GOVERNOR'S SPEECH (Debate on the Address)

The Chief Minister (Dr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That an Address be sent to His Excellency the Governor expressing the thanks of this Assembly for his speech delivered on Wednesday, 9th of April, 1958.

Sir, nearly a fortnight has elapsed since the Government's policy for this last session has been made known in the Governor's Speech and this traditional motion is to give Opposition Members an opportunity to debate and criticise our policy.

Sir, this is the second session since I became Chief Minister. The first session began on 29th August, 1956, and much has happened since then. 1 need not recount all the events which took place but there is one which I find it necessary to draw attention to because the threat is still with us although much diminished in venom. I refer to subversive activities and the Government's firm action against such elements. The Government's stand is again reiterated in that part of the Governor's Speech which reads:

"The Government will continue its vigilance in countering Communist infiltration and sub-version and will not hesitate to take whatever steps are required to counter this threat to the livelihood and well-being of the citizens of Singapore."

Sir, we will soon be entering a new era in our political evolution. The new constitution which the All-Party delegation brought back to Singapore from London last year in accordance with the mandate entrusted to the delegation by this Assembly will be brought into operation with the General Election. This new constitution is an honourable and satisfying discharge of the mandate of this Assembly. This record, Sir, would not be correct if I did not mention that there was one hon. Member who is now no longer with us, who felt so heartsick that he resigned and issued a challenge to a by-election against another Member who in honouring his acceptance of the challenge so boldly thrown out at him resigned, contested in the by-election on the matter in dispute, received the support of his electorate and is now still with us. The Member who issued the challenge resigned, did not contest in the by-election and declared that he was giving up politics.

This new Constitution, Sir, is a challenge to the people of Singapore who, I am confident, will rise to the occasion and uphold the democratic form of government. This new Constitution opens the way to a richer prize, a prize worth capturing. Hence subversive elements are mustering their forces and endeavouring to open up new fronts, having lost the old fronts through Government's firm action, by finding stooges from among persons who are prepared to prostitute themselves for their own ends, or who are so blinded by their own evil that they unwittingly lend themselves to be made use of by these evil forces to the detriment of the well-being of the citizens of Singapore. In any community one is bound to find such persons, and I hope and pray that their eyes will be opened in time to the fact that they are playing with fire which will surely destroy them in the end.

As I said earlier, Sir, the new Constitution is a challenge to the citizens of Singapore. The Government is pledged to wipe out the destructive forces in our midst, and there can be no relaxation in our vigilance; but this fight can be hampered if the citizens of Singapore do not guard themselves against evil and destructive propaganda. During the last session the Government had an uphill fight against the evil propaganda that was being disseminated by subversive elements and swallowed by gullible people who should have thought better. This Government was accused of being against Chinese education and Chinese culture. The Government's primary duty is to protect the well-being of the citizens, and in the discharge of this sacred duty we had to take action against certain Chinese middle schools and had to detain under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance a number of students from these schools, because their subversive activities in these schools were a grave threat to the well-being not only of their fellow-students but also of Singapore. It is from the student body that the future leaders of Singapore will arise, and if they are not put on the right track while in school to become worthy citizens, their future will be blighted, their outlook will be distorted, and they will be a liability instead of an asset to the country. This action of the Government taken in the best interests of the citizens of Singapore was twisted by disruptive forces for the consumption of gullible people as an action against Chinese education and Chinese culture. Let us examine the Government's education policy based on the All-Party Report. For the first time in the history of Singapore, Chinese education has an equal place. Teachers in Chinese schools are put at par with teachers in English schools, thus receiving large increases in their emoluments. This year the Government is spending $15 million on Chinese education. This, Sir, we claim is indeed a proud record. In the short space of two years we have done more for Chinese education than all the previous administrations put together, and very much more than governments in neighbouring countries having Chinese populations. I do not fear any contradiction on this. I have offered to send a small group of students from Chinese schools on a visit to these neighbouring countries, and even to the Chinese mainland, to see for themselves. I have received a good number of applications and these are at present being considered, and arrangements will be made to send a group on the tour during the August school vacation. This is the Government's answer to the evil forces which preach and misguide people to foolishly believe that this Government is against Chinese education.

The Nanyang University, Sir, was recently officially opened by the Governor. I have stated on several occasions during, the past few months that the Government will give recognition to Nanyang University degrees, but before this can be done, it has been proposed to appoint a Commission of Scholars to advise on recognition, thus giving weight to such recognition. The delay in the appointment of this Commission has been due to the attitude of the Nanyang University authorities. A happy change, Sir, has now taken place, and proposals for a Commission of Scholars to advise on recognition are going forward. When this has been resolved, the Government will grant financial aid if required, thereby helping to make the Nanyang University an institution of high learning of which we can all be proud. Can anyone honestly and truthfully say that this Government is against Chinese education? For the first time in the history of Singapore we have a multilingual City Council and will soon have multilingual District Councils and a multilingual Legislative Assembly. The Chinese language is given due place in debates in these Councils and in the Legislature. And the gates of this august Assembly are thrown wide open by our citizenship laws, under which some 300,000 Chinese who were not born in Singapore have registered as citizens. Their names will appear on electoral rolls for the forthcoming general elections, and I look forward to seeing candidates fielded from among this group. Thus, Chinese-speaking Chinese and China-born Chinese who have become citizens of Singapore enjoy for the first time the same rights and privileges as all other citizens. I do not, Sir, for a moment doubt that in enjoying these rights and privileges they will not forget that they too have responsibilities towards the State of Singapore which will soon be brought into being under the new Constitution.

Sir, are actions on the part of the Government such as I have recounted against Chinese education and Chinese culture? Oh, citizens of Singapore, be not bluffed again! Listen not to evil propaganda! Guard against this and let us march forward together, and fight subversive forces and rout them! Rout them out and make this Singapore of ours a happier and a better land to live in.

I must confess, Sir, that we would have lost our fight last session against subversive forces had we not been endowed with the Marshall law by my predecessor. I refer to the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. The people of Singapore should be grateful, as this Government is indeed grateful, to him for introducing this Marshall law, which is a very effective weapon against the rampages of the Communists and their fellow-travellers. This Marshall law emanated from the mind of a man who was most vehemently against Communism, and among his other achievements, this is the most outstanding one when he was Chief Minister. My colleagues and I thank him, this Assembly thank him, and above all the people of Singapore thank him too.

And now, Sir, a few words about our relationship with the Federation of Malaya. I quote from the Governor's Speech:

"The Government is happy to record the continued cordial relationship which it enjoys with the Government of the Federation of Malaya.

The Government takes the stand that union with the Federation is inevitable, and will direct its energies towards creating a climate and conditions conducive to such a union." Sir, the Federation Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, is a man of great understanding and appreciation of the ties between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. The two territories are inter-dependent. One cannot prosper without the other. Any threat to the economic well-being and security of one is a threat to the other. I therefore hope and pray that the causeway which bridges the hopes and aspirations of true Malayans will not be turned into a real political barrier detrimental to both territories. And this Government is directing its energies to seeing that this does not happen.

