DEBATE ON GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, the,motion that stands in my name is,

That this Assembly expresses its thanks to His Excellency the Governor for his Address delivered on Friday, 22nd April, 1955.

On this motion, Sir, it is traditional that the policy of the Government is debated, its point of view is amplified, and the Opposition has an opportunity to attack.

At this point in our history, Sir, it is perhaps appropriate to look back a little to see how and why our policy has been evolved the way it has shaped in the Address. Hon. Members have heard that at the beginning Singapore was a village situate where this Assembly House now stands, and today it is the tenth busiest port in the world with a population of more than a million. In between, Sir, we have established a gold-mining town economy. The law of the jungle translated into business terms was our basic philosophy of economy, and the god of money was the god of gods. Our gold, Sir, is our geographical position - we are at the crossroads of the world; and also in the flood of expatriates from many lands who flocked to this territory to make their fortunes. The English expatriates, Sir, whom Sir Stamford Raffles called "merchant adventurers of our nation", using their military and their political power, backed by their economic resources and experience, maintained a rigid and overwhelming domination over the Asian expatriates to whom was relegated the role of worker ants. These are the people who became the merchant princes, the taipans of the East, with the Government officials their willing satellites. They found it convenient, Sir, for the better control of the mass of Asian labour, without which this port would not have developed, to permit some few Asians to achieve prominence in the economic field - and only in the economic field. A sharp line of domination was drawn between the white man - lord of the earth - and the Asian, his humble slave, his inarticulate slave. To support this political and economic set-up, we had that very convenient theory that in Singapore nobody lives, that Singapore is but a port of call. It is known as the theory of expatriates, the land of expatriates. Singapore is only the land of the prospectors for gold. The white man did not live here permanently, was not domiciled here, and it was convenient to assume and for Government to proceed on the basis that nobody lived here, and eyes were closed to the cemeteries that proved this theory false. It was a convenient theory, Sir, because it meant that Government had no obligations for social services of any nature. Its only obligation was to hold the ring and let the prospectors slug it out, making quite certain that the expatriate from the West had such political assistance that he was at all times the victor, the dominating factor, in every strategic aspect of our life. The Government services, Sir, were keyed to the welfare of the wealthy, and only the wealthy. It is true we had medical services, but that is because, unfortunately, Sir, we have never been able to educate the bug of disease to recognise the sacred division between the wealthy and the poor, and so we had to have medical services for the poor as well as for the rich in order to protect the rich. There was no need for schools, Sir, since there was no expatriate to educate. It was soon found, however, that the commercial machine required cheap local fodder, and so we had schools that turned out tambies and clerks. Just a few. The rest of the children, who did not exist in the eyes of the Government, had to depend on mission schools, on the private charity of communal schools; but large sections of them, Sir, were left uneducated; and how convenient! because the uneducated are far more docile and far more amenable to the role of economic slaves. They formed our bulk of untrained labour, cheap labour, Sir, and every effort was made to depress the labourers as far as possible. Our gates were thrown open to floods of emigrants to maintain cheap labour to the greater glory of the profit earner.

Such was our tender regard for the wealthy that Government never dared suggest that they should contribute anything to the cost of running the Government. The cost of running the Government was largely defrayed by profits from the sale of opium, encouraged amongst the poor, the coolies.

In the days when I was young, Sir, I remember vividly one sunny day watching a Chinese labourer hefting heavy bales from a lorry to a godown, and I said to him, "How much do you earn?", and he said, "50 to 60 cents a day." I asked, "What do you do with it?" He said he spent 35 to 40 cents on opium; and when I protested at this extraordinary extravagance, his calm reply was "If I don't have opium, what have I to live for?"

It is this coolie, Sir, thrown on the slag-heap of our gold-mining town economy, who has largely been responsible for the development of our port. It is this coolie who has paid for our Government in the past. It is the sweat and the misery of this coolie, extracted from him in generous measure, that has been transmuted to the milk and the honey on which the wealthy feed to slake their queer thirst for more money. It is on this slag-heap, Sir, of our economy that we are sacrificing the mass of our population, the hundreds of thousands who live in sties, in dens of disease, on pavements, the large mass of our school children who have to depend upon private charity for education. It is on this slag-heap that we find our vaunted standard of living, the highest in Asia. Even if that were true, Sir, what it amounts to is this. It is depressingly, unnecessarily, dreadfully low - $3l a week is what our manual worker gets - when he gets work - $3l a week! Can hon. Members understand $31 a week? - to have a family, a home and to live normally - and this in the richest country in all Asia, with an estimated income every year of $2,000 million or more! The smouldering embers of the slag-heap, Sir, are throwing out poisonous fumes of hatred, so bitter that it cannot distinguish between the system and the rulers. These fumes and this slag-heap are a danger to the health of the entire people of this territory. They are a menace.

