DEBATE ON THE GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26th April, 1955],

"That this Assembly expresses its thanks to His Excellency the Governor for his Address delivered on Friday, 22nd April, 1955."- (The Chief Minister).

Question again proposed.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, at the adjournment yesterday I was speaking about the fears of slum and attap dwellers who have to be ejected from their places of habitation to make way for public housing, and we are now very concerned, particularly when His Excellency the Governor in his Address to this Assembly says:

"... and the clearance of slum areas is a challenge which the Government appreciates can only be met by the most vigorous and in some cases drastic measures."

I spent last Sunday with 400 odd people living in 40 houses in the Paya Lebar area on whom notices to quit within one month have been served. Some were offered alternative resettlement in Jurong, 14 miles away from where they are living at present, but most of them were told that they would have to find their own accommodation. Well, I ask you, Sir, how are they going to find accommodation in one month? I admit they knew these things were coming when the land was acquired some two years ago, but, as we know human nature, one always hopes for the best; and now they are suddenly faced with this terrible problem. The compensation offered was inadequate, hardly enough to pay for half a hut, let alone cover the cost of removal and rehabilitation. I am sure if the Chief Minister had seen the misery of these people, he would have spoken with much more feeling than he had yesterday. He would probably have described their feelings of resentment as fumes from hell instead of the slag-heap. Now I am sure that this Government will immediately change this policy and extend to these unfortunate people and to the very, very many more who are about to be evicted the benevolence so well described in their Four-year Programme.

I therefore move the following amendment to be inserted after the words "drastic measures." at line 5, page 6 (line 8, column 8 of the Official Report) of His Excellency's Address:

"In clearing slums and attap dwellings for public housing, or public works like the international airport, Government will provide alternative accommodation-"

The Chief Minister: Point of order, Sir. I would ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member is entitled to move an amendment to the Address. As I understand the procedure, Sir, he is entitled to move an amendment to the motion, which is a motion of thanks for the Address.

Mr Speaker: I was going to raise that question myself, Mr Chief Minister. I was waiting for the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) to complete his submission. Mr Lim Koon Teck, will you carry on?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Yes, Sir.

"In clearing slums and attap dwellings for public housing, or public works like the international airport, Government will provide alternative accommodation and land for farmers and assist in the rehabilitation of the people who have to be moved, due regard being given to the proximity of the place of employment."

Mr Speaker: May I have that amendment in writing?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Yes, Sir.

Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker: The amendment, hon. Members, seeks to amend His Excellency's Address as an Address. Standing Orders provide that amendments can only be amendments to motions, and the motion before the Assembly is, "That this Assembly expresses its thanks to His Excellency the Governor for his Address delivered on Friday, 22nd April, 1955."

The practice, I might point out, is that any amendment to that kind of a motion will have to be an amendment directed at the policy of the Government, so that if there had been an amendment, shall we say, to add the words, "But this Assembly regrets the Government does not see fit to do this, that or the other", then I could have allowed it, but in this particular case I am afraid the amendment is inadmissible.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, in that case, then I move this as an amendment to the motion of the Chief Minister, that while we accept with thanks His Excellency the Governor's Address, we regret that his Address has caused some consternation to a section of the people and that such fears be redressed or removed by the amendment I have just handed in.

Mr Speaker: Can I have that completely in writing, please?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Yes, Sir.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification, Sir. Has the Chair accepted that amendment? I must confess for myself that I find it difficult to understand what was intended. [Interruption.]

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, here is the amendment.

Mr Speaker: Will you read it out, please?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: I ask for an amendment to be made to the motion, to add at the end of the motion

"but regrets that no mention has been made in the Address of measures to be adopted concerning clearance of slums and attap dwellers, and provision of adequate alternative housing and cost of removal and rehabilitation of those who have to be moved".

Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker: I admit it, Mr Lim Koon Teck.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the amendment to the motion.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Sir, I rise to support the amended motion. Originally I intended to speak on this subject, as in the past two or three months, many of the electorate in my constituency have been threatened with notices to quit, and as far as possible I have been in consultation with those land-owners who served such notices.

On the one hand, we have the Rent Control Ordinance, which is very feeble indeed and does not offer any assistance to these tenants who are being evicted. The Ordinance states that the Court may decide in accordance with the hardship suffered by the people, but then we all know that there is no specific direction in the manner in which the matter has to be treated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, nearly 90 per cent of the electorate in the Seletar constituency do live on private estates. They do not own any land at all. If they are farmers or if they are in other occupations, they depend entirely on the generosity of the land-owners. Vast developments are taking place in the rural areas and these tenants are completely helpless. We cannot obstruct development, but at the same time we cannot see these tenants suffer in any way. I feel that the Government should have made some recommendations, or at least indicated what its policy would be on matters of this nature.

I personally have inspected those houses which are affected by the notices and have seen for myself the hardship suffered by these people. I thought of seeing the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) soon after this sitting was over. But since this amended motion has been put forward, I take the opportunity of expressing my views on this matter. I am not suggesting that any immediate reply should be given at this sitting, but I urge that this amended motion be accepted and the Government make suitable enquiries into the possibilities of helping these people. It is all well and good to allot them a specific area miles away from the places where they have lived for many years, but those resettlement camps have not proved to be a very congenial place for the tenants to live in. They have no proper roads, no lights and no water, and nothing to suit the lively atmosphere of these people. I would urge the Government's immediate attention to this matter, and, therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) has read sufficiently clearly that part of the Governor's Address to understand the meaning that is intended to be conveyed; that part of the Governor's Address to which he referred - "the Government appreciates that this challenge to the Government in the interests of attap dwellers and other poorer people must be met by the most vigorous and in some cases drastic measures".

If he reads that carefully I think it will appear quite clearly to him that the "drastic measures" are not intended to mean drastic measures against the poor people by giving them notice to quit - to clear from their permanent homes or temporary homes.

