GOVERNOR'S ADDRESS (Debate on the Address)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [5th September],

"That this Assembly expresses its thanks to His Excellency the Governor for his Address delivered on Wednesday, 29th August, 1956." - (The Chief Minister).

Question again proposed.

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Sir, I was saying yesterday that the Rent Control Ordinance, as it stands at the moment, does not afford adequate protection to the farmers who are termed as squatters. Sir, I am aware that this is not a debate on the Rent Control Ordinance but I thought perhaps it would be a good thing if I dealt with the question of exploitation which is prevalent in Singapore and which is referred to in paragraph 7 of the Governor's Address.

Sir, due to the state of housing development in the rural areas, many of the farmers are being exploited by the landlords. They say that these farmers are not tenants. They are only allowed to stay on their lands and if the landlords want to get rid of them, they are at liberty to do so. The Rent Control Ordinance has not been very helpful in this respect. The Rent Control Ordinance is not applicable to houses that have been built after 1947, and even in respect of those houses built prior to 1947, the landlords could evict them by giving them one year's notice, or if they (landlords) have plans of a new layout approved by the Singapore Improvement Trust or a building authority, they can get these tenants out. It is true, Sir, that the courts are given a certain amount of discretion in the matter, but as I see it, the courts themselves are completely helpless.

Sir, the manner in which dealings take place between the landlord and the tenant is very peculiar. I have here a bundle of notices which have been issued to squatters in my own constituency. The improvements that have been made on the land by the tenant also arouse serious difficulty for the tenant. For the information of this Assembly, Sir,I shall read out the type of letters which, written in a most reprehensible way, are being sent out to the occupiers of land. I will not mention the name of the landlord, nor am I willing to give the name of the tenant. The letter says:

"This letter serves to inform you that the company now requires to use this land and you are requested to remove the crops and trees from the area. If you fail to do so, the said crops and trees will be destroyed." Sir, efforts have been made in the past by the landlords to bulldoze the crops and trees, irrespective of whether or not the tenant derives his income from these crops. Sir, it would appear that the Rent Control Ordinance does not try to establish the necessary relations between the landlord and the tenant. It appears to me that this Ordinance was enacted at a time when landlords wanted to increase their rents and at the moment it helps in this way - that if the landlord wishes to raise his rents, he can do so under certain provisions of this Ordinance. Recovery of possession also appears to be a very easy matter these days. I would suggest that the relationship between the tenant and the landlord should receive the immediate attention of the Government.

I do not think for a moment that any minor amendments to the Rent Control Ordinance can solve the problem. What we need in Singapore today is protection for the tenants, particularly the farmers and cultivators who are undergoing this hardship. I have been able to sort out some of the difficulties by the use of tact and diplomacy. I wonder how long I can go on begging the landlord to have leniency shown to them. I think it is high time that the State steps in and introduces some legislation specifying the relationship between the landlord and the tenant.

I now come to the land problem. In Singapore today there are many "landlords" who hold 999-year leases. I understand that 999-year leases are of various types. There are some which are given purely and simply for agricultural purposes, and if the landlords holding this type of lease want to make use of the land for any other purposes, then they will have to approach the Crown for permission to do so. There are, of course, very many areas of land today which have been leased by the Crown to people on 999-year leases. These people have been paying very little to the Government in the way of T.O.L. fees. The situation now is that these landlords are selling their lands which belong to the people. All these lands once belonged to the people and they have been leased out to these landlords for a specific purpose. Therefore, if a man has, say, a hundred acres of land on a 999-year lease and he is not utilising it for agricultural purposes, the land must be reverted back to the Government who can make use of it for the benefit of the people. Sir, it is time that an examination of all these 999-year leases be made and if the land is not being made use of for the benefit of the public, then it should revert back to the Crown. In this way there will be a considerable extent of land available to Government for public purposes, such as housing, and if the Government is unable to put up buildings on its own, then the land should be distributed to individuals who could put up their own houses.

Take the case of T.O.L. land. Many years ago people approached the Government for pieces of land and the position today is that there are people holding more than 40 acres of land for their own purposes and on that land are hundreds of people who are paying rents to the T.O.L. holders. I think the position is very unsatisfactory. I also suggest that a revision of all T.O.L. land be made and that the land be allotted to the people according to their needs. If a person has ten people in the family, then the land allotted to him should be in accordance with that number.

Sir, I would like to turn now to rural housing. I am sure the Government has made an honest and sincere attempt at alleviating the living conditions of the rural people. An example of that is the housing project in Bukit Panjang where the Government intends to build low-cost houses. But I think more improvements should be made in the rural areas. It strikes me as curious that whereas the Government is making an effort to build houses in order to clear slums in the city area, a corresponding effort to help farmers and fishermen in the rural areas is absent. Sir, I am not saying this as a criticism of the Government but I am just placing these proposals before the Assembly so that at a later date they can be examined. There are thousands of old houses - houses 30 years old - in the rural areas belonging to the farmers and fishermen. These people cannot possibly find money to repair and keep them in good condition, and the Government is unable to help them. I think, Sir, in the interests of farming and fishing, we must do something more to help these people earn a good living. The Government should consider giving them outright grants to help them repair and maintain their houses in good condition, so that they could live a decent life and do their work more efficiently. This would help to increase production and create a happy state of affairs for all of us.

Another subject that I would like to touch upon is the question of poultry inoculation in the rural areas. Representations were made to me a few days ago asking whether I could do something about this proposition. At the moment, farmers in the rural areas find it extremely difficult to come to town and inoculate their poultry. It has been suggested to me that a new system may be adopted by Government; of licensing all large-scale poultry farmers and supplying them with vaccines at reasonable cost, so that they themselves could inoculate their own livestock at their convenience. It is very difficult these days to bring poultry 6 or 7 miles away in the rural areas to a centre in town, queue up and wait for your poultry to be inoculated.

Sir, there is another aspect of the rural problem that I wish to place before this Assembly. There are various development schemes which have been undertaken by the Government and which hitherto have not brought any results. We hope that these development schemes, efforts by individual departments, could be co-ordinated so that there would be more efficiency. I am thinking of a Rural Development Council under the chairmanship of the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, the members of this Council to be drawn from the departments concerned, such as Agriculture, Fisheries, Education, the City Council, District Councils, the Singapore Improvement Trust and so on. Sir, the rural problem may look curious, but if you analyse it, you will find that it can only be solved if there is more coordination among the various departments of the Government. I feel sure that Government will examine this problem in the light of what I have said and set up machinery to expedite rural development.

Sir, I would like now to touch upon a subject which at first I thought I should not do, but I felt I would be failing in my duty if I did not bring it to the notice of this Assembly. So much has been said about multi-lingualism in Singapore and the formulation of an educational system which will nurse all languages. There are English secondary schools, Chinese high schools and there are proposals for Malay secondary schools. But I do not know whether I am correct in saying that there is no Government proposal to establish a Tamil secondary school. As we all know, there is a Chair in the University of Malaya for Tamil and at the moment there is a very wide gap between the primary Tamil school and the University. I hope and believe this gap will be bridged by Government building some Tamil secondary schools.

Then there is this question of Singapore's unity with the Federation. At first I thought I should not touch on this subject but I now feel that I should have a crack at it. Much has been said about Singapore's unity with the Federation and I look at the problem this way. We must, at this transitional period of our own political development and the political development that is going on outside Singapore, exercise tolerance and diplomacy of the highest order. If we believe that we can shape the political destiny of another territory by exhortation from our own plane, we will find great difficulty in adjusting our differences later on. I would crave the indulgence of this House and ask it to accept the Chief Minister's way of approach for unity with the Federation.

There is yet another problem, the question of external relations with countries like Australia, Britain and the United States. I believe, Sir, that an external affairs policy depends on a sound internal policy and again at this transitional period we must develop tolerance within our own territory. It may be that unknowingly we might have a student theme on foreign policy, but then we are not writing a political thesis in order to get a political diploma. I do hope that in all our endeavours to work out a foreign policy we will not forget our own home first. This is an era of international politics. This is an era of international co-operation, and I hope the Assembly will shape a foreign policy based on our own internal policy.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday in introducing his motion the Chief Minister asked for criticism and particularly in two speeches, those of the Member for Serangoon and of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, he got what he asked for. The points made by the Member for Serangoon were brushed aside by the Member for Tanjong Pagar as so many trivialities. Then the hon. Member proceeded to deal at length, especially at length, with the inadequacies, the inanities, the omissions and the generalities of His Excellency the Governor's Address. Sir, no one could accuse the Member for Tanjong Pagar of being a dull speaker and he is frequently very entertaining indeed, though, of course, some of us, as we grow accustomed to his forensic style, are perhaps not quite so impressed by what he has to say as we were in the earlier days of the Assembly. Yesterday he ran very true to form. I expected him to lick his chops over the situation in Suez and was not disappointed.

I was amused at his succinct definition of "Independent" as seen through the eyes of the Chinese, and I am sure he could produce a much funnier one for the nominated Independents, but I would rather not hear it.

I had previously determined not to take part in this debate - "intervention" is the word the Member for Cairnhill (Mr Marshall) called it - but you will recall, Sir, that the ex-Chief Minister promoted me through a series of grades to become the representative of British capital in this Assembly, and as capital was touched on several times yesterday I must, of course, watch my interests. The Member for Serangoon said that there had been a considerable flight of capital from Singapore. In my view, the reports of flight of capital from Singapore have been grossly exaggerated. It is, of course, true that there may be some people in this country who have not the faith in its future that many of its elected Members have, but I can assure hon. Members that a great deal of the capital which indeed has left this country in recent months has done so on a temporary basis, seeking to take advantage of the capital markets in the City of London where interest rates are high. This is quite a normal movement.

Then the Member for Tanjong Pagar told us how worried the heads of big business in London were about the future of their capital stake in this country. Well, they will be more worried if they read the full text of his speech and if they think his Party is ever likely to come into power. Sir, one can make anything sound silly by reading it aloud rapidly, laying false emphasis and dismissing the whole thing by chucking it on the table and saying it is all balderdash. But I think paragraph 4 of the Governor's Address is good, especially when it speaks of "a need to import capital and, consequently, to attract foreign investment". Does the People's Action Party think this is nonsense, or are they unable to dissociate capital from colonialism? If you cannot produce or create sufficient capital for your needs and if you cannot raise it locally, you have to import it. The goal of successful industrialisation of this country is a long way off and all the skill and technical know-how that would eventually help to create capital would take time to build up. Thereafter local industries would have to be highly competitive to compete with the vast concerns of Western Europe. This competition is actually being experienced at this moment and I think the Member for Paya Lebar had something yesterday when he suggested, I think, the introduction of some modified form of protection. [Interruption.] It is interesting to note, Sir, that we heard the Member for Tanjong Pagar for 2½ hours without interrupting him but he just cannot keep quiet when others are speaking. So I think, Sir, it is most injudicious to discourage the foreign investor with wild talk of what will happen to the future of capital in Malaya. What in any case is wrong with capital earning dividends, especially when Government collects 30 per cent of the remitted rewards in any case?