It is in this context, Sir, that Government laid its plans, and it is because of this context that primary emphasis was laid on the need, the urgent need, to free the people of this territory from the twin evils of racial domination and economic slavery. It is my belief that in this constitution, which we have so recently heard attacked, lies the opportunity to achieve those aims.

Sir, I have been called a political innocent-[Interruption.] (yes, out of the mouths of babes and sucklings it has been said, I would remind the hon. Member) - and that, Sir, because I am told I place too much faith in the English. Sir, in this city of my birth, which holds a unique position of being the crossroads of the world, many peoples and many cultures meet, and differing peoples absorb different proportions of the various cultures. I will freely admit that by virtue of my education, particularly by virtue of my training and professional calling, I have come strongly under the influence of English concepts of living. Sir, I will freely admit that, whatever the transient antagonisms, I am basically pro-English. I know it is supposed to be political suicide to admit it. I have been told that repeatedly during my campaign. I believe in facing facts, Sir. I seek nothing for myself, and from that fortunate point I can indulge in the luxury of the truth. During my political campaign, whatever might have been the adverse effects of admitting it, I clarified my position and I would like to repeat it. As a Malayan I have naturally sought to lean backwards against my natural bias in order to assess wherein lies the true welfare of the people of this territory, and I have come back always to the same conclusion. I am convinced that the great majority of the English people are now conscious of the evils of colonial rule, and I will say this to some of the hon. Members opposite - it is not fair to judge the English people by the conduct of the old guard colonials whom we find in these territories. It was an Englishman, Prof. Silcock of the University of Malaya, who said, "Colonial rule is unbelievably corrupting to the ruler and to the ruled alike." But those of us who have had the privilege of knowing the English people in England will, I think, admit that the Englishman is as fine and decent a human being as any anywhere, and his consciousness of the evils of colonial rule has brought about - need I remind hon. Members? - the independence of India, our great neighbour, and those other great neighbours of ours - Burma and Ceylon. I hope some will remind me that it was the Labour Government which conceded that independence. I think in fairness I should indicate that only recently Sir Winston Churchill's Government - a Conservative Government I believe - gave Sudan its independence.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Sir, on a point of order. Is it relevant, what he is speaking?

Mr Speaker: It is not out of order.

The Chief Minister: If my hon. Friend is pained by the truth, he has always, I understand, Sir, the liberty of walking out. I shall not miss him.

I was saying, Sir, that it is only in friendly negotiation, I am convinced, and in co-operation with England that we can achieve complete internal self-government in peace. That is the keynote of our entire philosophy - peaceful development through democratic process - and I can assure hon. Members present that whether the mountain comes to Mohamed or not, we shall commence within this year, I hope, negotiations with the Secretary of State which we hope will lead to complete internal self-government within the life of this Assembly.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It had better be.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: It is not sufficient.

The Chief Minister: I think it comes ill, Sir, from us to question the good faith of a nation that seeks to give us its hand to help us to our feet. The present constitution is an earnest of that good faith. Our present constitution was evolved, no thanks to our so-called leaders, because the English people are aware of the inarticulate cry of the masses who had no leaders to speak for them at the time of the Rendel Commission, or very, very few - one, as far as I know.

Sir, from whatever angle we view this problem, we always come back to the same conclusion, and I think hon. Members will agree that the welfare of this territory is knit with close and friendly relations with Great Britain.

I have spoken of self-government. The question of independence is tied with the question of union with the Federation. Sir, the separation of this territory from Malaya and from the Straits Settlements has brought, I understand, some material benefits. We are the richer territory proportionately, and if there is to be union we may have to share our wealth. The Government is not of the view that money is the all-important factor in human life and as soon as the newly elected Government of the Federation is ready, we shall open negotiations for a union to lead directly to independence.

Self-government, Sir, and even more, independence, requires a domiciled civil service, and although I am advised that Malayanisation of the civil service has been the policy for many years, the present position is most unsatisfactory and this matter is receiving anxious priority consideration from our side of the House. There will be no further recruitment of expatriates except in imperative circumstances where we have no alternative, and even then, even then, generally on contract only.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Always.

