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

Order read for resumption of adjourned debate on Question [5th August, l960],

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

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

Question again proposed.

2.32 p.m.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, last Friday, I said that the brightest feature in the speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara was the admission that there had been mistakes and shortcomings, and that also the promise was made that in future there would be more patience and that zeal would be tempered with understanding. Sir, it seems to be a very good beginning, to undo those mistakes that have been made, and in the light of that promise, I would like to bring to the attention of the Government certain things which have brought about a great deal of unhappiness to many parents, teachers and students.

Sir, the most important cause of much unhappiness amongst these people is the six-day week. The parents have said that they have noticed that their children show signs of undue strain. On Saturdays, they seem to have no relish for school work and, of course, homework must be given. As usual, on Sundays, they have to do their homework and on Monday the round begins again. So these perpetual rounds give no real break to students and those engaged in the teaching profession. Sir, it may be said that in the past the Chinese-medium schools had a six-day working week, but actually they had 5.5 days, as it was pointed out by the Minister for Education. That half a day was usually devoted to recreational activities. Now in England I have been told that two half days are devoted to recreational activities so that actually they too have five full days of school work. Sir, if it is important that extra languages must be taught, I suggest that it could be done by the substitution of an extra language period for a period that can be done away with. Or let the school start, say, half an hour earlier each day, but let there be a five-day week or a compulsory five-day week with half a day optional for most schools in Singapore.

There was a meeting, Sir, in Kuala Lumpur on 6th June, 1960, and there was a report in the Free Press of 7th June, 1960, which stated that at the first session of the Asian regional conference of the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession, the delegates came to the conclusion and recommended that the teaching period "should be fitted into a five-day week, for it is essential that children get a real break from school work each week. Where home conditions are so poor that it is desirable for children to spend more time in school, this time should not be used for more teaching but for recreation and hobbies." Sir, that is the opinion of professional people at a world conference. Let us not forget, Sir, that by having a six-day week, poor parents must spend about 20 per cent more on their children's expenses in school. Let us not forget also that we are working here under climatic conditions that are different from those existing in temperate regions. I am sure some of the Members on the Government side, Sir, will remember that whereas in London, one can walk for miles and miles and for hours without feeling tired, we cannot do the same in the heat of a tropical country like Singapore. Sir, therefore, if the Government wishes to restore the morale of teachers, students and parents, we earnestly request them to consider the restoration of a five-day week or a five-day week plus a half day on Saturday for recreational activities.

Sir, another sore point among teachers today is the new kind of formula which seems to go against all arithmetical principles. We used to learn that if we want more work to be done, we have to get more men. Today the formula seems to be: More activities, more work but less manpower. Of course, economy is very important, but you can go to such lengths that economy defeats the very purpose of introducing economic measures, when we have demoralising effects and when the standard of efficiency goes down. We have had cases where a teacher in, say, the Malay medium or the Chinese medium was called upon to substitute for a teacher in the English medium, to carry on a regular lesson in the English medium or vice versa, just because there was a shortage of teachers in a school.

We all agree, Sir, that the principle of equal treatment is a principle we want to adopt, but in the measures adopted to implement this principle of equal treatment, let us make sure that equal treatment does not become equal Maltreatment. We all agree that there must be equal treatment. Sir, we hope that these things will be looked into carefully and rectification be made.

There is one point to be clarified under "University", Sir. In column 20 of Hansard dated 20th July, 1960 (Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech), it is stated:

"...the two Universities, Nanyang University and the Singapore Division of the University of Malaya, are geared to serve the needs of the State.'

Sir, we hope by that it does not mean that the one to manipulate the gears is only the Government, but that before the gears are changed there will be consultation and that the views of the University authorities will be properly appreciated so that over there also there will not be this feeling that equal treatment means equal treatment on a lower level. We all want equal treatment on the higher level so that it becomes equally good treatment.

