Suspension of Sitting

Motion made and Question proposed,

"That this sitting be suspended until 2.30 p.m." (The Chief Minister).

Question put, and agreed to.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.17 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed on Question.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the speech of the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), much of which was quite commendable, I feel I would like to comment on one or two statements made by him.

First, on the question of the schemes in respect of low housing formulated by the former Government, he asked that credit be given where credit is due. That sounds to me like the cry of a dying swan, crying out for credit and thanks in the last flutter. The necessity for any scheme of low housing was so dire and so desperately acute at that time that the last Government had to do something about it to justify its existence.

Furthermore, his reference to multi-lingualism is most surprising. I think his memory is very short-lived because his great leader, my formidable and Tarzanesque opponent in Katong in the last election, when he was publicly asked whether he or his Party was in favour of multi-lingualism, he shouted out with all the force at his command, "No! Never!" This gymnastic somersault is most surprising but welcome.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, it really amuses me to know that the Progressive Party has thought fit to draw the attention of Government on the question of hawkers. Little does the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) realize that this is a matter for the City Council and not for this Assembly. I quite believe that it is because of the defeat of the Progressive Party that the Member for Serangoon is trying to catch publicity in this Assembly so that by his speech in this Assembly he may be able to hypnotise the hawkers.

I would draw the attention of the Member for Serangoon that in the City Council, when the recommendations of the Hawkers Inquiry Report came under discussion, it was the Progressive Party who caused all the obstructions. As a Member of the City Council, I had put forth a number of suggestions, but to my great disappointment it was again the Progressive Party who are the majority in the City Council that caused obstruction for the betterment of the hawkers. I have also on many instances tried to initiate the implementation of the Hawkers Advisory Board, which was recommended by the Hawkers Commission, but time and again it was turned down. I am again very much disappointed at that. But now the Progressives come forward and claim that they will look into the interests of the hawkers.

I am quite sure that when the City and Island Council comes into being, the Government will take into consideration the vacant lands owned by the Crown, so that the hawkers may have public lands or private lands to erect more shelters for themselves. I have lately in the City Council initiated a suggestion to have prefabricated markets so that instead of putting up elaborate markets at extensive cost the hawkers will be able to put up temporary markets, movable at all times at a very low cost.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak, not as a member of the Opposition though, technically, I am sitting on this side of the House with the somewhat scattered remnants of the once ambitious party who, somehow or the other, miscalculated the intelligence of the electorate and, even worse, miscalculated their choice of songs and dances. There is a lot of speculation, particularly from those who sit on the same side of the House as myself, but whose views are as far apart from me, as from me and the man in the moon. They would wish to know, how long is this Government going to last, when is it going to finish up, and when they will have another bash? To those gentlemen who technically sit together with me I would have them know that the People's Action Party stands for freedom and will fight and support any party that fights for freedom. So long as the parties to which hon. Members on the other side belong strive towards that goal, we in the People's Action Party will be always behind them. We shall be behind them to support them and encourage them and, at the same time, to obstruct them resolutely if they should choose to beat a hasty retreat from their declared goals, which I hope will never happen.

Having prefaced my remarks, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now proceed to deal with His Excellency's Address in which the Labour Front have so gracefully and so skilfully enunciated their plans and policies for this coming session. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is in a spirit of friendliness and constructive criticism that I wish to launch into what the People's Action Party considers this policy statement of the Labour Front.

We are pleased that for the first time since Stamford Raffles, it has been acknowledged that the welfare of the people is directly connected with the early attainment of complete self-government; and for the People's Action Party it can never be too early. We are pleased that in furtherance of this declared objective, Malayanisation of the Public Service occupies an important place, a first place, in the policy statement of the Labour Front, which says:

"In pursuance of these aims (the aims of self-government) the Government intends to give its vigorous support to the policy of staffing the Public Service with locally domiciled officers. Whilst seeking this objective, the Government recognises the just claims of officers recruited from overseas who have taken part in building up the present administration, and undertakes to look after their interests. If any of these officers are found to be redundant as a result of the implementation of the Malayanisation policy, the Government will ensure that adequate abolition terms will be fixed having regard to the interruption of the career which the officer had a right to expect when he accepted his appointment. In the meantime, no more expatriate officers will be appointed without prior reference to the Council of Ministers. The Government has implicit confidence in the continued loyalty of the Civil Service."

Sir, the Chief Minister today has expanded on the statement and said that there will be no further recruitment of any expatriate on the permanent establishment unless it is absolutely essential. We in the People's Action Party are disappointed that this policy of Malayanisation, this declaration of policy, does not go far enough, and has not laid down in more concrete terms, the methods, the ways and means by which this policy is to be implemented.

May I remind the Labour Front that they were somewhat less concerned with quelling the alarms and anxieties of expatriate officers when they framed their election four-year programme? This present declaration of policy is full of solace, consolation and reassurances, of bounties to come and bounties to go. But when they went to the electorate, and they were elected on this programme, they said:

"The Labour Front stands for complete and rapid Malayanisation of the Public Services by domiciled officers. Transients, whose loyalties are elsewhere and who regard Malaya merely as a stepping-stone in their personal careers, may be retained on temporary contracts, coterminous with their utility."

That is a much fiercer statement, more becoming of a very fierce party. But be that as it may, I think the Labour Front can be confident that if it fails in this Malayanisation policy, then it will fail as the Progressive Party has failed, for Malayanisation is the first test of bona fides, your first act of faith. If you say, "I am going to give you freedom, I am prepared to lose my job to give you freedom," then let us see it in the Civil Service. Let us see it in all the Public Services - not just in the Administrative Branches - in the Legal Branches, in the City Council and in the Singapore Harbour Board.

