1. House of Commons Parliamentary Debates v. 39 12 1943, p. 384.Google Scholar

2. The Rendel Constitution created a 32-man assembly with 25 elected members, and a 9-man cabinet with full powers over all matters except external affairs, internal security and defence. The governor, however, still retained reserved and veto powers over legislation by the assembly.

3. Swee, Goh Keng, Urban Income and Housing, Singapore, 1954, p. 37.Google Scholar

4. Carnell, F.G., ‘Constitutional Reforms and Elections in Malaya,’ Pacific Affairs, 09 1954, Vol. XXVII No. 3, p. 232.Google Scholar

5. Weekly Digest of Vernacular Press 23/5 21/53.

6. The other two major parties were the Singapore Labour Fiont and the People's Action Party which are not dealt with in this article because they became fully developed parties after 1955.

7. Thompson, V. & Adloff, R., The Left Wing in Southeast Asia, New York, 1950, p. 145Google Scholar. Peritz, R., ‘The Evolving Politics of Singapore: A Study of Trends and Issues’, Unpublished PhD. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1964, p. 81.Google Scholar See also Mahajani, U.The Role of Indian Minorities in Burma and Malaya, India, 1960, p. 224.Google Scholar

8. This was a general announcement promising democratic reforms for Malaya. The provisions of the Malayan Union Scheme were published in late January 1946.

9. Eber, J., ‘A Malayan Expresses His Views,’ 1947.Google Scholar

10. Wu represented the MCP at the MDU inauguration meeting and eventually became a member of the 1946 MDU Central Committee. See Straits Times 21.1.46.

11. Interview with Gerald de Cruz, founder member of the MDU and Deputy Secretary-General of the AMCJA-PUTRA, 1947–48 17.6 65.

12. Interview with Philip Hoalim, Chairman of the MDU, 1945–48, 16.7.65 and interview with Seow Cheng Fong, Central Committee Member, 1947–48, 28.1167. Purcell, V., The Chinese in Malaya, Oxford, 1948, p. 278.Google Scholar

13. Malaya Tribune 22.12.45.

14. The last two organisations were MCP-front oiganisations.

15. The MDU Second Political Report, 04 1947 to May 1918, p. 13.Google Scholar

16. Straits Times 21.1.46.

17. Letter from Eber, J. to Seng, Tan Hock; ‘The Left-wing in Malaya’, Unpublished B.A. Hons. Academic Exercise, University of Malaya, 1960. p. 15Google Scholar; also Straits Times 13.11.47.

18. Yew, Lee Kuan, The Battle for Merger, Singapore, 1961, p. 2.Google Scholar

19. The People's Constitutional Proposal, 1947, pp. 38–39.Google Scholar

20. Legal political organisations were exempted from registering under the Societies Ordinance. In 1947 the government exempted the MCP from registering under this ordinance thus recognising it as a legal party.

21. For the sake of convenience, the term “Malaya” in this article includes the Federation of Malaya and Singapore.

22. Letter from Eber, J. to Seng, Tan Hock in Seng, Tan Hock, op. cit. p. 15Google Scholar; Lim Kim Chye in Straits Times 12.7.46; Eber, J. ‘A Malayan Expresses His Views’, 1947.Google Scholar

23. MDU Manifesto 8 12.45, in Gamba, C., The Origins of Trade Unionism in Malaya, Singapore, 1962, p. 437.Google Scholar

24. The Malayan Union Scheme of 1946 unified the nine Malay States, Penang and Malacca into a single colony called the Malayan Union, and turned Singapore into a separate Crown Colony. It introduced a Malayan Citizenship scheme under which an overwhelming majority of the non-Malays and virtually all the Malays would have qualified as citizens.

25. Malayan Tribune, 21.7.47; Straits Echo, 8 5.46 and Malayan Press Digest No. 31, 2 6.–8.6.46.

26. The Report of the Committee for the reconstitution of the Singapore Legislative Council, Singapore, 1946, p. 17.Google Scholar The Reconstitution Committee was convened by the Singapore Government to work out the distribution of seats in the 22-man legislature according to the Singapore Order-in-Council of 1946 It recommended six popularly elected seats, three Chamber of Commerce-elected seats, four nominated unofficials and nine officials. The Government accepted its report.

