asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements he made for broadcasting the speech of Mr. Nehru, made at Singapore, advocating a policy of non-violence in Malaya.
Only one speech made by Mr. Nehru in Singapore was broadcast—that given at the dinner arranged in his honour by the Legislative Council. This speech in no way advocates a policy of non-violence.
Is the Minister aware that the appeal made by Mr. Nehru in favour of non-violence was made to the bandits, and does he not think that this speech should be given the greatest possible publicity both to the bandits and to those fighting the bandits?
That is quite another question.
Does the Minister not think that in view of Pandit Nehru's deliberate cold-blooded attack on Hyderabad, that talk of non-violence is sheer humbug?
Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the utmost possible use should be made of Mr. Nehru's very helpful speech as he said that we were roughly following the right sort of policy in Malaya?
On a point of order. May I ask to what extent Members of this House are able to attack the Prime Minister of one of the Dominions and to make a very serious allegation against him?
The question only refers to broadcasting. As to criticism of the head of a foreign State, of course one has to be very careful about that, and one should not do it.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the supplementary question of the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) which was rather out of taste, if not out of order?
I think that Mr. Nehru is not the head of the State. He is the Prime Minister and, therefore, rather different from the head.
Is it not out of taste to refer to the Prime Minister of a most important Dominion in that way?
That is a matter of opinion.