YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH (Debate on the Address)

Debate resumed.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, to continue my speech, I have emphasised the special position of the Malays which is not mentioned in the speech on Government policy made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I would like to stress that we will work together. We do not wish to violate the Constitution before the present five-year term. We are not withdrawing from the way towards attaining full independence. Therefore, Mr Speaker, the special position of the Malays must be emphasised to the Malays in particular so that U.M.N.O. in Singapore can know whether Government accepts it or otherwise and whether to negotiate to bury the present Constitution before its term of four or five years, and so that Members can carry out their responsibilities.

This is the moment for the Government to emphasise the special position of the Malays. We the Malays in Singapore want to change the new Constitution to a better one. We do not wish to live under any kind of colonialism which may taste sweet but is at the same time dangerous.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, we will abolish the present Constitution and work towards that aim. The Government policy statement says that Singapore should re-unite with and become a unit of the Federation of Malaya which is already independent. The special position of the Malays is in such matters including educational, religious, economic, social and cultural, and in the Malay language. It is the responsibility of the Government to encourage, foster and promote the special position of the Malays in all these matters before we re-unite with the Federation which, as I have said, has a different system of Government in that it has Islam as the state religion, Malay reservations and so on.

Sir, the Singapore Government must particularly emphasise to the Malays their position so that they will be satisfied that the present Government will foster their political, social, religious, economic and cultural conditions and the Malay language. This is the main task and I want to ask the Government how it can carry it out. If the Government is unable to stress the special position of the Malays in its policy statement, then it is the responsibility of the representatives of U.M.N.O. to bring home to the Government this matter which is of paramount importance. Before we begin a new system of Government there are many matters which we must remember, such as that the Malays must be sincerely assured about what their special position will be.

The Government today has a responsibility, as I have explained, towards Malay graduates. When the P.A.P. got into the City Council, its policy was to accept into the staff Malay students who had passed Standard VII in Malay Schools. Is the P.A.P. Government today implementing that policy? Too many of our citizens are unemployed, one cause being that the War Department still employs people who are not citizens of Singapore. Will the Government take action and provide for our unemployed citizens jobs in the Government from the taxes collected from the citizens themselves?

This has also become a question mark. The Government can carry this out - that in the years ahead Malays with Malay language qualifications can find employment in certain places instead of only holding the lowest posts in Government. Therefore, I hope that it will be the policy of this Government, as of the past City Council, to accept Malay graduates who have passed Standard VII in Malay Schools into Government service. This is a responsibility of the Government - the provision of opportunities for Malays in accordance with their special right. And in such provision which concerns the fate or destiny of the Malays, we will offer healthy criticism.

On the matter of religion. Islam is the religion of all the Malays; they do not follow any other. Therefore, Mr Speaker, what will the Government do to protect the religion of the Malays in accordance with their special position? Will the Government restrict the propagation of our holy religion which is supported by all Malays, not only in Singapore but also in the Federation? Will it give positive help to mosques, schools and other places of worship? Any kind of help, material or otherwise, is very important. This matter is a responsibility of the Government. If we go to the kampongs and visit the suraus, the mosques and the public schools in them, we will see that these places of worship are very backward, so to speak. They are not proper buildings. They are the results of colonialist oppression, all forms - positive and negative. This matter is also a responsibility of the Government because it relates to the special position of the Malays mentioned in the Constitution. I am sure Government help and special treatment will be given to these mosques and schools in the kampongs, which are already receiving help from the kampong folk themselves. Because of what they have experienced in the past many years I will emphasise again that it is the responsibility of Government to provide for them now, in accordance with the Constitution. We must demand that Government pay serious attention to spreading the teachings of Islam, especially among the Malay children.

Sir, Government must give help and assistance so that, in turn, it can fulfil its duties. The Malays have specific desires, needs and aspirations and that is why U.M.N.O., particularly in Singapore, has pioneered the struggle. In the past, we were poor, backward and lacking in ability, admittedly in all fields. Now we have a clear assurance regarding the rights and the special position of the Malays in Singapore, who are recognised as the indigenous people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am of the opinion that these are important points for the betterment and advancement of the Malays in Singapore, who are most in need of advancement and tranquility in all spheres.

Once again, I repeat that I hope Government will discharge its duty in regard to the special position of the Malays; that not only will it fight for the Malay language to be the national language, but also initiate and implement programmes based on the provisions contained in the Constitution of our self-governing Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another of the many things which this Assembly must consider carefully before I move my amendment and retire to listen to the Government side is the matter of culture. It can be said that Singapore is situated in the heart of the Malay Archipelago - it is surrounded by the Federation of Malaya, the Republic of Indonesia with its thousands of islands, British North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak, and the Philippines which can be considered as part of the Malay Archipelago. As such, the culture of Singapore must, in my opinion, be based on Malay culture if we are going to establish a Malayan culture. Is it the Government's intention to establish a Malayan culture? We know our position and we hope that the Government will stress this matter of Malayan culture. It will not be difficult for my organisation, U.M.N.O., to consider and accept a culture which is Malayan.

In the Federation today the national identity has not yet been established. We want to hear from the non-Malays what kind of national identity they wish to have. The time will come when the Federation of Malaya will choose its national identity, one supported by and agreed to by the whole population comprising many communities. The situation is the same concerning culture in Singapore. I say this because what struck me most recently when the P.A.P. gained its overwhelming victory and introduced its successful election candidates at the City Hall, was the use of symbols. I am at a loss to understand why. If we were to visit that building now we can see that all the symbols are unintelligible to the Malays. This is a source of concern and fear to the Malays. This is a serious matter requiring Government's attention in our progress towards establishing a national identity for all sections of a community with undivided loyalty towards Singapore's independence.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, because of such fears and because of the omission of any mention in the speech made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara of the main issues in relation to the special position of the Malays in Singapore, I regret to have to move an amendment to the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister as follows-

"at end, to add-

but regret that the speech did not in principle clarify the special position of the Malays who are recognised as the indigenous people of the Island of Singapore'."

That, Mr Speaker, is my amendment to the motion made by the Deputy Prime Minister in this Assembly a few days back. I have given the reasons regarding the several main issues concerning the special position of the Malays in Singapore. That is all I can do to stress and bring home to the public the doubts which have led to the moving of my amendment. I think this is important to the advancement of the special position of the Malays so that they will move forward with their fellow citizens in the next five years of the Government's life and further, struggle with them to free not only ourselves but our State from colonialism which is not only disliked by us, but is also condemned by the world at large.

That is all Mr Speaker, Sir, on the amendment which I move today.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): I second the amendment.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for the Southern Islands has already spoken to the main Question and therefore he cannot second the amendment.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the amendment without prejudice to speak later on.

Mr Speaker: The original Question is:

`That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to

"We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present session of this Assembly."'

Since which an amendment has been moved at the end to add:-

"but regret that the speech did not in principle clarify the special position of the Malays who are recognised as the indigenous people of the Island of Singapore".

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." Hon. Members then will know that from now on, so long as the amendment is before the House, they must address themselves to the substance of the amendment alone. It is only later on when the main Question comes back to the House that other aspects of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech can be touched upon.

We are now, may I repeat, on the amendment and the amendment alone. May I also say that Members who have already spoken to the main Question may, of course, address the House again on the amendment?

3.50 p.m.

Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff (Anson): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, concerning the amendment to the motion on the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, I wish to say that this amendment moved by the Member for Kampong Kembangan has been initiated because the Member himself, if not his Party, fears that the special position of the Malays is not stated in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. But even though the special position of the Malays is not stated in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, the new Government has carried out various schemes which are in the interest of the Malays of this Island. I am not communal in my outlook but I believe Government is truly concerned with the special position of the Malays as contained in the present Constitution of the State of Singapore within which we are now working.

In the preamble to the Constitution, the special position of the Malays is mentioned and the present Government has agreed to implement whatever is contained in the Constitution. Therefore, I think there is no question that the Government wishes to tear this Constitution to pieces, as we have heard it said by a Member of the Opposition at a mass rally held in Geylang Serai. This kind of talk is pure sentimentalism and perhaps born out of a feeling of jealousy. But the Member concerned should realise the P.A.P. has never stated that the Party is concerned only with the interests of the Chinese. The Member for Geylang Serai has no reason to say that the position of the Malays is being challenged. Because the present Government is following the constitution which has been agreed upon by all Parties. As my colleague himself has stated, the provisions in the Constitution will be upheld and implemented and there is no ground for the Member for Geylang Serai to say that the Constitution will be burnt. This will merely burn the hearts of the Malays. If such a state of affairs happens, it is only the Malays who will stand to suffer most.

I do not wish to make a long speech. The present Government, according to the Member for Kampong Kembangan, is not recognising the special position of the Malays. We do not believe in stating things in writing in everything we plan and do. The Member for Kampong Kembangan can find out from the Government that there have been various appeals from Malays in the islands or in other constituencies requesting vocational schools. They claim that the former Assistant Minister for Education promised them in writing that there would be schools for Malay children but that this promise has remained just a promise. Likewise, Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Member for Geylang Serai whether lands in the Malay settlements as promised have been given to Malays who are poor, as a special privilege. This promise has not been fulfilled as it appears that there are also rich Malays among the Malays. According to the agreement, it only concerns the Malays who are poor. So now the poor Malays still remain poor and those who have been allotted land are people who are in a higher salary bracket and who own cars and big houses. These are the people who stay in Malay settlements which are meant for Malays who are poor. Therefore, it seems to me that the promise remains a promise.