27. Straits Budget 16 1.47. The MDU Second Political Report, p. 14.

28. In December 1946 the MDU joined the MCP, the Malay Nationalist Party and Tan Cheng Lock to form the PMCJA. The PMCJA was a loose coalition of leftwing parties and communist-front organisations. In January 1947 the Malay Nationalist Party resigned from the PMCJA and formed its own group called the Pusat Tenga Ra'ayat (PUTERA). The PUTERA then partnered with the PMCJA to form the first inter-racial alliance in Malaya known as the PMCJAPUTERA to oppose the Federation Agreement. This coalition was a communistdominated body and, to the MCP, its united front organisation. In August 1947 it published the ‘People's Constitutional Proposals’ as an alternative to the Federation Agreement. This scheme proposed (i) an independent united Malaya (including Singapore) wherein the Malay Sultans would be sovereign constitutional rulers, (ii) a democratic government based on a legislative assembly fully elected by citizens enjoying universal suffrage, and (iii) a common citizenship with Melayu nationality under which a large number of non-Malays would have qualified as citizens. The British Government rejected this proposal and accepted the Federation Agreement. For an account of the influence of the PMCJA on the MDU, see Wah, Yeo Kim, ‘Political Development in Singapore, 1945–55’, Unpublished MA thesis, University of Singapore, 1967.Google Scholar

29. In 1948 the Federation Agreement replaced the Malayan Union Scheme. The main clauses of this new constitution were (i) it accepted the constitutional stiucture of the Malayan Union but renamed it the Federation of Malaya and constituted it as a protectorate, thus restoring sovereignty over the Malay States to the Sultans; (ii) it established a federal government under a British High Commissioner; the main organs of this government were a fully nominated Executive Council and a fully nominated Legislative Council which had a large majority of unofficial members (52 to 23), including a predominant Malay representation; (iii) a restrictive citizenship scheme under which virtually all Malays and Indonesian settlers qualified as citizens but an overwhelming majority of the non-Malays were disqualified.

30. Letter from J. Eber to Tan Cheng Lock, Penang, 31.12.46.

31. This was the first popular election in Singapore which elected six members to fill the elected seats in the 22-man legislature.

32. Letter from Eber, J. to Seng, Tan Hock in Seng, Tan Hock, op. cit., p. 15.Google Scholar

33. Straits Times 11.2.48, ‘An Analysis of the Communal Problem in Relation to the Constitutional Issue’ by the MDU on behalf of the PMCJA-PUTERA, January 1948. (Hereafter cited as An Analysis of the Communal Problem).

34. Straits Budget 6.248.

35. The MDU Second Political Report, p. 6.

36. ‘Analysis of the Communal Problem’.

37. These were the English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil medium schools.

38. Eber, J., Memo, on counter-proposals for a future constitution for the consideration of the PMCJA, 1947; letter from Eber to Tan Cheng Lock, 31.12.46.

39. The People's Constitutional Proposals, p. 23.

40. Eber, J., Memo, on counter-proposals.

41. Eber in Straits Budget 15.8.46.

42. Means, G., ‘Malayan Politics and Government in Transition’, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Washington University, 1960, p. 152.Google Scholar

43. Letter from J. Eber to Tan Hock Seng in Seng, Tan Hock, op. cit, p. 16.Google Scholar

44. Robinson, J. B. D., Transformation in Malaya, London, 1956, pp. 155–159.Google Scholar Gerald de Cruz stated that there was a five-man communist cell in the MDU, but could only recall Quok Peng Chiang, G. R. Thamboo and himself, the first person forming the link between the MDU and the MCP. It would seem that Willy Kok was Quok Peng Chiang and Jacko was G. R. Thamboo. Gerald de Cruz, Quok Peng Chiang and G. R. Thamboo were members only of the MDU Central Executive Committee of 1948.

45. de Cruz, Gerald; Yew, Lee Kuan, The Battle for Merger pp. 1–2.Google Scholar However, Gerald de Cruz (another key leader) was a communist though it is not clear when he joined the MCP. The above leaders continued to be active after the party dissolved in June 1948 and were detained by the government in January 1951 for participating in the activities of the communist Anti-British League (ABL). Dr. J. K. M. Tan went insane during detention and died in the Singapore Wood bridge Hospital. J. Eber was released in 1953 and went to London; he is still in exile and is believed to have become a communist promoting communist interests among Malayan students in London. P. V. Sharma was also released in 1953 on the condition that he went to India. He is now a communist and is a leader of the Peking-based Malayan Liberation Front. Lim Kean Chye and Eu Chooi Yip escaped arrest in 1951 and apparently went to Peking. Lim has always denied that he was ever a communist or a ABL member. He is now practising law in Penang and is not allowed to enter Singapore. Eu Chooi Yip is now a communist and is believed to be in Peking working with P. V. Sharma. Another leader was Lim Hong Bee, a former Queen s Scholar, who left for London in late 1946 to study law and eventually became a communist. He is still in exile in London and is the editor of the communist newsletter, Malayan Monitor.