The Labour Front has many achievements, but today it seems its greatest achievement is the conversion of many members of the public, who have no Socialistic ideas in their heads, to take interest on behalf of the poor people. For this reason only, Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment to this motion. It is a clear misunderstanding of the Governor's Address.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, knowing the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck), I am quite certain he has not used this amendment for purposes of political manoeuvre which, on the face of it, does carry every indication of that intent, because what the hon. Member Mr R. C. H. Lim has said, it seems to me, is accurate. If I may read to hon. Members who have not had the opportunity of seeing this amendment - it regrets that "no mention has been made in the Address of measures to be adopted concerning clearance of slums and attap dwellers". I will take the second part afterwards with the conjunctive "and".

Now, there is no question, Sir, of the Government wishing to clear out attap dwellers, but as regards the measures to be adopted concerning slums, may I read again for the benefit of those who only read while running? This is what His Excellency said:

"The imperative and pressing need for adequate housing for those in the lower income group, including the solution of the problem of the attap dwellers and the clearance of slum areas is a challenge which the Government appreciates can only be met by the most vigorous and in some cases drastic measures."

Now it is the clearance of the slum areas, not the slum dwellers, that calls for drastic measures. It must be obvious from the tenor of the entire Address that this is not aimed at the dwellers, but at the areas for the assistance of the dwellers. And we go on, Sir, as regards the measures:

"It is the firm intention of the Government to find the solution to this problem and in doing so it will in the future place more emphasis on the provision of public housing at the lowest possible cost even if this means some lowering of standards."

That is one measure for the clearance of slums - the provision of extremely low-cost housing.

Now, Sir, the amendment adds - it also regrets that we have not mentioned provision of adequate alternative housing and cost of removal and rehabilitation. It seems to be taken for granted by the mover of this amendment, and those who support him, that Government, far from seeking to alleviate the distress of the slum dwellers, seeks to evict them. That is a wholly false reading of the passage. There is no question of seeking drastic measures against the dwellers, but seeking drastic measures for the purpose of demolishing those places and rebuilding them and putting back the original dwellers as far as possible into those homes. Sir, this has been flung at us again and again from the opposite side of the House. If you will permit me, I should like to read a passage from it myself, from the Four-year Programme of the Labour Front concerning the slums:

"The Labour Front believes that no slum problem can be solved by the mere provision of more houses. While the provision of better homes is an important feature of slum clearance, there are other vitally important factors which must be considered in any resettlement plan.

A disregard of these factors has been the cause of the Colony's failure to get rid of its slums.

The Labour Front's plan for clearing the slums is to deal with each area as a composite population unit and to accommodate the slum dwellers in healthier surroundings as one composite unit.

This will call for a careful study of the human ecology of each slum area. It must be known why people choose to remain in an area under living conditions that are unhealthy and dangerous and which they themselves obviously do not like rather than move to homes that are healthier and better serviced.

The Labour Front believes that an important reason for this attachment to such surroundings is that the people work or earn their livelihood by catering to the needs of the communal unit which they have built around themselves over a period of time.

To ask these people to move to a new area, however congenial it may be, without also moving with them the little trades, industries and occupations which provide their livelihood and their recreation, is disastrous to any slum improvement plan."

And now we come, Sir, to the possibilities that open before us today:

"A vast open area close to the centre of the city falls vacant very soon around Kallang Airport. This area ought to be developed into a vast `transit camp', with the purpose of accommodating temporarily the entire population of a defined slum area pending the demolition and rebuilding on modern lines of that particular area. Thus, an entire population of, let us say area 'A' will go to Kallang Airport for a short time, and then return to their original area 'A' after it has been rebuilt for them with every modern facility. No permanent dislocation can take place in this way."

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is along those lines that we are now seeking to find a solution to the question of slums, and I must confess it is with regret that I see an amendment which seeks to twist, quite unintentionally I am sure, seeing the personality of the mover of that amendment, but which, nevertheless, twists the simple meaning of the Address into something vicious and violent, aimed against the interests of the slum dwellers. It would indeed be appreciated, Sir, if this explanation can be accepted and the amendment withdrawn. I can see no useful purpose that it serves.

The Member for Seletar (Mr M. P. D. Nair) has indicated that there should be, with reference to the tenants of private land-owners, a further protection for the poor tenant, and he has also indicated it was his hope to see the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing as soon as this sitting was over. May I say, on behalf of my colleague, that such a visit would be welcome and that the constructive suggestions which are contained in his speech would be carefully considered? But that is not part of the amendment really, Sir, the question of the amendment of the Control of Rent Restriction Ordinance. This amendment arises out of an entire misconception of the meaning of the paragraph at the top of page 6 (second paragraph, column 8, of the Official Report). The drastic measures we envisage are measures of a character whereby we seek to acquire vested landlord interests in slum areas, for the purpose of demolishing those unhealthy units and rebuilding thereon premises which are fit for human habitation.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion before the House is to thank His Excellency the Governor for his Address. His Excellency the Governor has, only in broad outline, given us the policy which his Government will follow. The Opposition is not bound to that policy. They may differ in many ways. There are many points on which they may differ.

Personally I would suggest that the Opposition, who does not like this Address, can either vote against it or abstain. When the policy is being carried out by the government in power now - I do not know how long it will remain in power - the Opposition can either bring or oppose a motion when it comes as the business goes on. Personally I would like to abstain.

Question, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added," and negatived.