Then there are other points too. Let the Member for Kampong Kembangan remember that only three days ago he congratulated the Minister for Health for deciding to accept, after selection, Malay girls who pass Standard VII in Malay schools to work as midwives or assistant nurses. That was only three or four days ago, but now he wonders whether the Government will be true to its word. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I cannot understand what the Member for Kampong Kembangan really means. I do not understand what he was trying to say. I only wish to clarify on matters which I understand.

The hon. Member was also uninformed on the subject of education. According to the Government policy, Malay education will be revitalised. The hon. Member also said that the Police have been looked upon as an instrument of colonial rulers. It seems to me that the hon. Member did not quite understand what he was saying. Formerly, the Government was a colonial one and most of the officials were Europeans who were trained as colonial officials. Then, when the children studied geography, it was not about Malaya. With five years in a Malay school and many years in an English school. I learned about England, Wales and London. I learned about the distance from here to London. That is the sort of curriculum that should be changed. That is just one aspect by what is meant by "revitalising Malay education".

Likewise, the Police has been regarded as an instrument of colonialism. It is so, because even the then Chief Secretary, I wish to point out to the Member for Kampong Kembangan, was not a Malay or an Indonesian. The Chief Secretary received his orders from England, but now we are self-governing. We will change all these forms, as has been stated by the Minister for Education, into truly Malayan ones. We have heard from the Minister for Home Affairs that the Police will truly have a Malayan outlook, a Singapore outlook, and it will work in close co-operation with the people of Singapore. The Police formerly-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is possibly wandering a little too far from the amendment. I think he had his chance when he spoke on the main Question dealing with the general policy in regard to the Police. If he relates his remarks to the special position of the Malays in the Police, then of course he is right, but if he starts generalising, then he is wandering a bit far away from the amendment.

Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will feel guilty if I do not answer the important question of the special position of the Malays. For instance, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission is a Malay. The employment of assistant nurses is now open to the Malays, and what is very important, as far as I am concerned, is that Malay has been accepted as the national language. This has been clarified by the Minister for Education at great length, and I feel the Member for Kampong Kembangan should know that language reflects the outlook of a nation.

A Malayan outlook is also being given emphasis in respect of culture. Radio Singapore has carried out various changes in its programmes concerning economics, health, language, etc. All these are for the benefit of the Malays. The Malays in the rural areas will now realise that they have an opportunity of knowing economics in order to help them in trade, etc. Therefore, the Malays in the kampongs must realise that there is the opportunity for them to enter into the field of trade. If they do not know this, then the $2 they save will be spent in no time. The past Government has made various promises to teach them economics, etc., but these promises still remain promises and have not yet been implemented. But this present Government not only makes promises, and writes these promises into the Constitution, but it lays emphasis on the implementation of these promises, as could be seen in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I believe this new Government will implement whatever promises it makes, and they are not only for the interest of the individual, but also for the interest of all, particularly of those who need help. As stated by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, the Malays are a people backward in the economic field. The Government will help the Malays in trade. He also stated that there are business houses or firms which do not employ Malays. I feel he should ask his own colleague what legislation was enacted by the previous Government in respect of labour. It appeared to me that the past Government was asleep, but I feel the present Government is wide awake and is legislating for the benefit of the people of the whole country. I feel it is more important that these things are implemented, rather than just spoken or written.

I feel there is nothing more that I wish to say, except that for 1½ or 2 hours, the Member for Kampong Kembangan failed to mention anything else but Malay rights.

4.10 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Ulu Pandan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in the amendment to the motion thanking the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech it has been alleged that there is no mention of Malay rights in principle. I believe the Member for Kampong Kembangan has failed to understand the speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech does clarify the education policy based on three main principles, one of which is acceptance of the 1955 All-Party Committee Report on Chinese Education. If the Member for Kampong Kembangan understands this Report, then I am quite sure he will have no doubts. As far as I know, at the time when this Committee made its report to the Ministry of Education, one of the U.M.N.O. members sitting on the Committee was the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, and he was also then the Deputy Chief Minister. If the Member for Kampong Kembangan fails to understand the objects and aims of the All-Party Committee Report referred to, it is more appropriate that he asks the man who took part in the investigations. The leader of U.M.N.O. who held the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing in the previous Government, had agreed and had become a signatory to the All-Party Committee Report on Chinese Education.

The Member for Kampong Kembangan also mentioned the manner of revitalising Malay education. I believe the Malay Education Council, on which sat many U.M.N.O. members, had submitted a memorandum to the Ministry of Education; I believe one of the members of U.M.N.O. at that time was the Assistant Minister for Education. In the memorandum mention was made of Malay middle schools. The Assistant Minister for Education, who came from U.M.N.O. had promised to build Malay middle schools. But Malay middle schools were not built; instead there were Malay middle classes, using as a medium of instruction the English language, and now known as the Katong Secondary School. I am quite sure that this move satisfied the Malay Education Council as it had Malay U.M.N.O. members in it. If they were dissatisfied with the establishment of Malay middle schools with English as the medium of instruction, why is it that only now they make their dissatisfaction known to the Ministry of Education?

Here it is obvious that the Member for Kampong Kembangan, who is also a member of the Malay Education Council was satisfied. But the P.A.P. Government is fully conscious that the Malay language - as the Malay proverb says - does not want to die but it is hard to live. What was being talked about was the English school. The proof is that the memorandum which was submitted by the Malay Education Council, in practice, meant that the Malay children were to be sent to English schools but not to Malay schools. This shows that the interest of the Malay people was still inclined towards an English education. The Minister for Education in the previous Government himself stated that Malay schools were fit only to produce peons, drivers, and so on. The P.A.P. Government is fully aware that the Malay language is now backward, as I have said just now. Therefore, we are going all out to revitalise the Malay language.

With this revitalising, it does not mean that we are going to curb the English language. The English language is already advanced. But we will put manure on the Malay language and revitalise Malay education. This we have pledged.

On the question of Malay education, the Member for Kampong Kembangan expressed dissatisfaction over the question of scholarship awards. We have explained this matter in our souvenir, the Five-Year Plan of the P.A.P. On page 4, paragraph 3, it is mentioned that scholarships will be given to Malay pupils in order to increase the number of scholarships to Malay children who come from poor families. Government will not only increase the number of scholarships, but will also enhance Malay education.

I also believe that the Member for Kampong Kembangan, on the 8th July, met the Minister for Education in the name of the Malay Education Council; the members of the delegation comprised U.M.N.O. members. The Member himself was one of them. The Minister for Education had stressed the objects and aims of the present Government concerning Malay education. This has been stated in detail, in accordance with the Five-Year Plan, and explained to the delegation from the Malay Education Council. After that the Member for Kampong Kembangan, the leader of the delegation, stated to reporters of Utusan Melayu on 8th July that the Government of Singapore accepted, in good faith, the status of the Malay Education Council. Middle schools would be established in the middle of 1961. This means that the Ministry of Education had given satisfaction to the Malay Education Council, about which the members of the party were given a private conference. I am sure the Malays who read the news in the Utusan Melayu will be satisfied. But I am astounded why the Member for Kampong Kembangan should have raised a hue and cry about the matter.

I believe the Member for Kampong Kembangan wants to make himself prominent among the Malays as a member of a Party which is fighting for the cause of the Malays. On the other hand, they fail to understand that the Malay people of Singapore have awakened to the real cause for which U.M.N.O. has fought, and at the same time, to the policy of the P.A.P.

On the question of religious schools and places of worship, 90 per cent of the adherents of Islam are Malays. For that reason, the Member for Kampong Kembangan is for the Islamic people, by which he means the Malays. I believe the Malay Education Council, which is supported by U.M.N.O. itself, is not truly working as a party for improving or for giving assistance to religious schools or places of worship. I say so because the Government has given assistance to religious schools to the tune of $10 per pupil per year; but because the Malay Education Council did not encourage these religious schools to accept the aid offered by the Government, religious teaching has no proper syllabus, and also religious teachers do not receive proper training. But if the Members of the Malay Education Council, supported by U.M.N.O., had given encouragement to these religious schools to accept Government aid, I am confident religious teaching would have been valued and brought to a good standard, and, at the same time, the religious teachers would have received proper training.

I would also like to draw the attention of Members to the administration of the former City Council. The P.A.P. had given a free supply of water to the mosques within the city area. Does that not go to prove that it is helping the places of worship? I believe the P.A.P. is now aware that the powers of the City Council have been transferred to the Government. Therefore, I believe the programme can be carried through.

Also, on the amendment concerning the followers of Islam, which means the Malays, for the reason that 90 per cent of Islams comprise the Malays, there is mention of a law to curb polygamous marriages. In this connection, the Islamic people have been exempted from the provisions of this law. I am quite sure the members of U.M.N.O. in this Assembly will feel fortunate because the Islamic people have been exempted from this legislation, the Malays being the adherents of Islam.

I believe the Member for Kampong Kembangan dwelt at great length in this Assembly on matters concerning culture, education, religion, etc, as contained in the speech made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I believe the Member is not aware that the speech made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara was based on the Constitution of Singapore, a copy of which was sent to hon. Members. Also in today's edition of Utusan Melayu on page 5, in the lower column, it is mentioned that the P.A.P. is aware of and respects the special position of the Malays. But there are elements which inflame communalism. They will be opposed by the P.A.P. We do not respect blindly, but we respect certain principles, that is to say, principles which are non-communal. I hope the Member for Kampong Kembangan, if he had not read the paper, would do so. He should read Utusan Melayu, page 5, which mentions the principles of the P.A.P., which respect the special rights of the Malays.

