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

3.37 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name,

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.".

In this formal resolution to thank the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Address to this Assembly, we put on debate our record of 14 months of office and I also hope, in so far as it is possible, to survey objectively the future that we are likely to run into, in this second session of the Assembly.

The second year of office of' this Government is a decisive one. For if construction and expansion do not begin in the second year, they are hardly likely to start in the third or fourth year of the Government's office. And the question before the country and the Government is this. Will there be continued stable conditions for industrial expansion and an effective Government whose declared policies can be relied upon? Or will there be growing agitation, ferment, unrest, talk of reopening constitutional discussions for immediate independence with consequent inability of the Government to maintain stability, no expansion, either economic or industrial, to take place to meet the growing unemployment and the con-comitant social problems that failure to resolve unemployment must bring?

It is my duty to give an objective and dispassionate review of the past year and a forecast of the trends and tendencies in the immediate future.

An analysis of the forces at work in the past year discloses that there are no new factors which have entered the political arena to bedevil us or to rescue us from the perennial intractable political and economic problems. Against the P.A.P. and what it stands for - an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya - there is only one organisation to contend with us, to challenge the present Government in a bid for ultimate power.

The Right-wing forces, such as they are, represented by the Liberal-Socialists, the S.P.A. and whatever new Parties that may register from time to time, are inert and ineffective. And it was with some sadness that I read the notice of the feeble amendments to this motion that have been tabled by the Members for Tanglin and Joo Chiat. After 14 months in which crucial issues facing the survival of the democratic system in Malaya have been intensely debated, all that the official Opposition in this Assembly can do is to think of the restoration of paycuts, worries about kidnapping and the re-employment of civil servants who have left the Government service prematurely. These are the world-shaking events which comprise the horizon of our official Opposition - eloquent testimony of their purblind approach to our problems. For they can only see peace and prosperity in relation to the restoration of their little social world which envelops their whole being. They refuse to see - perhaps they are incapable of seeing - the bigger problems which confront us, problems which go to the very root of the survival of our society.

But in any drama there must be comic relief. And the former S.P.A. Member for Joo Chiat, breaking his 14 months' self-imposed penance of silence on the subjects of kidnapping of towkays and the re-employment of Government officers who have prematurely resigned, they qualify him for an Oscar as the parliamentary jester of this Assembly.

Mr Speaker: I think it is improper - perhaps the Prime Minister will agree with me - to call any Member of the Assembly a jester, let alone a parliamentary jester. Perhaps he would like to withdraw the expression.

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that jesters once upon a time occupied a very high status in the royal court, and we can do no greater honour to the Member for Joo Chiat than to bestow upon him a role which is so very essential in very hard and trying times. However, if you feel, Mr Speaker, Sir, that one should be constantly serious and no comic relief should be allowed, then may I say I not only withdraw the word "jester" but I also withdraw the word "parliamentary"?

Mr Speaker: Order. I allowed the Prime Minister to carry on, but of course the withdrawal must be unqualified.

The Prime Minister: Sir, when I ventured on that light-hearted vein, it is not to say that we on this side of the House disregard the unhappiness of rich families and their unfortunate heads who from time to time are held to ransom, nor do we as a Government shirk our responsibility to prevent these kidnappings. But to put up these secondary issues when the primary question of survival is staring us in the face, is an example of political myopia which has only been equaled by the Member for Tanglin.

I would like to add that by dismissing the Right-wing in this light-hearted manner, it is not to say there are no Right-wing forces in Singapore. Apart from the British whose extensive economic and military interests not only in Singapore but in this whole region are obvious, there are local adherents of the K.M.T. and a whole host of other reactionary diehards who would stop at nothing to bring the present Government down in the hope that they could go back to the good old days to exploit the country for their benefit. We had defined "subversion" and defined it before the elections to make it an issue of confidence and made it quite clear what we meant by that term - that whether it comes from the Right or from the Left, any subordination of the interests of the people of Singapore to outside interests, we consider an undermining of the authority and integrity of the State, and we shall resist. Extremism, either from the Right or from the Left, will have to be smacked down good and hard. If we allow one, acute reaction on the other side is inevitable. Our duty is to squash both.

What has happened in the last 14 months? Have we, as a Government, stood up to our responsibilities and the test of power? Has this Government proved itself adequate to meet the stresses and strains of an internally self-governing State with an Internal Security Council, with foreign affairs and defence out of its hands?

In the past year the momentum of the P.A.P. after its massive victory in the last elections was stupendous. There were exuberance and zeal which took a lot of tempering. Minor mistakes of haste, born out of impatience to put the world right, were committed. They were errors, not of the rashness or wisdom of the policy to be implemented, but of the intemperate haste which resulted in insufficient preparation and the carrying of the opinion of the people, which could have been done by prolonged consultation and public discussion. It is also true that power accentuated the weaknesses latent in some of the individuals in the political leadership. The emotional immaturity and instability of certain individuals caused more trouble than had been anticipated. The process of rectification, which started some three months after the Party came into power, had to go on to its logical conclusion.

Meanwhile, Communist sympathisers and activists, who had scattered and gone under cover before the last elections, began the work of regrouping and reorganisation. Over the last 14 months, a build-up of their ground strength through ground cadres working on the workers has been taking place in the trade union movement. These pro-C.P. activists have worked hard to secure the support of the rank and file. The Government is realistic enough to acknowledge that there must be a certain amount of free play on the ground, provided the authority of the State is never challenged, and the leadership of the trade union movement remains non-Communist, as it must be in a non-Communist State. And, despite the regrouping and reorganisation, it is quite clear that the absence of tension and the absence of deep and abiding grievances have prevented a mass unrest and hysteria and the tendency to man barricades. There is literally a dearth of issues upon which to bait the Government and work up feelings of antipathy and hostility from the ground.

By any test, the P.A.P. Government is admitted to be a progressive government with a small "p". Therefore, it is difficult to denounce it as reactionary. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said to be anti-worker or an enemy of the people. But, of course, being a non-Communist government, although it is progressive, it is said by the pro-C.P. orthodoxists that the Government consists of waverers (the traditional concept of the bourgeois revolutionary in Marx's term), always stopping short of ultimate revolution, compromising with the enemy, selling out on the long-term rights and interests of the people to the reactionary colonialist imperialists of the British, or the reactionary feudalists of the Federation. These are the terms and the language of the doctrinaire. As I see it, the danger is not that the P.A.P. will deviate from its declared policy, but that these Left-wing adventurers, unable to manipulate the P.A.P. to abandon its non-Communist principles, will begin a fight with a government which, by their own admission, is progressive.

In this connection, the events arising out of the expulsion of the Member for Hong Lim from the P.A.P. provide us with a wealth of material as to the thinking and the tactics of these Left-wing adventurers. Once the P.A.P. discovered the weaknesses of its individual adherents in the political leadership, it had either to rectify or to go down as a result of, these weaknesses. And rectification started not with the recent expulsions, but with the immediate systematic conscribing of the capacity for harm together with the putting right of what had been done wrong. The opportunist elements within the Party were contained and conscribed. In an open society where no secret disappearances can take place, it is inevitable that rectification would have a temporary unsettling effect. When criticism and rectification of those individuals were not successful, then suspension and expulsion was inevitable. And it also provided us with, a demonstration in miniature of the forces that are against us. The whole business of suspension and expulsion was allowed to run its full course, so that the full extent of the weak points within the Party, and the threats from without the Party, can be brought into the open and clearly seen. Within and around the Party, it was a test of loyalties demonstrated on an occasion of a minor crisis, amply giving proof of the loyalty or otherwise of those who subscribe to the P.A.P. The weaknesses within the Party will have to be rectified and the challenge from outside will have to be met. What is worthy of note is that there has been no change in the basic forces at work. But it did bring out vividly in a controlled test the tactics and policies of those who, for want of a better description, we have called Left-wing adventurers.

Let me clarify the' distinction that we make between the Communist Party and these Left-wing adventurers. The policy of the Communist Party, so far as we can decipher from their declared statements issued both here and abroad, is to unite with all progressive forces, of which the P.A.P. is acknowledged as one, to struggle against the forces of reaction viz, colonialism, imperialism and feudalism. But because the Communist Party is proscribed and inhibited, its followers and cadres lack positive leadership; they lack an official line set out with the speed which an open party can give to its followers. Therefore, the policies of such an underground organisation have to be freely interpreted in any given situation on the basis of broad general principles laid down by the Party beforehand. And the less adept of these followers who want to out-left the Left and take on battles before they are ready for them, we term "Left-wing adventurers". Their acrobatics, in trying to exploit the Ong Eng Guan affair, is an object lesson to us of their recklessness and shortsightedness, and interesting enough to merit study.

These Left-wing adventurers all agreed that the Member for Hong Lim was a political opportunist. But they all supported -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister must realise that he is treading on very thin ice, because there is a Standing Order which says that:

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

So if the Prime Minister wishes to develop that theme, in other words,, go into the personal conduct of the Member for Hong Lim, then he must file notice of a substantive motion. Beyond that he cannot go.

The Prime Minister: I have not the slightest intention, Mr Speaker, Sir, to dwell on the subject of the Member for Hong Lim. As I have indicated earlier in my opening, what we are interested in is not the Member for Hong Lim but the tactics of certain Left-wing adventurers. We have nothing to do with the Member for Hong Lim. All I was doing was to recount their practice. All those who have followed the newspapers in the last few weeks, including you, Mr Speaker, will bear me out, I think, when I say that I am only recounting what they said and the issues upon which they wished to take up the cudgels with the Government. What they said, quite simply, is that they dismissed the Member for Hong Lim, but they supported the so-called 16 resolutions.

Now, this is important. What they are admitting is that it is true that the man who proposed these resolutions was in their opinion unworthy, but they wanted to support the worthiness of the 16 resolutions which they said contained progressive material. In other words, they were all in favour of trying to fish in P.A.P. troubled waters - what we have often demonstrated in the past to be an extremely unprofitable profession. This man, whom they detested and despised to the point of conspiring to oust him in August 1957, they now find a useful lever for pushing the P.A.P. into what they hope would be a more malleable and plastic position. They hold up their hands in horror, and say that the P.A.P. is going Right. They must stiffen it and make it go more Left. They must make it resist the forces of reaction, i.e. the colonialists, imperialists and feudalists, and respond `to the forces of progress, that is, pro-C.P. forces. In a time of relatively minor difficulties in the Party, they hoped to trip up the Party into submission in the name of unity of the progressive forces.

Let me restate the P.A.P.'s position. We stand for what we believe in. And if we have not got the strength, ability or skill to carry the mass of the people with us on our principles and policies, then we deserve to fail. There is no need to be "rescued" by self-appointed mass leaders. Whatever our weaknesses, lack of courage of our convictions is not one, nor do we lack understanding of the techniques of these Left-wing adventurers. Were they really interested in the 16 resolutions? Were they interested in 5 of those resolutions turning upon the internal cadre organisation of the P.A.P., designed to prevent the party from being controlled other than by those who are loyal to the long-term aims and objectives of the party? Did they want to be cadre members of the P.A.P. when they supported 5 out of those 16 resolutions? And since when did they decide that tobacco and petrol taxes were unsocialist moves? And the Betting Bill. Nobody passed any resolution or sent any memorandum from the First to the Third Reading of the Bill and then not until after the P.A.P. conference. Let them be honest. They were only interested in a few of these resolutions-resolutions designed to appeal for support of these Left-wing adventurers. Reopen talks with the British. For what? Independence? Nobody in his senses believes that Singapore alone, in isolation, can be independent. In the same breath, another resolution, talks of re-opening talks with the Federation for merger and independence. What is it to be? Independence through talks with the Federation for merger, or independence for Singapore alone through talks with the British? This issue was fought out with similar Left-wing adventurers in 1957 when the P.A.P. went to the Tanjong Pagar by-elections. The issue then was, and still it seems now is, independence for Singapore by itself as a practical, feasible political objective, or independence for Singapore only through merger with a larger entity - the Federation of Malaya - from whom its water supply comes and on whose hinterland Singapore's trade, commerce and industry depend.