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members will probably feel just as hot as I am. I am told that there has been a breakdown in the air-conditioning plant, and the Public Works Department are trying their best to remedy it. Meanwhile I think it would be appropriate if we suspend proceedings for half an hour. It is getting too hot.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 10.40 a.m. until 11.10 a.m. Sitting resumed at 11.10 a.m.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before embarking on the topics in His Excellency's Address to which I wish to devote special attention, I want to answer some of the points made by hon. Members yesterday. I would first like to refer, with some surprise, to the attack made by the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) on the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) for daring to make a reference to the subject of hawkers. May I remind him that the City Council is not the only authority in this matter, because hawkers also exist in the rural areas and the Rural Board is at present under the authority of Government? The Member for Serangoon has, I know full well, done a lot of practical work for the welfare of hawkers, and has recently acquired land for the shelter in Upper Serangoon Village of many of those living in his own constituency. I hope that the Member for Queenstown will have no objection to that; nor if I take, as in fact I have taken, an interest in the hawker problem in the rural areas of the Tanglin constituency outside the West Ward area for which he is City Councillor.

The Member for Queenstown then launched himself into an unsubstantiated attack on the Progressive Party, alleging that it had always been obstructive to hawkers in the City Council. May I suggest that he give examples of the allegations at the next ordinary meeting of the City Council, as he claims that that is the right and proper place for consideration of such matters? In point of fact, as I believe as far as possible in sticking to facts, the Health Committee of the City Council has, I understand, two Progressive and two Labour Front members, the latter being both hon. Members in this House. The hon. Member has therefore had an equal chance to get his policies adopted.

I have noticed that during the course of this debate a number of hon. Members have, to the huge amusement of themselves, enjoyed using the Progressive Party as an Aunt Sally, attributing to it all the ills, real and imaginary, which they consider beset this country. It is as well to remind them of one more fact. The Progressives were not the party in power in the last Government, but a small minority of six in a House of 25. Despite this handicap, an enormous advance has been made in our social services through our efforts, which has made Singapore the envy of many countries. What the people want more than anything is more schools, more medical services, more jobs. Let us see whether the Labour-Alliance Government with a]l the power in its hands, or almost all the power, can do all that much better in the next four years than the so-called Progressive Government has done in the past four years.

A further truth, unpalatable though it may be to some hon. Members, is that the vast change from the Advisory Council of eight years ago to the constitution of today, which the Chief Minister pronounces as workable, would not have been achieved so smoothly or so speedily if it had not been for the hard work put in by the Progressive Party while others stood aside and looked on.

An hon. Member: No.

Mr John Ede: Yes, the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock) was there, but it was not he who moved for an increase in the elected members which led to the present constitution.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: I did.

Mr John Ede: Coconuts may be hurled by hon. Members intoxicated with success today, but let them beware lest those same coconuts turn into boomerangs in the years to come.

But let us get back to an examination of some of Government's proposals. My first wish is to give consideration to the proposals on education, and I must state with regret that the nebulous nature of the proposals gives us some misgivings. In the Labour Front pamphlet to which so much reference has been made, we read the following two sentences:

"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."

That is all. The only merit in the Government's new proposals is that three sentences have taken the place of two, but nevertheless they do not make us 50 per cent the wiser and certainly have neither the sweep nor the comprehension of the Progressive Party proposals in our programme. I wish to examine it sentence by sentence.

The first states that "the policy of the Government is to aim at equal treatment for all schools and all teachers in those schools". As the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) has already said, obviously we require clarification of this statement before we can accept it as more than justifying its high-sounding phrase. Does it mean that the Government will give equal grants-in-aid to all the schools, which we will welcome, or that it will bear equal expenditure per pupil in all schools? Does it mean that there would be equal salary scales and allowances to married teachers as to single, women teachers as to men, English teachers in Chinese, Tamil and Malay schools as in Government English schools? No doubt the Minister for Education will enlighten us on his plans before the end of this debate. But I would like to bring to his attention one of the many inequalities which undoubtedly exist. I refer to the disparity between the special allowances granted to married and to single lady teachers. It is the present practice for principals and specialists, that is teachers, teaching special subjects, to receive special allowances; but whereas unmarried women get the full allowance, married women get only half the allowance. I can see no valid reason why, for example, a principal who is married and having the responsibility of running a girls' school should receive half the allowance payable to an unmarried principal. I hope that the Minister for Education will look into this matter at an early date, for if it is the type of inequality which the Government has in mind to remove, it will have our whole-hearted support.

I now go on to the second sentence:

"The foundation stone of the policy will be a six-year course of free primary education for all children." The Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) has already remarked that the phrase "compulsory schooling for all children" which appears in the Labour Front's platform has been conveniently dropped. The elementary principle that you cannot have compulsory education unless there are enough schools for all children of school age, appears to have been learnt very quickly after the elections, and surely there is a difference between education for all children and compulsory education. The former implies education for all children who wish to avail themselves of going to school. The latter implies legislation compelling parents to send their children to school. And so this statement fails disappointingly short of the Progressive Party programme by failing to state that education will start from the age of six. It has been a matter of regret that the age of admission to primary schools in the previous Government has been tending to change from six years to seven years, and indeed it is a fact that even children of seven years have been unable to gain admission. One would have hoped that one of the earliest acts of the present Government would be to give an assurance that they will take early steps to banish this tendency, and I hope that the Minister for Education will give us an assurance.

Apart from technical education, which I will deal with in a moment, the Government statement, as did its election programme, now falls into ominous silence. One of the biggest problems is how to bridge the gap between the age of 12 at the end of the primary stage and the age of 14, the earliest age at which young persons are allowed to work under the Labour Ordinance as it stands today and I hope as it will be proposed in future. Education clearly must not stop at the six-year course unless a student is found to be absolutely unfit to continue his studies. The Progressive Party policy is quite definite on this point. The poor bright boys must have the benefit of secondary education for two years, or two years trade and junior technical education free.

This takes us on to secondary education as a whole, which the Government statement fails to mention at all. We agree that primary education is the foundation, but it is like putting your essential piling in below ground. You get nothing to show for your money till the real structure above ground, from the age of 12, starts appearing. If we are to continue to provide the country with local men and women who can take control of the higher grades not only of the public service but also of all the other spheres of life in the country, then secondary education must not be neglected in the way in which the Government intends to do, as shown in the statement of policy. Indeed, the policy of the previous Government was to build one secondary for every five or six primary schools, and this still stands, unfortunately, today. Does the Government think this is enough, or will it improve the ratio as it must if it is to turn out a sufficient number of well-educated young men and women fit to serve their country, and if it is to find sufficient competent teachers to man the schools, one of the greatest problems of all?

