Suspension of Sitting

Motion made and Question proposed,

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

Question put, and agreed to.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.38 p.m. until 2.30p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed on Question.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, if as the Chief Minister claimed yesterday he is friendlily disposed towards the British, I think he might have spared us the harrowing scenes he drew, depicting us as a race of slave-drivers. Such a description might have been well fitted to a pre-election speech, but I think most inappropriate at the present time and liable to create inter-racial bad feeling. It was, of course, a magnificent vehicle for oratory of a very high order, but beyond that, I cannot see that it has any merit in it.

He used the word "taipan" scornfully. I do not know, unless he was anticipating multi-lingualism, why he used this particularly Chinese word. I myself was described five years ago in China as a "taipan", and I suppose I must still be one. But I never thought for a moment of the word as being opprobrious.

One gathered from the Chief Minister's speech that the rich of this country are those wicked "taipans" and colonial masters. But is this really true? I suggest to you that most of the British businessmen, certainly in this town, are salaried officials. In no sense do they control the wealth of this country and there are certainly no millionaires amongst them. There are millionaires in Singapore; quite a number of them; I believe they even have a club, but they are all Asian.

I am not so sanguine, either, of the views of the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) that capital will continue to flow freely into this country even on a one hundred per cent per annum motive. Capital is very susceptible indeed to insecurity and takes wings very quickly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking as usual only for myself, I cannot understand why the wicked "taipans" should be regarded as the arch criminals worshipping only at the shrine of mammon. Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Minister's own ancestors came to this country to seek their fortune, as I did, unless of course they were missionaries, and I would say the same was true of the ancestors of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, whose vitriolic denunciation of the vile British made me feel even more -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of explanation, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would just wish to ask the Nominated Member, Mr Sutherland, whether at any stage in the proceedings yesterday I had used the words "vile British"?

Mr Sutherland: I apologise, Mr Speaker, if I anticipated or rather suggested "vile", but if he did not use the word, he certainly implied it. At least that is my interpretation of it. Anyway, the Member for Tanjong Pagar's denunciations of the British, I say, made me feel even worse than the Chief Minister's speech did. Fortunately the Member for Tanjong Pagar continued or rather attenuated his sermon and threats to the Labour Benches for so long that the feeling began to wear off.

But, Sir, if we admit the frightful misdemeanours of past generations of professional administrators - I am sorry that that has also become a term of opprobrium but obviously it has - they governed this territory to the best of their ability, and whether or not the coolie played the major part in laying the foundations of its prosperity, nevertheless every ancestor of every Chinese in this House, I suggest, was glad, like any other prospector for gold - to use the Chief Minister's analogy - to come to this country, forsake his motherland and seek protection under the British flag. What is more - the immigrant retained the full privileges of his religion and creed. He was even allowed to take as many wives as he pleased, which his colonial masters could not do without being flung into prison - though why anyone should want more than one wife I cannot understand.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar doubts the bona fides of the British Government to grant early independence to these territories. I think he is wrong. Why cannot he be a little patient? Men of his intellectual attainments do not grow on every tembusu tree, and when he states that this country is ready now for self-government, in my opinion, just my own opinion, I think he is allowing his heart to rule his head.

Sir, one word on the Emergency Regulations. The Emergency Regulations, as I see them, must be to all free men repugnant. But they are necessary; they are necessary for one reason only: that we are fighting an enemy, an enemy who uses as weapons murder and extortion, and for that reason only they must remain in force.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have had the opportunity of listening to many eloquent speeches both yesterday and today, some of which are the repetitions of one another, and others, I regret to say, are electioneering speeches. I do not want to make a long speech to tax the patience of hon. Members, and I will confine myself to matters falling within my sphere of responsibility.

The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) stated that there is no mention of higher education in His Excellency the Governor's speech and he felt that no amount of primary education would serve the purposes of training our people fit to take up positions in the Public Services the Malayanisation of which has been the subject of attack. I wish to ask the hon. Member a few questions. Why is it that this city, the tenth busiest port in the world, is suffering an acute shortage of secondary schools? Why is it that we now face a flood of complaints that teen-age children, after their primary stage, cannot find admission to secondary schools? I need not go into details, but hon. Members will agree with me that the cause of these complaints is the fault of the previous governments. I do not propose to gloss over the fault of somebody else nor am I here to hide behind that cloak and do nothing about it. I assure hon. Members that it is the policy of this Government to do all it can to speed up the construction of secondary schools, provide more places in schools than has been possible hitherto, and to this end I am sure I have my colleagues' support to put right what has been wrong and to execute the policy that has been clearly stated in our programme.

I also wish to clarify one further point to which the Member for Tanjong Pagar and other Members have referred, and that is equal treatment for all schools and teachers. The word "all" includes English, Chinese, Malay and Indian schools and teachers. So our hon. Friend will have no more qualms about it.