One of the problems for these pro-C.P. forces during the past year has been the absence of issues which would agitate and excite their followers. They could not, when they supported the so-called 16 resolutions, have put much faith on the practicability of independence for Singapore alone. All they were concerned with was to find some slogans to keep their supporters excited, something on which to get tensions to mount, to create an atmosphere of uncertainty in which no industrial expansion will take place, so that economic and social conditions will deteriorate and therefore their forces of recklessness will increase and strengthen.

And for good measure, there were two other issues - release all political detainees arrested before the P.A.P. came into power. The P.A.P. had already decided on this principle and has made its stand clear, both in public and in the Internal Security Council. But of course they claim that the P.A.P. bourgeois revolutionary party was weak and vacillating, yielding to the forces of reaction in the Internal Security Council! And the cancellation of the registration of the federation which the Government had registered but had de-registered, again because the Government, so they claimed, was either weak in the face of reactionary strength, or leaning to the Right.

There were contradictions between the Left-wing government of Singapore, and the British and what the' Federation Government itself calls a Right-wing government of the Federation, contradictions which we must normally expect Communists to exploit, but many of these contradictions they did not exploit because it would have redounded to the credit of the P.A.P. Let me give a small illustration but a vivid one.

Everybody knows that the P.A.P. Government is going to stand or fall on its policy of industrial peace with justice, to secure industrial expansion to resolve the economic problems. And it is the business of a non-Communist government to explore all avenues and all channels conceivable, for assistance and economic aid to resolve our economic problems. And do they not know, these Left-wing adventurers from reading the newspapers, that even the presence of a Russian delegation to an E.C.A.F.E. Conference in Singapore on small-scale industries was viewed with suspicion and disfavour? Are they unaware from Press reports that even the giving of a residence visa for more than a transitory visit to a Russian representative had caused excitement and brought opposition? The British interests in Singapore are obvious. The Federation has to ensure that Communist activity in the Federation is not aided from bases in Singapore. One would have thought that intelligent Communists would have found this a good united front issue. But on the contrary the Left-wing adventurers kept silent. They only chose to exploit the issues which are of no benefit to the P.A.P. but of benefit only to their pro-C.P. forces.

Let me pose the contradictions between the P.A.P. and the pro-C.P. forces. I say pro-C.P. advisedly because the M.C.P. is underground and is unable to evince its collective will itself, and there is no way of preventing several different lines of various pro-C.P. groups, all being issued in the name of the C.P. The P.A.P. is a progressive force and will remain one - a force for change towards a more equal and just society.

There are three possible situations in which we can find ourselves as a Party. First, where what is good for the people and for the P.A.P. may be bad for the Communists. Secondly, what is good for the people and the P.A.P. may also be good for the Communists. And third, what is bad for the people and the P.A.P. may be good for the Communists.

In all these cases, we are prepared to proceed according to the dictates of our interests, our conscience and our judgment. Whether it is bad for the C.P. or good for the C.P. is irrelevant. The P.A.P. Government is prepared to carry out all policies which are for the benefit of the aims and objectives which the P.A.P. stands for, and which the people voted for. But it is not prepared to fight for, nor is it going to carry out policies, which are bad for the P.A.P. but are good for the Communists. To try and coerce the P.A.P. into a united front on the third of these premises is a futile and fruitless business which will aggravate, exacerbate and stiffen the attitude of the P.A.P. We are not going to promise independence for Singapore for the immediate future, first because we believe it is a fraud on the people to claim that Singapore can be independent alone, not only because it is not viable, but because it can be so easily captured and destroyed. Have they forgotten that some 80,000 British troops had to surrender in Singapore 10 days after the Japanese captured Singapore's water supply situated in Johore? Do they believe that an island with 1� million souls but with no natural resources, can be independent? We credit them with intelligence and therefore we believe that they can see these facts as well as we can. And the conclusion we can come to is that they are deliberately arousing false expectations and hopes in the people and in their supporters for the selfish purpose of creating excitement and tension, and an atmosphere of what they hope would be uncertainty upon which the growth of their strength depends.

I would like to restate in simple language for the benefit of the Opposition, both in this House and, equally important, outside this House, that the policies of the P.A.P. were evolved out of its own experience of struggle under local conditions, not out of doctrinaire principles. And it has been successful up to date and will continue to be successful so long as it adheres not to doctrinaire principles, in complete disregard of local facts and conditions, but to the principles evolved in the context of the Malayan revolutionary situation. We believe in an independent, democratic, non-communist, socialist Malaya. What is the alternative for all Left-wing forces in Malaya? To this affirmation of our faith, does anybody seriously stand up to say that they believe in the establishment of an independent Communist Soviet Republic of Malaya? In the context of the present situation, do they hope to carry with them the mass of the Muslim Malays, the English-educated, the Indian-educated? Surely all have conceded that there can be no Communist Singapore until there is a Communist Malaya and there can be no Communist Malays unless the Malays are sufficiently softened from neighbouring countries.

I must ask the House to forgive me for having taken so much of its time on what would appear to be a theoretical dissertation of the inter-play of political forces in Singapore. But it is because what I have discussed are the factors that will decide whether Singapore ticks for better or for worse that I have spent time discussing these factors. I am sorry that after 14 months of P.A.P. Government the English language newspapers are still allowed to confuse and delude the public. The irony of it is that basically anti-Communist local journalists, through European imperialist, colonialist newspapers - they are long-winded hyphened words, but they are terms of art and have certain marks with circles, and I have sought .to use these terms advisedly - these journalists have helped to build up confusion in the minds of the people. All this talk of absolute democratic rights, laissez-faire liberalism, freedom and human rights, in the face of the stark realities of an underground struggle for power, can only confuse the English-educated world.

The problem that we are confronted with is not a simple one of allowing absolute liberalism and democratic rights to prevail, but of exerting that amount of restriction on absolute rights so that a reasonably tolerant democratic society can endure without turning or yielding to a totalitarian state. In other words, the government can, and where necessary must, restrict the rights of individuals, but if it does so to a point where it, in fact, makes the whole system a totalitarian society, then the purpose of the restriction would have been negated. These restrictions are only bearable because without them a more intolerant system would triumph.

In his speech to this Assembly the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has listed out in detail the things that will be done for the people in the coming year. They include mundane things as roads, footpaths, drains, sanitation and stand-pipes. Since the integration of the organs of local government with those of the Ministries of the central Government, all these things have become the concern of this Assembly. These are the things which intimately concern the people and their daily lives. It is right that a government that seeks to improve the lives of the vast majority of its people - the workers and the farmers - should spend so much time and effort and money to make the administration respond to these social problems. After 14 months we can say that the organs of the State of Singapore are well maintained and functioning with a reasonable degree of sensitivity to the problems of the people. But we have to admit that a lot of ground has still to be covered in making the administration more alert, and equal to the political challenge we are confronted with - a challenge of rapid change, rapid progress, rapid improvement which the political ferment and revolution in Asia has aroused in the hearts and minds of its peoples.

What are the chances of success in our struggle to achieve these objectives - changes of the economic basis of our livelihood and the social structure of our population through the democratic process? What kind of political weather are we in for? Running the risk of all weather forecasters to be proved wrong in the event, I would still go on to say that the indications are that we will have reasonably decent weather with fair periods, wet patches and sudden squalls. It is the sudden squalls that we must be careful of. For the worst that can happen - and it is important that we remember this - is the failure of this little experiment in the democratic process of one man one vote to bring some improvement in the lot of the people. If we are unable to face these sudden squalls, then we shall go under and the experiment will have to be restarted all over again on some other occasion.

But it is useful if we can put these things in perspective, in terms of the ultimate, of the worst and the best, that is possible. What is the worst that can happen in the immediate future for us as a Government? It is that the Government may find itself out-manoeuvred and out-propagandaed by these Left-wing adventurers, in which case the P.A.P. will have to take the count in this fight, and the Communists will be counted out for many years to come.

We are not unaware that with the Communists on one side of us and the British colonialists on the other, each side will want to pull us to its side. We are also aware that failing this, each of these two contending extremes are quite prepared to use us as buffers in their machinations against each other. The British want to preserve their economic and military interests in Singapore and in this whole region for as long as possible. The Communists want to set up a Soviet Republic of Malaya. To them let me say this: we are fully alive to the realities of this political situation.

It is the business of a government to govern, and whilst we are the Government we must ensure that this Government's authority prevails within the limits of its jurisdiction. But it is also the business of the Government to ensure that if a collision has to take place between these Left-wing adventurers and the colonialist imperialists, the P.A.P. should let them break their heads on each other. For we are confident that whatever the temporary maneuverings and ups and downs, we as a non-C. P. socialist force have a historic role' to play in the political struggle of Malaya in this crucial stage of our history. Our duty is to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of our non-Communist socialist movement, not to be used in other peoples' plots.

The best that we must strive for is to succeed in settling the economic and political problems of the people and succeed in maintaining industrial peace with justice to the workers, whilst industrial expansion takes place to alleviate the unemployment problem and create optimistic prospects for the years beyond 1964. The economic and social conditions of poverty and distress must be removed by the efforts of the people and the Government. There must be enough success to ensure a reasonable equilibrium for peace and prosperity in this phase of our struggle.

Question proposed.

4.21 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to emphasise that in a speech made by the Hon. Prime Minister recently, there was one point raised which attracted my attention. If I am not mistaken, Mr Speaker, it can be said that in the debate on the previous Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Address, I was severely criticised. But, today, it seems that there are more dangerous elements than the accusations levelled against me as a communalist. I do not and cannot for a moment accept that statement, either today or at any other time. Whether in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in the present session or in the elucidations made by the Prime Minister on a self-governing Singapore, I am of the opinion that the major issue is not on domestic problems. Since the Prime Minister, who holds the reins of Government, does not wish to achieve independence for Singapore, I will extend my hand to him if he is prepared to change his attitude to that of anti-Communist, so that we could save the people of Singapore in particular, and Malaya as a whole. These are the findings of the political organisation which I represent. My findings may be wrong and the findings of the Prime Minister may be right. Today we call our Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew or "Lee Hsien Sheng", but if he really wishes to struggle to prevent a Soviet Republic from being established in Malaya, then we hope that he may be conferred a title by the Federation Government.

I do not wish to praise the Member for Cairnhill, but what I can see today posing as a major issue are the Communists or Communist sympathisers and their followers in Singapore. The Prime Minister said that only if the Malays were weak and the position of the surrounding territories was weak would the whole of the neighbouring islands, including Malaya, become a Communist State. But I am fully confident that this would not come about, Mr Speaker, and I would not mind being accused of being communal.

The Malays founded Singapore and not Sir Stamford Raffles. I would like to stress that my great-great-grandfathers founded Singapore. Whether Mr Speaker or other Members of the Assembly believe it or not, I am taking this opportunity today to have it recorded in the history of Singapore that I do not admit or accept Sir Stamford Raffles as being the founder of Singapore. We are fighting the colonialists and we consider the Prime Minister as one who has buried colonialism in Singapore. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I am taking this opportunity today to stress that history will reveal that in our struggle, be it in any form, including the political struggle, we must bear in mind that Singapore was founded by the Malays, and, as the indigenous people, we ask that our special rights be preserved.