I pass now to the final sentence of the Government statement: "Technical education. . . will be expanded as rapidly as possible and the question of apprenticeship and training of industrial workers and clerks will be studied at an early date." Apprenticeship and training of industrial workers is of course of paramount importance and is already being tackled. The first task is to attract young people into trades, and surely a Labour Government worthy of the name should be best fitted for this. The test is close at hand. I would draw attention to the fact that during the current week enrolment in the evening classes in 16 subjects has started in the Junior Technical School, which starts its school year next week. Can we be sure that all these 16 classes will be filled up? If they are, then a big hurdle has been cleared and all we have to do is to double, triple and quadruple these as soon as possible. If not, what steps will the Minister take in this important matter? But while technical training at this level is essential for economic development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Serangoon has himself said, we would have expected the Government statement to make at least a passing reference to new schemes for the training of professional men to take the place of the technical experts who, under the new policy, will no longer be recruited from overseas. There is a wide gap between the declared policy of stopping overseas recruitment and the practical aspects of it. I am not suggesting that the policy is a wrong one but it is common sense, having stated a policy, to suggest remedies for the problems arising from it.

Leaving aside today university education which is not, after all, under the direct control of the Government, I can only sum up by saying that the Government statement is extremely disappointing and certainly not very ambitious and does not appear to have taken into consideration the careful balancing required between the different stages of education if the greatest good of the greatest number of students is to be brought about. The present is an indication that the Government will devote its main attention to 100 per cent attendance at primary schools only. Such a bottom-heavy policy, if I may be allowed the expression, would be disastrous, would be deeply resented by the people, and would be strongly opposed by the Progressive Party. Large reserves of money have been built up in the last few years for expansion of education which the new Government is very fortunate indeed to have inherited. It is our duty, as Members of the Opposition, not only to see that it is not squandered but that it is wisely spent to benefit all stages of education.

Sir, I now turn to an examination of the Government proposals regarding the medical services which are also treated in three short sentences. There is nothing new in the plan for expansion of medical services in the rural areas and the establishment of district hospitals and clinics. Nobody can quarrel with that, but what I find disturbing is that the Government appears - I may be wrong - to be modifying and reducing the Medical Plan already approved and in part implemented, and has not gone as far as the Progressive Party programme. The plan of the previous Government was to provide ten cottage or district hospitals, five on the outskirts of the urban area and five in the rural area, one of each being under contemplation in 1955, perhaps still under contemplation, and we presume that the present Government has taken over the scheme lock, stock and barrel. But what we look for in vain is any indication that there will be a policy of real decentralisation of the medical services, although this was categorically promised in the Labour Front's Four-year Programme. Everybody knows that too much has been concentrated in the General Hospital area. That is why the Progressive Party, unlike the present Government, has advocated the building at once of one district General Hospital with as many divisions for diagnosis and treatment as exist in the General Hospital, and that this hospital should be situated somewhere in the Katong-Geylang area where there is concentrated the largest suburban population. Apart from the medical facilities it would offer to the people, it would give a chance to our young local doctors to climb the tree more quickly to specialist posts and provide the necessary encouragement to the much needed recruitment of more of such doctors to Government service. We would like to see an immediate step taken to put a stop to any further expansion of the medical services in the General Hospital area except what is absolutely essential so that a very early start can be made in decentralisation. We therefore view the Government statement with misgivings, as unrealistic and falling short of their promises.

Turning now to the setting up of a Medical Advisory Council, while this may be an admirable move in theory, we hope that in practice it will not mean more talk, more memoranda and less action on the main principles of development of the medical services. We hope indeed that it will put first things first, and the consideration of the National Health Service Scheme second. This scheme is also vague, and I had hopes that the Minister for Health, who has already spoken, would have elaborated on this point. Is the National Health Service to be contributory - that is, will people pay for it out of their weekly or monthly salaries? If so, is Government under-estimating public resistance in such matters? If not, then it is no different from the present system and is merely a piece of Labour Front bluff. The present medical services are free today, right up to and including operations by the leading specialists, to those who cannot afford to pay. If it is intended to draft all private practitioners into a state service, then the first task of the Government is to tackle the main problem of which no mention has been made, that is, for the provision of more doctors. I believe that I am correct in saying that there are at present only 450 doctors in Singapore, 55 per cent of whom are in Government service and 45 per cent in private practice, representing roughly one for 2,667 persons, as against one for 1,100 in the United Kingdom. At this moment there are many vacancies unfilled in the Government medical services. Whether the number is about 30 or very much more, I must confess I am not certain. The average total output of the Faculty of Medicine is about 60 per year, of which one would expect two-thirds to go to the Federation and the balance of 20 to Singapore, though I believe the ratio is rather more in favour of Singapore.

I would further emphasise two points. The present Government's intention is to stop expatriate recruitment. It puts an end to help from overseas, which means that we shall have to fall back on our own limited resources, while the proposed union with the Federation will presumably make matters worse, as across the Causeway there is one doctor to every 9,000 of the population. The fact is that we shall need to do an immense drive to find sufficient doctors to man the new district hospitals to maintain even the present ratio of one to 2,667 of a rapidly increasing population.

The National Health Service Scheme seems to us an empty catch phrase, either for something which we have already expanded or are in agreement to expand, or, if the people have to contribute towards it, for a new form of taxation which will be highly unpopular. We hope therefore that the Government will be able to give us a more reassuring picture of its intentions than we have been able to gather from its statement of policy.