Sir, we all desire to improve conditions and standards in education, but the improvements should not be such that the levels go down. I believe, Sir, that we can maintain the high standards of education in our country. On a five-day week we have produced brilliant scholars like our Prime Minister. Only three years ago we sent a local student to the London University and I have just received a report, Sir, that in the Engineering College (University of London), he topped the list of first-class honours last week. That, Sir, was on a five day week.

Sir, I now come to the amendment standing in my name. I move,

"at end, to add -

`but urges the Government to consider restoring to its employees the cut in variable allowances which was made last year'."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I may be wrongly accused again for having brought this up in order to revive an old sore. Sir, let us consider again the facts of the case when the cut in the variable allowances of Government servants was introduced. About a year ago, when the Minister for Finance introduced the cut, Sir, the main reason given was that the Government faced a threatened deficit of $14 million. I pointed out then, Sir, that it was only a threatened deficit and that, judging from what had been done by previous Financial Secretaries, an expected financial deficit usually turned out to be a surplus. But the Minister for Finance insisted that the ship was sinking, and that unless steps were taken it might be too late.

Sir, in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, we read in column 6 of Hansard dated 20th July, 1960:

`The State ended the year's budget with a small surplus of $9 million.'

Sir, if there had been an expected deficit of $14 million and the year ended with a surplus of $9 million, then the Government has been able to make good by something like $23 million. I am not sure whether the financial year ended in November or December 1959 - I would normally expect it to be so - but if that were so, then in half a year they have made good the deficit and there was also a surplus of $9 million. Sir, the principle I would say is this: if we want to get rid of the deficit, the first thing should be to economise, not to cut the pay of our employees. As an example of a model employer, to resort to pay cuts should be the last thing, and not the first. If the surplus is money which has been obtained through the cut in the variable allowances, and since the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara states that the country is economically stable, the time seems to be favourable to rectify this mistake. We do not say that the mistake was intentional - we all make mistakes. But it is understood, Sir, that once errors are made and found out, it is only right that we should rectify them, otherwise they will remain errors and a running sore throughout.

Sir, the Prime Minister was reported in the Straits Times of Friday, 3rd June, 1960, to have said the following:

`There were some mistakes, and there were hard feelings. True, the cut in allowances of Government servants was painful. True, school teachers were pushed too far in the extra half session.

Rectifications had to be made. Half sessions have been dropped. Professional allowances were paid to certain categories of officers in the Government service.'

I am glad that the Prime Minister himself has admitted the principle that once errors are discovered, rectifications are necessary. However the rectifications have not been fully made. It may not be realised by many, Sir, that half sessions have not been completely withdrawn. The teachers were told that if they had not volunteered for the half sessions, their turn would come once in three years. So, actually the half sessions have not been completely dropped, and very likely the Prime Minister was misinformed. Sir, some people may say that I am going to benefit by this if Government should become generous. Let me say here, and I give you my word, Sir, that if anything comes out of it I do not wish to benefit from it. There may be others also who do not wish to benefit from it, and would be glad that if anything should come to some of us, that money be given to the unemployed. There are those who feel that the cut was very painful because they had committed themselves in advance to housing loans, education of their children, and I know of certain cases where the children have to be pulled back from universities because their parents could not afford to lose their allowances. Sir, this is a question not only of principle, but of sincerity, a test of sincerity. Just a last word, Sir. At the big rally at the Happy World Stadium of teachers in Singapore, the Prime Minister noticed the look of unhappiness among the many faces and, being a person who knows human nature well, suddenly introduced something in his speech. He promised the teachers that if things improved, although he was not the Finance Minister, he would recommend restoration of the pay cuts, if not all, at least part of it.

The Prime Minister: On a point of clarification, Sir. May I -

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: In a few seconds -

The Prime Minister: It is very important.

Mr Speaker: I think the Prime Minister will have the opportunity.

The Prime Minister: I have been misquoted.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, there was a big applause, and I was there. Sir, I cannot give the exact words, but the content was that. It can be verified by checking with the 9,000 or 10,000 teachers who were present. I hope that that is remembered, Sir, and, in principle, if Government cannot afford to restore all the allowances, at least the principle of restoration or rectification of error is, I think, important.

