483, 519 Sino-Indonesian Treaty on Dual Nationality, 306 Sino-Japanese War, 101, 107, 131 Sir Manasseh Meyer Talmud Torah Trust, 149 Skrine, John, 504–5 Smally, O. C., 155 Smith, Leo Anthony Joseph (L.A.J.), 427, 501 Smith, Sir Cecil Clementi, 42 Socialist Youth League, 453

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

607

Societies Ordinance, 153 Soh Ghee Soon, 398 Soloman, D. S., 150 Solomon, A., 57 Solomon, E. B., 148, 150 Solomon, Rose, 54, 62, 72–73, 77, 84, 435 Solomon family, 64–65, 73 Song Hoot Kiam, 94 Song Ong Siang, 42, 94–96, 103 Soon Loh Boon, Robert, 380 Sophia Road, 1, 6, 7 Southeast Asia, 107–8, 140, 320, 367, 371, 379, 514. See also ASEAN Southeast Asian Command (SEAC), 141 South Seas China Relief Fund Union, 108 Soviet Union, 374, 420, 514 Spain, 3, 5, 537, 538, 544 Spanish and Portuguese Jewish Synagogue, 151 Special Branch, 380, 382 Special Coordinating Committee of ASEAN (SCCAN), 515 Spector, Ronald H., 141 Spector, Stanley, 280 Spencer, Winnie, 179–82 Sreenivasan, B. R., 317, 491 Sreenivasan Report, 317 Sri Lanka, 516 Stamford constituency, 228, 298 Standing Committee on Malayan Other Ranks, 161 St Andrew’s Cathedral, 186 St Andrew’s School, 29–32, 35, 218 Sternberg and Company, 53 Stewart, Stanley Toft, 464 St Joseph’s Institution (SJI), 6–7, 22– 24, 27–29, 35, 47

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

608

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

St Margaret’s Bay, 73 Stoker, W. S., 165 Storr, Paul, 163–64 STPB (Singapore Tourism Promotion Board), 525 Straits Chinese British Association, 304 Straits Chinese community, 95, 458 Straits Merchant Service Guild, 165 Straits Settlements, 35, 88, 92, 141, 144, 205, 302 Straits Settlements (Singapore) Association, 160 Straits Settlements Court of Appeal, 105 Straits Settlements Government, 9, 42 Straits Settlements Volunteer Force (SSVF) Arshak Galstaun and, 186 David and, 102–3, 104, 106, 109 mobilization, 115–16 training, 110–112, 113 William Munro and, 143 Straits Times Alex Josey and, 357 on David, 237, 334–35, 357, 431 David and, 113, 160 Leslie Hoffman and, 154, 334–35 Mohideen Rubin and, 428 pro-British stance, 247 report on naval base, 91 Subrahmaniam, S., 47 Subramaniam Astrology House, 204 Suffian, Tun Mohd, 481–82 Suharto, 514 Sukarno, 314–15, 377, 514 Sultan of Pahang, 449, 529, 547 Sumatra, 132, 314

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

608

Sum Chong Heng, 423–24 Summerskill, Edith, 225 Sunday Times, 229, 231, 500 Supreme Court, 88, 89, 94, 144, 182, 319 Supreme Court building, 92, 121 Suramuthu, 166 Sutherland, G. A. P., 243, 287, 344 Switzerland, 45, 47–49, 51, 310, 340, 537, 538 Sydney, 137, 457 Syed Esa bin Hassan Almenoar, 458 Syme & Co., 8 Synagogue Street, 6, 7 T Taiwan, 367. See also Formosa Tallala, Richard, 504 Talma, Edwy Lyonet, 194 Talmud Torah Hebrew School, 21 Taman Makam Pahlawan Kalibata, 514 Tamil language, 177, 310, 312 Tan, C. C. (Chye Cheng) 1955 elections, 228, 239, 245 Advisory Council post, 206 altercation with David, 210–13 caution against independence, 222 Constitutional Commission, 458 disciplinary committee, 500 jury trial issue, 493 Presidential Council, 464 pro-British stance, 362 Progressive Party and, 89, 209 Tan, Charles, 175, 447, 474 Tan, E. K., 425 Tan, Freddy, 226, 451 Tan, Jason, 279