Sir, in the Governor's Speech there is this paragraph:

"The Government intends to recommend to the Assembly the holding of elections for an enlarged Assembly under the new Constitution as soon as it is practically possible to do so. The time-table will depend on the preparation and enactment of the necessary constitutional instruments and legislation as well as any measures which this Assembly may decide to adopt in order to improve the electoral procedure. The Government intends that the agreement with the United Kingdom Government on the form of the constitutional instruments should be made by the All-Party delegation which took part in the Constitutional discussion last year."

Sir, questions have been asked at this sitting on the constitutional instruments, the date of coming into effect of the new Constitution, the proposed trip to London, and the Member for Changi has asked Government's view on the introduction of legislation for compulsory voting although he had very much earlier tabled a motion in support of compulsory voting - Motion No. 9 on the Order Paper. All these questions, Sir, have been answered this morning and the motion will be debated at its due time. The answers which I have given to questions on the draft Constitution need not be amplified. I would like, however, to say a few words more about the London trip. I hope to receive before the end of this month from the Colonial Office the draft Constitution so that copies can be handed to members of the All-Party delegation for their study. I will call meetings of the All-Party delegation so that we can sort out our ideas on the matter before proceeding to London to finalise the constitutional instruments. The discussions will begin in London on 12th May, and the delegation will be the guests of the United Kingdom Government to whom I wish to record my thanks for this hospitality. I am sure hon. Members will agree with me that the quickest possible way of finalising the draft Constitution is by discussions around the table and not by protracted correspondence or telegraphic communication. The purpose of the London trip is clear, and yet there are dishonest politicians who try to read into it motives that are manifestly false. I have been accused of wanting to reach an understanding with the Colonial Office to appoint me as Yang di-Pertuan Negara under the new Constitution. Sir, the agreement reached in London with the Colonial Office bars the appointment as Yang di-Pertuan Negara of any person who is closely connected with politics. How can I ever be, I wonder?

I have also been accused, Sir, of trying to seek Colonial Office approval to extend the Rendel Constitution so that I can continue to be Chief Minister. What utter falsehood. The job of Chief Minister was thrust upon me in June 1956 at a time of crisis. I did not want it, but duty to my country and service to the people of Singapore demanded that I should take it up. The carrying of two jobs - that of Chief Minister and of Minister for Labour and Welfare - is a heavy one and my health has suffered in consequence, and the only sustaining factor in my job - my two jobs - is that I am serving my country to the best of my ability, and in the discharge of this duty, Sir, there is no sacrifice great enough or noble enough.

Sir, let us now turn to compulsory voting. This is the subject which has caused much gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair by some politicians and erstwhile friends. As Motion No. 9 on the Order Paper on compulsory voting is still to be debated, I do not propose to say much on this subject although it has a bearing on that part of the Governor's Speech which refers to the date of the general elections. However, I would like to say here and now that it was at one of the civics courses that the view was expressed, not by me, that compulsory voting would be a good thing for the people of Singapore. This was given publicity in the Press and it brought forth comments from individuals and organisations and representations to the Government from certain organisations. I met representatives from organisations that had made representations to me. I informed the meeting that if compulsory voting was introduced at this stage, it would mean a delay in the general elections, but certainly not beyond the life of the Rendel Constitution. A report of this meeting appeared in last Sunday's papers.

Sir, I have touched only on the more important aspects of the Governor's Speech as these are uppermost in the minds of hon. Members. I do not propose to take up the time of hon. Members much longer by elaborating on what the Government proposes to do during this last session. All I need say is that we are continuing with our four-year programme. We believe we have done much and are still doing more for the people of Singapore, and when we appear before them at election time we shall go forward with confidence and with satisfaction that we have not failed them.

Sir, it is now the pleasure and the privilege of hon. Members of the opposition to unleash their criticisms. We will face them. Indeed we thrive on them. Let us all on both sides of the House in the fight that may develop in the course of this debate not lose sight that the fight ahead of us is a crucial fight for democracy in Singapore. Let us go into the election arena, fight hard, but fight wisely, so that subversive forces with democratic organisations as their front may not succeed in stealing away the prize which the All-Party delegation brought back last year. May all subversive forces perish in this attempt! May democracy flourish in the new State of Singapore. Majulah Singapura!

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): I second the motion, Sir, reserving my right to speak at a later stage.

Question proposed.

11.53 a.m.

Mr G. A. P. Sutherland (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a non-Party man and a Back-bencher, I have not a great deal of criticism to offer on the speech made by the Governor at the opening of this session of the Assembly. Incidentally, Sir, as Backbenchers we used to have some very nice little desks on which we could put our notes, but now we have not got them any longer. So, placed as they are on this narrow ledge, I hope the hon. Member for Changi will not knock over my notes with his head.

The only criticism which I would offer of the speech is, on the whole, that I consider it to be a little airy-fairy and unspecific; otherwise it is the type of speech one might expect to hear from a Conservative or Liberal Government which works in a well-established welfare state. The opening paragraphs refer mostly to historic facts, though one sentence stands out like a beacon. I refer to the sentence which reads:

"Singapore exists because of its trade." Because of this very fact which surely everybody recognises, I myself feel fairly optimistic about the future of this great port, and I cannot believe that any Party would try to wreck that trade. Such a Party would have a very short existence. I suppose there is always the possibility of a Party getting into power which might be intent only on creating chaos, but I think it unlikely. Again, of course, we might expect to hear the old tune about blaming the colonialists, and the rights of the workers, with those wearying and repetitive emphases on that very subject - as if there were only two types of men - workers and non-workers.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): There are.

Mr Sutherland: The former, of course, being the P.A.P. But I would remind the House that while there is a great deal to be said for looking after the welfare of the worker, it is nevertheless the gifted individual in this life, through his initiative and genius, who does things that in the long run advance the well-being of the worker. However, that is merely in passing, Sir, I personally have always disliked the term "worker" as such. When I was a young man we used to talk about the "working classes" and the "working man". Somehow those terms sounded less sinister than "worker"; "worker" suggests to me the beehive or the ant-heap where the will of the inmates is entirely subjugated to that of their leaders; but whatever Party comes into power, Sir, I have no doubt that it will be to the chagrin of the other side, and one can only hope that the confidence expressed in the final passage of His Excellency's Speech - that he is "confident that when General Elections are held the people and the new citizens of this island will express in definite and unmistakable terms their desire for a stable Government" and so on - will not be misplaced.

I am endeavouring to touch on one or two things that the Chief Minister did not particularly refer to in his speech - I am not dealing with education or anything of that nature.

I personally believe that the establishment of secondary industries in this island can never and will never take the place of the entrepot trade. There are plently of people here, even in what the Chief Minister has just called this august body, who believe that the enormous and phenomenal growth of population presents no particular problem. They seem to think that jobs will be found for them here, in Johore or in Jupiter, but I personally am not so sanguine about that, and it is therefore refreshing to read:

"The Government recognises the need to offer incentive to capital investment in the industrial field in the initial stages and with this in view is now preparing `pioneer industry' legislation. Government Departments have been instructed and subsidised Boards have been requested to give preference to locally manufactured articles." That, Sir, is a splendid statement and I hope that every Party will include in its banner the device - "Encourage capital investment."