46. Malayan Press Digest no. 30 26.5 – 1.6.46. Apparently, the MCP adopted this stand to pacify KMT Chinese leaders.

47. It is believed that at this Calcutta Conference, a decision from the Russian Communist Party was transmitted to the MCP directing the latter to take to arms.

48. This means ability to read and write two languages.

49. In this article, the term “Public Office” denotes government bodies such as the legislative council or semi-government organisations like the University of Malaya Council. By “Private Office” is meant clubs, associations and other private-run social organisations.

50. Of the 30 persons forming the central executive committees during the period, 1945–48, there were 18 Chinese, 5 Eurasians, 4 Malays and 3 Indians.

51. At times, J. Eber defended communist leaders in court actions, for example, when Lin Ah Liang, Chairman of the Singapore City Committee, was charged for unlawful assembly and rioting in the island on February 15th 1946.

52. Gamba, C., The Origins of Trade Unionism in Malaya, Singapore, 1962, p. 86.Google Scholar

53. After the war, the Government paid the European civil servants 3½-years full back-pay but rejected the similar demand of the Asian civil servants. Because of this, the latter conducted a Back-pay Campaign for two and a half years. The controversy was finally settled on the basis that only the interned Asian civil servants would be awarded full 3½-years back-pay while the non-interned ones would be paid the difference between the 3½-years back-pay and the salaries they received while working for the Japanese administration.

54. The members of this Federation were the Singapore Teachers' Union, the Government Services' Clerical Union, the Government Printing Office Workers' Union, the Municipal Workers' Union, the Government Hospital Assistants' Union, the Government Nurses' Union, the Government Interpreters' Union and the Malay Teachers' Union. Straits Budget 25.9.47. The Government refused to register the Federation, and when the Emergency broke out in June 1948, the latter disintegrated. Interview with D. E. Siddons Central Committee Member, 1947–48. 11.11.67.

55. The terms “mass” and “cadre” parties are used in this article in the sense defined by Duverger, M.: Political Parties, their Organisation and Activity in the Modern State, London, 1964.Google Scholar Duverger defines a “cadre” party as one that lays emphasis on a group of notabilities within the party, on finance of the party by largely individual donations, and on electoral success. A “mass” party, accordingly to him, has a mass membership, a coherent ideology and a system of general finance through membership subscriptions. See pp. 63–71.

56. Straits Times 25.6.46. The Ipoh branch was better organised than the other two branches in the Federation. P. Hoalim.

57. In January 1946 the party was believed to have had nearly 300 members who were almost all English-speaking employees of the Singapore Municipality. Straits Times 21.1.46. All my interviewees agreed that the party did not have more than a few hundred members.

58. P. Hoalim.

59. Lectures on topics such as “The middle class in Malaya” were delivered in the MDU Headquarters, and at ad hoc branches in Katong, Tanglin and Upper Serangoon for the convenience of members and the public. Straits Budget 13.3.47. See also The MDU Second Political Report, p. 17. The most active branches were at Katong and Joo Chiat because many of the leaders resided there; for example, J. Eber, Gerald de Cruz, P. V. Sharma, Seow Cheng Fong, P. C. Neo, Wong Soo Bee, Andrew Yap, and Yap Thian Seng. See Seow Cheng Fong.

60. P. Hoalim paid for the MDU premises' rent of $200 a month and the initial expenditure incurred by the founding of the party. The MDU Bulletin (monthly) was sustained by its sale-proceeds and largely by periodical donations from members. Chew Peng Yam, a founder member, financed the MDU mouthpiece, The Malayan Standard. See Gerald de Cruz, P. Hoalim.

61. The MDU Second Political Report, pp. 15–17.Google Scholar

62. Ibid., p. 15.

63. P. Hoalim. The day before it was dissolved, the police detained 6 outspoken critics of the government, 5 of them from the Indian Section of the New Democratic Youth League. The Governor announced that further arrests would follow. See Straits Times, 25.6.48.