In Malay history, Mr Speaker, there is mention of this:

"Sang Nila Utama accompanied by his Ministers and people, went hunting and many game was found. They passed a deer which Sang Nila Utama chased. It was later killed by His Majesty's spear. Sang Nila Utama went to a rock and looked out to the horizon. He found that the shore across the sea was very fair and white. He was told that the mainland on the horizon which he could see was named "Temasek". He then commanded `Let us go over there.' Whilst at sea, there was a terrific storm, and he could only reach Telok Blangah. All the luggage was thrown overboard except the crown. But still the storm raged on and Sang Nila Utama then finally ordered that the crown should also be jettisoned, as he felt that this act would abate the fury of the storm so that the boat would remain afloat. After the crown had been jettisoned, the storm abated. The party proceeded and then finally landed on the shore where they found people playing by the seaside at the mouth of the River Temasek."

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Member knows the Standing Order which says that a Member is entitled to read extracts from documents and books. I think the passage which is being read is more than an extract. Perhaps the hon. Member can cut it short.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: I will remember that point.

Mr Speaker: Only extracts will be permitted in future.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): My apologies to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I will cut my speech short.

"The party saw a red animal with a black head and a white breast. It was slightly bigger than a goat. Sang Nila Utama was told by his followers (among whom was Demang Lebar Daun) that the animal was called "Singa" (lion). Sang Nila Utama ordered his party to return to Bentan with a message saying that he was not returning but that he was founding a state."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to remind the party in power sitting on the Government side that the Malays are described as the indigenous people of Singapore in the Constitution. It is mentioned in the speech by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that the Malays will be given aid, and I hope that it will be implemented in the light of the Constitution.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of the special position of the Malays, as long as there are U.M.N.O. representatives sitting in the Opposition, it follows that we will not agree on all points submitted by Government as regards the implementation of what is contained in the Constitution, as we do not wish to be branded politically that U.M.N.O. (Singapore) is not fighting for what it should be fighting for in the interest of the Malays.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the introduction of the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, it is stated - to cut it short - that it is not easy to establish a socialist State quickly and that a fully developed socialist economy could not be achieved as long as Singapore is separated from the Federation. As I have said earlier on, Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that the Federation of Malaya has faced militant Communism since 1948 and that the shooting war between the people who love democracy and militant Communism came to an end on 31st July, 1960. We are aware that thousands of lives and property were lost in the Federation. Perhaps the Minister for Home Affairs here could enlighten us as to the true state' of affairs: how many Communist agents are there in Singapore? Why I ask this, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that from the speech made by the Prime Minister, it would appear to me that this is not only a problem for the P.A.P. to face alone, but it is also a problem which should be considered by all Members of this Assembly. There are people who have been expelled from that Party. There are genuine Socialists, Communists and Rightists in the P.A.P., but we do not know how many of these elements there are in this Party or in Singapore. However, if it is true that such elements do exist, then the Government should take the opportunity to eliminate them once and for all, as they have always been saying that they want to create a non-Communist Singapore, so that Singapore can then merge with the Federation. This is a fact and we cannot deny it.

In this connection, we come to the social conditions that exist today. If I were to speak on this subject, I might be accused of agitating communalism; but I am able to speak factually. Every help and encouragement should be given to the Malays so that they will be the pioneers in the achievement of a merger between Singapore and the Federation. I have every confidence that only the Malays or the Malay leaders in Singapore could plead with their brothers in the Federation to accept Singapore as a unit of the Federation of Malaya.

Before we go any further, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many responsibilities which we must shoulder together. Is it sufficient only to build houses for the Malays in the Malay settlements? In my opinion, they should be helped in the matter of education. I do not know the programme that have been launched by the Ministry of Education. But I have heard rumours - I do not know how far they are true - that from this month onwards the Malays will be exempted from paying any school fees in Singapore. I do not know whether that is true, but it is up to the Minister for Education to enlighten me on this point. Why is it not possible to give such help to the Malays? We do not want independence if the Malays in Singapore cannot be free in their own thoughts. Give this opportunity to the Malays so that they will be able to compete with their non-Malay friends on equal terms in the field of employment, and so on. But we do not wish to be spoon-fed forever. We wish to stand on our own feet. However, such opportunities were not given to us during the past 14 months and we ask that they be given to us. I hope that this will receive serious consideration by the Ministry concerned.

I would refer to my speech on education made earlier. Apart from giving exemption from payment of school fees to Malay pupils, if the past British government could do this, why is it that the representatives of the people's government, who were elected by the people, and who went to Whitehall -

Mr Speaker: Order. I hate interrupting the hon. Member. He seems to be so taken up with the subject that I think he is speaking much too loudly, and either my ear drums will go or other persons' ear drums will go. It will be much better if he modulates his voice.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): I apologize, Mr Speaker, Sir. But these are my views and I hope that the Government will give us the opportunity. We will not ask for anything else outside except in this Assembly. There may be a wrong interpretation - that if we are unsuccessful in this Assembly, we will use force. But I would like to emphasise that whatever we ask for should be given, or we are obliged to withdraw, so that a new Constitution could be promulgated in Singapore. If the British government, I again emphasise, could help the Malays who were considered fit only to be peons or policemen, then I hope this government will continue to render assistance to the Malays in the form of free textbooks and other facilities which are vital for the improvement of the standard of education of the Malays in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another point to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Education is that we, the Malays, cannot accept Communism. We need moral education. It has been our custom, as is known, to incline towards religion. While talking on the subject of schools, I hope that religious education could be taught to all pupils, especially Malays who embrace the Muslim religion.

Now, Mr Speaker, I will go on to the Ministry of Home Affairs. I would like to get clarification from the Minister, and I hope that he will fulfill my request. Could he give a guarantee to take on Malays as constables possessing Std. VII education from a Malay school? If not, I will very much regret it, and it seems that there is no guarantee of a future for leavers from these lower schools and they are fit only to be labourers who at the present moment are difficult to get. Mr Speaker, I would also like to ask whether or not all vacant posts in the Police Force or in any department under the Ministry of Home Affairs have been filled. How is promotion given to them! I would like to ask further about the position of the members of the Guard and Escort Unit. Have they been given equal treatment with other members of the Police Force? I believe that provision has been made in the Budget for fair treatment to be given to members of the Guard and Escort Unit.

A further point, Mr Speaker, is that concerning relations with Indonesia. Mention is made in the Hansard of 20th July, 1960, that relations with Indonesia have been on a much better level. Mr Speaker, what kind of friendly relations with Indonesia have been maintained by the Government? The matters that are of benefit to our people have been omitted in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. Is this cordial relationship connected with newspaper reports concerning the visit of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development to Indonesia to study education methods in Indonesia? I have read these reports but cannot find anything that will improve the standard of education in Singapore. I would like clarification on this matter. Or is it that the visit was made purely to sound the views of the Indonesian Government as to whether the Malay language could be made the official language which could be used at all levels? Or whether the Indonesian Government will give au assurance in the way of trade between Indonesia and Singapore?

Mr Speaker, mention is also made on rural development. In this matter, I would like to receive clarification from the Government. Many standpipes have been installed by the Government. The building of roads and bridges and the installation of telephones, and so on have also been done by the Government. These projects have been implemented during the past 14 months, but one thing that astounds me is this, Mr Speaker. I did send a request to the former Minister for National Development, the Member for Hong Lim, when he was in charge of the Ministry, concerning mosquitoes breeding in stagnant water in the drains in my constituency. My request was met-workers went to the area and cleared it of mosquitoes. But since then I regret to say that the kampong folks are very angry with me as the representative of Kampong Kembangan. I told them that I had already written letters to the Government, and that it was now left to them to rectify the state of affairs. If the Member for Hong Lim, as the former Minister for National Development, could undertake to do this, why could the present Minister not do this? If I am telling a lie, please send a delegate and I am prepared to accompany him and his party to the site. The mosquitoes breed in the stagnant water. Mr Speaker, I do not wish to elaborate on small points like this. This, in short, depends on the Ministry concerned.

Mr Speaker, I would like to talk further on the many standpipes installed in my area. The population there is dense, and consists not only of Malays but also of Chinese. In this particular place, I am realty sorry to see that the Malays and Chinese drink well water; and there are plenty of empty tins lying around and mosquitoes breed in them. In Teo Kim Eng Road, there is no public standpipe installed there, and I hope the Government will help me. If they do not wish to help me as an Opposition Member, at least they should help the people of Singapore.

Another point -

Mr Speaker: Order. I believe the hon. Member will take some time?

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: Yes.

Mr Speaker: In that case I will suspend this sitting. I will take this Chair again at half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Question again proposed.

5.31 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, there is another point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Government. This is the question of the rural areas - our request for particular areas or general areas. I do not wish to give credit to the Member for Hong Lim, but I would like to emphasise that at one time I did appeal to him for the cemetery grounds, in Teyban to be made use of by lorries, and my request was fulfilled satisfactorily and without delay. I hope the difficulties in the rural areas could be resolved in the interest of the population as a whole.

Another point, Mr Speaker, concerns the amenities in the rural areas. Having regard to the Government programme to make roads in the kampongs, I sent in my request to the authorities concerned, stating that the kampong people were prepared to cooperate with the Government if they were provided with materials, earth and other equipment to make roads in the rural areas. However, I regret to say that up to today there are still roads in the constituency which I represent - and I would like to mention a particular road, Jalan Lapang, which is a major road - which are flooded whenever it rains. I would like to bring home to the Government the fact that it is important not to treat the people of Singapore as being second-class citizens or first-class citizens. Rural amenities are the responsibility of the Government. Such problems could be overcome. From the point of view of expenditure, the money spent on Hong Lim Green could be better used for the development of the rural areas. I do not know whether this is a tactic or manoeuvre with regard to personalities. This will be judged by the masses. I urge the Government to develop the rural areas in the interest of the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, the Government has said that in its rural programme, the farms especially the Malay farms, are considered private property, and therefore the Government does not wish to waste its money on helping to improve the living conditions of the people in that area. However, the previous Government opened up roads and made improvements to the rural areas, in spite of the fact that they were considered private property. But the present Government, I know, has made newspaper releases to the effect that it is private property and that nothing could be done about it. I cannot see why, if the previous Government under the Rendel Constitution could undertake this job, the present Government elected by the people could not undertake the job in the interest of the people. Is it because of the shortage of money? As I have said earlier, money saved, for instance, on the Hong Lim Green project could be usefully utilized in the development of the rural areas.

Another big problem, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the subject of the national language which appears in col. 19 of the Hansard dated 20th July, 1960:

"In implementing the policy of Malay as the National Language, the task of the Ministry of Education has been to provide training facilities for the teaching of the language in non-Malay schools."

In this matter, Mr Speaker, I merely seek clarification again because I am not a constitutional lawyer. What I know is that in the Federation of Malaya the Malay language is acknowledged as the national and official language - the sole national language - after it has been written into the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. In Singapore today is the Malay language - the national language - official or not? Will the Government table a Bill in this Assembly so that Malay will become officially the national language, or do we have to go back to the Colonial Office and have them accept Malay as the national language? From many points of view, this will not be a satisfactory answer to the political organisation which I represent. So I hope it could be clarified whether the Malay language, which is acknowledged as the national language, could be considered as an official language according to the rules of the State.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of language is a very big one and the responsibility facing us is heavy. I, for one, do not say that the Malay language cannot become the national language as well as the official language to be used at all levels, although there are certain quarters who maintain that not only must Malay become the national and official language but that it must be implemented forthwith as the national and official language. The Government has failed to state when Malay could become the official language. Hence this poses a question. This should be made clear to us so that we could give our support, and it will also be a source of inspiration to people who are interested in promoting the national language.