Coming to the question of the Singapore Polytechnic, I want to make it clear that this project has, since my assumption of office, been my first concern, and the present Government will see to it that what has been put down on paper will be translated into action.

By expanding education and by the provision of more schools and the Polytechnic, I have full confidence that the youth of Singapore will benefit by them.

I am grateful to the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede) and the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) for raising several points this morning, and I can assure them that all those points have, since I took over the Ministry, been my concern; all the points have been under examination and the Council of Ministers will give me full support in deliberate consideration and careful thinking.

Finally I want to assure this House and the people of Singapore that it is Government's aim to mete out equal privileges and rights to all schools, be they English, Chinese, Malay or Indian schools. There is no question of Government trying to stop the development of any vernacular languages, and the difference between English and vernacular schools should be looked into and will be the subject for consideration by me as soon as possible.

The Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I came to this sitting with the firm intention of keeping my mouth shut, but the debate has proved to be very curious indeed, so much so that I feel I must add a few comments on the antics of some of the Members sitting on the opposite Benches.

At first sight, it would seem that some of them have not yet got over the election fever which had them in its grip since the last few months and therefore they were continuing their election speeches in this House. However, coupled to this sickness is the fact that some of them are now vying with one another to bring out points which are already part of the Government programme, and it seems to be very suspicious that those who never thought of these things before, and who would probably run away from such ideas, had they been mentioned, are now coming up, advocating them. It is very evident to me, and I think to the general public whom they are probably trying to impress through the Press, that they are hoping thereby to get a bit of cheap publicity and a little credit for what they fully well know the Government is going to do, whether they are with the Government or against.

It is rather curious that the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) yesterday told us that this Government has inherited a great deal of benefits from the last government, and today the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede) tried to absolve his Party from the deeds, misdeeds and, what is more important, the lack of deeds of the past government by telling us that, "After all, we Progressives were in the minority anyhow. What could we do?" That is the Progressives all over. They want the credit, but they dare not take the blame. However, I suppose they are out to get a bit of credit, but however clever they may be, they cannot beat the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) who is a past master at this game; it seems, where if he fails to steal the credit, he will try to steal the thunder by telling the Government to go one step further, and this game has proved so contagious indeed that you find hon. Members who would not have dared to have such ideas now come out talking with great gusto, "Why not independence tomorrow?"

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Today, I said.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, this sort of play-acting leaves one rather speechless, though it has made me speak. However, the consolation remains that we may turn out good actors and they would be an added asset to the wealth of this country, for which I am sure the Labour Government would be grateful.

Coming down to brass tacks, Sir, the Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim) lamented the fact this morning that the Government has made no provision to exercise control over the terms of service of the civilian employees of the three Services. He went even so far as to say that these civilian employees should not take part in the political life of this Colony, but he has contradicted himself, I think, by standing for election. He should not have stood for election. However, I want to draw his attention to the speech of His Excellency the Governor in which it is mentioned: "The Government intends to introduce a Labour Bill to replace the present out-moded Labour Ordinance. There is every likelihood of agreement being reached with Her Majesty's Government that this Bill should cover the civilian employees of the three Services recruited in Singapore." I hope that is clear.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol-Tampenis): Mr Speaker, Sir, my Party knows what the Government's future policy is to be for the development of the rural areas, but in my opinion it does, not go far enough. In the recent election the rural voters played an important part and the fact that they did so clearly shows that they want development in the rural areas to keep in step with the development in the city.

I note with satisfaction that the Government has promised to establish district hospitals and clinics in the rural areas, which are so urgently needed. A problem for farmers in the rural areas is the absence of veterinary centres in these areas to which they can bring their poultry for inoculation. At present the representative of the Veterinary Department visits the farms occasionally to inoculate the poultry. But this, I submit, is not enough and can never compensate for the absence of such centres.

The rural areas are very poorly supplied with water and electricity and in a period of drought as that at present prevailing the absence of water in their wells causes the farmers a lot of hardship. I do hope that the Government will set up the provision of water and, electricity in these areas.

There are a lot of fishermen living in these areas and up to date nothing has been done to introduce co-operative marketing schemes for them. I hope that the present Government will give this matter the highest priority.

In the rural areas communications are very poor and in my division alone, which covers more than twelve square miles with a well distributed population, there is only one public telephone at Ponggol Point. I hope that the Minister for Communications and Works will look into this matter.

More than fifty per cent of the dwellings of farmers in my division are not numbered, and these farmers told me that they were very unhappy about it. They want their houses numbered and are quite prepared to pay the required assessment on their homes. I hope the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing will look into this matter.

My Party supports the Government's plans for the development of the rural areas and will do its best to ensure that everything possible is done to carry out these plans.

Mr Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to congratulate very heartily the Liberal Government of Singapore for the statement of policy laid before this Chamber for our consideration, [An hon. Member: Liberal?] because I feel that the wording of the policy statement has been so very carefully drafted that Socialists like myself will not be able to attack it very seriously. Nevertheless, I would like to bring forward a few points for the improvement of the policy which the Liberal Government, if it cares to, can accept.

