LANGUAGES OF THE ASSEMBLY (Appointment of Select Committee)

Order read for resumption of proceedings - [8th February]:

That this Assembly is of the opinion that for the purposes of oral debate the languages of the Assembly should be English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil; and that a Select Committee be appointed to examine, report upon and make recommendations in respect of matters necessary to enable effect to be given to the proposal.

The Chief Minister: If it please you, Sir, yesterday I dealt with one danger which I think we must face in this very crucial issue.

This morning I would like to deal with just one other matter, an argument which has been consistently repeated in private, though rarely in public, and it was somewhat highlighted, Sir, in a conversation I once had with a very intelligent Malayan whom I sought to enrol in the Labour Front. He said to me, "The Labour Front is too pro-Chinese. With multi-lingualism, you are going to hand us over to the Chinese. They will swamp us." Sir, we must face these things in the open. It is no use hiding them. I tried to explain that as we saw things we did not believe in favouritism for any race. We were for justice and we were for political justice, which is democracy; that if one has faith and believes in democracy, then one must accept the rule of the majority. Yes, Sir, one must accept the rule of the majority. The Chinese are 76 per cent of our population. Let us not avoid the issue. I am not sugaring any pill. We will face it squarely, Sir. This is a serious debate. As I see things, it is right and it is proper that the Chinese people should have a preponderant voice in the government of this country. But, Sir, I tried to explain - and I think it is important that we should here, in seeking to put the issues frankly before the House, also seek to allay the very genuine fears of a very honest group in our population.

Democracy, though it means the rule of the majority, also means absolute respect for the rights of the minority. It means justice. Justice, Sir, does not mean that the majority can steamroller through. They have got to use their powers in harmony with the concept of natural justice and with respect for minority interests. My friend said - I hope the Chinese here would forgive me, but I think we ought to speak bluntly - "What do the Chinese know about democracy?" Sir, I can only speak as one man from my experience. I have lived with them, though not very closely, and I have gone to school with them. I have worked with them. I have been a clerk with them, and I believe that the Chinese people in Singapore - those I know, Sir - are one of the most adaptable people and in Singapore one of the most peaceable and reasonable. I am - and this is genuine, Sir - full of admiration for their capacity to appreciate the value of a new concept and to make the kernel of that new concept, the valuable aspect of it, their own. I believe, Sir, that given the opportunity the Chinese people will be equal not only to understanding the virtues of democracy, which I believe in wholeheartedly, but to making adoptions of parliamentary democracy their own and adding to that doctrine in its practice in this Colony their own magnificent vitality. Sir, I was asked by this man how I could expect that when the Chinese schools in Singapore give the same education as the schools in Amoy, and the schools in Amoy have produced Communists. I do not know about the schools in Amoy, Sir, and I would like to know a lot more about the schools in Singapore; but I do say this - that even from Amoy there have been refugees, refugees from the tyranny of Communism, into the quite squalid conditions of the refugees in Hongkong. I do know that here they have the opportunities to understand democracy. I hope they will have the opportunity to participate in it, and I believe they will be a new ally and a refreshing new strength to this process.

Sir, I asked him what alternative he had, and he said, "Why cannot we leave it as it is - the English language?" These are arguments other Members must have heard, and I think it is well we should face them. I pointed out that if multi-lingualism hands us over to the Chinese, then English hands the people over to the very small English-speaking minority. He said, "Oh, we will be just to the Chinese." My reply was, "Why should we think the Chinese would not be just to the minority races?" Why should we imagine that under the process of democracy, which means majority rule, anybody would be submerged? Sir, in this very House we see examples of minorities having their full say without being submerged. We have seen in a solemn moment the expression of our deepest feelings, a single-Member Party - Mr Sutherland - standing up and saying that, on behalf of the English expatriate community, he deplored our desire for immediate self-government, and he voted against it and is working against it. Are they being submerged, even in the minor processes of democracy that we have, much though we may deplore the fact that those who find their prosperity from the people of the country should work against the deepest urges of those very people? Sir, we must have faith in the basic decency of all human beings. I ask the Asian minority races of Singapore not to give way to any emotional feelings of apprehension, to have faith in the value and in the triumph of parliamentary democracy. I would like to say in this connection that I am particularly proud, Sir - if you catch his eye - that my loyal friend and colleague the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing will be supporting this motion wholeheartedly and seconding it.

Now, Sir, on the second part of my motion. I ask for the appointment of a Committee. You see, Sir, many issues have to be clarified. There is the question of the system of translation - it is my hope that it will be a simultaneous translation through electronic or other devices. There is the question of additional and highly skilled staff; the question of the language of the official records; the question of amendments to our Standing Orders. Sir, there is no desire at all for any delay - I can assure you - because I will say this: that the draft instrument for amendment of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, Sir, has, I am reliably informed, been forwarded to the Regency Council and I anticipate that section 55 will be no more very shortly, and in fact even perhaps before the Committee has had time to report. It is essential that this House, when it proceeds to enforce it, should have it with the maximum possible efficiency.

I am quite sure that though hon. Members here speak English, nevertheless to some of them English comes a little awkward - quite naturally - and they would prefer to speak one of the languages which I have indicated in my motion. I think they should have that opportunity. I hope they all should have that opportunity. I trust that nobody would seek to make use of this motion for purposes of public propaganda or purposes of gaining votes, because these additional languages do add in a small measure to the inconvenience of the Assembly, and I am quite sure that all Members will co-operate in seeking the comfort and convenience of the Assembly. But, nevertheless, we ourselves have experience that some of our hon. Members do find difficulty in expressing themselves in English and would be much happier, not for purposes of propaganda but sincerely in order to express themselves better, to use their own language.

Sir, I therefore formally move the motion that stands in my name,

That this Assembly is of the opinion that for the purposes of oral debate the languages of the Assembly should be English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil; and that a Select Committee be appointed to examine, report upon and make recommendations in respect of matters necessary to enable effect to be given to the proposal.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion now before this House.

Yesterday, Sir, when the Chief Minister started his speech, he said he was not speaking as the Chief Minister of the Government of Singapore but as the Member for the Cairnhill Division. Today, Sir, I rise in the footsteps of my Chief Minister. I say I speak not as a Minister of the Government of Singapore, but as a representative of a group of people of this island who could be termed the minorities.

Sir, this motion has the unqualified support of my people and also of the Party to which I belong. Looking towards the immediate future while this island is about to enter the doors of self-government and independence, one cannot but concede that there is a necessity, if not for the sake of national pride, at least for practical reasons, that the people of Singapore should be given an opportunity of voicing themselves in this Assembly in the language best suited to them. For over a hundred years, the affairs of public bodies, like this Assembly, have been conducted in the English language. It may well be for some to say that English is the universal language of the world, but to me, Sir, English is not the universal language of the people of Singapore. We all believe, quite rightly, too, that apart from other qualifications, representatives of the people should have a certain amount of education, but it is one of the peculiarities of this country that there are still some who accept the view that a person can only be educated if he is educated in the English language. Sir, there are thousands of people in Singapore-Chinese, Indians and Malays - who may not know the English language at all but who do not lack the ability nor the education to become leaders of the community. I do not see, Sir, why these people should be barred from sitting as Members of this Assembly. Sir, I support the motion.