I think it is necessary, first of all, to remember what the present position is. By the constitution of this Colony, the Order in Council, paragraph 11, the supreme power of appointment to any public office is vested in the Governor. It reads:

"Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force in the Colony or to any instructions from time to time given to the Governor under Her Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet or through a Secretary of State, the Governor, in Her Majesty's name and on Her Majesty's behalf, may constitute such judgeships and other offices for the Colony as may be lawfully constituted by Her Majesty and may make appointments (including promotions and transfers) to any judgeship or other office constituted for the Colony, and any person so appointed shall, unless it is otherwise provided by law, hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure."

The Public Services Commission is constituted by local Ordinance. It has powers only to advise and its advice can be ignored. Over and above these powers reserved by the Governor, the Secretary of State has got over-riding powers, by despatch, to appoint any officer in any public service whose commencing emolument is above a thousand pounds per annum.

That, then, is the present situation in a dependent territory, and it is because we are a dependent territory that we were never at Bandoeng. Sir John Kotelawala is in a much more independent position, his Public Service and the power of appointment to it is laid out in the constitution of Ceylon - it is also in our draft constitution - and section 6 of the constitution reads:

"The appointment, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of public officers is hereby vested in the Public Services Commission."

Supreme authority - appointment, transfer, dismissal, disciplinary control. A similar provision exists for the judicial officers in Ceylon, and all the officers on the Commission are local men appointed by the Governor-General of Ceylon, with the recommendation or suggestion of the Government of the day.

It makes a very great difference, these things, for our Public Services Commission does not command any respect or confidence from any member in the Civil Service that I know of. It has been staffed in its Chairman since its inception, by expatriates, ex-Judges, ex-Directors of Education, people conditioned, not out of any wickedness or malice on their part, but by their years of office as professional administrators, conditioned to be unsympathetic to a Malaya that is determined to Malayanise at any price, that is determined to be free, that is determined to have its own men run its own affairs.

It is a makes of paramount importance that if this Government wishes to execute its policy of Malayanisation, there must be a review of the Public Services Commission, its powers and constitution, and there must be a reorientation of the policy of that Commission. I would elaborate on that in a few moments, but first I would like to mention to the Government Benches opposite that if, 136 years after Stamford Raffles, you end up with 68 expatriate executive officers as against 23 local men, all these pious protestations of enlightened, benign, charitable colonial rule just do not stick. I hear the Chief Secretary querying himself. I beg his pardon. 63 to 28 - a little more for the colonial system. If, after all these 136 years, out of that 28, only three were found capable of becoming, not the Permanent Secretaries who embellish the corners of this House, but just Deputy Permanent Secretaries; I would say 3 out of a hundred and thirty-six years makes it an average of 45 years each to produce a Deputy Permanent Secretary; that is the glowing tribute to an Administration which says, "We have come here to give you your freedom. Slowly, gentlemen."

In a Paper before the Legislative Council last year the old Government (which my colleague, who really ought to be on some other side of the House than mine, has praised as part of the achievement of the old Government) adopted this Council Paper in which they suggested Malayanisation was a very important thing, and they should go on with it at the rate of four recruits per annum. At the rate of four recruits per annum to replace the 63 serving officers I should think 16 years will be required, and I believe even his ex-leader said eight years. Sir, I do not know if anybody worked out the arithmetic of that one. But in this Council Paper it is stated in paragraph 11:

"In view of the shortage of personnel in sister territories, where possibly the inflow of qualified candidates is not as great as ours, we would be helping their recruiting position by withdrawing our claims on the services of expatriate staff of the non-specialist category, and review our indents on the Secretary of State accordingly. Sarawak in particular"- God bless Sarawak-"has intimated the difficulty experienced in attracting expatriate officers to her Services because of the superior salary scales offered here. On our part, we can but observe the injunctions in the paragraph from the Command Paper quoted above: it is not hastening, but regarding, the process of gradual assumption of responsibility by local people to continue to be dependent on expatriate staff when the duties involved can be performed just as well by local people. Apart from implementing what is really our recruitment policy, the employment of local staff of equivalent standard in place of expatriate staff represents a definite financial saving."

There is an admission by the Committee which sat on it, including expatriate officers, that the talents of these professional administrators were much more urgently required elsewhere, but they chose to come to Singapore for some altruistic reason connected with the salary scales. And we are asked today, having attracted and retained them because of this wonderful salary, expatriate allowances and pensionable and non-pensionable expatriate allowances, to tell them that we are sorry that since their careers are to be interrupted, they must receive special consideration. As, not my friend, but the leader of the Democratic Party - one of the two, so one must lead - has said, there has been no clear detailed submission of what these abolition terms are; so my remarks here are purely by way of suggestion. The Government has not said what it proposes to do. The Government has declared its intention, declared itself very strongly in favour of compensating and comforting those who may lose their jobs. But I think it is useful to remember the present terms, apart from abolition terms, the present pensionable terms given to a man who is allowed to retire from the Public Service prematurely, on the ground of temperamental incompatibility or for reasons of health; he automatically gets a pension at a very early age of life, whatever his age may be, and for the rest of his life, and he gets a pension if he is an expatriate officer on his pensionable expatriation allowance, that allowance which we pay him to attract and retain him but which we continue to pay him long after we do not want him.

Further, one must remember that it is as well in these matters to reach broad agreement between the Parties in the House because, as the Hon. the Chief Minister will know, no government can bind us, no declaration of intention, no declaration of policy, can bind the succeeding government, or even the government of the day. Speaking for the People's Action Party, I cannot assure any expatriate officer largesse galore and bounties galore. Their rights as public servants will be respected, but we cannot be party to anything which is by way of special consolation.

