GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS (Debate on the Address)

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir,I rise to move the motion standing in my name, namely,

That this Assembly expresses its thanks to His Excellency the Governor for his Address delivered on Wednesday, 29th August, 1956.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the one week's adjournment has given the Opposition ample time to study the Governor's Address and this traditional motion is to give them an opportunity to debate and criticise the policy of the Government. There has been talk that some hon. Members are waiting for this day to come so that they can unleash the fury of their attack. This is indeed, Sir, a very healthy sign, for our parliamentary form of government demands a virile and constructive Opposition.

This is the first business sitting of the Assembly since I took office as Chief Minister last June, and I am therefore taking this first opportunity of making a lengthy statement on why I accepted office and what are the Government's plans for Merdeka.

I accepted office, Sir, because I believed that I had the confidence of the public, and I have received no indication that this confidence has waned. I believed that there was a job to be done in the interests of the people and that it was my duty, as a Malayan, not to shirk it. I sincerely believed that it was the desire of the people's representatives in this Assembly to have another crack at the Colonial Office. I sincerely believed, and still sincerely believe, Sir, that when I lead the next delegation to London to resume the constitutional talks, I would have the full support and co-operation of all Parties in this Assembly. These were my beliefs which led me to accept office as Chief Minister, an office to which, in God's truth, I did not aspire. These beliefs have given me sustenance in the carrying out of a job, in fact, two jobs which are onerous and, at the present time, full of difficulties. If my beliefs are unfounded, then I shall have no strength and no confidence left in me to continue working for the task that is immediately ahead of us - the attainment of complete internal self-government - and I am therefore, Sir, asking this House to confirm or shatter those parts of my beliefs as have a direct bearing on them. This motion, Sir, is therefore to be treated as a vote of confidence.

Sir, I formed my Government with the same colleagues who held office in the previous Government, without any change in their portfolio, although this meant that I have to tackle two jobs - that of Chief Minister and of Minister for Labour and Welfare. I did this, Sir, in order to have the advantage of continuity of personnel to ensure continuity of policy. I did not seek further coalition to strengthen the Government and sustain us in office. The Labour Front Coalition Government do not propose to hold office up to 1959, the natural life of this Assembly under the present constitution. The Government propose to reopen talks with the Colonial Office by April next year for complete internal self-government. If the talks are successful, a new constitution will come into being; and if we fail, the purpose of my accepting office will have come to an end.

I have been silent, and deliberately so, on our plans for Merdeka because I feel a new strategy is called for as a result of experience gained over the failure of the last talks. This time we must plan, and plan well, so that we can negotiate from a position of strength. In this planning there will, of course, be consultations with Members of the Opposition with a view to united effort and united action. Let us not play party politics in this great task. Let us, however, show that, as true Malayans, we are united in the fight for Merdeka, because in unity we beget strength and in unity we brook no failure. This is another big reason, Sir, which impels me to ask this House to treat my motion as a vote of confidence.

When I visited London last July to attend the Labour Administration Conference in Oxford, I took the opportunity offered me to have informal discussions with the Secretary of State, and I am strongly convinced that if the Government have the fullest support and co-operation of the Opposition, there can be no failure when the next delegation goes to London.

I have set, Sir, April 1957 as the latest date for the reopening of the talks with the Colonial Office, but this date can be advanced by two or three months if our plans are ready by then.

Sir, I am most conscious of the fact that the Government and the Opposition are equally represented in this House. We are back again to the 16-a-side. During the previous session of this House one hon. Member was wont to point out at various times that the Government Benches had only 12 elected Members against 13 in the Opposition. I was quite aware of the reasons which prompted him to launch this criticism. Today this side of the House has only 11 elected Members, whereas the opposition ranks have increased by one. Be that as it may, Sir, I am not in the least dismayed.

We are at present working under the Rendel Constitution, a constitution which we have all expressed a desire to throw out, and I have already described how best we can achieve this. I have already stated, Sir, that I did not seek further coalition to sustain us in office, because the work that we set out to do during our short term of office has, I believe, the support of all Members of this House. I know the feeling of this hon. Member towards me and this is not a challenge to him at all. It is just a statement of facts and it is because I am most conscious of these facts, apart from the two other reasons which I have already mentioned, that I find it imperative that I should ask this House to treat my motion as a vote of confidence. My colleagues and I are prepared and at all times willing to roll up our sleeves and put our heart and soul into the service of the people of this fair land of ours, if we can feel that the goal of Merdeka has the support and co-operation of Opposition Members, because, as I have already explained, Sir, it is only with this support and co-operation that Merdeka can be attained.

I invite the attention of hon. Members to paragraph 62 of the Governor's Address which deals with the relationship with the Federation of Malaya. Since I became Chief Minister, I have maintained close and friendly contacts with the Federation Chief Minister in order to bring about a better understanding and appreciation of our common problems, aims and aspirations. I am happy to be able to say that our relationship has been most friendly and fruitful and both of us are striving to keep it so. What I have been trying to build up, Sir, has received a setback by the attack of the P.A.P. on the Federation Government. The People's Action Party, like the Labour Front, stands for a united Malaya, but their method of bringing about this unity is one which we all deplore.

Now, Sir, I will speak briefly, indeed very briefly, on the plans that the Government have to bring about a better and a happier Singapore. These have been described in greater detail in the Governor's Address. I know some hon. Members are very anxious to hurl their criticisms and I therefore do not propose to prolong the agony of their anxiety. The Government welcome criticisms as long as they are constructive, because we thrive on criticism. I have not elaborated, Sir, on our plans at this stage because we want to hear the views of Opposition Members before we get down to the task of putting the Government's policy into action. Sir, I beg to move.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion, reserving my right to speak at a later stage.

Question proposed.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is most welcome to note that the Government recognises that for national prosperity there must be cooperation between employers and employees. The constant preaching of this philosophy by the Liberal-Socialists during the past year has not been in vain, and we hope that the Government will pursue this policy steadfastly. In contrast to the pride expressed by the ex-Chief Minister of the endless number of strikes last year, the Government realises that such acts are wasteful and damaging.

As stated in His Excellency's Address the Government stands for the early attainment of complete internal self-government. Although the expression is exactly the same as that used in the Address last year, we hope that with more sober leadership this will be attained at an earlier date. The Chief Minister today has asked for the support of all other Parties in this Assembly for this mission. Merdeka is also our goal and certainly he will receive our support in this matter.

But in spite of all this, the Government cannot escape criticism on all its omissions, failure to carry out its promises as well as its many shortsighted policies. In the field of commerce and industry, Government hopes to promote the expansion of industries. It also hopes that the people of Singapore will invest in new projects. The other hopes are that, as a consequence of such expressions, foreign capital will flood the Singapore market to increase its prosperity and employment opportunities. There are also hopes to assist small-scale manufacturers, farmers, livestock rearers and fishermen. It seems to me that the Government lives on hopes, but I would like to warn our Ministers that mere existence on hopes will never bring about the realisation of their dreams. Action is needed and we need the right type of action as well as approach.

The friendly contacts and discussions with our neighbours brought back absolutely nothing worth while to Singapore. Apart from the pleasant reception accorded to our trade delegates, the mission claimed that it had persuaded the Indonesian Government to sell us a few tons of low-grade rubber. But from the accounts given by our rubber dealers as well as the newspapers, such contracts for sale were completed even before the mission left the shores of Singapore.

The long-standing difficulties of our fishermen and fish merchants, fishing or working in Indonesian or near Indonesian waters, are still not solved. The currency difficulties in connection with trading with Indonesia experienced by our importers and exporters are still formidable barriers to our entrepot trade, and therefore to our earnings. Even in the frequent discussions with our brothers across the Straits, the Government have not been able to negotiate anything substantial that will benefit Singapore.

The Ministers talk about assisting industries, but let me ask them where our manufacturers can sell their finished products. Singapore has to face competition from Hongkong and Japan, and yet the only and nearest market - the Federation of Malaya - has not been able to assist such industries or encourage them. The Government of Singapore, despite all its claims, is unable to secure for our local manufacturers preferential treatment even with the Federation of Malaya. Goods manufactured in Singapore are subject to tax, whereas if the factories are situated in Johore or Penang there will not be the necessity to pay duty. The Government should take heed of this seriously, otherwise any expansion or increase in industries will not take place in Singapore but in the Federation of Malaya.

With regard to exports of local manufactures to Indonesia, I need not dwell too long on it. In fact, most of us know that the import duties imposed on such goods range from 50 to 200 per cent, and that has pushed our exports to a position of insignificance.

Let us now come to the manufactures for local consumption. Even these are facing great difficulties because of keen competition and sometimes dumping from our near neighbours. Many are struggling on grimly for their existence, but many others are faced with the imminent danger of closing down their factories. Let me just quote one example - the bee-hoon manufacturers. In previous years they not only produced sufficient for the consumption of Singapore but they were also able to export their surplus to the Federation of Malaya and the nearby islands. Today they are faced with such fierce competition that they will soon go out of business. The Bee-hoon Association have voiced their opinions and their problems in the Press. They have brought their problems to the attention of the Minister for Commerce and Industry, and I believe that the Minister for Communications and Works is also well informed of this subject. But what has the Government done for them? Up to date I believe it is still absolutely nothing. We are interested to know what Government is going to do to assist this category of small-scale manufacturers.

In the case of agriculture, apart from the island-wide show that produced nothing but expenditure, what encouragement is Government giving to our farmers? Fertilisers are not sold to the farmers at cost. They have to fend for themselves and to buy their own fertilisers. Even such accessories as insecticides are not readily available to them. I know of a brand of insecticide sold by Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, but I believe -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): No advertisements, please.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: but I believe that brand has been given to someone pretty near the Government as a sort of monopoly, and it is a real difficulty for farmers to get such an insecticide.

Another problem facing the farmers is the insecurity of tenure of land. We have very little land for farming. As was stated by the Speaker of the Federal Legislative Council, when we talk about farmland we refer to such places as Changi and Ponggol and not to large stretches of land like Johore. [Interruption.] The Speaker of the Federation during the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting.

An hon. Member: He was not the Speaker.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: This small acreage of farmland is slowly but surely being pushed out to make way for new housing estates. The life of the farmer today is not a pleasant one. In fact, he is driven from pillar to post. I wonder whether the Government would be prepared to grant the farmers, who occupy Crown land on temporary occupation licences, permanent titles to dispel their sense of insecurity. As I have said before in this Assembly, and I repeat it again, the only possible expansion for Singapore is towards the sea. Fisheries is the only feasible primary industry. The Government hopes to encourage it. It invited applications for licences for deep-sea fishing. Eight companies applied for that, but only three were granted licences. No doubt many of them did not know the conditions required for securing a licence, but they expressed their willingness to comply with all such requirements and yet the licences issued were limited only to three. Let me ask the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether another monopoly, or near monopoly, is to be created? Let me further ask him whether more people engaged in deep-sea fishing will benefit Singapore? Each licensee is required to train a number of local fishermen. If the number of companies granted licences were increased, would not the number of fishermen undergoing training be increased? I would request the Minister to make a statement of policy on this.

On the question of training local fishermen under the above scheme, it will also be interesting if we can be informed of the number under training. I am certain this number will just be a token one and, this being the case, what is the Government doing? Is it going to take an active part? Is it going to establish fishery schools to start training our local lads or is it only taking a passive attitude and asking fishermen to train their own men? I suggest that Government should give this idea of a fishery school some thought.