Question proposed.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, I take pleasure in supporting the motion before the House. I wish the Chief Minister would not have taken credit for this motion or for many Bills which have been passed in this Assembly. I would like to deal with it first, Sir, because it has been stated by the Chief Minister.

Sir, multi-lingualism was debated on this very Floor by the previous Legislative Council on the 28th of January, 1955. The motion was by a very intelligent local-born Indian, Mr C. R. Dasaratha Raj, and claiming a division, the voting for was: Ayes Mr M. P. D. Nair (who is here) Mr C. R. Dasaratha Raj Mr Thio Chan Bee (of the Progressive Party) Mr Lim Yew Hock (who is here) Mr R. Jumabhoy.

Sir, this is nothing new. It is the duty of any government to lake up the threads of the past in the interests of the people.

Sir, Malayanisation - this motion was moved by me on the 18th of November, 1952. Those who wish to see the report can have a look at it. This motion was accepted by the Government as a whole and an ad hoc committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Sir Han Hoe Lim. This has been further pursued by this Assembly.

Sir, Labour Code - this was a piece of legislation which was prepared by the previous Legislative Council. It was left over in the hands of the caretaker Government to bring forward in this new Assembly.

Sir, freezing of land values and the Master Plan - a lot of time and labour was devoted to these two subjects by the previous Government. They were also left over in the hands of the caretaker Government. The matter was taken up in1953, and my friend the Member for Seletar (Mr M. P. D. Nair) on a motion on 14th December, 1954, raised the question of land acquisition for a Second Reading.

Sir, take the Employers and Employees Bill. This was brought into this Assembly by the Progressive Party, but what we have is the policy label of the Labour Government.

The Chief Minister: That is a Government Bill.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Given by the Progressive Party.

The Chief Minister: That is a Government Bill.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: May I have the attention of the House, Sir, undisturbed?

Mr Speaker: Continue, Mr R. Jumabhoy.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: I have enough of disturbance, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Please continue.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I think I have no doubt that I must give credit to the Labour Coalition Government for bringing in the Public Security Bill. Sir, coming to the motion now before the House, as I supported before, so am I supporting it now in the interests of the people. What should be the languages for this Assembly? We have got English. We, have got Malay which is spoken, not written, by almost all people. Then we have got Chinese. It is for the Chinese to decide what language is to be used. As far as the Indians are concerned, the majority of the Indians in this country are Tamil-speaking - over 70 per cent. The Indian community as a whole will gladly support the Tamil language.

Then, Sir, the Chief Minister unfortunately brought in the subject of racial disharmony if this was to take place - it was only a possibility, he said - and he brought in Bombay also. Sir, I have just come back from Bombay. The disturbances there are not at all concerned with language. It is to have Bombay within its own state. It is just like Singapore should go to Johore or to Penang - something like that - but it has nothing to do with language.

Sir, multi-lingualism has been practised successfully in Switzerland, and there is no cause for disharmony in this country as far as the Indians are concerned. As I have said, Sir, the majority of Indians here are Tamils and I must give them credit for the fact that in the partition days not a single case of murder took place in that area. So you will realise that the Indians have lived here peacefully for centuries, even before the British came in, with the other communities and they will preserve the same state of harmony and peace.

Sir, what is happening in India today? Even though about ten per cent of the population, or even less, is English-speaking, and even though India has gained independence nearly nine years now, the English language is still maintained, although they have decided that in 15 or 20 years' time, by a slow process, they can replace it with the official language, Hindi. On the other hand, the provincial languages are allowed in all the respective provinces, that is, Hindi, English and any other provincial language. I think, when the Committee comes to consider the question of multi-lingualism, they will take a leaf out of India's book for study and guidance.

Sir, what happens if and when a united Malaya comes? Well, that is for the future; what will be its language? Many may argue that that might wait. I do not think why it should wait. Things will take their own course. Sir, as in the previous Legislative Council, I wholeheartedly support this motion.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion on behalf of the Liberal-Socialist Party. One of the objects in the Party's policy is the introduction of multi-lingualism in the Assembly, and in laying down that policy we had in mind precisely what this motion envisages, namely, that for the purposes of oral debate, the languages of the Assembly should be English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil, it being implied that for the time being at least the written word should continue to be in English alone.

I would also add that I do not subscribe to this view simply as a loyal Party man, but I have come to the personal belief that this is not a retrograde step, as some of us would like to believe, but a forward move in the best ultimate interests of the country. As the only elected European in this Assembly, I have to ask myself whether it is right to maintain, as the only vehicle of speech in the country's Legislature, a language which, while it can claim in some sense to be as indigenous as any other (if we take 1819 as the starting point in Singapore's history), is not the only living language on this island.

And to this thought there must be added another one. Secondary school education in Government English schools was very badly neglected until the old Progressive Party began pressing for it in recent years, and thousands of citizens have not had adequate opportunities of learning the language in which they have at present to be proficient should they wish to play their part in public affairs.

A third point then arises. In a country which is close to self-government, is it possible to resist the argument that it must have the right to choose the language or languages in which its elected representatives shall conduct the business of the Legislature? Common sense, quite apart from sentiment, supplies the answer.

I now come to two objections which have been voiced on this subject. The first one is that it would be better to experiment with multi-lingualism, first at the local government level rather than in the Assembly. My own view is that there will be more practical difficulties encountered at the City Council level than in this House. Local government is concerned with more detailed matters, and even personal problems, than the Assembly; such things as unauthorised structures and frontages, hawkers and sewage connections and so on. Most of the discussions on these matters take place in Committees and not in open forum, and I can foresee the danger of a great slowing down in the work of the City Council if multi-lingualism is introduced without its difficulties having first been ironed out. I have had some experience of these difficulties as a Municipal Commissioner in an Indian city where the languages were English, Hindi and Urdu. We shall find difficulties in this House - I have no doubt. We shall have, to some extent, to learn new techniques of procedure, but I believe the snags, whatever they may be, can best be smoothed out here first under the able guidance of Mr Speaker.

The second objection is that the introduction of multi-lingualism will tend to encourage racial consciousness and racial antagonisms. I believe that, given the abundance of goodwill which exists in Singapore and given expert interpreters of the highest standard, the very opposite may well prove to be the truth. I believe that, through spontaneous translation, we shall be drawn closer to the thoughts and the outlook of those from whom we are at the moment shut off from communication. Lack of understanding arises from the barriers of language, from asking people to speak in a language in which they cannot think freely, and from maintaining the exclusiveness which one language imposes.

We support this motion and we ask for its early implementation, for it is the first step on the road to finding out for ourselves and of our own free choice the most suitable language or languages to be the lingua franca of the future, a problem over which we must hasten, but hasten slowly.