I so move.

The Prime Minister: Sir, may I -

Mr Speaker: I think the Prime Minister will have the opportunity to speak on the amendment after I propose the Question.

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

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members will appreciate, of course, that the debate from now on until the amendment has been disposed of must be concentrated on the amendment itself.

No Member rising -

Mr Speaker: I cannot be kept waiting for long. If nobody wishes to speak, I will put the Question.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Speaker: We are now back to the original Question.

Original Question again proposed.

2.53 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in moving the motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, the Prime Minister mentioned that the Government was aware that Communist elements had been regrouping and reorganising in Singapore immediately before the last elections. This fact should be considered in the interests of the peace and prosperity of the State of Singapore. If these Communist activities are allowed to go unchecked, it means that we condone them.

Mr Speaker, it should be remembered that `at the present moment we are at the stage of achieving independence for Singapore. We realise that independence can only be achieved through a merger with the Federation of Malaya. We are sincere in wishing to achieve our aim, and should not give up halfway in our efforts because of our own acts, and without careful consideration of the ways and means of achieving our objective.

I am fully confident, Mr Speaker, that what has been said by the Prime Minister has been said in an atmosphere of worry and the realisation of the dangers confronting the Government. But what I wish to know, Mr Speaker, is that during the last 14 months that the Government has been in office, what steps have the Prime Minister and his Cabinet taken to forestall or curb the threat of Communism? Has the Prime Minister been sitting still, a silent spectator to the activities of the Communists, and waiting for the moment when steps could be taken? Or has he resigned himself to fate, hoping for the best in the future? Or is that a further mistake made by the Government over the last 14 months? To the best of my knowledge, Mr Speaker, to-date I cannot recall any positive action taken by the Government in suppressing Communist subversive elements.

Recently I heard it announced in this Assembly that two journalists had been detained under the P.P.S.O. on the ground that they were associated with pro-K.M.T. subversive elements. Mr Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister and Members of the Government will declare frankly their stand. I ask: are they prepared to get themselves mixed up and be involved with Communists? I warn them about the Malay proverb: "You cannot befriend the tiger." I say honestly that these methods are wrong. For these reasons, we are almost suspicious of the present Government. We will not change our stand so long as the Government cannot come out into the open and take action to wipe out Communist activities, whether the activities are within their Party or outside. We will give our wholehearted support if the Government takes positive steps towards wiping out these Communist activities.

For us, Mr Speaker, we are sincere, determined and honest in facing Communist subversion. There are people who allege that our opinions are based on fanaticism. But I would like to ask this. Is the concept of anti-colonialism also fanaticism? With this non-Communist policy, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has mentioned three possibilities that may happen to his Party. First, what is good for the P.A.P. may not be good for the M.C.P. What is good for the P.A.P. may also be good for the Communists. What is not good for the P.A.P. may be good for the Communists. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has not given us examples as to the difference in meaning between the three possibilities mentioned by him. But if I could be `permitted to give an example of what may be good for the P.A.P. but not good for the Communists, we could say this-the Government's efforts to get help from the British Government will not be acceptable to the Communists. Secondly, on what is good for the P.A.P. may also be good for the Communists, I could say this. For instance, we repatriate all those in key posts still held by expatriates to their country of origin, and replace them with local personnel who the Government feel can do what they dictate. Whether they are competent or otherwise, it does not matter at all. Thirdly, the possibility that what is good for the P.A.P. may not be good for the Communists. For instance, Mr Speaker, recently the Singapore Government sent a congratulatory message to the Federation Government on the termination of the Emergency there. This action of the P.A.P. is taken because, if we do not offer our congratulations, it may not be good from the point of view of the relationship between the two territories. But for the Communists this gesture is directly opposed to their interests.