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

609

INDEX

Tan, Lily, 185 Tan, Rajah, and Cheah, 89 Tan, Thomas, 526 Tan, William, 345, 359 Tan Ah Tah, Justice, 464 Tan Boon Seng, 529 Tan Boon Teik, 464, 499–500, 519 Tan Cheng Eng, William, 446–47 Tan Cheng Lock, Sir, 321–26 Tan Chin Tuan, 32, 206, 222, 362, 519 Tan Chong Kim, 399 Tan Ek Khoo, 338 Tanglin constituency, 228 Tang Peng Yue, 391 Tanjong Embang, 165 Tanjong Katong Post Office, 382 Tanjong Pagar constituency, 395, 397, 423 Tanjong Rhu, 115 Tan Kah Kee, 50, 52, 107–8 Tan Kah Kee & Co., 52 Tan Kheng Ann, 449 Tan Kim Fung, 170 Tan Lark Sye, 50, 304, 305 Tan Sim Eng, 88 Tan Thoon Lip, 45, 319 Tarman, Mohamed, 400 Tay, Alice Erh-Soon, 466, 480, 482 Tay Koh Yat, 50 Telok Ayer constituency, 401 Telok Paku, 111, 112 Thailand, 514, 541 Thanamani, 177–79 Thien, Iris, 526–27, 531 Thio Chan Bee, 209 Thio Gim Hock, 544, 551 Thio Li-ann, 544–45 Thio Su Mien, 465, 479, 543, 544– 45, 550, 551

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

609

Third Reich, 64, 162 Thomas, Francis at Changi, 123 Labour Front and, 223, 229, 326, 327, 329, 391 Legislative Assembly and, 243, 244, 247 meet-the-people sessions, 298 Merdeka and, 341 nomination as minister, 281, 326 Presidential Council, 464 relationship with David, 225, 357–58 Singapore Labour Party and, 218– 21 Singapore Socialist Party and, 221 Thomas, Margaret, 542 Thomas, Sir Shenton, 115 Thompson, George, 230 Thomson, Sir James, 442 Thorne, Arnold F., 155, 160 Thorogood, Justice, 179 Tiger Standard, 198, 217 Tiow Toh, 169 Toh Chin Chye, 217, 219, 399, 415 Tokyo, 368 Tokyo Bay, 140 Tong Keng Wah, 508 Trade Advisory Council, 365 Trade Development Board, 525 Trade Union Council, 409 trade unions, 270, 274, 380, 402, 408 Transport House, 225, 234 Treaty of Versailles, 101 Trindade, Francis, 480 Trinity Hall, 345 Trusted, Sir Harry, 316 Trusted Commission, 316

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

610

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Tuan Haji Ismail bin Abdul Aziz, 464 Tumasek, 200, 474 Tung Tao Chang, Shamsuddin, 453 Tun Haji Abdul Razak Memorial Lectures, 481 Tunku, the. See Abdul Rahman, Tunku Turf Club, 126, 128 Turkey, 3, 5, 16, 19 Turkish language, 14–15, 21 Turnbull, C. M., 303 Tweg, Hyim S., 59 U UK Commissioner for Southeast Asia, 219, 224, 294 UK Nationality Act 1948, 302–3 UMNO. See United Malays Nationalist Organization (UMNO) UMNO-MCA Alliance, 333, 338, 401, 404 UMNO-MCA-Malay Union Alliance, 237, 239, 241, 244 UMNO-MCA-MIC Alliance, 320 Unfederated Malay States, 141 Union of Educational Institutions in England, 47 United Kingdom. See Britain United Malays Nationalist Organization (UMNO), 207, 237, 242, 306–7, 320, 457 United Nations, 89, 417–18, 420, 505, 510 United Nations Committee on Colonialism, 417–19 United People’s Party (UPP), 412, 416, 417 Universities Endowment Fund, 548

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

610

University of Chicago, 434 University of Hong Kong, 41, 96 University of London, 67, 76, 78, 84, 86 University of Malaya chancellor, 434 Department of Social Work, 432 Law Faculty, 428, 431–32, 468, 477, 544 medium of instruction, 256 Socialist Club, 227, 379 Students’ Union, 267 vice-chancellor, 294 University of Singapore, 411, 459, 477–79, 483, 510 University of Sydney, 191, 466 Upadit Panchariyangkun, 516 Upper Bukit Timah Road, 381 V Vainstein, J., 185 van Hein, M. M., 156 Vaux, Francis George, 94 Victoria Memorial Hall, 9, 236, 239 Victoria Tower, 336 Vidamuthu, 166 Vietnam, 514, 533–34 W Walter, Patrick Gordon, 235 Walters, David Keri (D. K.), 103–4, 106, 143–44, 188–89 Walters & Co., 188 Wang Tsun Hao, 401 Ward, W. J., 183 War Office Financial Secretary, 169 War Prisoners (Singapore) Association, 155–58, 162, 202