As I stated in this House in the Budget session, all the four main languages and cultures are needed to make up that composite thing that can be called Malayan nationalism, and they must be regarded as complementary to each other and not as existing separately in water-tight compartments. Where we have gone wrong is in the propaganda so prevalent today - and I hope I give no offence, as I mean none - which postulates that Chinese culture and the Chinese system of education are the exclusive property of the Chinese and must not be tampered with; that Malay culture and Malay history are being deliberately obliterated; and that the English language and European customs, predominant for many years because of British rule, seek obstinately to maintain their predominance amid a growing Asian consciousness. The antagonisms which are being engendered by this propaganda are all the more intense because there is no single obvious lingua franca for an independent Singapore of the near future.

Malay has claims, because it is the oldest living language of Malaya, is shared by the millions of our neighbours in Indonesia, and is spoken to some extent by the large majority of peoples living in Malaya of whatever race. Its handicap is that it has no common usage outside South-East Asia and it is not well enough equipped for the expression of modern scientific thought.

Chinese, too, has claims, because it is spoken by roughly half the population of Singapore and Malaya, because of its long history, longer even than Malay or English, and its great cultural heritage. Its handicap is that it is not an indigenous language, is used almost exclusively by the Chinese people alone, and is not strongly equipped to cope with modern science, although I believe that this difficulty is to some extent being overcome.

English has claims, because it is the language of international gatherings and modern scientific thought. Its importance is inescapable because of its contacts for us with the rest of the world. Its handicap, however, is that it bears the stigma, rightly or wrongly, of being the language of the now nearly defunct colonial era and because its culture is foreign and imposed from without. English is the present lingua franca. Whether it will remain so is not for me to say, but so long as English is the main language of international trade and commerce, and so long as Singapore is to retain its proud position as a leading international port - as indeed it must - it seems to me imperative that English remains the language of communication with the outside world.

Lastly, Tamil, if I may be pardoned for saying so, has the least claim of the four main languages, simply because it happens to be spoken by the smallest number of people.

And so let us recognise that the introduction of multi-lingualism in this House, however desirable today, is a makeshift and not the most important thing we have to do. The Liberal-Socialist Party considers that what we must do, and do with all possible speed, is to make our people multi-lingual by giving facilities to learn at least three languages, so that they can converse with one another and understand one another without interpreters and earphones.

Let us indeed keep the proposed multi-lingual scheme down to the absolute minimum cost, so that most of our funds can go into welding together a composite nation through multi-lingual education. So when the day comes to choose a lingua franca, perhaps I may be pardoned for hoping that it may be English, partly out of sentiment no doubt, but mainly because I believe the English language is the greatest single living unifying force in the world today. But whether or no that will be the choice, the decision must come from the people themselves and not be imposed from without.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had thought no Member of any political Party would offer outright opposition to the motion before the House, because it would be political suicide to do so - almost as bad as saying, "I like the British!"

The Chief Minister: I, too, like the British.

Mr Sutherland: I freely admit - I was quoting the Chief Minister, Sir, actually in his initial speech in this House - that, prima facie, it seems reasonable that locally-born people should not be debarred from being elected to this Assembly simply because they do not speak English; but the Chief Minister himself has admitted that his proposal is bristling with difficulties. If we examine the motion, what do we find? We find that "for the purposes of oral debate the languages of the Assembly should be English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil." The records, notices, Bills, etc., as the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede) has just said, would doubtless continue to be in English, and I think the Chief Minister has also intimated that possibly for a period of years the records might continue in English. In that interim period we could have the somewhat anomalous situation of a Member being elected to this House and taking part in the oral debates but being unable to understand a single word of the papers passed to him.

The Chief Minister said yesterday that non-English speaking Ministers could have one or two secretaries, but what about the ordinary Assemblyman? He might find it rather difficult to employ a secretary on his Assemblyman's pay - a secretary that could produce adequate translations of all the papers that come to him even late at night for the next day's sitting, unless he had a talented and erudite wife who might do it in her spare time.

Now, admittedly there might be Members in this House who were merely not fluent in English and whose oratorical powers were greater in their own language - I think there may be some such in this House today but on the other hand, a Member might - in the interim period I am talking about - be entirely illiterate in English.

Now, Sir, what of the choice of languages other than English? If we must have more than one language, then it seems to me that the Malay tongue has at least the right of precedent. But the statement made by the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) and the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) that Malay is spoken by the great majority of the people in Singapore is, in my opinion, quite wrong. I do not myself believe that very many people in Singapore can speak Malay at all. When I say that, I mean a Malay that can be used as a vehicle in this House. If I may just introduce a little personal note, Sir? I was coming to the last sitting of this Assembly two months ago and it was pouring with rain. My syce turned to me and said, "Banyak hujan, tuan." I thought now, let us see. I wanted to say, "Well, of course, there will be a lot of rain, it is the North-east monsoon just now. What do you expect?" So I said. "Oh, Betul, sekarang angin dan Utara-Timor." He turned to me with a blank face, so I thought that that was no good. I then came into the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association room here - I am sorry that the Member for Telok Ayer is not in his place - and I said to Mr R. Jumabhoy, "You speak Malay?" He replied, "Of course, I speak Malay." So I asked him, "Well, what is 'Northeast' in Malay?" He replied, "Oh, I do not speak that kind of Malay!" Then I approached the Hon. the Financial Secretary who I thought must, at least as a civil servant, speak reasonably good Malay, and I said to him, "Mr Hart, what is 'North-east' in Malay?", and he said, "Oh, I do not know."

The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

The Chief Minister: Point of order, Sir. I do regret interrupting these delightful reminiscences, Sir, but may I draw the attention of the House to the rule that no aspect of the conduct of a Member outside the House should be referred to in the House, and although it does not really matter at the moment, it is a principle, Sir, and it should be adhered to?

Mr Speaker: Will the Chief Minister indicate which Standing Order he is referring to?

The Chief Minister: If it please you, Sir, it is 31 (9). I should like clarification, Sir, because I have myself constantly refrained from the references, thinking that we cannot say what a Member of the House did outside.

Mr Speaker: That Standing Order reads:

"The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose."

I hardly think that what a Member said or tried to say in respect of the Malay language is personal conduct! Mr Sutherland.

The Chief Minister: Sir, I regret the interruption.

Mr Sutherland: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Of course, I could have refrained from using the actual names of the people. It was just giving verisimilitude to my story. Anyway, if I may finish it - the hon. Gentleman whom I mentioned last came back to me, having contacted a Malay and he said, "The word is Tenggara." Sir, I went back that evening and looked up my dictionary and found that Tenggara is South-east!