4.28 p.m.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Kampong Kembangan is worried because what is in the preamble to the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council has not been specifically included in the speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Naturally, in view of the fact that the Leader on the Government side has said that whatever they have claimed they would do, they would do - if there is no specific mention in the speech - therefore the omission might be regarded as not including the reference to the special position of the Malays as being part of the Government programme. Therefore, I request that this Government should give the assurance that this special position be so recognised. I think this is only proper. We know full well that the Malays as a community have been rather handicapped economically in the past, so that the concept of an egalitarian society, while it may be satisfactory to other communities, arouses, in them fears because they are not equipped economically to compete with their colleagues from the other communities. For instance, when it comes to welfare, whereas in the case of other communities an appeal for funds would evoke successful help from members in those communities, from among the Malays, it is going to be difficult.

I would suggest that one way of giving a definite assurance of their special position is for the Government to create a special education and welfare fund for the Malays so that they can be helped in the early stages to compete successfully and fairly with members from the other communities.

4.30 p.m.

Madam Sahorah Binte Ahmat (Siglap): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, although the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech does not contain the special rights of the Malays, the P.A.P. Government is fully conscious of its responsibilities because the P.A.P. is not making empty promises. We carry out those promises in practice. The Opposition side are always trying to blame the Government. Whatever we do is wrong to them. But they have no consideration and they are not aware of what has been carried out by the past Government in four years. In fact, they know that in the past Government there were representatives from U.M.N.O., for instance, who could speak for them; because the Member for Geylang Serai was in the previous Government, the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, and another member was an Assistant Minister who was also an U.M.N.O. member. But then when they were holding the Ministries they failed to implement policies for the betterment of the Malays which they have raised today. Now, the P.A.P. Government is only one and a half months old. Is it sensible that we can carry out everything during that short period of time? Cannot Opposition Members think of all this? All this requires a long time to carry out because the Members of the Opposition themselves said the Malays have been oppressed for about 140 years. A hundred and forty years' oppression cannot be overcome overnight. Members of the Opposition must think about all this; because the present moment, the Opposition Members must know, is not the time for idle talk but the time for work to improve the State as well as the population of Singapore. We know that the poor masses have been oppressed. The downtrodden have always been oppressed by the upper strata. I hope the Member for Kampong Kembangan will understand that we have made Malay the national language. That is one of the special rights of the Malays. Further, we have carried out the work by employing Malays, for instance, in health departments. We are taking in Malays as assistant nurses and Malay girls as midwives. But in the past, before the previous Government carried out its work, we knew that in the health department they encouraged Malays qualified from Malay schools to become nurses and midwives. But when the previous Government came in for four years, these nurses were replaced by English-educated nurses with the result that the Malay-educated girls were not accepted in the health services. Now we are going back to where we can accept Malays who have passed Standard VII to become nurses and midwives. Is it not one of the ways and means to help the Malays who have always been oppressed?

During the time of the previous Government it was even difficult for the Malays to become peons. They must have Standard VII qualification. The Member for Kampong Kembangan himself knew the sufferings of the Malays who were too poor to afford English education. Only those who could afford were able to receive an English education. The Member for Kampong Kembangan himself should realise what our plans are. We will work straight on, although we may be faced with obstacles, just as a new-born child is. When we were born, we were unable to walk. We must first be educated and when we reach maturity, then only can we do something for the community.

4.37 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendment moved by the Member for Kampong Kembangan on the basis that the Government omitted to mention that it will carry out its policy of safeguarding the special position of the Malays, who are recognised in the constitution as the indigenous people who are in most need of assistance from the Government and to give an assurance of their fate in future.

Mr Speaker, we have heard in this debate that it is not the Government's intention to include, in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, mention of their efforts to put into effect the work of the present self-governing Constitution. I fear the non-inclusion of a positive programme to protect, safeguard and lift up the living conditions of the Malays will give rise to concern among the greater number of the Malay population. Why I say that, Mr Speaker, is based on the time when we negotiated the formulation of our Constitution and the demand by the Malays that the article concerning the special position of the Malays be included in the Constitution. Not only does the Constitution mention the special position of the Malays but it also reiterates that it shall be the responsibility of the Government, whether the P.A.P. Government or any Government, which are carrying out the self-governing of Singapore, to care for and help the livelihood of the Malays in future. By merely mentioning that Malay is to be made the national language, I feel that alone will not create openings or opportunities, or give an assurance to the Malays, who are different from the non-Malays. This is usual amongst the Malays. I admit that some of the Party leaders do not wish to raise communal feelings. We accept that, but what we fear is that amongst the people there are still communal feelings. I say so, Mr Speaker, through experience. We who live in Singapore have seen how the position of the Malays is oppressed and endangered although, from the beginning, their position was more advantageous. But because of the present environment, their position ultimately is hopeless and there is no future for them.

I would like to give an example of how I myself have been inundated with queries in the field of business. A Malay, a Singapore citizen, had established a business on a certain island for over two years and it was quite prosperous. Suddenly, unknowingly, he received a letter from a solicitor compelling him to leave his retail shop, the reason being that the land on which he had his shop was the property of the authorities and that they had refused him permission for the shop to be there. The result was that a non-Malay subsequently established his business at the same place. So the Malay naturally suspected that this was the result of instigation from a certain section. Mr Speaker, that is an example. It is not of my own making but this happened in actual fact and was brought to my notice.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will stand down. The Member will not stand down.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, what I have related to you just now is a fact. I cannot allow the Government to interfere with my speech because it is my right to speak and explain what has come to my knowledge. To further clarify the position, I will bring this matter to the notice of the Government at a later date. Sir, this is one proof-

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, perhaps the Member for the Southern Islands will state the case mentioned by him, the time of the event so that-

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister can rise on a point of order when, in fact, it is not a point of order. It was, I take it, an attempt to elucidate. The Minister, of course, has an opportunity of speaking on the amendment because he has not yet spoken on it.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to further clarify what I have related. I think the Government is under the impression that this is a story of my own creation, but this is a fact and this was conveyed to me in the form of a complaint. However, this matter is still under investigation. This, Mr Speaker, is proof. How do you expect the Malays to live on the same footing and side by side with their brothers in the atmosphere of a self-governing Singapore if there is no specific programme to help the Malays whose position is very much backward as compared to others? So, as I have said just now, we cannot accept the mere promises as have been much talked about in the Five-Year programme of the P.A.P., because we know that what is going on now is based on the Constitution of a self-governing Singapore and not on the basis of the policy of the P.A.P. Therefore, that is why I support the amendment moved by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, to add at the end of the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara at the opening of the First Session of the present Assembly:

"but regret that the speech did not in principle clarify the special position of the Malays...".

Concerning the accusation or abuses about the previous Government not fulfilling this and that for the Malays, I have on numerous occasions stressed this anomaly and we should not look back; but if we really want to consolidate the various communities in Singapore into one unit, we must give special attention to those who are deprived of an opportunity or an atmosphere to live in a spirit of peace and harmony in Singapore.

4.51 p.m.

Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid (Kallang): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have heard the debate on the speech made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. The most heated was the one delivered by the Member for Kampong Kembangan which lasted for more than an hour.

The Member for Kampong Kembangan spoke at great length on the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, as if he was peeling a raw durian. He conveyed his criticisms before moving his amendment regarding the special position of the Malays which is not contained in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. In the past Government in which U.M.N.O. was represented, as I think the people of Singapore all know, particularly the Malays, not a single good thing was done for the Malays. Mr Speaker, in the case of the Southern Islands the representative of U.M.N.O. who I understand was a Member of the previous Government, did nothing for the islanders; but since the People's Action Party formed the Government I think the people of Singapore and the Malays know that, although the special position of the Malays is not mentioned in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, the Ministry of National Development has done what it could to take the necessary action on behalf of the islanders there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for the Southern Islands spoke about Malay becoming the national language. This, he said, does hot benefit the Malays. I think the opinion of the Member concerned is unhealthy. There is a Malay saying which says: If the language lives, so does the nation. Mr Speaker, today the three Malay Members of the Opposition and we the Malays on this side of the House all speak in Malay. This is the policy of the P.A.P., that Malay is the accepted national language. Further, Mr Speaker, Sir, not only is the Malay language accepted by the People's Action Party but the People's Action Party is doing its best to make Malay the national language. For instance, in the Malay kampongs, in trade unions and wherever non-Malays are to be found, the study of Malay as the national language is encouraged. Does this not mean that this will eventually benefit the Malays? Why I say this is because if the non-Malays know the Malay language - and it is easy for Malays to speak or to communicate or to deliver speeches such as we are making today - then there is no need to speak in other languages. We can merely use the Malay language. I think there are opportunities for the Malays in the field of employment, or in any field, with Malay as the national language.