Still touching on this line of country, I was most interested to hear that-

"It is the Government's intention to reorganise and strengthen the industrial section of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the possibility of the present Industrial Promotion Board actively assisting in the promotion of large scale industries is being studied." This is good news. I have a lot of time for the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. As a business man, I take a great interest in its functions and I am most interested to learn, as I am sure the whole business community will be, that it is being reorganised and strengthened.

As for the Industrial Promotion Board, I think it is high time that this pilot scheme developed into something bigger. I am quite certain that Government could offer assistance to industry which would be both helpful and profitable. A lead actually by Government in this matter might induce some local tycoons who have so far not greatly interested themselves in industry to invest some of their surplus capital in this field.

Continuing with the Governor's Speech, we have another of those cogent and brief statements:

"The Government will continue to do everything in its power to encourage entrepot trade." That, I think, is a splendid thing too. Let us trade with everybody, no matter who they are, as long as they can buy from us and we can sell to them. Sir, everybody knows that the coffers of the rich land to the south of us are very nearly empty, but they have goods to sell and we can supply them with their needs. Let us at least from this end endeavour to iron out any difficulties that may stand in the way of that trade.

My next point, Sir, is on the question of banking legislation. Those of us who have read the Report by Mr G. M. Watson and Sir Sydney Caine, familiarly known as the Watson-Caine Report, are aware that it included draft banking legislation. Most bankers in this city are agreed that this legislation would have to be considerably modified. The Colony banks - and I make no distinction between the branches of big overseas corporations and indigenous banks - understand their business quite well and are very conservatively run. None of their depositors has ever had an anxious moment. It is hoped, therefore, that the proposed legislation will not be unduly burdensome, but I agree that, with the passing of the colonial regime, legislation to supervise the licensing, control and supervision of banks in this city is highly desirable.

The outcome of the discussions between this Government and the Government of the Federation of Malaya on the subject of central banking which, according to the Governor's Speech, is continuing, is anxiously awaited by the business community. The advent of a central bank is inextricably linked up with the future of this currency and the pledge that the Government has given "not to make any arrangement which might undermine confidence in the currency in use in Singapore or jeopardise its stability" is, to my mind, the outstanding statement in the speech.

Sir, I do not wish to dwell on all the fine things the Government intends to do. The Ministers of the Labour Front Coaliton Government have learned quite a lot in the last three years and they know very well what causes Singapore to prosper. I do not quarrel with their programme. The "unworkable" Rendel Constitution has worked surprisingly well for three years - three memorable years in which Singapore has not stood still at all but has grown and developed greatly - and now there seems to be a fair chance of the Rendel Constitution running its full four-year course!

According to the P.R.O.'s translation, the opening sentence of the editorial of the Utusan Melayu of 17th April reads as follows:

"The Speech of the British Governor of Singapore at the opening of the Legislative Assembly meeting last Wednesday was actually prepared by the Chief Minister Mr Lim Yew Hock. The Coalition Government of the Labour Front and U.M.N.O./M.C.A. Alliance made use of the Assembly meeting, through the Governor's report of what has been, is being and will be done, to convince the people of the necessity to re-elect the present Government." Sir, I shall not be here myself at the next elections, but if I were, by gad, I think they would have my vote!

Mr Speaker: I think this is a convenient time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two.

Sitting accordingly suspended at four minutes past twelve o'clock to 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed on Question.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the curtain rises on the last act of the life of this Assembly, it should be recorded that there was an air of desolation and melancholy, heightened no doubt by the enormously enlarged Chamber and the large number of empty seats. But, it is more than just empty seats which made the Governor's Speech sound so hollow. I wondered on that day how many empty hearts there were.

Sir, I give the M.C.S. and the expatriate civil service one bouquet today. They are very good for the stiff upper lip. The thing that impressed me most about the Governor's Speech was his bouncing demeanour, and his joyful confidence, which I hope is justified by the confidential appraisal that he must have of the overall situation of the Labour Front Coalition Government.

On this side of the House, Sir, I can only say that the mandate from heaven has passed from the hands of the Labour Front Coalition Government. We did not come to this Assembly to hear all the piddling little things that the Government hoped to enact in its last few months of office. What everybody wanted to know was when are they going to hold the elections. When are we going to have a new Government under a new constitution. On these important subjects, the Speech was singularly silent. It is the art of equivocation. All it says is:

"That Government intends that the agreement with the United Kingdom Government on the form of the constitutional instruments should be made by the All-Party delegation which took part in the Constitutional discussion last year." It can mean anything according to the way one chooses to construe it.

Sir, every Member in this House, if he were to get a dose of some truth drug that would make him tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, would say that what occupies him most is, what now? Will I come back to this Chamber? And, of course, most worried of them all are the Independents. Hence the enormous number of Questions filed today by the Independents. They must find a bus or some vehicle before they can find themselves back. The Labour Front and the Liberal-Socialists have been so shattered by the events of the last few months, events which anybody could have told them were coming, that they have not quite recovered their balance.

Sir, what I would like to ask both the Labour Front Government and the Liberal-Socialists Party is this: do they want early elections now? I remember so vividly the taunts of the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) about the Government opposite being undemocratic and that the time had come for early elections. Even the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), during the debate over citizenship, insisted that there should be early elections. Now we know from the legislative programme that the Government has planned, and the conferences that it has planned for 1959, that it has every intention of going on for its full term of office.

The only question is: what will happen after the District Council elections some time in the middle of this year? It is not possible for us to pretend that this Assembly meets today in the same circumstances as when it met in December last year before the City Council elections. And it is idle for us to pretend that the situation will be unchanged by the results of the District Council elections. The ex-Chief Minister (Mr D. S. Marshall) has suggested that the London trip is intended to enable his successor - his one-time articled clerk - (I understand he gets little joy in calling him Dr Lim) to arrange with Mr Lennox-Boyd to be a Yang di-Pertuan Negara, and to have the constitution extended for two years. I would like to tell the ex-Chief Minister that he should not give ideas to his old colleagues because they may actually take the cue, except that with the P.A.P. participation in the last talks and our being in this Assembly, they are unlikely ever to succeed. But the truth is that early elections or no depends, does it not, upon the chances of an electoral victory for the Labour Front Coalition Parties? That simply is the whole position. If they had won the City Council elections as we wanted them to win - indeed we did-

The Chief Minister: Thank you.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: -then there would have been more bounce in them. We might well be on the way to having elections in August, perhaps September. Unfortunately, partly because of the lack of organisation, and also partly because certain Left-wing elements wanted to destroy the Labour Front and used the Workers Party for this purpose, the Labour Front suffered a catastrophic defeat. Now even the District Council elections will not be held, in the words of the Governor, "until the middle of this year". Originally, I believe, it was scheduled for March. Now I say this advisedly: we are prepared to have the elections at any time because we know that we will win them, be it this year or next year. And I say frankly to the Labour Front, "There will be no magic formula that you can concoct that can bring back the secret of victory other than hard work; that has not been done, the propaganda battle has been lost. Those are the hard facts of life."