Sir, if we must have another language, then I should have thought the Malay tongue would have some right of precedence for obvious reasons; but I really see no valid reason for complicating matters by introducing Mandarin and Tamil. And why Mandarin? If this were an entirely Chinese Assembly, then I could see some reason for wishing to synthesize the various Chinese dialects, but the Assembly is multi-racial. Sir, I know many people - not Chinese, of course - think that acquiring a knowledge of Mandarin is quite a simple thing. They know that the written ideograph is universally understood and they imagine that, by a little modification of the tones and adjustment of a few hundred vocables, then anyone, for example, a Hokkien, can, with very little trouble, speak Mandarin. But it is not nearly as simple as that. Sir, it is true that Mandarin is more widely understood today than it was 20 years ago, but there are tens of thousands of Chinese in this island who do not understand a word of it. To tell the truth, I was quite astonished yesterday to hear the Chief Minister say that most Chinese in Singapore thought it would be their truly representative Chinese language. To my mind, that sounded like a statement of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce!

Sir, if a mono-lingual Member or Minister can have a secretary or two secretaries, then I do not really see why we should not have one or two extra translators, and instead of having Mandarin we could have Chinese Members speaking in Fukienese or Cantonese or Hainanese or any of the other dialect; and in this motion, for the word "Mandarin" we simply substitute "Chinese". It seems to me, as it refers to oral debates why only have Mandarin? Most of them do not understand it. Spoken Mandarin is not the mother tongue of more than a handful of local Chinese and there is no doubt, to my mind, that the epigrams of our hon. and learned Friends would certainly be susceptible of far better translation into local dialects.

I must confess, Sir, that you may wonder whether I am supporting this motion or no. I do not feel very strongly about it. Epitomising as I do, at least in the mind of the Chief Minister, the Colonel Blimps of Singapore, I certainly do not wish to unleash on their heads the fateful lightning of his terrible rhetoric and in that connection he certainly stole the thunder of the P.A.P. yesterday with his references to "the vulture clutches of colonialism" and "the dead hand of colonialism" and his series of stinging indictments of the colonial regime. Only the Communists scored higher marks than my people yesterday. What is the point, Sir, of whipping oneself into a passion over these matters? I said it once and I will say it again - there has been no subjugation of races in this island. Apart from the Malays, the forbears of all Singaporeans came here of their own volition. In my opinion, that is all there is to it.

Sir, I do not intend in this motion to be again in a minority of one. I would point out, however, that English is as good a vehicle for an Assembly such as this as one could have. It was the Chief Minister who said that if multi-lingualism does not become an accomplished fact in the near future, this island would explode like a hand-grenade. That sounds like hyperbole to me.

I think it is also true to say that the language of the very nearly ex-colonial power will, of necessity, always be widely used in this island as long as we live by international trade. And if we do not live by international trade, we shall most certainly die.

Finally, Sir, the Chief Minister's remarks about the Swiss Confederation. Although four languages are spoken there, the people are a closely knit ethnical unit, and their four languages are at least all of the Indo-European group. The proposal to have a multi-lingual Assembly in Singapore is indeed without analogy in any other part of the world, but a multi-lingual Assembly will not necessarily mean a Tower of Babel unless - I am sorry, he is absent again - the Member for Telok Ayer becomes unduly obstreperous. On the contrary, it will be, in my opinion, a quieter Assembly with Members' ears glued to earphones and listening to the phlegmatic translations of impassioned speeches. I greatly fear, Sir, that the effect of this motion, if carried, will be to render many debates in future completely sterile.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must confess that I hesitated before rising to support this motion, because I am afraid that there may be some observation from both sides of the House that this motion will be of much benefit to me. I must admit that I am one of the few among the hon. Members in this House who cannot speak fluently the Queen's English.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I borrow a sentence that has quite often been used by the Chief Minister? "Today is a great day for the people of Singapore!" This was in my mind when this motion was brought up introducing multi-lingualism into this House for the purposes of oral debate. I believe this is a great step forward in the democratic process in this country, because for the first time the Malay, Indian, and Chinese ketuas will have a chance to present their views in this House if they are lucky enough to be elected. The leaders of these three communities will know that their contribution is wanted. Therefore, I sincerely hope that not only will the 25 elected Members in this House wholeheartedly support this motion, but that the ex-officio Members and the nominated Members will also follow the step which the Chief Minister took yesterday when he said that he moved this motion not as the head of the Government but as the people's representative of Cairnhill. And he (the Hon. the Chief Minister), I wish to remind the whole House, is the representative of the minority of minorities.

I am also happy that this motion is supported by the leader of the only communal political Party, the U.M.N.O., the Member for Ulu Bedok (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat). I can go further. This motion also gets support from the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) and the "Member for Tanglin Club", the hon. Mr Sutherland. Sir, with your permission, I must say, because many a time the hon. Mr Sutherland has been accused by the P.A.P. gang as the "Member for Tanglin Club" -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar) rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Point of order, Sir. Does the hon. Member understand the word "gang"?

Mr Speaker: It is hardly a point of order!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: And whether it is proper to refer to hon. Members in this House - once they are in this House anyway - as a gang? They are quite unarmed!

Mr Speaker: The point of order is whether the word "gang" is or is not in order. I have been under the impression that the hon. Member has been speaking with his tongue in his cheek, and if that is so, then I do not see any objection to the word "gang".

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. But this time I cannot not say that I am not going to support the statement that the hon. Mr Sutherland really is the "Member for Tanglin Club" because he says that Malay is not the popular language in this country, and he seems to deny that Malay is at least one of the popular languages in this country. Secondly, he seems to make out to be a linguistic expert when he says that Mandarin is not popular among the Chinese. From these two statements we could come to the conclusion that the hon. Mr Sutherland lives very far away from the people of Singapore. Therefore, I am sorry to classify him as the "Member for Tanglin Club".

Mr Sutherland rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Sutherland: Point of order, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not take objection in the first instance to this appellation, but I can - I think quite legitimately - consider it to be mildly opprobrious and therefore I would like him to withdraw it.

The Chief Minister: Is it not appropriate, the "Member for Tanglin Club"? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, order. The point raised is whether or not the expression "Member for Tanglin Club" is offensive or insulting within the meaning of Standing Order 31 (4). It depends entirely on the context in which it is used, how it is used and how often it is used. But once objection has been taken to it by the hon. Member, I must rule that it does come within the meaning of the Standing Order and therefore I ask the hon. Member who is speaking not to use that expression again.

Mr Sutherland: Thank you, Sir.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, when I address Mr Sutherland as the "Member for Tanglin Club", I have in mind the fact that he is a European expatriate, and I believe all the members of the Tanglin Club are European expatriates - hence he is the "Member for Tanglin Club".[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, order. The hon. Member must remember that that expression has been ruled out. It must not be used again.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am sorry. I will withdraw the word. Now I wish to clarify two remarks which have been made by the Chief Minister's friend. First he asked, "What do the Chinese people know about democracy?" A platform does not entitle me to claim that I am a representative from the Chinese community alone. I cannot enjoy the privilege which the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing can claim when he says, "I am the head of the U.M.N.O. and I represent the Malay community here." But I am a Chinese. I think it is my duty to defend all this - that when that friend of the Chief Minister said that the Chinese people in this country know nothing about democracy, he is entirely wrong. The last election clearly proved that the Chinese in this country are the most non-communal-minded voters. They voted according to their conscience. They elected their truly respected leaders. You can see that for yourselves on the Government Front Bench. Is it because the Chinese outnumber the other races? No! Take the representative from Cairnhill, the Hon. the Chief Minister. He is a minority among the minorities, and, as I have said, yet he was voted in. And the majority of the Cairnhill voters belong to the Chinese community. Therefore I strongly object to the information which the Chief Minister has given to us - that the Chinese know nothing about democracy.