Finally, Sir, on this question of Malayanisation, I think there is considerable cynicism not only amongst local serving officers, but also amongst local people outside the government service. This business of looking for talented young men and being unable to find them either in the universities or even in the Public Services themselves is one which we have got very tired of. Every year from the University of Malaya, every year from universities in Britain and Australia and other parts of the English-speaking Dominions, returned students come back, and I think it is a brave man who would say that they are not the equal, broadly speaking, in intelligence and grit of any other student anywhere in the world. And yet, we get this dismal story. Where there is personality, for some other reason a man is not acceptable, probably because he holds views not akin to those which are held by the ex-Director of Education or the ex-Puisne Judge who happens to head the Commission and the two gentlemen who sit with him and who certainly have not the confidence of the people reposed in them.

I think immediately a proper Commission has been set up, a review must be made of all cases of people who have been turned down for one reason or another, for there is a very strong suspicion that a man who does not hold the views which the Government would like a civil servant to hold is never allowed to be a public servant. Of course, sometimes a few people do become civil servants and then alter their views so radically that the Government wish they had never employed them. But having employed them and being caught by their rules, they then set about amending the Pensions Ordinance to see how they can set about putting the matter right. I would repeat once more that the first test before this Labour Government is the expedition, the drive, with which they go into their Malayanisation policy.

The Chief Minister: Labour-Alliance.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Labour-Alliance cum colonial government, because let it never be forgotten that it is not the Chief Minister but the Chief Secretary who is in charge of these matters and he has them very well under his control; and I hope he will accept the collective responsibility because it is finally his Chief Minister who must answer to the electorate for his sins of omission and sins of commission.

Now, Sir, it is always said that we, as the Member for Serangoon has said, have no talents. If we have talents, we have no experience. If we have experience, we have no talents. If we have talents and experience, we have no qualification. It is one of those curious things. So in the City Council, for instance, out of 228 Executive Officers, 159 are expatriates and 69 are local; and this, I believe, after four years, or was it six years, of the good Progressive Party administration in the City Council. And I think the City Council's servants and their friends have had a great deal to do with the results of the last election, because local people do not take kindly, when you say, as they said in the case of three very senior appointments in the City Council: "You cannot be the Deputy Water Engineer because Mr White or Mr Black is senior in status." That was said on two occasions. On the third occasion the unfortunate Malayan was senior in status and so they said: "Well, it is very bad luck, but you have not got anti-malarial experience and so you cannot be Deputy Health Officer, and Mr Green will be the Deputy Health Officer because he had one year's special anti-malarial training." That is the sort of thing that breeds cynicism and a sense of hopelessness that there is no good faith in this Government.

Well, I hope the admission of six new blood, injected into the old colonial system, will have changed the whole outlook and character of this Government. In fact, we are looking forward to some drastic changes in its outward manifestations. These are the difficulties you have to face, Mr Speaker, Sir, that unless the Government can pursue this policy of Malayanisation not only in the Government Public Services, but in all the Public Services and, last but not least, in the Singapore Harbour Board, where a very important Public Service is run almost exclusively by expatriate officers, there is going to be a great deal of, I would not call it sabotage, but I would just say, general dislocation, when a really vigorous Malayan Nationalist Government takes over in the very near future, when the Labour Front Government, as I hope, would have succeeded by then in removing the gentlemen who ought not to be in this House. I hope therefore they will give this matter their earnest consideration and, after earnest consideration, their untiring drive and devotion.

Now, Sir, two more important but somewhat less exciting matters like Emergency Regulations. The Labour Front, particularly the Chief Minister, (a very, very able exponent of Socialism, having sat, according to one learned American journal, at the feet of Mr Attlee and one Mr Bevan) has said, perhaps in a moment of exuberance, that he wanted to repeal the Emergency Regulations. Now, Sir, my Party, for some reason or the other, has always been the target for rather unhappy, disconsolate and disconcerted attack-that we are extremists, that we do not stand for law and order, that we deliberately foster chaos, dissension and disaster. I think it is refreshing if this House could be reminded that it was the People's Action Party which carefully weighed and considered the Emergency Regulations, and as its election programme said, not a repeal of the Emergency Regulations, but "repeal of the arbitrary powers of arrest and detention without trial, of the restrictions on freedoms of speech, of assembly and of publication, which are all contained in the Emergency Regulations." It is said with care, with circumspection and with deliberation - as the People's Action Party always makes its pronouncements. We do not issue statements and then afterwards want to retract them, amend them, and, if possible, tear them up and forget that we have ever said them. But it was the Labour Front, in a beautifully printed manifesto which says, as the Member for Serangoon has said, that they were going to repeal, according to the heading, "THE REPRESSIVE LAWS", and I have to endorse, they are repressive laws.

But we either believe in democracy or we do not. If we do, then we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from any democratic process, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed. If a man chooses to carry a hand grenade or a revolver, or some other lethal weapon, in times when the Governor and the High Commissioner have proclaimed a state of emergency, then he takes the supreme penalty the law has laid down for him. But if a political party wants to hold an election meeting, or even a post-election meeting after 7 o'clock, they are told: "We do not believe in democracy after the election. We only believe in democracy once in four years, for one month." That is not the kind of democracy that you can inspire men with, to fight for and die for. That is not the kind of democracy that is going to make it tick in South-East Asia, if you tell us that we can hold a public meeting in the heat of the sun at four o'clock or five o'clock when nobody would come to listen to us, when therefore there would be no real danger of any democratic movement starting, but that we cannot hold a public meeting after 7 o'clock, when by the habits of the workers they would have returned from work, the earth has got cooler, the walls have got cooler, the night is getting mellow and warm speeches can be made. But, no! That is not allowed. And yet, we are asked to believe that this is democracy. I must say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this is a very queer and curious democracy, the definition of which is not in the P.A.P. pamphlets. I sincerely hope the Labour Front will have time - I acknowledge that they have not as yet had time to consider all these aspects for the time being, but I hope they will have the time - to consider whether they would place their faith in democracy.