The Chief Minister: Sir, that is the political aim.

In the economic field Government is anxious not to alarm capital. We do not wish to do anything which would prejudice the already meagre livelihood of our people, and in order to achieve our twin aims of increasing trade and commerce and industry, and to move steadily towards a welfare state, we plan, as hon. Members have heard, to have an economic adviser of world repute, an economic planning commission of men of recognised standing, and a trade advisory council representative of all commercial and industrial interests in this territory to advise Government. Hon. Members need not fear that they will hinder Government's aims. There is no question of that. But it is our view, Sir, that business men who, by virtue of survival in competitive callings, are normally of more than average intelligence, once they are satisfied that we are being guided by experts, once they are satisfied that they have to deal with men who seek to give them fair treatment and not the Frankensteins of their heated imagination, we believe that these people will awaken to a realisation of one important factor to commerce, and that is this, that the success of our welfare projects will mean greater security for their own investments in this territory.

On the subject of housing, Sir, my friend and colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat), will deal with this, but I think I should deal briefly with the policy of Government with reference to immovable property. Immovable property is an essential commodity of life, as necessary to human beings as food and water. To-date, Sir, there has been the most extraordinary profiteering in pursuance of our jungle law economy in that essential commodity, and this to the very grave prejudice of the welfare of the people of this territory. There is the Land Acquisition Bill which our predecessors did not care to pass. The Government is of the view that that is very anaemic, whatever others may have thought. It is wholly inadequate, and it is our intention to bring before you a comprehensive bill freezing all values of immovable property, probably with retrospective effect to the date of the Address, and we will seek additional powers of acquisition. There will be no more profiteering in land.

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. I know, Sir, as does my hon. Friend opposite, that a certain amount of good work is being done in the Social Welfare to advise those in need on legal problems. There is also in forma pauperis procedure which some fifty people a year take advantage of. These are superficial palliatives. 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.

It had been hoped that today we would have at least one more Bill tabled, Sir, the City and Island Council Bill. The Government recognises how urgent is the measure and how important that we should not further prolong the prolonged life of the present City Council, which does not reflect the true balance of opinion of the people of the territory. But, Sir, principles of an extremely important character connected with that Bill have been raised, and all I can say is that we shall do our utmost to present it at the next meeting, on the 24th of May.

Sir, a short acquaintance, a very short acquaintance, with Government, does seem to indicate that we are apt in many spheres to live on a somewhat extravagant scale, and we intend to take action shortly to bring about a realisation by the various Departments of the important need for economy. Every dollar saved, Sir, is an extra dollar for social services for which there is such a crying need. In every sphere of Government activity Members sitting on this side of the House are finding it necessary to reassess the existing policy and to lay down fresh instructions. The task is considerable. Our programme has been called ambitious. I freely admit we are ambitious, very ambitious. Our ambition, Sir, is to bring hope and sustenance to the frustrated and the dispossessed majority of the people in this Island. Our hope is to gather in the bitter, the angry, the despairing, within the warm fold of fellowship and mutual help in a united people. Our hope is to bring a realisation, Sir, to these people so far left out in the cold, that this Government is their Government, that we on this Front Bench are not the heaven-born, sitting on the snow-capped peaks of Olympus, but in all sincerity their servants, seeking their welfare. It is our hope to bring this Government to the people ever more closely, so that it can be true that it is they who govern. If we can only impress the people with a realisation, with the vision that is ours, of a peaceful evolution to a dignified way of life for all the domiciled races of this country, Sir, we may look forward with confidence to the day when the various peoples and the various cultures of this country have so inspired each other that Singapore, the crossroads of the world, will be the brightest star in the Eastern sky.

This is our ambition, and this is our task, Sir, and I would like to say to Members opposite, "This is your task too." I expect, we all expect, we welcome from hon. Members opposite honest criticism, because in that way we learn. Where we err, hurl your rocks. I shall gather each and cherish it and build my house the better for it. But where you agree with our platforms, do not only pay lip service. Whatever party you may belong to, and if you belong to no party at all, Sir, I would say to you, "Come in and help. The birth of a new Singapore should not be a matter of a political party. Come in and give us your assistance. Our doors are open day and night to you, and not only on Mondays."