Mr Speaker, on the problem of merger with the Federation of Malaya, we realise that Singapore cannot survive by itself. But what we fail to understand is that we can only charge the Federation of Malaya for refusing to accept us as a unit of Malaya. Mr Speaker, we are only wise in pointing an accusing finger at a man if he is wrong. If we ourselves do not wish to rectify the mistakes that we have committed, or adopt an unacceptable attitude, then we cannot accuse the other Party of refusing to accept our views.

We know, Mr Speaker, that by our merely saying that this is good and so on, it will have no effect on anybody. The listeners will weigh our words and consider our deeds and actions. Then only will they form certain conclusions. But if we preach one thing and practise another, then it follows that they will not have faith in us.

The P.A.P., Mr Speaker, has admitted that the Malays in the Federation are afraid that a merger will mean that the Malay population there will be swallowed up. I want to be honest in this matter. It is not communalism - it is a fact which nobody can deny or repudiate. It should not be misconstrued that it is communalism, as though communalism is the greatest danger both in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya - putting aside the Communist threat. We consider it a small matter. It is wrong, Mr Speaker, to consider communalism in Malaya, because the multi-racial people have lived peacefully side by side for hundreds of years, and they have faced different political developments together until the creation of a Government for which all the people are responsible. Sir, there should be no reason why this problem should constitute a danger, although there are among us those who have no feelings of sympathy, and who simply refuse to see facts. They base their actions on sentiment, and exploit this communal issue for their own benefit. But if they see the facts for themselves based on sympathetic consideration, I think, Mr Speaker, it will be clearly seen that from the time of British colonialism we can always come to a compromise to avoid undesirable events happening in Malaya.

About the concern of the Malays in the Federation, at the moment I think they are having good hopes of living in a house comprising various races, and they are moving towards the building of one nation based on a strong foundation. But if we look at the situation in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot foresee this hope, although we are working under a Government with a Constitution in which it has clearly been enunciated that positive steps should be taken to help the Malays. On this matter, all the relevant provisions cannot be distorted or twisted; as, for instance, by giving Malays free education. Free education has been given, from the primary level up to the middle school and university level. During the British era, free education was also in existence, and in the English schools were found special Malay classes. Special privileges were given to those in these classes.

Similarly, in other matters, we cannot be proud of anything which leaves no impression at all. So what the Government should do is to initiate a special programme as required under the Constitution. Although Members of the Government charge that this is communalism, it is clearly enunciated in the preamble to the Constitution. We cannot set aside the Constitution if we are to go by the Constitution which we have all accepted.

Mr Speaker, as has been mentioned by the Opposition side, we are reviewing the work of the Government during the 14 months they have been holding the reins of power. They should rectify the mistakes they have made.

I am quite sure the Government will not find it hard to change their attitude and I feel they will fully implement the paragraph about the special rights of the Malays.

There is one point which I would like to express, Mr Speaker, speaking on the inter-racial ties, and that is, special attention should be given to Malays of Islamic religion. The Malays are opposed to Communism. They are of the opinion that the Communists are atheists. So also with Christianity and Buddhism - they are opposed to Communism. If the Government fail to adopt a positive attitude, it follows that the followers of the religion I have just mentioned will have no faith in them. They will not believe that the Government will take definite steps to curb Communist activities both in Singapore and Malaya.