The first and foremost point, Sir, is the union of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya and the ultimate self-government of the territory. So much has been said, but all the speakers, I think, have forgotten to mention one important factor, and that is the creation of a common citizenship for the people of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. I do not know whether they believe that a nation can be created without a common citizenship or whether in the near future they will consider this aspect and bring it to the notice of this Assembly. In the last Council I very vehemently suggested the creation of a Singapore citizenship. I did not get any support at all because I was told that there were so many difficulties which confronted the government at that time. The position in Singapore today is that we have some people as aliens, some as local-born British subjects, and some as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. No mention has been made by the Government as to whether they would or would not create a common citizenship in the near future. However, I take it that the Liberal Government would endeavour -

The Chief Minister: Point of order, Sir. We do not like to be called by barbarous names. We like to be called by our correct name.

Mr Speaker: It is hardly a point of order, Mr Chief Minister. Carry on, Mr Nair.

Mr Nair: As I was saying, I take it they would try to implement item 9 of the Labour Front programme, namely, the creation of a Singapore citizenship, at the earliest possible date.

Many of the aliens have been denied the privilege of voting. Many of the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies have been denied the privilege of enjoying the citizenship right. Not long ago the Government asked all the Commonwealth citizens to register themselves as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and when I raised the question of what privileges they were entitled to, I was told that they could only be regarded as second-rate citizens of Singapore. All the jobs advertised stipulated that the applicant should either be born in Singapore or should have a residential qualification of ten years. No mention whatsoever was made as regards the right of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies for a job in the government service. I would suggest that the same privilege which is offered to a local-born subject should also be given to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and I feel that there should be no discrimination in regard to this.

Sir, the Government policy clearly recognizes that there is unemployment on a wide scale, but I am very disappointed to see that no suggestions have been made regarding measures that will be taken to eliminate unemployment. My friend and colleague the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Welfare on various occasions insisted in the past Council that Government should appoint a committee to investigate the extent of unemployment in Singapore and to find ways and means of eliminating unemployment. I hope that the Minister would now appoint a committee as soon as possible as the position of unemployment in Singapore has come to a very grave crisis. However, the Government might try to say that there is no unemployment.

In the United Kingdom, Sir, I understand that all employers are obliged to register their vacancies with the Labour Exchange. I think if we were to prepare some sort of a statutory provision in that manner, we would be able to assess the true nature of unemployment in Singapore.

Sir, I heartily congratulate the Hon. the Chief Minister for having the vision in appointing an Economic Commission. I believe that this signifies that the Government intends to have a Socialist economy for Singapore, but I would suggest that the members of this Commission should be very carefully selected because I believe that you can be sure of an independent report if we are to have members of an independent character. I would suggest, Sir, for the Chief Minister's consideration, that a member of the ECAFE be taken as a member of this Commission and that some hearings of this Commission should be made in public so that each and every individual who is interested in the economy of Singapore can appear before the Commission and state his views. I would also urge, Sir, that this Commission should have close liaison with other specialised agencies of the United Nations.

The Government has now proposed to have a Trade Advisory Council to advise the Minister for Commerce and Industry on matters pertaining to trade and commerce, but I am very disappointed, Sir, to see that no advisory council to go into the problem of the agriculture of this country has been suggested by the Chief Minister. Not long ago my hon. Friend the Member for Ponggol-Tampenis gave a short description of the disabilities of the rural people in regard to farming and agriculture. Where the economy of the country is shaped on a Socialist basis, I have never heard that the rural and agricultural economy has been left out. I feel that the rural and city economies are closely related. An agricultural council would act as a research institute and, with the co-operation of the farmers and agriculturists, would be able to frame a policy which could be implemented both by the Government and the agriculturists themselves. In that way we will be able to raise the standard of the rural economy. We need an increase in food production in this country. More than 50 per cent of the food products are imported now. It is so because there is not enough local food production. I would urge the Chief Minister that this should be one of the main tasks of his Ministry in conjunction with the Trade Advisory Council. I want to see that a strong hand be given to the Agricultural and Veterinary Departments. I do not like to see three or four people working with the Agricultural or Veterinary Department and then trying to do a patchwork of the whole thing.

Sir, the Government policy on the standard of living of the working class has shocked me a great deal. There had been in the past a cry for minimum wage legislation. I realise that before we can have minimum wage legislation we must have the national income of the country assessed, but I think the Government could have mentioned something in the policy statement in regard to its minimum wage policy. Today in the city most of the workers of the transport companies are on strike. Why have they gone on strike? They have gone on strike because their wages and conditions of service are not satisfactory; because they believe that there should be some sort of a wage level by which they will be able to carry on their lives. If the Government were reluctant to have this minimum wage legislation straightaway, I would suggest that a committee of inquiry should be instituted in all industries where there are wage disputes, so that the Government could assess the wages and conditions of service offered to the workers and, in co-operation with the employers concerned, settle the disputes amicably.