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: I think I had better make certain points quite clear to hon. Members. Hon. Members must remember that when a Member is speaking, there must be silence. There must be no unseemly interruptions. I have been indulgent, and I propose to continue being indulgent in this formative stage, but my indulgence may be strained. Let the item proceed.

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion of the Hon. the Chief Minister in expressing the Assembly's thanks to His Excellency the Governor for his Address delivered on Friday last.

Sir, it may appear to some people, as the Chief Minister has just said, that the programme which Government has laid before this Assembly is somewhat ambitious, but if I may say so, it is a programme which should meet the pressing needs of the people of Singapore today. We shall endeavour to implement the policies laid down in His Excellency's Speech in a spirit of honesty and a sincerity of purpose, for these are two assets which this Government has in abundance.

As has been indicated in His Excellency's Address, three of the important measures that we propose to carry fall within my portfolio as the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. The first is legislation to freeze the values of immovable property and give the Government additional powers for the acquisition of land for public purposes. Such legislation is designed to ensure that land, which is a very scarce and valuable commodity in Singapore at the present moment, is made available to the people at reasonably non-speculative prices. This is necessary if the Government is to keep its pledge of improving the standard of living of the poorer classes and providing them with adequate low-cost housing.

In addition, it is proposed to tackle the housing problem more vigorously and efficiently by setting up a statutory Housing Authority, solely responsible to Government, to replace the present Singapore Improvement Trust. It is hoped that such a Housing Authority would be able in a comparatively short time to bridge the increasing gap between public housing programmes and the needs of the people.

The third important measure for which my Ministry will be responsible is the introduction of a system of land title registration to replace the present cumbersome and costly system under which rights to and over land are recorded by the registration of deeds.

The superiority of land title registration over registration of deeds is now universally recognised. The new system will certainly result in considerable reduction in the cost to the public of land ownership. As hon. Members are aware, it is proposed to introduce the Torrens system of land title registration, a system which was successfully introduced in South Australia about a hundred years ago, and later, in a more modified form, in the Federation of Malaya.

I should like to conclude by repeating to the people of Singapore my assurance that this Government, which has assumed office on a mandate, will work sincerely for the promotion of their well-being and prosperity.

Question proposed.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have just heard the Chief Minister elaborating on what he would like to do during this year. He has drawn to us a picture of past Singapore. He has painted a picture of the difficulties of the labourer, of economic exploitation, but I am more interested in what concrete plans the Government is going to put up to achieve all this. Indeed, when I first heard His Excellency's Address on Friday, I could not fully interpret it. At most I could call it as being for the most part a mixture of pious hopes and slogans. The new Government, as we know it today, has inherited from the previous Government a great deal of benefit and, in many instances, it has only to repeat and carry out such plans as have already been approved. I quote instances:

"It is the policy of this Government to finance low-rental housing for those in the lower income group",

but this was approved unanimously as a result of a motion by the Progressive Party in the last Legislative Council. Public memory may be short, but I think credit must be given to whom credit is due.

The next important question is the union of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. We need clarification on this point. Is it going to be a union like that of South Africa, or is it going to be a federal government on the basis of Australia? In any case, we must sound a warning that in no way must it be a sell-out for Singapore. The people of this great trading centre have a right to be assured that at the minimum it must be an equal partner with the Federation, and I hope the Government will bear this fully in mind when it puts up any plan for the union. Perhaps you all know that not only is Singapore small, but the union with the Federation is still too small a territory to stand alone. And I believe that it would be very much better if it be not only a federation with the hinterland, but a federal union with such territories as North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak. If such a federation were to be realised, I believe that greater benefits would accrue to each one of the members. And I believe that it becomes not two sections - the port and the hinterland - but it can become a co-operation between many territories.

Coming to the question again of the Government policy on public services, I would like to state that it has always been one of the platforms of my Party to Malayanise the civil service. Previous to this, recruitment of expatriates has been in the hands of the permanent executives, with the Public Services Commission acting in an advisory capacity. The power now lies with the Council of Ministers, and if there should be unnecessary recruitment, or further recruitment, of expatriates, we will know where that responsibility lies. It is very good to gloss over what we want to do, but the more important thing is, can we do it? How can we do it? I look at the policy of the Government, and I find that there must be a means whereby we can get to that end. The question of staffing of our senior services with local people ties up very closely with our educational system. There is no mention, however, of higher education in that Address. There might be primary education. There might be training of workers in industries, but no amount of primary education and no amount of training of workers in industry will ever lead us to have men sufficiently qualified to take over that senior service. The emphasis, may I suggest, should lie with the expansion of more secondary schools. We should assist to a far greater extent the University of Malaya and other higher institutions of study. We must give our unstinted help to the much publicized Singapore Polytechnic, which was passed in the previous Legislative Council, and if such measures should be insufficient to meet our need, would Government be prepared to augment our supply of locally trained men by granting more scholarships to our promising youths for overseas studies?