I would like to give an illustration which may be a little shocking to the Muslim population. A concert about "Ketuhanan", meaning godliness, was recently presented over the Malay Section of Radio Singapore. This story, Mr Speaker, has resulted in protestations coming from the Muslim people. One section feels that the presentation of this concert has caused the Holy Koran to be insulted or looked down upon with contempt, whereas another section feels that this is a progressive move. There is yet another group which is of the opinion that this is Communist propaganda to test how deep is the faith of the Muslim people towards Islam. This sort of thing will create an unhealthy atmosphere. A close scrutiny will make it obvious that it will result in clashes between various people of different faiths, and that it will be bad for Singapore's peace and prosperity. I hope the Ministry responsible will conduct an investigation so that there will be no recurrence of such a thing. I am suspicious of the Government's attitude. The Government, on the one hand, realises that Communist activities are becoming more active. On the other hand, it has not produced a White Paper so that the public will know what it stands for. If I am not mistaken, the previous Government issued a White Paper declaring its stand and mentioning how Communist activities had been on the rampage, subverting trade unions and other cultural bodies. But in Singapore during the past 14 months the Government has not done anything positive or definite to control the people's associations, trade unions, etc. We would like to know what the Communists have done during the past 14 months that the P.A.P. has been in power. If the Government really wishes to make the people realise the danger of Communism, it is important that it should issue a White Paper on the subject.

Mr Speaker, in addition to what I have already said, it is hoped that the Government, in the year ahead will pay attention to and take steps on the matters which the Opposition has raised, because the time has come when we do not wish to be considered any longer as, to quote the Prime Minister, "gunny bags fit for bayonet practices by the Japanese". We are not here just to offer blind opposition, but we are here to offer and have offered constructive and useful criticisms. We have given the Government an opportunity to show their capabilities by carrying out plans which are beneficial to the people. It is clear now that the matters raised by the Opposition have caused the Government to consider them seriously. For instance, the Trade Unions Bill. Although the Government did pass the Trade Unions Bill in this Assembly, I am quite sure that the Government has now given second thoughts to it, as it will be re-introduced at a later date.

Another point on which I would like to touch in this Assembly, Mr Speaker, is the good relationship between the Indonesian and Singapore Governments. The people of Singapore gladly welcome this. But on behalf of the inhabitants of the Southern Islands, I would like to raise this point in this Assembly, and that is, that this Government will convey to the Indonesian Government, on the basis of our good relationship, the hopes of the inhabitants concerning the methods of entry into Indonesian-owned islands. I know of the existing facilities accorded to the fishermen on the Southern Islands to fish in Indonesian territorial waters which have been going on well, but what I have in mind is the relationship between the inhabitants of the Southern Islands and those of a neighbouring island outside the jurisdiction of Singapore [meaning an island in Indonesia]. Some of these people who are Singapore citizens marry Indonesian subjects, living on the neighbouring island. From time immemorial, they have had this social intercourse. Now they are encountering difficulties with the Immigration Department. What I am told is that in the past they were issued with special identity cards valid for one year, and the possession of these special identity cards would enable them to move freely between the Indonesian Islands for the specific purposes, as mentioned on the identity cards. I hope this system will be reintroduced by the Immigration Department, as it will facilitate entry of the wives or children into Singapore, the object of which is relationship between one family and another.

Apart from that, Mr Speaker, I hope the Minister for Education will be in a position in the coming year to build a school on Blakan Mati. I am told by the Education Ministry that the school at Blakan Mati in the past year was outside the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education. It was at the time under the control of the Ministry of National Development. For this year, however, there is a school site and building plans have been completed, except that the Education Ministry has no money at its disposal, and I hope this year a school will be built on Blakan Mati because the difficulties faced by the pupils are great indeed in that they have to travel by ferry across to the island of Blakan Mati. Sometimes they experience difficulties in using the ferry supplied by the War Department.

Similarly with the Prime Minister who is in charge of rural areas. During the past year there was no vote for the development of these two islands - Blakan Mati and Pulau Brani. Hence in the coming year I believe there are provisions for the development of Pulau Brani. One of the things for the Ministry to provide is a jetty in the kampong called Telok Saga. At the moment the people there are using, as a bridge, only a piece of timber, which is dangerous.

3.29 p.m.

Mr Tee Kim Leng (Pasir Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. is a Party of strength and full of revolutionary spirit. It will not accept any compromise with the colonialists. Before the general elections last year, we expounded our Five-Year Plan. At present, the Government of the self-governing State of Singapore works under certain restrictions contained in the Constitution. The Government has therefore found it quite impossible to fulfill all the hopes and aspirations of the people. The P.A.P. Government will not disappoint the people because of the restrictions contained in the Constitution. The achievements of the past year have clearly shown that the P.A.P. Government has been doing its best - although restricted by the Constitution - to fulfill the desires and hopes of the people, especially in the expansion of local industries.