Apart from that, Mr Speaker, there is this matter of culture. I hope the Minister for Culture will clarify the appeal forwarded by Malay organisations and which appeared in the Berita Harian. This is to make Malay culture the basis of a Malayan culture. I refer to the issue of 30th July of the Berita Harian. The news item says that the permanent Malay Literary Congress of Singapore has been asked to implement a resolution taken by the 25 youth associations which held a meeting on the 17th July at the Geylang Community Centre. I would add, Mr Speaker, that this resolution reads:

"That this Conference calls upon the Congress to hold a delegates conference of all Malay cultural bodies to discuss the implementation of the struggle of this permanent Congress in the matter of making Malay as the base of a national culture."

Mr Speaker, the appeal has been submitted by the non-political cultural and arts bodies to see whether their proposal could be accepted by the Government in its attempt to evolve a national culture, but until today we have not received any confirmation from the Government that Malay culture will be made the basis of a national culture. Mr Speaker, on the question of culture, perhaps there are many Members in this Assembly who are experts. Will this proposal have the support of those who are responding to Malay culture, Chinese culture or any other culture, and can the demand that Malay culture be made the basis of a national culture be accepted as logical? I am not surprised at all if I am accused of being illogical and out of place by bringing this matter up, because the Malay population represents only 13 per cent of the total population. Would it be possible for the culture of a small percentage of the population to be made the basis of a national culture? Mr Speaker, if the Government could accept such a suggestion, then, although there may be difficulties, ways and means could be devised of overcoming them. I am not coercing the Government to accept this suggestion, but by encouraging Malay culture - whether it is accepted as a basis for a Malayan culture or otherwise - we would then not only look after the special privileges of the Malays provided for in the Constitution, but it would also be a method whereby we could demonstrate and prove our loyalty to the Federation of Malaya.

I am sure the people of Singapore could accept the contents of the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. So today, Mr Speaker, as one who at one time opposed and fought against colonialism, I hope I will not be a stumbling block towards Singapore attaining independence. We have to choose between Communism and British colonialism. It depends upon us.

I admit that the speech of the Prime Minister of Singapore has revealed that he is prepared to continue the fight against pro-Communist elements; but I ask once again, why is he not prepared to continue to fight for an anti-Communist policy, if we are to resolve the problem of independence for Singapore? It is a fact that today `the island of Singapore has become a front. Whether it is a Communist or a colonial front depends on us, the indigenous people, whether they comprise Malays, Chinese, Indians, Eurasians or others. Why must we be afraid of pro-Communist or Communist elements, or be afraid of the British colonialists or British Army which we find in Singapore? We are not afraid of arms that are in the possession of the Army. Singapore' was handed over to the British Government by Sir Stamford Raffles by a stroke of the pen. And it is up to us to declare war on them, particularly the colonialists, by means of pen and paper. It is not difficult for us to resolve this problem if we are bold enough to come forward and declare our stand. I am sure that if today the People's Action Party could be courageous enough to declare its anti-Communist policy, then it would get the support of the Malay organisation that I represent. Regardless of what party it represents, whether it is going to be a coalition government after 1964, the Government of the day must face difficulties. It is a fact that nobody can fulfill the needs of the whole population of Singapore.

We do not know whether trade will increase, but the problem is, how are we going to meet the needs of the people? I can say that the present Government cannot meet the needs of the people of Singapore 100 per cent. The Prime Minister said just now that 80,000 British and Indian soldiers surrendered to the Japanese army after the Japanese had captured the reservoir in Johore. This is tangible proof to us that if we know that conditions in Singapore at present are difficult, then why are we hesitating to use one method which will get the blessing of the Federation `of Malaya? Mr Speaker, the Federation of Malaya, I would like to say, looks upon Singapore with suspicion, because the number of Malays here as compared to the Chinese are very few. If Singapore and the Federation are united and they have this one man one vote, then the Federation of Malaya will become a republic and its constitution changed. We will be loyal and faithful to our motherland and we will be prepared to defend her in any way. Let us today, when we know that militant Communism is not yet finished in the Federation of Malaya, declare our stand. Whether this is right or wrong, the Prime Minister alone knows. I do not know whether the Communists receive aid from Singapore, but it is our responsibility to see that they do not. How are we going to create a new peaceful and prosperous nation if we are ideologically opposed to each other? So, Mr Speaker, I sincerely hope that the Government will overcome these dangerous elements. Whether these elements are dangerous or not it is left to the people to assess. It is hoped that a more intensive campaign will be launched to kill the Communist elements or their supporters and that together we will eliminate Communist elements in Singapore.

5.55 p.m.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am here to support fully the Prime Minister's motion of thanks to the Yang di.Pertuan Negara for his speech.

Just now the Member on the opposite side made a very lengthy speech containing many accusations. Afterwards my colleagues here will give clear replies to the accusations.

I want to reply to some of the accusations regarding the rural area levelled by him. We know that in Singapore the rural area is larger than the City area. Because of this, care of the rural area is especially difficult. The former Government did not take good care of the rural area. Since the P.A.P. has only come into power for a short period of over one year, it is impossible for it to take a 100 per cent good care of the rural area. Whether the P.A.P., since it came into power, has taken care of the rural area, it is a question which the people of Singapore can clearly answer. The fact has been observed by the people of Singapore with open eyes.

The Kampong Kembangan area which the hon. Member mentioned is near the City area and is so small, so the work involved there may not be entirely as he has said.

I am the Member for the Jurong constituency which is quite big in area. Some of the people in the remote parts of `that area have to walk one or two trifles to get to the nearest standpipe. Owing to past negligence, care is not well given at the present moment. It is not that we do not want to give care. First of all, we must consider the finances of the State. If the State's finances permit, we will do our best. I believe that a responsible Government has to look after a lot of matters, not just a few, and there will arise various problems. We have the faith and the ability to overcome some of those problems in the near future.

Regarding other problems, my colleagues will give more exhaustive and clear answers.

6.00 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Ulu Pandan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is right and proper for this Assembly to give its thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech on the opening day of this session.

All that has been stated by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will surely bring about a realisation to every stratum of the people of Singapore regarding their livelihood or their education. What I mean is that the people of Singapore, although comprising various origins, have come to realise that the Government has been able to bring about unity in the field of education, as stated in column 20 of the Hansard (Volume 13, No. 1).

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past various schools were proud of the opportunities given to them, but now they realise that the advantages enjoyed before cannot hold good any more, because the Government has given equal status to all the four media of education, from primary school to secondary school and then to university level. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, Sir, when pupils study in the same building and play together, the realisation will naturally come about that they are Malayans. I believe that the unification of these schools will be further carried out in 1961.

The Member for Kampong Kembangan has stated that there are rumours that free education is to be given to Malay children in Singapore. I do not understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, why the hon. Member is still unable to follow what has been achieved by the Government. It is possible that he has no children of his own and is therefore ignorant of the steps which have already been taken by the Government in giving free education. Even if the hon. Member does have children, he, in his capacity as a representative of the people, should realise that the Government has taken steps to give free education to the children. As regards free education to Malay children, Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter was widely publicised in the papers on 6th February, 1960 stating that all children born in Singapore or whose parents are Singapore citizens attending Government or Government-aided schools will be given free education. The newspapers have published this fact; so also has the radio announced that free education will be given as from the month of February. I do not understand, therefore, why the Member for Kampong Kembangan, representing the people of his constituency, cannot follow what has already been announced by the Government. The P.A.P. Government is unlike the former Government which merely stated things but did not carry them out. When this Government says something, it will carry it out.

As regards free textbooks, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am equally surprised that the Member for Kampong Kembangan cannot follow what has been stated by the Government - that free textbooks will be given to the children. In column 406 of the Hansard dated 2nd March, 1960, the Minister for Education gave a reply to a question raised by an hon. Member, that the total allocation for free textbooks for 1960 is $150,000 and that the allocation for Malay children is double that for non-Malay children. Therefore, this means, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if non-Malay children are allocated $300, then Malay children are allocated $600, which is double that figure. It is clear, therefore, that free textbooks have been given to all strata of the Malay population of Singapore.

The Government has also succeeded in giving free education to over-aged children. Just as free education is given from primary school to university level, likewise Malay children who have passed the Higher School Certificate Examination in the past year are now' attending the University. Perhaps the Member for Kampong Kembangan is unaware of this, because his own child has not attained that status yet, but I believe that children in secondary schools are given free education. Likewise, Malay students attending the University are given assistance to get free education.

6.10 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, on 1st July, 1959, His Excellency Sir William Goode read the first policy speech of the Government. That speech, Sir, was so full of the bravado of a cowboy thriller that we all enjoyed it. The observers, the Opposition and the Government all enjoyed it, although at times the Opposition had to wince at some of the unfair but nevertheless fierce accusations and attacks in language which cannot be deemed to be very polite. But on the whole we enjoyed the bravado part of it, especially when it shouted out empty promises like:

"The Government is pledged to make an all-out effort to ease the housing problem. The Government will increase the annual output of houses built by the S.I.T."

It condemned the previous Government for building only - according to them - 2,000 units a year and pledged to increase the output. Then what did they do? The S.I.T. hibernated for one whole year and, waking up on 20th July, 1960, rubbing its sleepy eyes, said:

"The people were aware what they could and could not expect of a P.A.P. Government. It was that the Government would operate under a constitution which did not give it complete freedom and independence of political action. It was emphasised that Singapore was a small island, with no natural resources and dependent upon a sensitive entrepot trade for its livelihood."

Mr Speaker: From Hansard?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Yes, from Hansard of 20th July, 1960, column 4.

Sir, this is an insult to the electorate. The Government is under - estimating the intelligence of the public if it thinks that the public is going to be so gullible as to swallow such a lame excuse. Does the Government really think that the public does not know that Singapore was as small an island for the previous Government as it is for the P.A.P. Government? That it had less freedom and less independence of political action? And that it had less natural resources and was as much dependent on entrepot trade for its livelihood as it is today? Can the Government deny this, Sir? How come the previous Government was able, during its first year of office, to have the S.I.T. build 2,907 completed flats and completed dwelling-houses; and on the whole, under that Government in the first year, 6,734 permanent buildings were altogether built? Sir, we heard this morning that the S.I.T. under the P.A.P. Government only completed 124.

In the next paragraph, Sir, the Government boasts of never making promises that it cannot fulfill. It comes from the same Hansard, column 4:

"...P.A.P. had no intention of deceiving the people into voting for it with promises it could not fulfill." Is the building of 124 houses in its first year of office as against 6,734 permanent dwellings built during the first year of office of the previous government a fulfilment of the promise to ease the housing problem? Is it fulfilling the promise to increase the annual output of houses?

Sir, in Hansard, Vol. 11, No. 1, col. 11, Government pledged to "make an all-out effort to ease the housing problem." If 124 houses a year are the maximum result of "an all-out effort" of the P.A.P. Government, do you not think, Sir, it may be time for them to fold-up their tents before the housing problem becomes a chronic disease?

The Government claim that their plans are not over-ambitious, but are realistic. If they are, why were they unable to implement them? Not only did the building projects prove to be still-born, but the education plans have thrown the whole education system into a chaotic mess. At this time of the year, Sir, teachers are moved from one school to another like pawns on a chessboard. Only two primary schools were built; none completed. No secondary or technical schools were built. The previous government, in their first year of office, started building 30 schools; completed 9, and 7 were in an advanced stage of construction. The standard of education has deteriorated miserably, as proved by the poor results of the Cambridge Examination last year. Now, there are talks of lowering the standard in the University of Malaya. Sir I would like to read to you the impression of one "M.B.B.S. (Malaya)." He said, in the Straits Times of 23rd July, 1960:

"In fact, some doctors whose alma mater is the local medical school are very worried that if this state of affairs continues the General Medical Council may withdraw recognition of local medical degrees as so many departments are understaffed.