I shall not dwell long, Sir, on the subject of public transport, which has already been dealt with by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), and I hope he will not be horrified to learn that I am in agreement with what he said. At least we have - [Interruption.] I must, however, correct him on one point. Last year the City Council - Progressives and all - unanimously recommended the setting up of a public transport board to run the transport services, in other words, to nationalise transport, and it was the professional administrators who turned this down. We therefore also want to know - and the Minister for Communications and Works was not very enlightening in his reply - what are to be the functions of the proposed transport authority. Is it merely to take over those duties performed by the City Council, which is the present transport authority? If so, then it is a change only in form and not in substance, for it will mean that the Singapore Traction Company and all the other private enterprises now given monopolies to run a very essential service will continue to enjoy their monopolies, at least until "the time is ripe", whenever that may be. A very surprising policy for a Socialist Government to adopt, and all the more surprising when the policy of nationalisation was an election pledge. The question is therefore a simple one. Is the Government going to implement its election pledge or is it not? If it is not, then the public of Singapore is going to have transport run by private companies for another seven years, from roughly the end of this year until 1962.

Sir, the next matter on which I wish to touch is the Banishment Ordinance. If there is to be an examination of the Emergency Regulations, it is quite clear that a similar examination of the Banishment Ordinance is in order, and we welcome it. In this connection I would draw the attention of the Chief Minister - or should it be the Chief Secretary? - to one point. At the moment, persons born in Singapore, Malacca or Penang cannot be banished, while persons born in other parts of the Federation, although they may be resident in Singapore, and indeed on the electoral register, can be banished. This seems to me illogical at any time, but even more so today when the Government is contemplating early union with the Federation. I seek an assurance that, as the Banishment Ordinance is to be reviewed, all cases of persons due to be banished shall be stayed forthwith and reviewed individually. It would clearly be unjust to banish a man now for reasons which may be revoked in a month or two. I hope that the Government will give this assurance before the close of this debate.

One more matter and I have done. I wish to refer to what I consider another serious omission in the Government statement, namely the action proposed to be taken to put an end as far as possible to serious flooding. I have no doubt that other hon. Members are interested in this matter, but none more than I myself as Member for the constituency of Tanglin. Hon. Members may have different opinions as to whether the floods are the more serious in the Bedok, Geylang Serai, Whampoa, or Bukit Timah area, but I must bring to the attention of Government that the present extensive building programme development in the Bukit Timah area is producing conditions whereby after any very severe storm of no more than one hour's duration, the Bukit Timah canal is liable to overflow its banks to produce hardship, suffering and considerable inconvenience. That is a very serious position. However, I am glad to say that from my own observations and from what I learn from the villagers themselves, the new Ulu Pandan pilot scheme, which strangely enough lies for the most part within the Tanglin constituency, seems to be a success. The pilot canal is taking water away in a westerly direction towards the Ulu Pandan River and has put an end to serious flooding in the immediate area. The way therefore seems to be clear to tackle the major scheme - admittedly a gigantic one - of taking the waters of the Bukit Timah-Alexandra area away to the sea and away from the city. I hope that the Government will not fail to tackle this problem as urgently and energetically as they have undertaken to tackle other problems.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I ant a businessman and I am not moved by eloquence. On this very floor I have heard many brilliant speeches. As a businessman I believe in results.

Sir, I am not a member of the Progressive Party, nor is there much love lost between me and Mr C. C. Tan, but I am sorry to hear the uncharitable remarks made by the Chief Minister now in his responsible position.

Sir, yesterday the Chief Minister dwelt on the British Government's generosity of giving independence to various countries. I rose on my feet and tried to stop him on a point of order, but you, Sir, allowed him to proceed. Well, if I say anything now, if the British friends are displeased, the blame should be on the Chief Minister for his ignorance and ignorant remarks. No country in the world, or rather no colonial power in the world, has ever given freedom on a plate, unless with a struggle. I was rather astonished at the freedom granted to India. There was no freedom granted at all by anyone. It was fought for and got from Britain. Sir, it was an insult to the thousands of patriots who suffered in jail, lost their lives in jail, and who struggled for 50 to 70 years. [Interruption]. Yes, I was born there and I had seen many lathi charges by the British - [Interruption]. I hope, Sir, I will not be interrupted. If it is allowed, Sir, it will be our privilege to do so also. Well, Sir, the British have left not only India, but Palestine, the Sudan, and for that matter many countries, but left those countries divided with bitter feelings. Now, Sir, Asia has attained freedom except this part or this colony. His Excellency the Governor naturally did not touch on independence. When our Chief Minister stated that we were to have self-government within four years and independence afterwards, I was rather very much amused. Why wait for four years when the surrounding countries are quite free? We are working this constitution. Why not demand now; within six months self-government at least; and why wait for the Federation? The Federation has got its own problems, the Sultans and their subjects. There are the British territories of Penang and Malacca. On the other hand, this is a British colony. We can demand freedom or independence, and if we are free we can also free our neighbour. I think my British friends will forgive me and blame the Chief Minister for bringing up this subject.

Now, Sir, His Excellency the Governor's assurance that no expatriate will be employed unless with the knowledge of the Ministries or members of his Ministries - I do not think I am satisfied with this. Sir, it has been said that it was the Progressive Party who was responsible for this motion, and the Progressives took the blame for being rather slow in its implementation. Sir, this was my motion moved on the 18th of November, 1952, that there should be Malayanisation. A committee was appointed, and their report appeared sometime in 1954. Well, there will be some questions by me, that is, when I moved this motion in 1952, between that period and the period of the report, how much hurry was made to get expatriates appointed. I will make this subject my next question in the Assembly. Not only that, Sir, but after the report was published, how many more were appointed before this Assembly came into being. It will be very interesting to know if there are very few posts left for further appointments for the local-born, and whether we will have to pay a very high price for abolition terms.