If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, inconvenience to the traffic, or inconvenience to police officers, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right. There are, of course, a number of relaxations such as the firing of crackers after dark, and I am quite sure that someone has said, I do not know whether it is stated in malice, Mr Speaker, Sir, but it is said that perhaps they wanted the Labour Front supporters to be able to fire crackers, to celebrate their victory after dark. But I am quite sure that there will have to be a great deal of heart-searching on this question of Emergency Regulations.

The Hon. the Chief Minister in his pamphlet and in his broadcasts under the old apple tree, which has stopped bearing apples ever since, has said again and again, "Out with it! It is unjust! We are the inheritors of a magnificent system of justice." Well, let us have it now. Let us now, now that it is in the hands of people who have such fervent and fiery convictions, translate them into action. Let us see whether this fiery demagogue is a man of action. I would say if he would go as far as the People's Action Party, which has said these things perhaps with less zeal or resilience, warmth, fire, expression, but with more circumspection and deliberation, he would have done very well indeed, and he would be assured of the support of my Party.

Next, may I, after being somewhat uncomplimentary on the Emergency Regulations, compliment his Minister for Labour for the prompt assertion and categorical statement that trade unions should be allowed to take part in politics? Some other gentleman who thought trade unions should not take part in politics but should form organizations as they do in America has now been put into premature retirement and I think that is just as well for himself and for the public which he never served. And we also like to express our happiness that this foolish business of preventing Government trade unions from mixing up with other trade unions just in case they get revolutionary ideas about how to deal with their employers, the Singapore Government - we are glad that that is also gone. But let me remind the Minister for Labour that there is such a thing called the Trade Disputes Ordinance, I think passed some time in 1941 - perhaps the Hon. the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong - and it is a copy, more or less, from the English Trade Disputes Act passed in 1927 immediately after the General Strike. It was passed by a Tory Government that was determined to see that there was no other general strike in Britain like the one they saw that year. It was opposed bitterly by the whole British trade union movement, and the first act of the British Labour Government, which had a majority in the House of Commons in 1945, was to pass a complete repeal of this Trade Disputes Act. Now, Sir, I hope I will have the opportunity in the near future of congratulating the Minister for Labour for an equally expeditious despatch of this piece of anti-labour legislation.

And now, to multi-lingualism. Lots of people change their views lots of times, but I have yet to see the cool impertinence, the insolence of the Member for Serangoon. He is either deaf, or perhaps he is a man with considerable courage in telling things which are not true, and we look forward to the energetic advance of the cause of the people, of the non-English-speaking peoples in Singapore from the Progressive Party. Almost everybody lives and learn, even the Progressive Party; but I think it is a little bit too late in the day for them to support multi-lingualism. The former Member for Katong said, "I oppose - with all my strength," and somebody else came up with a policy statement, I believe it was someone very close to the former Member for Katong, the Member for Tanglin, who came up with some great categorical assertions on what is right and proper for Singapore. Having been born and bred in some other part of the world, he must be well qualified to say this. We wish the Labour Government now every success in implementing it; we hope that they will not be beguiled by the suggestions made by the Member for Serangoon into making it a failure. It has got to be made a success. There is a clear mandate from the people; they want it; they want to try it. The principle is accepted, and let us make it work for their sake and for our sake.

I would like to say on education that I was somewhat disappointed. When the Labour Front set out the education programme they said:

"The Labour Front's Policy on education is free compulsory schooling for all children, in English or vernacular schools, for the first six years as a matter of first priority. Thereafter scholarships or grants may be provided in deserving cases."

But, somehow, when it was translated into the Address by His Excellency, the position, I think, has been somewhat diluted. I just would like to make sure that I have not misunderstood it. What they have said is: "The policy of the Government is to aim at equal treatment for all schools and all teachers in those schools. The foundation stone of the policy will be a six-year course of free primary education for all children." It could be construed to mean including vernacular schools. On the other hand, it can be construed not to mean including vernacular schools, and I hope the Director - one gets so used to colonialism that one is apt to refer to the "Director of Education" - the Hon. the Minister for Education will elucidate this at some later stage.

Why has the word "compulsory" been dropped? One must assume that the Labour Front is a party of intellectuals, not all of whom, of course, have had the benefit of a three months' cram course on Socialism, but nevertheless capable of cogent and deliberate thought. There must have been good reason why "compulsory" was put in the programme, and "compulsory" is the People's Action Party's view, for no child should go without education. Now, the Labour Bill. We congratulate the Labour Front in its ambition to try and bring the Armed Services within the Labour Bill, but we cannot congratulate them for not attempting to bring them within all the other Codes, including Workmen's Compensation, the Central Provident Fund as it will be amended, and all the rest of it. Why only the Labour Bill? Why should the Armed Services be in a special position of immunity? Only as and when they please, they would say, "We will be bound by the Code, but only by our leave and licence." It is a matter which affects a very large number of people in Singapore, and I take it that it is because it affects a very large number of people in Singapore that the Labour Front in their four-year programme said: "The Labour Front will seek to provide for similar conditions of service to the civilian employees of the three Services as are offered to Government servants of the Colony." I would not imagine that that was said not purely to get votes, but surely also to see that very large sections, some 40,000 civilian employees in the Army, Navy and Air Force, are given conditions of employment which are akin to those offered by the Crown in its manifestation as the Singapore Government. I would not wish to remind Members on the other side that if you say that the Crown is one and indivisible, then you should act according to your theory and treat employees of the Crown, be they government servants or employees of the Armed Services, on the same footing. It is a matter, I think, which will be received with great approval by the civilian employees of the Armed Services. There again, I hope the Chief Minister - it does not appear to fall within any other Minister's duties - would review the situation.