Housing. We have heard the Government Benchers state very vehemently that some of the Opposition speakers are speaking as if they were on election platforms and that there is not very much in those speeches, but may I remind the Government Bench that the electors will take them to task on housing matters? The rent charged by the Singapore Improvement Trust is indeed very high, and every one of the elected Members of the Labour Front has promised that something will be done to reduce the rent. Probably the Government might think that after setting up the Housing Authority they will go into this question, but if we are going to postpone everything after advice is received from other sources, I think it will be too late. You have to do something in the interim to find out how far the existing grievances are from all quarters. May I suggest to the Government that another committee of inquiry, departmentally, be set up so as to find out how hard the tenants have been affected by the rent increase? I was a member of the Singapore Improvement Trust for four months, and from my experience I can tell this House that many of the tenants are unable to pay the rent, with the result that they receive quit notices and they have to find accommodation elsewhere. It may be that it might take four or five months more for the Housing Authority to be set up and various other relevant matters discussed and decided, but the hardship of these tenants can no longer be tolerated.

There is very little mention of the rural housing in this policy statement and also in the Labour Front programme. Probably the Labour Front elected Members have not been elected from the rural areas. I think all of them are invariably from the city. The housing situation in the rural areas is indeed pathetic. They are living invariably in houses where there are no bathrooms or lavatories; and not only that, with very little accommodation for the entire family. And I feel that one of the urgent problems that have to be attended to by the Government would be matters relating to rural housing. The other day, when I was travelling along Alexandra Road, I happened to see a notice board - "Singapore Improvement Trust 14-Storey Houses". I do not think anybody in Singapore today would like to live in a 14th storey, particularly a family. I would like the Minister for Housing to take note that most of the people in Singapore today do not like to live in the 14th storey. They would like to live either in the first or the second, not even the third.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: What about the Seventh?

Mr M. P. D. Nair: Scrap those housing policies and have more houses in the rural areas. Hitherto we have been complaining that there is no land in the city, but now with the assurance of the Chief Minister to the effect that there will be State acquisition of land we will not be lacking in land. We will be able to build houses wherever we intend them to be and we shall have plenty of them in the rural areas.

Sir, I would like to mention a very important factor in regard to the rent formula and how that can be reduced. I have been championing this cause for many years, but there have been some legal complications in regard to this, and I hope that this will be taken up by the Government. The City Council of Singapore today is collecting 34 per cent assessment from all houses within the city limits, but a local authority of that nature has no moral obligation for housing the people in the city. Shame! I have travelled in many places, in London and Ireland when I was on a parliamentary course, and people told me that modern governments do realise that the State and local governments share the responsibility for housing the people, and here in Singapore we have a local government denying the fact that they have any moral obligation at all for housing the people in this city. The Municipal Ordinance at the moment does not provide money being spent on housing, and I hope the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, when he introduces the Bill on the formation of the City and Island Council, will ensure that adequate provision is made in that Ordinance to enable the City Council to spend money on subsidising housing. The 34 per cent assessment charged to the Singapore Improvement Trust is really the basic difficulty in regard to rent, the City Council's argument being that the Improvement Trust houses should be treated in the same way as any other houses built by private citizens. I do not agree with that because both the City Council and the Singapore Improvement Trust are public bodies.

In the field of education, again - I did not number my disappointments - it is again a disappointment that no mention has been made in regard to adult education. We not only want a democratic form of government, but we do want a democratic form of society, and this can only be brought about by encouraging, helping adult education. I do believe that the Labour Front will not overlook this matter. Probably they had forgotten to write it.

In matters regarding legislation, Sir, foremost that comes to my mind is the Rent Control Ordinance which I referred to some time ago. I do not think that I should elaborate the various difficulties the people are suffering due to the vagueness of this Ordinance but I do hope that in due course Government would amend this legislation in the interest of the tenants.

The Immigration Ordinance is giving another headache to the people of Singapore, and quite recently many families in my constituency have been subjected to very severe mental anxiety, in that they are unable to bring their wives or children or their mothers here because of the discretion that is vested in the Controller of Immigration and now in the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Welfare. Although the discretion lies with him and although people can confide in him so that he will use his discretion to the satisfaction of the people, there are very relevant clauses which require amendment, and I do hope, again, that the Labour Front will stick to the promises they have made some weeks ago in regard to the amendment of this Ordinance.

On the question of local government, Sir, it has been announced that a Bill will be coming up for consideration of this Chamber very soon, and I would like to mention, Sir, that the provision of elected District Council Committees should be an important feature. I think, if I remember it correctly, His Excellency the Governor did mention the provision of such committees in his Address last year. If we have such committees, I do believe that democracy will start from the bottom instead of from the top as at present, because people will enjoy a greater measure of democracy starting from their own places, and I think that is a really good sign for the future of Singapore.