Sir, I am glad it is realised that Singapore's economy depends on its entrepot trade. Also His Excellency the Governor and the Chief Minister have made remarks that various services should expand. Well, that was nothing new. During these last seven years the Legislative Council, then existent, had passed so many welfare measures - medical, education, social and others. Our income is limited. We have got no natural resources of our own, none whatsoever. We only depend on the entrepot trade, but that trade is mostly with Indonesia, and Indonesia is also very conscious of this trade passing through Singapore; and naturally every country will try for its own betterment. Then, Sir, where is the income coming from? We have got only limited resources. Higher taxation? Well, you will drive away foreign capital. What is the other alternative? I might try to suggest one or two for the benefit of the present Government.

Sir, in 1952, the Government, in reply to my questions in the Legislative Council, said, "The amount of hard currency earned by Malaya as a whole was $377 millions, and for Singapore $50 millions." I have questions for this Assembly to which I hope to get replies, possibly on the 24th of May. Now, Sir, this hard currency belongs to us. This is our own earning. It should be retained for the benefit of the people. The gold dollars if we have with us we can utilise in many ways. We can import goods which will bring down the cost of consumer goods. That means the masses will have to pay less. Their spending power will increase. But what is happening up to now? Our hard-earned currency is given to the United Kingdom, I do not know on what terms. I am waiting for the answer, out whatever the answer may be, I will move that this should be retained for the benefit of this country and should not be handed over to anyone, unless on certain terms. We can utilise it to our best advantage. But today, Sir, what is happening? We are getting consumer goods from hard currency areas, from Hongkong. Malaya has to pay black-market rates for our own consumer goods. Our masses pay higher rates. Why cannot it be utilised by importing direct, and utilise these gold dollars for ourselves? That is one way of saving, which is quite a lot.

The other thing is income tax. I think this Department must be tightened so that the evaders may be brought to book and we can get more money from them. If you think of higher income tax, well, you have got to look at the Colony of Hongkong. They are paying much less than what we are paying. In any case, I hope the Government will be very careful to find the money and use means which will not drive away trade from Singapore.

Sir, one more remark. I think it was the Chief Minister who said about the Progressive Party, that they did not do this and they did not do that. But, Sir, in the Legislative Council there was no unofficial elected majority at all. The Government used its official votes or the nominated votes. What is happening today in this Legislative Assembly? You have got four Nominated Members and three Official Ministers, and today the Government is doing the same thing. This is an evil, and this evil must be removed immediately.

I was rather amused when the Chief Minister yesterday, Sir, spoke about the coolie. I think the better term used today is "labourer", not "coolie". The labourers are insulted: but it was rather an old term to use. Then he was rather unhappy that a labourer earned only $31. Well, I will take this up when he gets through the next motion, his princely salary: How much is he going to cut from that and hand it over to those labourers?

Sir, the last thing I want to say is that it is very undemocratic to have a ban on public meetings. It should be removed immediately. That is common law. If anyone were to say anything which is seditious, the law could take its own course. But I say this, that it is very undemocratic. The ban must be removed forthwith.

Mr R. C. H. Lim: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened with much delight to the speech of the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede). He seems to be also a convert to Socialism. His speech was not only delightful, but also amusing, and amusing indeed when he accused, in anticipation, that the Government might not go far enough to cover even the programme which the Progressives had in anticipation also.

He said, Sir, that there is at present free medical treatment. That is so on paper; that is so to a very small body of the poor people. A single visit by him to the General Hospital Outpatient Department or to the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital will be sufficient to convince him that the poor have very little chance of free treatment. The queue seems to be an endless one. A poor person is lucky if he gets attendance at one of these hospitals if he called at ten o'clock, and by four o'clock he has been attended to. It is the policy of this Government to remedy that.

It has been wondered, Sir, why the word "compulsory" was left out in His Excellency's speech when applied to education. It is not yet time to make education compulsory because the schools and the teachers are not yet ready.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Why put it in the programme?

The Chief Minister: It is a four-year programme, and not a two-year programme.

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr R. C. H. Lim: I am very much obliged to the Chief Minister, Sir. Our programme is a four-year programme, but at the moment we realize that if we were to make free education compulsory, that legislation will come to nothing and will cause hardship and embarrassment to us. Now that part of the programme of the last Government, Sir, which falls within the provision of our objects and our four-year programme will certainly be carried out, and I give that assurance to the Member for Tanglin.

Yesterday, Sir, I had the privilege of hearing very long and interesting speeches by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew). So much of his speech that has not displeased me I must say I have enjoyed. In fact, I must say that I did enjoy a large portion of his speech to such an extent that I began to wonder and wondered why in this modern world of ours, ghosts still exist. It seems that the ghost of the Government has turned itself into an excellent solicitor, giving the Member for Tanjong Pagar such an excellent brief that he was able to put in words what the Government has in mind and under its serious consideration. For that, Sir, we must express our gratitude to him.

I would like to take one example of his speech, that is, his remarks relating to Malayanisation of the Public Service. His remarks had pleased me except to this extent: because we, the Government, feel the Government must honour its obligations, legal or otherwise; when an overseas employee of the Government has been found to be redundant, the Government must provide sufficient compensation for the earlier termination of his service.

On the point of the National Service Ordinance, the Government has under its consideration this Ordinance with a view to introducing appropriate amendments, but while we are expecting self-government and independence round the corner, we must prepare ourselves for that self-government and independence, and before it comes, it may be well that we train ourselves sufficiently well enough to be able to look after ourselves.

I have heard also, Sir, the interesting speech of the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck), who said that he is a businessman and as a businessman he cannot appreciate how the Government could lend money without interest. Government, Sir, is not a businessman and should not try to be one. Government can venture to help those who are in need without any idea of making profits, and that is the definite policy of this Government when it declares itself ready to lend money without interest to those poor people who want to buy a house for themselves.