The Member for Tanjong Pagar's attack on the Government policy as delineated in His Excellency's Address consisted chiefly in complaining of the absence of facts and figures and that it was all rather airy-fairy and vague. My first reaction to the Address was that it was rather good, but since I listened to it being torn to bits I have come to the conclusion that it was even better, I think it was rather clever of Government to present it in the way they did, thus preventing the Opposition from indulging in any specific attack. The Member for Tanjong Pagar complained that there was nothing in it that he could get his teeth into, or words to that effect. In the circumstances, of course, he was obliged to use the vehicle of ridicule, a vehicle, of course, that can be all too easily over-loaded.

Sir, I personally have no axe to grind, or perhaps only a very tiny one, and I do not propose to comment in detail on His Excellency's Address which one journalist of international repute described as containing everything but the kitchen sink! I think perhaps it might have been more apposite and topical if he had said, instead, the gas cooker! But may I, Sir, as a humdrum bank manager, say that paragraph 33 of the Address strikes the right note? Unlike the Member for Tanjong Pagar who castigated Government for a lack of figures, I am satisfied that Singapore's finances are indeed in sound shape. Where there is a will, there is a way. If Government intends, as it states, that nothing shall be done to shake the confidence and the stability of Singapore's economy and currency, then the Government will have the support of all ranks, from the daily wage-earners to the rubber barons.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: And the bankers.

Mr Sutherland: Naturally I am in between! Many hon. Members will have had the experience of the frightful things that can happen when you have a debased currency, for instance, in the Japanese occupation. I myself had that experience, and I also had the experience of seeing the Chinese national dollar depreciate in geometric progression in post-war China, and have seen the peculiar immorality that inflation like that brings about. It is significant to note, Sir, that two currencies survived the Japanese holocaust - survived intact, both colonial currencies - the Hongkong dollar and the Straits dollar, because they were backed 100 per cent.

Sir, as I have said, I do not intend to comment in detail on His Excellency's Address. The leaders of the two Opposition Parties have done so, and one of them complained of the paucity of facts contained therein. If every paragraph were boosted up with facts and figures to the extent desired, it would be as long as the Colony's Annual Report and goodness knows how long the Opposition speeches would have been; and if the group of Independents all gave it a detailed analysis, then I reckon that this sitting would last longer than the Budget sitting!

To return, Sir, for just a moment to the position of the nominated Members. It is, after all, in this outmoded and anachronistic constitution, as indeed in every other, the votes that count, and the votes of the nominated Members on this side of the House could today have been of almost historic importance. In the event, it would appear that that will not be necessary and that face will be saved all-round.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): What a shame!

Mr Sutherland: However, we are not Government yes-men. Even the ex-Chief Minister realised that when he hurled his invective at us, or commended us for our statesmanlike behaviour, depending on whether we opposed or supported his policy. For my own part, I vote according to my views and conscience and with due regard for certain loyalties. I will be extremely vocal against Government should the situation so warrant, a privilege denied to my ex-officio compatriots, bless their hearts!

Finally, Sir, my view on the speed at which this Colony should proceed to self-government has not changed, but I am prepared to support this motion wholeheartedly and to give the Chief Minister his vote of confidence. One way of looking at it, Sir, might be - and I do not mean it too cynically - if you will permit the phrase, that the Labour Front Coalition Government is the devil we know, a devil whose demoniacal forces have been, to some extent, modified.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that the Government attaches much importance to the encouragement and expansion of agricultural production and says, further on in the Governor's Address, that it will do this and do that to help the farmers. That is all very well, but they can be promises that will take a long time to fulfil. I think it would be very much better for the Government now to examine all the outstanding grievances and hardships of the farmers. If the Government really intends to encourage pig breeding, the first thing they should do is to do away with the pig-sty licence fees. The amount is small - only $6 a year - but the pig breeders consider that it is an imposition to restrict pig breeding. That is one of their grievances. Whenever they want to build or repair their huts, they have had to undergo considerable difficulty. They cannot improve the condition of their huts by changing from attap to corrugated iron sheets. They find great difficulty in sending for their wives and children from China to help them on their farms. There has been so much trouble in getting their pigs and poultry inoculated. In many cases they complain that their farmland is too small. The 30-year lease is too short. Bad roads give them a lot of trouble and affect their profit.

Now we come to their hardships. Last year an epidemic of swine fever, or whatever it is called, wiped out some $200,000 worth of pigs and piglings in my division alone. The farmers got very little help or no help at all from the Veterinary Department. In 1954 the price of pigs was about $90 per picul and the cost of bran was about $10 a picul. From the beginning of 1955 down to the present day, the price of pigs has gone down to $75 per picul but the cost of bran has gone up to $15 a picul. This imbalance in the prices, coupled with the loss through the epidemic last year, has sent many farmers to the verge of bankruptcy. Pigs and fowls are still dying, although not at the same alarming rate as last year's. I think very soon we may have a shortage of local pork if no action is taken.

In the case of fishermen, the hardest hit are the Malay fishermen living along the Straits of Johore, due to the curfew. These people are in my division. Even in the pre-curfew days they could hardly make ends meet. What is their plight now without the means of fishing in the Straits of Johore? I hope Government will quickly look into the matter, and if my services are required, I shall be only too glad to help.

Mr Speaker, Sir, throughout the 62 paragraphs of the Governor's Address, there is no mention of electricity, one of the essential services for mankind. I hope that the Government has plans to supply electricity as widely as possible to the rural areas and that it was only through inadvertence that it was not incorporated in the Governor's Address.

Lastly, I hope that the points I have brought out about pigs and fowls dying, the high cost of animal feed, fishermen in dire straits, are not petty things, and if the Member for Tanjong Pagar thinks they are, I invite him to tell his constituents about them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in spite of all I have said, I wholeheartedly support the Government policy.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, His Excellency's Address just happened to draw our attention to the fact that Government has been paying only lip service during the last 17 months particularly to the urgent need to stimulate the entrepot trade of Singapore with our neighbours, Indonesia and the Federation of Malaya. Well, we have seen what had happened before to the last trade mission to Indonesia. After a lot of fanfare and publicity, the Marshall led trade mission, which was described by Labour Fronters as a triumphant one, had not produced a single concrete result. The much-vaunted relaxations of export controls from Indonesia of rubber slabs have not materialised and instead of more rubber coming in from Indonesia to feed our rubber milling industry, there is actually less import of rubber slabs. The beautiful dream of the Labour Front Coalition Government of providing more work for the people in this industry has not been realised. It remains just a beautiful dream. There is, in fact, more unemployment. The queue is increasing every day and what has the new Labour Coalition Government done during the last three months to improve the situation?

There is no influx of capital, no new industry has been planned, and there is a diminishing national income. What we were given during the last 17 months were just promises and mere lip service. And now Government recognises the need to import or attract capital, but is it just wishful thinking in the light of what has happened? No local or foreign capital will be attracted here unless the Government can produce a "stable political climate", and gain the confidence of the local or foreign investors.

A series of strikes, fanned by irresponsible political agitators and parasites, and with no leadership from the Government, all these are not likely to produce the desired objectives. Industries cannot be established on pious hopes and wishful thinking.

At this juncture, I would quote the remarks made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, leader of the People's Action Party, when he said:

"No factory that has suffered a strike has shut down. No factory has decreased its production when a strike is resolved and the workers resume work."

Of this I can say the Member for Tanjong Pagar is ignorant. I would ask him to go to his own unions, the P.A.P.-Ied unions, and check up what has happened to the Hume Industries, the Gim Huat granite quarries of Jurong, the Cressonite Industries, the Singapore Cold Storage, the Mis-Sino and the bus companies after the settlement of the strikes. The collections of the bus companies, after the settlement of a strike last year, in which I was one of the mediators, have dropped considerably. Can the Member for Tanjong Pagar explain why he made those remarks?

The People's Action Party every now and then shout, "We stand for freedom!" But in actual fact the People's Action Party stand for destruction. I was in England during the Merdeka talks and many times the ex-Chief Minister decided to accept the half loaf which Britain had offered us, but the leader of the People's Action Party was egging him on and trying to ask him to demand the impossible, and therefore the talks failed completely. What did we get after all? Nothing. We returned empty-handed.

It does appear to me that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is all the while trying to do his worst, particularly when he yesterday tried to decry the good work of my hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for Serangoon behind the smokescreen of a pseudo-Merdeka which the P.A.P. is always clamouring for.

Government has indicated that the people are being encouraged to establish community centres on their own initiative. The present practice of the Government is to run and staff these community centres entirely by paid members of the Department of Social Welfare, and presumably by members of the Labour Front Party, with the assistance of -

Mr Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not make any imputations in their speeches.

Mr William Tan: I am sorry, Sir. Will the Minister for Labour and Welfare see that this situation is put right immediately, that is, in accordance with the policy laid down by Government - that community centres must be solely run by people on their own initiative, duly assisted by paid staff from the Department of Social Welfare as and when necessary?

In conclusion, I must warn the Government that if they display the same kind of weakness and confusion and, in some respects, the incompetence as they did during the last 17 months, they will seek in vain when they want our backing for their policy, but instead will encounter the most vigorous and sustained attack.

Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer): Mr Speaker, Sir, first I would like to congratulate one of my oldest colleagues in the Singapore Legislature, the Member for Havelock (Mr Lim Yew Hock), who has attained the highest position in this Colony as Chief Minister. Whilst congratulating him, I must say that I came prepared yesterday to vote against his motion as a matter of principle, but his speech completely disarmed me and the assurance which he has given that he will continue with his London talks in the near future has changed my mind and I am voting for his motion. On the other hand, Sir, the inaugural Address of His Excellency the Governor given on 29th August does not inspire much confidence when it says:

"...continuity of policy and its plans for the future are linked with the achievements of the past 17 months."

What are those achievements, Sir? 265 strikes of which the ex-Chief Minister was very proud. Riots. These things have completely shattered the economy of this little island. If that policy is to be continued, certainly I disagree.

Sir, yesterday the Hon. the Chief Minister said that one Member always reminded him during the First Session about a minority of elected Members running the Government. I did so on principle, and I do so now on principle too. As one of the most senior Members in the Singapore Legislature after the war from the B.M.A. period, serving on the Advisory Council, the Legislative Council and now the Legislative Assembly, I think I am in a position to say a few words on the history of the past Legislatures. I am talking only of the post-war period. There were only official Members and nominated Members. Then in 1948 we had six elected Members. The Government was run by an official majority. Then later on we had nine elected Members and four nominated Members and the world was told by the colonial power that here was an unofficial majority. But the four nominated Members frustrated whatever the elected Members would like to carry through. That was the Colonial Office policy.

Now, Sir, we have gone further forward. We have 25 elected Members, four nominated Members and three ex-officio Members. But what is the use of those 25 elected Members if the voice of the majority of the elected Members is frustrated by the three ex-officios and the four nominated Members? It is no use having this constitution. It is a question of principle, therefore, when I say if any Party or any Independent Member wants to form a government, let him do so, but there should be a majority of elected Members on the Government side. That is quite logical. As I have said, it is no use having 25 elected Members in this Assembly when the voice of the elected majority can be frustrated. But, Sir, I am willing to support the present Government, whose term of office is very short because it is a caretaker Government and is in office only for the purpose of carrying on further negotiations in the Merdeka talks.