Mr Speaker, Sir, reverting to the Member for Kampong Kembangan on the subject of religion, what are the steps that will be carried out by the P.A.P. Government? I would like to say that the P.A.P. Government, before holding the reins of Government, were in control only of the City Council. The P.A.P. had given free supplies of water to mosques and, at the same time, had built a mosque at the roof-top of the City Council. But, Mr Speaker, when the previous Government was in power - we know that there was a Malay representative in the previous Coalition Government - nothing was done for the betterment of the Malays. I know that in the constituencies of the representatives who are seated on the Opposition Benches - three of them - one representing the Southern Islands, another Geylang Serai, and the third Kampong Kembangan, the Malays predominate. We know that the Malays had two representatives in the previous Government. There was nothing they could do concerning the rights or benefits of the Malays. But now they appear to be fighters for the rights of the Malays. We, of the People's Action Party, do not merely make promises or write words in the Constitution - or for that matter merely put words in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara - not mere words, words which the people listen almost daily and which cannot be implemented. On the contrary, the P.A.P. Government will further its pledges by hard work.

Mr Speaker, I hope the Malays will not be misled by leaders who appear at this moment to fight for the rights of the Malays, but I would ask the Malays to look towards those leaders who have made achievements in the past. We, the P.A.P., will certainly fight for the fate and destiny of the Malays in particular, and that of the whole population of Singapore in general.

Mr Speaker: I propose to suspend until 5.35 p.m. I shall take the Chair again at 5.35 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.03 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

5.37 p.m.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I support the amendment moved by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, but before I speak on it, I wish to explain to this House the clause on the special position of the Malays. We have heard several Members mention that this clause is included in the preamble only. The fact is that apart from the preamble, it is also in the operative section of the Constitution.

Mr Speaker, the reason why we, from U.M.N.O., propose this amendment is because of the feeling of concern which exists in the hearts of the Malays in Singapore. We have seen the behaviour of the P.A.P. towards the Malays during the election and the week following the election. When the P.A.P. emerged victorious in the general elections, the supporters of the P.A.P. throughout Singapore in lorry loads threw fire-crackers into the compounds of Malay houses. This was directed towards the Malays, particularly Malay women. This is one of the reasons which prompted us to move the amendment. It is not because we think that the special position of the Malays is a communal issue, although in this House we have been accused by the Government that we from the Opposition, especially U.M.N.O., are fanning communalism in Singapore. This is completely untrue, Mr Speaker. I regret to see that the political atmosphere at this moment in Singapore is so keyed up that when we, from U.M.N.O., mention the word "Malay" we are accused of being communalists. We should like to explain that although we are from the Opposition, we will definitely work with any quarter so long as it brings good to and betterment of conditions for the Malays and to the population as a whole.

Just now, Mr Speaker, the Member for Anson stated that the P.A.P. Government did not believe in words, as did the previous Government which made promises, but never fulfilling them. The Member for Anson also stated that the previous Government was a colonial government and that it included British members who received directives from the British Government. On the one hand, therefore, he said that we were not fulfilling our pledges, and, on the other hand, he stated that we had no power because the Constitution was so drafted that British colonial interests were represented. And the question asked by many Members of the Government was - what had the previous Government done for the benefit of the Malays in Singapore? Mr Speaker, here we must take note of the fact that the previous Government under the Rendel Constitution could be said to be a Government which had no power, in the true sense of the word. The then Government was without the powers that the present Government has today. In spite of it, we did many things for the benefit of the Malays on this island, although the Rendel Constitution at that time made no mention whatsoever about the position of the Malays. The previous Government had discharged its responsibilities for the welfare and interest of the Malays. I would like to mention some of them. Firstly, the expansion of Malay settlements. Secondly, aid to the schools in the kampongs. Thirdly, bursaries for Malay children in secondary schools. Fourthly, the creation of religious courts and, fifthly, the establishment of a home for the Islamic women in Singapore. These, in brief, are some of the things we did for the Malay people. On the other hand, Mr Speaker, the Member for Anson said that during the first one and a half months since the P.A.P. came into power, the P.A.P. had carried out many programmes which he said had helped the position of the Malays in Singapore. One of them was the appointment of a Malay as Chairman of the Public Service Commission. That is true, but that does not mean that by appointting a Malay as Chairman of the Public Service Commission it constitutes an assurance that the Malays would get more jobs in the Government. The Member for Anson also said that the P.A.P. Government has recognised Malay as the national language. I take my hat off for this. But we from U.M.N.O., Mr Speaker, not only do we want Malay to be recognised as the national language, but, at the same time, we want Malay to be the sole official language. Therefore, our stand is opposed to that of the P.A.P. As the Indonesians would say "Tidak akor" - "Not in line with."

The Member for Anson also stated "Language reflects the nation." But I would like to ask, within the context of the present debate, what nation would the Malay language reflect? A Member from the Government Bench also stated that during the period when I myself was Minister for Local Government. Lands and Housing, I had neglected the appeals made by the Malays, especially concerning Malay secondary schools. In this connection, I would like to state that the previous Government came to an agreement with the Malay Education Council whereby in 1961. Malay secondary schools would be erected. They would have been built earlier, but for the re-oriented education policy of the pre-Rendel Constitution Government. What was promised by the Minister for Education to the Malay Education Council is not a new promise. But the present Minister for Education is merely implementing or carrying out decisions reached by the previous Government.

Further, I was accused that when the previous Government set up Malay settlements, it was always the rich Malays who got them. To my mind, Mr Speaker, there are no Malays who are rich in Singapore. But on the one hand, concerning the distribution of land in the Malay settlements, it was a matter which was carried out by a Committee appointed by the Government, on which many Members sat. The distribution of land was therefore not the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to stress again that the amendment which we have moved is not based on communalism but purely on the basis of the Constitution of the State which we, U.M.N.O., in participation with the P.A.P. and other political Parties, are responsible.

In conclusion, I would not say that it is a warning - the Government must not neglect the special position of the Malays in Singapore. That is all, and I hope that they would be very careful in implementing that part of the Constitution.

5.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I oppose and protest against the amendment. Only those who are short-sighted need a lamp when they are walking in broad daylight. We have repeatedly stated that the P.A.P. Government will not oppose the Constitution, which is at present in force, and in which is stipulated the special position of the Malays. But if we make a careful analysis, we will see that this refers not only to the special position of the Malays, because in principle tile preamble to the Constitution also mentions that it is the responsibility of any Government of Singapore to look after the interests and to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote the rights of the other minorities. There should be the rights of the minorities, in particular, the Malays as they are the indigenous people of this island and are in most need of assistance. Therefore, this recognition, if we study it carefully, means that the position of the Malays is equal to that of the other minorities. However, the P.A.P. Government, in all sincerity, recognises and will protect the special position of the Malays, if at all it can be regarded as a special position.

Mr Speaker, as mentioned in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on the special position of the Malays, this can be compared to a man who has been married before a priest but without throwing a feast or function. However. the fact remains that it is not the function that solemnises the marriage. What legalises the marriage is the solemnisation performed by the priest. Therefore, it is clear that the special rights of the Malays are not being set aside by the P.A.P. Government. But, on the other hand, the matter has already been included in the Constitution; therefore, there is no necessity for this matter to be repeated. As the Malay saying goes, "In spite of the fact that it is broad daylight, you still want light." Only those people who are blind need a lamp. There is a Malay proverb which says that there are two ways of life. One way is to live like a hen which lays one egg but makes a lot of noise throughout the kampong. But there is another way of life, and that is to dedicate oneself and be like the turtle which quietly lays hundreds of eggs. I would not say this to the Opposition Members. But as the Malay proverb says, "If you spit towards the sky, the saliva will fall on your own face."

Since I became the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development, Mr Speaker, (this matter concerns the special rights of the Malays) - a house which was constructed illegally was ordered to be demolished. A leader from a certain political Party telephoned me to ask for help, so that the house would not be demolished. When I said that we are working on the Constitution, he asked me where then are the special rights of the Malays? I told him that if a man is found guilty of murder and will be hanged, will he then ask where are the special rights of the Malays?

I would like to stress here, as a Member of the Government, that the special rights will not be exploited by political opportunists for their own interests. But these will be used by the P.A.P. in the interest of the people of the whole of Singapore who have been oppressed and in most need of help.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I want to speak as long as the Member for Kampong Kembangan did - he took one and a half hours - I think I am also prepared to debate twice that length of time. But it is a sheer waste of time. We are at an important stage - fighting for the destiny of the people who have been oppressed for more than a century. In the meantime, it is proper for me to give our reply indirectly to the criticisms levelled by the Opposition that those who have been misled will not be misled further. There are people who say-the Malay Education Council was mentioned-that the special position of the Malays was not mentioned by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in his speech. I think the memorandum submitted by the Malay Education Council had already been accepted by the previous Government in the year 1957. After that the memorandum was "frozen" for about two years. If you study it carefully, this will hit the faces of the Opposition Members because the fact that the memorandum was belatedly implemented after 1957 meant that thousands of Malay pupils who passed Standard VII became the victims of the orientation policy which wanted to make English the national language on this island. Mr Speaker, I think the Member for Kampong Kembangan became a member of the Malay Education Council only recently. But as a founder member of the Malay Education Council (I was there for about 3½ years), I know the ins and outs of what happened in the Malay Education Council; this was contained in the memorandum submitted to the Government.

The principle of the memorandum of the Malay Education Council was accepted by the Government of which the Member for Cairnhill was a Member. The principle was accepted but the substance was nothing; if in English schools or in Chinese schools or in Indian schools, which had science as a subject and so on, in Malay schools the text books were still telling folk-tales to make the Malays believe in spirits and ghosts and so on. For those reasons, the word "revitalising" mentioned in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara means that the tree which is withering will be given new manure by the P.A.P. Government so that it will grow, and live in the true sense of the word. Mr Speaker, similarly, the All-Party Report on Chinese Education might probably shock the Member for Kampong Kembangan if he had really read its contents, because it touched on the entire educational system - Chinese, Malay and Indian.