We are living on' our old reputation, that is all. It is time we woke up to this grim reality."

Sir, I am no doctor; neither do I know anything about this. When I read this, I felt that if there was any truth in it, then it would be a serious state of affairs.

The arrangement for teaching of the various vernacular languages in schools is gaily muddling along. Something must be done to prevent the successes of the past becoming undone. Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 1, col. 5 says this Government:

"cannot permit itself the luxury of changing with every puff of wind."

But the Government has changed its aims and policy with every puff of wind, Sir. When the P.A.P. first came into power, the civil servants were described by the Hon. the Prime Minister as devitalised, emasculated and deculturised. And when I stood up here and defended them in my Adjournment speech, I was mocked by the Government. Then, one bright morning about a week later, with one puff of wind, the civil servants were changed by the P.A.P. Government from being an emasculated, deculturised and devitalised lot into the best civil service in the Far East. Another puff of wind seems to have blown the P.A.P. Government from the masses to the pawnbrokers. And another puff of wind blew in about 45 amendments to the Trade Unions Bill on the day after it was presented in this House. Something has gone wrong somewhere, Sir, if the Government is to be swayed like this with every puff of wind.

The policies governing youth clubs and community centres were changed so often that civil servants were unable to get any activity in the community centres until quite recently. This lull of inactivity, I understand in many cases, has driven away the original or old members who, in some cases, have been replaced by gangsters. There have been instances of P.A.P. Assemblymen complaining that these youth centres have been used by the gangsters as their dens. The Ministry of National Development, needless to say, has been the most successful half-way house and transit camp, where no policy ever remains for long.

Government's inconsistency, Sir, creates this question in the minds of the public - was the P.A.P. Government born under an inconsistent star, or are they cooking in a pressurised cooker? After the bravado in last year's speech, Sir, the public expected to hear the Government crow about the fulfilment of last year's promises in the speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara this year. But there was no crowing, because cocks only crow when there is daylight. And daylight never came. It never came from the time the P.A.P. came into power. We have been living in 13 months of darkness, and are still living in darkness. So the cock never crowed. Instead, the Government had to humiliate itself into giving nonsensical excuses such as "Singapore is a small island". Sir, we need no Minister to tell us that. Surely we all learn that in school, The Government's misdeeds, such as the slashing of the salaries of the civil servants without notice - believed by many to be a punishment to them because they did not vote for the P.A.P. - the victimisation of people, especially of civil servants, who hold views different from those held by the P.A.P.; the waging of war against the English-educated for some time; the steamrollering of Bills in this House without giving the public or the Opposition an opportunity to study them: these are so blatantly obvious, Sir, that the Government has been forced to admit them in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and to promise not to commit the same offences again.

The public would have forgiven the Government for their past sins had they been sincere in their apology and promise. But, instead of any signs of sincerity, Government tried to repeat their attempt to mislead the public. In, Hansard of 20th July, 1960, col. 5, line 10, the Government very proudly declared that "Singapore has enjoyed greater political and economic stability that it has known during the last 15 years." The Opposition challenges the statement - we maintain ,that this statement is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Government is well aware that there has neither been political nor economic stability in Singapore since they came into power. Even the collective leadership which they boasted has now splintered officially into two, perhaps virtually three, groups. The expulsion of three Members has not remedied the situation. It is easy to dismiss from their minds the existence of three Members whom they wish to forget. But, may I remind the Government, Sir, and ask them: what about the 10,000 odd people who supported the expelled Members at the Badminton Stadium last month? How many thousands more might support them if Government gave them permission to hold a rally at Hong Lim? Can they just dismiss them all from memory and pretend they do not exist, and shout out, "We are enjoying political stability!" Moreover, according to the Government, the split is 40 against 3. If there is any truth in the speeches of the P.A.P. Assemblymen and Branch leaders at the Badminton Stadium last month, then the ratio of 40 against 3 may not last for long. Can there be political stability, Sir? I do not know whether the Ministers themselves can assure us how many Backbenchers are really and truly with them, or whether they are ruling supreme. Perhaps time can tell.

The State of Singapore has become so unsafe, Sir, that millionaires had to be warned to employ bodyguards, and school-children had to be given anti-kidnap drill. A Judge admitted in Court that crime has become a national past-time in Singapore, and one of the leaders in the Straits Times said that hardly a day passed without a serious crime being committed in Singapore. This, Sir, is the "stability" that Singapore is enjoying under the P.A.P. Government.

As for the economic stability that Singapore is enjoying under the Government, it comprises capital flying away from Singapore. This has been admitted by Government several times. Of course, they blamed the Opposition and said that it was because of what they called our stupid utterances at election campaigns that had been responsible for this. Nevertheless, capital has flown away. They admitted it. Factories and firms are closing down, Big commercial firms have moved their headquarters to Kuala Lumpur. Building projects are at a standstill, and small businesses are folding up. Taxis are plying round and round without any fare.

Mr Byrne: Maybe the Opposition went for joy rides!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Unemployment is increasing at an accelerating speed to the big figure that we heard this morning. This is the P.A.P. pattern of economic stability.

Again, Hansard of 20th July, 1960, col. 5 reads:

"For the first time in the Island's history the interests of the masses have been more closely linked with the purposes of Government. The sense of oppression, humiliation and resentment which people experienced under colonial rule has slowly given way to feelings of national pride and self-confidence."

I would humbly suggest, Sir, that it might have depicted a truer picture if it had been corrected to read like this:

"For the first time in the Island's history the interests of the masses have been deplorably neglected by the Government. The sense of oppression, humiliation and resentment which has been created by the P.A.P. Government has slowly given way to feelings of insecurity and frustration."

The Government claimed that they were "setting the course for the year of construction". All that we have seen in the steps that they have taken were to get rid of the experts and specialists from several Government departments. And, continuing, it seems "the Government does not wish to give the impression that there have not been mistakes and shortcomings during the past year." How could they, Sir? The mistakes and shortcomings were so blatantly obvious. It claimed that:

"It is aware that some of its measures should have been more carefully planned and expertly executed. In some instances, it moved too fast and without preparing public opinion adequately for the changes, Some of the legislation resulted in inconveniences or misunderstandings which could have been avoided by a little more foresight, a little more consultation, discussion and a little more explanation."

Sir, if they were aware of this, then why did they mock and insult us, and even threaten the Opposition when the Opposition tried to point this out to them some time ago? You will remember, Sir, that on two occasions you had to intervene when the Hon, the Prime Minister attempted to threaten the Member for Tanglin. The Government say that the errors arose from the zeal and impatience to get things done. May I suggest that in some cases, I believe they were the result of vengeance and victimization too? Government now promise to temper zeal with understanding. Let us hope that they will keep their promise this time.

In the same Hansard, Sir, of this year, the paragraph on Finance stated that "there was a deficit looming on the horizon" - talking of last year. This is one of the false alarms with which the P.A.P. Government has been trying to frighten the people. They hoped that by so doing they could lay the blame of all their failures and shortcomings on the previous Government. This is not a straight deal with the public, Sir. The P.A.P. is aware that the Budgets for the last few years have shown a deficit but have ended up with a surplus. But the P.A.P. Government prefers to use the deficit shown in last year's Budget as an excuse to slash the salaries of the Government servants. This slash, Sir, has to a certain extent been responsible for the present economic depression in Singapore, while the Federation is enjoying a boom.

Government believe that there has been considerable uncertainty as to the stability of the political foundation of the State, and this, they say, has led to hesitation on the part of potential investors. I can assure you, Sir, that potential investors do not hesitate any more. They have gone into action now. They have flown from this country. Malaya, says Government, "then looked upon the events in Singapore with some reservation." Are we sure, Sir, that Malaya is not still looking upon us with some reservation? If not, then why did the Prime Minister have to say over a radio programme, and again this morning I believe, that merger will not take place in the immediate foreseeable future? It is because he realises that Malaya is still looking upon us with some reservation. The Government boasted that the "far-sighted policies of the Government announced last year were firmly carried out and in 12 short months we have seen a complete reversal of position." The only reversal of position that the public has seen, Sir, is the reversal of the economic stability of the past into the present economic depression; the living in the freedom of the past into the living of the terror of today; the atmosphere of friendliness into the atmosphere of suspicion and hate of today. We have now, I am afraid almost gone back to life during the Japanese Occupation. The Government declared that: "The atmosphere of uncertainty and hesitation in the field of private investment was replaced by a climate of confidence." May I ask, Sir, how much of the capital that has flown away has come back? And if any has come back, why are we having so many unemployed? Government gave as proof of this climate of confidence the substantial volume of private investment now seeking permission to operate in Singapore.

Sir, in last year's Hansard, Vol. 11, No. 1, column 7, it says:

"The Government has in the few brief weeks of office received numerous enquiries from foreign and local firms who want to' set up new factories in Singapore."

And now they are still wanting, and I hope they will not be still in the wanting stage by next year.

Government promises the extension of economic services, such as power, water, gas supply, construction of roads, improvement to the port and airport and the Singapore river, enlargement of telecommunications facilities, provision of industrial sites and so forth, as well as investment in the social services, the main item of which will be housing. As I have said before, Sir, last year they promised to make an all-out effort to ease the housing problem, and all that they have built were 124 houses compared with 6,734 built in 1955, the first year of the previous Government. If this promise is as bottomless as last year's promise, I am sure the public will lose confidence in Government,

Government also warned that they would exercise strict economy in annually recurrent expenditure. The last time these words were uttered, Sir, the civil servants suffered a slash in their allowances, I am sure they will be very happy if the Government will assure them that this is not another such warning.

The first of the factors which generate confidence and stimulate industrial expansion must be a firm and stable government whose policy and actions are consistent and predictable. Another precious philosophy of the P.A.P.! It is incredible, Sir, that they are known as the People's Action Party, and yet I do not find their philosophy being put into action, For example, they say that Government policy must be consistent and predictable. And yet while preaching against yellow culture, they encourage gambling; and whilst telling millionaires to have bodyguards because of the danger of frequent kidnappings today, in the same breath they say that times are so much better that they are going to withdraw small firearms from the people. Then while the civil servants are suffering from pay cuts and the public from the shortage of schools, hospitals, teachers, doctors, nurses; over 50,000 people are unemployed; thousands are living in the slums; and while the State of Singapore is experiencing an economic depression; and whilst crime and kidnapping are rampant, the Government is concentrating on such frivolous projects as amusement and recreation parks at Kallang and Hong Lim, and on a first-rate theatre to compete with Rome and a first-class bowl to compete with Hollywood, and the Aneka Ragam Ra'ayat to entertain the hungry. Sir, are we having a group of responsible people as our rulers, or are we having a group of pleasure-seeking playboys as our new rulers? How can we hope to attract investors with such a frivolous programme of activity? It is Government's belief that a further important factor is the stability in labour-employer relationship. It is our belief, Sir, that this cannot be achieved by Government-controlled trade unions.

Then Government continues to promise "to avoid taking any action that will damage our trade." Sir, we are afraid that this action has already been taken. Trade has already receded to an alarming extent in Singapore. There has been no trade recession, generally speaking, in the areas around Singapore. As a matter of fact, Malaya is experiencing a boom. Why is Singapore going through an economic depression? The answer is, of course, people have no confidence in the Government, as Government has deprived the minority of their rights, and speaks in proud, haughty and arrogant terms, as were used last year in the speeches on 21st July, 1959. In Hansard, Volume 11, No. 6, columns 355 and 356, speaking of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said:

"...we are not really concerned with them...they have ceased to matter.they are there like gunny-bags, which I used to see in Japanese-occupied Singapore, strung across the field for Japanese soldiers to do bayonet practices. Dead ducks, they could not be deader!"