Coming to His Excellency's Address, the emphasis is laid on trade. This small island is prosperous and I hope it will remain prosperous, because it only depends on trade. It has no natural resources of its own. I challenge anyone who can say it has. Rubber and tin are not ours; they are the Federation's. Singapore produces nothing. How is its population of a million and a quarter people going to exist? We are simply existing on the entrepot trade. First, I will deal with exports. We get goods from neighbouring countries, and these we grade and re-export. We live on that. Our labour lives on that. Our capital lives on that. In the case of imports, we get imports from various manufacturing countries and we redistribute them to the neighbouring countries. We get handling charges. The middle man gets his commission. We exist on that. But can we do this always? We can only do this if our cost of living is cheaper, our wages are lower and we are satisfied with lower profits. Then we can exist, otherwise God alone knows what will happen.

On the other hand, we require foreign capital. Countries like India, Indonesia and Ceylon always ask for foreign capital investment and they encourage it. When we say that we will nationalise our industry, the question arises: What can we nationalise in this small city? Where are we going to get our materials from? How are we going to finance it? We are too small for it. When you talk of the big countries, you must remember these factors - that they have their own natural resources; they have their own backing. We have none of these things. Only a stable government can inspire confidence, and only that confidence can attract foreign capital over here.

Sir, now I come to the fostering of our small-scale industries and cottage handicrafts. If we want to help the little men, I would advise that we get experts from E.C.A.F.E. to teach them cottage handicrafts and how to run small-scale industries; how to make use of women and children, who are doing nothing at home, for these industries. The E.C.A.F.E. experts can teach them and the Government can finance them, and not that we should go to their doorstep and give them money. As in other countries, we should have here a marketing board. The people running these small-scale industries can deposit their wares with the marketing board and draw an advance against their deposit, and when their wares are all sold, their accounts can be settled. In this way you can utilise the women and children who are doing nothing at home, and possibly the children may be kept out of mischief.

Sir, you cannot compare our economy with that of Hongkong. It is definitely wrong. We are not in the same position as Hongkong is. Hongkong depends on China. The 500 million population of China buy from Hong-kong because they cannot get their goods direct from the producing and manufacturing countries, due to the sanctions imposed by the other powers. Hongkong, being a free port and a free market, can import and export. Singapore has no such hinterland.

On the question of cheap labour, how are you going to compete in production with other countries when you have to import raw materials from outside? If you have to pay high wages, if you have to make large profits, how on earth can you compete with goods manufactured outside? It is impossible. What I would suggest is this: Bring down the cost of living; pay adequate wages to the workers; bring down your profits. Only then can you compete with other producing countries. But once you impose protective tariffs, you will lose your principle of free trade. You will have to have controls. You will have to have inspectors and godowns, and the people buying the same goods will have to pay higher prices for them. Such a line of action will not be to your benefit, and the Government should put forward suggestions to consider this problem. The advice of the Trade Advisory Council will be very helpful.

Sir, His Excellency touched on the question of forming a regular battalion. For a small city like Singapore I think a small army, drawn from the local-born, is sufficient. It can be used in case of an emergency and it can be of help to the police in case of internal trouble, but I would not advise having a big army in the present-day world. It is useless. We cannot stand alone. We can only live in co-existence with other countries, or we can adopt the maxim of Panchsheela. What we really need is an Air Force. We had our experience when Japanese wooden bombers attacked us and we were quite helpless then. An Air Force might probably be the answer, and the people could be trained as anti-aircraft gunners or in other duties.

Now, Sir, coming to Malayanisation, I moved a motion on that subject in 1953 and an ad hoc committee was appointed. But the committee report went into cold storage. Then we had the Majority Committee's Report and we have heard nothing about it up to now. I hope that Report will be debated in this Assembly, no matter what the outcome maybe. But, Sir, what is the reason for Malayanisation? It is to stop the payment of high salaries from our revenue to the expatriates. I do not blame the expatriates for drawing high salaries. Why should they come to this country, leaving their hearth and their homes?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Because they could not get a job.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Please allow me to go on. The reason is that they have to run two homes - one here and one in their own country, maybe in England, India, Ceylon or somewhere else, or even China. They send their children back to their own country for education. That is possibly why they want higher wages. But my idea of having Malayanisation is this. We employ local men -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: And save money.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: - and save money by paying lower salaries, not the high salaries paid to expatriates. When we can live on a certain standard, I think salaries must be adjusted to that level, not only of the administrative service but also of the Ministers. Take the Ministers of other countries. They help their own country by not building their own capital out, of their service.

Sir, any government will put up very nice schemes for the welfare of the State. This Government has done so. I do not blame it. But where is the money coming from? His Excellency has given an indication, but that also has its limits. We want foreign capital investment but if we tax it severely, it may want to find other places to invest. If that happens, who is going to suffer? The workers. Where are they to go to? China, India or Indonesia? I think Government should plan very carefully the taxation system.

Sir, my good friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar dwelt for two hours on His Excellency's Address and he said it was all wishy-washy. I do agree that a part of it is wishy-washy. But I think, like a good lawyer, he went through it only in order to bring up his own points. Of course, he was not stopped. I do not know why on foreign policy he did not bring in Gibraltar, Malta or Aden.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Next time.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Possibly he was afraid that if this beautiful island of Singapore did not get Merdeka, it might be internationalised.

Sir, before this Assembly was constituted, nearly 55 per cent of the colony's revenue went into the administrative service; in such a small city like Singapore. After this new Government came into power in 1955, you have to add the Ministers' salaries, the Assistant Ministers' salaries, their travelling expenses, cocktail parties and what not. Sir, the first duty of a government which wants benefit for the country is to reduce expenditure and practise economy itself. Then only can we live within our revenue. But as it is, 55 per cent or nearly 60 per cent is shocking.

Hansard will take note that the Hon. the Chief Minister has said that the Merdeka talks will start at the earliest date possible. I hope he will not wait till next April. I am sure he will have our support. The serious way in which he spoke about it has impressed us of his sincerity. If the Merdeka talks do not succeed, tear up the Rendel Constitution and send it back to England!

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I was young I learned the motto that silence is golden and I decided to adopt that. But when I came to the meeting this morning, I was told by a Member that every Member should say something, whether for good or for bad, as an allowance is being paid to every Member of this Assembly. That allowance is paid to a Member to speak and so I think I have to say something in order to draw that allowance of $500 a month, or else I may not get it!

I have heard criticisms, whether constructive or destructive I will not say, from some Members, and bouquets have also been offered to the Government by some Members. I can definitely understand the attitude of the P.A.P., because it has been their policy, whether for good or for bad, to attack the Government in order to maintain their own policy and to tell the people that they are always right, even if they are wrong. But I cannot understand the attitude or the policy of the Liberal-Socialists.

An hon. Member: No policy.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I do not think there is much in it. The Member for Tiong Bahru and the Member for Serangoon attacked the Government, but the Member for Paya Lebar gave a lot of credit to the Government.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Criticism.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Oh, it was credit. I cannot understand why. Sir, when the Governor opened the First Session of this Assembly, I remember he covered a little aspect of the question of the civilian employees in the three Services. But when I went through His Excellency's Address at the opening of the Second Session, it was rather surprising that nothing on this subject was mentioned. Before this Assembly met, I tabled two questions regarding the Services' employees but I was overruled by you because I was told it is not within the purview of any Ministry.I do appreciate that, Sir. But the Labour Front in its election manifesto did include conditions of service for the civilian employees of the Armed Services. At that time, when I was still a Member of the Labour Front and when the election manifesto was drawn up, I insisted that should the Party come into power, it should look into the conditions of service of the civilian employees of the three Services. I had been in the Services myself and I do know the sufferings of the civilian workers in the Services. It is not a question of whether it is within the purview of any Ministry or not. It is the question of 30,000 local people in Singapore whose employment is at stake. If Merdeka does come, I am sure that the Services will withdraw from this country and go back to the United Kingdom, and when they do, these 30,000 civilian employees of the Army will be thrown out of employment, is the Government prepared to face such a situation? What is the Government going to do with these 30,000 employees of the Services? They will be left unemployed and if nothing is done for them, they will definitely go into the underworld and join the underground forces, or they may be forced into robbery or any other sort of vices in Singapore. I do hope that the Government will look into this matter as it is of the greatest concern to this country, whether it is within any of the Ministries or not. I know that Singapore cannot over-rule Her Majesty's Government's policy, because the pay of the civilian workers comes from Her Majesty's Treasury and not from the Singapore Treasury; but they do contribute a certain amount in taxes to the colony. Without these civilian workers, Singapore would not have received the amount of revenue that goes to the Government Treasury. If they are merely employees of Her Majesty's Government, they should pay tax to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and not to the Singapore Government. It is a very serious matter and I do hope the Chief Minister will give it his careful and active consideration.

Another point I would like to make, Sir, on the Governor's Address is the question of community centres. From what I can see, there is only a very small paragraph - paragraph 12 - in the Address on community centres. It reads:

"The building of community centres will be accelerated in co-operation with the numerous groups who are already establishing or seeking to establish community centres on their own initiative."

Apart from this paragraph, I cannot see anything more about it. What is there in that paragraph? According to what I have been told previously, the Government will encourage the establishment of community centres and will give every help. Just recently the Tiong Bahru community centre was closed down without rhyme or reason. There was no specific reason given to the Tiong Bahru community centre why it should be closed down. The only reason given was that it was in the interests of Government that it should be closed down. Is that encouraging the establishment of community centres ?

Secondly, community centres were started by the people themselves without any Government support. They were self-dependent. The maintenance of community centres was the work of the members of the public or members of the estate or tenants themselves. Government did not provide any grant or help at all to these centres. Recently I was told that the Government has asked the Social Welfare Department to step into such centres. If the Government wants the Social Welfare Department to step into such centres, then by all means provide some grant or some funds to them. But none was provided. When these community centres started about four or five years ago, every one of them was on the verge of bankruptcy because the people could not maintain them. They could not even provide a caretaker for the premises. Then why ask the Social Welfare Department to step in and say that community centres should be under its supervision? I think it is entirely wrong. If Government intends to encourage the establishment of community centres, they should provide grants and wardens or officers to guide them, not to supervise them. At one time there was an enforcement by the S.I.T. that an S.I.T. official should sit on the committee of such community centres. What privilege does the S.I.T. give to these centres? Nothing at all. And if nothing is given, then let the centres run themselves independently without any supervision.

Thirdly, the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has repeatedly promised, even before he took office, that he would reduce the rentals of S.I.T. houses. It is now 17 months since he assumed office and instead of the rents being reduced, they have, in fact, increased three times, directly or indirectly. The actual rents may not have been increased, but the water charges have. S.I.T. houses are supplied with block meters and the tenants are asked to pay, whether they consume the water or not, a flat rate on water consumption. That is most unfair, and in spite of the protests made by the S.I.T. tenants, nothing has been done by the Minister. What about his promise to reduce rentals of S.I.T. houses? Most of the tenants are of the poor class, not the rich.

The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat): With motor-cars.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Well, it is essential to have a motor-car now.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): A luxury.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I do not consider it a luxury, but I consider it an essential service, because it is much cheaper to run a motor-car nowadays than to go by any other means of transport. A clerk with a salary of $300 a month should possess a car now if he wants to have any savings on transport. I hope that the Minister will look into this matter and keep his promise to reduce S.I.T. rentals. It is no use making promises and promises. It is no more an election stunt. The election days are over now and there is no purpose in making promises. Promises are made during an election campaign but they will not hold good after the candidates are elected. Once the candidates are elected, the promises should be made good.