The Chief Minister: On a point of personal explanation, Sir,I did not associate myself with that opinion.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am well aware that the Chief Minister did not believe that, but I only want to clarify it, that is all. Secondly, the same gentleman said that the Chinese schools in Amoy are exactly the same as in Singapore. That has also no foundation at all. In this connection, I think the Hon. the Minister for Education can give us a very clear picture. The curricula and the textbooks in Amoy are entirely different from those in Singapore. These are the only two points I just wish to clarify as a Chinese representative.

The Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Hon. the Chief Minister. Today, Sir, with the introduction of this motion moved by the Chief Minister, the Labour Front, with the aid of its Coalition partners, is seeking to fulfil yet another promise that it has made to the people of Singapore.

Sir, I speak today not as a Member of the Government but as one who has been elected by all communities in the Stamford Division. The majority of the voters in the Stamford Division are Chinese, and I can say rightly, Sir, that they do not have the faintest idea of swamping the other communities, but that they believe in the democratic process and the party system. That was shown in the last election.

Sir, though I have been elected by all communities, yet - and I do not want it to be misunderstood - I must say that I have been in close contact (it is natural) with Indian opinion in Singapore, and though the Indians are in the minority, I can safely say, Sir, so far as I have heard, their opinion is that they are all in support of this motion, and that they are happy and willing to co-operate that Tamil is going to be chosen as the language for the Indians.

Sir, today the people of Singapore must be happy at the freedom that will be given to them from the restrictive shackles of being confined to one language. Today, Sir, the doors of the Assembly are going to be opened to those who have the ability, but because of their limitation of the knowledge of English, they do not qualify to sit and legislate on behalf of the people of Singapore.

Sir, with due respect to the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy), I wish to refer to one or two points that he has made. Sir, my principle has always been to give credit where it is due. Quotations have been given to us of legislation that was pending when the last Legislative Council was dissolved, and therefore it was stated that it was no credit to this Government to have carried forward the same legislation. Sir, there is one vital difference, and that is that many of the measures, like the Labour Code, have been brought to this House by the present Government with vital changes in them, so that the whole tone of these measures has been changed. Sir, it was thought that the credit should be taken away from this Government and that its efforts should be belittled. But, Sir, the last Legislative Council had the opportunity to discuss this subject of multi-lingualism and only one Member from the Progressive Party voted in favour of it. Sir, they had the chance to throw the doors open to everyone in Singapore who had the ability, but they did not take that chance. Sir, I do believe that credit must be given where it is due, and I say, Sir, that this credit should go to the Labour Front and its partners for bringing in this measure.

Sir, the hon. Mr Sutherland made the point that after multi-lingualism has been established, the papers will still be in one language and therefore many Members will fail to understand one word of it. Sir, that is the reason why the Chief Minister is recommending the appointment of a Committee to go into the question thoroughly, and if it feels that it is necessary, it can recommend the creation of posts for translators and so on, so that there will be adequate translation facilities for Members who cannot understand English.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, the speeches that I have heard this morning make me more than convinced that we should not delay the introduction of multi-lingualism in this Assembly. In our cosmopolitan Singapore the lifting of the restriction on the use of the English language only in the Legislative Assembly will go a long way towards making future elections to this Assembly truly representative.

The language restriction, in effect, has created two classes of citizens. Those who speak English fluently are able to vote and also stand for election, and those who cannot speak English or speak English with insufficient fluency are able to vote but are not qualified to be elected. Such a form of government which divides the people of Singapore must be done away with as soon as possible. There are among us many, many loyal and able citizens who are educated either in Chinese. Malay or Tamil and who will no doubt make as good legislators as those who speak English, if they are given the opportunity.

I therefore hope that all hon. Members of this House will, without hesitation, rise to support the motion moved by the Hon. the Chief Minister, who has the good intention of giving equal justice to all races.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Labour Front stood for election last year, it had, as its aims and principles, the provision of multi-lingual facilities in this Government and local councils. Today we see that this aim is achieved by having before us a motion to introduce four languages for oral debates. I should say that this is due to the efforts of the Chief Minister and his delegation that went to the United Kingdom recently.

This country is a country with many nationalities, and several languages are spoken, including many dialects of the several languages, and if this Assembly is supposed to be a representative body of all people, then the languages of all people should be spoken in this Assembly.

Many arguments have been put forward by those who opposed the introduction of multi-lingualism before the elections, and the reason why they opposed it was because they feared that much time would be wasted in the interpretation of speeches from one language to another. From my experience recently at the Labour Front conference - though I am on the opposite side now - I feel that there is no interruption at all. I have gained a lot of experience that simultaneous interpretation of speeches could be carried out very smoothly, and the procedure at that conference was not at all in the least interrupted.

A large majority of our younger generation do not have an English education, but, as the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has said, they are fit to run local government or central government. Why bar them because of the language difficulty? Let us, as legislators of this country, open the door and pave the way so that when they grow up there will be no language difficulty and they can take an active part in the running of the country.

As a firm believer of democracy, I am pledged to the electorate on the platform where I stood and I think that it is the duty of every citizen here and every Member of this House to support this motion. I strongly support the motion.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to flog a dead horse. Multi-lingualism has been one of the big issues since the Rendel Commission. It has killed one political Party and has changed the whole complex of political life of Singapore. But to get our historical perspective right, I think it might be useful, in view of the disclosure of the Chief Minister yesterday that he wrote a memorandum to the Rendel Commission, if we could get the facts in their proper chronological order. I have had access to the Singapore Standard library and I have with me here a file of all the letters to the Press, news reports and memoranda connected with the Rendel Commission. It is with some nostalgia that I look at some of these reports, for I know the people who were responsible for these reports and for the publication of these reports.

The issue was first raised by the Singapore Senior Officers Association in their memorandum handed to the Rendel Commission on the 28th of November, 1953, and published in the Singapore Standard on the 30th of November, 1953. They said:

"Experience has shown that there is a large element of the population who are British subjects, who have been permanently resident in the Colony for many years, and who do not participate in the legislative processes open to them because they are unable to speak the English language. On the other hand, there is a much smaller number of postwar emigrants who are British subjects who have been able, because of a slight command of the English language and the absence of any residential qualification, to gain an influence in local political activities out of all proportion to their numbers and their actual ability. It is inconceivable that such elements, known locally as birds of passage with loyalties elsewhere, should under the constitution be allowed such scope in the political arena; whereas others with very much better claims are debarred from a fuller participation in the legislative processes by this language bar."