With regard to the raising of the standard of living, I believe that everyone of us in this House here must agree most whole-heartedly. I find in the Address that farmers and fishermen were specially mentioned. Farmers, however, need no fair to stimulate their interest. What is most urgently required is more speedy development of rural areas and early implementation of the policy made by the previous Government for the development of rural areas with a grant of $20 million to bring the services to a proper standard. We have learnt in the past and for a very long time that the coastline of Singapore is not too very long, and whatever in-shore fishing by small fishermen has been fully exploited. If we do want to bring in a greater supply of food to lower the cost of commodities and thereby raise the standard of living, we must search for other means such as organised fishing industries. We hope Government will encourage that, because in all these cases the standard of living can only be brought down by more food to bring down prices, or increase individual income so that the people have more money to buy foodstuffs. Encouragement in this direction must be given.

We noted from the Chief Minister's Address that he has been grumbling about the exploitation of the workers, about how the prosperity of this country has been built on labour; but as I go round Singapore I always meet a certain group of people, the most hard-hit people, the group of people that requires most assistance. They are the small hawkers. They number thousands. High licence fees, constant raids and heavy fines have driven this group of people to desperation. I have met a few more unfortunate ones, and some have even said to me that it would be better to be thieves rather than try to earn an honest living by hawking. Would Government devise ways and means to assist them earn a peaceful living? Would Government try and get more open spaces to build shelters for them? I believe that the preponderance of the number of hawkers in this country is a good indication of the unemployment problem, and this can only be avoided by an increase of industries. And whilst I am on this subject of unemployment, I feel, too, that unemployment in the educated class of people who are coming out of secondary schools would be acute. I forecast that the problem will be serious in the near future. We would like to know what plans Government has to combat such a problem.

Coming round to the Emergency Regulations, I am really surprised that the new Government is no better than the old one. Perhaps their views have now changed, now that they are in power. We know that the new Government is contented with the removal of a few petty Regulations, but these Regulations are already dead letters. The power to arrest without trial, the most important clause, has been left untouched. It is difficult to reconcile this with the Labour Front's platform which says:

"The situation in Singapore does not warrant the continuation of the Emergency Regulations and the Labour Front will seek the removal of this unnecessary and undemocratic restriction on the liberty of the people."

The Chief Minister has further reinforced this platform over Radio Malaya by saying in no uncertain terms that the Emergency Regulations are not justifiable. Under the Emergency Regulations, a man can be convicted out of hand as a result of confidential reports of which he and his lawyer know nothing or very little. We are for law and order, but we believe they can be maintained without these extraordinary laws. And now I believe that those who have voted Labour will know what they have been voting for. We do not, however, say that this attitude of the Labour Government is wrong. We believe, too, that the security of the whole people of Singapore at large must be maintained, but we always believe in an honest platform.

I think while we are on these Emergency Regulations we might also refer to such Regulations as those relating to the Publication, Control, Sale and Circulation Regulations, 1950, for the Press. These Regulations were introduced in 1950 during the Korean war. And again there were the highly unpopular Emergency Newspaper Regulations of 1951. These are still allowed to remain undisturbed. I believe that it is high time that such repressive Regulations should be repealed, and I believe, too, that the laws in our ordinary statute book should be sufficient to control the Press.

On the matter of social services, we must congratulate the Government for focusing its attention on the aged, the disabled, and the unemployed. For the youths of Singapore at large, however, the Government policy is silent. It is a matter of right and urgency that the youths of Singapore today, who will be the citizens of tomorrow, deserve a little attention from the Government. At present youth clubs and organisations are mainly the responsibility of public spirited and generous people. I would like you to compare what they did in England or what they are still doing now. In a county called Glamorgan, where the youth population is 57,500 between the ages of 11 and 20, the total estimated expenditure for the year 1955 to 1956 is �63,000. How does this compare with our own budget for assisting youth clubs? The problems of today must be tackled. If the youths of Singapore today are to be the good citizens of tomorrow, conscious of their responsibilities, then, I believe, they must be guided. Not only must their education be adequately catered for in schools, but after school-hours their excess energy and their leisure hours should be channelised and guided by experts. We ask Government that it be considered, and that plans for enhanced assistance to youth clubs be considered.