However, Mr Speaker, our colleagues and I are still not satisfied with the Constitution. Our aims are the same as those of our people. If the people want to achieve their aims, they must always stand united with a Left-wing political Party that is firm in its policies. Such a party is the P.A.P. Our Party is a Party that has the best political policies in the history of Malayan nationalism. Being a Left-wing Party and an up-holder of nationalism, we will not lose sight of the original noble objectives of our struggle (we have a long-term aim) amidst the political turmoil, and we will not be made use of by any political opportunists.. All intelligent Left-wing thinkers are able to analyse the present situation of political unrest and turmoil. No matter what the political opportunists will do, or have done, they will fail, just like Mr Marshall's Workers' Party. The progressive forces are always united together and will struggle against colonialism and semi-feudalism to the end. At the same time, the P.A.P will continue to struggle by not wavering from its firm policies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the people know that, since the P.A.P. came into power and governed the State under the Constitution, we have been enforcing our revolutionary policies to reform Government organisations, to cut out unnecessary expenses, to wipe out bureaucracy, to end corruption completely and to make public servants more polite and courteous to the public. These policies will be enforced as long as the P.A.P. is in power. If anyone tries to disrupt us, we will take the necessary action to suppress him.

The continuous increase of population has created more unemployment among the young people. The Government attaches great importance to the creation of more jobs for the young people. For this reason, the Government is trying its best to expand local industries all the time. This year will see the beginning of industrial expansion and it will also be a year that will decide the future of the P.A.P. The l½ million people of the State will begin to enjoy an era of economic and political stability. There is no limit to industrial expansion. The Government has complete confidence in the expansion of industries. During the past few months, many firms have invested in pioneer industries and have signed agreements with the Government. These firms are now building their factories. There are 13 firms which have sent in applications. The total investment capital is more than $100 million. We believe that, in future, more local and foreign capital will be invested in the building of factories. Because of the establishment of more factories, the Government is gradually solving the problem of unemployment. The State is on the road to prosperity, and the livelihood of the people will be secured.

In the expansion of industries, the Government is concerned about and has regard for the welfare of the workers. The Government will not allow similar unhappy events of the past to recur and it will not allow the basic rights and benefits of the workers to be exploited. The Government will protect the rights of both employees and employers based on the principle of mutual benefit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although the important duty of the Government is to expand local industries, we have not neglected the welfare of the farmers. The Government regards the welfare and living of the farmers with importance. They were an oppressed and forgotten lot by the colonialists. The old Government was not sincere in looking after the livelihood of the farmers. Many of them had cultivated land to support their families through their own sweat and blood - not forgetting their forefathers - for the past decades. Some unenlightened landlords had forced the farmers to vacate their land under the old law which favoured the landlords. At the same time, the farmers did not get even a single cent as compensation for their evacuation. The farmers had to leave their lovely houses, knowing that there was no clearly defined laws to protect them. Due to a lack of legal protection, the farmers felt insecure. The P.A.P. fully sympathises with the suffering of the farmers. So during the first session of the Assembly we passed an Ordinance to protect them. This has given them a feeling of security. In column 11 of Hansard dated 20th July, 1960 (Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech), it is stated:

`Legislation to give farmers better security of tenure is under preparation and will be introduced in the Legislative Assembly during this session.'