An hon. Member: How true!

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: How true, Sir? The Opposition Members have not been appointed by Government. They too have been elected by the people who, though in the minority, are citizens of Singapore and who have the right to cast their vote and the right to choose their own representatives, and to have their representatives recognised by Government. Now, how can they have any confidence in a Government which ignores the rights of the minority, which declares that their representatives have ceased to matter, and that the Government is not concerned with them? How can people have confidence in a Government that makes such declarations? Sir, after what has appeared in the papers and in the Petir about the quarrel or the split in the P.A.P., you will remember that it is these "dead ducks and gunny-bags" on the Opposition Bench that tried to warn Government of the suicide that the ex-Minister for National Development was plunging Singapore into. And the Government deliberately misled the public by shielding him. They themselves have admitted this, Sir, in their Party organ. And now Government have made exactly the same charges as those made by the Opposition. Sir, the "dead ducks" were not so dead after all! Not as dead as the Prime Minister tried to make them out to be. The "gunny-bags" were right. And it was the Government which tried to conceal from the public the shortcomings of their Party member and which had used the strongest of terms against the Opposition in order to silence them. The Government have now revealed their insincerity, and the public has no longer any confidence in them. If they are sincere, Sir, in their promise to avoid taking any action that will damage the trade of Singapore, they will endeavour to behave in a manner befitting sincere and dignified statesmen and avoid employing the tactics of cheap politicians.

Government have assured us that during the year the Singapore Telephone Board proposes to connect telephones to kampongs and villages in the urban and rural areas. Sir, in view of the many accusations flung by one Minister at another of favouritism, we, the Opposition, hope that these villages and kampongs do not mean P.A.P. villages and P.A.P. kampongs.

The Development Board is said to have given out contracts for the construction of 4,000 units. It is said to have drawn up a five-year building programme providing for the construction of 52,000 units at an estimated total cost of $210 million over the period 1960-1964, and 1,811 units, it seems, will be completed by the end of this year. Sir, we have been hearing so much about contracts and construction costs, and units to be completed ever since the P.A.P. Government came in, but we have not yet seen the houses. We hope that 1960 will not be another year of still-borns.

We have been promised that stand-pipes will be installed in remote areas. May I make a humble suggestion, Sir? I have seen how the water from the standpipes on roads has been allowed to run without stop. I am sure the poor people would be much happier if Government would bring the pipes into their houses. It would also serve to ease the strain on the reservoir during the drought. I am quite sure, Sir, that the poor people prefer the standpipes to be in their houses. Standpipes are good, no doubt, but it is better if they are in the houses.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Standpipes in houses?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Pipes in houses. They are better than standpipes on the road, because the people will not have to go to the standpipes to get water.

The Government, we are told, will reintroduce the Women's Charter Bill. Sir, the Opposition wishes to reiterate its stand. We support the principle of monogamous marriage. But we say that the method of implementing it must be practical and must not cause hardship to the public. The Charter must not be used as a means to bring extra revenue to the Government at the expense of the poor.

It is said, Sir, that the periodical joint discussions between Assemblymen, the people's representatives, and the divisional police have proved to be a step in the right direction. I would like to point out that Members of the Opposition have received one invitation to meet their divisional police officer, but we know of no periodical joint discussions between Assemblymen and their divisional police officer. Privileges and opportunities offered to P.A.P. Assemblymen at public expense should, do you not think so, Sir, be afforded to Opposition Assemblymen also? For a time lectures and functions that were paid out of the public coffers were thrown open to Opposition Members and I, myself, had participated in some of them. But of late, the Government seem to think that they have a right to use public funds to build up their defeated candidates and possible future P.A.P. candidates. Community centres are opened and run at public -

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye) rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Can I be allowed to continue, Sir?

Mr Speaker: The Member will not give way.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Community centres are opened and run at public expense, so that the communities could be grateful to the P.A.P. Assemblymen who play an important role in the centres by getting all their needs for them from the Government, If the Assemblyman of the area happens to be a non-P.A.P. member then either the defeated P.A.P. candidate of the area or a possible future P.A.P. candidate - anyway, a P.A.P. member - is given the opportunity and the honour. Community centres are run on public funds, Sir, I repeat - not P.A.P. funds. We have no objection if they are run on P.A.P. funds, Seeing that they are run on public funds, Sir, what right has the Government to use public funds against public wishes? In areas where non-P.A.P. candidates have been elected, it is a fact that the people in that area do not want to be represented by a P.A.P. member. And typical of the unilateral policy of the P.A.P. Government, they force the people to accept P.A.P. members as their representatives and to ignore the representative that the electorate in that area has chosen. In several instances, Sir, where a registered community association already exists, Government, with just one single unilateral sweep, have brushed aside hundreds of members who could have formed a nucleus of the new association. And if the group is not a pre-dominantly P.A.P. group, Government would manoeuvre it so that the community is forced to accept selected P.A.P. members as the leaders, in order to enjoy the facilities provided by Government in community centres. These facilities are provided at public expense, and the' public should not be educated to feel that the facilities are charities dished out to them by a charitable government. The public have paid for these facilities through their taxes and should not be treated like beggars who are not allowed to choose their leaders and their representatives. To exploit the electorate by using the taxes they pay for party propaganda, for building up defeated candidates and for protecting their future candidates can only be described as political corruption at its highest level, played only by political adventurers. Now, surely, the P.A.P. Government does not claim to be one!

The Government claims, Sir, that it is aware that bribery and corruption have yet to be completely eliminated. We are not at all surprised, Sir, that the Government has not been able to eliminate corruption when we read Press editorials such as this:

Straits Times, 16th July, 1960:

`The thought did occur at the time to some who were not in P.A.P.'s ranks that Mr Ong was less of a success than he and P.A.P. claimed, The party's dilemma, for it was aware of the damage the Mayor was doing, was obvious and painful, and the recollection of it finds early mention in the current issue of Petir...

`When finally the Labour Front or (S.P.A.) Government wanted to expose the Mayor, says Petir's editorial, "it was the Party's stalwarts who came out and defended him and prevented his exposure as a petty pocket Hitler." Personal quarrels with Opposition Councillors and petty personal intrigues, the editorial admits, were among the Mayor's "stupidities." How much better it would have been if the party stalwarts had said so at the time, and how much better for Singapore if when the P.A.P. government was formed, Mr Ong's peculiar qualities and weaknesses. had been borne more carefully in mind... But why was he given important Ministerial responsibilities when it was known that he could not shoulder them?

But Mr Ong's sins against the party are certainly of far less concern -'

Mr Speaker: Order. This is exactly what I tried to stop the Prime Minister from doing, and that is attacking the personal conduct of a Member of the Assembly. That must not be done except upon a substantive motion.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not intend to attack the Member at all. I was just quoting what the Petir said. I was just trying to prove that if they thought this was true, why then did they not take action and why did they make him a Minister? I am not saying that this is true. It is their word, and if they think it is true, then why did they carry out the action that they did?

Mr Speaker: Order. The point is that certain allegations were made in an article against a Member of the Assembly which the hon. Lady is reading, and therefore the allegations are there. The hon. Member must be very careful in what she quotes. If she quotes this article in general terms, it is all right, but if she chooses to read that article in detail, then of course there are allegations against a Member of the Assembly. That must not be done.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, even this article says that this would automatically mean political death. Sir, if the P.A.P. leaders have had knowledge of what they alleged to be the mal-practices and inefficiency which they are now levelling against a certain Minister when he was a Mayor, why did they make him a Minister if these accusations were true. Why then did they shield him from exposure by the S.P.A.? This fact, Sir, is sufficient to suggest that Government condones and perhaps encourages such practices by a Minister. How then can Government hope to punish others for the same practices?

Like the other Ministries of the P.A.P. Government, the Health Ministry seems to be rather fond of the future tense. Reading the Hansard on medical and health services we find that the Government will do this and the Government will do that. They have been willing to do a number of things which until today are "wills" not implemented. The only "will" that has been implemented seems to be the "will" to get rid of doctors and specialists.

The Government's policy speech concluded with the promise that the second year of office of the P.A.P. Government will be a year of construction. What about the first year, Sir? Was it a year of construction? If it was, may I then ask, construction of what? Not of dwelling houses, flats, tenements, factories, business houses, schools, hospitals, or economic, political or industrial development. The only construction that Government can claim is the construction of everything destructive.

Sir, it is time that the P.A.P. Government start using public funds for the good of the people of Singapore and not for P.A.P. propaganda for defeated candidates or possible future candidates,

In conclusion, Sir, I would like to make this six-point recommendation:

1. That Government gets down to the task of building houses for the poor people. The P.A.P. Government has built 124 in their first year of office against 6,734 permanent dwellings built under the previous Government in their first year of office.

2. That Government takes advantage of every means of solving the unemployment problem. The rate of unemployment has been accelerated at an alarming rate by Government inefficiency.

3. That Government utilises every available resource to combat crime in Singapore. Today there is no sense of personal safety. Gangsterism, extortion, kidnapping, robbery and hooliganism have become national pastimes.

4. That Government employs every method of fostering among the public a sense of security. Today there is no security of any type. Favouritism and victimisation seem to be the policy of the day.

Sir, look at this headline. This is what I mean by favouritism and victimisation. In big headlines, of the Straits Times of 28th July, 1960, it says:

"`I'm P.A.P.: Even officer with crown is scared of me' CONSTABLE: TAXI DRIVER TRIED TO MURDER ME".

Now, such things go on. This may be the only case that has been given publicity. But everyone knows that such types of cases take place every day at all levels.

5. That Government does everything within its power to ensure political peace in Singapore. What peace can the public have when two of the strongest men in Government are bitterly fighting each other for power? Even if one can be forced out of the Assembly, the fight may still go on, Sir.

6. That Government restores to the State of Singapore its prosperity. What prosperity can Singapore enjoy, when capital has been driven out of the State by bad government policies, when the chances of merger with the Federation have been jeopardized by the extreme Leftist policy and non-Communist stand of the P.A.P. Government? The speech of Tungku Abdul Rahman, according to the Straits Times of the 1st of August, 1960, reads:

"It is not sufficient to be anti-Communist, and far less to be non-Communist, as some weak people profess. We must also stand up and be staunch believers in Malayan democracy."

Sir, the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. Opposition entirely agree with the Tunku and give him our support. After all, it is a Malayan nation based on Malayan democracy that we want to build, and not a non-Communist nation built around a non-Communist ideology.

I hope the Government will give this six-point recommendation its careful consideration and not use them as the Japanese used the gunny bags just because they were suggested by the Opposition.

7.01 p.m.

Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff (Anson): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in support of the expression of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered at the opening of the Second Session of this Assembly, I wish to take this opportunity to comment on the speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the speech covers all Ministries and the programme which will be carried out as policies of the P.A.P. Government in its second year of office. In other words, Sir, this year will be a year of construction. No longer will it be a year of re-organisation as it was in the past. I believe the Opposition will take this opportunity to attack or to criticise a small section of this Government - I repeat "a small section" - for the actions or the errors that have been committed during the past year. As a result of this awakening, Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in his speech has stated that the P.A.P. Government does make mistakes and commit errors, but that these mistakes and errors arose out of its zeal and impatience to get things done. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, let not the Opposition, or those people who do not subscribe to or do not agree with the views of the present Government, close their eyes to the excellent services that have been provided in the national interest by the Government since it came into power. I am sure - and my colleagues will agree with me - that the Opposition Parties welcomed many of the Bills which have been passed. I have often heard the Opposition praising the work done by the P.A.P. Government. For instance, in the matter of trade, commerce, education, and the introduction of Bills in this Assembly, the steps taken by the Government were not to meet the requirements of a certain section of the population but to cater for the entire population as a whole, including the Malays - a subject which has been harped upon by some Opposition Members, If they had taken the trouble to read the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, they would have seen that the special position of the Malays was touched upon.