64. Ibid. All the MDU leaders I interviewed were fully agreed on this point.

65. The fear of trade unionists was admitted publicly by Henry Gurney, High Commissioner of the Federation, in Straits Times 1.4.50, by Gimson, the Governor of Singapore, in Proceedings of the Singapore Legislative Council 1948, p. B219Google Scholar, and by Narayanan, Secretary of the leading rubber-workers' union, in Josey, A., Trade Unionism in Malaya, Singapore, 1958, p. 29.Google Scholar For an account of the stringent official supervision of union activities, see Gamba, C., The Origins of Trade Unionism in Malaya, Singapore, 1962, pp. 352–353.Google Scholar During the period, 1948–53, there were only two known cases of suspected communist activities in the island. The Annual Report of the Singapore Labour Department 1950, p. 40.Google ScholarStraits Times 3.9.53. 13.4.53.

66. Ahmad Khan, official of the Singapore Special Branch, to Justice Chua during a trial case. Straits Times 24.8.54.

67. Straits Times 4.3.48.

68. Hock, Lee Yong, “A History of the Straits Chinese British Association, 1900–59”, Unpublished B. A. Hons. Academic Exercise, University of Malaya, 1960, pp. 86–7.Google Scholar This association only admitted Chinese British subjects.

69. Malayan Tribune 14.6.47. Ed. Straits Budget 19.6.47.

70. Interview with C. C. Tan, founder member and President of the PP, 1947–55. 17.9.65.

71. Progressive Party Newsletter, No. 2, 15.3.52. See also Laycock J., ‘A Colony Councillor on the “Foreign State”’ Straits Times 15.4.48. and 10.8.52.

72. Progressive Party Newsletter No. 6, 15.7.52.

73. Report of the General Committee of the Progressive Party 31.3.54. See also Progressive Party Special Sub-Committee Interim Report on the Next Step in the Constitutional Reforms for Singapore, 1953.

74. Singapore was ruled by the Labour Front-Alliance coalition government under the Rendel Constitution which operated during the period, 1955–59. The Rendel Constitution set the stage for effective constitutional agitation by the PAP and its allied student-labour movement till 1959.

75. This was implemented in 1955 by the Labour Front-Alliance Coalition Government, while its idea of a Housing Trust seems to be the precedessor of the concept of the Singapore Housing and Development Board.

76. Progress for the workers through Industrial Progress, PP, 1955.

77. In 1949 F. Thomas alleged that the PP was widely held as “something between government stooges or the protector of wealth”, Letter from F. Thomas to Mr. Pryer, Lecturer in Raffles College, 16.2.49.

78. Text of C. C. Tan's speech to the PP's Annual Meeting, 24.6.54.

79. However in late 1955, they re-emerged to form and lead the Liberal-Socialist Party in 1956.

80. Interview with Chan Kum Chee, Progressive Party leader 23.11.67.

81. PP Notes on the S S. Manyam Case 27.12.52. Straits Times 27.7.53.

82. Straits Times 23.5.49. Free Press 6.6.49. Minutes of the PP Meeting March 1953.

83. The PP claimed that of the new members recruited in 1954, 53% came from the clerical and middle class, 25% from the higher salaried and professional classes, and 22% from the labourer class. Progressive Party Newsletter No, 9, 1.4.54, p. 2.Google Scholar

84. Straits Times 9.4.54.

85. Report of the General Committee of the PP, 31.3.54. Ibid., 31 3.55, The island was divided into twenty-five constituencies for the 1955 Election.

86. The membership drive is believed to have recruited some 2,000 members. See Report of the General Committee of the PP, 31.3.55. The total of 4,000 is derived by dividing the total 1955 subscriptions by each member's subscription of $3 a year. As subscriptions were not paid regularly, this is probably a conservative estimate.

87. The figures for 1949 were $460 (subscriptions) and $4,583 (donations) and for 1952, $2,664 and $5,626 respectively. See Second Annual Ordinary Meeting Report 9.5.49, Financial Statements of the PP 31.12.52 and for the year 1954, Report of the General Council of the PP 31.3.55.

88. The President, the Four Vice-Presidents, the Honorary Secretary and the Honorary Treasurer.

89. This was enlarged to 60–100 members after 1954 as an attempt to strengthen its organisation.

90. ‘Progressive Party Newsletter, No. 21, 1.4.54, p. 3.Google Scholar

91. These were established in the constituencies of Siglap and Katong, Geylang, Paya Lebar and Serangoon, West Ward District, Rochore, City Ward, North Ward, South Ward, and Pasir Panjang.