As an ex-member of the Labour Front, I should oppose whatever the Party does on principle, since I have walked across the floor; but today, as Mr Sutherland has said, I think I should support the Government because it is my personal opinion that the policy framed by it in His Excellency's Address is good. In its policy statement the Government has shown that it has the interests of the public in mind and I will certainly support and give my vote of confidence to the Government and the Chief Minister.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion, but I wish to make it clear that I do not support the actual wording of the motion. Sir, I am not a petty critic, nor am I qualified for a petty politician, but I wish to say that I am a simple and humble representative of the people. I have gone through the Governor's Address page by page and I wish to give my comments on certain paragraphs. I will start with paragraph 60, which reads:

"The first elected Government recognised that the welfare of the people of Singapore could best be served by the early attainment of complete internal self-government and union with the Federation of Malaya and accordingly directed its efforts to achieving these ends."

Sir, although that paragraph is simply worded, it covers all the aspirations not only of the people of Singapore but the people in the Federation as well, and I hope the people in the Federation will also wholeheartedly support those objectives. I say this because the gap between Singapore and the Federation appears to be going wider and wider.

I want to take this opportunity to say something about political developments in the Federation. I am sure everybody was very happy to note the distribution of ministerial posts just after the Federation elections, because it looked as if racial harmony and prosperity were assured. But the position changed after the question of jus soli was raised. It changed to such an extent that recently a statement was issued by the Ministry of Education in the Federation to Chinese school students in the Federation to the effect that when they visited Singapore, they must not visit certain schools, including two girls schools. The reason given was to avoid contacting venereal disease. I, for one, had a great shock and although the incident was little mentioned in the English papers, there was much concern among the Chinese people. I sought advice from our parliamentary experts whether, as Assemblymen, we could do anything to clear up this unfortunate matter, but I was told that we must treat the Federation as a foreign country and therefore the Singapore Assembly could not do anything at all.

Sir, I must confess that that was the first time I found out that we are so widely separated from the Federation of Malaya. All this time I was under the impression that only the causeway, not more than a mile long, separated us, especially having regard to the fact that certain administrative services were so closely connected. For example, we have just received a report from the Film Censor, a Pan-Malayan Government official, and we also know that the Ministry of Fisheries has Pan-Malayan backing. I think that politically, geographically or even economically we cannot legitimately divide Singapore and the Federation, and I hope that the gap between our two territories will be narrowed down.

I now touch on the Government's education policy in paragraph 54, which reads:

"...will ensure to every child the opportunity of education in the language of the parents' choice, together with a second language which will enable him to communicate with his fellows of different race."

Sir, this appears to be a very sound and long-term policy, but could the Minister for Education assure us that the language of the parents' choice will be fairly represented? I say this because while the Government are going to build schools which will not be English schools, the English language will be one of the media of instruction.

For the first time the Government has come to recognise the importance of providing higher education for Chinese youths. Paragraph 41 reads:

"The Government appreciates the need of the pupils leaving the Chinese middle schools for an institution of higher education in which to continue their studies, and the enterprise and enthusiasm which brought the Nanyang University into being."

I take off my hat to the Ministry of Education for recognising the need for such an institution of higher learning.

Further on, the same paragraph says:

"The Government is therefore at all times ready to help the Nanyang University."

Sir, I wish to put forward a suggestion. It is known that among Chinese educational circles the Chinese Branch of the Teachers Training College is not popular or efficient. Now if the Ministry of Education is really going to honour its word to help Nanyang University, then why should not the Ministry of Education have immediate contact with the authorities of Nanyang University with the object of establishing a Chinese Normal Teachers Training College right inside Nanyang University?

I also put forward a second suggestion. We all know of the great shortage of Malay teachers, especially Malay secondary school teachers, and I know the authorities of Nanyang University are prepared to open a Malay language branch there. I therefore suggest that the Ministry of Education consider taking immediate action to make use of Nanyang University facilities to provide for a Malay language branch in the University.

I now come to the much discussed Government policy towards farmers and fishermen, especially towards the farmers. Paragraph 7 says:

"The need to provide and to improve farming lands is accepted and the Government will give its consideration to measures aimed at giving farmers both security of tenure and freedom from exploitation."

The Member for Seletar and the Member for Bukit Panjang have fully pointed out the immediate needs of the farmers, especially the Member for Seletar who said that new legislation should be introduced to protect the farmers. I have personal experience of their problems. There is a small island which was once occupied by more than 20 families. They had lived there for generations and they had planted rubber and coconut trees. Not long ago the ownership of this island changed hands. The new landlord issued quit notices to all the farmers and the farmers were prepared to quit, but they wanted to know the terms of compensation. They wanted to know what was going to happen to the rubber and coconut trees that their ancestors and they had planted. But the landlord said, "I have only received your annual rents. All the things planted in the ground belong to the landlord." Sir, I am sure the hon. Members of this House would feel sympathy for such people who have to suffer injustice. Therefore I believe that it is essential to introduce new legislation to protect the security of tenure of the farmers and to ensure them freedom from exploitation.

The Member for Bukit Panjang mentioned about farmers having to get a permit before they are allowed to change the roof of their huts from attap to zinc in order to comply with Government regulations. What is the necessity for these inconvenient regulations? These only open the way to corruption. It is the experience of some non-English speaking farmers that whenever they are visited by a teh-gu (Land Office official), they must give him a "red packet" to satisfy him. I therefore think these regulations should be revised.

Sir, despite all the constructive policies laid down by the Government in His Excellency's Address, I said at the beginning of my speech that I could not support the actual wording of the Chief Minister's motion, but I support the motion because I was moved by the Chief Minister's speech yesterday when he asked us to treat his motion as a vote of confidence. I can explain all this in very simple words. So long as the Rendel Constitution exists, and so long as the Hon. the Chief Secretary (Mr Goode) is good and influential, then I feel that no matter how constructive are the proposals that are put forward from time to time, it will be hard for the Assembly to carry them through. So the first and foremost desire of this country is the early achievement of Merdeka.

Look at the Gallery of this House, Sir.I do not know whether it is because our chief actor is now in Peking, but anyway even when another celebrated actor appeared yesterday, we still had a poor audience. A poor audience when important Government policy is being debated, when a vote of confidence is involved! Where is the Consular Corps? Where is the public? We have reserved seats for them. They are not here. Why? It looks as if they do not care to listen to an important debate on Government policy. If I were not an Assemblyman but just an ordinary member of the public, I too would be fed up coming to this Assembly to hear nonsense, listen to empty promises and political propaganda. The whole position is very simple to understand. It has always been said that the present Government is no more than a caretaker Government, more especially when the Chief Minister yesterday said that it would not hold office up till 1959, and that if the Merdeka talks to be held next April failed, he would also follow his predecessor's example and quit office. It is for this reason, therefore, that I support the Chief Minister's motion, because a vital issue is at stake and because of the mighty call by our courageous and determined Chief Minister for Merdeka.

Now I must say that we have enjoyed very much the two-hour long analysis of His Excellency's Address by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. The impression is that everybody thought he really took an interest in the debate. But I told him yesterday straightaway, "No, you make use of this Assembly to state your P.A.P. platform." He never went carefully through the Governor's Address. Neither did he carefully study the present conditions in Singapore. As the Member for Tiong Bahru pointed out in his speech, the Member for Tanjong Pagar did not know that so many factories had to close down due to the strikes. I would like to tell this to his supporters: How can we expect a man to know all this when he lives in a nice bungalow house; who works in an air-conditioned office; who owns and rides in a beautiful American car; who plays golf when he is free; who calls for beer when he is thirsty; and who charges fees for professional consultation and services? And this kind of leader, this kind of champion for the people, tries to make use of the Assembly as his best propaganda ground. But such a type of leader and such a kind of speech only brings about an unhealthy situation which will be unfortunate for the people of Singapore. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will allow me. I do not mind to repeat it again.

Sir, looking at these many pages of policy statements, it will all be an empty dream if we cannot achieve Merdeka. Now everything has been accumulated into one single movement for Merdeka. And how can we achieve Merdeka? I do not think the Chief Minister is going to accept the suggestion put forward by our - I would like to call him - "dictator-designate", that is, to call a convention of all anti-colonial Parties in order to plan tactics for the Merdeka talks. [Interruption.] "Dictator".

Mr Speaker: Order. I appreciate the excitement at the moment, but the hon. Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair, and the Chair only.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am sorry, Sir.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Do not get excited.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, we have had experience of such people and such leaders during the Merdeka talks last April, which failed. How can we trust them, whose motives and principles I think even their close colleagues cannot understand? Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will allow me to trace back all the speeches delivered by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, you will recollect that he has never appreciated any Member for doing any good to the country. He has hissed at, joked about and disgraced many Members, except those of his Party, and yesterday he even went to the extent of trying to be smart in Chinese. He explained that a Wu tang wu pai (Independent) had no standing, but he forgot that one of his close friends, who sits next to him, is also a Wu tang wu pai. You will remember, Sir, that the Member for Sembawang has all the time wholeheartedly supported him. So I would like to take this opportunity of reminding the Member for Tanjong Pagar that if he intends to joke about me or even try to run me down in future, he should quickly enrol the Member for Sembawang as a P.A.P. member before he comes to this Assembly and disturbs any of the Independent Members here. There may be some people who may look upon this as a personal matter, but I consider this as a stumbling-block to the achievement of Merdeka, even a stumbling-block to a merger with the Federation. It is unfortunate that the country produces such a leader who says that the P.A.P. regards the policy stated in the Governor's Address as only blabber without any facts. Can the P.A.P. produce more facts than this? You may remember, Sir, that the Chief Secretary is still good and influential! What we should work for now is to forge all Parties together into a strong unit. But the policy of the P.A.P. is not so. They run every Party down. The Member for Tanjong Pagar wanted the Chief Minister to call a convention of all anti-colonial Parties. How could he when he called members of the Labour Front opportunists and members of the Liberal-Socialist Party stooges? That would leave the P.A.P. as the only anti-colonial Party, led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Member for Tanjong Pagar!

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is probably getting a little out of hand. I would ask him to appreciate that this is a debate on Government policy. I do not think there should be a tirade against the Member for Tanjong policy.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am sorry, Sir,but I would say that although they do seem very personal, my remarks are closely connected with the Government policy which I have already described as constructive; but without the achievement of full independence, we cannot do anything to carry out that Pagar.

Sir, I explained at the last sitting of the Assembly why I left the Liberal-Socialist Party. I said we must realise that Singapore is just a small island; that we depend on our entrepot trade: that our industry is just equal to none; that we have no natural resources to support us; that we have communal grievances and religions; and that, in addition, we have party politics. Sir, I do not know who was the hon. Member who stated yesterday, "If you join my Party, I can do everything for you." This is the sort of thing which keeps our people divided and enables the colonial power to have a better chance to keep the balance of power, prolong the colonial rule and delay the early achievement of Merdeka. Therefore I cannot help expressing my sincere and fervent desire to call upon all Parties to revive the Merdeka Committee, which was set up last April, and try to sign a truce, to stop nagging, scolding, attacking and joking about one another, and to concentrate on the Merdeka movement. We must also have faith in the Chief Minister. Today many speakers have expressed their faith in the Chief Minister, so let him carry on with the job of achieving Merdeka.