Still on the lines of encouraging the fishing industry, let me ask the Minister in charge what facilities Government is providing for the cheap landing and sale of fish. Now that Nicoll's Drive has cut off Clyde Terrace Market from the sea, it is no longer possible to land fish there. Instead, fishermen will have to land their fish at Tanjong Rhu and thereafter transport it by lorry to Clyde Terrace Market. It may be argued that there is still the Ellenborough Market, but this market was already too small when two markets were available for the landing of fish. Further, with deep-sea fishing and more off-shore fishing, larger boats will have to be used and certainly with the many low bridges over Singapore River entry to Ellenborough Market will not be possible for these bigger boats. What has happened to the much discussed wholesale market? Has it gone into cold storage? I recommend that it should be brought out again and the scheme implemented at once. This will then give a little more encouragement to the fishing industry as well as lowering the cost of fish to the people of Singapore by saving transport and handling charges.

Then we have the case of prawn ponds. In one instance, an operator did encroach a little on the forest reserve at Jurong. He was immediately asked by Government to remove his bunds without considering the great financial loss he would suffer. I would like to point out that whereas one Government department encourages fishing, another department is not doing much to encourage it. Land for productive industries is scarce and it would be a help if some areas of forest reserve could be utilised for prawn ponds or other productive projects.

On the whole, the prospect of business in the near future is dull. The Government may claim that the financial position of Singapore is sound and that the people are confident of its future, but it is a well-known fact that capital has been transferred from Singapore. National income is steadily diminishing and with the stoppage of industrial and trade expansion, unemployment is sure to mount. We have some interesting figures of unemployment from the Registrar of the Unemployment Bureau, but I am inclined to treat such figures given as bogus. For every man registered as an unemployed, there are at least three others not registered. The ever-increasing number of hawkers points to this sorry state of affairs. In the East here the people do not, as a rule, welcome Government charity. They will only accept such dole as a last resort, and so when they are out of a job they try to eke out a living by hawking. If more industries are established, I am sure the number of hawkers will decrease. Whilst on the problem of hawkers, I have heard that the Government intended to set up a Hawkers Advisory Board, but to-date nothing has been done. Will Government do something to alleviate the difficulties of the hawkers? They are arrested for obstruction and suffer heavy and frequent fines. I put it to you, Sir, that if you eliminate hawkers by arresting them, you will have yet another problem on your hands. These poor people will have no means of supporting themselves and it is more than likely that they will turn to crime in order to secure the money necessary to keep themselves alive.

Let us now turn our attention to what the Government terms as a peculiarly urgent youth problem. This problem, in fact, arises out of the Government's policy of only giving primary education to the masses of our young people. A boy who passes Primary VI should be of an average age of 13 years. What can a boy of 13 or 14 do? No employer will give him a job because of his low education as well as his youth. He is forced into wasting his time and obviously sooner or later his excess energy will lead him to gang up with other youths to create mischief. This urgent problem can be met if the Government is prepared to extend the education of the masses to a minimum standard of Form III. Only then will such students be able to attain a standard of education and be of an age that will be more acceptable to employers. Government may claim that this will mean a greater expenditure of the taxpayers' money, but this money is more suitably employed than when it is spent for building more criminal courts, for enlarging the police force, and perhaps for building more prisons to house young criminals. The youth of Singapore has received a raw deal in this matter and I hope that Government will look into this problem very seriously and do something to correct that shortsighted policy.

Government also admits that it will not be able to supply an adequate number of qualified Malayans to replace all expatriates, especially in the professional and technical posts. With the policy of not building a greater number of secondary schools, the supply of such men can never be satisfactory. I believe that for every ten primary schools built, there must be at least four secondary schools. The students who pass well at the primary level should not be debarred from entering a secondary school because of lack of places. He should be allowed to continue on in a secondary school to a standard equivalent to Standard VII. Now if these secondary schools are not built, then the number of students that can be turned out at the School Certificate level will be few and selection for the university will then be even fewer. In this manner it will not be easy for us to have local lads to fill all the technical and professional posts required. Even the University of Malaya is not doing its share in assisting the people of Singapore. In more advanced countries we find that universities usually conduct evening courses for those who are not fortunate enough to be able to attend a full course. The University of Malaya is not doing this. We hope that Government will assist the University further in order that it can afford such facilities to our workers. After all, the University of Malaya accepts only the cream of Malayan students, yet many other students have gone abroad for their studies and many have come back with first-class qualifications. This is an indication that we have not fully utilised the talents we have in this country. The rate of progress in any country is closely tied up with the educational policy, so that whilst it is essential to concentrate on the problem of eradicating illiteracy in this country and also producing the top professional men, the need for training people to fill such jobs as mechanics, foremen, masons, salesmen or even junior executives should not be overlooked. In fact, the greatest volume of work and the most important work is done by these classes of people. Two secondary technical schools for the whole of Singapore are not sufficient, and I hope that Government will build more to provide facilities for the middle classes. This is important because unless this is done we will have, on the one hand, people with high qualifications and, on the other hand, the half-educated people. The Government should do its duty to the country and try and raise the standard of education of this country to further heights.

The assurance by the Government to assist the Nanyang University is most welcome, but we shall have to withhold comment until such time as we know what concrete steps Government is taking to assist that institution.

In the Address by His Excellency the Governor, the Government recognises the need for better communications in the rural areas. I shall quote one example of such a need and the manner in which the Government tackled the problem. I had occasion to bring to the notice of the Government the bottleneck that existed and is still existing along the half-mile stretch between the 5� milestone and the 6 milestone Yio Chu Kang Road early last year. The road is so narrow that it is a danger to pedestrians and cyclists when two vehicles pass each other. A number of serious accidents had happened there. One year has already passed and nothing concrete has been done. The voice of the people living there, expressed in the Press and through their Assemblymen in this Assembly, has fallen on deaf ears. I hope that Government will stir itself into action and widen the road at an early date. Instances such as this reflect that Government is ignoring the needs of the people and it reflects badly on the policy of Government.

There was also a glowing note in the Address regarding the Singapore Telephone Board, but I would like to voice the opinion of the people that the progress of that Board can be compared with that of a snail. If the Minister for Communications and Works cares to look into the number of applications for new telephones, he will be astounded by the number. Even the mechanical working of the telephone is none too good. The public of Singapore will agree with me that it is not an infrequent experience that when one dials a number, instead of getting that number, you are connected to the wrong line. It is indeed not an exaggeration to say that using the telephone nowadays is a training in patience.

The Postal Department is having a Five-year Postal Services Development Plan, but I would like to warn the Government that the number of dead letters will not decrease if the numbering of houses in the rural areas remains in that crazy state. I would like the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing to look into that matter and bring some order into the numbering of houses in the rural areas. Let me quote you some examples. You have small numbers off Upper Serangoon Road, somewhere near the end of that stretch, and then after that, the numbers start varying from larger ones to smaller ones. That crazy state of affairs should be rectified, and rectified at once. In fact, I did send a large number of letters to people living in my constituency -

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): During the elections.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Not during the elections. Many of these letters addressed to people in the kampongs came back to me, not because there was not a house but because of the crazy way of numbering the houses.

On the question of the medical services, it is heartening to note that Government is starting work on a new district hospital and a hospital for chronic cases. The Assembly will remember that on many occasions last year I voiced the need for such measures. In fact, I had put the questions direct to the Minister for Health. I am glad that the Minister has taken note of this, but I am not too certain that the line taken by the Government is the best one. The General Hospital today is doing the job of a specialist hospital, a district hospital as well as a hospital for chronic cases. I would like the Minister for Health to know that in a set-up such as this, there is bound to be a great deal of wastage of manpower. As I understand the arrangements in hospitals, a certain number of patients are attended to by a doctor and a certain number of nurses. Whereas the acutely ill may require the maximum of medical attention, the convalescent cases and the chronic cases need less expert attention. There is therefore a wastage. From the accounts released to the Press, the new district hospital is going to be a replica of the General Hospital. Only in this case it will be smaller in size. Looking at it from the point of view of shortage of staff and shortage of funds, I think this is all wrong. I believe it would be wise for Government not to build such hospitals catering for all types of cases. In fact, the best arrangement would be to build a central specialist hospital that requires specialists who can act as consultants to other hospitals and then to build cheap district hospitals situated in all parts of Singapore to cater for the acutely ill. Of course, we should also have chronic hospitals. If such arrangements are made, the only type of hospital that will require specialist attention and special equipment will be the central specialist hospital. District hospitals can be built very cheaply on the lines of the old Tan Tock Seng Hospital. They will need ordinary operating rooms. I believe that the old Tan Tock Seng Hospital, which was built at less cost than the present type of hospitals installed with air-conditioning and luxurious rooms, has managed to cater for the needs of the people. If we are going to have the idea of building a grand district hospital, then we will not be able to have more hospitals. A hospital's essential function is to treat patients and to render assistance to the people who are sick. If the money can be spread to cover more hospitals, then medical care can be given to many more people than the number that is being catered for by Government. I am sure that in Singapore today there is a large number of people who are sick and who go round to the hospitals but are turned away because there is a lack of bed space. Government should look into this carefully and decide whether medical attention for a large number of people is preferable or whether it is better to build luxurious hospitals.

We come back now to the problem of youths and it is one that is uppermost in the minds of the people of Singapore. As I have said earlier, this problem has been created by the Government policy of under-educating our boys and girls and leaving them without further guidance or the opportunity of employment at a tender age. Although Government has declared that it will do everything possible to encourage healthy youth activities and training facilities, as the President of the Federation of Boys' Clubs. I am forced to the conclusion that although Government has promised a full loaf to the youth movement, in actual fact, it is withholding three-quarters of that loaf. The people of Singapore should know that boys' club movements cater primarily for the under-privileged youths and their activities, unlike many other youth movements, are carried on daily, Sundays and holidays not, excepted. With the little help received from the Department of Social Welfare, the boys' clubs have to rely a good deal on the efforts of voluntary workers and public assistance. The movement tries to provide healthy activities for the under-privileged youth, and to produce satisfactory results, effort must be sustained. Unlike other movements, boys' clubs are very short of trained instructors. Some of these leaders may assist the clubs for some time, but invariably their interest will slacken and they will drop out. In order to provide for continuous leadership, the Federation of Boys' Clubs have put up a scheme to train leaders and to post them to assist the various clubs. I must remind this Assembly that I raised the question of boys' clubs during the Budget debate last year and was promised by the Minister for Labour and Welfare that assistance would be forthcoming if concrete schemes were put up. Now that the scheme has been put into operation and the Government is not assisting it as promised, it will be a pity if the voluntary workers are not encouraged to carry on assisting our youths more vigorously.

Hon. Members will remember that the problem of illiteracy was first tackled by voluntary organisations, and although there was no lack of trained personnel, this scheme did not flourish until full assistance was granted by the Government. If the Government feels that this movement can carry on with ten per cent Government aid only, then let the Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare, who is also the President of one of the boys' clubs, tell us the degree of success his club has achieved. Believe me, the voluntary workers that we have are mostly salaried people. In addition to giving their services, they have to pay for transport, drinks, food and other incidentals. Enthusiasm in such cases cannot be sustained. The Government should wake up on this matter and if it still maintains the attitude of wanting to train our youths to be good and useful citizens, it should do something more concrete.

In conclusion, I must urge the Government not to live on hopes, but to carry on its promised programme diligently. Otherwise it will not be able to retain the confidence of the people.

Mr Seah Peng Chuan (Kampong Kapor): Mr Speaker, Sir, with reference to paragraph 4 of His Excellency the Governor's Address, where he dealt with the expansion of existing industries on the island, I would like to say a few words. It is to be appreciated that the Government had the most important matter in mind. It is essential to the interests of the whole population that every conceivable effort is made to develop industry and add to the general prosperity.