One thing should be made clear: this issue of the early elections is completely unconnected with compulsory voting. I know that the ex-Chief Minister was somewhat agitated at the thought of early elections being postponed indefinitely on account of compulsory voting. He is renowned for many qualities but one of them is not clear thinking. Early elections have nothing to do with compulsory voting. I ask the Chief Minister two questions and, if he were honest, he would give me a reply which would substantiate what I said. If today all the laws introducing compulsory voting had been passed and the constitution were ready, would he have general elections when he knows that he is likely to suffer defeat? The answer is no, is it not?

The Chief Minister: You are answering it.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Put it in another way: if there were no need for compulsory voting laws to be passed and the constitution is ready, would there be elections when he knows he is going to be defeated? The answer again is no. And therefore if it were not the excuse of compulsory voting there would be some other excuse. What is important is not the question of compulsory voting or no compulsory voting, but the new constitution. We agreed to a constitution for full internal self-government. We know that a draft - or at least the Chief Minister has admitted it as some kind of a draft which is not really a draft - has arrived and that he has circulated bits of it to the departments concerned. We have not received a copy of it although he admitted that we are entitled to it. Further, he wants to bring the delegation back to London to settle the draft. Now, Sir, there has been considerable press speculation on it. It might well be that some of the leaks were officially inspired, that there will now be written into the constitution a number of things which were not discussed at all, such as making the civil service sacrosanct, preventing the allowances as distinct from the salaries of the civil servants from coming under the control of the Legislature and the Government, building the Public Service Commission into the constitution, making these allowances permanent or consolidating them into basic salaries, and so on.

I would like to state my Party stand very clearly on this matter. Nothing goes into the constitution with our consent other than that which we agreed we would take in London, a constitution giving us full internal self-government, that is, the right to run the Government within Singapore with no let or hindrance, constitutional or otherwise. I do not think that the armour-plating complex - if all this rumour happens to be true, and I have more than a fair suspicion that a great deal of it may well be true - can save the situation. It is utterly foolish and stupid to believe that you can make a constitution such that you tie up the hands of the executive and paralyse it at the will of the civil servants.

Sir, as the Hon. the Chief Minister rightly pointed out, it was we who justified what we did in London last year, if he cannot hit Mr David Marshall himself, then we do not mind his using the P.A.P. for that purpose. We have a right more than any other Party to see that what we defended is what we will get and nothing less. As for his trip to London, we will not be party to this trip until we have first received a draft copy of the constitution for our study, and our agreement to it. If there are any parts of the constitution to which we cannot agree, then there must be agreement between the Parties to delete such passages from the draft. Otherwise the responsibility for this new constitution will rest on those who will participate in bringing back something less than what we originally agreed.

We are not really concerned today with what the Labour Front will or will not do for its last year of office. Those of us who have had the privilege of a front-seat view of what has been happening in the last three years should think clearly and find out why it failed. I say this with no rancour. They did not expect to govern. For more than a year, they did not govern. And then when they tried to govern, the position was too far gone. They were inept, and they got themselves into a mess. That briefly sums up the situation. The first thing they lacked - and we are reminded of it today in the morning press - is sufficient integrity and drive in its leadership to give it the cohesion required for the leadership of any movement.

The Member for Farrer Park (Mr A. R. Lazarous), the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng), the Member for Kampong Kapor (Mr Seah Peng Chuan) who is absent - former Labour Front Members - are throwing enormous stones at the Government today because, for multifarious reasons, the spoils were not shared with them. The ex-Chief Minister is running around, it appears, with a "hammer", large as life, prepared to knock anybody who is not in a position to knock back, and challenging all and sundry. But he is wiser now; he only challenges those whom he knows will not accept the challenge. It is a sad commentary that the Labour Front never grew up from what it was - a collection of individuals who got together to run a Party, got the surprise of their lives when they unexpectedly won the elections and became Ministers. They got an even bigger surprise of their lives when they opened Pandora's Box and a jack-in-the-box bounced up at them. They have never quite recovered from the shock of it all.

Sir, the sight of Assistant Ministers boring holes in a sinking ship to make sure that it sinks faster is a pathetic one, and this is not because Assistant Ministers have a habit of buying refrigerators with $925 cash, a practice which Assistant Ministers, or those who aspire to be such, should never adopt. But for an Assistant Minister to call a meeting and condemn your Government for not fulfilling the promises which they themselves made, and they themselves have not carried out, I think takes the cake-

Mr Speaker: Order. Firstly, I must warn the strangers in the Gallery that they must try and contain themselves. Secondly, I think possibly the hon. Member is contravening the Standing Order by attacking the conduct of a Member of this House. He can only do so of course by a substantive motion.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, I do not wish to condemn the conduct. All I wish is to draw attention to the condemnation or praise which the facts themselves imply. I leave it to those who have read the morning papers to judge for themselves. The Labour Front leadership must be sanguine in the extreme if they believe that with leadership material of that calibre they can survive the stresses and strains which must inevitably be put on any government taking office within the framework of the Rendel Constitution, and with the political situation in Singapore as it is.

Sir, I heard the Hon. the Chief Minister today complain bitterly that he had been misrepresented, that he was really not anti-Chinese culture and not anti-Chinese education. He said that it was the wicked people who made it appear that it was so. But what did he expect? If he carries out an anti-subversive purge, does he expect to find his victims all docilely waiting to be picked up? Does he not expect them to fight back? Does he not expect that part of the fight is the presentation - that he was not just anti the Chinese middle school boys and girls whom he wanted to pick up, but anti-Chinese culture, anti-Chinese education? Is he so innocent? Did he not anticipate that the moves he was making meant that it could be so construed - unless he was very careful to see that it could not - that the Right would take advantage of the situation, and that his Government would be pushed to the Right? I have heard nothing more damning of the Labour Front Government than when the nominated Member Mr Sutherland this morning stood up and said with so much condescension and patronage, that it was not a bad speech at all-the sort of thing one expects of a Liberal sort of government or a Conservative sort of government. That from a colonial banker just about puts the seal of death on any political party.

Let us face the facts. That is what has happened. Wittingly or unwittingly, he moved against the C.P. Left and allowed himself to be manoeuvred into a position where he makes speeches at the opening ceremonies of American insurance

companies, gets himself mixed up with bankers who praise him and his Government as being Liberal and Conservative. Eventually he finds that he is no longer crusading on the Left, which might have been his original intention but fellow-travelling with the reactionary Right to which he was finally drawn. And he must know that this is not the politics of the pre-Rendel days when people had pretty little speeches prepared for them, and showed them to Colonial Secretaries before they made them in the Chamber so that the Colonial Secretaries could prepare their replies. This is a tough business. Power is being fought for - power to control the lives of the people of Singapore, power to shape and unshape the society. One of the most inept things that any politician can do - and I had always thought that at least the Member for Havelock (Dr Lim Yew Hock) was a skilful politician, who has survived first being nominated, then being elected into a pre-Rendel Legislature, then after sitting on the Rendel Constitutional Commission getting himself elected into the Rendel Legislature, I should have thought that he would have had sufficient political aptitude - was to come to this Chamber this morning and repeat all the rumours that have been circulating against him, thereby giving credence to them. Any book on propaganda will tell him that the last thing you should do about a rumour is to repeat it - worse still, repeat it and then deny it. Today he repeated the rumour that he was anti-Chinese culture, anti-Chinese civilisation. He repeated the rumour that he wanted to extend the life of the Rendel Constitution. He repeated the rumour that he was going to settle with Mr Lennox-Boyd to be the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Why such ineptitude?