I would now like to refer to another point in the Address, namely income tax. The present income tax laws have not taken into account the family unit in Singapore, which is entirely different from that of the West. Parents out here are regarded as very important parts of the family, and rightly so; they should remain to enjoy the support and continued love of their children even after retirement. Hon. Members here will agree with me that it is a good system. Further, I believe we can all agree that because of such an attitude, it has made old-age pensions, as practised in Australia, unnecessary in Singapore. Furthermore, we have less people in need of public assistance owing to the Social Welfare Department. I make this point in order that in our income tax laws the regulations may be revised so as to include parents under income tax relief.

Finally, I must come down to what has always received the popular support of all parties - multi-lingualism. My Party has never been opposed to it. We have always been motivated by the idea of efficient despatch of public matters. We are agreeable that any system that meets with popular approval should be given a trial, and a very fair trial. We are agreeable that if it should be tried out in the City and Island Council, no restrictions on dialects and languages should be made, no sections of any population should be debarred from using their language. If it is successful, I believe it will receive also the blessings of my Party.

And before I end, I would like to assure the Government side that whatever proposals or projects that are good for the people and the country will always receive our support. On the other hand, we trust that the Government will serve all sections of the people without bias.

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to express my views on certain planks on the Government's programme as stated in broad lines in His Excellency the Governor's Address to this Assembly at its inaugural meeting on 22nd April, 1955, and the address by the Chief Minister a few moments ago. The programme is, of course, a programme of the Welfare State, which the Labour Front has promised its electorate and now endeavours to present to the people.

In so doing, the Government should bear in mind the fact that in order to carry out the programme it will be necessary to consider how and from where the funds may be obtained. The simple answer that the Government may provide would, of course, be the raising of taxation, but before the Government resorts to this measure it should first explore all possibilities of increasing the revenue and income for the Colony. The Democratic Party has emphasized the importance of expanding trade and industry, and I hope that the Government will bear this in mind in carrying out their programme.

On the Government's policy on education, I am pleased to note that the policy of the Government is to aim at equal treatment for all schools and all teachers in those schools.

The Chief Minister: Point of order. Is the hon. Member permitted to read his speech?

Mr Speaker: The Standing Orders are, of course, against Members reading their speeches, but I have not noticed that the hon. Member has, in fact, read his speech. Carry on, Mr William Tan.

Mr William Tan: On the Government's policy on education, I would like to quote these few words: "the policy of the Government is to aim at equal treatment for all schools and all teachers in those schools". By this I take it that the Government means that it intends to have a common policy for all schools. May I ask the Government, is it for only schools for one particular language, or schools for all languages? And I feel and believe that there must be no discrimination between English and vernacular schools. I feel also that Government may wish to bear in mind the underlying principle that education for all citizens is properly the Government's responsibility, and aids should not be used as reward for behaviour nor lever to secure obedience.

The Chief Minister: Point of order. Is the Chair satisfied that the hon. Member was reading from his speech, Sir?

Mr Speaker: I have not, in fact, noticed anything out of the ordinary. Mr William Tan.

Mr William Tan: On the subject of acquisition of land for public purposes, we note that the Government intends to acquire land. Additional acquisition of lands means additional revenue. Due regard must be paid to the interest of the people whose lands are being acquired, and safeguards must be made to protect their interests. Considerable extent of land has already been acquired - take, for instance, Changi - and this land, I believe, is still yet undeveloped. The Government should therefore reconsider from where this additional revenue may be raised.

Civil Service. I, of course, heartily support the Government's policy of Malayanisation of the Civil Service and venture to express that it should be carried out without undue delay together with the attendant training schemes for local personnel. But I would like to ask the actual meaning of these three words - "adequate abolition terms". What does it mean by "adequate abolition terms"? How do you consider the terms to be adequate? Take, for instance, when we engage an officer, the officer in this case will say that he expects to rise to the rank of a Governor, and the terms to satisfy such an officer may be colossal, and I trust that the words "adequate abolition terms" will be clarified by the Government.