A few days later member unions of the Council of Joint Action - a virile and vigorous body of which I think the Hon. the Chief Secretary must have happy memories, sent in a memorandum to the Rendel Commission. It is like reading something that was written in a different age. This memorandum was submitted by the Working Class Employees Unions of the Singapore Government. May I read just the relevant passages? In this memorandum they explained the difficulties against organised labour expressing itself. They said:

"There is a second handicap with which organised labour has to contend. It is this: The official language of the Legislature is English. Since the proportion of English-speaking people in the Colony is very small - some ten per cent - it is clear that the language restriction serves to confine political leadership to this small section of the population. The effect of the present arrangement has been disastrous so far as the working class movement is concerned. The movement has to rely for its leaders, or at least as its spokesmen in the Legislature, on members of the English-educated minority. There are two main Parties in Singapore - "

This was then, Mr Speaker, 1953, -

"the Progressive Party and the Singapore Labour Party."

They are both dead now!

"The first, namely, the Progressive Party, is, to judge by its actions in the Legislative Council and elsewhere, as distinct from its electoral blandishments, the local counterpart of the Conservative Party in Britain, though, of course, it receives nothing like the mass support which the British Conservative Party enjoys. Organised labour recognises the right of a Right-wing political Party to exist in a democratic system, but it obviously cannot place any great confidence in such a Party to advance the cause of the working class.

The alternative at present open to the labour movement is the Singapore Labour Party. Grave doubts have recently been expressed as to whether this Party exists other than in name. Certainly its activities, so far as the public is aware, consist mainly of sensational resignations, expulsions, charges and counter-charges in public of petty intrigues within the Party caucus. They have reduced the Party to a state where it is regarded with open derision by members of the public in general and members of the working class in particular.

The main cause of the deplorable state in which organised labour has found itself in the political scene of Singapore is clear. The real leaders of the labour movement in Singapore, as it is elsewhere, are those who are thrown up in the evolution of the movement to positions of leadership by their fellow workers. These natural leaders are, however, prevented from active participation in the political institutions of this Colony by the rule in the Legislative Council Standing Orders that the language of the Council is English. The result has been to give scope to all manner of opportunists and adventurers who speak the English language and who proclaim themselves to be sympathetic to the labour movement. Some of these have contrived to obtain for themselves nominal leadership of the labour movement. The result is only what one could expect, though it can hardly be the one as is intended by those who framed the present constitution.

We therefore urge the Commission, with all the emphasis at our command, to make provision in the new constitution for various languages to be spoken in the Assembly. The difficulties are largely technical and may be solved by providing earphones and translators. Simultaneous translations of speeches may be arranged at Council meetings. For the paper work necessary in the management of public affairs, written translations could be arranged without great inconvenience or cost, and in Committee meetings the services of a few interpreters may be necessary. It is a trite, but, nevertheless, true statement that Singapore is a cosmopolitan city with people of many ethnic and linguistic origins. The participation of the natural leaders of the people in public affairs of the Colony cannot be achieved unless due regard is paid to the range of languages spoken here."

And so they went on to ask:

"The actual languages for which it may be necessary to arrange translations in the Legislative Council meetings are a matter of detail which could be settled without undue difficulty. We suggest that the following languages and dialects be regarded as the accepted medium of expression in the Legislature - English, Malay, Tamil, two or three Chinese dialects, e.g., Mandarin, Hokkien and Cantonese."

In January that year these Unions made oral representations before the Rendel Commission. I remember the story in the Singapore Standard dated 15th January, 1954:

"Demand for a multi-lingual Legislature for Singapore was made in three languages by three trade unionists at the first open session of the Rendel Constitution Commission at the Victoria Memorial Hall yesterday. The unionists stressed that the language barrier placed on candidates standing for elections to the Legislative and City Councils was preventing genuine workers' representatives from entering the Councils. The three workers' representatives - Mr K. M. Byrne, Mr A. K. Karipaya and Inche Ismail Bin Bajee - declared that Singapore was being ruled by an English-speaking minority of ten per cent of the total population."

That is how it began, Sir. Looking back now, I do not think that those who drafted the memoranda which they presented to the Rendel Commission fully realised the depths of the problem that had been facing Singapore all this while. We have heard today how everybody feels that the demand for a multi-lingual Legislature is reasonable and just. But for two years there was bitter and fierce opposition put up by one of the English-language papers and backed, unfortunately disastrously for that Party, by the English-speaking middle class. They went to town with it and they were thrown out. The Progressive Party is today dead. They have become Lib-Soc. They have become Liberals ad lib. They now say they believe in multi-lingualism and, with a touch of drama, they get their sole European-elected representative to come here and put forward in reasonable language why this is as it should be. But I think we should congratulate the hon. Mr Sutherland for nailing the lie. He says he is not afraid of what will happen to him. He is not elected. He does not care. The others are elected -

The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

The Chief Minister: Point of order, Sir. With respect, it is true that they are in the Opposition. They held views. They may have changed their views. To speak of "nailing the lie", I respectfully suggest, is not the proper procedure under our rules.

Mr Speaker: An objection has been taken by the Chief Minister and I must deal with that objection. The objection, as I take it, is that the use of the phrase "nailing the lie" in respect of Members of this Assembly is out of order. I must rule that it is, in fact, out of order and should never have been used.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is tiresome to listen to these finickity objections on points of order - however I must abide by your ruling. However, I think I have conveyed enough to this House to show that what really is behind this demand is a force of some 300,000 people who have voted unequivocably for multi-lingualism. Everyone of us who has to go back to his constituency in the not too distant future must have this in mind. So we have heard all these blandishments that nobody need take any credit for it - "I am speaking for Cairnhill." "I am speaking for Stamford." "I am speaking for Ulu Bedok." "I am not the Government." "We represent the voters." But comes the Member for Stamford who says, "We must give credit where credit is due." That credit, I think, must be due to the few who work with these unions and who wrote that memorandum.

For purposes of record. I have recounted the beginnings of this issue. When they started it, they did not realise that it was going to grow into such enormous proportions and reach a point where the whole political structure of our constitution would change radically. When they wrote this memorandum, they had in mind a transitory period where we would have a multiplicity of languages, hoping that the time would come when we would all be one homogeneous, linguistic whole. But ethnic, linguistic and racial forces are more powerful than the thoughts - rational and logical even though they may be - of an English-educated minority. This issue has brought forward real and deep problems which we must face not tomorrow but now. We have to decide for ourselves the basis of the society upon which an independent Malaya is to rest.

We have heard, and, as far as I am concerned, with considerable amusement, the last ditch stand by the hon. Mr Sutherland. There is something engaging about the Scots - they are doughty warriors and they go down fighting. "I believe in what I believe, and I believe in English. It is the best language and let us have no nonsense with North-East monsoons and South-West monsoons! We all know what we are talking about when we talk English, but when we talk one of these bazaar languages we get all mixed up!" I thought to myself then - what great luck that this Assembly should constantly be reminded of what it might have been if all those who had won the election were those who had supported the point of view of the hon. Mr Sutherland. We would have seen a wonderful facade, a legislature completely divorced from the people, and without the slightest knowledge of what was going on in the hearts and minds of the people. I thought to myself also then - what an incredibly dangerous thing to have admitted - that a hundred years of British domination had reduced the Malay language to such a pitiable state of disrepair! It cannot even express "North-East monsoon", and therefore we should abandon it!