And the final reason, in my view, why this Government has failed and will fail, despite all the flourish at the end of the Governor's Speech, is because it has not the capacity to govern. It had the civil service run the Government for it. It is an open secret, is it not, that there are what is commonly known in the civil service as "PL. D.W. Ministers". I am told that the "PL." stands for "Please" and "D.W." for "Deal With". When Government servants send up enormous bunches of files to harass Ministers who already find that their constituents are bothering them more than they expected, with an urgent note at the botton "What shall we do? Shall we do (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (j)", the Minister puts at the bottom "PL. D. W." and they go back to be "dealt with". The Labour Front will fail as much because it lacked the political aptitude, as well as the political touch which one could not expect of a civil service. The only thing that saves the Labour Front from total rot is because there are a few, although very few, individuals with sufficient integrity and the will to resist a complete rot from setting in. But for that, they would have gone beyond redemption.

Sir, I said, not as an idle boast, that the P.A.P. will win the elections if they were held tomorrow, or next year, short of something catastrophic happening or something very foolish that we do. And we will win them, apart from the question of having a better organisation and having better personnel, because the other Parties do not attempt to understand the meaning of a social revolution. Have they not ceased to wonder why in the last four months the Government was just swept aside and the attention of the people of Singapore was focussed on the City Council? Why? Because it had captured the hearts and minds of the workers. [Interruption.] Yes, workers! Mr Sutherland does not believe that men should be called workers. He thinks that there is no such thing as workers. He believes in a working class. Well, that is a more Marxist way of putting it and according to the Marxists - and I think they are quite right in this - there are two types: workers and those who live off workers-drones.

Mr Sutherland: What are you?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, I have always admired the British for their aplomb, under the most difficult of circumstances. It rather saddens me to hear that he will be leaving us soon. To think that one should miss a bayonet target for practice before the time is up is a matter for regret. But I also wondered how much harm he was doing to the Labour Front Government and the colonial system by his most untimely interjections.

I do not wish unduly to demoralise the Government but let them ask themselves. Why is it that the Lorong 3 fire had a public response and the spontaneous goodwill flowing in which no other fire in the past had evoked. True, this is an All-Party effort. This is just by way of illustration. For the first time they begin to understand that these magnificent institutions like the City Council, which they had viewed as institutions of bureaucracy and petty oppression could be turned into public institutions for their protection, welfare and benefit. Albeit, they needed some colourful gesture like throwing out the mace to drive the lesson home. But that is the lesson the Labour Front must learn if they want to know what is going on, and have a chance to compete at all. The Labour Front leader in the City Council said - as it was reported in the last few days and with a great deal of silent praise from the English language press - "Oh well, let's have the Mayor of Penang here but let's have none of this nonsense about, `Down with colonialism and all that,'" because obviously by implication, his Party is not in favour of it. For the first time, the City Council is going to mean something to the people. If we - this year or next year - we are prepared for it any time, - cannot do the same transmutation for the institutions of Government and make them become symbols of the people's rights and privileges instead of symbols of colonial bureaucracy and oppression, then at the end of our five-year term of office, we will be out on our heels and deserve to perish.

When in pursuit of a social revolution, never pay the slightest attention to the present English language press. Praise from them means destruction. Decide what you have to do, decide what is right and press on. The more they howl against you, the more you can be certain that you are on the right track. For that reason, I would like to say this for the benefit of the expatriate officers in the City Council. We have the courage and the will, to govern. We expect the civil service including the civil servants of the local Government to obey us and do our bidding. If they foolishly choose to enter the political arena and join political issue with us, as the President of their expatriate association sought to do, writing letters to the press saying that the P.A.P. policy is going to bring chaos and the whole City Council to a halt, then they must expect that they are not just fighting the Mayor and twelve Councillors. They are fighting the whole of the P.A.P. Although we may be in the minority in the City Council, at the latest by the end of one year, it is this Chamber which will determine what happens there. Any participation by civil servants who oppose or sabotage the political policy of a Party which is given the constitutional right to govern will bring swift and certain retribution.

That, Sir, is briefly, why the P.A.P. has not failed. I do not say that if or when we form the Government we will succeed where the Labour Front failed. But we will certainly make a better effort, and we have this one great advantage. We have seen Pandora's Box opened and now know what is inside. Whoever forms the next Government, should give this bouquet to the departing Labour Front Government. They charted a minefield. We now know where the booby traps are, and have a fair idea where a few more might be. They got hurt in the process of finding out the booby traps. We hope that when our turn comes we will not be so badly hurt; more, we hope that we will make a success of it because we have seen how not to win an election, and how not to not govern. We ought to know how to win the elections, and having won them, how to set out firmly, democratically and wisely to govern, and bring about the social revolution that we promise beforehand.

In this connection, as a last parting shot to the Liberal-Socialists on this side and the Labour Front on the other side of the House: do not try and out-P.A.P. the P.A.P. It is a very foolish and unprofitable business. The ex-Chief Minister tried it; he ceased to be the Chief Minister. He came back as the Member for Cairnhill and tried it again; he ceased to be the Member for Cairnhill. We told the City Council workers that the City Council could stand an extra 20 cents per day per worker. The Labour Front and the Lib-Socs who were there for years and years and never gave them even five cents more said, "Double you; make it 40 cents." We still said 20 cents and we were outvoted. But in the end it is they who will be outvoted. We said, "Prepare for essential services to go on in case of a strike." The Liberal-Socialists said, -the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede) may not know what is going on in the City Council, and he may not be aware that his cinemas may close down without electricity - "Do not prepare for it." And the Straits Times in order to do us harm said, "P.A.P. are strike breakers."! Tomorrow if the strike takes place in the City Council, the ultimate person responsible for running the essential services will be the Minister for Local Government. He knows it, and his own Party abstained - at least they had the sense to abstain - but the Lib-Socs and the Labour Front voted against preparing for essential services.

Now, Sir, anybody in his senses knows that this Assembly has outlived itself. It is like stale eggs, as a newspaperman who I believe was of American extraction put it, "Gosh, there is a smell of stench around here." Looking in an injured sort of way, I said, "Where from?" He said, "Ah well, you know, some of these chaps I still see around." Well, not wishing to breach the privileges of this Assembly and not wanting to besmirch the character, integrity and reputation of my hon. Friends in this House, I give this last bouquet to the Labour Front. They tried but they did not have a chance. They did not have a team to start with. They broke up before it started. They kept on breaking up after it started, and even before it is over, Assistant Ministers are throwing stones at the Government. By the time it is over - I understand that the Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga) is a good shot with a shotgun - I hope they do not go shooting each other as we bid them adieu.

3.10 p.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak now since hon. Members from both sides of the House are so reluctant to stand up to speak. I wonder whether they are shocked by the speech of the Member for Tanjong Pagar or by the speech of the Hon. the Chief Minister this morning.