There is no need for fear. Only those who are afraid of their own shadows need fear, because they refuse to see what those shadows are. Mr Speaker, I feel there is no necessity to make a lengthy reply but we will give him an opportunity to return and study the memorandum which was submitted by the Malay Education Council and subsequently make a detailed study of what the Government has carried out. Then he will find out that the present Government is still having religious subjects taught in Malay schools. This will not leave any doubts in the mind of the Member for Kampong Kembangan.

Then the Member for Kampong Kembangan touched on the question of communal cultures. It is clear that so long as national identity has not been agreed upon, the problem of communal cultures will arise. With this view in mind the P.A.P. Government is establishing a sense of national identity among the various races who have an undivided allegiance to this country - with one national language and with one undivided allegiance to this country. Mr Speaker, the Member for Kampong Kembangan always asked about the assurance of the present Government towards the Malays. I feel that as I am also a Malay there is no need to press for it and demand it in words. But to practise it, as a Malay, who is fully aware of the position, we as a backward race, must fight together for our rights. The P.A.P. Government is ready to help and give any kind of assistance at any time, but not for the sake of a small segment of the people. Help will be given only on matters which will be of benefit to the people as a whole.

About communalism, the National Language Congress in Malaya has decided upon a slogan that "Language reflects the nation." If the P.A.P. has accepted Malay as the national language, then it follows automatically that the slogan "Language reflects the nation" shows that the people of Singapore are heading towards that direction. But unfortunately, the fear expressed by the Member for Kampong Kembangan is that once the non-Malay teachers have become fluent and have mastered the Malay language, they will rob the position of the Malay teachers. Then how do things stand? To learn Malay is wrong. Not to learn Malay is also wrong. And all that we do is wrong.

Mr Speaker, let me explain whether it is true that the previous Government did, in fact, improve the lot of the Malays. Let me give one figure concerning teachers. In 1955 the total Malay schools in Singapore was 63. The teachers totalled 519. But four years later the total number of schools was 69. The teachers totalled 589. This included the head teachers or principals and not the ordinary teachers. Comparatively speaking, during those four years only six more schools were established. That means that only 1½ schools were erected in a year. Is this the interpretation of the term "construction"? It is up to the Opposition Members to think about this.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Kampong Kembangan stated that the Malay Chamber of Commerce had already received an assurance from the Government that it would receive help from the Government, to the tune of $13,000,000 - so it was said. I think this is more than enough. This form of help did not come about from the previous Government. It is no use crowing at the top of our voices when the day has still to dawn.

Another point. This is the view of the Malays as a whole. Not all Malays are in favour of Malay settlements. There are Malays who do not like the idea of Malay settlements because if the Malays are provided with separate settlements, on their existing conditions of livelihood and having regard to the political processes, multi-storey buildings which will be erected and skyscrapers, Malay settlements will eventually become zoos. This I think is not profitable; neither does it enhance the prestige of the Malays. What the present Government should do is to have low-cost houses. Then give an opportunity to all the Malays to rent or buy outright these low-cost houses. In this way, Mr Speaker, I think we can live in harmony and side by side with all the races in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to mention the question of promotion, because there are many writers who have said that a State will be prosperous and advanced only if a just Government is found and the officers are efficient. If it is only in the interests of a few individuals to whom we give top positions despite the fact that they are inefficient, it means that that State will collapse totally.

Referring to compulsory voting as stated by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, I do not want to mention this matter because it is a thing of the past. They protested vehemently but the vehement protest had no meaning in the past Assembly. On this I cannot say. It is up to him if he still wants to continue protesting against compulsory voting.

Concerning the special rights for the Malays, one thing I am still in doubt is what the Member for Kampong Kembangan said to the effect that in Malaya itself there is no nationhood. This shows the ignorance of the Member for Kampong Kembangan on political developments, because in Malaya there is a national identity. Only the name has not been known. The outlook is composed of the various races and the allegiance is straight to the Federation of Malaya. Only it has not been named whether it is Malaysian, Malayan or what.

Concerning matters which have caused fear and the mass meeting held by the P.A.P. to introduce their successful candidates, the meeting overflowed with symbols which could not be understood by the Malays. I would like to say that these slogans were not made by the P.A.P. but they were presented by P.A.P. supporters during our election campaigns. Therefore, this matter should not give cause for concern. If a man eats with fork and spoon it does not mean that he is not a Malay. If he does not wear a sarong, it does not mean that he is not a Malay. The Member for the Southern Islands has no faith in the P.A.P. Five-Year Programme, but in the Constitution. That is according to what the Member said. I would like to stress that the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is not constitutional either as a speech. The speech was prepared to be in line with the policy contained in the Five-Year plan. Therefore, the Constitution will be upheld by the present P.A.P. Government.

The Member for Geylang Serai, unfortunately, is not here now. He mentioned P.A.P. supporters firing crackers and causing frights. It is possible that the enemies of the P.A.P. were taking the opportunity to create dissension and break up racial unity among the Malays, Chinese, Indians and others. But the Member for Geylang Serai should remember that they are not the people who are holding the reins of Government. We are the formulators of policy.

I think the promises to expand Malay settlements, to provide scholarships. Malay middle schools and assistance to religious schools and to establish religious courts and buildings for Islamic women, were made as a piece of propaganda, when the previous Government was up to its neck in water, in order to win the hearts of the Malays with a view to winning the elections. But the promised Malay settlements are still in chaos and disorder. No Malay schools can be seen, and there are no signs of Government assistance to religious schools. Religious courts are still not functioning properly. The building for the women is still in the same state of affairs. What is there to be proud of?

The policy of U.M.N.O. is to make Malay the sole official language. The P.A.P. does not wish to crow about its achievements. I said just now, if we build a big building on a weak foundation, it will collapse. Although Malay has become the national language, it s not possible to implement it in the true sense of the word. Although Malay is recognised as the national language in the Federation of Malaya the English language is still to be used for another ten years. Therefore, the P.A.P. Government do not wish to "thump their chests" and make a hue and cry about their achievements. But what we are engaged in now is to make each and every citizen in Singapore understand the national language so that Malay will automatically become the official language.

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to waste time unnecessarily. I do not wish to take up time which should really be spent on dedication to the people but there are still people who hide behind their own "fingers".

6.19 p.m.

The Minister for Health (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, it seems that I stand here today to give positive replies on behalf of the Government of Singapore - concerning the amendment of the Member for Kampong Kembangan. Mr Speaker, I do not wish to comment in detail on what has been debated by the Members - particularly the Member for Kampong Kembangan, the Member for the Southern Islands and the Member for Geylang Serai - and I think there is no need for me to mention the Member for Tanglin because apparently the hon. Member does not know what has been debated in this House.

I think, Mr Speaker, the amendment moved by the Member for Kampong Kembangan should not have been moved, for then at least the debate on it would not have taken so much of our time if the Member had really understood the aims or principles of the Party in power in Singapore. I would merely like to ask the Member for Kampong Kembangan whether he is still uncertain that what is already contained in the preamble to the Constitution of Singapore will not be implemented by the P.A.P. Government or will come into conflict with what the Member for Kampong Kembangan has in mind. On behalf of the Government, we would much prefer the Member to put forward his doubts in the form of a questionnaire seeking clarification whether this Government has neglected the special position of the Malays, a provision that is contained in the new Singapore Constitution. I do not wish to discuss this at great length as the Opposition Members have done. We are unable to grasp the substance of their speeches and therefore I would like the Member for Kampong Kembangan to express his doubts openly rather than be long-winded. We fail to understand what he really wants. I believe since he made his speech last Friday, the Member has failed to show to the Government the weaknesses or the mistakes of the Government for failing to implement what is stipulated in the Constitution. I think the Member for Kampong Kembangan has wide political experience and surely he knows that what we are implementing is for the benefit of all the people of Singapore. He himself has had occasion to see me outside this Assembly and I gave him an assurance that the criticism made by a certain section of the Malay population during electioneering that there were Malays who were instruments of the P.A.P. is not true. I stand here today to speak on behalf of the Government, which holds the reins of power, and say that we are not its tools or instruments. We are out to champion the cause of society as a whole in Singapore, including our responsibilities towards the Malays who live in Singapore.

On the question of education and promotions, I think there is no need for me to comment on such matters as these have been dealt with by the Malay Members on the Government side. But I would like to clarify to the Member the matter concerning promotions and the creation of a quota system for the Malays in Government service. I feel the Member himself should know that with reference to the new Singapore Constitution, the U.M.N.O. representative, the Hon. Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat, who was the Deputy Chief Minister of the previous Government and who also claimed to represent the Malays of Singapore, participated in the negotiations held in London. I think the hon. Member should understand that a quota system for the Malays was not even mentioned in the new Constitution. I know that he is a man not lacking in political experience, and I regard him as a man who understands the wishes and aspirations of the Malay people. At that time, he failed to bring up matters which are only now being brought up by the Member for Kampong Kembangan. The Member for Kampong Kembangan himself must remember that his colleague, the Member for the Southern Islands, stated that this Government must carry out its duties according to the new Singapore Constitution. On behalf of the Government, therefore, I ask him and his colleagues to point out to us in what way we have carried out our responsibilities and duties outside the framework of the present Constitution. I challenge the Member who moved the amendment and his colleagues to deny that the P.A.P. Government is not prepared to accept the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya in its entirety. Once the question of merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya is achieved, then the question of religion, special rights for the Malays, and other matters can be resolved. Why I say that is because not long ago we heard that only a certain political party in Singapore represented by the Member for Kampong Kembangan can bring about a fusion between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. In this matter, the P.A.P. Government are not reluctant, and it is not a question of compromise. If at any time the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya is brought about, we will fully abide by the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya.