The outlook in Singapore today is very bright and hopeful and optimistic. First, we are all agreed on a common issue - Merdeka. Then, all Parties believe in Socialism. So what else can keep the people divided? It is that we have so many political Parties and so many differences. In this connection, I think, if the Chief Minister is going to accept the proposal of the Member for Tanjong Pagar to call a convention of the anti-colonial Parties, only malice, jokes and fun will attend such a meeting. We have already had one experience of what the Member for Tanjong Pagar can do when he goes to London for the Merdeka talks. He will enrol more students as P.A.P. members. I am sure we cannot stop him from saying, "Oh, do not trust Mr Lim Yew Hock, the Hon. the Chief Minister. He is no more than an opportunist. And how can you rely on the Liberal-Socialists? They go behind the scenes and talk with the Colonial Office." So what is the use of a Merdeka delegation again? Let us follow the old proverb - Once bitten, twice shy. The Government must not fall into the trap again. I suggest, since all Parties had agreed on certain heads of agreement last April, they should be asked to honour the agreement which they had signed. Then the Chief Minister could go and see Mr Lennox-Boyd and say, "Here is our minimum desire. If you accept that, my Government can carry on. If not, I, too, will resign." We can make the issue so simple that the people of Singapore can understand it. It is not a question of high politics at all.

In conclusion, Sir, I should like to take this opportunity of borrowing an expression used by one celebrated journalist, "Do not shoot the pianist before he begins to play." To this I would like to add one more, "Do not make Singapore another France in the East." Therefore I beg all Parties to support the motion of the Chief Minister, and we wish him to carry out his promise of achieving Merdeka.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Minister has asked that this motion of his - a motion of thanks for the Governor's Address - be treated as a vote of confidence in his Government. I shall give him full support, but not because I am terribly impressed by the Governor's Address. As a matter of fact, I was terribly depressed when I heard it. Never have I heard a more uninspiring and unconvincing collection of platitudes. Nevertheless, I shall support the Chief Minister's motion since he has given an assurance to this House that he intends to prepare for the resumption of the Merdeka talks and that he intends to press for full self-government. I hope that the Chief Minister and his elected colleagues on the other side of the House will take all the necessary steps to ensure that when the talks are resumed next year, the people of Singapore will be in a position to negotiate for their rights from a position of strength.

Many matters of importance are left out of the Address. Nothing is said about the plans for Malay secondary education, and the special position of the Malay language as the national language of the country does not seem to be accepted as Government policy. The Government must revise its attitude to Malay education and to representations made by the Malay Education Council. It must also clarify its attitude towards the status of Malay as the national language of our country if it wants to be regarded as a truly national government. Lip service to the cause of Malay education must be replaced by concrete and practical encouragement to the development of the Malay language, education and culture. I fully support the motion of the Chief Tanjong Pagar that Malay should be introduced as a compulsory second language in all non-Malay schools.

The principle of compensation to farmers who occupy Crown land is accepted in the Report of the Land Clearance and Resettlement Committee which submitted its Report recently. But evictions do not take place only from Crown land. People are also often evicted from private holdings. If the principle of compensation for eviction from Crown land is accepted as right, then the same principle must be applied to eviction from private holdings too. For this, amendments to the Rent Control Ordinance are necessary. I hope that the Government will consider this matter at an early date.

I further hope that the recommendations made by the Land Clearance and Resettlement Committee regarding the grant of leases to productive occupants of Crown land will be quickly implemented by the Government. Security of tenure is, in fact, the most pressing problem faced by farmers and this has to be given to them quickly.

Sir, the Address says nothing about the 30,000 locally recruited employees of the Armed Services in Singapore. What step does the Government have in mind to ensure that these employees will enjoy all the benefits of local social and labour legislation by operation of law? It is clearly inconsistent with the dignity of the people of Singapore that any part of Singapore should be outside the purview of social and labour legislation and possess extra-territorial rights in these matters.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Member for Tanjong Pagar, with his usual effervescence and flow of oratory, tried to make out that the Government policy, as enunciated in His Excellency's Address to this Assembly, was ineffective and feeble. Sir, he reminded me very much of a gushing mountain torrent, supreme in its confidence - sometimes touching to the point of arrogance in its confidence - that it will be able to sweep all obstacles in its path. The fact, however, that the torrent does make a lot of noise is incidental. Not even the impetuous force of his mighty oratorial powers could sweep away the basic points in His Excellency's Address that stood out like rocks on solid foundations.

Sir, if you refer to the Governor's Address, you will find that it is full of principles that the Government recognises, policy statements outlined by the Government, and promises that the Government makes to the people of Singapore. Take the first page, for instance. You will find in paragraph 2 that "the Government stands for the early attainment of complete internal self-government". That is a policy statement. There is no doubt about it. The word "stands" is operative.

Take paragraph 3:

"...the Government will take every opportunity of continuing to explore trade possibilities and promote sound trading relationships."

That is a promise, and a promise that the Government will faithfully carry out, as much as is possible within its power to do so.

Paragraph 4:

"The Government will also promote the expansion of existing industries...".

That again is a promise by the Government. In the same paragraph you will find:

"It is recognised, however, that there is a need to import capital...".

That is a recognition of principle. You will find all over in the Address that the three basic things that are outstanding are that the Government recognises certain principles; it outlines certain policies which it will pursue; and it makes certain promises to the people of Singapore. Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, in spite of these clear-cut statements, described them in his usual fluent oratory as "catalogues of administrative matters stuck together with platitudes, fluff and empty exhortations, pious protestations and platitudes". Sir, he asked two questions: Why the Government policy statement does not say how the Government is going to carry out certain things, and when the Government is going to do so. Sir, how the Government is going to do a certain thing is a matter for the Government to decide. It is a detail which I am sure it is not proper to bother this Assembly about. But if the method by which the Government carries out its policy is repugnant or not acceptable to the Members of the Assembly, then it is up to them to criticise the method if and when the Government brings it up before the Assembly. The question of when the Government will carry out certain things depends very much on a lot of factors. For instance, the availability of funds, as the Member for Telok Ayer pointed out very ably. If it is a matter of construction of buildings, schools, hospitals and so on, there are physical limitations involved, such as the labour available, the materials available, the building programme of the P.W.D., and so on. If it is a matter of carrying out industrial policy, there are other and bigger limitations involved. For instance, there is the matter of creating confidence which, incidentally, no one in his right senses can say has been created by certain events in the last 17 months.

The Member for Serangoon, the leader of the Liberal-Socialist Party, yesterday criticised point by point especially the industrial and economic section of His Excellency's Address. Most of his criticisms were, of course, unjustified. Probably it was because he was not aware of a lot of things that the Government has done. But in his usual pedagogic way he wagged a reproving finger at the Government Benches and said that the Government lived on hopes. Sir, there was nothing new that he raised yesterday in his speech. In fact, most of the points he raised have been replied at one time or another by me in the Press, but I will shortly make a reply to the points that he raised, one by one. However, before I come to that, I must say that there are certain things that a Member has got to take into consideration. It is all very well to strain at the leash and show an anxiety for getting things done. We on our side are also anxious to get things done, but there are certain limitations. For instance, the policy on industrial advancement cannot be brought about overnight. The policy takes time to formulate and after its formulation it takes time for it to be brought into operation.

There were some disparaging remarks about the Government not having been able to come to any good solution of the trading relations with Indonesia and of the tariff problem with the Federation of Malaya. Members must realise that when we are dealing with other countries, especially other sovereign States, we must be careful what words we use. We do not want to aggravate a situation which is not happy at the moment. Negotiations have got to take time. Sometimes they take a very long time. Sometimes we may not succeed, but all that we can do is to negotiate; to show our goodwill; to talk to them nicely. We must also realise and face the fact - and I think we have got to face it squarely one day or another - what have we got to offer when we negotiate with other countries? We have our port services to offer, our business acumen, our banking and insurance facilities, but we must also realise that these are days when trade is governed by politics, when trade arrangements are made with the consciousness of what is politically suitable or good. These are not days when trade matters are considered purely from the economic angle. We are still a colony and we have not yet got the political friendship to offer which other sovereign States have to offer to each other. The only thing that we can do is to create friendship and goodwill and it takes time for that friendship and goodwill to blossom forth. We must have patience. If it is only a domestic matter, I can understand the impatience; I can understand that if we do not go about doing it quickly, we are just wasting time. But when the matter concerns another country, it has got to take time. The pace cannot be forced.

Sir, the Member for Serangoon alleged that some rubber contracts had been made by the traders even before the goodwill mission and the working party left for Indonesia last year. That, Sir, may be true. Contracts could be made. But was shipment made? That is the point. A contract can be made on paper. But did you get that rubber here? You only got that rubber after the working party had come back from its successful negotiations with Indonesia. It is misinformation, Sir, the way it was put. The hon. Member went on to talk about the trouble that our fishermen had in Indonesian waters. Sir, the working party did do something for the fishermen. It did, in fact, come to a settlement on an agreed list of items which our fishing boats can take back on their return journey, which settlement had been pending for two or three years. We were able to do that much. If we were not able to do more, it was not our own fault. There were able members in the working party. We tried our best and we managed to achieve what we could, and no more. It is no use grumbling about it. It is something that did not lie in our hands.

Then the Member for Serangoon went on to say about the Federation customs duties having a detrimental effect on our trade. We are not blind to that. We realise that they are having a detrimental effect. In fact, I have stated it many times. I said that three or four days back in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting when I spoke on the economic relations between the territories of the Malaya/Borneo Group. Here is a cutting from a Hongkong paper which I will read to you:

"Addressing the Regional Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, he (the Minister for Commerce and Industry) said, `Singapore now finds that tariffs in Malaya are creating an obstacle to the development of her industries. We hope that though we may progress separately on the political path, we will in the future merge. We hope that in the meantime something can be done to eliminate this difficulty which is facing the Singapore manufacturer.' "

That is a problem which we have to tackle. It is no use grumbling about it. It requires goodwill on both sides. We have set up a committee to consider the effects and at the moment we are collecting data. We require a lot of data and information before we can put up a good case.

Then the Member for Serangoon went on to speak about farmers and asked what encouragement Government was giving them. Sir, if I start reading out portions of my speech at the Agricultural Show, I think it will take up a lot of the Assembly's time. So much time has already been taken up by other Members who have no regard for time. But I will not do so. However, if the Member is interested in knowing what we have done, I will just quote him one or two figures: the inoculation of poultry - 4 million birds last year; 2 million so far this year. If he is interested, I will send him a copy of my speech at the Agricultural Show and he can then find out what we have done in that field.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I would rather you say it here.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: The hon. Member went on to allege that we had created a monopoly on a certain brand of insecticide. That, Sir, is not correct. The correct position is this. Up to very recently a certain brand of insecticide was only available and that insecticide was imported by I.C.I. This insecticide contained phosphorus and because it was of a poisonous character it was necessary that the farmers had to have the approval of the Ministry of Health before they could use it. So instead of creating a monopoly, there were more obstacles put in the way of selling that product. The position now has changed. Another type of insecticide has come into the market which is not so poisonous, which can be bought freely, and which does not belong to I.C.I.

On the question of fisheries, the Member for Serangoon queried why only three licences were granted for joint Japanese operations. Eight applications were received. Why were they all not granted licences? Then we would have more training facilities for our fishermen. The answer to that. Sir, is this: before we allow unlimited operation of this scheme, we want to make sure what effect it is going to have on the fishing grounds here and also what effect the import of the resultant catches is going to have on our fishermen who number quite a lot.