Therefore, we can say that during the present session of the Assembly, the dwelling-houses of the farmers will be protected by law. We believe that the farmers will greatly welcome this legislation. This proves that the P.A.P., Government is interested in looking after the welfare of the farmers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 3rd August, 1960, the Member for Kampong Kembangan blamed the Government for not having been able to achieve the same results in construction projects for the villages and kampongs during the past 14 months as those achieved by the old Government. Maybe the hon. Member has not gone to see the kampongs since becoming a Member of this House. He just lives a private life and knows only how to criticise the ineffectiveness of the Government's policies. He is just like a blind man who is feeling an elephant's body and, on touching its tail, shouts out at once that the elephant is a short rope.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the other day -

Mr Speaker: I understand that yesterday a Member was likened to a dog. I think this time an hon. Member is likened to an elephant, unless the interpretation is wrong. If that is not so, then, of course, the Member for Pasir Panjang must not say that a Member of this Assembly is likened to an elephant.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now, when I spoke about an elephant, I did not mean that the hon. Member is an elephant. I only meant that he was like the blind man who, in the story, was feeling his way round an elephant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the other day, my colleague the Member for Choa Chu Kang spoke on the achievements of the Government in construction works for the villages. I would like to inform the Member for Kampong Kembangan that, since the setting up of the City and Rural Advisory Council 14 months ago, we have achieved splendid results in the city and rural areas. Many city and rural dwellers have written letters to the Council asking for more roads and more public water-pipes, etc. The Council will concentrate on the areas where improvements are badly needed. In this connection, I would like to remind the Member for Kampong Kembangan that during the July meeting of the Council, it approved a vote of $1,104,000 for the building of more water-pipes, roads, sheltered bus-stands and the installation of street lights. This is solid proof that the P.A.P. Government regards with great importance the welfare of the people living in the city and rural areas.

3.43 p.m.

Mr C. H. Koh (Joo Chiat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not an eloquent speaker like the Hon. the Prime Minister or other hon. Members that this House has seen in the past. I do not claim to be a David Marshall. I am, therefore, extremely puzzled, Sir, why my mere silence - a silence which half the hon. Members on the Government Benches have emulated - did call for stern strictures from the Hon, the Prime Minister and the public. He has even seen fit to make unseemly jokes about my silence. Mere silence seems to gnaw at his heart. However, that is a thing of the past, Sir. But, Sir, there are reasons why I kept silent. Perhaps my silence did contribute to the split in the P.A.P. Had I spoken too much, both sides [indicating] would have gone for me.

Mr Speaker: This is of course, the hon. Member's maiden speech in this Assembly. Perhaps he does not know that I do not like gestures. Pointing at Members, I think, is completely out of order. The hon. Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair and not the Members.

Mr C. H. Koh: I apologise, Mr Speaker. As you say, I am making my maiden speech and, of course, one gets rather exuberant after a long silence, particularly when one has been thumped in the back so many times for keeping that silence.

However, Sir, I was very happy to see you pull up the Hon, the Prime Minister for calling me a parliamentary jester.

Mr Speaker: Order. There again I think the hon. Member is slipping. When the Speaker has ruled on a topic, that ruling stands. I do not think there could be any more debate or comment on it. Otherwise, we will have every Member debating every ruling of the Speaker.

Mr C. H. Koh: I stand by your ruling, Sir, but may I just quote an old proverb that many a true word has been spoken in jest, and say that that is a proverb which the Hon, the Prime Minister may like to remember when he cracks unseemly jokes.

What I would like to say, Sir, is this: although I have been silent, I have not been blind and I have not been deaf. This is the highest assembly in the entire country, and we expect debates in this House to be dignified. You have been put there, Sir, to see that dignity is enforced in this House. There are hopes that we will not have our debates conducted like a coffee-shop quarrel, where one party would say. "Hi, pe-nyapu-lu, kasut burok-lu," and the other party would reply, "Chilaka-lu," and no merits of the case come out at all in the argument. Both sides get heated up, and the debate ends up in a brawl or with everybody not understanding anything at all.

Sir, the Hon. the Minister for Culture has told you that an occasion like this is traditionally the opportunity for reviewing the past, the present and forecasting the future. I think he did mention the past actions of the Government, but I would say, Sir, that we ought to go further than the past one year's actions of the Government, to fully understand the mentality of the hon. Members on the opposite Benches, and through them the mind of the Government which issued the speech which is the subject of this debate. We must go further back into the very history of Singapore.