Mr Speaker, Sir, 70 million Indonesians in Indonesia have officially abolished the Dutch language, abjured forever their desire to speak Dutch, introduced a new language because they hated the Dutch, and still hate the Dutch, and are actively building up their language and their literature. This is a matter where I think that white men would be wise not to rush in. If they want to be friends with the local people, they must understand why they are and what they are. They must know that there is one urge stronger than any other in Asia, and that is the assertion of Asians in Asia and in the world. That was the spirit of the Bandung Conference. The demarcation line there was not Communism, anti-Communism, pro-Communism or non-Communism. There was a bigger denominator. We are the dispossessed. We have been that for the last century. They said the yellow man was a coward, the black man was a fool, and the brown man was lazy. One cannot expect these natives to work democracy. What can one do with their languages? In Bandung, Asia and Africa symbolised for all Asians and Africans the spirit of the new Asia and the new world. If the white man does not believe that the yellow man, or the brown man or the black man can do it, they are going to show it to him in a very swift and decisive manner.

So, apart from the emotional symbols, the paraphernalia of building up a coherent and cohesive state, there is the question of the national language. It is something more than just learning about the North-East monsoon. It is something which becomes part of the way of life, of the thoughts of a whole race, of a whole people. That is why the Chief Minister and his kin can go back to Israel today and speak Hebrew after 2,000 years of being chased all over the world. They can go back to Israel and they can speak Hebrew, which they have kept alive.

When we take this step today, we must understand that it is irreversible, unless at the point of the bayonet, and even that would not work for long. We must remember that there are deeper and wider implications and that is why, in our All-Party Education Report on Chinese education, we could not confine ourselves to the problem of Chinese education. The whole thing is tied up with what kind of Malaya we are to have, and I hope the most constructive suggestion made in this Education Report is that which provides that whichever stream of education you enter, you should come out at the end of that stream in one confluence. We have here a proposal that if a boy goes to an English-language school, he shall immediately also learn his mother language. He shall do that for the whole of his school life. In his secondary school he will opt for one more of the four languages that will be offered him - Malay, Mandarin, Tamil or such other language as the Indian community will decide for themselves, and English as the first foreign language. Let us face facts. Pandit Nehru (and I think few non-Europeans can claim to have the same facility of expression in the English language as Mr Nehru) has said that every time he speaks in the English language he feels ashamed that he is a product of a colonial society, that he has not a command of his own language as he has of English. We have decided that no boy in Singapore - and we hope in Malaya - will ever be in the predicament in which some Members in this House find themselves - the products of the English-educated colonial system. So this scheme is devised in order that whatever school a boy goes into - if it is Malay, he will learn two other languages: if it is Chinese, he will learn two other languages; if it is Tamil or Hindi, he will learn two other languages. And we hope that, with the content of the textbooks and the whole approach the same, then at the confluence of the four streams of education we will have a Malayan as homogeneous as it is culturally and ideologically possible in a multi-racial society. That is one of the most difficult and one of the most important problems of Malaya, and the only people who can solve that problem are the people of Malaya themselves. However much we may be pleased at the European elected Member, however much we may be amused by the European nominated Member, those of us who are Asians and who are elected have the task not only of satisfying an emotional urge of the people but also of guiding that urge along lines which will lead to a cohesive, structurally sound and stable Malaya. When Mr Sutherland said, for instance, "Mandarin, they do not speak it! I know they do not! I know! I have been there and I know it! They speak Hokkien and Teochew! ", he completely failed to understand that it is something deeper. It is a primordial urge. The East has said, "We shall assert ourselves." And one of the ways in which the East is asserting itself is the rejuvenation of its languages and its cultures.

We have here today in Malaya three main cultural and linguistic streams - Malay-Indonesian, Chinese and Indian. We are at the confluence of these streams. We have the problem of building up a nation just at the moment when the three outside sources of these civilisations have themselves blossomed forth as international forces. We are trying to build a Malaya when there is an India which is growing more powerful and more industrialised every day. We have a China which is growing more powerful and more organised every day. And so with Indonesia. As for the six to seven million Chinese, Indians and Malays in Malaya, we have to ask ourselves whether our paths lie in reverting back to the lands of our forbears, or whether our future lies in seeking some common way which will be acceptable to all and which would make a democratic Malaya a thing to be proud of. We have to have faith in "unity in diversity" because, if we do not believe that, then we will have to despair and we will have to leave it to the gods. We do not believe in leaving it to the gods. We believe in channelising, marshalling, and understanding these forces in order that we can bring them together to build this Malaya.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Party, and I am not speaking just as the Member for Tanjong Pagar - it is part of the programme of my Party - believes in multi-lingualism. We have said in our Party manifesto that Malay will be the lingua franca because it is the easiest language; but we have also said that Mandarin and the Indian language (whatever language the Indians may opt for) shall be part of the official languages of the country. This is my Party's policy, not my individual thought, my personal quirks, my personal idiosyncrasies. We believe in it because we believe therein lies the way to salvation. I have great pleasure in supporting this motion with this one proviso-that so far as the Tamil language is concerned, it should be opened to the Indian community to make representations to the Select Committee to choose some other Indian language if they so desire. In our Report on Chinese Education, signed by all the parties, we stated that it would appear that Tamil is the most widely spoken language, but that if for reasons of national convenience they wish to choose some other language for their children to study, then it should be open to the Indian community to make representations as to what particular language they wish to have in the Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, we support this motion.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, a great Chinese philosopher once said, "A complete man blushes when credit is given to him for any good that he has done." It is perhaps difficult to find a complete man amongst the elected Members. We will have to look amongst the nominated Members to find a complete man.

I would like to refer, Sir, to one of the remarks made by the hon. Mr Sutherland, and that is whether it is altogether wise to restrict the Chinese language to Mandarin. The older generation of Chinese either do not speak Mandarin or do not understand Mandarin. They have various dialects of their own-Hokien, Teochew, Cantonese and others. I do not say that Mandarin will not be acceptable to the Chinese as a whole, but to restrict the Chinese dialect only to Mandarin may mean excluding a great number of the older Chinese who might be useful in an Assembly of this nature.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Mr Speaker, Sir, in one of the most brilliant speeches delivered yesterday, the Chief Minister reiterated his belief in "justice for all" in Singapore. That has been well received by almost all sections of the people in Singapore, and I do not think that there is very much for me to add to what the Chief Minister already stated yesterday.