Sir, the hon. Member also said that all the applicants were willing to comply with Government requirements, and yet only three were chosen, the implication being. I suppose, that there was a selection. Naturally we could not help having a selection when we decided to issue only three licences and more than that number applied. Sir, I will quote from the advertisement that appeared in the papers calling for applications for licences. It shows that the criteria for selection were clearly stated in that advertisement. It says here:

"Only a limited number of licences will be available under this scheme and the Government reserves the right to select from the applications received before the closing date those which, in its opinion, offer the best prospects for rapid training of local personnel, the greatest participation of local interests, and increase in the supply of fish from deep-sea off-shore fishing grounds."

The criteria are these: the best prospects for rapid training of local personnel, the greatest participation of local interests, and increase in the supply of fish from deep-sea off-shore fishing grounds. The applications were judged according to how they fitted in with those criteria and, as had been decided by Government, three licences were granted. If and when we find that this method is really beneficial to us, I will then consider recommending to Government that we should increase the number of licences under this scheme; but until I am satisfied that it is going to be really beneficial, I am not going to plunge headlong into a scheme of which we know little at the moment.

The Member for Serangoon then asked what Government is doing regarding the cheap landing and selling of fish. The Clyde Terrace Market is away from the beach now. The Ellenborough Market is too small. Sir, plans for a wholesale market have been under consideration at first by the Department of Commerce and Industry and then by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, since 1951. Sir, six sites have been gone over and difficulties have been encountered with many of these sites. In some cases, the Army or the Navy wanted to use the land. The last site that we considered was at the city end of Merdeka Bridge but we found that it was too costly, that piling would cost too big an amount to be economical. Now we have found another site towards the extreme end of the old Kallang Airport runway, but that is still under consideration and I cannot make any promises. However, I will say this, that, in my opinion, a wholesale fish market does not deserve a high degree of priority and that it will only be considered in the order of priority according to the funds available for the various schemes.

Before we come to the interesting part, the field of industry, I wish to refer to the point made by the Member for Serangoon about the import duties imposed by Indonesia on our goods, ranging from 50 to 200 per cent. Sir, Indonesia is a sovereign power. We cannot control her and if she raises her import duties to 500 per cent, we cannot do anything about it. So why grumble about it?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Negotiate.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Negotiate? That is what we are doing, but the Member probably does not know that these import duties are not applied discriminately only to Singapore; they are applied to all imports, whether they are from Singapore or anywhere else.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Do something.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: If a sovereign power wants to regulate its own economy, what cause can we have to grumble about? If we do, it is possible that we may harm our trade. We must realise that their own needs are of paramount importance to them. We should not try to create more ill-feeling.

Sir, there is one part of the Member for Serangoon's speech which struck me as having taken cognizance of the facts as they really exist, and that is that we are being used as a dumping ground for foreign manufacturers. That is true in a way. The Member for Paya Lebar was more constructive in his suggestion. Now what is the Government doing about it? The Member for Paya Lebar suggested that Government should think of introducing tariff protection. Sir, that is not a new proposal to me. In fact, at the opening of the Trade and Industries Fair at the Great World Amusement Park on 20th July, I did mention that suggestion, and these are the words I used, Sir: "That Government should give protection to local industries by means, of tariffs on imported goods. This suggestion is not a new one and, in fact. I have for some time been examining the possibilities."

But what we have to remember is this: that when we introduce tariff protection, we must look out for three factors (the Member of Telok Ayer also mentioned this) and these are, first, that we are an entrepot centre and we should not do anything that would harm our entrepot trade. We have to be very careful about that. Then we should also see that, by giving tariff protection, our industries which get such protection do not become uncompetitive because then the incentive to reduce costs is lost. I do not think it will be so in all cases. In some cases, however, by giving tariff protection, we get more economical production, more competitive production, because then the industries concerned can produce to their full capacity without any waste. But in certain cases especially where advanced methods are not used, a manufacturer getting tariff protection might say, "I am getting protection now, What have I got to worry about?" And instead of trying to better his quality and to bring his costs down, he may just take things easy. So we find that his goods will become uncompetitive on the export market, on which we have to rely to a large extent because our home market is not big enough. The third factor that we have to take into consideration is that we should not do anything to bring up the cost of living. Take the case of bee-hoon. The bee-hoon people have come to see me about half a dozen times in the last three months and I know their case full well. I have investigated it. But if we impose restrictions, especially since bee-hoon is a food item, is there not a danger thereby of increasing the cost of living? There is one way of encouraging the bee-hoon people. They are at present using out-of-date methods of manufacturing bee-hoon. I have told them that we might try to bring their case before the Industrial Promotion Board so that they can get a loan to buy up-to-date machinery which will help to bring down their cost of production, and thereby enable them to compete with imported bee-hoon from Thailand and China. We have also to bear in mind, when we impose restriction, the repercussions on the other territories that are affected by those restrictions. Sir, the Member for Serangoon -

Mr Speaker: Order, I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at 2.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.16 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed on Question.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker,Sir, before I was interrupted this morning, I was going to touch on the important subject of encouragement of local industries but now I think the subject is of such great importance that I am going to talk on it at the end of my speech.

I am now going to answer some of the miscellaneous points that have been raised by the other Members from the Opposition side.

The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) put up a suggestion that the Fisheries School should be established immediately. My answer, Sir, is that if we can train our fishermen free of charge under this scheme of joint-Japanese venture, I do not see any reason why Government should spend money on a scheme which might not prove of much help, and therefore I will only consider this suggestion when I see the result of the operation of the joint-Japanese venture scheme.

Sir, the Member for Bukit Panjang (Mr Goh Tong Liang) raised certain points about agriculture and about farmers. He said that Government should examine all outstanding grievances and he suggested that we should do away with pig-sty licences which cost six dollars each annually. I will also not be surprised if he comes round and says that we should do away with the fees for the registration of businesses, in order to encourage business, or that we should do away with rents for land given to farmers and with all other similar things. Six dollars is a small sum and it is necessary that we should have a record of all farmers who breed pigs. He also lamented the fact that there was an epidemic of swine fever earlier this year - that quite a lot of pigs died as a result - and that not much help was forthcoming from the Veterinary Department. Sir, the main reason why the pigs died was because of the reluctance on the part of the farmers to report the outbreak of swine fever. Immediately we became aware of the existence of this disease amongst the pigs, we took steps to recruit an extra team of men for the Veterinary Department to go out and attend to this disease so that it would not spread to other areas. He has also touched upon the bad roads and communications and in this respect I am sure he will notice in His Excellency's Address that reference has been made to bringing in services to the farmers.

Sir, a lot of attention has been given in certain sections of the Press to statements by the Singapore Farmers' Association that farmers should be trained to inoculate their own poultry. I have here, Sir, a statement from an expert whose views are as follows:

"A vaccine is not a pill or a dose of medicine which any one can take, but requires the use of a hypodermic syringe under trained sterile conditions, This Ranikhet vaccine is put up in a glass ampule of 1 c.c. capacity which must be kept on ice from the moment of manufacture to the moment of vaccination."

Now, the farmers do not have the facilities to keep the vaccine on ice or in a refrigerator.

"If exposed to sunlight or heat it dies immediately. In addition the vaccine is so potent that it requires a dilution by a thousandfold using special sterile filtrated medium which must also be used at ice cold temperature; after the ampule is broken open, the diluted vaccine must be used within an hour otherwise it dies."

The success of this vaccination campaign has been largely dependent on the fact that it has been carried out by experts who know their job and if it is handed over to the farmers, there is a great chance of it being misused by quacks trying to make money by injecting dirty water and calling it vaccine and the farmer who gets this service will not know whether the poultry have been injected with the real vaccine or with some other substitute. Also, the Federation Veterinary Laboratory which supplies us this vaccine supplies us on the condition that it is used by experts of the Veterinary Department. I have studied this matter before and I cannot find any method by which it would be possible to let the farmers handle this vaccine; but what we are doing is that we are expanding our veterinary services so that every farmer who is in need will be able to get at his doorstep this service. Of course, it takes time and requires the means to have this expansion brought about, but it is going to come surely.

Sir, generally it has been recognised even by the Farmers' Association, belatedly I must say, that the Government has done something for the farmer. The Sin Pao, which was very critical of Government's action towards farmers and the help that the Government was giving, has now come round belatedly and is now admitting that Government has done something.

The attendance at the Agricultural Show, which is estimated at over 200,000 during the last five days - out of which one and a half days were wet and rainy - is in itself a compliment to Government's help and assistance towards the farmer and to the importance that Government attaches to the agricultural section of the community.

The hon. Member also brought to light the fact that feeding stuffs have gone up and that the price of swine has gone down. We have no control over the price of feeding stuffs in the countries from which they are coming. If the prices go up in the country of origin, we cannot help it but the price of swine to the farmer has come down, especially because of the activities of middlemen. The middleman who buys swine from the farmers and brings it to the consumer is making all the profit and the farmers are not getting a fair share for their portion. The remedy for this, however, is to increase our co-operative effort so that more and more farmers will be brought into co-operative societies. They will be able to market their own produce, poultry and pigs and they will have direct contact with the consumer then, and be able to get the best price possible; eliminating the middleman.

There is also a complaint about Malay fishermen in the Straits of Johore being affected by the curfew. Sir, we are well aware of this. In fact, we have been giving our attention to it but this curfew was imposed at the request of the Federation Government because of the Emergency and we are in consultation with the Federation Government over this matter.

The Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) in his speech gave - if I may use the words of the Member for Tanjong Pagar - a catalogue of the Labour Front's inefficiency. Sir, this speech should be taken with a pinch of salt. It was intended mainly for political purposes and I am not going to comment because all the points - in fact, he raised very few points - but whatever points he raised have been covered by me in replies to other speakers.

Now, Sir, we come to the very important subject of encouragement of our industries. Various speakers have touched on this subject - the Member for Kampong Kapor (Mr Seah Peng Chuan), the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck), the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) and our friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew).

Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar cited examples of India and Ceylon but there are two advantages which India and Ceylon have which we have not. They have cheaper labour and they have a very big home market which we have not. We have to rely on a small home market and more on exports.

There has been a lot of criticism that Government has been inactive over its economic policy, that Government has done nothing about industrial expansion, and that it is only talk and talk, and so on. As recently as yesterday, Sir - I will quote a paragraph from the Free Press editorial of yesterday which says:

"Not only the Government is acutely aware of the need for industrial expansion on this island but it is setting about in a thoroughgoing manner to produce a favourable climate for it."

Sir, I am a modest man and I will not let this go to my head but I must say, as I said this morning, that these matters take time to formulate and they cannot be achieved overnight.

Mr William Tan: Eighteen months!

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: More, it should take.