Therefore, I feel, Mr Speaker, if we come here to debate without a specific purpose, we are wasting the time of both the Government and the Opposition; we are wasting precious time that can be spent on work - more work, less talk. If we sincerely do more work, we can perhaps implement the suggestions which the Opposition has made, and also those that the Government has already planned.

In his speech just now, the Member for Kampong Kembangan and also his colleagues, stated this is not a communal issue. They said that it was not their intention to stir up communal feelings. It is good if that is their true intention, and I respect it. But I regret that I heard differently. Of course, when we were in the Opposition, we heard little about communal politics, but today with the advent of a new Government we have heard news about communal politics which have given us cause for concern. On behalf of the Government, I say that we are prepared at any time to give any kind of help and support to all sections of the population who, we think, need help. I think the Member for Kampong Kembangan knows better than I do that there is a difference in the ideologies of the old and the present Governments. We, as a Party of socialists, constantly give thought to all sections of the people of Singapore - those who owe undivided allegiance to this country - and we are fully responsible to these people, including the Malays. If the Member for Kampong Kembangan will take a little trouble to study the programme of the present Government which has been in existence for only six weeks, he will see that employment and also the grant of public assistance from the Social Welfare Department are confined only to Singapore citizens. I also heard from one of the Opposition Members that the field of employment is open to non-citizens of Singapore. If I am not mistaken, the great majority of those working in the military establishments are people who are non-citizens. But I think the Member for Kampong Kembangan knows that this is a problem bequeathed to us by the colonialists, and today the forces of colonialism are still hard at work to split the various races because that is the only way to perpetuate and strengthen their position in South-East Asia. Regarding the countries which have attained independence, I heard the Member for Kampong Kembangan often stirringly mention burying colonialism. Is such a belief the true expression of the Member for Kampong Kembangan?

I think the internal problems of Singapore can only be solved by holding meetings or negotiations and by compromise. At the beginning when the Member for Kampong Kembangan moved his amendment, he told us of his doubts, and he made this Chamber a forum in which to air his views which I think are outside the scope of the amendment.

As I said just now, Mr Speaker, I do not wish to take up a lot of your time, but I would ask the Member to give details of those of our actions which he thinks are in conflict with what has been stipulated in the Constitution of Singapore. We, of the Government of Singapore, under the guidance of the Prime Minister, are sure that each and every Member of the Government, Parliamentary Secretaries. Members of the Assembly, will fully support suggestions that are in the interests of the people, especially the Malays. The P.A.P. during the election campaign went far to stress the special position of the Malays. It knows that 70 to 80 per cent of the electorate are Chinese and we are prepared to implement all that has been stipulated in the Constitution regarding the special position of the Malays. Though this is not a problem of direct concern to the Chinese population, which is in the majority, they nevertheless elected us to the Assembly.

On the subject of the special position of the Malays, the Opposition Member should seriously consider whether he is sincere and honest in moving his amendment to the motion. The Government is willing to carry out not only what was promised during the elections and also what is contained in the Constitution. The amendment therefore moved by the Member for Kampong Kembangan cannot be accepted, as the P.A.P. Government will definitely put into effect this provision of the Constitution of Singapore.

6.40 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking on the amendment. As I see it, the amendment moved by the Member for Kampong Kembangan is not a criticism of the Government of what it has done. It has had precious little opportunity of doing anything for the Malays yet. What it has done so far has been of startling importance to some people, but not to the Malay community in particular. What the Member for Kampong Kembangan is concerned with, Mr Speaker, is paragraph 4 of the preamble to the Constitution which sets out the special position of the Malays in the State of Singapore. The preamble (inter alia) states that:

"it shall be the deliberate and conscious policy of the Government of Singapore at all times to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of the Island and are in most need of assistance,".

In a plural society, Mr Speaker, such as ours and in such a society as ours which believes in parliamentary democracy, it is, I submit, implicit in that form of Government that the minorities living within that State will be given protection. Therefore, it seems to me, with that implication in a parliamentary democracy, that it was unnecessary to set out in the preamble to the Constitution the special position of the Malays unless it had been intended that the Malays should enjoy something more than minorities in a parliamentary democracy could expect. Is it small wonder then that the Member for Kampong Kembangan is somewhat worried that the Government in its policy speech has not seen fit to say something about the special position of the Malays? Nobody has accused the Government of having done anything against the Malays or any other minority. Everyone believes and hopes that the Government will be fair to all the minorities living in the State. But what is important from the point of view of the Member for Kampong Kembangan is that the first policy speech under the Constitution does not touch upon a very vital principle enunciated in the Constitution. Then, Mr Speaker, Sir, it becomes a matter of some concern for the Member for Kampong Kembangan.

The Prime Minister: Come, come!

Mr Rajah: When the delegation from Singapore went to the United Kingdom to negotiate a constitution with the British Government, it took with it representatives of the then Opposition, as well as the Government, and in that group was a person no other than our Prime Minister himself who, as the House knows, is a constitution expert. This provision then was inserted with his consent, knowledge and full approval, and yet when he has now become the Prime Minister under the new Constitution he has failed to even in passing mention this provision of the preamble in the policy speech. All that the Member for Kampong Kembangan wants is an assurance from the Government that paragraph 4 of the preamble to the Constitution has some meaning in the State of Singapore.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 38; Absent, 6. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Haji Jumat. Baharuddin bin Ahmad Jabri bin Mohamed Ariff. Mohammad Akib. Bani, S. T. Lim Yew Hock. Buang bin Omar Junid. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Byrne, K. M. Rajah, A.P. Chan Chee Seng. Seow Peck Leng, Chan Choy Siong, Mrs. Miss. Thio Chan Bee. Chan Sun Wing. Chor Yeok Eng. Abstention. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Nil. Goh Keng Swee. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Absent. Kandasamy, G. Goh Chew Chua. Lee Khoon Choy. C. H. Koh. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cheng Lock. Lee Siew Choh. Lingam, S. V. Lee Teck Him. Mammen, John. Leong Keng Seng. Tan Cheng Tong. Lin You Eng. Low Por Tuck. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ng Teng Kian. Ong Chang Sam. Ong Eng Guan. Ong Pang Boon. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Speaker: The amendment therefore falls. We are now back to the main Question which is:

That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to:-

"We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present session of this Assembly."'

The debate will continue on the main Question. Hon. Members, of course, will know that they should not now touch on the special position of the Malays. That has been disposed of.

6.59 p.m.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the world of make-believe, for instance, in the state of Ruritania, Arcadia of Utopia, money and wealth are created not by the toil and efforts of men, but by the timely appearance of fairies or fairy-godmothers. In such a happy state, Sir, Finance Ministers can often be the most popular of persons, for he will not be faced with the very grim problems of the real world in which we find ourselves today. I make this introduction to my remarks for a very good reason. Previously, I had to exhort the Members of the Opposition to try to distinguish between the form and substance of democracy. Now, I have to ask them to make an effort to distinguish between fantasy and reality. For instance, Sir, the Member for Mountbatten thought that the way out of our present financial difficulty, which we inherited from the past Government, was for some financial expert to bring about a tremendous expansion in trade and industry, of such an order of magnitude that within six months we shall be able to collect extra taxes to cover up our deficit. Sir, what the Member for Mountbatten really was asking for is not for an economic expert or a financial expert, but she is asking for fairy godmothers to come along to our little island and bring about this sudden transformation. Any serious government that tried to pass on the responsibility of solving problems of budgetary imbalance to industry would surely be greeted with derision, and quite rightly so, by private industry.

Then again, Sir, you may recall the speech of the Member for Tanglin. I remember that speech very well, because it came at the end of a somewhat tiring day and the Member for Tanglin regaled us with a hilarious account of the fine art of financial mismanagement. He was strongly of the opinion that the deficit, to which Government drew attention, was not a real one but "a threatened deficit", in his own words. I think I may best reply to his words of scepticism by using the analogy which he drew before the House.

He drew a picture of the Government as a ship of State with the captain and crew on one side of the House and presumably the passengers on the other side. Now, Sir, let us imagine before our eyes a situation in which the captain and the crew had detected a leak in the ship. Water is pouring in and the ship is sinking slowly but steadily. We inform the Member for Tanglin that the ship is sinking. Something must be done; the leak must be plugged and water must be baled out. The Member for Tanglin will then say that the ship is not sinking. It is only threatening to sink. "Let us wait until we are really sunk before we take action." Now, Sir, in the world of fantasy, when the ship sinks, no doubt fairies will descend from above and rescue both crew and passengers from their awful predicament. But in the real world, if you follow the advice of the Member for Tanglin, you will die.