Sir, I recollect that as soon as the Governor's Speech was delivered, we adjourned to the C.P.A. Room for a cocktail party and one hon. Member from the Government side asked me what I thought about it. I said, "No, I do not like it. It is weak, bad, just like a painted doll and if you will allow me to use a proper Chinese phrase, I will call it "phoon ser kai pin". I cannot find suitable words to describe the Governor's Speech except to say that it is like a painted doll - beautiful but not in place, smiling but not appealing - bad and weak. I was very disheartened when I heard the Member for Tanjong Pagar give a blab, blah, blah speech. I still remember the column where he said when debating the previous Governor's Speech - I quote "Hansard", Volume 2, No. 2 of 5th September, 1956:

"But to ignore the political realities which surround this whole Assembly, this Government and the whole country is political childishness." Never so true! I happily endorse every word of this sentence by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, for the speech he has just delivered is childish, Sir. He tried to be smart by ridiculing every Member and every Party in this House. He was even so sure that the P.A.P. will be in power at the next elections and he also warned all the Members who dared to oppose the P.A.P. with the words, "You will see, you will see."

Sir, I do not know whether you will allow me to suggest that we should all stand up and bow to the Member for Tanjong Pagar and say, "You are the hero of Singapore. You are the champion of the underdogs in Singapore!"

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the hon. Member will give way.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: No, Sir.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It was Mr Marshall who -

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I myself come here to learn. Let us always be humble and also let us realise that if nationalism is to be our first achievement, we should try to get the support of the people.

Sir, let us talk about the real political situation. I think we are now going through a very dangerous period in the history of Singapore. On one side, we have the English educated class and the middle class of people who adopt the "tida apa" attitude. On the other side, we have the political fanatics who do nothing else but talk politics, morning, noon and night. Then there is the most extremist element in this country who try to introduce all sorts of "isms" and theories. If China introduces land reforms, they want to follow suit. Just now, an hon. Member borrowed the word "Marxist". This word was used many years ago. Is it suitable for this country? The third element - which is the most dangerous and which I think all Members in this House can do something about - is the clash of political personalities: Harry Lee versus David Marshall!

Mr Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member is working himself up but he should still remember his Standing Orders.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I would like to comment on the clash of political personalities. I do not know why they are fighting each other for. Both of them claim to be champions of the workers, the underdogs, Socialism and leaders of the Chinese school students. Sir, we heard the Member for Tanjong Pagar exclaim with conviction that the next Government will be a P.A.P. Govvernment.

An hon. Member: God forbid!

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: He has commented many times on the recognition of the Malayan Communist Party and I do not want to see a Prime Minister styling himself as, "I am a Leftist. I am a genuine Leftist and I will arrest all opportunists." Let us be fair. I have the utmost respect for the genius and ability of our learned friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Why does he not think that it is time for him to stand up boldly and courageously to say, "I am a Rightwing leader and against the M.C.P. element whether secret, underground or even within my own Party." He must admit, Sir, that he has already made himself known as a Right-wing leader within the P.A.P. I still remember that the Left-wing leader of his Party was supposed to be Mr Rajah. Why can he not say, "I am a nationalist leader. I am the leader of all classes - workers, farmers and merchants," instead of saying, "I am the champion of the workers," and ridiculing Mr Sutherland as the "Member for Tanglin Club" and everybody else. Now when the City Council is short of funds, he says, "Let us think how to float loans on the London markets." Why can he not realise that if the Hon. the Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David) is instructed by Her Majesty's Government to reduce their military commitments in Singapore or withdraw their Army, Navy and Air Force within 24 hours, how we are to find jobs for the over 40,000 workers employed by these Services? How are we going to provide the livelihood for those employed by these three Services?

Mr Braga: The P.A.P.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: And I want to see how the adviser to the Naval Base Workers' Union and the Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim) who is the Secretary of that union are going to provide their workers with new jobs. That is why we have to face the "political realities". The Member for Tanjong Pagar should realise that it is high time for him to decide whether he is Right-wing or Left-wing and whether he believes that the only Left-wing Party in Singapore is the M.C.P. He should not declare, "I am a champion. I am the Leftist element and the rest of you are all hypocrites and opportunists. We the P.A.P. stand for the underdogs!"

Sir, if I can foretell the future, within five years or three years or even soon after the General Elections have been held, I will not be surprised to see the Member for Tanjong Pagar become a staunch Right-wing leader and I think that will be a blessing for Singapore.

Sir, now let us come back to the Governor's Speech which I criticised as bad and weak but at least they have a very courageous Minister in the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy) who said some time ago that those who scared away capital investment in this country were "irresponsible" politicians. Sir, there is no better word than that. All of us including myself are irresponsible politicians in that we never gave the people of Singapore a clear-cut policy on Merdeka and we now find that we are to have only internal self-government. We say that Socialism is best for our country and we say that as entrepot trade is so essential, we must try to encourage more capital investment. But are we doing that? We are discouraging capital. Sir, I think it is high time to consider the dangers which lie ahead as the entrepot trade has been on the decline for many months. Employment is decreasing day by day and the possibility of a merger with the Federation of Malaya is getting further and further away. These are the three main issues which we should all try to solve and not the blah, blah political talks. May I ask, "Has any trade union leader or any champion of the labourers or any adviser to trade union workers in this country ever said, `Look, chum, if you want to increase your living standards and your wages, you must try at the same time to increase the industrial output.'?" It must be explained to the workers that by their increasing the industrial output they are indirectly increasing the national income. The irresponsible politicians and irresponsible trade union advisers only know how to win votes. They are now making enough but they are not so sure that the next election is sure for you. Telling enough lies - I want to see how they are going to win and rule, Sir!

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member used the second person and then followed it up with an expression that somebody is telling lies. I think the word "lies" is unparliamentary with reference to a Member of the Assembly. The hon. Member will withdraw that word.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I will change it to untrue, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is the word "lies" that I wish to be withdrawn.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am sorry, Sir, I withdraw it, Sir.

The question of a merger with the Federation of Malaya has again been repeated in the Governor's Speech - this is the third time it has been repeated. But I wonder how we are going to achieve that. I do not know whether the rumour is true or not that the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid) many a time has openly told the public that the Chief Minister of the Federation of Malaya (Tunku Abdul Rahman) is very much against the merger because (1) of the labour unrest - in other words, the existence of subversive elements and (2) of the Chinese population. Sir, I do not worry about the first point but I am quite worried about the second point. I hope the Member for Ulu Bedok (Inche Abdul Hamid) can be clear about this point because it is quite harmful to bring up this racial issue. It is all right to say that it is for economic or political reasons.

Sir, I do not want to criticise the Government item by item especially as, I must confess, I have always had a high regard for our elected Ministers during the past three years. Even the Member for Tanjong Pagar said that they tried their best but that they were not ready for the task of governing.