On the land acquisition and the Torrens system, we extend our hearty congratulations to both the Chief Minister and his colleague primarily responsible, the Minister for Lands and Housing. We hope that he will be able to translate that policy into action as quickly as possible and they can be assured of our friendly and our constructive support. But there is one thing about housing to which I think I must draw the attention of the Member for Ulu Bedok. Perhaps that is why he has chosen rural development.

I think one does not make these promises to a relatively enlightened electorate and then forget to mention them subsequently. If there is an urgent and cogent reason why it cannot be done, then the public has a right to know why. They have said on page 4 of the Labour Front programme:"A reduction of the present interest rates on Government loans to the S.I.T., thereby providing for cheaper rentals for Trust accommodation and carrying this important social amenity to a larger number of the lower income group." Now, Sir, there are a large number of people living in Improvement Trust flats and I believe a large number of them are voters and they have been promised this - as they have been promised by the People's Action Party that if ever they get into this Legislature - an abolition of the interest to the Singapore Improvement Trust. Sir, the Labour Front has said that they believe in subsidized housing. So does the People's Action Party. If housing is going to be subsidized, then the first act it can do, the least it can do, is to remove this piece of businesslike economics on the part of the Singapore Government, supported so ably previously by the Progressive Party and I believe even sometimes by the present Minister for Labour and Welfare.

Some hon. Members: No, no! Never!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Never? I withdraw. But be that as it may, there you are; three per cent interest to the Singapore Improvement Trust. Is it 2�? Whatever it is - 3, 4, and everything breaks even. You collect rent, you pay the caretaker, you whitewash once in six years or whatever it may be, and you pay your Improvement Trust trustees, directors, manager, estate managers, estate supervisors, and you have the profit for it. Then you can go to the people and say, "We have got a sound economy. Singapore is flourishing."

Sir, I do not think these Improvement Trust flat-dwellers are very pleased about the rates they are paying, and I also do not believe that this promise made to them was completely unconnected with the election results. I think they are entitled, if not to a reduction as was offered, to a very good explanation why the reduction is not now being offered.

On the question of this Passenger Transport Board, Sir, the People's Action Party never said, even though they always like to believe these things of the People's Action Party, that they were going to nationalize all these beautiful trams and omnibuses. But the Labour Front did, and nobody said that they were extremists. They said on page 6, "The Labour Front will nationalize the passenger transport system in Singapore", and after that came the announcement that they are going to have a board to fix fares and calculate mileages. How did these things come to pass? One finds it difficult to understand it. Here they say in the Address: "The unsatisfactory state of public transport calls for early action, and to this end the Government contemplates the setting up of a Transport Authority which will include in its functions the allocation of routes and the fixing of fares." What about this nationalisation? Does nationalisation mean the allocation of routes and the fixing of fares?

Now, Sir, the Singapore Traction Company's charter is due to expire in June this year, and a Progressive Party-dominated City Council had expressed a desire earlier that it had no intention of upsetting this system of free enterprise. Free enterprise! We are all free; we are all equal men. If you fail, it is because your luck is not as good as mine and you do not work as hard as I. They said they did not want to upset things. The charter is expiring soon and the City Council can take over this transport system intact. The Company is making profits ranging, over the last four years, from the rate of one and a half million to two million dollars a year, according to their Singapore operative accounts of profits published. But the City Council passed the buck up to the Singapore Government, "We do not think we ought to take over. Why do you not form a Public Transport Board?" But the L.P.T.B. and the Singapore Government then, with all these go-slow, play-safe gentlemen who no longer are here, said: "Oh, no. We do not think we ought to do such things." But I am sure hon. Members opposite are not of the same calibre or the same inclination, even if they are of the same intention as the gentlemen who occupied seats in that old Council which was always placed in the Victoria Memorial Hall, where people hold concerts.

I think action should be taken. The People's Action Party believes that here is a clear opportunity where, without having to pass any Bill, a notice could be given to the Company informing them that by the end of this year the Government intends to put up a Transport Board and take over their assets. There is no cutting short of any expectation involved. And even if operative costs were to go up for some unknown reasons, either because the officers in strategic position decide to retire rather than to make the system function, I think still there would certainly be no loss. There is no loss in any public transport board anywhere in the world. The railways which never make money are always nationalized and the State always pay for it. But private road transport is never nationalized and all the profits go to the directors and shareholders.

I think it is up to the Labour Front to tell the people what they propose to do about this, and I think it is important that they should remember that the responsibility of power should not cause confusion with responsibility to the people who elected them.