If the Member for Paya Lebar had allowed himself the opportunity of enjoying one of the speeches at least of the Chief Minister under what they call the "apple tree" - I should call it a "durian tree" - he would have heard that the Chief Minister declare under that tree that the Labour Front does not intend to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. In fact, the Labour Front wishes to feed that goose with new capital, with new industry and such other nourishment, so that the goose may be able to lay more golden eggs, not only for that goose but for all those who are in need.

Now, the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), Sir, also appears to have gained some Socialist ideas. He appears to be interested in Boys' Clubs, but he made this statement which is not correct, that all Boys' Clubs in Singapore are being supported and run by private organisations. More Boys' Clubs are being run by the Social Welfare Department, and the Boys' Clubs that are being run by private organisations have received financial and other help from the Social Welfare Department. He wants credit to be given where credit is due. From the last Government we received a legacy of a reserve fund of about a hundred million dollars. I do not like to give credit, Sir, to any government or any public body for having a large reserve fund when the members of that public have so much to ask for and their requirements have not been attended to.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully associate myself with all the observations on the Governor's speech made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew).

There are some points in the Governor's speech that could be commended; there is also much to be said against it.

As one who has had close connection with employees of the Armed Services, I have this to say: the locally enlisted employees of the three Armed Services in Singapore so far have not been bound by the labour and social legislation of this Colony.

The Naval Base Labour Union at one stage boycotted the election to the Legislative Council because the workers felt very strongly, and rightly too, that as long as the Government of Singapore, no matter what its constitution might be, was powerless to enforce legislation in the Armed Services, so long would it be futile for the workers to participate in the political life of this Colony.

The Governor's speech alludes to the likelihood of agreement being reached with Her Majesty's Government that the Labour Bill should cover all civilian employees of the three Armed Services recruited in Singapore. This is a very far cry from what we expected and wanted. What we seek and what we have every right to have of any self-respecting government is not only the voluntary acceptance by the Armed Services, but what we want is unconditional and obligatory application by the Armed Services of such legislation.

We are surprised that the new Government should appear so uninterested in asserting legislative authority throughout the territory of Singapore. The locally enlisted employees of the three Armed Services in Singapore number about 40,000 and constitute one-sixth of the total labour force in this Colony. As far as the 40,000 locally recruited Services employees are concerned, the right to vote and to elect representatives to the Legislature will remain a barren right while that Legislature is powerless to better the workers' working and living conditions. The trappings and paraphernalia of a democratic form of government may be present, but unless that government has the power to improve the workers' working and living conditions without having to consult the Imperial Government, I maintain that that government is a mockery and a sham. It is to be hoped that the Government of Singapore will insist on unconditional and obligatory observances of all social and labour legislation by the Armed Services and not just plead for voluntary acceptance of such legislation.

As a representative of trade unions, I am also particularly concerned over the present labour unrest in the Colony. I take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for Labour and Welfare in trying to settle all these labour disputes. The first dispute that the Minister has to deal with has been the dispute in the Singapore Harbour Board. It is to be regretted, however, that the labour situation has reached a deadlock. There is angry discontentment among the workers of the Harbour Board; so it is among the other workers of the Colony. Poor wages and obnoxious working conditions are obvious reasons for discontentment. Mismanagement and mishandling of personnel may also be another cause.

The workers have been exploited for much too long. I therefore suggest that the present Legislature should legislate in the interest of workers. Any tentative or half-hearted approach to this issue will be not only derogatory to the dignity of this Assembly, but would also constitute an insult to the people of Singapore.

Mr Lim Ching Siong (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government, we have been told in the Governor's speech, is anxious not to damage the fabric of security and it is therefore going to ask this Assembly to adopt the Governor's Proclamation extending the period of emergency for another three months. What does the Governor mean by "the fabric of security"? Security for whom? Security for a colonial system! The Government is not interested in the security of the people from detention without trial. Is the Government interested in the security of the people's democratic freedoms of speech, assembly, expression and organization? If the Government is sincerely interested in the security of the people's democratic rights, why does it seem to have difficulty in making up its mind to repeal immediately the Emergency Regulations? The People's Action Party is only interested in securing the democratic rights of the people and these rights are seriously attacked by the Emergency Regulations. We therefore say that any government which really represents the people cannot tolerate, even for one minute, any law which attacks the democratic rights of the people.

The Governor knows the decision of the people on the Emergency Regulations. The people wanted the repeal of the Emergency Regulations because they wanted back their lost freedoms of speech, expression, assembly and organization; because they wanted to end the untold sufferings and unhappiness caused by these regulations; because they wanted freedom from arrest by the almighty police force armed with arbitrary powers. It is this thing that the people had in mind about the regulations.

The people ask for fundamental democratic rights, but what have they got? They have only got the freedom to fire crackers after seven o'clock in the evening. The people ask for bread and they have been given stones instead.

It appears from the Governor's speech that the present Government intends to continue with national service, but the elected representatives of the people have still no control over foreign affairs. What guarantee is there that our young men will not be used as cannon fodder to fight other people's battle for them? Do the people of Singapore and Malaya have any choice of their friends or their foes? How is it that although the people of this country are supposed to be unfit for independence, they are considered fit to die for the interests of other peoples? The People's Action Party believes that only an independent government has the right to ask the people to take up arms to defend their own country.

Further, the people of Malaya want peace. They are not intent on or interested in the war plan of foreigners and if there is a war in Asia, our young men fight their fellow Asians to defend the interests of the foreign powers in Asia. Are Asians to fight Asians, as President Eisenhower of the United States publicly intends?