Then we have the Member for Cairnhill whom I had previously congratulated on his capacity for survival. Now, far from being grateful for this compliment, he proceeded to attack me, my colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, and the Deputy Speaker, in no uncertain manner. One of his points of criticism was that the Government had acted with undue haste. Now, the Member for Cairnhill might have forgotten that the speed and the decisive way in which we had to carry out our measures was due entirely to the spendthrift and prodigal way in which his Government had run through the financial reserves of the country. Both the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Tanglin had suggested that when you have to carry out a measure of this nature to reduce salaries, to carry out some painful operation, humanity might demand that you do it in gradual stages. Well, Sir, that may be a matter of opinion. I myself think that if you have to do something unpleasant, the best method would be to do it quickly and get done with it. For instance, Sir, if you were to have a tooth extracted and it has been suggested that the more humane method would be to extract it in slow stages, I am sure you would take violent objection to that advice-

Mr Speaker: I would call the dentist to order!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Now, Members of the Opposition have put forward various proposals for minimising the unpleasantness which was occasioned by the threatened budget deficit. But all that it really amounts to is this, Sir. Let other people shoulder the burden. Let other people face the consequences. Let other people pay the extra taxes or suffer the loss of income. Although they might have clothed it in elusive parliamentary language, that was in fact the substance of their proposals.

Sir, a few days ago I received a letter from a teacher in a Chinese middle school and he put his proposal in a more honest and direct form. He said that he fully supported the Government's reduction of allowances for civil servants, but that since teachers were not civil servants those reductions should not apply to them and would I therefore direct the Treasury to restore these variable allowances? But the main charge which the Member for Cairnhill levelled against me and my colleagues was that we, as former trade union leaders in the Council of Joint Action, had gone back against our colleagues, and that was in his mind a very bad thing to do. Now, this point of view may be believed in some quarters, because the Government trade unionists who have organised themselves into a group to protest against the reduction in variable allowances have assumed a unique name - and that is the Council of Joint Action.

Now, Sir, Shakespeare once asked: "What is in a name?" And he thought there was not much to it because a rose smells as sweet by any other name. But Shakespeare lived before the days of mass production and branded goods. A name today is a most important thing because it symbolises certain features and certain attributes. It has certain emotional ties and connotations in the public mind. It is, therefore, necessary for me now to give a brief history of the Council of Joint Action. I refer to the original and genuine concern, not the counterfeit organisation that seems to have been set up today.

The Council of Joint Action was established in the year 1952, when the then Government with the encouragement of the Member for Tanglin decided to grant family allowances to expatriate officers and deny them to the local officers. The union officials, the union members and indeed all local Government employees thought that this was discrimination of the worst kind, and accordingly they grouped together to lodge before the Government a claim for similar treatment. It was at that moment that my colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, and my other colleague, the Deputy Speaker, and I myself were given the honour of leading the movement. Now, Sir, when we led this Council of Joint Action we had as our immediate objective the abolition of discrimination between the expatriate officer and the local officer. I stress this was only the immediate objective because there are important and basic longterm issues involved. We knew that this discrimination was only one manifestation of the injustices and the indignities which a Colonial system imposes on a subject people. We, therefore, regarded the struggle for family allowances as the opening battle for the destruction of Colonial authority in Singapore. It was as important as that.

Now, perhaps I may digress for a moment here to refer to a statement made by my colleague some time ago - that while he was leading the staff unions in the past, he was not moved by political considerations. May I hasten to add that what he meant by "political considerations" was Party political considerations? The basic inspiration of the Council of Joint Action was political in the sense that we regarded that as the first blow to be delivered by us against Colonial authority.

We were then civil servants and what we campaigned for was contrary to all the rules of the civil service. We knew that if we failed we most certainly would have to face dire retribution from the colonial authority. That we were prepared to do. And may I interpose at this stage to say that if the present organisers of the Council of Joint Action have any similar intentions to mount a campaign against this Government, they may well bear in mind what the ultimate consequences will be and whether they are prepared to meet them. Coming back to history, Mr Speaker, in that campaign, our basic strategy was the mobilisation of the daily-rated labourers and the Division IV employees behind this movement. These are your source of strength and these are your Panzer Divisions, and it was with their support that we succeeded in our fight against the colonial government; and in the course of that fight my colleague the Minister for Labour and Law did, in fact, fall foul of General Orders and was put under a disciplinary charge, though happily nothing came out of it.

Now, Sir, the next stage of this movement within the civil service unions to break up colonial authority took place during the Malayanisation Commission, and here I cannot say much because I did not personally take part in it, being away on study leave; but everybody knows the valiant and courageous part which my colleague the Minister for Labour and Law took in this campaign. Viewed from the perspective of history, the first campaign mounted by the Council of Joint Action paved the way for the knockout blow at the Malayanisation Commission. Make no mistake about it. When we started the campaign for family allowances, we did so with an objective much greater than allowances to Government employees. What was at stake was the right of the British to govern here and we disputed that right and used this issue to pressure the colonial officials in the first stage and, during the Malayanisation Commission, to break up their will to govern in this country. There was no doubt that their will to govern was destroyed as the result of the exposures which took place during the Malayanisation Commission.

Now, Sir, all that is past history but I do wish to inform the public of the underlying strategic considerations which moved us in the course of our lengthy campaigns against the Government. I do so because I want to emphasise the difference between an organisation of Government unions which we had the privilege to lead and which was based not on immediate selfish gain but on a political ideal and a long-term political objective. The present group of union leaders have attempted to mislead the public into believing that they too are fighting for a principle - the principle of negotiation or the principle of collective bargaining - and they seem to have bamboozled Members of the Opposition into believing that, in fact, the issues are such. Now, Sir, nothing can be further from the truth. Government has at no time closed the door on negotiations. We had to act swiftly in the early stages of the negotiations on pay cuts because the unions had abdicated their duty to negotiate. They asked for an adjournment of one month - a request which in the circumstances was clearly unacceptable. Since then, they have formed themselves into a body outside the scope of the Whitley machinery and have run away altogether from the conference table. It is not the Government which refuses to negotiate but the unions, and the responsibility for the present state of affairs must rest solely and squarely upon them.

In case, Sir, the present union leaders entertain any ideas that they will mount a campaign against the Government for the restoration of variable allowances or for the recognition of the right to negotiate - a right which has never been disputed by the Government - as effective as did the original Council of Joint Action, may I draw their attention to certain differences between the situation then existing and the situation now? Now, Sir, modesty forbids me to draw any comparison as to the quality of the leadership then and now, but I think I may quite fairly bring attention to the difference in the quality of the adversaries. In the first Council of Joint Action, one of our problems was to assess the strength of our adversary - and this is always a prudent thing to do when you square up for a scrap - and although the colonial system in 1952 appeared immensely strong on the surface, yet we detected certain cracks and weaknesses in the walls-

An hon. Member: As in the Polytechnic!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: -and we judged that the colonial officials - the Governors, the colonial secretaries and the full hierarchy of European officials-knew that the time was not far off when they had to abdicate their power. It was therefore possible to mount an effort to pressure them. Now, Sir, if the present Council of Joint Action are thinking of mounting a sustained effort against the present Government, may I remind them that they will not be facing a colonial government on its way out but a people's government on the ascendancy and this Government will not abdicate its authority to govern?

Now, in the matter of relations between employer and trade unions, this Government - as indeed any other Government - finds itself in a dual role. The Government is not only an employer but also a Government, and therefore there are special considerations, which prevail in the relations between the Government and the unions of Government employees. On the one hand, there should be between the Government and the unions of employees far more elaborate forms of negotiation and consultation than can be expected to exist in private industry. In Government, we have the system of the Whitley Council which this Government has pledged its support during the campaign. Now these rather elaborate forms of employer-employee relationships are necessary in Government because the right of unions of Government employees in regard to industrial action is somewhat limited. There are reserved categories of Government employees who are not even permitted to be members of unions. Those members who are permitted to participate in trade union activity are limited in a number of important respects and this is necessary because when the unions of employees take industrial action against the Government, it is more than an ordinary trade dispute, because quite often there can be political issues arising from such a dispute - issues which Members of the Opposition have not been hesitant to take advantage of.

Now, Sir, I wish to end with a forecast as to the future trend of wages and salaries in this country. Until now it has been the practice in our civil service to pay similar salaries and allowances to officers regardless of whether they are expatriate or local, other than of course for the expatriate allowances which certain expatriate officers draw. This is a situation brought about largely by the efforts of the Council of Joint Action. It is a tenable position - indeed it is the only position possible when you have large numbers of expatriate officers working in a colonial system; for under such circumstances the local officer must surely resent any difference in pay for the same work done between himself and his expatriate colleague. Now, as a result of this, our salary scales have been linked with salary scales in a much wealthier country than Singapore, namely, the United Kingdom, and this has been regarded as the normal state of affairs, whereas ordinary common sense would inform us that this is surely a most abnormal situation, because your rate of pay in a country must be related to the wealth of the country, not to the wealth of countries far away and with a much more developed economy. If the reduction in variable allowances has succeeded in bringing to local Government officers a sense of reality, I think it will have served a most valuable purpose.

7.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr Chan Sun Wing): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Deputy Prime Minister's motion. I thank the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for having read, on behalf of the P.A.P. Government, the policy statement the drafting of which he took no part. I thank him too for using the national language - Malay - instead of English, in reading this historic statement.

Mr Speaker, the leaders of my Party and my many colleagues have made very detailed elaborations and elucidations on the policy statement which sets down what the Government will do in the next five years. I do not intend to indulge in repetitions. What I intend to do is to discuss this historic statement from an other angle, something which you may find refreshing.

Mr Speaker, as you already know, the whole world, especially those who are close to the West, are very concerned over a problem, namely, the problem of survival of parliamentary democracy in Singapore.