92. Straits Budget 25.3.48. Ibid., 29.4.48.

93. Interview with P. M. Williams, founder member of the SLP, 20.10.67. 94. Interview with F. Thomas, founder member of the SLP, 17.10.67.

95. Interview with M. P. D. Nair, founder member of the SLP, 2.11.67.

96. Rose, S., Socialism in Southeast Asia, Oxford, 1959, p. 235.Google Scholar

97. The Constitution of the SLP, 1951, p. 1.Google Scholar

98. Letter from M. P. D. Nair, Hon. Sec. of the SLP to all registered Trade Unions 4.5.49.

99. The SLP Programme, 1950–51, p. 3. Resolutions of the SLP Party Conference 1951 and 1952.

100. This was shown again in their manifesto in the 1951 Legislative Council Election. See the Manifesto of the SLP for the Singapore Legislative Council 1951 and the Manifesto of the PP 1951 cited in Public Relations Office, Singapore Press Statement, MA 51/13, 1951.Google Scholar

101. All the Indian leaders could speak Tamil, but apparently most of them could not read and write Tamil.

102. This does not tally with the 12 unionists noted in Table III because some leaders held posts in the ACSU and other unions at the same time.

103. In an extreme case, the SLP General Council in 1950 had 17 Indians, 1 Pakistani and 3 Chinese. Annual Report of the SLP, December 1951.

104. M. P. D. Nair.

105. Viz. president, 2 vice-presidents, secretary and treasurer.

106. Tanjong Pagar, Rochore, South Ward, Geylang, Seletar, Serangooh and Town Ward. The other branches were not known.

107. F. Thomas, P. M. Williams. The Tanjong Pagar branch was very active because Lim Yew Hock, popular in this area, headed this branch.

108. These were actually members selected by party leaders because the branches had no branch committees. Hence, party leaders would gather as many followers as they could to pack party conferences.

109. The Constitution of the SLP 1951, p. 4.Google Scholar

110. S. Rose during his visit to Singapore in 1952 found no branches of the SLP. Rose, S.: op. cit., p. 214.Google Scholar

111. Telegram from M. P. D. Nair to Lim Yew Hock in USA 25.8.52. Letter from F. Thomas to C. H. Koh 17.11.54.

112. SLP Statement of Accounts, 1.1.50–31.12.51.

113. The Constitution of the SLP, 1951, p. 4.Google Scholar

114. Letter from F. Thomas to C. H. Koh, 17.11.54.

115. F. Thomas, M. P. D. Nair, P. M. Williams. Party statements estimated membership at 5,000; the 1951 subscription record noted only 2,168 members. As subscription collection was haphazard, its membership probably numbered some 3,000 – 4,000.

116. Individual members paid $2 per head a year, and affiliated unions paid $25 per union a year. The Constitution of the SLP 1951, p. 1.

117. P. M. Williams.

118. Memorandum by the anti-Lim Yew Hock group led by E. S. Moorthy 23.8.52. In fact all the parly conferences were packed by rival groups. Letter from F. Thomas to Dr. Chiang Hai Ding, Acting Head of the Department of History, University of Singapore, 17.4.68.

119. This union claimed that nearly 2,000 of its members were members of the SLP. This was an inflated estimate. Memorandum of 9 Signatures on behalf of 2,275 members in support of Lim Yew Hock, August 1952.

120. Ibid.

121. P. M. Williams.

122. Letter from F. Thomas to C. H. Koh, 17.11.54. The 1951 General Council witnessed 1 expulsion, 5 resignations and 5 losses of seats through regular absence from meetings. The Annual Report of the SLP ending December 1951.

123. Memorandum of 9 signatures on behalf of 2,275 members in support of Lim Yew Hock, August 1952.

124. Memorandum of the anti-Lim Yew Hock group led by E. S. Moorthy 23.8.52.

125. Letter from F, Thomas to E. G. Farmer 6.11.53 Letter from F. Thomas to Lord Shepphard 28.3.54.

126. Memorandum of 9 signatures on behalf of 2,275 members in Lim Yew Hock, August 1952.

127. Minutes of the General Council Meeting, SLP 9.12.52.

128. Telegram from M. P. D. Nair to Lim Yew Hock, 25.8.52.

129. Weekly Digest of Vernacular Press, 12.7.53.

130. Except the PAP.