Transport. I think I better wait until the Minister comes in. I will go on to the other items.

Sir, land. I have a quarrel with the Government.

An hon. Member: Which government?

Mr Nair: I might call it "Liberal", but I do not know whether Mr Speaker will rule me out of order. I thought of giving the explanation later on in my speech why I come to that.

Sir, land is supposed to be a very necessary element in the life of man. I do not know how far this right has been accepted by the present Government. I only read in their policy statement that they are going to acquire land for public purposes. Socialists, like myself, will not agree that land acquisition is the only means to socialise the country. In my view, there should be an agrarian policy, a policy by which the land can be redistributed to the people who are really in need. Acquisition can be done by a Progressive government, a Democratic government, but definitely not a P.A.P. government, but I think that if the Government believes in real, modern, democratic Socialism, the policy of land reform is the significant factor, excluding of course nationalisation. But I do not know why the present Government has hesitated in making out a firm policy on land reform in Singapore. In Singapore we have numerous acres of land on 99-and 999-year leases, by which many people have become rich. They re-allot their land to other people; they get their land rent and if they have built houses on their own land, they get "tea money" and other profits from their houses. I do not believe that a Socialist government will allow that to happen. I do suggest, Sir, for your consideration that Government should revise the terms of these 99-and 999-year leases and take over all those excess lands from people, give them land according to the number of persons in the family and a little bit more in order that they can adjust themselves; take over the excess and redistribute it to the landless citizens of Singapore. A survey of all lands, now lying idle but suitable for farming, should be made for distribution to the peasants. There is difficulty being suffered by the farmers and agricultural citizens in Singapore, in that they cannot obtain land for cultivation. I feel myself, after a close examination, that there are numerous pieces of land in Singapore which are lying idle and which can be made really productive. I do suggest that a survey of all swamp areas be taken and wherever possible reclaim them for various purposes. If it is a building site, build houses; and if it is an agricultural site, give it to the farmers for farming.

The policy on ex-convicts also requires the attention of the Government. At the moment they are disregarded not only by the Government - in fact, the Government should have set an example in this, but they are not doing it - but also by many employers in Singapore. They are being looked after by a small group of public-spirited body of people, the After-Care Association, who are trying to rehabilitate them for a short time. They require assistance very badly. The State also assists in the rehabilitation of ex-convicts. Another point which comes to my mind when I talk of ex-convicts is the fact that they are not recognized as men in society by Government. There is a General Order of the Singapore Government which is not redundant yet, saying that Government employees who have been convicted will not be re-employed, and if they are people with long experience, they will get no gratuity. I hope and believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Hon. the Chief Minister will use his scissors to cut this first red tape in the General Orders.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of explanation, Sir. May I inquire from the Member for Seletar (Mr Nair) how many ex-convicts there are in the Seletar Division?

Mr Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not only representing the Seletar Division. I have, I think, the privilege of raising any matters in connection with the people of Singapore in general.

One matter which comes to my mind is the cottage industries in the rural areas which will raise the economy of the rural people. So far, the Government of Singapore have not shown great interest in the rural industries, and I believe that with the assistance of the Colombo Plan we will be able to get help to start cottage industries in Singapore.

Sir, the question of transport comes next, and I do not think I can wait for the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works. Some time ago, Sir, I addressed the Front Bench opposite to me as the "Liberal Government". A Socialist Government preaching Socialism would bear in mind that they could show the gravity and seriousness of their policy to the people at the opportune moment. Yesterday the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works said that the Government intends to take over public transport, in other words, nationalise it, when the time comes, and if there is a possibility. I would tell this House that the test of sincerity of the Socialists is very near. The Singapore Traction Company's agreement with the Government expires some time in June, and if the Government is not making a firm stand on it, I would assure this House that I will introduce a motion to test how far the Government is Socialist. This is the only opportunity that the Government has to show the people the reality of Socialism in its surest and truest form. There is no getting away with it. Sir, some time ago, I called the present Government the "Liberal Government". The Labour Front, the day when it wedded the Alliance, became Liberal. I do not know whether that marital relation has probably caused a change in the Front's Socialist policy.

Another test, Sir, for the Government, is equal pay for equal work. It has been mentioned in various quarters that real Socialists believe in equal pay for equal work. My hon. Friend the Minister for Labour and Welfare will bear me out, while we were sitting together on this Bench as Socialists, we demanded equal pay for equal work. This is an opportunity to show to the people of Singapore that the Labour Front believe in what they say.