My constituents have always told me that they desire this Assembly to be a multi-lingual Assembly, so that more of them could take part in the public affairs of this Colony, and, as such, I am bound to support this motion. I personally believe that this principle of "justice for all" is very good for the unity of the people of this country, because it will enable them to build a united Malayan nation in the very near future. I do hope that this principle will stand for all time in any future constitution for Malaya and Singapore.

In regard to the language for the Indians in this Assembly, Tamil has been recommended. I feel sure that all the Indians will agree that the majority of the Indian population do speak Tamil, and that there will not be much quarrel about this language being introduced into this Assembly. If, however, any other section of the Indian community would make representations to the Select Committee that a language other than Tamil should be introduced, I am sure the Select Committee would consider their representations.

Sir, I have the privilege of supporting this motion.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this motion. It is the policy of my Party -

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Which Party?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: - the Liberal-Socialist Party, the new Party that will have the support of all in Singapore, because it represents all shades of opinion and represents all races. This is the Party that will be supported by all races because it does not seek to depart -

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Sir, is this debate relating to a Party or to the motion before the House?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: In answer to your question -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid the hon. Member invited those remarks. Mr Lim Choon Mong.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I shall not dwell too much on that, Sir. I will get back to the debate. In this world today we fight for equality. We find that the Western world have always said that they are the champions of democracy. Indeed, Sir, we are also fighting for that ideal. That ideal, however, must embrace at least a few fundamental points. It must embrace freedom of action and freedom of expression. We do not in Singapore restrict people outside this Assembly from speaking whatever they like to speak, but in this Assembly, however, we do confine them to the English language. Such freedom of speech, Sir, I would say is not effective. It is not what the people want. The ideals of the people, their aspirations, must be allowed to reach the masses, to reach the highest of Government organs, and it is therefore important that the people of this country should be allowed to speak and express their opinions in their own languages. Many people in this country feel that there are practical difficulties on the introduction of multi-lingualism, but I ask you, Sir, in whatever matter that we are starting, is there no difficulty? There must be difficulties in the beginning of everything. If we happen to be the first to meet with such difficulties, then we must have the courage and conviction to carry on and overcome such difficulties, and make the project work. We may not work at full efficiency at the beginning, but it is my hope - and I know - that in the end it will work. I know that this will come if it is implemented by the Ministry of Education. I have a hope that one day we will be able to converse with people of all races, who comprise the population of Singapore and Malaya, in any language whatsoever. I have had a bit of experience here and there, and I do know that in Singapore today there are many who are equipped with a knowledge of more than one language; in effect, they speak two, three or four languages. Today it may be possible for us to speak to an Englishman in Malay and make him understand it, although he may not be able to express himself in Malay; and the Englishman may be able to speak to a Malay or a Chinese in English and the other person may understand it, although he may not be able to express himself in English. It is just another step forward whereby another person may be made or persuaded to learn more languages than one. I think it is essential that multi-lingual education should be introduced to make this scheme of a multi-lingual Assembly successful.

I will say, Sir, that every person in this world has his pride, and also his prejudice - pride and prejudice. I, let us say, am a European. I happen to know the English language and no other. I therefore say that the English language is the best. If I happen to be a Malay, I am proud of being a Malay, and I will say that the Malay language is the best. And so it is with the Chinese and the other communities. Such prejudices must be broken. We must see that we should have a more open mind and that can only be achieved, Sir, by knowing the languages of other races. If we should know more languages, we would be able to understand the cultures and the points of view of the other sections of the people that comprise Singapore. If we should know and understand other people, then indeed, Sir, it would work towards a more harmonious Singapore. This, I believe, should be the aim of everybody inside and outside the Assembly, and in contrast to that, Sir, there may be people who want to champion one race and make that race hate another, just for their political ends and their own selfishness. I think these people will do harm to the whole nation. The people of Singapore must recognise such leaders as people who are not going to do them good but people who may, by such action, cause bloodshed in the future. Not only must we unite the people of Singapore by language and break the barrier in this cultural life, we must also break the preaching of hatred of class. We must break the people who say, "I represented the workers. I wrote all the memoranda for them. You must go against all the other people who are stopping us from getting what we should get." These people, Sir, are not actually giving the workers what they want. Just as they are going to divide the people of Singapore by race, they will agitate the workers to go on strike and make them suffer, and they still call themselves champions. In Singapore we want harmony, racial harmony, harmony between capital and labour. We must weld Singapore into one strong nation with only one aim - that aim being for the betterment of Singapore and not for ourselves.

Coming back again, Sir, I would say that if multi-lingualism is going to be introduced into the Assembly, then I think the Assembly will be able to get within its ranks people who are the natural leaders of the people. I have been going round the whole of Singapore. I have visited villages. I have visited shops right in the centre of the town, and I have always noted that in every locality there are one or two or more people whose opinions are valued, and they are, in fact, doing a great deal of work, leading the people there. Looking at Singapore as a bigger whole, Sir, I believe and I know that there are people whom all Singapore respect, but because of the language barrier they cannot come into this Assembly to make their contributions for the country. It is not a loss to these people but it is a loss to Singapore that we could not have the services of such good men. But taking away the language barrier, I believe that this Assembly will be filled by representatives who are nearer and dearer to the hearts of the people.

Sir, for these reasons, I support the motion before the House.

Question put,

That this Assembly is of the opinion that for the purposes of oral debate the languages of the Assembly should be English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil; and that a Select Committee be appointed to examine, report upon and make recommendations in respect of matters necessary to enable effect to be given to the proposal.

Hon. Members: Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Clear the lobbies.

The House divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, nil; Abstentions, 3. Ayes Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Lim, R. C. H. Jumat. Lim Koon Teck. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Lim Yew Hock. Braga, A. J. Mak Pak Shee. Chew Swee Kee. Marshall, D. S. Ede, John. Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Goh Chew Chua. Abdul Hamid. Goh Tong Liang. Nair, M. P. D. Jumabhoy, J. M. Ong Piah Teng. Jumabhoy, R. Seah Peng Chuan. Lazarous, A. R. Sutherland, G. A. P. Lee Choon Eng. Tan Theng Chiang. Lee Kuan Yew. Tan, William. Lim Cher Kheng. Thomas, Francis. Lim Ching Siong Wong Foo Nam. Lim Choon Mong. Noes Absentions Nils Butterfield, C. H. Goode, W. A. C. Hart, T. M.

The Chief Minister: Sir, on a point of order. Is a Member permitted to vote contrary to the expressions of opinion made by him during a debate?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: He is converted!

Mr Speaker: The only point that hon. Members must remember is that, on the call for voices, if they do say "Aye" they cannot change that opinion when the division is taken. An hon. Member can, in fact, as has been stated by another hon. Member, be converted!

Resolved,

That this Assembly is of the opinion that for the purposes of oral debate the languages of the Assembly should be English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil; and that a Select Committee be appointed to examine, report upon and make recommendations in respect of matters necessary to enable effect to be given to the proposal.

The Chief Minister: May I suggest, Sir, that the House stand adjourned until 2.30 p.m.?

Mr Speaker: This is an appropriate time. I shall therefore suspend the sitting until 2.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.05 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.