Last of all the other points in this Labour Front declaration of policy is the question of national service. The People's Action Party still says in categorical terms that no government that is not elected by the people, no government which has not the right to make wars, or declare wars in the interests of the people, should conscript, should have the right to say: "You will train and you will die for us." Sir, I am no apologist for being anti-colonial. My Party says clearly that we like freedom and we do not like colonialism, and we are prepared to fight it all the way - by democratic and constitutional methods of mass struggle, in case the Attorney-General has any ideas about anything. Now, Sir, Mr Nehru never had to say: "I am pro-British, but I hate colonialism." Mr Nehru spent many years of his life in British prisons in India. He never hated the British personally. And I can assure all these gentlemen here who are not Malayans, that we in the People's Action Party do not hate any Englishman personally because he is an Englishman. Of course, there are some Englishmen we hate for some other reasons. But we are not afraid to say that we are one hundred per cent against colonialism and we are not making any qualification about it by being pro-British. It is a difference of approach. The day I can say, "I am a free man. This is my country", that day I will welcome you as a friendly host would do a guest. But I will not be a guest in my own country. That is our attitude. Mr Nehru never agreed to allow Indian soldiers to fight British battles in Saigon, in Indo-China or in Indonesia. He wrote many a strong lamentation. When imprisoned together with his colleagues, he was helpless and impotent, while the British recruited Indians to fight their battles. No nationalist, no man who says, "I am a Malayan; I am proud to be a Malayan, and I am going to see that there is an independent, democratic Malaya", will say, "Let us train to be soldiers." What for? Why for? Whom are we going to fight? Who is going to decide we are going to be involved in a war or not to be involved in a war? Who is going to be our ally? Who is to be our foe? There is no provision anywhere in the National Service Ordinance which says that a man cannot be sent overseas to fight some other battle in some other battlefield. In my submission it would be un-Malayan to say that our youth should train and fight for somebody else's battles. That is the stand of the People's Action Party before the election, and that is the stand of the People's Action Party now.

And now, we come to the milk and honey, the economy. Before the elections we had some, if I may say so with great respect, Sir, really patriotic, very expressive phrases which stick. "Our economy" - and I am told from very reliable sources who the author of this little bit was - "is to fulfil the urgent need of the rapidly growing population. The Labour Front stands for a reorganization of its economy, now cast in the role of a milching cow." Sir, I do not know why "milching", because I always thought it was "milch cow"; but perhaps it is for the rhythm and the milk in it. And quite good. But what a far cry from this: "We must not alarm our businessmen." If that was not designed to alarm the businessmen I do not know what that was designed for. The Labour Front said categorically: "We stand for reorganization of our economy. We are not going to have this 136-years' trading outpost forever a trading outpost. We are going to industrialize. We are going to do this and we are going to do that. We are going to subsidize this. We are going to make sure that these things are done." They were good things and they are still good things. The People's Action Party still believes in those things, and they hope the Labour Front still does. But this is a very far cry from the anxious reassurances that have been issued time and time again since April the 2nd. Capital will not fly from this country, Mr Speaker, Sir, for one very good reason - because it is making good profits. All the assurances and all the blandishments of the Labour Front and its Chief Minister will not attract one cent here if that one cent is not going to produce two cents by the end of the year. Anyone who cares to pay his fifty cents to the Companies Registry could check the profits and balance sheets of Robinson's, White-away's, John Little's, and United Metal Works. You do not get foreign capital because you are nice to them. You get foreign capital because you offer returns. And there are returns. There is no need, in my opinion, to try and appease these men who say: "Otherwise I am going home, and when I go home, God, you are finished lah." Well, I would like to see them try. They will not go, because we offer them profits. All this scare, all this fright to reassure them is, in my opinion, quite unnecessary. A sober policy will impress upon them this fact, that this country is not interested in having factories and industries for the sake of factories and industries, but in so far as these factories and industries pay high wages, increase the national income and increase the standard of living. We are not interested in trade for trade's sake. We are interested in income, national income, an increase in national income. I see the Financial Secretary doing some mental calculations, but I think I am right. If you increase the national income and you spread it more equitably all around, a larger number of persons will have more money to buy singlets, sandals and short pants, even if they cannot buy bush jackets.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important, in my opinion, that we should assure the Labour Front that a cold, deliberate, calculating policy, as enunciated in their programme, will not drive any capital out and will do a great deal to bring about a more just distribution of wealth. And then you will have no more of these smouldering slag-heap fumes poisoning the air, and we shall have more of the peace and prosperity which we, I think on all sides of the House, even those who belong to some other countries, want here. Because we are attracting and retaining them they would also like to see us prosperous and happy.

And it is this vision which drives the People's Action Party on and on. We have not come here, Mr Speaker, Sir, in order that some laws may be passed and some laws may be unpassed. For us, and I say this, that I am more of a Malayan and more English educated even than the Chief Minister himself; for us it is the vision of a free and independent, democratic Malaya - a small country of seven millions, but proud and free. Proud because it is independent in an Asia which is reasserting its self-respect. We believe in freedom, unconditionally. We have no fears, no terrors because those who have protected us for so long will no longer protect us, because they are not making profits out of us, or because we are not going to pay them expatriation allowances. For us it is this dream, this hope which, in our opinion, is just round the corner; of a Malaya in which all its peoples, regardless of class, race or religion, will be given the same opportunities to live their own lives, preserve their own cultures, even their own languages, in so far as it is compatible with a Malaya which is united together in one common purpose; a Malaya in which all its peoples are dedicated to its own prosperity, its own happiness; and in which there will be none of this bitterness, frustrations, angers, between race and race, religion and religion, or even class and class. That is the Malaya that we dream of, that we will fight for, and, if necessary, go to jail for, and, if necessary, die for. And so far as the Labour Front pursues a policy which leads this country to that goal, the People's Action Party will be with them, as we would be with any party that pursues those aims.