Singapore has a fully elected legislature and a self government modelled on western parliamentary democracy, or rather British parliamentary democracy. The people of Singapore have put the P.A.P. into power through elections to the Legislative Assembly. It is their hope that this Legislature will be unlike the previous Legislature of the Rendel constitution era which is a deception. The people of Singapore have had their numerous demands made articulate in our election programme and policy statements during the period of elections. And the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech is based on the programme and the policy statements. Consequently, whether this Legislature is going to succeed will depend on the Government's ability lo carry out the policy statement. Mr Speaker, this is all very clear as you can see it for yourself. If the P.A.P. can within the next five years achieve the targets and aims contained in the policy statement, thereby bringing about a more just society, then the experiment of parliamentary democracy can ever hope to succeed. If in the next five years the P.A.P. did not do what they proposed to do, then parliamentary democracy would, in the eyes of the people of Singapore, be an illusion and bankrupt.

Mr Speaker, the Members seated on the opposite benches have always been styling themselves as representatives of democracy, or democracy fighters. But as you can see, there is none among them who possesses a Chinese education background. Imagine these people defending democracy in the predominantly Chinese city of Singapore!

Mr Speaker, the old colonial Government and the Lim Yew Hock Government used to dub all those Chinese youths who were discontented and who tried to demolish the status quo as Communists or their fellow-travellers. This is fallacious. If the Government persists in the old attitude towards the discontented Chinese youths and workers, then I have no doubt that parliamentary democracy in Singapore will definitely be a flop. But let me emphasize that parliamentary democracy can be successfully experimented in Singapore and the possibility of its success is indeed very great. This is because on the Government benches are seated many Assemblymen who speak Chinese and who are products of the Chinese school.

Mr Speaker, I am not a Chinese jingoist. In the ranks of the People's Action Party there is no place for narrow-minded racialists. It is not my duty in this Assembly to propagate Chinese jingoism. I would like to say a few words more for the benefit of you, Sir, and the U.M.N.O. members on the opposite benches so as to provide a better insight into the mentality of the Chinese youths.

Mr Speaker, if you ask the Special Branch officers, they will tell you that they are cocksure the Chinese-educated youths and workers are hostile to Western parliamentary democracy. And, generally speaking, they are correct. But why is it so? Is it because they have swallowed the propaganda of the Communists?

This is a problem worth careful study. For the survival of parliamentary democracy, a thorough investigation of this problem is imperative. However, before a correct solution can be found, it is my belief that all the prejudices carefully nurtured by British colonialism in the minds of the English-educated people like you, Sir, must be summarily discarded.

Mr Speaker, the correct solution to this problem lies in the study of the mental outlook of the Chinese youths.

Apart from those coming from rich families, the majority of the Chinese youths have steeped themselves in the traditional concepts handed down from generation to generation through their ancestors. In their system of values, a good man is he who lives by the sweat of his brow, by industriousness and by frugality; he who puts humanity before self, who gives his life for justice happily for he dreads not death nor does he covet a purposeless life, is a hero. They thirst for knowledge and they possess boundless creative potentialities.

Mr Speaker, these qualities are not compatible with colonialism.

If western democracy is represented by people like Chew Swee Kee who pocketed American money, if rock n roll becomes the symbol of western democracy, if the western democratic way of life consists of cars, European architecture and women, if western democracy ultimately boils down to allowing a few Assemblymen like the Member for Cairnhill and Mak Pak Shee to put up their farcical acts here every now and then, instead of being instrumental in raising the standard of life of the people, let me ask you then what attraction Western democracy has had for the Chinese youths.

Mr Speaker, fortunately for us in Singapore we have as representatives of the democratic system sincere and courageous people like our Premier, Deputy Premier and the Minister for National Development. The value of western parliamentary democracy has once again been revealed and many Chinese-educated people like me are attracted to it.

The P.A.P. believes in parliamentary democracy, but that does not mean that to persuade all those who are against colonialism to accept the British-type of democracy is an easy job. This is where our difficulty exactly lies.

Mr Speaker, we cannot underrate the impact of the social revolution that is rocking China and many Asian countries. The influences of these countries can never be blocked with pitiable Emergency Regulations and the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. There are among us both in Singapore and in Federation of Malaya who are discontented with realities and who, in their eagerness to change what they consider to be an unreasonable society, have indiscriminately applied the methods of China. They display a lack of grasp of the practical situation. They do not realise that Communism is unwelcome in Malaya.

Our record of four years' solid work has blazen the trail of building a Malayan nation. In our fourth anniversary souvenir publication, Marxist theory was criticised. Now we are the party in power; we have every opportunity to propagate socialism and, most important of all, to demonstrate to all with facts the possibility of social changes through peaceful constitutional means.

Mr Speaker, it is difficult to expect the older generation like my father to accept Malay as the national language. Furthermore, they have their doubts of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Deputy Prime Minister Dr Toh Chin Chye who are the products of the English school as far as reliability and selfless spirit of sacrifice are concerned.

As for my generation, we are born and bred here and we receive our education in Malaya. We are prepared to give our lives for the well-being of Malaya. For us we do not have any reservation when we accept Malay as the national language. We realise that our fate and happiness are closely bound up with that of our Malay brethren.

Mr Speaker, as you can see seated on this side among the Malay comrades, the Indian comrades and the English-educated Ministers are Chinese-educated Assemblymen who do not speak a word of English. This is an indication of the Singapore Chinese youths appreciating the good qualities and wisdom of the English-educated as represented by our Prime Minister, our Deputy Prime Minister and our Minister for National Development. Moreover, they begin to accept the leadership of a group of English-educated intellectuals. This is the good luck of the people of Malaya as well as Western parliamentary democracy.

Today thousands coming from different linguistic and ethnical groups join the ranks of the P.A.P. in their common endeavour to elevate their lot. What has been written into the P.A.P. programme and the speech by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will be what they are going to fight for in the next five years.

Mr Speaker, you should realise that people who are more Left are not satisfied with this. They have been waiting for the failure of parliamentary democracy with suspicious minds.

Mr Speaker, in the past few days the Member for Cairnhill was gloating over the difficulty in the way of the Government in solving the unemployment problem. He not only disagreed that there should be some sacrifices on the part of the people who lived in comfort under the colonial rule, but actually tried to instigate them to embarrass the Government. I do not know how he can be benefited if the P.A.P. Government cannot ease the unemployment problem and the goodness of the parliamentary democracy cannot be brought home to the people.

7.50 p.m.

Mr S. Ramaswamy (Bukit Merah): (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion which has been moved to thank the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech which he made on the opening day. First of all I am grateful to the new Constitution for giving me an opportunity to speak in Tamil - my mother tongue. I am happy to speak in my mother tongue.

In my speech, I wish to touch on the economic policy of the P.A.P. government, and the propaganda of fear put out by the Opposition Members for which there is no ground, I will also speak on the manner in which the economic policies of the government have been based on the prosperity of the nation. I will point out the economic stability that has been increasing in the past six weeks and the faith shown by traders in the government. Sir, I wish to say that the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is an outstanding statement.

The hon. Member for Cairnhill and his party colleagues said that even before the P.A.P. took office, capital was fleeing from this country and that foreign capital was afraid to come to this country. They also said that investors were cautious and that they preferred to wait and see.

Mr Speaker, Sir, quite contrary to all this, since the P.A.P. Government took office, local capital has attained stability. Many organisations are planning to set up factories in this country and many applications in this connection are being received by the new government. Foreign capital is desirous of investing in this country. Enquiries are being made every day from the Ministry of Finance. Allegations that capital was preparing to flee the country have been proved false, since no capital has run away. This is worthy of note.

It was said further, Sir, that if the P.A.P. came to power people would have to undergo many sufferings. These allegations have been proved false. People are living in prosperity. They are not undergoing any sufferings.

Before the election, Opposition party leaders said that the unemployment situation was created by us. But the unemployment situation was created by them when they were in power. We are now devising ways and means of solving the problem.

Further, they said in their party organ that if the P.A.P. took office, the entrepot trade which is vital for the well being of the people, would be ruined. The people can see for themselves whether trade has been ruined or is growing. Industry and trade could not thrive, they said, when there was no stability in the state. This is undeniably true. But they failed to realise which government would create lack of stability and political confusion. The party organ of the hon. Member for Cairnhill failed in this respect. Their propaganda was that there would be no political stability if we came to power. But we have been elected by a tremendous majority and a large number of our candidates have been returned. Therefore a strong government has been formed. Businessmen have faith in the government. Trade will therefore expand. It was said also:

"If there is no political stability, traders can expect nothing but increased expenditure and strikes. They will be affected by the activities of extremists. Businessmen will not invest in industries if they are to lose their money."

Mr Speaker, Sir, a few days ago the people's government removed various restrictions so that we can trade freely and directly with foreign countries. As a result we need pay now less commissions to a middle-man port like Hong Kong. Ways have been devised for the free and direct flow of trade.

The Yang di-Pertuan Negara said that industries would be set up to meet the needs of our growing population and that local and foreign capital would be encouraged. He said that there would be no restrictions on the movement of capital and profits and that private industrialists would be encouraged, short and long term loans would be given to private enterprise through the Economic Development Board.

Has anything been said or done that could increase the costs of industry? No, nothing. Have there been strikes? No. Not even one. There are not even any signs pointing to a possible strike. Did we suppress the industry? Let the Opposition Members answer.

What else do we need for the growth of trade and prosperity? All the above points were made in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. It is our duty therefore to thank him for his policy speech. I therefore urge all Members to support this motion.