The Malayan people now learn from the newspapers that Australian and New Zealand troops are now to come to Malaya to defend us. Defend us against whom? Against ourselves! The Malayan people were never consulted by anybody on this matter. Are the elected Members of this Government prepared not to place the fate of the people in the hands of all kinds of foreigners? Will the elected Members of the Government respect the dignity of the people and demand that foreign troops should not be allowed on our soil and make our country a military base for foreign powers? The elected Members of the Government can be certain of one thing. If there is not a -

The Chief Minister: Point of order, Sir. During this short period we have been getting accustomed to election speeches, but nevertheless I must point out that the question of external defence has no reference to the matter of the Emergency, of the subject now discussed, and is not in any part of the speech of His Excellency and that it is no part of the functions, unfortunately, of the Government under the present constitution. It is a matter entirely for His Excellency's reserved powers in respect of which he has supreme authority.

Mr Speaker: I am glad that the Chief Minister has raised this point of order. Mr Lim, any attempt to say anything now about the defence of this country by, as you called them, "foreign powers" is completely out of order because that function has not been stated to be within the policy of the present Government. It is also still one of the reserved powers of the Governor If you wish to try and remove those reserved powers of the Governor, or discuss the subject further, you can do so by a substantive motion or otherwise some other time; but this, I do not think, is the proper time.

Mr Lim Ching Siong: Education. I know that the Governor's speech contains no clear statement of education policy. What is the Government's policy towards vernacular education? Do we accept the principles of the United Nations Charter that the right of every community to develop its own language and culture must be respected, or we carry on with the present policy of discriminating against vernacular education? The present education policy is a colonial education policy. Therefore education in the mother tongues of the people is not respected and encouraged by the Government. The present Government must replace its policy with a democratic education policy which will respect and encourage the full development of the mother tongues of the peoples which are Malay, Chinese and Tamil. The People's Action Party will not accept an education policy the aim of which is to produce black and yellow Europeans. The Governor's speech mentions equal treatment for all schools. Does this include financial provision for vernacular schools equal to that provided for English schools? And does the Government intend to remove the conditional grants-in-aid for Chinese schools?

Next, what about equal treatment for teachers of vernacular schools? At present there is a big difference between English school teachers and vernacular school teachers in their salaries and conditions of service. This alone has proved to the people that the Government does not want to encourage vernacular education and is only interested in encouraging English education. If the present Government wishes to prove its sincerity to vernacular education in Singapore, it must give equal treatment to teachers of English schools and vernacular schools.

Government have all along been in complete control of Malay education in Singapore; yet Malay education is very backward in Singapore. Malay education here stagnates at the primary school level. Why has it never been developed, like English education, up to Senior Cambridge? Because the Government has never been interested in encouraging the development of the Malay language and culture. I hope that the present Government will change its policy towards Malay education and help to preserve the Malay language and culture instead of killing it. After what it has done to Malay education, the Government now wants to control Chinese education completely. Why does Government want complete control over Chinese schools? Is it in order to reduce Chinese education in Singapore to the same poor condition as Malay education? Is this the reason why the Government is trying to convert the Chinese language in Chinese schools into a second language? Under the present education policy there is every danger that the Government wants to introduce English in the Chinese schools, not as a second language only, but as the main language. We hope that the present Government will try and remove all the present dangers to vernacular education by adopting a democratic education policy.

Trade Unions. The Governor's speech promises that all possible assistance will be given to strengthening the trade union movement. The People's Action Party would like to ask how the trade union movement can grow strong under the Emergency Regulations. The class of people who have suffered the most under the Emergency Regulations is the working class. The Emergency Regulations hold the trade union movement by the throat. The working class can hardly breathe. Under the Emergency Regulations the real rulers of the people are the Special Branch. The workers and trade unionists are threatened and intimidated by police spies and informers, who try to wreck working-class organizations from within. The final weapon of the desperate worker living under intolerable conditions is the strike weapon, but even this weapon loses its effect under the Emergency Regulations. The fourteen days' strike notice required under the Emergency Regulations gives employers plenty of time to hire "black legs" and make other arrangements to break the strike. The employers enjoy all the advantages under the Emergency Regulations because these laws are directed against the interests of the working class. If the Government really wants to strengthen the trade union movement, let it first of all repeal the Emergency Regulations.

The Central Provident Fund Ordinance. We are told that the Central Provident Fund Ordinance is under examination with a view to further amendment. I hope that the Government is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction among workers against this Ordinance. The wages of the workers today are already too low to meet the basic human needs of the workers and their families. The bitter struggle for existence will become harder for the majority of workers if they are forced to contribute 5 per cent of their low wages. The Government does not seem to be interested in the present insecurity of the workers. Strangely enough, the Government pretends to be interested in the future security of the workers, but not in their present security. It is very difficult for a worker to make sense of the way in which the minds of the authorities work. First, let us improve the present which is hard enough for a worker. Then we can take care of the future.

Finally the Governor's speech gives the illusion that the present Government is somehow fundamentally different from the previous Government of the Colony. I warn the elected Members of the Government not to fall victim to this illusion. They form part of a colonial government, and the real rulers are not present in this Assembly. They are thousands of miles away in the Colonial Office in London. If the elected Members of the Government think that they can reform colonialism, they are sadly mistaken. They might be fools, but let them remember that the people can never be fooled. The People's Action Party says that there never has been and never can be any substitute for full democratic and complete independence. The people never say, "Slow progress to self-government." The people say, "Merdeka!"

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of explanation. Mr Speaker, Sir, yester- day I apologised to the Hon. the Chief Minister for somewhat misquoting him, but I feel it is my duty, before he rises to reply to the motion which he has moved, to quote accurately what he had said, or, if I may say so with all due respect, what he had placed in a written peroration in the issue of a newspaper dated 31st of October, 1954, under the heading "I BELIEVE" and sub-heading "Frustration":

"I believe the Rendel Constitution of next year is out of date today. The retention of the portfolios of finance, administration, and internal security and law means the retention of the pivotal positions controlling the direction, pace and content of our development. It is fraught with dangers born of bitter friction and frustration if strong men are elected. It is colonialism unchanged in its character, with local men to receive opprobrium for unpopular measures."

That, Sir, was the 31st October, 1954.