I would like to bring up a very important point in the Governor's Speech regarding gangster activities:

"The Government will continue with its determined efforts to combat crime, gangster and secret society activities." Sir, it is also pointed out:

"The increased awareness by the public for the need to give all possible assistance to the police is encouraging." Further it reads:

"The Government will maintain the established high standards of efficiency and morale of the Police . Sir, "efficiency and morale of the Police." I dare challenge you the Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David) to come along with me-

Mr Speaker: Order. This is the first time I have been called the Chief Secretary. I think the hon. Member should remember that he should address the Chair.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am sorry, Sir, I dare challenge the Hon. the Chief Secretary to come along with me into every nook and corner of Singapore and ask the public how much confidence they have in the efficiency of the police. Sir, we must admit that they have very, very little confidence. They have no faith in the police especially in the detectives. Sir, this country has achieved tremendous political advancement but I am so sorry to witness that the police force follows the old traditional way. When Group 24 fights Group 08, the latter uses the services of Group 36 to fight Group 24 and this makes the C.I.D. appear very busy against the gangsters - more arrests every day, men detained for 24 hours, finger-prints, etc.

"The Government will continue with its determined efforts to combat crime, gangster and secret society activities." Sir, I think it will not be a good thing if they carry on with their present policy of engaging detectives who were formerly gangsters and secret society men. How can you trust them? Under such circumstances, how can our police force work efficiently? The inspectors rely on what information they get from the detectives. The Commissioner of Police relies on whom? On the O.C. and the A.S.P.'s. So, to me, the C.I.D. is more harmful than the subversive elements. It is high time for Government to formulate a new revolutionary policy, even though they have to wipe out the whole C.I.D. The people do not want them. They are irresponsible and corrupted. They use Her Majesty's power to threaten innocent people. I think it is high time to check that. Why cannot the Chief Secretary try to get advice from Hongkong, to recruit more Chinese into the police force, to recruit more intelligent, educated detectives? If Hongkong can do it, why not Singapore? It is high time to have an understanding and friendly police force. You must admit that not only the language barrier, not only the custom or the tradition barrier, but also the whole set-up is made of rock. It is not made of wood.

The second point I would like to touch on is the importation of publications. Just now the Hon. the Chief Minister said that the people blame his Government for being against Chinese education and against Chinese culture. I think he deserves it. Maybe he should throw the blame on the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary is very unfair on this question. I have a lot of books sent to me from Hongkong and sometimes from China. Some are purely pictorial magazines and some Chinese fiction. But always I have a chit saying, "This publication is being kept in custody by the Chinese Secretariat. If you want to claim it under section so and so of such and such an Ordinance, you can; otherwise it will not be released."

Talking about the Sin Pao, Sir, they have banned it. Maybe the Government have all the evidence against it of which I am not aware. But, Sir, I want to know how many Hongkong sexy yellow newspapers have been imported into the colony. Sir, the local mosquito papers live on fabricating a lot of sexy stories and printing nude pictures, and the Government just simply ignore them. Naturally the young and inexperienced Chinese school boys or teachers will be misled by them. Sir, we do not like such poisonous and undesirable publications. The Government not only banned the Sin Pao, but they brought its editors to court. Naturally this Government is branded as not being able to understand Chinese culture. Therefore they are anti-Chinese culture. Although they know that the Chinese intellectuals are against yellow culture, yet they allow yellow pamphlets, magazines and newspapers published abroad to come in.

Coming to the last point, Sir, why do the Government not boldly say, "We want to carry on with this Government until 1959. We want to finish the term."? Why do the Government not say, "We support compulsory voting."? Why do the Government not say, "We have a lot of things to do, so we have to carry on another few months."? But now they say the delay is because of compulsory voting. Without compulsory voting, they say they can fulfil their promise to hold the general election in August or September. I challenge the Chief Minister to be so bold as to say that the postponing of the general elections to next year has nothing to do with compulsory voting. He must not mislead the public into believing that his Government is sincere and determined to have the general elections in September, but this damn fool Member for Changi introduced-

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not forget himself. He is going a little beyond what is order. He is becoming really disorderly. The hon. Member must remember that. In future I will take a more serious view. Will he please withdraw the expression?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I beg to withdraw the expression. I thought I could call myself that! Sir, I want the Government to be bold. Let the people know exactly what the Government is like. Yes, say that the Labour Front Government have confidence in their four-year programme; that they must carry on their programme, but not because of compulsory voting. Sir, I think I have said enough.

3.39 p.m.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol-Tampenis): Mr Speaker, Sir, one thing is very clear from the speech of his Excellency the Governor. It is that the Government is well aware that its term of office is nearing its end and that elections are around the corner - though the Government is reluctant to tell us how big that corner is.

His Excellency's speech begins with casual references to the forthcoming Assembly and District Council elections.

It ends with a not so casual reference to the general elections and to the time when this Government will have "to lay down its office."

I mention these facts because I think it will help us to understand a little more clearly all the fine and praiseworthy sentiments which appear between the opening and closing passages of the speech.

What appears in between is a shop-window display for the election season to remind the people that the Government is prepared to do in the fourth year of its office what it could have done in the three years that went before.

That is why, Sir, the programme appears a little crowded. The Government is going to combat crime, gangsterism and secret society thugs. It is going to carry out a survey of the Colony's industrial potential and markets. It is going to promote largescale industries. It is going to encourage entrepot trade and tourism. It is going to grow more food and promote rural development. It is going to give every child the chance to get a primary education up to the age of 14. There are going to be more schools, hospitals and houses - in fact, more of everything. It is going to introduce a social insurance scheme based on the Caine and Brocklehurst Reports.

This does not exhaust the list of good things to come but all these are going to be done in the next few months.

Certainly, Sir, the fourth year is going to be remembered as a year of promise and a far busier year than all the other three years put together.

It may even leave the Government little time to think about or prepare for the District Council and Assembly elections.

What bothers me is why the Government has waited until the last few months of its life before trying to start its social revolution.

Sir, if the Government's programme is to be fully implemented, it will involve great changes to our social and economic structure. It may be that all that the Government intends to do is merely to pass a number of Bills proposing this and that change - a paper social revolution.

For example, Sir, the Government pledges itself, to use its own words, "to safeguard the welfare of the people of Singapore, to raise their level of living and to use this last Session towards achieving these ends."

But even if it had more time at its disposal than it actually has, it can only redeem this pledge by fighting those who have a vested interest in preserving the present order of things. It must be prepared to plan its economy which means seeing that there is a greater control over the activities of private enterprise.

Its programme means finding the money to finance these things. This means increased taxation.

Yet all these years the Government has been reluctant to do these things, much to the delight of the Liberal-Socialists who like socialism, provided the wealthy remain wealthy and there is no interference by Government with the financial activities of the wealthy.

The Government's programme therefore means nothing, because it is a harmless film trailer promising "stupendous", "colossal" and "mighty" things which will eventually prove to be nothing of the sort.

It is not enough to say that you are going to do this or that during the few months left to the Government. A government which really wants to do these things must have the will and courage to meet the fierce opposition of vested interests.

Recent events in the City Council are examples of how local reactionaries and expatriate officials of the City Council will join hands to fight progress where it hurts their privileges.