On the subject of finance which was raised by some Members of the Opposition, it cannot be denied that the method of administration adopted by the P.A.P. Government has resulted in a saving of $9 million. When this Government took office, there was not a single cent in the coffers, but now a considerable sum of money has been saved. The Minister for Finance has stated on several occasions that this is in the national interest. This cannot be denied by Members of the Opposition. We can criticise the ways and means or the methods by which we have achieved this surplus, but we cannot deny all the same that $9 million has been saved. There are many achievements of the Government that I could cite here, but it would take me too long to deal with them one by one.

However, there are many matters on which I would like to touch upon here. On the question of helping the Malays, there is mention in column 13 of Hansard dated 20th July, 1960, of assistance to be given to Malay fishermen. We are helping them to raise their standard of living. In column 14 of the same Hansard, there is also mention of Muslim law:

"The Government will introduce comprehensive legislation for the regulation of Muslim marriage and divorce and Muslim religious affairs on the lines of legislation in the States of the Federation of Malaya."

I have personally received letters from Malays expressing the commendability of such a step and advising that such legislation should be undertaken forthwith for the regulation of Muslim marriages and divorces.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a very important subject which has received great support is the implementation of Malay as the national language. The P.A.P. is not afraid to declare boldly that the national language in Singapore is Malay. We believe that language is like a tree, because it is a means by which human beings convey their thoughts to one another. I would like to repeat that language is like a tree, and in this connection the Ministry of Culture is confident that the present policy of unifying the existing cultures in Singapore could be achieved. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is very important, because the existence of a national language will not only integrate the existing various cultures, but it will also be a means by which the various races in Singapore could be united.

An Opposition Member has said that Raffles was not the founder of Singapore as he was a foreigner and a newcomer. Why did he not say this to the Member for Geylang Serai before the latter went on a mission to London? In my opinion, Sir, there is no necessity to belabour this point. The problem in front of us is to unify the various races and weld them into one Malayan nation. I am a Malay. I have been here for many years, but as a member `of a non-communal party, I feel that the various races must work together so that a Malayan nation could be evolved.

On the subject of culture, Mr Speaker, Sir - I am attached to the Ministry of Culture - I would like to say that the programme carried out since last year were for the sole purpose of unifying the various races in Singapore to make them feel that they are true Malayans. There are many programme which we would like to carry out in the future; similarly the programme which were carried out last year will be continued this year. For instance, in regard to the Aneka Ragam Ra'ayat, we will add a new feature to our programme as enunciated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech on the national service network.

Just now, Mr Speaker, the Member for Kampong Kembangan has said that there are many cultural organisations which have called upon the Ministry of Culture to accept Malay as the basis for a Malayan culture. I think the Member has not been following closely what is meant by the basis for a Malayan culture. In April this year, Mr Speaker, the representatives of an arts group had an interview with the Minister for Culture. They submitted a memorandum. At the same time, views were exchanged in a cordial manner to find out what was the object of the arts group. After the discussion, I was told by a member of the committee of the arts group that the results of the discussion were very satisfactory indeed. I would like to say here, Mr Speaker, that the representatives of the arts group were satisfied with the answers obtained from the Minister for Culture. I am surprised that the Member for Kampong Kembangan has cause for complaint. The contents of the letter, inter alia, are as follows:

"The Government will encourage and will give every support to Malay culture and will cause investigations to be made on Malay culture."

So, Mr Speaker, in that way, they could say frankly that the definition of "basis" means that it will take the form of a Malayan basis. It does not mean that joget modern could be put on the stage and called Malayan culture. That is not the definition given by the arts group. This question should be asked together and the background should have a Malayan content. That is the interpretation of the "basis" of Malayan culture. There are experts who say that Malayan culture is a mixed culture and that the core of Malay culture has its source from Hindu culture, So, Mr Speaker, the object of creating a Malayan culture through the medium of the national language, which is one of the aims of the Government, will be achieved in this manner. Mr Speaker, if this is made a communal issue, 2,000 years working on it will not bring any result. Mr Speaker, this is a part of our findings and we need to do a lot of research into culture.

In the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech [Hansard, 20th July, 1960, col. 23], there is mention that:

"The Government has also plans to inaugurate a National Service network. At the moment Radio Singapore broadcasts four language programmes.The National Service would be identified with no particular language or cultural group. It will try to reflect a Malayan outlook and content."

This, Mr Speaker, is an achievement of the present Government.

Another point which is important in regard to culture is contained in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech [Hansard, 20th July, 1960, col. 22]:

"The Government plans to establish, a National Cultural Brigade in order to give positive and creative impulse to Malayan art, music, drama and so on. Members of the Brigade will consist of artists, painters, musicians, dramatists and all those involved in the arts and they will perform as well as teach and organise dramatic, musical and dance groups in community centres and cultural associations."

Mr Speaker, this has been welcomed by arts associations and I am sure that such schemes as are put up by the Government will be implemented.

Mr Speaker, if it was our intention not to give our co-operation to create a Malayan culture, then I believe we would not be able to achieve our objective,

7.25 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, we, my colleagues and I, are sitting here on this side of the House today because the Prime Minister has forced us to sit here. He has evicted us unconstitutionally and by force, and that is because at the moment he controls the Government. And that is also because at the moment he controls the Police and the whole machinery of the State. Otherwise the position today could be quite different.

Mr Speaker, while I sat listening to the Government's policy speech delivered in this Assembly two weeks ago, I asked myself whether this policy statement could have come from a P.A.P. Government. Between this policy speech and the policy speeches delivered by Marshall's government and the Lim Yew Hock government, I am sorry to say that I can hardly notice any fundamental difference. Mr Speaker, here [Indicating] are huge volumes of the Hansard. Perusing through the speeches made by the P.A.P. representatives in this very Assembly during the Labour Front Government, you will notice the fundamental differences in policy which distinguish the present policy of a so-called P.A.P. Government from the real P.A.P. pronouncements in this very Assembly made from time to time before the general elections, and before the time the P.A.P. formed the Government.

Gone are the days when the utterances of P.A.P. leaders captured the hearts and imagination of the people. Gone are the days when the people waited eagerly for the morning papers to find out what had been said in this Assembly by P.A.P. leaders. At the opening of the present session of the Assembly a fortnight ago, it was necessary for the present P.A.P. leadership - there are only two of them, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, as the others do not make decisions and are still my good old friends - to direct six lorry loads of Work Brigade members and scores of Party workers and community centre workers to stand at the Supreme Court building to represent the so-called masses and to give a cheer to the leaders as they filed past the Supreme Court building from the City Hall. The organising secretary of the Tanjong Pagar Branch led the shout of "Merdeka", but the workers did not cheer at all. Mr Speaker, as the old proverb says, you can lead a horse to the water, but you cannot force it to drink. What a sad and sorry spectacle!

Mr Speaker, in the policy speech, nothing has been said about colonialism, about Malayanisation, about the detainees, about the social revolution, and many other important and pertinent subjects which can be found in the pages of the Hansard here. The Government is not interested in these things any more. The Secretary-General of the P.A.P., who is now the Prime Minister, commented on the Labour Front policy speech on 5th September, 1956, col. 56 of the Hansard, and this was what he said.

"As a statement of the policy of the Labour Front Government for the second session of this Assembly, the Governor's Address was poor and feeble. There was no coherent theme, no broad exposition of the country's economic or political situation. No master plan, but just a collection of the various departmental activities puffed up with pious Ministerial hopes and good intentions. Instead of specific plans, figures, targets, there was only fluff and empty exhortation."

Mr Speaker, I must admit that this is an apt and accurate description of the policy statement of the Lim Yew Hock Government in September, 1956. I must also say, Mr Speaker, that this is also a true description of this policy statement. This policy statement is not a policy statement of a P.A.P. Government, definitely not a policy statement of a real P.A.P. Government.

Mr G. Kandasamy (Kampong Kapor): Shame!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, the basic fight facing us today is still the fight against colonialism. It is hypocrisy to say that colonialism is now no more. The policy speech delivered two weeks ago said:

"The sense of oppression, humiliation and resentment which people experienced under colonial rule has slowly given way to feelings of national pride and self-confidence."

What does this sentence mean by implication? It means that we have no more colonialism here. It means that now we have national pride, and national pride can only be achieved in a country where there is national independence. No doubt, Mr Speaker, the 1958 Constitution is an improvement on the Rendel Constitution. But this statement, which implies that we are now no more under colonial rule, is far from being the truth. The political complex of our society and our present Constitution is still predominantly colonial in character and content. Our economy is still predominantly colonial. These are hard facts which we cannot get away from. And listen to this. This is what the P.A.P. manifesto said in 1954:

"All the constitutional concessions granted so far have been particularly careful to protect and perpetuate the basic economic and political interest of the colonial power, The retention of basic colonial interests runs through all constitutional re-arrangements since the reoccupation in 1945."

This is what the P.A.P. manifesto said. And what we have said. It is equally true of the 1958 Constitution. At its best Singapore today remains a semi-colony. The P.A.P. having formed the Government, it does not mean that the fight against colonialism is over. The Progressive Party, as represented here in this Chamber by the Member for Farrer Park, at one time had intimated to us: "Do not fight Colonialism. The British will suspend the Rendel Constitution." Now we are being told the same old story.

In the Petir dated 14th July, there is an article purported to be written by S. Rajaratnam, but I do not think he wrote the article, The Prime Minister knows that Mr S. Rajaratnam and I are good friends. He always writes the articles and just gets them out using other people's names. This is what is written in the Petir:

"The other and more likely cause is suspension of the Constitution and the British taking over once more the administration of the island, if they take it over this time, let there be no mistake as to what will happen. All progressive forces from the left to the leftist adventurers will be wiped out."

Mr Speaker, this was on 14th July, 1960. But may I refresh you as to what the Prime Minister said when he was Secretary-General of the P.A.P.?

The Minister for Health (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim): He is still now.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: "There are three things that the British Government can do: ", he said in the Hansard, Volume 1, No, 28, dated 4th April, 1956, column 1796. That was four years ago, it was in connection with the discussion on the constitutional question. At column 1794, he said:

`Freedom is the birthright of all peoples everywhere in this world. Because my fore-fathers migrated for purely selfish economic reasons to what they call the South Seas, a whole generation of some two million Chinese are today left in Malaya with Malaya as their only home and, necessarily thereby, the sole object of their loyalty. The generation that I belong to grew up under British colonial rule. It is always easy to say, "Let us forget the past. After all, that was colonialism. It was a mistake. Now, let us get together and let us be friends." Commendable sentiment, Sir, and one to which I would subscribe if I found that there was sufficient sincerity on the other side. If I believe that the British are no longer interested in either economic, political or military advantages to themselves more than to me, then there would be a basis for friendly, comradely cooperation. That is the problem which faces Britain and the people of Singapore and Malaya.' The Secretary-General continues:

"It was only recently that the constitution of British Guiana was suspended. It was said that there, a great error had been made. That, in fact, self-determination is only possible where you have an educated and enlightened electorate and not where you have largely an uneducated mass of people incapable of thinking for themselves but led by political extremists."