We feel even more strongly, even though we cannot express it with the same bitterness, that all the injustices, all the wickedness of the past, and all these indecent discrepancies of wealth, opportunities, fortunes of the past are things that should never have been and would never have been if there had been an independent government, responsible to the people it was supposed to govern. It was because they had a lot of professional administrators who were determined to do what they thought in their text books and in their experience in other territories was the right thing to do and who got, for the sake of cover, men, supine, servile, bred in a generation that has lost its self-respect, to support them as committee members, men on whom are ultimately showered even K.B.E.'s. That is a Malaya which we are ashamed of. And we say - it is not in His Excellency's speech - we say this from the bottom of our hearts, that we are ashamed of the people who have sold us for so long, those - some people do not like the word - "Quislings". But they sold out the people all the same for very good reason. They believe in peaceful and orderly foreign government. They believe that the local man is not as good as the white man. They believe if you have the qualification you must have the experience and anyway you have not got the tradition. They were the people who for long, long years have made fools of us. And when the people went to the polls on April the 2nd it was they who were rejected, perhaps forever, because Asia today will not tolerate such men. You may be silent before an official because it is prudent to be silent and submissive. But in your heart you neither respect him nor admire him for what he does. And they cast their votes for people who are prepared to fight colonialism. Not because they want disruption, disorder, disaster, but because they, like us, share this vision of a free country where a Malayan who is proud and free can look any man in the eye and say: "I am a Malayan, this is my country, this is my home. I am proud of it, I will make it better and better as the years go by, more just and more just." And it is that Malaya, that dream, that drives the People's Action Party, and that has sent four representatives here to help, to encourage, to exhort, to advise, and sometimes even to admonish the Labour Front a little - always in the hope that it will go for that goal of an independent, democratic Malaya and no other attenuated version. That is our dream, and we hope it is your dream for the sake of yourselves, of the Labour Front and the Alliance, and of the people not only of Singapore but of Malaya.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): I think we have all listened with very great interest, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew). He reminds me irresistibly of the old cock in the story who turned to his admiring harem of wives, having observed the first signs of dawn in the sky, and said, "I am now going to make the sun rise." He then flapped his wings, crowed vigorously and continuously, and in due course the sun rose. Throughout his incursions into the debate the Member for Tanjong Pagar has pointed out the things that we have said we are going to do, and then he says, "I am now going to crow very vigorously to make sure that you do them." I think he is premature in crowing about it; he had better wait and see whether the sun does rise before he makes so much of this.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: But there may be an eclipse. One never knows.

Mr Francis Thomas: The sun still rises even behind an eclipse, is still going up, and finally emerges. The Member for Tanjong Pagar raised one question about Malayanisation, where he referred to one part of this well-known document (Labour Front's Four-year Programme), but I think he has not read on far enough to notice No. 12 of the Four-year Programme:

"The Labour Front will immediately expand technological training at all levels not only for the young but also for those at present functioning in Government service and commercial undertakings with a view to entrusting locally domiciled personnel with the responsibilities that they are now deprived of but which responsibilities are essential for the effective control of our own planned economy."

Speaking in regard to the Departments that come within my own Ministry (Ministry of Communications and Works), there is a very real need for this expansion of technological training. It is useless putting a man to build an airport who does not know how to build it. You will not get an airport out of it. It is a fact that before I got into the Ministry, there had been advertisements out almost on name your own terms for technical people, and nobody has cared to name his terms, because he is already satisfactorily employed elsewhere, and there is that real problem, that you have got to get technical training before you can go on to putting a man into the job.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar also made some complaint about an undue tenderness by the Labour Front towards the capitalists, and assured us that it was quite unnecessary to say anything nice to capitalists at all. I do not mind about that in the least.

I do not know whether he gets the documents of the Socialist International Information -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Communist.

Mr Francis Thomas: Far from it, my dear Sir. It is published by Morgan Philips, or somebody. Anyhow, it comes to me from that sort of source. I have here anyhow the People's National Party Plan for Development in Jamaica. This was their approximate equivalent of our little green booklet -

An hon. Member: Whose?

Mr Francis Thomas: The People's National Party, not "Action", in Jamaica.

"We pledge the fullest support in the maintenance and improvement of all schemes and laws designed to attract foreign capital to Jamaica for investment in local industry. We guarantee to maintain the utmost good faith in our relations for investors, and to give them security and protection in all proper ways. We explicitly repudiate and condemn all talk to the contrary as mere election propaganda."

And this People's National Party is, of course, a member of the Socialist International, and it is Mr Norman Manley, a Queen's Counsel, and a man of very high standing and a very well reputed Socialist, who has just put out a thoroughly - perhaps I had better not use unparliamentary language - a pamphlet about Mr Bustamente's Labour Party, which was no more Labour than other Labour parties.

I refer to one further thing - my eloquence cannot keep your attention for an hour, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar succeeded in doing - the matter of the nationalisation of the passenger transport system. There are, I think, four criteria which should be checked before you attempt to nationalise any industry. I have a note on them in my file, but I think I can deal with them without referring to it. The first one is, of course, that it must produce efficiency, and preferably more efficiency than you had with the un-nationalised industry. Another point is, of course that it must reduce or completely abolish monopolistic exploitation. It must form a part of the overall planning of the economy, and it must be ripe for nationalisation at the time that it is taken over. It is no use nationalising something before it is ripe. And a further point about nationalisation which could be added to the fourth criterion is that in certain circumstances nationalisation is necessary in order to get the capital required for some form of development which you cannot expect to get from private sources. You have to get it from public funds.

Now the nationalisation of passenger transport in Singapore is not a matter of nationalising the Singapore Traction Company. My impression is that they would be happy to sell themselves to the Government if the Government were willing to buy them; and probably a number of other companies would also, in fact have been hopefully looking for- ward to a Labour Front victory with a view to saying, "Now I have got so many routes licensed. Will you kindly take over and I can sit back and live on the profits for the rest of my life?" That is not my notion of nationalisation by any means.