This Assembly is aware of Government's intention to increase taxation. I warn Government that it must be careful to avoid any action which in any way would scare capital investment away.

Furthermore, Government does not seem to realise there is increasing unemployment in Singapore. Therefore why do not we allow these overseas investors to come immediately to start new industries, thereby lessening unemployment in this beautiful island of ours?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, out of this dull and prosaic morning there was one sparkle for which I am grateful to the Member for Serangoon. It is that the Hon.the Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare is President of a boys' club.

When I heard the Governor's Address, I was unimpressed at the disjointed catalogue of the miscellaneous administrative projects of the various Ministries all stuck together by a lot of political platitudes. The one thing for which this Government has taken office, namely the reopening of the Merdeka talks, was left hanging in the air. This morning we have heard the Chief Minister declare his stand. He would have made my task easier if he had declared his stand in the Governor's Address. We all know that this is a caretaker Government. We all know that we are just marking time. But unless the Government itself bears that in mind, it will soon forget the purpose for which it has assumed office, and the purpose for which Opposition leaders and Opposition Parties have declared their support for this Government.

A remarkable feature of the speech of the leader of the Liberal-Socialists is the fact that he, like the Address of the Governor, was only interested in internal self-government just by the way. He was more interested in the crazy numbering of houses, boys' clubs, the running of hospitals on which, I am sure, there are people more competent to advise the Minister, and a whole host of other petty administrative matters. We are not saying that these matters of day-to-day administration of a government are not important or that they should be neglected. But to ignore the political realities which surround this whole Assembly, this Government and the whole country is political childishness.

In case I am accused of being preoccupied with the political issue of the next Merdeka talks to the exclusion of the day-to-day running of this administration, I took great care to read through the whole of this policy speech. As a statement of the policy of the Labour Front Government for the second session of this Assembly, the Governor's Address was poor and feeble. There was no coherent theme, no broad exposition of the country's economic or political situation. No master plan, but just a collection of the various departmental activities puffed up with pious ministerial hopes and good intentions. Instead of specific plans, figures, targets, there was only fluff and empty exhortation.

And if the content was poor, the presentation was atrocious. We can excuse the hollow opening paragraph about the Government's desire to link up its future with the achievements - or perhaps the lack of them-of the last 17 months.

In paragraph 2 we are told that "the Government stands for the early attainment of complete internal self-government", with a platitude that it "recognises that successful self-government must be based on national prosperity and national solidarity". But after that promising stand we expected to hear the Government tell us how they proposed to achieve this; what were their plans; what steps were being taken to implement these plans. Even this morning we have not been told of them. We only have an assurance from the Chief Minister that that is his predominant preoccupation.

Suddenly in paragraph 3 we are plunged from entrepot trade to capital expansion for industries, agriculture and fisheries, farming land, crops, down to deep-sea fishing in paragraph 9-a higgledy-piggledy collection from the Minister for Commerce and Industry.

Then in paragraph 10 comes the Labour Front Party theoretician who tried to tie them all up together with a bit of Labour Front Socialist erudition. Let us read it:

"It is the objective of the Government not only to increase the total wealth of Singapore but also to ensure that wealth is diffused throughout the population and that the gap between the largest incomes and the smallest is steadily reduced. Whilst this is partly a matter of the cash earnings of the worker, diffusion of wealth also occurs through improvement of the social services provided out of national revenue. In this connection Government policy is one of improving social services of all kinds especially in those areas, whether urban or rural, whose needs have not been fully met in the past."

Blabber, blabber, blabber! No facts, no figures. A lot of pious protestations. Let us examine what the Minister for Commerce and Industry has said. Take his programme for industrialisation. He covers that in paragraphs 4 and 5. He said something about promoting "the expansion of existing industries... and the establishment of new industries. For this purpose there must be adequate capital investment.... the rate of capital formation within Singapore can be increased...."

Then he says in paragraph 5:

"...International Bank Mission the Government is preparing legislation to set up an Industrial Promotion Board to assist the small-scale manufacturer and is examining the possible establishment of an Industrial Research Institute."

We hear of nothing but possible committees and public authorities which have all not come- into fruition. Sir, I thought this was all about industrialisation, but 47 paragraphs later, in paragraph 52 there is more, probably not from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. This time it says - again from the Labour Front Party theoretician:

"Aspirations for political freedom must be accompanied by genuine national efforts for economic independence. Whilst Singapore, as an international centre of trade, must always retain close links with its trading neighbours, and must give scope for foreign capital, it is of the utmost importance that the citizens of Singapore should provide as much as they possibly can of the capital needed for national development. For the future every good citizen should recognise the need, for his own and for the nation's prosperity, to be economical in his spending and thrifty in his habits so that he can save in order to invest within Singapore. The Government is examining the feasibility of initiating a national savings movement. In this way every citizen could, in greater or lesser degree, contribute to the national prosperity."

Then it goes on, and this is one of their key plans for increasing industrialisation!

"Whilst the Government recognises that Singapore lives by the free movement of trade, steps must and will be taken, as indicated briefly earlier in this Address, to encourage and build up our local production for home consumption and for export. All citizens can, and should, play their part in the development of secondary industry by consuming goods produced on this island."

I shudder to think what would happen to the economy of this country if the author of this piece were made the captain of the economic ship of Singapore. But obviously that could not have been the intention of the Hon. the Chief Minister because he goes on in paragraph 59 to talk about the Economic Adviser to the Chief Minister. He says:

"Whilst the business of Government proceeds from day to day and from year to year, it ought also to be planned with proper thought for the long-term future and for this purpose planning must be based on sound economic surveys and economic advice. The Government will seek to expand and strengthen the office of the Economic Adviser in order that no factor should be overlooked which can contribute to the future welfare of Singapore."

Perhaps if this strong, wise and capable Economic Adviser had been found before this Address was written, it might have had more substance in it.

It is the same thing with all the other schemes. Paragraph 7 talks of "the need to improve farming lands... security of tenure ... freedom from exploitation." Words, words, words. How? When? No answer. Just pious protestations. One has got to turn to paragraph 30 to find a partial answer in the contribution from the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. Incidentally, he says:

"The Land Clearance and Resettlement Plan, accepted by the previous Government, makes fair and adequate provision for compensating and rehousing in such cases, whether in appropriate permanent housing, or in semi-urban planned attap areas with municipal services, or in farming settlements." Just incidental. Security of land tenure... freedom from exploitation - fine words, fine sentiments, but no answer as to how it should be done.

In paragraphs 11 to 15 we are taken rapidly through health and medical facilities, education, community centres, postal services, telephone facilities, public assistance, the citizens advice bureau, to local government elections. Why they all come together in this section I do not know, except that they may constitute a good election bait for the Labour Front's next local government election platform. But again, no facts, no figures, but more good intentions.

In paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 we are told of technical schools, a part of education, I presume, but somehow education is dealt with in some other later section.

We commend the Government for making arrangements for marine training for the local merchant marine. We know that the Government recognises the need for technical schools. It lists one Polytechnic that we have been talking about - that mirage which all good colonial administrators point to and have pointed to, for the last five years. And before this mirage becomes a reality we are being presented with a Supplementary Budget to boost it up by several million more dollars. More of that from the financial aspect later.

Whoever wrote paragraph 18 could not have read paragraph 62. In paragraph 18 - the explanation given why certain technical skills cannot be provided for in Singapore is that Singapore is too small a territory. It is not economic. Singapore is viewed alone, separate and distinct. Paragraph 62 envisages all these links with the Federation, links strengthened to make both territories indivisible. Whoever wrote paragraph 18 obviously did not have the Federation in mind.

I find it difficult not to be disjointed in my criticism of this Address because the Address jumps from item to item with no connecting theme. In paragraph 19 we are suddenly plunged into road transport and traffic. We are told that "the Government is continuing to give careful study to the problems of road communications and transport. The establishment of a unified bus system...".The people of Singapore have paid a very large sum of money to bring out a transport expert. There has been a Transport Commission and a report has been tabled which recommended a unified bus service under a public authority. But like everything else about this Government, they call for the experts, they call for the reports, and finally there is no implementation. Now we are told, so I read in the newspapers, that our Minister for Communications and Transport is going to London to see the crowded streets of London in order to be able better to equip himself to discharge his duties. Every Member of the Government Front Bench has had a free trip. They have been either to the Merdeka talks, or to Hongkong over Christmas to inspect Chinese schools and teachers. So why not let the Minister for Communications and Transport go to London to look at the buses in London? We only hope that after this sojourn to the land of his ancestors, or more accurately the land of the conquerors of his ancestors, he will come back with a more vigorous and a more positive attitude to the transport problem. But it is unfortunate he did not take this opportunity to clarify the position of his Government with regard to road transport. It is an open secret that all the bus owners are saying that this Government has decided that public ownership is not possible and therefore it is going to plan out some scheme between the Government and private ownership - perhaps the Government 55 per cent and private capital 45 per cent. There is a great deal of talk and a lot of heart-burn amongst the Chinese bus owners that this 45 per cent may not be local capital either, because it is alleged that local capital has not got sufficient managerial skill and experience. Here is a good opportunity in this policy statement debate to clarify the Government's stand. We are not satisfied with this wishy-washy equivocation - that "the establishment of a unified bus system will play an important part and the Government will publish a White Paper on this subject shortly." The report of the commission has been tabled for several months. Let us have a stand. We all know that the Member for Kampong Kapor is very anxious about the Singapore Traction Company, so let the S.T.C. know.

The curious thing about the next few paragraphs - 20, 21, 22 and 23 - all from the Ministry of Communications and Works is the facile way in which everything is explained away. If a problem is intractable, then there is the comforting thought: "After all, it is just as bad anywhere else in the world." For instance, "If traffic congestion is becoming more acute," so it is, "as in other cities in the world." And in the best colonial traditions they give a lot of comforting figures about how "Singapore's Airport is flourishing" with more and more passengers. The fact that we have more and more telephone calls between Singapore and the Federation, says the Ministry of Communications and Works, illustrates "the very close ties between the two territories". Two million trunk calls. We were not told what the previous figures were and I do not know how these two million trunk calls had been registered. Every telephone call to Johore Bahru now has to go through as a trunk call. So these comforting figures mean less than they appear.

What is more, when we come to intractable problems like flood control, the attitude indicated is even more engaging. Paragraph 22 says:

"The frequent and increasing floods which have caused serious damage and suffering in the past constitute a major problem for which the Government now has the technical solution, but which can only be dealt with as funds can be made available."

Whatever that can mean. Not a word about this controversy between the Government Engineer and the City Council Engineer; between the man who said, "You can stick up three gates in front of the mouth of three rivers and hold back the sea and you have all the drains empty ready to take the flood waters."

And the other engineer who said, "If you try to do that, perhaps all the three gates, or one of them, will be swept away." What is the Government saying? They say they have got a technical solution which, fortunately for the Government and the engineer concerned, may never be put into operation for quite a long time, by which time the man responsible for the scheme may have safely retired to some pleasant country cottage in the south of England.

But the Government does say that "the anti-flood scheme at Bedok is now almost completed". What it does not say is that when it is completed, there will be no floods in Bedok! It was very wise of the Minister for Communications and Works not to commit himself.

I do not know whether Radio Malaya, which comes in the next paragraph, 24, was tacked on because, although part of the portfolio of the Chief Secretary, it is really communications. Can there be any doubt at all that Radio Malaya should be divorced from the Government and run as a public corporation? Is there any real doubt that if we wanted to introduce television, and if the committee sitting on it should want to recommend it, it should be done by a public corporation? I am not an uncritical admirer of the British. For their own country, they institute public corporations to run their radio, but they allow it to become an adjunct of a government department in their colonies. That is why we have to put up with the curious sort of news presentation from Radio Malaya. Recently Mr Casey, the Australian External Affairs Minister, and Mr Abdul Ghani, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, were passing through Singapore. I was listening to the 7 o'clock news. Right in the middle of the news they broke the news to interview Mr Casey. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary gave his leave and licence for this, but to hear an expatriate break a news bulletin and suddenly turn round and say, "Mr Casey, we in Malaya are very concerned about the problem of the Suez Canal and our future trade and so on, via the Suez Canal. What do you think, Mr Casey?" And then Mr Casey, over Radio Malaya's News, said, "We in Australia share the views and sentiments of the people of Malaya and indeed of the whole of South-East Asia. The Suez Canal must be internationalised ...".Of course, to be fair, Radio Malaya's news reader went on to say that Mr Abdul Ghani, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, was also passing through and Mr Abdul Ghani said that all the Indonesians were solidly behind the Egyptians. But this is the kind of monstrous bias which a Government department running a radio station gives. Expatriates under the charge of an expatriate Minister, using, at public expense, this radio network to give radio time in Malaya to the Australian External Affairs Minister. We raised this matter of a public corporation for Radio Malaya at the very opening of this Assembly last year. After 17 months of office to be told that the Government is still thinking of it, one wonders what could have been the achievement in the last 17 months.

To quote another instance on this Radio Malaya issue. Recently four unions of the Harbour Board were calling a meeting to counter the moves made by certain unions to form one union on the waterfront. Because these four unions happened to be against this one union, they got radio time. It was all over Radio Malaya on the 21st and 22nd of August - that these four unions were calling a meeting for the 22nd. The news was over all networks of Radio Malaya. We are trying to run a democratic State and if we expect others to play the game with us, we have to play the game with them. If we attempt to use the whole machinery of state, while we are in office, to bias things our way, then we cannot complain when somebody else, after assuming office, does exactly the same to us. I have quoted these two instances to show the great dangers of having this great propaganda instrument in the hands of a Government department under a colonial official.

Paragraphs 25, 26 and 27: We have S.A.T.A., medical training, nurses' training, specialist examinations, district hospitals. They are the contributions of the Ministry of Health, of the healthy looking Minister for Health. Of all our Ministers he is the man who carries the burdens of office most lightly, probably because he is the wisest and leaves the burden mostly to his permanent officials.

There was a little statement on clinics in paragraph 11 - it must have been from the Minister for Health, but I do not know why it came in paragraph 11:

"Extended medical facilities will be continued through a system of clinics throughout the Island."

All we have heard so far is that one clinic will be put up where the Malayan Airways canteen used to be. Now they give us a little bit more about S.A.T.A., the Colombo Plan, aid from Australia, the fight against tuberculosis, specialist training by arrangement with Australia, and the Royal Australian College of Surgeons. Everybody knows that the British are on their way out. They are 8,000 miles away and they are intractably involved with Cypriots and Egyptians and they have less and less to spare to deal with us. But now we are getting more and more linked up with Australia. We are getting Australian troops to replace British troops. We are going to be trained by Australian surgeons instead of British surgeons. Sir, I have got nothing against the Australians except that they have not had a civilisation in Australia for a long time, and I would rather have an F.R.C.S. (England) than an F.R.C.S. (Australia)! So, I am sure, would all the doctors. And talking of subversion, here is subversion: Colombo Plan aid. I give you a free milk shaker, then I sell you milk. Then I send my fellows along to test you for Royal Australian College of Surgeons memberships. Then I help you in the fight against tuberculosis. We welcome all these things, but I think one must draw attention to the fact that in this part of the world the Australians are gently moving in while the British are gently oozing out.

An hon. Member: Ah!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Ah! So we must watch out for this infiltration. Let us have no subversion.

Then in paragraph 27 - and this wasted five minutes of the P.A.P. Committee's time:

"Plans are being prepared for a 200-bed Chronic hospital."

Is it worth while building a hospital if it is going to be "chronic"? I do not know whether this is a technical phrase. Perhaps medical men can enlighten us on it.

These three paragraphs are the smallest contribution of all the Ministries - quite wisely, because the less there is, the less there is to criticise. Not one word about this shortage of doctors. Everybody knows that Singapore is in a chronic condition of shortage of doctors; that we are importing our doctors from India and other parts of the world. Not one word has been said about how medical training facilities are going to be expanded; how we are going to improve and increase the training of more doctors.

Now, in paragraphs 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 - they are the contributions of my friend the Hon. the Minister for Lands and Housing. Sir, I hope I am still his friend, for there has been a lot of hard words said about my Party in the last week by his friends, but, I am happy to note, not by the Minister himself. I hope his Master Plan will be not only technically sound, but also wisely and justly implemented. As a technical job, very few people will find anything to complain of because a tremendous amount of planning has gone into it. But to put that blue-print into action, to uproot thousands of families is bound to cause a great deal of distress and suffering, unless the implementation is done with a great deal of "heart". This is not to say that we have no criticisms at all of the Master Plan. I am not an expert on town planning, but it does seem strange when the building of a cinema was disapproved by the City Council, and suddenly approved because the Master Plan had marked the site out as a cinema! I do not know what this is all about. I do not know if there is any connection between this and the two new Members on the S.I.T. who are members of the Labour Front. It does seem odd that the Master Plan has gone to such minute detail as to mark out this little bit of land in Katong for a cinema.

I hope also that the Land Titles Ordinance and the Land Acquisition and Land Purchases Control Bills mentioned in paragraph 29 will be looked upon in the years to come as sound Socialist inclined legislation; that his Housing Authority, which he envisages, in paragraph 30, will give rise to tens of thousands more of homes before the next election, so that they can bear witness in steel and concrete and tiles to the great contribution made by the Member for Ulu Bedok towards the happiness and welfare of thousands of families now living in slums.

But I am not particularly impressed by paragraph 32. Houses for sale-this scatter-brained scheme of a million dollars to finance several million dollars worth of business by building societies. 68 houses put up for sale, probably with the $1 million lent by Government to the S.I.T., drew 1,300 applications. Therefore it proved that here is the way to solve the ills of Singapore by making all of them petty bourgeois, making all of them own houses. A wonderful and admirable scheme if it were possible. But can you solve the housing shortage on this basis? Are you not just aggravating the position by putting in a great deal of material and skill into middle-class homes - they must be middle-class homes - before people will buy?

An hon. Member: Lower income group.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Lower income group?

An hon. Member: You have to pay for it.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: A million dollars. We had a debate on it. This one million dollars is going to work this way: The Government lends one million dollars to the S.I.T. The S.I.T. takes it and builds the houses and says, "Here you are, for sale." The moment you buy, you go to the housing society. You pay interest to the housing society, and the housing society pays off the Government. Then the Government says, "Take this same one million dollars and start another housing estate." Anyway, I hope my friend the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing does not believe that this is the way to a greater and more prosperous Malaya, it certainly is not the magic formula for the next election.

I know he has received a copy of the P.A.P. policy statement. I refer him to pages 8 and 9 on security of tenure, compensation and resettlement, and eviction from private holdings.

We are glad to note that the Government did mention that the Land Clearance and Resettlement Plan had been accepted by the previous Government. We hope they will implement this Plan and, further, that the rates and scales of compensation will be kept up-to-date. Everybody knows that whenever a squatter is evicted, he suffers a capital loss and loss of income for at least a year until he gets going in some other locality. But at least the Government has the intention to pay compensation. But what of evictions from private holdings? The Minister for Lands and Housing knows that there has been a great deal of trouble over this. How often have I seen him, together with the Member for Sembawang, to discuss the problems of squatters, of Naval Base workers living on land belonging to the Bukit Sembawang Estate Ltd. of which the Member for Paya Lebar is a director? Under the present Control of Rent Ordinance passed by the Progressive Party, any land-owner can get a squatter out simply by giving him a notice to quit and then employing a lawyer to issue a summons if he refuses to quit and to prove in court that the premises on his land consist of temporary dwellings like an attap-house or a wooden and zinc house, and he is entitled to recover his possession. The unfortunate squatter is then pushed out with no compensation. Sir, in effect, there are two standards of treatment for squatters. One, the Government which recognises that it has certain responsibilities to the people of Singapore, and when it evicts squatters, pays them compensation. Two, the Government holding the ring for a free-for-all, winner-take-all fight between the private land-owners and the unfortunate squatters who live on private land. The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing is not unaware of the situation. The only reason why we had not pressed it earlier was because he informed us that he had a committee sitting to enquire into this matter and to make such amendments to the law as were necessary. Seventeen months of office, and we have not had one word about the results or recommendations of this committee.

Let me read a short paragraph from the P.A.P. policy statement about which a lot has been said by the Chief Minister without his having read it, apart from what the local Press chose to publish of it. It says here:

"Occupants of Crown land are now given some compensation when they are evicted from Government land. Similar provisions ought to be made for those who occupy land belonging to private individuals or companies. The Rent Control Ordinance (passed by the Progressive Party in collaboration with British Colonial Officials)should be amended to make provision for the payment of reasonable compensation to those occupants who are evicted from their homes by private landlords. Scales of compensation based on principles adopted by the Government and the Singapore Improvement Trust should be worked out.

Disputes over the application of such scales of compensation could be referred to a body similar to the Rent Board who could determine the proper compensation payable."

Unless this is done, all that we can do for these unfortunate people, who happen to occupy land belonging to some private company like the Bukit Sembawang Estate, is to apply a little bit of political pressure; like threatening to expose the Bukit Sembawang Estate unless some compensation is paid. Because we threatened to do that, some kind of compensation was offered. But that is not a satisfactory position and the Government should not waste time in correcting it.

We come now to paragraphs 33 to 38 of the Governor's Address. They concern the Financial Secretariat: finance, development, building economy, taxation, fiscal policy. It is in the best of colonial traditions. No facts, no figures, nothing definite on which you can pin the Government down. Just expressions intended to instil confidence.

"Singapore's financial position continues to be sound ...nothing shall be done to shake confidence... The Government will continue to ensure economy in development spending ... large economies have already been achieved... prudence forbids draining these (reserves) too low .. .Considerable taxation potential remains to be tapped... to lay the burden on the shoulders of those members of the community best able to carry it."

But how? It does not say. All it says is that Singapore's fiscal policy is tied up with the Federation. So presumably we cannot put up income tax until the Federation Government runs into difficulties, as it is already doing. But apart from that, nothing but a whole series of confidence inspiring notes.

Education. I am glad to note that the Ministry of Education opened up its topic with the increasing population of Singapore youth. Unless it does more than take note of the increasing population of Singapore and spends a great deal of money, time in organising the training of these youth and providing career opportunities, the Government cannot expect co-operation and public spiritedness from this population. Let it never be forgotten that they are born here and they have the right to vote.

I do not know about the boys' clubs and I have listened with patience to what has been said by the Member for Serangoon. It does seem to me that is not just a question of catching them and putting them into boys' clubs so that their excess energy, as the Member for Serangoon puts it, will go into useful and peaceful activities. He thinks the best thing that can happen to Singapore youth is to put them into boys' clubs under good leaders like the President of the Federation of Boys' Clubs. Then they will all grow up worried about crazy numbers of houses, and streets that are too narrow, and markets that have got no more access to the sea. It may be a good thing, to keep them interested in the little things in life so that they forget the wider problems of society. But that is not the purpose of youth education. These are the people who will form the nation of tomorrow. Unless we give them not only education and training but career opportunities, then we are in for a load of trouble.

I think the Minister for Education knows full well that what is said in paragraphs 40, 41 and 42 is just scratching the surface. There is some talk about being "ready to help the Nanyang University authorities to attain standards which will be internationally recognised, so that the graduates will be able to find worthwhile employment", but there is not one word about the controversy sparked off by his saying that Nanyang University degrees may not be recognised by the Government. What is the position? Is it going to be recognised? Are steps being taken to see that the standard is such that the Government can recognise its degrees? What is the position of its students? They are virile and vigorous people. If you say to them that the door of employment is closed to them because they did not go into the Government-sponsored and Government-run University of Malaya, you cannot expect them to look upon this Government with much enthusiasm.

The only touch of imagination is in paragraph 42. No one has yet raised the cry over handicapped children and the mentally deficient, and to the Labour Front Government must go the credit for having taken the field first in looking after mentally deficient children. I have a sneaking suspicion that it may be the past career of the Organising Secretary of the Labour Front, one Mr de Cruz, who is a fully qualified teacher of mentally deficient children, and perhaps his experience since then with Labour Front workers, that has inspired this imaginative social work. But we give them full credit for this. We hope that this school for the blind, for the deaf and dumb, will perform the very important task of looking after the less fortunate in society. The only thing that is missing is a Dr Barnado's home, and I hope in the next Governor's Address that some other source of inspiration in the Labour Front will raise the matter.

We can now go on to paragraph 42 to talk about minimum living standards and -

Mr Speaker: Order. I was just wondering whether this is an appropriate time to suspend unless the hon. Member is going to finish shortly.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I think this is as appropriate a time as any other, unless you wish to sit to one o'clock.

Mr Speaker: In that case I will suspend the sitting and I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed on Question.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, just before the adjournment, I had finished paragraph 42 on mentally deficient children. I was commenting on the fact that paragraphs 43 to 45 were the contribution of the Ministry of Labour and Welfare but not wishing to make my comments on this Address more disjointed than it need be, it might be better if we go on to a later part of this Address where the Minister for Education states his policy for the coming year. In paragraphs 54, 55, 56 and 57, the Ministry of Education continues its statement on education policy. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is very little in this enunciation of Government policy other than the reiteration of the White Paper and the fact that according to the Minister for Education the White Paper differs only slightly from the All-Party Report. It is necessary for my Party to restate our stand. There have been some not disinterested comments in the English Press about an alleged change of my Party's stand on education policy.

There is an absence of imagination in this part of the Report. We have the statement that English is necessary for trade demands and so on, but nowhere does it reflect the changing trends in Asia. Nowhere is there any acknowledgment of the fact that in the years to come, the Malay language will be the language of the country and that this change in trends in Malaya and in the rest of Asia should be reflected in the education policy. In our statement on education and culture, we said:

"The education policy of the Government of Singapore does not reflect the position of Malay as the common national language of the country.

The Party believes that not only must Malay education in this country be developed beyond primary school level as soon as possible but that it should also enjoy undisputed priority over any other language as the compulsory second language to be taught in all schools, be they English, Chinese or Indian schools. We support the cause of the Malay Education Council for more Malay secondary schools and with the Council's demand that in the Malay secondary school, Malay and not English should be the medium of instruction and that English should only be treated as a second language.

The Party believes that a free and democratic Malaya will give full and disinterested aid and encouragement to the full growth and development of Malay, Chinese, English and Indian schools whilst developing Malay as the common national language of the various communities."

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know the excuses that have been advanced by the Minister for Education that there are not enough Malay language teachers and that therefore it is impossible to implement the All-Party Report on Education, that there should be a free choice of a second language, and a free choice of a third language. In that particular All-Party Report, we accommodated ourselves to reach unanimity of views. We wanted to go much further together with the representative of the United Malay National Organisation to state in clear and categorical terms that Malay should and must be the predominant language in this country.

It is no use trying to escape historic trends in Asia. Nowhere in Asia was the English language more carefully nurtured and infused into an Asian people than in Ceylon. Those of us who stopped in Ceylon recently on our way to London for the Merdeka Conference had the opportunity of seeing a set of completely English-speaking and English-educated people ruling the country. Yet they have found it necessary to yield to an historic tide of history. There, a people completely led and administered by English-educated Singhalese and Tamils have decided by free franchise that English is not their national language and that in another twelve years they hope to make Singhalese the national language. This trend is irreversible in Asia. We the English-educated in this country are a passing generation. The generation that is to follow us will be shaped by the education policy of the present Government both here and in the Federation of Malaya. It is for the Government to lead or control these trends. It is a matter for which they must answer in the next elections.

It has been said that we are against Government controls in vernacular schools in this country. Let me read the Party statement on education in vernacular schools:

"The P.A.P. believes that there must be only one educational authority in the country and that authority is the government of that country through its popularly elected representatives.

We believe that steps can and should be taken now towards integrating the Chinese, Malay, Indian and English schools under a single educational authority and within the framework of a single educational policy orientated towards the achievement of a free and democratic Malaya.

Some of the conditions attached to grants-in-aid, the present laws relating to the registration of schools and teachers, are liable to abuse in the hands of either the Registrar or the Permanent Secretary in the Education Ministry. They can also make for abitrary meddling and interference with the formulation of curricula and timetables in vernacular schools which accept Government aid."

We stated in the All-Party Report on Education that this suspicion was deep-rooted, that it was there and that it, was the result of years of bad handling by previous governments. It is useless the Minister for Education saying, "This is all over. In fact, we are now an elected Government responsible to the people and you should trust us." We are not saying that there should be no conditions in grants-in-aid. What we do say is that some of these conditions have aroused antagonism, and particularly a fear that acceptance of aid would mean interference with timetables and language teaching. There is nothing in this policy statement which gives us an indication of what is to be in the new grant code. All we have is this pious principle with which no one can disagree: firstly, that they must turn out children whose loyalty will be to this country; secondly that the grants should be wisely used and properly accounted for. We have no quarrel with those principles. But what are the terms and conditions which the Minister for Education has worked out to ensure that these two conditions are obeyed? That is an entirely different matter. I hope that in the course of this debate, the Minister for Education will state his policy with regard to grants-in-aid. It would be optimistic in the extreme to hope that whatever it is, there will not be some opposition to it, particularly in view of the statement of the Minister for Education that the policy is now, full aid with conditions, or no aid at all. But before we criticize this policy let us know what are those conditions which he and his Ministry have decided to impose as conditions to grant-in-aid.

I go back now to paragraphs 43, 44, 45 and 46 on labour and social welfare. These four paragraphs are distinguished by a lot of pious pontifications. All these soothing words:

"Government intends to formulate and present to the Assembly schemes for ensuring that the first steps towards social security and relief for the hardships of the unemployed are taken."

But is there any doubt at all, whatever the Report of the Minimum Living Standards Committee may be, that the present rate of unemployment relief is too low and that the Government could safely step these unemployment assistance rates much higher without any danger of being accused of being overgenerous with public funds? On this question of unemployment itself, the policy states - I think this is where the Hon. the Chief Minister found enthusiastic support from the leader of the Liberal-Socialist Party:

"In the field of economic production the Government considers that employers and workers must recognise the need for cooperation in their joint task of service to the national prosperity....".

An so on and so on, blah, blah, blah -

"It must be realised that plans for relief of unemployment and for creation of new industries can be frustrated by unnecessary stoppages, which reduce production or even halt it forever, thus throwing workers into the miseries of unemployment."

It is fair to say that paragraph 46 does nor go as far as what the Liberal-Socialist Party have been saying of late; namely, that because of strikes there has been unemployment. We dispute that thesis. We do not believe that because there are strikes, therefore unemployment is caused. There is not the slightest shred of evidence to show that unemployment and growing unemployment is connected with strikes. No factory that has suffered a strike has shut down.

An hon. Member: The Mis-Sino?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: No factory has decreased its production when a strike is settled and workers resume employment. May I read my Party policy statement on the menace of growing unemployment:

"We believe that unemployment is neither inevitable nor necessary. Only by freeing ourselves from the grip of a colonial economy with its complete dependence on the fluctuations of world markets, will it be possible for us to organise our labour and resources, to increase our wealth and to tackle the problems of unemployment effectively.

The political and economic causes of unemployment, the elementary facts, that under the colonial system the people of this country have no control or direction of their economic destinies, are deliberately overlooked by those who seek to hide the real causes of our economic difficulties.

Although we realise the problem of unemployment cannot be completely solved until we get rid of the present colonial economic system which restricts our trade and our industries in the interests of the colonial power, we believe that some action can and should be taken to lessen the effects of unemployment.

Firstly, before any government can work on this problem, it must have accurate information and statistics on the extent of unemployment in the colony and we therefore urge the Government to carry out a proper survey of the extent of unemployment.

Secondly, we believe that if society is unable to provide employment for those willing and able to work, it must give and provide them with a means to exist at a decent human level. We therefore urge an increase in the present relief given to unemployed persons through Public Assistance. A proper system of registration of the unemployed must be introduced not only for the problem of unemployment relief but also as an efficient labour exchange. At present, employer and unemployed do not regard the Labour Exchange as a satisfactory channel to secure labour.

Thirdly, we must press for the introduction, as soon as possible, of an unemployment insurance scheme.

Important as these things are, they do not offer a positive solution to the problem of unemployment but are merely ways of alleviating the effects of unemployment."

Mr Speaker, Sir, in our day-to-day trials and tribulations - particularly if we happen to be the Chief Minister and at the same time Minister for Labour, instead of attending to the higher duties of state, one is interminably involved in trying to settle disputes between recalcitrant employers and unions. One forgets the wider historical aspects of the economy of this country. Does any one here dispute that we have been a base for raw materials - cheap labour, cheap raw materials, cheap rubber, cheap tin - and that is why we have not been industrialised, that is why it is in the interests of big companies to invest in plantations and not in factories? Every tyre, tube, or rubber sole that we need to use, we import from Britain and abroad.

As long as we are tied up with this capitalist economy and as long as this capitalist economy undergoes periodic trade depressions, whatever we can do here cannot buffer ourselves against the effect of these world economic cycles. It is obvious that before the problem can be tackled we must first have control of our economic destinies. We must be masters in our own homes. In every country in South-East Asia that has emerged from colonialism - India, Burma, Pakistan, Indonesia, Ceylon - the problem of rapid industrialisation is the first one they have to face because they have previously been colonial territories for investments for raw materials. To equip themselves for modern economic production, to provide the employment and the standards of living that the people desire, rapid industrialisation is the only answer. We face that same problem. But we cannot hope to solve that problem just by being polite and friendly to foreign capital. Foreign capital will not come to Asia because they feel that Asia does not provide the incentives to capital - high dividends. There is still Africa where there is a certainty of going on for some twenty or thirty years before the Africans in that continent catch up with European imperialists. In Malaya today it is not because we have militant trade unions that Australian investors do not want to build more factories. It is because they understand that there is a revolution in Asia. That implies two things. One, they work under certain limitations as to the extent of profits they can rake out of the country quickly. Two, however much they may make for the present, they will soon face a time when a country having assumed control of its own economic destiny wishes to assert itself. It has happened all over SouthEast Asia. It is happening even in India today.

The last time when we were in London, we were regaled on several occasions by British people who had large interests in this country. The first thing they wanted to know about the P.A.P. was not whether we were Communists or non-Communists or anti-Communists: "Tell me what are you going to do to our capital, to our factories?" So I blandly looked at them, having had a magnificent repast and said, "We shall do exactly what India has done. We do not want to expropriate you. We do not want to act illegally, or act against the principles of good conduct which all nations in this world wish to observe. We shall allow you to carry on so long as it is in our interest." They said, "Yes, but that is exactly the trouble you see, Lee. In India, they are demanding more and more directorships and they are taking over our companies." That is an inevitable process but it is a process which European capitalists find difficult to get reconciled to.

There are two ways to carry out an industrialisation programme in Asia. One, you work it partly by private enterprise with a calculated national policy, laying down terms and conditions that foreign enterprise should employ or train locally at least 50 per cent of their managerial staff and 50 per cent of their technical staff. Ceylon tried this policy with their European business houses. Or like India where Indian capitalists go into partnership with foreign capital. That is one way. The second way is where, like in North Vietnam or China the State takes over the whole machinery. All this problem of capital accumulation and where to get money for investment is then solved because the State assumes all the powers that it wants to control the economic life of the country. Having a completely different economic system the State is able to industrialise rapidly. We have not come to that point where we have to decide how to do it. Whether we follow the Indian way or the Chinese way is not as yet in dispute. Until we are free, whether we are going to have a capitalist Malaya or a socialist Malaya is a purely academic question.

It is a fallacy to suggest that because there have been strikes, because unions are militant, therefore we have this lack of industrialisation. Foreign capital does not want to come in for other political reasons. We have this problem of unemployment and we have to find some solution. We cannot find a complete solution until we are free. But until we are free, let us try and alleviate it before it becomes too acute and produces unpleasant political consequences.

An hon. Member: How?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I have already said, one, accurate statistics, two, to provide higher public assistance and relief and, three, investigate a scheme for possible unemployment insurance.

The Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode): How will that cure unemployment?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: We have not said that that will cure unemployment. In fact, we say that important as these things are, they do not offer a positive solution to the problem of unemployment but are merely ways of alleviating the effects of unemployment. How can one talk of curing unemployment when one's whole economic destiny is tied up with shareholders in London? Are we in control of the direction of our trade? Are we in control of the direction of our productive activities?

After unemployment, the Government discusses certain expansion of social services. This is another of its pious, political platitudes. Paragraph 45 reads:

"The Government is profoundly convinced that the expansion of national prosperity, with accompanying expansion of social services and of development, can only be achieved on the basis of national solidarity and national effort."

What does it mean? What is new? A lot of pious platitudes! Here are some specific problems which I think the Government can do something about:

"1. The revision of the Trade Disputes Ordinance.

The repeal of the English Act on which our Trade Disputes Ordinance is based as one of the first legislative acts of the new British Labour Government in 1945 was a victorious culmination of nearly two decades of agitation by British trade union movement. The Singapore copy of this Act, however, has not yet been repealed."

We seek to bring the local Trade Disputes Act into line with the Act which is now in force in England and thus help to safeguard the just and reasonable rights of striking workers.

"2. The Workmen's Compensation Ordinance.

This Ordinance was left alone when the old Labour Ordinance was revised and replaced last year. Under the present Ordinance, workers who are incapacitated over any period as a result of industrial injuries do not receive their wages in full for their period of absence. Rates of compensation for permanent and partial disablement arising out of industrial injuries are also inadequate. The Party shall strive to revise the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance to make it more just."

That is within the province of this Government.

"3. The Revision of the Labour Ordinance.

Some of the provisions of the Labour Ordinance particularly those relating to payment for annual leave and overtime payments have given rise to disputes and must be clarified." The Minister for Labour will remember that when we decided to provide annual leave for seven days instead of one week, his intention then was that annual leave should be paid at the rate of seven times the daily rate. Unfortunately, many employers have taken "seven days' annual leave" to mean one week's annual leave, which means the daily rate times five and a half. He knows of one dispute with a transport company which I had to refer to his department. Fortunately, this particular company decided to accept the interpretation placed on this section by the Labour Ministry. There are many other companies not quite so helpful in their attitude. Rather than have this matter litigated in the courts one day, the section concerning annual leave could be clarified so that there is no doubt that what is intended by the Legislature is seven times the daily rate.

Further, the purpose of the reduction of the working week from 48 hours to 44 hours was to give greater leisure to workers. It is not intended that employers could reduce the total weekly emoluments of workers. Some employers however have abused the spirit of the Labour Ordinance and have reduced the total weekly emoluments of their employees. The true purpose and spirit of the reduction of the working week must be respected by the employers. We had a long debate on this matter when the Bill was in Select Committee. We decided then to leave this question of the wage adjustment when the working week was reduced from 48 hours to 44 hours to a free play between union and management. We envisaged then that there would be difficulties with some employers who may want to pay, 44 times the hourly rate instead of 48 times the hourly rate. We envisaged also that there may be many unions who want to get 48 times the hourly rate for working 44 hours. But the Minister for Labour advanced this argument that certain industries may be borderline, that, economically, from the terms of efficiency, they are on the margin. That therefore there should be room for adjustment between union and employer. In the last few months, this has given rise to a great number of disputes. This was the issue which started the Fred Waterhouse Union dispute with the Fred Waterhouse Company. One sunny day a few months after this Ordinance was put into force, the employer reduced wages. The reduced hourly rate times 44 plus time and a half for overtime to meet the provisions of this Ordinance would in fact give the workers a little more. When the workers discovered that this was not stipulated for in the Ordinance, a great deal of friction arose between the employer and the union which led to the company sacking the union President, which led to the union going on strike to support their President and which finally led to a great number of hours wasted by the Minister for Labour. All this needs to be reviewed. It might be wiser on the part of the Government to have it clearly laid down that where the hourly rate cannot be agreed between management and labour, then a formula must be applied. It should not be beyond the capacity of his Government officials in the Labour Ministry to work out a formula to provide a ready-made solution where worker and employer cannot agree on the adjustment. If we do not have this ready-made solution ready for them in case of disagreement, we will have many more strikes over this issue of the reduction of the 48- to the 44-hour working week.

4. The right of trade unions to collect political funds.

This right has already been accorded to workers in the Federation. The Hon. the Minister for Labour will remember that in the first debate of this Assembly - those were buoyant days - he said that he would in the near future accord this right to workers in this territory. Since then, of course, much water has flowed under the bridge. More unions have popped up, more members have defeated from some unions and joined other unions, and so this question of political funds for a union has been conveniently forgotten. We say that whatever the inclinations of unions, they should have the right to have a political fund for political action and we look to this Government to implement this in this caretaker year.

5. The subject of the workers in the Armed Services.

There was an ad-hoc arrangement whereby every time legislation was passed which affected workers generally, the Armed Services were consulted. They then decide either to abide or not to abide by the new legislation. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and the position must be regularised. We cannot have large sectors of our working population outside the legislative jurisdiction of the Government of Singapore. This position should be settled with the British Government particularly before the Defence Treaty between the Federation and the British Government is signed. We must have this question of our right to fix minimum standards of employment for all our workers respected by the British Armed Services.

From labour relations, the Address with appropriateness goes on to Malayanisation. This is the height of understatement. Paragraph 47 says:

"Detailed study of the report of the Malayanisation Commission is now, far advanced and will soon be completed. The Government will then (on some date in the indefinite future) publish a programme for the phased replacement of expatriate officers by Malayans."

Here was a hotly debated and controversial Report. For months the discussion of the Commission raged in the Press. For months we had the expatriates cowering in the corners of their offices and under their desks, as one by one their dirty linen was brought up for the public view. The ex-Hon. the Chief Minister said in one of those moments when he was provoked, that he had absolute confidence in the Chairman of the Malayanisation Commission. I had indicated to him then that the Chairman had very strong views on these matters, but he said, "We have the most absolute confidence in the Chairman. Let us wait for the Report." Well we have. We have had the Report for five months. Those of us who went to London know the real reason why the thing was not tabled and discussed. It was because Members on the Government side wanted to use that as a lever. In the middle of the Merdeka conference, the then Chief Minister said, "We accept the report for the first year since we are only going to be a Government for one year till April 1957, when there will be fresh elections." So he hedged on this question of the Malayanisation programme. That was a fairly logical stand. But what is all this blabber here about fair and reasonable compensation, needs for keeping efficiency, adequate supply of qualified Malayans? What we want to know right here and now is what is the Government's stand on the Malayanisation Report? Does it accept the majority recommendation or does it not? If it does not, why not? Let us have a debate on it. We all know - it is an open secret - that some fantastic claims for compensation are being staked by expatriates as the price for abolition. That is one of those things referred to euphemistically in the Address as:

"Negotiations with the Staff Associations are in progress."

Let me say on behalf of my Party, and I think other people in this House not belonging to my Party will agree with this, that the funds of the public and of the Government are not largesse to be distributed to a few European officials. Before any agreement is reached with them, there should be a full and frank debate. Let us have all the dirty linen washed in public, if necessary.

I think, with even more appropriateness, after discussing this question of Malayanisation, paragraph 50 goes on to talk about gangsters and gansterism. Yes, we all endorse the desire of this Government to stamp out armed thuggery, intimidation, extortion and all unlawful pursuits organised by unlawful gangs. But, here again, although boys' clubs can help, one can never hope to tackle this problem unless one tackles the question of education and employment opportunities. As long as you have people who cannot get education and who cannot get gainful employment, then you have to face this problem of hoodlumism.

From gangsters we go on to Singapore Battalion in paragraph 51. There is an air of unreality about this paragraph which says:

"As Singapore moves towards complete self-government and national status, the need to maintain its own armed forces becomes more urgent. Recruitment for the new Regular Battalion will open shortly and it is hoped that all sections of the community will support the new Battalion ...".

If it had said, "As Singapore moves towards complete self-government, the need to maintain an army to help the police to defend our rights . . ." that makes sense. We are going to have a battalion. Whom are we to fight against? Who is going to challenge us? Do we expect to fight the Siamese armed forces? Or the armed forces of the Federation of Malaya?

To my knowledge, this idea of a battalion grew up in the most curious fashion. We were then arguing with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. We told the then Chief Minister, "Why do you want to say that you want to give all these things to Britain: `You will look after my defence; you will look after my foreign affairs?' " But he said, "Ah, I am not Oliver Twist. I will give it all away, whatever I want to give away." Well, having given it all away, Mr Lennox-Boyd then turned round and said, "Well, you want my troops to defend you. If you want my troops to defend you, then I must have the final say in the Defence Council", which was logically an impregnable position. Not to be defeated by logic, the then Chief Minister that night summoned the Merdeka delegation and said, "We will have a Singapore Battalion. Then we do not have to have British troops." We said to him, "You are not seriously suggesting that a Singapore Battalion will man the Naval Base, Blakang Mati, all the airfields, and so on?" He said, "No, never mind, we will sign a treaty with Nepal for Gurkha troops. Then we will not need to have British troops." We were all too aghast for words. So we told him that it had better not be put forward as a serious proposition. But, it was put forward. The result is that now we have the Singapore Battalion in the Governor's Address.

If we want a battalion just to be a reserve for the Singapore Police Force, then let it be clear that this is a small battalion meant for certain specific domestic purposes and not meant for war. This grand sweeping statement:

"As Singapore moves towards complete self-government and national status, the need to maintain its own armed forces....",

invokes a vision of resplendent men with steel helmets marching past the Chief Minister at the Esplanade. If we are going to have one battalion in case the Police Force finds it a bit difficult, and two riot vans not enough, let us put this thing into perspective.

I think that we should get this whole Address into perspective. What are we talking about?

An hon. Member: You tell us.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Fifteen, sixteen pages of higgledy-piggledy stuff which winds up with this school-masterly incantation to God:

"We look forward to this Greater Malaya, taking' its rightful place among the Comity of Nations. With God's help it shall grow in stature and prosperity and advance in full glory into that era of Universal Peace destined for Mankind."

The Chief Minister: Amen!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: As far as I can see, the era destined for mankind in the next one week will be the big blow-up in Suez and a great deal of trouble that will follow after the big blow-up in Suez. Let us get down to realities, to the basic political position in Malaya and in Singapore. I have said this before, on many an occasion, but perhaps then I was not believed. The battle for Malaya is the battle in the Federation. Singapore is a little laboratory where the British, Nationalists and Communists try out their tactics so that if anything goes wrong, there is an explosion on a laboratory scale. The fight is in the Federation. My Party has been criticised this morning by the Chief Minister of Singapore for, so he says, attacking the Federation Government. Sir, my Party did not set out to do so. No one who reads, as I hope the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has read, the statement, can say that we have set out to queer the position of the Federation Government or the Alliance. We have sought to present our analysis of the position in Malaya and Singapore as it is today. A great number of things have happened since the elections in Singapore last April and in the Federation last August and it is necessary to take stock of the situation. We have propounded our analysis in very careful terms. Of course, some people have just read Press extracts with exaggerated headlines and have come to the conclusion that the P.A.P. has lashed out at the Alliance and we were told to mind our own business in Singapore. Sir, when Alliance Ministers come down to Singapore and lash the P.A.P. in Singapore, we have never had the impudence or impertinence to tell Alliance Ministers to mind their own business. This is our business, the business of Singapore and the Federation. You can in legal fiction divorce the two territories. In political fact you cannot cut the two territories apart. There will be more trouble with the two territories apart than if they were combined into one. Politicians often wish to avoid saying anything which is inexpedient and which will invoke popular emotional protest. But unless we resist this tendency, we find ourselves watered down to weak and feeble statements. In this analysis - and I propose to read passages of the analysis to put the picture into perspective - we have stated what we think is the position today. Nobody has taken the trouble to read it and having read it, to disprove this thesis. We started with the present situation and said:

"It is nearly two years since our Party was formed in November 1954. We stated in our Manifesto then the long-term objectives of the Party, the fight to end colonial domination, and the creation of an independent, democratic Malaya, of a united Federation and Singapore, in which the great differences of wealth and opportunity between our peoples would be reduced and gradually eliminated by constitutional means, and a happy and prosperous society established - [lnterruption.]

I wish I could make this analysis more entertaining but I regret that the situation as we see it is far from entertaining.

"At that time, the political situation in Malaya was quite simple and clear to the people of Malaya. The British were in blatant and open control of the country. In the Federation, they had a wholly nominated Legislative Council with a few weak local men as "Members" of the Government. In Singapore they had a transparently farcical Legislative Council of less than one half "elected" Councillors. Government policy and its execution were all in British hands. The people were discontented. They could see clearly that economic and social difficulties were caused by foreign domination and exploitation. So the cry of "Merdeka" rallied all, both in the Federation and Singapore."

No one will dispute that that was, in fact, the truth. Then we go on to say that colonial control is now concealed and great umbrage has been taken by some people to this. But nobody denies that even the Federation has not as yet got Merdeka. They have a promise of it in August 1957. And we go on to analyse the position at present:

"The Malayan situation confused. An independent, democratic Malaya comprising a united Federation and Singapore, appears further away today than it did before the elections. Many things have happened since April 1955: labour discontent and strikes. student discontent and unrest in Chinese schools, the inconclusive Baling talks, the promise of freedom for the Federation alone by August 1957, the failure of Singapore's constitutional conference and a lack of united action by Singapore political Parties.

Before it was the British who wanted to keep Singapore and the Federation politically separate. Today there are among the Alliance leaders those who do not want Singapore to join the Federation. Other leaders have even said to the Reid Constitutional Commission that they do not want Merdeka unless they first get jus soli rights."

We have been reading all this in the Press. These are statements of facts. All kinds of people have gone before the Reid Commission. The Singhalese from Malacca said that they wanted to remain British subjects and be citizens of the Federation. Leaders of Chinese guilds have gone before the Reid Commission and said, "Unless we get jus soli, we do not want Merdeka." Last year, there was talk of amnesty for the Communists and peace in Malaya. Now, there is talk of surrender of Communists and the need for expanding the Malayan army to take over from the British the war against the Communists. It is no wonder that the people of Malaya find the situation confusing. And so we went on to explain why we say that the trends in Singapore and in the Federation are dangerous. We have not said that it is the intention of any political Party or any government to cause this racial strife but the policies that are at present being implemented give reason for the greatest disquiet. Can any one deny that unrest amongst the workers and squatters is not being traced to its economic and social roots in the Federation and instead all blame for strikes and discontent is placed upon the shoulders of Communist agitators and troublemakers?

"Instead of solving the economic problems which cause the discontent, a solution is sought in military weapons, in the building up of a $500 million army and in intensifying the war against the Communists. It is becoming increasingly clear that the army and the gendarmerie will be predominantly if not wholly Malay. And that these Malay forces will be used to police predominantly Chinese squatters and workers.

The dangers of racial friction and conflict between the Malays and the Chinese are, already present and if the Alliance Government drifts further along the road of repression of social unrest by armed forces, it will mean, in effect, more Malay police, special constables and soldiers against Chinese squatters and workers."

We are not the first to say this, in fact, several Alliance leaders have raised the warning against racial war in the Federation. We fully admit that it is their intention to prevent any such thing from happening. In a democratic State, we reserve the right to give our views of where their policy is leading them - a policy not designed to bring about this racial friction and racial strife but which unless checked will tend to' bring it about. The first hallmark of a democratic State, if we are to run a democratic State in Malaya, is tolerance of criticism from other political Parties. If we are wrong in our thesis, let it be disproved. We took this stand and we are ready to be criticised and to be proved wrong. It is not helpful to say that we are just seeking to cause trouble, that we should not interfere and that, in fact, we are a lot of mischief makers. When we say what other people have said before and we say it in moderate language, we have been denounced.

The future of Singapore lies with the Federation. It is no use trying to pretend that we could, if it came to it, get on without the Federation. It is no use the Federation trying to pretend that it can ignore Singapore. Singapore is the spark plug for all kinds of things that are happening in the Federation. As long as Singapore is distinct and separate, the Federation Government is faced with a situation in which, one, it has no direct control of the situation in Singapore, and, two, it has no means to prevent ideas from crossing over the Causeway on to the Federation. It is no use telling workers in the Federation that they are unreasonable and stupid when, in fact, they see that militant trade unionism has brought about general wage increases in Singapore. The only solution is to run these two territories as one unit so that one will moderate the other.

On another important issue like education I watch with fear the differences in emphasis in Singapore and the Federation: a Singapore predominantly Chinese with well organised Chinese students and giving the bias on Chinese education; a Federation that gets frightened that such a policy may be transported across the Causeway and going to the other extreme of pressing its over-Malay emphasised policy. The separation of these two territories with all the resultant biases as a result of the racial composition in the two territories cannot but make for difficulties both here and in the Federation. Sooner or later I hope reason, careful thinking and facing of facts will bring these territories together. If it is emotion, if it is appeals to the instinctive loyalties of man, to religions and race, then I do not see how we can hope to moderate the over-Chinese emphasis in Singapore and the over-Malay emphasis in the Federation. The only chance of doing that is for both territories to face the facts of the situation, that they are parts of one country in the South-East Asian scene, that somehow or other they must find a modus vivendi to live and let live as one happy community.

For the time being, we are preoccupied with the next Merdeka talks. That is as far as we can go. We know that beyond that our future lies with a Greater Malaya. To think otherwise would be to think in terms of Port Swettenham becoming an international port, of Kuala Lumpur airport becoming an international airport and the consequent diversion of trade, of having all the business houses moved up to Kuala Lumpur and of Singapore perishing as a second Malta in the Far East, its livelihood dependent on military bases on the island.

Fortunately we are a long way yet from that irretrievable position. For the time being, we have a certain definite task ahead and that is to reopen the Merdeka talks. I am glad to see that the present Government has the good sense to pick up where the P.A.P. left off - complete internal self-government. When we said that the last time, the ex-Chief Minister became very angry. I knew reporters who were roundly rebuked for daring to suggest that it was anything other than independence which was going to be achieved. For to suggest that we were only fighting for internal self-government was to detract from the ex-Chief Minister's achievement. Sir, we tried to face the facts then as we saw it and tried to moderate the situation. That was as far as we could go.

At the moment, we are interested in seeing two steps ahead; one, the next Merdeka conference; two, the step beyond that. What is there in the present situation that will make the next conference succeed where the last one has failed? The same Party is in power, the same Parties are in the Opposition and the same people are waiting to be Chief Ministers. The position is basically unchanged - of course, we all know that the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) has since broken off with old friends and colleagues on that side.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Guess why?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: We all know that the Member for Kampong Kapor (Mr Seah Peng Chuan) has had unhappy differences with Members on that side of the House no doubt for good political reasons and questions of principle, and we all miss the former Chief Minister about whose sojourn in Peking we are daily reminded by the Chinese Press. Apart from all that, is there anything different that will make this team that will go succeed where the last one had failed?

First of all, let us find out why the last one failed. Has there been any change in the international situation that is in our favour? Are we going to go there and meet a Lennox-Boyd demoralised, ready to compromise, willing to yield? What has happened in the international field? Lots of bombs and grenades have exploded in Cyprus since we left London. Colonel Nasser has been called a dictator and British troops are moving into Cyprus in great strength. Before the end of this week, we shall know whether we are going to be in a bigger and more dangerous Korea, with the Arab world on the one side, pipelines being cut, British and French troops coming in to make sure that international rights are respected and the Canal is kept open. The Secretary-General of the Soviet Republic has already said that Russian volunteers are going and that if he had a son he would send his son and lots of other people who have sons will send their sons. Then the Far East will go by default.

All that apart, assuming that nothing blows up to smithereens, we are going back to London. I keep on saying "we", but I do not really know who "we" are. Whoever goes back to London has got to have something extra which was missing the last time or they cannot deliver the goods. They will either have to compromise in which case they will be faced with a great deal of trouble here, or they will fail. The last time right in the middle of the conference, the Chairman or the President of the Liberal-Socialist Party announced to the world that he was ready to form a government if these talks failed. One can imagine the effect it had on the delicate constitution of our then Chief Minister.

The British knew that we had reached all-Party agreement on certain heads. But they knew and knew publicly as a result of the activities of the people whom we left behind in Singapore - not my friend the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) who was in London and cannot be held to blame for it. They said that they were ready to carry on the government. The British Government knew that if the talks failed, there would be no constitutional crisis. They knew that all that would happen would be a slight reshuffle in the team. Since that is not a situation that one should be unduly concerned about, they allowed a reshuffle in the team. We congratulate the present Chief Minister on his skill and dexterity in making the reshuffle as inconspicuous as possible. But if he is faced with the same position again, he must face failure. The next time he must assure himself of a position where sabotage is not present.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Especially from you.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: All political groups - when I say all political groups, I do not mean Independents or those who have forfeited the right of representing the masses. The Chinese expression for an Independent Member is much more accurate and is more pungent than the English one. We call Members in this House who do not belong to any Party "Independent" meaning that they depend upon themselves. The Chinese with a wry sense of humour call them "wu tang wu pai" which means without Party, without stand -

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Nonsense! You go and learn some more Chinese!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Anyway it sounds very curious. This type is increasing but we are not concerned with them in the next Merdeka talks. We know who will not be going.

It is possible if the Chief Minister is determined to assure himself of his position of strength to organise all the anti-colonial Parties together in one group: one, to call a national convention; two, to plan the tactics for the next talks; and three, this is the most important one - this is the sting which will make it succeed - to plan concerted and united all-Party constitutional action if the next talks fail. If the British are again confident in the coming talks that if there is a failure, there will be another reshuffle of this Assembly, that Members will move over from this side to the other side and Members from the other side will move to this side and some will stay behind, then success is uncertain. There may be no progress. But if they are confronted with a solid phalanx of anti-colonial groups who have decided upon what they will do at the talks, and what they will do after the talks if they fail, then the chances of success will be much greater. The Chief Minister can then go back to London either alone as he did recently, or with others, whichever way he will, but in a stronger position.

We are told that this is a motion of confidence. We said when the Government took office that we supported the Government as a caretaker Government. What the Chief Minister has said this morning has to a certain extent made up for what was lacking in this Governor's Address. In this Address, the question of self-government was treated as lightly as the leader of the Liberal-Socialist Party treated it. He was interested in houses, bee-hoon sellers, fish sellers - I am not saying that they are not important - I.C.I. fertilisers, prospects for business, youth clubs, youth problems, night courses, and the narrow Yio Chu Kang Road which he unfortunately has to travel up and down every day. The Labour Front forgot self-government after mentioning it in the third paragraph. Then comes the Party theoretician who puts in at the end three resounding paragraphs which wind up with an incantation to God to ensure success. Let us not leave these things in the lap of the gods. Let us make sure as far as we can of positions of strength, positions from which we can talk, bargain and act effectively.

On the understanding that the Government calls a national convention to plan the tactics for the talks and to plan united action if the talks fail, my Party will give this Government a vote of confidence.

Mr Lim Koon Teck (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been treated today to an exhibition of the most destructive criticism ever launched in this House. This Address of His Excellency contains what must be at least 75 per cent of the aims and aspirations of the People's Action Party. Anybody who has his country's interests at heart and who has socialistic tendencies cannot but accept all that is hoped for and all that is aimed in this Address and we are prepared to support all that is contained in His Excellency's Address. But our friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) can see nothing in it except pious words, blah, blah, blah and ridicule for anybody else except his own opinions and his own ideas. The exhibition he gave me today makes his stand very clear. When he went through item by item of the Address, he appeared to me like a bull in a china shop looking at every teacup and smashing it if it was not red enough to his liking. That I am afraid is the attitude. From his ideas, it is clear that what he wants is not evolution but destruction of every other institution and constitution so that he can rebuild as an autocrat and does what he likes with the country. Naturally, in such a country, there will be no unemployment simply because every one will have to work and if a person does not work, he is made to work. The penalty, of course, for not working is either starvation or the slave camp. Do you think that there will be strikes in such a country with such a system? Not on your life!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: You have been reading too many U.S.I.S. pamphlets.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: The only strikes that will be allowed will be fostered in the countries where there is democracy, where people are allowed to speak, allowed to bargain and allowed to riot and those who instigate these can sit quietly smug and smiling. It seems to me that he has a peculiar mentality. Maybe it is one of the results of the occupation by the Japanese when every act of someone else is viewed with suspicion and ulterior motive. There seems to be a kink somewhere in that he cannot appreciate a person's act without a bitter and sinister motive behind it. Even such aids as the Colombo Plan, the milk machinery offered by the Australian Government are viewed with grave suspicion and the doctors who are coming here to teach us are not acceptable to him. He says that such acts are an infiltration. Yes, an infiltration if you like, an infiltration to make it more difficult for any other power who wants to move into Singapore when we get independence. That is the view of how I look upon it.

Somehow or the other, he has always chosen me to be the butt of his sarcastic remarks. I do not know why his remarks are filled with such acidity. Maybe it is because the grapes are sour.

Now, on this Bukit Sembawang compensation, I do not think he could have chosen a worse instance to blame private owners for not compensating the tenants on their land. In this particular case, I know that the people who were on the land were paid a better compensation than those who were on Crown land. Each of them - there were six of them who were removed in the first phase of building - received approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of land and the compensation was $1,500, even for the smallest hut, for which Government only paid a dollar a square foot. When you talk of compensation, it is not legal compensation that the people are entitled to. It is because times have changed and people feel that those who are in very poor circumstances ought to be given something to enable them to get along when they have to shift from the places which they have occupied for a long time. As a man who went on land and sat there, his right up to the present and until it is changed by the Member for Tanjong Pagar is only a month's notice but Government and many people have found it right that he should be given something to go on and I can assure him that this Company has done all that the Government has done, if not more. Yes, we have resisted some claims because the Member for Ponggol-Tampenis (Mr Goh Chew Chua) comes along and tells the squatter, "You join our Party and then we will see that you get compensation according to your heart's wishes. If you put your changkol into the soil, that land is yours." The Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) goes stumping around the country telling all his people, "We will give you compensation. You strike and ask for more pay. You will get it and if not, there will be trouble." Right! The Member for Tanjong Pagar in this House says, "You follow me and you will get what you want. When I get into the Government, everybody will get compensation according to his heart's content - full employment." But he does not tell him, of course, that if he asks too much, he will find himself in a slave camp.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: He is reading U.S.I.S. pamphlets.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: I have finished with my friend or my enemy and I come to the more serious part of today's debate.

I for one have been greatly moved by our Chief Minister's speech. I believe his sincerity, in his wish to try and pick up the threads of Government, to put together the shattered teapot and to do something for the good of Singapore. For that, we and our Party will support him and I can say that he has convinced the Member who came with every intention of challenging him today. His is a difficult job, and no one envies him and we will wish him all the luck and success that you may get. We stand with you on the question -

Mr Speaker: Is the hon. Member standing with the Chair or with the Chief Minister?

Mr Lim Koon Teck: I am sorry. We stand with the Chief Minister on his ideas of getting self-government. I believe he said on the occasion of the opening of the Merdeka Bridge that you have to work for Merdeka and you cannot rush and ask for self-government. lf he is going to work towards Merdeka in the same way the Merdeka Bridge was built, I am fully with him. Now that I have criticised destructive criticism, I hope to offer some constructive ones. Today is the day when the steward, that is the Government in power, renders to its master, the public, his account of the year's stewardship. His work is not judged by the hopes and aspirations which he thinks that he can achieve during the next year or next few years but can only be assessed by what he has done. I do not think the Chief Minister can claim to be proud of the achievements of the previous Government during the past year. Much of the time was spent in the struggle for more power and settlement of strikes instead of constructive work. There has been a general slowing down in the public service and this is reflected in the housing programme when just over 1,000 houses will be completed this year as compared with 3,000 last year. This is indeed a severe setback. The excuse of vacant sites not being available cannot account for the decrease of over 50 per cent as the difficulty of clearing sites was allowed for when the target of only 2,500 units was decided on. If this can happen to a programme planned years ahead, what will happen to objectives which are still in the planning stage? Housing is one of the items of topmost priority and we cannot and must not let the public down on this score. We hope the target of 6,000 units per annum will be achieved in the near future.

We are very glad indeed that Government has a firm intention of establishing new industries and for that purpose not only will the people of Singapore be encouraged to invest in local enterprises but foreign capital will be attracted. However it is by deeds alone and not words that confidence in investments will be restored. There is no use closing our eyes to the fact that confidence in Singapore was severely shaken by the riots, strikes and intemperate language used in this House, even this afternoon. We shall have to restore confidence again before we can attract capital and this can only be done by hard work, sound leadership and a firm Government. During the past few months, there have been welcome signs of a change for the better and it is most encouraging to find trade union leaders warning the members not to be misled by unscrupulous men who are prepared to call workers to strike to further their own ends without regard to the fact that the industry may not be able to meet their demands resulting in permanent loss of employment due to the factories having to cease operation. Of course, the Member for Tanjong Pagar denies that there are such factories. There are a great number. He denies them because his Party is responsible for their ceasing operation. We must realise that the most serious problem facing us today is unemployment which is steadily increasing during the year. The factories which came into operation this year could not absorb those who lost their employment due to factories having to close down or curtail production. Added to this, are the 10,000 odd people each year who will leave school to look for employment.

The suggestion to establish an Industrial Promotion Board to assist the small scale manufacturer is an excellent one but I am afraid that many small scale manufacturers require immediate help and they cannot wait for the establishment of the Board. I have been one of the strongest supporters of free trade but I cannot see how we can continue to find employment for our workers without some measure of protection for our industries against dumping of subsidised goods by foreign countries. A fair test as to whether goods are subsidised or not is the difference in the price obtaining in the country of origin and the export price. Every nation at some stage or other has had to protect her industries against unfair competition to prevent mass unemployment and I am afraid that we have come to that stage. Wages in Singapore have gone up to such an extent that many manufacturers and shopkeepers find it impossible to compete against goods manufactured in foreign countries and they are being forced at first to curtail production and then to cease operation. In particular, I refer to the bee-hoon or vermicelli industry. A year ago, there were 25 factories employing 600 odd men. Today, there are only 20 factories employing under 400 men. This is due to such fierce competition from Thailand that over 60 per cent of bee-hoon sold in Singapore is imported. At this rate, in a few more months, all the Singapore factories will have to close down. I realise the difficulties of imposing a tariff due to our entrepot trade but I suggest that we cannot let another 400 men be thrown into the already swollen ranks of our unemployed. I suggest that there should be a restriction on import so that dealers of bee-hoon instead of being allowed to import 10,000 piculs, which is the average consumption per year including the exports from Singapore, be allowed to import 5,000 piculs, that is half the amount, and be made to buy the other half locally. This is only a suggestion which I think can save the industry. I shall welcome any other suggestions.

A sad state of affairs prevails in the shoe industry. Nearly all the shoes we see in the shops today are imported and our shoemakers are now unemployed. What is the use then of Government preparing legislation to set up an Industrial Promotion Board to assist small scale manufacturers when many are already facing bankruptcy? We must take immediate steps to help them.

We notice with satisfaction Government's intention to provide more medical services, social services and amenities in the urban and rural areas. Such schemes will have to be paid for by increased revenue and we are told that the burden will fall on members of the community best able to carry it. No one can or will grudge the improvement of the standard of our workers but we must take care that the burden of taxation will not be so heavy that it kills all incentive to start new enterprises. It is much easier to keep investors away than to attract them and unless they can be assured of a reasonable return, they will invest elsewhere.

I deplore the rise in the cost of administration which has made it necessary for Government to ask this House to approve supplementary votes every quarter. If we are to spend more in social services of which we are all agreed, we must see that every dollar we spend is spent wisely.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Mr Speaker, Sir, once again, the Government has reaffirmed its determination to establish social justice and social security for the benefit of the population. This has very clearly reflected in the Governor's Address which was delivered a week ago.

One of the few points which I would like to deal with today, Sir, is the problem confronting the rural people. As has been stated by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) many of the rural people are now suffering hardship due to eviction from their places. I have at the moment in my Division, Sir, nearly 300 squatters who are faced with eviction notices. The present Rent Control Ordinance affords little protection for these people. I do suggest that an examination of the existing Rent Control Ordinance be made and, if possible -

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

The Chief Minister: Tomorrow, Sir, at 10 am.

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