The Secretary-General continues:

"There are three things that the British Government can do: meet us the whole way, meet us somewhere along the way, or not budge at all. Taking the three alternatives in the reverse order, if they do not budge at all: the Hon, the Chief Minister -"

It was David Marshall in those days -

"has already indicated that he does not propose to stay in office. In other words, the British Government must be prepared to revoke the constitution and run Singapore once again as a Crown colony in every sense of the word. The long-term consequences - I would not say the immediate consequences, for those can be controlled and contained - of such a policy would be catastrophic to the British."

Remember, Mr Speaker, what was said in April 1956:

"...the British Government must be prepared to revoke the constitution and run Singapore once again as a Crown colony in every sense of the word. The long-term consequences.of such a policy would be catastrophic to the British."

Now the story is different. Now if there is a revocation of the constitution, then the long-term consequences will be "catastrophic" to the present leadership of the P.A.P. No more being Ministers!

Mr Speaker, there are other theories being put up by the present leadership of the P.A.P. Just now the Prime Minister has said in his speech that we in Singapore are dependent on Johore for water. By implication it means, "Do not fight too hard. If we do, the British will ask the Federation Government to cut off our water supply." And this is what the ex-Assemblyman for Changi, Mr Lim Cher Kheng, said on 22nd April, 1958, Volume 3, No. 2, col. 89 of the Hansard:

"And I want to see how the adviser to the Naval Base Workers' Union and the Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim)-" Explanatory note - presently the Minister for Health -

"who is the Secretary of that union are going to provide their workers with new jobs. That is why we have to face the `political realities'."

Mr Speaker, in 1958 Lim Cher Kheng intimated to the P.A.P.: "Do not fight too hard. Who is going to engage the 40,000 workers employed by the Armed Services?" Now we are being told, "Do not fight too hard. Tomorrow, when you turn on the water tap, there will be no water forthcoming."

In Volume 1, No. 2 of the Hansard dated 26th April, 1955, the Secretary-General said at col. 67:

"...we are not afraid to say that we are one hundred per cent against colonialism".

Now he does not say those words any more. Now these same people, after forming the Government, are putting up the same theories as the Progressive Party and Labour Front had once done. They now say, "To fight colonialism means to fight British troops." That was the speech of the Secretary-General made at a special Party Conference on Saturday, 18th June. If this theory is true, then the P.A.P. has not been fighting colonialism during the past five years, because in the past five years, before it came into power, the P.A.P. had not fought British troops. If this theory is true, Mr Speaker, then the political fighting that took place during the past five years was between our group and the Lim Yew Hock group as to who were going to become tile Ministers.

The strength of colonialism is manifested in two forms in this island. The open which is the less dangerous form, and the covert and subtle form, which is the more dangerous. I shall quote instances to distinguish between the two. In the open form. British political power lies in its control of defence and external affairs, in the powers of the Internal Security Council, and in the many provisions of the 1958 Singapore Constitution, which allow the British Government to intrude into many spheres of Singapore's internal self-government.

But British trade and influence do not rest there. They exercise their influences more tightly by controlling key positions in our political and economic complex, and these influences are far more important and far-reaching in consequence than the open control which they exercise through the legality of the 1958 Singapore Constitution.

I have often said that the forces of colonialism are now stronger than ever. The fight has merely entered a new and more subtle phase. We stand determinedly for the completion of the anti-colonial struggle which has now been betrayed. Just now, Mr Speaker, when the Prime Minister was delivering his opening address on the debate, his method was very simple. On the one hand, he condemns, for the first time in the past 14 months, the British colonialists, the Straits Times, and K.M.T. sub-version. That is to convince the people if they can that they are on the left of these, They find that our exposure that they have not talked about colonialism during the past one year is being effective and accepted by the masses, so for the first time they start with lukewarm condemnation if the British colonialists and the Straits Timer. Since the crisis in the P.A.P., the Straits Times have written no less than two or three editorials supporting the present leadership, the so-called Russian trade visa, the K,M.T. subversion (that is, the so-called detention of the two journalists, that they called K.M.T. subversion). We do not interpret the present political struggle in those terms. We interpret the present political struggle as it was interpreted before the P.A.P. formed the Government: that the fight is a fight of the pro-colonialists, led by the Prime Minister and his erstwhile colleague, the Minister for Finance, and the anti-colonialists. This is what the Secretary-General said in Vol. 1, col. 1798 of the Hansard, dated 4th April, 1956:

"As long as the British are here - the common target, the common foe are the British.".

Mr Speaker, could anybody deny that the British are still here?

No word is mentioned in the policy speech about the presence of key expatriate officials, the colonial die-hards and remnants of colonial forces working for the prolongation of the colonial system which at present exists in Singapore. Mr George Thomson, whom the P.A.P. had pledged to dismiss when it came into power, is still at large and, ironically, holding a more important position than before. In addition to his primary duties of indoctrinating and brain-washing civil servants, headmasters, and police personnel at the Political Study Centre, we can also note his erstwhile and strange presence in discussions on tourist promotion, television discussions, appearing when the Prime Minister addresses head-masters of middle schools, delivering speeches, appearing at forums, and writing articles; and only yesterday, appearing in the Nanyang Siang Pao was a long article he wrote for the Police Force, propounding his colonial political philosophy. What an irony! That article of his contains at least 2,500 Chinese characters. My speech was treated differently. I understand that the vernacular Press in particular and the Press in general were asked, or instructed, to back-out or censor my speeches on instructions from the Government. George Thomson was allowed 2,500 words. But the speeches of 10 to 15 speakers at the Badminton Hall rally? They rang up the Nanyang Siang Pao and the Sin Chew fit Poh to say, "Gentlemen, this is an order - 500 words."

I understand, Mr Speaker, that another of Thomson's main functions is to prepare material for Ministers and Assemblymen who might require it for their speeches. I never used it.

After Thomson, we have Blades with other expatriates who are still controlling the police force as it was in the good old days. After Blades, there is P.H. Meadows, who controls all the Government departments under the Prime Minister's Office, namely, the Singapore Harbour Board, the City Council, the Rural Board, the Land Office, the Planning Department, the Survey Department, the Registry of Deeds and the Registry of Titles, etc.

The Prime Minister: The Planning Department.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: In addition to the Big Three, there are also many other expatriates in other Government departments and Boards, where they hold key positions (Mr Speaker, these are facts and cannot be laughed off) in the Singapore Harbour Board, the Singapore Telephone Board, the Telecommunications Department, and so on. Expatriates who have been malayanised have been asked to come back. In the City Council, three expatriates who had taken their compensation were asked to come back, and a local senior officer, Mr Owen, whom I have known from my own knowledge of accountancy to be a brilliant and original accountant, has been forced to leave the country to find employment overseas. Fortunately, his accounting knowledge is recognised by the Australians and he is now having a very well paid job in Australia. On the question of expatriates, it is necessary to remember two points. Firstly, often it is the work that these expatriates do which is not known to the public that is more important and of a more vital nature than the work that is generally known to the public. Secondly, it is not so much the numbers but the key positions that the expatriates hold that really matters. As far as the colonial power is concerned, it is far better to have one expatriate officer controlling the departments under the Prime Minister's office than to have, say, 30 expatriate officers in the Public Works Department, as happened under the Lim Yew Hock Government. To show what this means, I seconded a local officer, Mr Estrop, to be Deputy Superintendent of the Pasir Panjang Power Station, so that when the post of the expatriate head was malayanised, there would be a local officer ready to take his place. After the taking-over of the City Council by the Prime Minister, Estrop was immediately removed. We know that many of the expatriates deliberately do not want to train local officers, so that when their term expires, Government will be forced to re-engage them at fantastic salaries. Too many Government departments and statutory bodies are under direct expatriate control. The rest can be influenced by them in like manner through the colonial octopus. This is what the Prime Minister said about Malayanisation in 1956. It is in Hansard, Vol. 1, dated 26th April, 1955, cols. 57 and 58 and cols. 1806 to 1809 of 4th April, 1956. Col. 58 reads:

"...unless the Government can pursue this policy of Malayanisation not only in the Government Public Services, but in all the Public Services and, last but not least, in the Singapore Harbour Board, where a very important Public Service is run almost exclusively by expatriate officers, there is going to be a great deal of, I would not call it sabotage, but I would just say, general dislocation, when a really vigorous Malayan Nationalist Government takes over in the very near future,...".

Compare this to what the Prime Minister said on the 27th of February, 1960, in the launching of a Singapore Harbour Board tug. The Prime Minister continued [col. 57, Vol. 1 dated 26.4.55]:

"Now, Sir, it is always said that we, as the Member for Serangoon has said (it was Lim Choon Mong, I think) have no talents. If we have talents we have no experience. If we have experience, we have no talents. If we have talents and experience, we have no qualification."

This is what the Prime Minister said when he was Secretary-General in 1955. But what did he say now? After he became Prime Minister, he told Mr Owen (the accountant I referred to just now) at a local officers' meeting where the expatriates were invited to attend, that he had no experience. Mr Speaker, Mr Owen had six years of good experience in accounting both in Australia and Singapore. When we were appointed Ministers, we had not even one day of experience as Ministers.

Mr Speaker, that has been the stand of the P.A.P. on Malayanisation. What the present leadership of the P.A.P. is doing is a complete reversal of that stand. Because of this trend of Government of un-Malayanisation, there are British commercial firms which are following the footsteps of the Government. We stand for the immediate Malayanisation of all expatriate administrative personnel and for the systematic training of local officers to take over the technical and professional posts now occupied by the expatriates.

Mr Speaker, the policy speech mentions that Government does not wish to give the impression that there have not been mistakes and shortcomings in the past year. Tell us what are those mistakes and those shortcomings. Are they mistakes on fundamental principles or mistakes on trivialities? What I can gather from this policy speech, the recent Petir editorial, and the Prime Minister's address this morning, which sounded like the voice of Lim Yew Hock delivering it, is that the Minister for Labour and Law, who is another possible scapegoat, went ahead with too many laws in the past year. The mistakes are not so much with the laws themselves as with the speed with which they were passed. We are not so worried about these little mistakes, trivialities and forms, because no person running a Ministry can avoid them. What we are more concerned with are the mistakes of policies and fundamentals. If you are really sincere, then rectify those mistakes. Reaffirm your faith in the P.A.P. revolutionary manifesto. Reaffirm your faith in the struggle against colonialism and all the avowed aims and policies of the P.A.P. before the formation of the Government. Fight for the detainees in the Internal Security Council and get them released without conditions. I made my stand clear at the first sitting of the Internal Security Council. Since the first sitting, I have not been allowed to speak. Re-register the trade unions without conditions. Repeal the gambling Bills and reverse your present taxation policy which is to tax the poor and subsidise the rich. It should be to tax the rich and subsidise the poor. Rectify all those mistakes that are enumerated in the Hong Lim resolutions. You cannot fight this political issue by intimidation, suppression and temptation. You cannot, for instance, just ring up the vernacular Press, after the Badminton Hall rally, and order them to "black-out" the speeches, and after protestations, order them to limit all the speeches to 500 words. You cannot win the political struggle by detaining a journalist 15 minutes after he attended my Press conference while he was on his way to cable my Press releases to Kuala Lumpur, so that you can use him to intimidate other journalists. You cannot win by sending C.I.D. and other people to the houses of Party members to intimidate them. You cannot win by intimidating the printing press which printed my speeches, which were blacked-out by the local Press according to your instructions. You cannot win by offering back jobs to those P.A.P. members whom you have sacked from the S.I.T. You can only win by going back to pre-May 1959, if that is ever possible.

Mr Speaker, as I have said just now, we are sitting here on this side because we have been forced to sit here, and because the Prime Minister -

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption.