LANGUAGES OF THE ASSEMBLY (Appointment of Select Committee)

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, from the 7th of April, 1955, to the 8th of February, 1956, we have had ten tumultuous, dynamic and fruitful months and during that period, Sir, we have been responsible for measures of which we are very proud and there are many other measures which will shortly come before this Assembly and to which we look forward with pride.

Amongst them we will have a new, honest educational structure, free legal aid and advice, an island-wide complete land freeze, nationalisation of transport, an effective system of local authorities and public utilities, and, on the horizon, as soon as the Committees have reported, we hope to have measures before this Assembly for effective Malayanisation to give Malayans their rightful place in the service of their people and effective control of the government machinery. We hope to have further employer/employee legislation and to introduce efficient means of avoiding unnecessary strikes and providing better machinery for mediation without in any way depriving the worker of the ultimate weapon of the strike to be used in extreme cases.

Above all, Sir, we are looking forward to measures to impose provisions of basic standards of living to maintain the worker in conditions compatible with the dignity of a human being and with .our financial resources. But of all these measures, Sir, I am proudest of this motion which I have the privilege of moving in this House today, and I move it, Sir, in all humility, not as Chief Minister but as the elected representative of the people of Cairnhill. This is not a Government measure. There will be no Whip, Sir, on our side of the House. Every man in the Labour Front and every one of our colleagues of the Alliance will speak from his heart and according to his conscience. The principle of this measure is one which has guided and which will always guide the conduct of this Government and which, I hope, will guide the conduct of all future governments of the territory of Singapore. In essence, the principle is one of equal justice for all races.

Sir, in 1953, when the Rendel Commission was sitting and invited representations, though I had neither political affiliations, nor political ambitions nor thought of any - I was a private citizen - I did take time off to write to that Commission and appeal for recognition of the principle of multi-lingualism. There was then no talk about multilingualism, not a word in the Press. The silver tongue of our friend, Mr Yap Pheng Geck, was otherwise engaged. But to any one, Sir, who sought to look beyond the black pall of colonialism to our problems when we finally are able to live our own lives, the problem was obvious and monumental.

We in Singapore are a conglomeration of several fully developed races living in culture-tight compartments under the dead hand of colonialism. All Asian communities suffer equal injustice under that regime, but once colonialism is lifted off our necks and we are able to lift up our heads, where do we seek equal justice? Equal justice for all races we must have, Sir, or else the agony will be worse and certainly no better than that through which we have passed and through which we are passing. Today we live under the domination of one race. What does it benefit us to change masters and live under the domination of a different race? To live fully and to be free, there must be an end to all racial domination, whether European or Asian. It is essential that the foundation be laid whereby all races will be equal partners in the nation.

Language, Sir, has been and is an instrument of racial culture. To impose one language on the whole population is to impose the domination of that one race. In this plural society of ours, if we seek justice for all, we must reject mono-lingualism and accept the principle of multi-lingualism. We must, Sir, give equal respect to as many of the major languages as meet the essential needs of the people. I am advised and I believe that Mandarin will satisfy our Chinese people of all dialects. I know that Malay will satisfy our Malays and Indonesians. I believe that Tamil will satisfy our Indian domiciled community, and English will satisfy the Eurasians, the domiciled Europeans, of whom there are a few, and other English-speaking groups. Sir, I am not unconscious that, in this fascinating city of ours, we have many other races and many other languages but like true Singaporeans, they are reasonable and they realise their small numbers and, by virtue of the progressively growing difficulties of additional languages, it would be impossible to give consideration to more than four languages. I ask this Assembly therefore that we should recognise the four principal cultures of this country by accepting as official languages for oral debate the four principal languages.

Sir, when the matter was broached to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he sought to draw our attention, in a friendly way, to the many technical difficulties implied in such a procedure, and I freely confessed to him, "Of course, we are going to have difficulties." I anticipate that for many years, Sir, our service for translations will be inadequate to cope with keeping our records in other than one language. I anticipate that when we have Ministers who do not speak English, they will have to have highly qualified personal interpreters, perhaps more than one to each. I anticipate that we will have some difficulty in getting highly trained interpreters who have to do simultaneous interpretation, which is an art, Sir. We will unquestionably lose something of the nuances in debate and I fear that, for the non-English speaking, they are going to lose a lot of the fun of the interruptions of the hon. Member for the P.A.P.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: They will still come in any language!

The Chief Minister: But, Sir, these are minor difficulties and if they were all, I for one would sleep peacefully. But I think that we should recognise there are more than difficulties. There is one danger - a grave danger - involved in multi-lingualism and we should face it. Language has been traditionally the principal unifying factor in the formation of nations. How are we, with equal respect for four parallel cultures and four languages, to form one nation? Are we going to build up four warring groups in a pocket handkerchief area? I am, Sir, all too conscious of the explosive content in linguistic conflict. I think hon. Members are aware that but recently we have watched with anguish the riots which have taken a toll of more than two hundred - week-long riots - in the Presidency of Bombay - where the Chief Minister, by the way, is one of the strongest and one of the most experienced politicians I have ever met - and they rose, Sir, out of linguistic conflict. I am conscious of, and I think other hon. Members are fully aware and watching with concern, the growing tension in Ceylon arising out of linguistic conflict. Is this going to happen here? Are our racial cultures going to develop so selfishly once they are freed from colonial restraint? Are they going to bring destruction instead of construction? That is the danger - a very real danger. Is there any precedent for such an experiment as that which I seek to ask hon. Members to embark on? I have sought to find an analogy, Sir, and the nearest I can find is that in Switzerland where they have four national languages - German, French, Italian and Romanish - and where, despite the diversity of languages and cultures, they have a united nation. It is true that they are racially not as diverse as we are here but there, there is an example of unity despite linguistic and cultural diversity. Can we hope to produce, Sir, men of sober political sense, men of cool judgment who will maintain peace and racial co-operation and harmony, as is done in Switzerland? I say we must have faith. I have faith, Sir. I have lived here since my birth and I have faith in the extraordinary adaptability, the resilience and the friendliness of the people of Singapore.

There is one doubt. Neither the Swiss nor any other nation that I know of in similar circumstances had to cope simultaneously with Communist and pro-Communist activities. Here in Singapore we have watched them and it is true that wherever there is any question of disagreement, wherever they can destroy stability, wherever they can seek falsely, maliciously, by extortion or otherwise, to bring disrepute upon established organisations, wherever there are little disagreements racially which we would, in the normal course, if in Switzerland or elsewhere, without these infernal people, have come to a friendly conclusion, these disagreements are tortured and whipped up by their Communists and their friends with one end in view - and that is the destruction of stability, an attempt to keep the country constantly off-balance in the hope that ultimately the accumulation of their carefully planned campaign of bitterness would one day blow up into chaos and give them and their comrades the opportunity of having Commissars. We are conscious that these forces are not without men of intelligence, are unscrupulous, and not themselves ideologically inclined but seeking to ride the band-wagon that they think will lead them to success - self-interest. The sympathizers are the dangers. We have seen the Communist forces and how they work under the cloak of democracy during the time of the Public Security Bill, and we will see more of them. Sir, can we in Singapore with this element constantly trying to keep us off-balance maintain the balance necessary, the racial harmony without which we are destroyed?

Singapore is being asked to undertake an experiment no other country has attempted in circumstances without analogy anywhere. But what is the alternative? The alternative, Sir, is to adopt, and perhaps adapt, the existing colonial system and make English, and perhaps Malay, just as a sop, the official languages. Would that work? I have sought, Sir, within my abilities, which I do not pretend are extensive, with some of the experience that I have gained in the last ten months to assess that, and I say that, in my own view, Sir, we could survive with the help of the bayonet and the bullet in those circumstances for about three to four years and thereafter the forces of cultural and racial frustration of the servient communities would explode this island like a burst hand-grenade. Are we to sell, Sir, the possibility - and it is a possibility - of a glori- ous and harmonious future of unity between all races, of the success of this unique experiment in these unique difficult circumstances? Are we to sacrifice them for a few years of uneasy peace and thereafter certain extinction? That would be the act of a coward. I believe we must have the courage to face the tribulations of growth along natural, honest lines. Inter-racial tribulations, let us be frank, I fear there will be, but I believe Singapore will, because Singapore must, produce men of stature, respected leaders of the various races with immense patience, immense tact and unlimited goodwill.

Sir, fully conscious, gravely conscious of the dangers inherent in this motion and the grave effect of its alternative, I ask the House to move forward towards an honest era, because the acceptance of this motion is the acceptance of the cornerstone of all legislation for our future - the principle, now and forever, of equal justice for all races.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. Moment of interruption. Mr Chief Minister, business to be resumed, what day?

The Chief Minister: Tomorrow, Sir.

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