Sir, a lot has been said this morning about the entrepot trade of Singapore. I admit that Singapore has no basic economy of its own and therefore we have got to rely on our entrepot trade. Then let us examine the conditions prevailing at the moment in this part of the world. Asia has changed greatly since before the last war. Many countries which were under colonial domination did not have any nationalist policies. Today we find that those countries which have been freed have become nationally conscious and they are deliberately pursuing a policy of national economy and therefore it is only to be expected that they will do what is best for their own economy. We have relied on the entrepot trade but these national economic policies in the surrounding countries are going to have an effect on our economy. There is no doubt about it. We have exploited to the full our geographical position in the past. We have been a natural receiving and distributing centre for the region of SouthEast Asia, but with the advancement of national economic policies, we cannot expect that we will get any increase in the entrepot trade: if we are lucky, we may keep to the same level in our entrepot trade, In fact, during the last few years, we have lost quite a few trade items which we were dealing in before. Take cloves, for instance. We were supplying Indonesia with cloves from Zanzibar. Today, we have lost that trade. Dates from Iraq: we have lost that trade. Dates from Iraq used to go to Indonesia from Singapore mostly, but now we have lost it. Sago flour to India: that has been lost because India is herself producing some type of starch. There are many other things. Copra: you can see from the figures for copra that it is a dwindling trade. And therefore we have got to look around and reconsider our position now and to plan for the future if we are going to survive - if our increasing population is to get employment. I admit that we cannot solve the employment problem entirely, but we can at least alleviate it and do something to lessen unemployment. Therefore, Sir, a strong economic policy is necessary and there have been indications in the Press in the past that I am working on it now and I only hope that hon. Members will be a little patient. Since I took office as Minister from March, I have been giving my whole attention to this matter but, as you know, I have been interrupted. I have been away on the Merdeka Mission and so on.

Sir, encouragement of industry demands three factors: the first is the establishment of an Industrial Research Institute. I lay great stress on that Institute and, as you will see, His Excellency the Governor in his speech also stated that the Government "is examining the possible establishment of an Industrial Research Institute". At the moment, the main problem is that we do not know what our industrial potential is. We do not know what industries could best be established beneficially here. There are people who come to me and say, "I have got so much of money. Can you please tell me what type of factory I shall open?"; and I say, "I am sorry. I am not in a position yet to tell you that." If we have an Institute that will make a market survey and be also able to offer technical advice to industrialists, we may then be in a better position to come nearer to the solution of this problem of encouraging industries.

The second requisite is a favourable political climate. Now, Sir, a favourable climate is not a thing that can be brought about overnight. It is a thing that can be easily swayed or changed by certain actions, for instance, some actions which have taken place in the past 17 months, and no amount of guarantees and no amount of affirmations that the Government might give about nationalising or non-nationalising, or repatriation of capital or profits are going to do any good unless we can bring about a really suitable climate, and therefore I would request certain Members of the Opposition to be careful in their utterances, to be careful in their actions, so that the intending industrialist may not be frightened away from us. We are not the only country competing for foreign capital. Most countries in Asia are competing for foreign' capital at this moment. You have Ceylon, you have India, you have Indonesia, Thailand and many other countries which are asking for foreign capital. Why? It is because there is not enough capital formation locally in those countries and it is the same here. Without capital formation, you cannot have industries. So if we have not enough capital formation locally, we have got to import capital whether we like it or not and whether politically we thoroughly dislike it does not make any difference.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: How?

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: By creating a favourable climate. That is the only way of attracting foreign capital.

The third requisite, of course, is, as I touched upon this morning - also mentioned by the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) - giving some sort of protection to our industries and that, as I have already mentioned, I am considering now but we have got to see that our entrepot trade is not hampered because of that, To achieve one object, we should not kill the other, We should not kill the existing golden goose. We should also see that those industries which are developed will be healthy and competitive because our home market is very limited. We should also see that our services do not become expensive as a result of the rise in the cost of living. We should be very selective in our policy if we are at all going to give protection to our industries. We should have a very selective policy, not a policy that should be applied like a scythe, levelling everything that comes under it.

Sir, I think I have satisfactorily answered all the points that have been raised by the Opposition. There is only one point I want to touch upon now and that is that the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) raised the point about getting experts to teach handicraft to our rural folks. Sir, handicrafts depend to a large extent on the waste produce that is available in any country. Take, for instance, the coconut husk or the stem of the coconut leaf and things like that. Now, that would mean that the country is agricultural and it has got all these materials available which are going to waste and which can be utilised in the economic life of the country and of the people but, as was admitted by me, we have no agricultural economy to speak of. We have not got these products and therefore I do not think that we could encourage handicraft to any great extent. We may be able to do something on those lines, I admit, and I will certainly look into that question when we get our experts on the Industrial Research Institute and they will be the persons who will say what is going to waste and recommend what can be beneficially utilised. That is all I have to say.

The Assistant Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Mr Tan Theng Chiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, it looks to me that some of the speeches made by Opposition Members were just for the sake of saying something, as the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) puts it.

Sir, we do not claim to be pundits in the art of government and therefore we welcome constructive criticisms but some of the points made by the previous speakers do not come under this category. On the one hand. Government is accused of laying down a long-term policy while being a caretaker Government and, on the other, there is a suggestion that the policy speech was but a mere collection of activities of the various departments and that the Government has not laid down a long clear-cut policy. What we have endeavoured to do was to map out the policy which we hope to carry out while we are in office. The Hon. the Chief Minister has indicated that the present Government does not expect or wish to carry on for the full term of four years and if any part of our policy remains unfinished, it is for our successors to finish them or do something better.

On the question of housing, Sir, I must say that the difficulties have been enormous. Housing projects have been delayed because of the difficulties of resettling squatters. If they are forcibly ejected, which act we are reluctant to do, the very people who express concern at the slow progress made will be the first to take up the cause of the squatters and protest that Government is being inhuman. With such difficulties to contend with, the progress already made cannot but reflect credit on the Government.

The proposal to sell 68 houses by the Singapore Improvement Trust is in the nature of an experiment to encourage the public to own their own houses. It was only when the houses were put for sale that it was possible to ascertain the extent of the response by the public. The fact that there were about 1,300 applicants for the 68 houses is sufficient evidence that there is a demand for low-cost houses and that certain sections of the population are keen to become owners of houses. Having ascertained the wishes of the people, Government will hereafter concentrate on this aspect of the problem but it is by no means possible to achieve all that we want to do in the shortest possible time as, expected by our critics.

It is not true that squatters are being pushed from pillar to post as alleged by the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) yesterday. On the contrary, squatters are very un-cooperative and this lack of co-operation had been mainly responsible for the difficulties encountered by the Land Office and the Singapore Improvement Trust. Government is fully aware of their difficulties. We know how hard it is for the farmers to give up the plots of land that they have cultivated. However, I can assure hon. Members that the question of resettlement of squatters is being dealt with consideration and sympathy and there is no question of their being bullied or pushed around. We are as much interested as the Opposition Members, if not more so, in this problem and every effort will be made to solve it to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, it would seem from the comparative absence of criticism of the Government's education policy that even the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), whose natural invectiveness reinforces his keen desire to discredit Government, does, in fact, in general, approve of it. True, he called it unimaginative, feeble and what have you, but then the policy owes much to the All-Party Committee on Education of which he him-self was a member and, with due respect to those who are panting for a change, I would say that we should think twice before we throw overboard a system that we know to be good when all around us we find our neighbours having second thoughts about the changes made in their early revolutionary ardour.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Come, come.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: May I suggest that the Member for Tanjong Pagar's preference for Malay rather than English is dictated rather by his political expediency than by his own good sense? I will now read from today's Indian Daily Mail:

"Madras, September 5th.

English will continue as the compulsory subject of study in all secondary and high schools and will also continue to be the medium of instruction in the universities for at least another fifteen years. This welcome assurance was given by the Education Minister, Mr C. Subramaniam, on his return from the New Delhi conference of all education ministers in India at which these decisions were taken."

Another Reuter message from New Delhi dated 2nd September reads:

"The Indian Prime Minister, Mr Nehru, today urged Indians to continue to learn English as the unifying factor in the country and in order to provide technically trained men for the country's Five-Year Plan."

When the Member for Tanjong Pagar, with his usual flair for debate, criticised Government for not having an imaginative policy on education - intro- ducing Malay as the national language - it reminds me of the time when we all sat at the All-Party Committee on Education when the question of national language was brought up. He, and I share the same view with him, was reluctant to bring up that question. We said, "The question of national language should not be discussed here. It is not within the ambit of our terms of reference. If we say that Malay should be the national language, then the Chinese students will say that Mandarin should be their national language." I think the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) will bear me out.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Now, it is not so.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Because the Students' Union and the students generally now say that they want Malay as the national language, it is no surprise to me that the Member for Tanjong Pagar should toe their line and get orders from them to say in this Assembly, for party politics, that Malay should be the national language and that the Minister for Education is not doing anything imaginative enough to introduce that.

He also criticised or was rather worried about the conditions under which full aid would be given. I have already stated that the conditions will be the same for all schools and that the two most important factors will be that the schools must subscribe to the Government policy by providing the kind of education designed to produce loyal and efficient Malayans, and that they must use Government funds wisely and account for them properly. Surely, it cannot be that the Member for Tanjong Pagar wishes to take part in subversive activities or to misuse Government grants-in-aid?

There was an editoral in the Straits Times not long ago which I think is well worth quoting here.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: By the time you have to quote the Free Press and the Straits Times -

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: The editorial of the 24th August states:

"Refusal to accept full grants-in-aid on Government terms or get none at all is the result of stubborn misunderstanding on the part of the critics. The difference of opinion is not over grants-in-aid to Chinese schools. The new education policy unreservedly accords a status to Chinese schools fully equal to that of non-Chinese schools in the matter of financial aid. Other than those who resort to double talk as a matter of principle or political strategy, no one has questioned that equality for all schools is the Government policy. It is this principle of equality which is now called into question by the critics. The Chinese schools want aid but without any vestige of Government control. If this control were sought only in the case of Chinese schools there would be, of course, valid objections but the conditions going with the aid are imposed on all schools which accept assistance. The Chinese schools, in fact, seek not equality but privileged treatment."

Then it goes on to say:

"Which government in the world would hand over millions of dollars annually to private organisations and wash its hands of the whole matter?"

It ends up very aptly:

"No government with so sinister a purpose would be willing to give substantial financial aid to support Chinese schools."

In regard to the Nanyang University, it is clearly to the best interest of Singapore that this should be an institution of high repute. Its recognition will be earned not by its, wealth nor by fine buildings and equipment, but by the quality of the students turned out by the University. I am sure that the students themselves will want an education the qualities of which will be the guiding light in recognition. As stated in the Address, the Government is at all times willing to help the University authorities to attain standards and thus accord the recognition to degrees conferred by the University.

The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) touched on secondary education yesterday. Now, Singapore's problem is that nearly half the population is under fifteen. In other words, there is an abnormally large proportion of school population and an abnormally small proportion in gainful employment. It is essential that there should be no waste of the very limited educational resources and also that there should be the fullest possible use of productive resources including manpower. Yet this proportion is made still more marked by the reluctance of the large numbers of over-age pupils, many of them in their twenties, to leave school and seek employment. No community could so misuse its resources for long, least of all Singapore. It is very largely because so many school places are thus occupied that the younger children have to be turned away, not, as the Member for Serangoon suggested, at 13 but last year at l4½ and over. The Government does not wish to deny education to anyone. It is taking progressive measures to ensure that places available for full-time education in Government or Government-aided schools should be occupied as far as possible by those pupils who are of the correct age for the classes and best fitted to profit from the education provided.