Sir, finally, as a Member of this Assembly returned from a rural constituency, I am very much disappointed to see that although there has been mention of some development in the rural areas, it is not altogether quite satisfactory. Every time I mentioned in the last Council the inadequacy of rural development, I was asked to refer to the various government expenditures in regard to the rural areas, such as "road, one mile, $40,000" and some drains, half a mile or ten feet, so many dollars. Government has been neglecting the rural areas, a neglect not intentional at all, but a neglect which was limited by financial means. But this time when there is a promise of raising the standard of living of every human being in this colony, I think the rural people should not lag behind. We have been doing a lot of patchwork here and there. We asked for water in the rural areas; the Rural Board fixed up a standpipe there. Tomorrow I write in to say that in Thomson Road there is no post-box; and the Postal Department will fix a post-box there. Our development in the rural areas has always been patchwork and the result has been that today the rural people have not reached the same economic level as that of the people in the city. They are mostly under-employed. Their economy is far from satisfactory. They have not the amenities which they should enjoy as citizens, although they pay rates and taxes regularly in just the same way as the people in the city. There is only one right and proper way of developing the rural areas, and that is all departments should co-ordinate their activities under a planning committee. I suggest that a Rural Development Council be established with representatives from various Government departments, including the City Council, which is the water and electricity authority, so that rural development can go slowly but steadily towards a happier goal. The fact that the Labour Front policy was not accepted by my constituency and other rural people clearly shows that there was something lacking in it, and that is development of the rural areas, which I have now stated for your consideration. There is no way of developing the rural areas other than through better co-ordination and planning. I do hope that Government will pay attention to this matter.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that the sins and omissions of past administrations are now visited upon us on this side of the House. I am sure it is realised that we, on this side of the House, contested the election on this programme in order to adjust the ills that we felt were there, and it is indeed a very happy indication to us, Sir, that many of my hon. Friends over that side of the House made reference to this blueprint of ours for a new Singapore. I did not find any of them attacking any particular item. What they did say was that this one-year programme of ours was not enough and was not in keeping with what we said we wanted to do. Therefore, I can say, Sir, that this then is the accepted blueprint for a new Singapore.

Let me now turn to the various points that have been made in regard to my particular Ministry. Let us take the Labour Bill, Sir. It was pointed out that in so far as the Labour Bill is concerned we had to seek the agreement of Her Majesty's Government, and there was therefore resentment; and it was also mentioned by one hon. Member that, to his knowledge, there was no Ordinance that covered the civilian employees of the Armed Services. I would like to point out for the information of this House that to-date there are two Ordinances - the Central Provident Fund Ordinance and the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance - that cover all civilian employees of the three Services. The fact that the United Kingdom Government has to be consulted is in the same way as most large employers of labour have to be consulted when we try to bring in anything new. Both parties must be consulted, and I can assure this House that that Labour Bill will be laid on this Table - the Second Reading will be on the 24th of May.

Another one is the Trade Disputes Ordinance. Sir, I have taken note of this Ordinance that has been brought up by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), and I assure him that his remarks will receive my urgent consideration.

The Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) brought up the question of what steps the Government proposes to take to encourage trade unionism. We have stated, Sir, in our policy that we will do all we can to encourage the movement, because we believe that the trade union movement has an important part to play in our programme for a new Singapore. But, Sir, having been a trade unionist myself and still am, I would like to say to a fellow trade unionist that the strength of any trade union organisation is not in any help that the Government can give, but in the solidarity of the workers. They should work towards this.

I have always felt, Sir, and I have spoken on other occasions in this hall, that the English language is indeed a difficult language to understand. We find that while the Governor's Address covers just a one-year programme, yes it is being compared with the four-year programme and hurled back at us. They said we are not doing enough. We have to carry out our programme year by year, and we know that we are answerable to our electors.

The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) touched on the question of boys' clubs. He said that there is nothing in this Message that conveyed an indication of Government's interest in the activities of boys' clubs. I would refer him, Sir, to page 6 (third paragraph, column 8, of the Official Report). May I quote:

"The Community Centre scheme will be developed and more facilities provided for the underprivileged youths of Singapore."

Mr Lim Choon Mong: On a point of clarification, Sir. What I referred to were youth organisations at large, which include not only underprivileged youths but more organisations than that.

Mr Lim Yew Hock: The Member for Seletar (Mr M. P. D. Nair) mentioned unemployment. I can assure him that I will take early steps to form a committee to investigate the unemployment problem and submit recommendations for meeting it.

The Member for Seletar also mentioned the Immigration Ordinance. I can assure him that in regard to the administration of that Ordinance, there will be a change in the, shall we say, administration of it and I will look into the matter personally now and give directives as to how far in discretion the Controller can go.

Coming down to a general issue, Sir. My hon. Friend of the People's Action Party said yesterday, "So long as you behave yourselves we will be with you." What a paternalistic statement! We say, "So long as we are right, we ask you to vote against us." Sir, we contested the election not so very long ago, only a month ago, and we got returned here. We have not had the time - we have stated in the Governor's Address. that the Ministers only had a few days - to go through the work that is ahead of us. Therefore the programme that we have suggested is limited by the extent of the period that was available to us after study.

The Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) touched on the Central Provident Fund. I am happy to learn that he is now in agreement that there should be amendments to this Ordinance. Reports in the newspapers lately showed that the People's Action Party was organising unions into opposing this Central Provident Fund, and when it was pointed out that by opposing it, instead of trying to amend it, was just playing into the hands of the employers, I think they soon realised the error of their ways.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to the contributions to this debate from certain Members on Benches across the Floor, I have been irresistibly reminded of a scene in an almost deserted street on a Sunday morning, with street urchins playing in the drain suddenly finding one of themselves all dressed up and scrubbed going to Sunday school, and with whoops of joy they sling mud-pies at him. Sir, yesterday I invited, I welcomed honest criticism. I said, "Hurl your rocks of honest criticism." I did not say, "Sling your mud." I have no use for mud, although I understand that it makes good manure for political growth.. I am not a politician, Sir. I seek the welfare of this country along simple, obvious ways. We have been reminded by the other side of the responsibility of office. I would remind Members that one can abuse too much the irresponsibility of lack of power.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), who has so aptly been termed by my friend and colleague as the cock that rouses the sun, says that the P.A.P. stands for freedom, and now that freedom has been discovered by the P.A.P., the P.A.P. has a prescriptive right to it, patented and hallmarked, and those of us, Sir, who seek to serve freedom must now go to the Member for Tanjong Pagar for his chop - that symbol with such unhappy memories once worn by the Black Shirts of England. Sir, this hon. Gentleman, who has appointed himself the rearguard of the Labour U.M.N.O.-M.C.A.-Malay Union Alliance Coalition, speaks of dreams. It is our duty today to act. This hon. Gentleman offers us, Sir, his co-operation if we behave ourselves. Having watched the conduct of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, it seems to us plain on this side that the offer is but the offer of the kiss of Judas; that it is nothing but a cheap political manoeuvre to seek in this House to obtain credit for what we can achieve on the Government side, and to obtain credit for what we cannot achieve, so that he can have the best of two worlds. That is not the type of co-operation I sought, Sir, and it is with regret that I notice, at the termination of this debate, that there is very little I can expect in the way of constructive statesmanship from hon. Members opposite.

A gentleman of that Party - I think he is from Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) - has even indulged in an extraordinary exhibition when he twisted our words whereby we seek equal treatment for all schools as meaning that we wish to destroy Chinese culture. Sir, there is a proverb or saying - Honi soit qui mal y pense - it is the evil mind that will always find an evil explanation. I have no patience, Sir, with those who can only see evil in the efforts of this Government to secure the well-being of the people of this country, and if that is what the hon. Gentleman from Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) wishes to read into the simple statement that we want equal treatment for all schools, then he is welcome to that evil interpretation.

Then we have these quibbles. Why have we left out the word "compulsory" from "compulsory education"? Is it the same thing as education for all? Sir, we need no compulsory education today. Our youth are thirsting for education. We need to give them the opportunity to slake that thirst, and our duty is to provide, and we shall seek to fulfil that duty to provide, the opportunities for education. If and when the time comes that we find there is any section, any appreciable section, of our youth that does not seek education and we have the opportunities available for them, then will be the time to speak of compulsion.

Much has been said about public meetings and the right to public assembly and free speech. The hon. and learned Member for Tanjong Pagar should know better. The question of permission for public meetings does not come under the dread Emergency Regulations, as he and his colleagues seem to think. It comes under the Minor Offences Ordinance. Sir, in the past, as a result of the Emergency attitude of mind of the police, these public meetings have been forbidden in open places. There has been, as far as I am aware, no impediment to their being held in halls, but they have been forbidden - or rather permission has been very grudgingly and very rarely granted for public meetings in open places. This Government, Sir, has relaxed that rule, for which it receives no credit, to the extent that now public meetings may be held in open places until dusk; but why, asks the Member for Tanjong Pagar, can we not woo democracy in the dead of night? It is because, Sir, democracy requires respect for minority feelings, and there is no doubt, Sir, that the seven years under the so-called state of Emergency through which we have lived, has convinced many reasonable people that there is a threat to security, and they fear the possibility of disorders from any extension of the right of public assembly. Government is satisfied that there is no real basis for that fear, but at the same time we have to respect their feelings and we are ourselves feeling our way to a complete relaxation of that rule by this first instalment. And when we have proved, as we have no doubt it will be proved, that there is no danger in public assembly until dusk, we can then go on to the extension of that rule. It is the same, Sir, as the procedure we have adopted with reference to multi-lingualism, where there is very honest fear on the part of an appreciable section of decent human beings who have no particular political affiliations, that this is impracticable; and we are now seeking to prove to them in a lesser sphere than this that this is practicable and so toward winning unanimous support. It is not in the realm of democracy to ride rough-shod over minority feelings and to steamroller its way through, because of a majority that it may have in this House.

On other aspects of the Emergency Regulations on which hon. Members opposite have so enjoyed themselves, I shall not answer because it will be my unhappy duty, after this item of business, to deal with the Emergency Regulations, and I think it appropriate at that juncture to speak to hon. Members on that point.

Sir, we have been criticised from political extremes for our attitude towards compensation of expatriates who may be found redundant. It has been suggested that we have too tender a regard for these gentlemen; that maybe we are being bullied; and that maybe we have been subverted. Sir, our conduct in this matter will be guided by one single principle that I am certain this House must at all times accept, and that is the principle of justice to all human beings, and certainly to our own employees.

On the subject of Malayanisation, I must confess that I am glad to find such vehement concurrence with our attitude from Members opposite, and I have some sympathy for the views of the Member for Tanjong Pagar on the subject of the Public Services Commission. I do recognise the general trend of public feeling towards the officers who are members of that Commission. I cannot say that I am satisfied that that attitude is justified. I do not know enough. I do acknowledge that this very unsatisfactory state of Malayanisation of the civil service at the present juncture is perhaps an indication that those officers are not adequate, but it need not necessarily be their fault and I can assure the House of this - that long before this House met, that matter was already under investigation, and still is, and I sincerely hope that hon. Members opposite will take the opportunity at the next sitting to place questions of a precise character, seeking clarification on that aspect on which Government can give you clear information, and perhaps put a motion on for the Adjournment. I can say for my side of the House, Sir, that we want to hide nothing there. Our flag is nailed to the mast of Malayanisation at a rapid pace, and if we fail in that I shall not wait for the P.A.P. to ask me to resign.

Yesterday, Sir, we heard the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), and today we had a newspaper asking where were the Progressives. The rump of the Progressives is here, Sir, and it seems to consider its main function to be to act as apologists for the days of arrogant glory that can be no more. That extraordinary spectacle of the Member for Serangoon telling us, "Of course my Party does not disagree with multi-lingualism! Do have it! Bring in the Hottentot and Eskimo languages, and Sanskrit, and do not leave out a single dialect! Don't!" The Member for Tanjong Pagar pointed out that nobody is going to be beguiled by that sort of nonsense. We are glad indeed to have forewarning that in this House will be continued the tradition we have come to expect from that Party. The hon. Member sitting next to him told us, "Of course it is impracticable and impossible today, but we are not against it." It does suggest, Sir, that perhaps multi-lingualism is necessary even in this House because that kind of logic I cannot understand, and maybe if there was an interpreter it would help better.

There is one thing I am indebted to the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck), and that is for his assurance of co-operation on the matter of free legal aid. That, Sir, I accept unreservedly. I know it is genuine and I know I will receive his very sincere assistance, and I gladly accept it.

We then heard from the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy), whose first complaint was that I was uncharitable to a former Member of this House, because I did not like, and I considered abusive, the suggestion that only dishonest self-seeking demagogues would want self-government in less than eight years. Now, if the Member for Telok Ayer considers that a just and proper remark, I will accept the rebuke for being uncharitable, but I trust I speak for the rest of this Assembly when I said that those were terms of abuse which you, Sir, would never have permitted in this House.

The Member for Seletar (Mr M. P. D. Nair) made certain suggestions of a valuable character, and I think he will be pleased to know that the question of citizenship, though we have been but a little time in office, has not been forgotten; and district committees in the City and Island Council have also not been forgotten. In fact, there may be room for pleasant surprise for him in the sitting to come on the City and Island Council Bill. But I find it a little difficult, Sir, to understand one aspect of his address where he said that we should have equal treatment for domiciled Malayans as for persons who are British and colonial subjects. That does seem to suggest - I may be wrong in my interpretation, and if I am, I am sure you will clarify it later - but it does seem to suggest that what the Member for Seletar wants is complete abolition of any distinction between the domiciled races and expatriates. That the Government cannot accept and will not accept.

Mr M. P. D. Nair: On a point of clarification, Sir.

The Chief Minister: Certainly, Sir.

Mr M. P. D. Nair: What I said was that in Singapore today we have groups of citizens called the aliens, the naturalised British subjects, local-born British subjects, and the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies. There are many Commonwealth citizens who have registered themselves as citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies, but they are not given the same privilege as the local-born subjects in regard to employment in the public service. I believe that the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies should be treated in the same way as the local-born subjects.

The Chief Minister: I am afraid, Sir, the clarification still leaves me as deeply confused, and perhaps we can clear this up later, because if the citizen of the United Kingdom and the Colonies is to have the same privileges as the local man, then there is no distinction between an expatriate and a domiciled person.

Sir, I would like to say this in conclusion. Our Four-year Programme has been repeatedly referred to. Hon. Members opposite have gone into a verbal war-dance whooping with joy that we have not been able to accomplish in two weeks a four-year programme. We shall leave it at that, Sir. You have heard sufficiently on this debate and the House has many other things before it.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

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