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

611

INDEX

Washington Declaration, 342, 343 n 164 Watanabe, Hiroshi, 447 Watts-Carter, Jeffrey, 183–85 Webster, James Claude, 69 Wee Chong Jin Academy of Law award, 548 constitution and, 457, 458 David’s suspension, 501 early acquaintance, 104, 144 legal career, 188–89, 454 Presidential Council, 464 Wee Chong Jin Commission. See Constitutional Commission (Wee) Wee Eng Lock, 88, 89 Wee Kiat Neo, 226, 386 Wee Seong Kang, 37, 40, 43, 44 Wee Soo Bee, 419 Wee Swee Teow, 89 Wee Swee Teow & Co., 89, 189 Wee Toon Boon, 444, 449 Whampoa constituency, 298 White, Dr, 191 Whitehall, 63, 215 White Paper on Merger, 411–12, 421, 422–23 Whitmont, Cecil, 511 Whyatt, Sir John, 430 Willan, Harold Curwen, 144 n 9 Williams, Aaron, 135 Williams, Francis, 234 Williams, P. M., 218 Wilson, Hugh Ramsay, 191, 193–94, 197, 467 Wilson, Justice, 183, 184 Wilson, P. A., 295 Wing Loong Road, 199, 202, 524 Winslow, Alfred Victor, 481, 501

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

611

Withers-Payne, Charles, 123–24 Women’s International Zionist Organization (WIZO), 56 Wong, Mimi, 447–48 Wong Foo Nam, 243, 345 Wong Hoon Hee, Reverend, 465 Wong Kim Min, Datuk James, 454– 55 Wong Kui Yam, 424 Woodbridge Hospital, 495 Woodhull, Sandra, 382, 408, 419 Workers’ Party 1957 elections, 401–3 1959 election, 404, 405 Anson by-election, 409 David’s control, 402–3, 406, 423– 25 formation, 398–400 merger issue, 417, 422–23 principles and aims, 399–400, 405 World Bank, 294 World Jewish Congress, 503 World War I, 19, 114 World War II, 2, 101, 140, 336 Wrigglesworth, Harold Leonard, 195–96 Wu Maosun, 378 Wu Tian Wang, 203, 208 Y Yakumo (Yagumo), 133 Yang di-Pertuan Negara, 388 Yap Pheng Geck, 162, 305, 366, 403, 479 Yeoh Ghim Seng, 519 Yeo Kim Wah, 255, 257, 267, 269, 276 Yeo Yong Poh, 329

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

612

MARSHALL OF SINGAPORE

Yim, Jimmy, 546 Yong Kok Kim, 269 Yong Pung How, Chief Justice, 545 Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), 43, 45–47, 53–54, 91 Z Za’aroor (paternal great grandfather), 11 Za’aroor, Eliahoo (great uncle), 11 Za’aroor, Habiba (great aunt), 11

18 Marshall_S'pore Index

612

Za’aroor, Jonathan Yona (great uncle), 11 Zehnder, Hugh Ransome Stanley, 87 Zehnder, Walter Frank, 87 Zehnder Brothers, 87 Zhang Xiruo, 369 Zhao Xingyi, 369, 371 Zhonghua National Industrial and Commercial Association, 367 Zhou Enlai, 370, 371, 374, 379 Zola, Émile, 229

11/21/08, 9:17 AM

Reproduced from Marshall of Singapore: A Biography by Kevin Y L Tan (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). This version was obtained electronically direct from the publisher on condition that copyright is not infringed. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior permission of the ABOUT THE AUTHOR 613 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Individual articles are available at < http://bookshop.iseas.edu.sg >

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Kevin Y L Tan was born and educated in Singapore. He graduated with LLB (Hons) from the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore in 1986 and joined the teaching staff of the same faculty that year. He later obtained his LLM (Master of Laws) and JSD (Doctor of the Science of Law) at Yale Law School. From 1986 to 2000, he taught at the Law Faculty, specializing in Constitutional and Administrative Law, Law and Government, Law and Society and International Human Rights. Since 2000, he has consulted full-time on history, heritage and publishing, and has continued to teach law part-time. Kevin has served on the editorial boards of the Malaya Law Review, the Yale Journal of International Law, the Singapore Law Review, and the Singapore Journal of International & Comparative Law (the latter two as Chief Editor). Beyond his university duties, he has been active in many organizations, serving as National Programme Commissioner in the Singapore Scout Association (1992–95); Council Member of the National Youth Achievement Award Council (since 1998), Singapore Red Cross Society (since 1999), CSCAP (1998–2002), Board Member of the Preservation of Monuments Board (1998–2004), Singapore Academy of Law Legal Heritage Committee (since 1999), and Executive Director of the Society of International Law, Singapore (1998–2003); Treasurer and then President of the Roundtable, a non-partisan political discussion group (1999–2002). Kevin has published widely in his fields of expertise and is the author and editor of some 20 books and 50 academic articles. He is currently a director of Equilibrium Consulting Pte Ltd, President of the Singapore Heritage Society, Chairman of the Foundation for the Development of International Law in Asia (DILA), and Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore.

19 Marshall_S'pore Abt Author

614

11/21/08, 9:17 AM