I think that we should nationalise passenger transport, but I am not prepared to say that we should immediately rush out and hand out public funds to a lot of transport operators, some ten or twelve companies, operating on this very small island, until we have gone first through the process of rationalisation and getting things into a reasonably orderly system, from which we can go forward to the next step when the time is ripe. It is not, as far as I know, possible to give exact figures yet for what the cost of nationalising the industry at present would be. If we take passenger transport simply in the usual meaning of buses and trolley-buses, it is probable that the Singapore Traction Company does not represent more than about 50 per cent of the total capital that would be required for the takeover; and there are going to be very urgent and necessary projects which will call for considerable sums of capital, and I think that it is fair to say that with the existing powers, and with the powers that may have to be added, it will be possible to deal with the passenger transport system and to make quite considerable improvements without necessarily immediately having to go over into nationalisation of the whole industry at once. I am not prepared at this stage to indicate precisely what detailed plans I have in mind in this connection, but they will come before this House at. I hope, quite an early date and will provide a more lengthy opportunity for discussion. But I would like to revert to the People's National Party Programme again where they, on a rather similar island, Jamaica, also envisage first of all a radical reorganisation and reform of public transport outside the corporate area, that is to say, the system of passenger transport dealing primarily with the rural areas, which is of course one of the most important parts of the future development of passenger transport.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Speaker, Sir, knowing the temper of this House today on multi-lingualism, he must be a very brave man indeed to explain the stand that the Progressive Party took on this question. Our Party had never made an issue of this question in our platform. We had left it to the honest belief and opinion of each individual member. We were the only Party honest enough not to make capital out of it to catch votes. We found it to our cost, but we were prepared to face the issue and let the people of Singapore know that we would rather lose the election than try something which, to our mind, is impracticable and impossible for the time being. We never said we were against it. Being a Chinese, I would like to see Chinese spoken in this Chamber, but can you, gentlemen, visualise six languages being spoken today? That is our stand. In this election it was impossible, and we made it clear. Mr Laycock on that day spoke for himself. He never mentioned our Party - that was our Party directive - and if he made that mistake, it was the Member for Katong's (Mr Braga's) gain.

An hon. Member: What do you say today?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: We have never been against it. Let us try it out in the City and Island Council. It takes time, Sir, to obtain interpreters. You have to have at least 16 interpreters. You have your additional staff, and it will cost you a pretty penny, which can be much better spent on your welfare work.

Now, after attacking the Chief Minister. I want to give him a bouquet. I congratulate him -

An hon. Member: Orchids.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: - on his very quick action in putting through this legal free aid to the poor. Two or three years ago we took up this question with the support of another gentleman. That failed because of, shall we say, vested interests. I am very glad indeed to see it being pushed through so rapidly, and I think it will have a very important bearing on the new Faculty of Law. It will provide work, a great deal of work, for the young men who will be qualified locally.

The Hon. the Chief Minister started by saying that the law of the jungle was applied to trade in this country, and that the "taipans" of business grew very fat on it. That may be true, but at this time, when we are changing to a Socialist government, let us not be ungrateful, for it is they who have built us this golden heritage. But for them, our Chief Minister may still be speaking under the apple tree instead of in this well-appointed House.

After the uncertainty of the elections, it is most reassuring to see that Government recognises that commerce is the lifeblood of the local economy. This has never been mentioned in the Labour Front's election platform, nor in its Four-year Programme. This has always been the chief aim of the Progressive Party. Tied to this, however, is the encouragement of local industries, and an endeavour to seek more equitable distribution of wealth. The Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) seems to think that just by shouting the words - "You will make profit in Singapore" - the capitalists will come. We shall find that is a great mistake. Without security, stability and without people who wish to invest their money in this country knowing that they are going to get a safe return in future years, you will not get your factories.

One of the biggest aims of this Labour Front is social welfare work. We all agree with this and we shall all support it; but we must be careful not to push it too far, because once you go on with all these schemes there must be all sorts of taxation. And when you have taxation, you are going to curb local industries. When the prices of your local products are too high, you will have to apply controls. Controls mean the curtailment of your entrepot trade. It requires a magician to keep these three undertakings - trade, local industries and equitable distribution of wealth - going together, and we shall wait with great interest to see how our chief magician, our Chief Minister, juggles with these problems.

On the question of housing, I think we are all agreed that it is essential and it is not necessary for any Party to claim any credit. What we want to know is how rapidly and how cheaply will the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) be able to build his houses. In one of the election campaigns I think it was mentioned that loans would be given to people who wish to purchase houses without interest. As a businessman, I have never known how it is possible to obtain money without paying interest.

A most striking note about Government's policy on the question of housing is the problem of clearing of slum and attap areas, and in the Address it was mentioned that it may have to be met by the most vigorous and, in some cases, drastic measures. Well, the clearing of slums has already caused much distress and much consternation. Last Sunday I spent the whole day going through 40 houses which have been ordered to be demolished. These 40 houses are inhabited by 400 people. I have gone and investigated the cases, and I am satisfied that the compensation offered by the Government is, shall we say, by a colonial government, and cannot be one that is to be offered by our Labour Front. Some were offered lands in Jurong, which is about 14 miles from the place where they are to be shifted, that is, on the south end of the Airport.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. Moment of interruption. Mr Chief Minister, resumption of the debate, what day?

The Chief Minister: Tomorrow, Sir, at 10 a.m.

Remaining items on the Order Paper read and ordered for the next day.