I think the Labour Front will do no more than declare their pious intentions in these things. There may be a few people who mean well in the Labour Front. But it requires more than just a few well-meaning types to make the social revolution a reality. That is the tragedy of the Labour Front. Too many bad types, too few good ones. The ultimate result is a foregone conclusion. They have my sympathies.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing the speeches from the Member for Tanjong Pagar and the Member for Changi, I do not know where I am. I hear of the Right. I hear of the Left. And now I hear of the Left within the Right, or the Right within the Left. As far as I am aware, we have the Rightists and we have the Leftists. But now I come to know that there is a Right within the Left. What that means, I really cannot understand. Now who belongs to this class of people? The old saying goes: "Whoever the cap fits, let him wear it." The Malays say: Siapa makan chilli rasa pedas. (Those who eat the chilli will feel hot.) Really I would like to know who belong to this category of people - who are in fact the Right within the Left.

Sir, all these speeches, instead of concentrating on the Governor's Speech, are more or less a challenge to every Member in this House - a challenge issued by the leader of the P.A.P., the Member for Tanjong Pagar. He says that whoever dare go against the P.A.P. in the next general elections will collapse. It would appear to me, Sir, from what he says, that no Party or Independent should go against the P.A.P. in the elections - that the Labour Front should not take part; neither should the Liberal-Socialists take part. If the P.A.P. contest the elections alone and have a walkover in all divisions, then this Assembly will have nothing but 51 P.A.P. Members. Then where is the Opposition? Where is the chance of opposition? Is this a challenge to everyone of us here? After this challenge, Sir, I would like to know how many of the present Members of this House are prepared to come forward and fight the general elections. The Member for Changi says there is only one hero in Singapore, and he is the Member for Tanjong Pagar. So if there is anyone who is prepared to accept that challenge, he is more of a hero than the hero himself!

Sir, every candidate who stands for election certainly looks forward to winning. The Liberal-Socialists fielded candidates in all the divisions for the City Council elections. What was the result? They gained only a few seats. The Labour Front was also confident of winning the City Council elections. What was the result? They had only three or four seats. How can we predict that we are sure of winning the elections? Let me see whether that prediction of the Member for Tanjong Pagar will come true. If the prediction does not come true, I wonder what will be the consequence for the Member for Tanjong Pagar since he has boasted that his Party will come into power. Let all of us stand for the elections to the Legislative Assembly. Let us hope for a stable government, irrespective of which Party comes in, rather than boast that it is the Leftist Party that will come into power. Unfortunately within that Leftist Party there is a Right. So where is the Leftist Party, Sir?

Coming back to the Governor's Speech, I will read this paragraph:

"Singapore exists because of its trade. Under the new Constitution the Government of the State of Singapore, acting with the assent of the United Kingdom Government. will have the power to initiate and conduct matters concerning trade and cultural relations with other countries."

Sir, why is it necessary that we should have the assent of the United Kingdom Government regarding trade? Are we not going to have self-government? If we are going to have self-government cannot we consider ourselves fit to decide on our trade relations? Singapore is a free trading port and, as such, we should certainly be allowed to decide on our trading relations with anybody we want if it is in the interests and for the good of the country.

Sir, I was not a member of the delegation that went to the constitutional talks. I do not know whether this clause was included in the draft constitution or not. If it was there, then I have very little to say, because it was agreed by the All-Party delegation of this House. If it was not there, I hope that the next delegation to London (the Chief Minister says it will be going soon) will see that this clause is not in it and that we have a free hand to decide on our trade relations.

Sir, most of the political Parties in this Assembly want to kill the Liberal-Socialist Party. Every time a Member stands up, he says, "Let us kill the Liberal-Socialist Party", because that Party is accused of being a capitalist Party. So I am of the opinion that, by including that clause, you will, in the first instance, kill trade, and if you kill trade, you will kill capital, and by killing capital, you will indirectly kill the Liberal-Socialists - and I hope the Liberal-Socialists will wake up to that issue!

Sir, the next point is the mention of cordial relations with the Government of the Federation of Malaya. This is what the Governor said:

"Again, since the Second Session of this Assembly, the Federation of Malaya has emerged as a sovereign independent state. The Government is happy to record the continued cordial relationship which it enjoys with the Government of the Federation of Malaya." Sir, the Chief Minister has said this morning that he has not received any indication from the Government of the Federation of Malaya regarding travel passes across the causeway. Now if this should materialise, then it is going to be serious, because it is going to affect that cordial relationship which the Governor has mentioned. I only hope that it will not materialise, but from the publicity that has been given in the local Press, I think it will. Now with the cordial relationship not between the two Governments but between the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya and the Chief Minister of Singapore - because they have had cordial relations and drinks together - I hope the Chief Minister will carefully look into this question of travel passes and see that the Federation of Malaya does not impose them, so as to maintain the cordial relationship between Singapore and the Federation. The Chief Minister this morning has said that one cannot exist without the other. Neither can one prosper without the other. Sir, if it is his view that one cannot exist or prosper without the other, then let travel over the causeway be free. There should be no bar. Then we will have, in fact, actual cordial relationship between the two countries.

Coming to the general elections, Sir, I think the Member for Changi is right. Whether we hold the elections this year or next year, the question of compulsory voting does not come in. If the Government is serious in having early elections, I am quite sure it could set up the machinery to meet the deadline. Now, the Governor in his speech said:

"The Government intends to recommend to the Assembly the holding of elections for an enlarged Assembly under the new Constitution as soon as it is practically possible to do so." "As soon as it is practically possible to do so." What a vague term, Sir! How long will this be? One year, two years, or three years? Whether you are going to delay the elections, or whether you are going to have early elections, there must be a target date, and if there is one, then Government can work towards it. Without a target date, the Government can give any amount of excuses. The Member for Tanjong Pagar has said this morning that any amount of excuses can be given if the Government wants to carry on. If the Government is serious, let it name that target date and let it not hold the public in suspense. Every Member on this side of the House has asked for an early election and I am sure that we are all keen to have early elections. But the Government has said no, just because of compulsory voting. Let compulsory voting be one issue and early elections be another. As the Member for Changi has said, if the Government cannot have early elections, then let it come out boldly and say, "We cannot have them, not because of compulsory voting, but because we cannot complete our machinery to have early elections this year." But whatever may be the reason, Sir, I still say that there should be a target date for us to aim at. Without a target date you cannot aim at anything, and without any aim you get nowhere. Where can you get to?

An hon. Member: Tokyo!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Tokyo! Yes, quite a number will be going there very soon!

Sir, on the question of fishing, the Governor said in his speech that-

"It is the Government's intention to take all necessary steps to increase the supply of fish and to assist local fishermen who are willing to be trained in new methods of fishing."

Sir, how can the Government claim that it supports the fishing industry when it encourages foreigners to come in and compete with our local fishermen? I see the Minister is nodding his head. As far as I can understand, the catch by our local fishermen is quite adequate to meet the demands of our local people. Then why encourage foreigners to come in? I understand that the Ministry is trying to encourage Japanese boats to come in to compete. From what I was told sometime back, four licences were issued to the Japanese to come into Singapore to compete with our local fishermen. Now for the information of the Minister, many shops which are in the fishing trade have closed down recently because of this competition. Is this the Government's idea of trying to support the fishing industry in Singapore, or trying to kill it? The Minister has always given these slogans - "Support local goods!" "Buy Singapore goods!" "Support local industries!"

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Further consideration, what day?

The Chief Minister: Tomorrow, Sir.