On the question of Malay education, I might quote here certain figures. The number of teachers in Malay in Singapore is 330, few of whom have had a full secondary course. The number of children in Malay schools is 13,000 and the number of children in other schools totals to about 230,000. At present, there are not nearly enough Malay teachers for Malay schools alone, let alone for the children in other schools. There are scarcely any, either here or in the Federation, qualified to teach in secondary schools. Now, what are the sources of supply? We have 21 in training at the Sultan Idris Training College; 10 in training at the Malay Women Training College, Malacca; 9 studying Malay at the University of Malaya of whom 7 are Chinese; 2 studying at the Teachers Training College, Certificate Course, 50 studying at the Teachers Training College, Normal Course, and 100 teachers studying Malay at the secondary level. These are approximate figures available now. They may not be very accurate, I hope hon. Members opposite would not expect me to conjure up teachers or to produce teachers out of my imagination.

The Member for Changi deplored the attitude adopted by the Federation Education Minister. He said, "Why should the Federation forbid their boys from mixing with our school students here?" He wanted this Government to do something about it. Well, I suggest to him that if we want respect, we must have self-respect and that we had better put our house in order before we expect anybody to have respect for us.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I thought it was because of venereal disease.

Mr Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] If the Member for Changi wishes to intervene, he can do so in the proper way provided that the Minister for Education gives way.

Mr Chew Swee Kee resumed his seat.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to clear the point just mentioned by the Minister for Education. I said this morning that I was not against the notice issued by the Minister for Education of the Federation Government for forbidding school children from the Federation to visit Chinese schools here, but I am against the wording which was used in the notice and which has received publicity in the papers. It stated that the reason for stopping its school children from visiting Chinese schools in Singapore, including 2 girls schools especially, was to prevent students from contacting venereal disease. I think that is insulting, Sir. Therefore I think this misunderstanding -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member has given his explanation. Mr Chew Swee Kee.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: The Member for Changi may well read the notice before he attributes any accusation against the Federation Minister or the Federation Government. I do not think that the Federation Government or Minister said the words "venereal disease". It was at a meeting in Singapore - the Chinese High School, I think it was - that the principal asked a group of visiting students from the Federation, "Have you contacted any disease now from our school students?" I think the hon. Member must have got mixed up with all the -

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: No, Sir.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: You might go into the lewd details.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: That is all, Sir.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Mr Speaker, Sir, amongst the many speakers from the opposite Benches, the only person who has expressed a feeling of depression on hearing His Excellency the Governor's Address is the Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim). Perhaps if the person who prepared his speech - being of a very suspicious mind I believe he did - had only explained to him the full text of His Excellency's Address, I am confident that he and members of his constituency would not be so depressed.

Since I accepted the post of Minister for Health in April 1955, I have always welcomed constructive criticisms, suggestions and advice but, unfortunately, all that is fired from the guns of the Opposition are, as the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) rightly suggests, nothing but destructive criticisms or fatuous suggestions. The only useful suggestion that came from the Opposition was that offered by the Member for Paya Lebar on the question of economy in the construction of medical units, and this is a matter which has always received the attention of Government.

The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) talks about wastage of manpower, economy, construction of a central specialist hospital and cheap district hospitals for acutely ill patients. Does he suggest that the patients acutely ill in the district hospitals cannot and should not receive specialist treatment? As regards the building of a hospital on a grand scale, it is not the intention of Government to build district hospitals as replicas of the General Hospital. The district hospital will provide for acute surgical and medical cases and for maternity work. There will be no specialist facilities other than for general acute cases of disease; for example, ears, nose, throat and eyes specialist treatment, neuro-surgery, plastic surgery, and so forth, will all be referred to the General Hospital. Our plans are to make it as economical as possible and we are basing the cost of our district hospital at $13,000 per bed. This is quite economical in comparison with the cost of others in other countries. A hospital built in Australia cost A£l0,000 per bed -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Those are large people.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Braga: - and the cost quoted in the United Kingdom by the Ministry of Health is £8,500 per bed. I am glad to inform hon. Members that the hospital that is going to be built in the Katong district is to provide for 500 beds out of which less than 50 will be paying beds.

The Member for Serangoon (who now just walks in) also talks of building district hospitals on the lines of the Tan Tock Seng Hospital. In the same voice, he complains about the man with a prawn pond who was asked to remove it when he encroached upon Government land. There is but little land in Singapore for such an extravagant scheme as building a district hospital on the lines of the Tan Tock Seng Hospital. That hospital was a gift by Mr Tan Tock Seng many years ago when the population of Singapore was but a quarter of what it is today. Surely, the Member for Serangoon must agree with the policy of my Ministry, namely to build multi-storeyed hospitals which would supply more beds on less ground? To build a few hospitals on the lines of the Tan Tock Seng Hospital would be an extravagant use of land and staff.

On the question of economy, it was early realised by the new Government that there was room for economy in the construction of medical units, and the Ministry in consultation with the Ministry of Communications and Works, gave directions to exercise extreme economy in the new planning. Prior to 1955, certain works were initiated and already under construction at the time when I took office. These included the Mistri Wing, an operating theatre block in the General Hospital, and the new hospital extension at the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital. The work in these three cases had gone so far that no alteration was possible. In all these schemes, the Member for Paya Lebar was quite right when he said that they are most extravagant and expensive but that, of course, was due to the extravagant nature of the colonial or, shall I say, the Progressive Government and the governments in the past. It was however, possible on other projects, for example, the Ward Block at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital, to introduce measures achieving a large saving on construction costs without reduction of size or efficiency. Similiarly, whereas according to the White Paper laid before the Legislative Assembly in 1954, the Nurses Hospital at the General Hospital cost $1,916,000 for 250 nurses, we built an extension to this Hospital for 200 nurses initiated by the present Government and estimated to cost $750,000, a saving of nearly a million and a quarter dollars. According to the same White Paper, the standard maternity and child health centre was estimated to cost $80,000. That was their basic cost. The same standard maternity and child health centre of which planning was initiated in 1955 cost only $50,000 and this economy was achieved without any sacrifice of size or efficiency. In the period that I have taken office, 460 hospital beds have been added to existing institutions, and buildings now under construction will provide yet another 728 beds before the end of 1956. In the rural areas, two maternal and child health clinics and three outdoor dispensaries have been added.

The General Hospital, because of its specialist facilities and because of the fact that it is a teaching school, is a most expensive hospital to maintain. It is obvious that beds should be used to the best advantage and should not be allowed to be blocked by long-term and incurable patients. It is estimated by the Ministry of Health that at least one-quarter of the 1,000 beds in the General Hospital are, in fact, thus blocked. Instructions have now been given and funds have already been provided for the construction of a 250-bed Chronic Hospital - the hospital about which my friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) made a pun. In this 250-bed Chronic Hospital, incurable patients can be adequately looked after at a far lower cost than is possible at the General Hospital. This project had no place in the previous Medical Plan and it is now expected that construction will commence on this hospital before the end of 1957. This is an answer to the Member for Serangoon's complaint that a number of sick people are turned away from our General Hospital because of lack of bed space.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar said that the Minister for Health takes things easy and leaves matters in the hands of his Permanent Secretary and officials. That was the only, shall I say, criticism he could make to launch on His Excellency's Address on the medical side because there was nothing there for any cause for complaint, but his statement is both incorrect and unjust. I would invite the hon. Member to spend a day or two with me in my Ministry.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: God forbid! I will be charged!

Mr Braga: You might be cured!

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: $300 for professional fees.

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Braga: The Member for Tanjong Pagar also could not have read the Governor's Address very thoroughly when he said that only one clinic was referred to, and that was the Malayan Airways canteen. I refer him to paragraph 27 of the Governor's Address which speaks of five more maternity and child welfare clinics and two more outpatient departments on which work will soon start. For his information, since April 1955, three new outdoor dispensary clinics were established in the rural areas and the planning for two general out-patient clinics in other areas is already far advanced. This was the policy initiated by me and which will enable residents in places distant from the General Hospital to obtain outpatient facilities near at hand in accordance with the Labour Front platform. It was obvious that the previous Medical Plan for the expansion of medical and health services could only be carried out if trained staff were available. I therefore paid first attention to increasing the facilities for the training of medical officers and nursing personnel. Provision was made for increasing the number of departmental awards. In 1955, for example, only 17 had been budgeted for; in 1956, 30 such awards were provided and, in 1957, budgetary provision has been made for 66 officers to obtain specialised training. In the training of nursing personnel, the increase is evident from the following figures: student intake for all sections of nursing training in 1954 was 243; in 1955, the intake was stepped up to 356 and up-to-date in 1956, 303 students have been accepted for training. It was also seen from the White Paper, No. 27 of 1954, that the Government at that time intended to establish a third medical unit in the General Hospital. It appeared obvious to me that this project to enlarge the empire of the General Hospital could not be justified by the expenditure involved and could only delay the provision of a new district hospital elsewhere in the island. The expansion of the General Hospital as envisaged in the White Paper is therefore to be halted in order to accelerate the planning and starting of the new district hospital. The first district hospital prior to 1955 was only an item in the Medical Plan and no attempt had been made to embark on the project. The planning now is well under way and it is expected that construction, as I said yesterday, will start in 1957.

The Government since April 1955 has laid stress on two matters of policy calculated to reduce the pressure on hospital beds. Both these projects represent a long-term policy but nonetheless essential in the long-term development of medical and health services. The first is health education. Since 1955, the staff of the health education section of the Ministry has been increased and its work greatly facilitated. The Government has also provided a grant of $20,000 for a Health Education Council to be established with the aim and object of interesting all willing persons and voluntary agencies in a united effort to teach the people of all communities how to avoid disease. The second long-term project initiated by the present Government is in respect of the provision of domiciliary nursing services so that nurses trained in health education and also in curative techniques may be able to visit patients in their own homes and provide in their homes the advice and minor treatment which hitherto have been available only in Government and local Government clinics. This is a long-term policy. It takes three years to train any one health nurse for this purpose, but already the intake of student assistant nurses at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital has been "stepped up" considerably with a view to creating in due course a district nursing service.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar also stated that there was not one word in His Excellency's Address on the shortage of doctors and that we were importing doctors from India. It is perfectly obvious that he is misinformed and that he is mixing up Singapore with the Federation. There is no serious shortage of doctors in our medical services but we are definitely short of specialists. The University increases our output of doctors as steadily as it can. He also spoke flippantly of our efforts to step up the policy of Malayanisation by exchange of personnel from Australia. Does he seriously suggest that the qualifications of an F.R.C.S.of Australia are by any means lower than those of any part of the Commonwealth? It has not yet been possible to reach final agreement with the authorities in the United Kingdom. We have approached them. The exchange of personnel with Australia would provide a specialist service needed here with no danger of denying promotion to locally domiciled doctors who obtain specialist qualifications and experience. His suggestion that the exchange of personnel with Australia while our local doctors are taking higher degrees is an attempt to Australianise this country, is too ludicrous and unworthy of comment. We are grateful to Australia and for the Colombo Plan for all the assistance that they can give us on matters like this, and for the wide-scale T.B. research campaign which they have offered.

I would also like to inform hon. Members that any problem of a technical or difficult nature I refer to my Medical Advisory Council which comprises 22 members: 2 from the Alumni;2 from the British Medical Association;3 from the Services;2 from the Federation; 3 from the Ministry of Health;3 from the University;2 from the City Council;1 from the Chemistry Department;1 from the Dental Association;1 from S.A.T.A.;1 representing the nursing profession, and one pharmacist.

Sir, I can assure hon. Members that every effort is made by me to see that the medical policy is implemented and that Singapore gets the best.