In 1819 Sir Stamford Raffles bought Singapore, and for many decades, Singapore was nothing but a little shop in the British Empire. In 1853 the great Queen Victoria issued the famous proclamation, whereby she proclaimed that all her subjects of whatever race, colour or creed would have their customs and laws respected by her, and these would prevail in her empire.

That, Sir, if I may be allowed to humbly say so, is the beginning of politics in Singapore. That was the first ray which gave the people of this country the hope that one day we would have independence. Then, Sir, from 1853 until the first World War in 1914, we were ruled as a colony: from a little shop to a little colony. As a result of the tumultuous happenings of the first World War, we evolved into another stage of our history when the word "trusteeship" first became prominent in this country. England became the trustees of her colonial people, and not the owners of the colony. Then the people of this country realised that they should start stirring up arguments for independence or its compromise - self-government. In that period, Sir, which, if I may be allowed to allocate a chapter would end somewhere around the beginnings of the 1930s, we had the real giant fighters against the colonial power - we had Sir Ong Siang Song [Laughter] - laugh, my friend, but these were the real fighters in the colonial war. These are the people whose eloquent speeches were heard in Whitehall which caught their attention that the people of this country were just as capable as the people of any other country in so far as speech-making and merits were concerned.

Then we get into the stage when the immediate past fighters in the colonial war were in power, the Tan Chin Tuans, the C. C. Tans [Laughter] - my friends may laugh differently when I finish. These were the people who fought the anti-colonial war for the peoples of Singapore.

Then, Sir, we had the second World War. In the second World War, this country was very, very upset. A good many of the elders, a good many of the pioneer fighters in the anti-colonial war, died. There remained people who had no background, people who "jumped the wagon", if I may use that phrase. In this period of the Japanese occupation of this country, the very young, even boys of 8 and 12, did a great deal of work and were able to earn more money than their elders. There was a complete change of the social structure of this country during that period.

Then came the end of the Japanese occupation, and we had the beginnings of parliamentary representation in this country. We had elections to the then Municipality, subsequently City Council. We had our first Mayor, and that is a distinct stage in the history of Singapore.

In 1954 came a group of people who formed themselves into the People's Action Party. The members of the People's Action Party, Sir, are very honourable gentlemen. Many of them are firm friends of mine. I have the highest regard for many of them. They are also very well qualified. The Hon. the Prime Minister, Sir, if you will allow me to make individual mention, gained a triple first in the Law Tripos at Cambridge. And I think that brain of his is a very valuable brain for this country if used in the proper manner, and not for cracking jokes.

An hon. Member: Jester!

Mr C. H. Koh: Who is the jester? I beg your pardon, Sir, I must not mention that word again. Sir, what I would like to express by this review of the history of this country is this: to be able to govern this country for the present and the future, you must know your past. In the past, this country has made many mistakes, politically, administratively, and economically. If we know the mistakes of the past, we were less likely to make mistakes in the year 1959, as admitted in the speech, and, more important still, Sir, in the second decisive year o the Lee Kuan Yew Government. By the way, Sir, I do not like the ominous note in those words of the Hon, the Prime Minister - "the decisive second year" - has he got any instinctive feeling that there might be some danger to his continuing into the third year?

However, Sir, let us say that the collective unconscious of politics in Singapore is just as important as the immediate past, the present and the immediate future. Now we know, Sir,

• I nearly pointed [to a Member] - why the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is made in such general terms. The drafters of the speech have no background, Sir; that is why. They are so intense, so enthusiastic in their social revolution in the present and in the immediate future that they do not know anything about the past and have forgotten about the past. Their treatment of everybody in this country, who may not be members of the People's Action Party, well, I will not say it is insulting, because that may not be parliamentary, Sir, but it is certainly not encouraging to Members of (I must not point) the Opposition and to the other people -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry I have discouraged the hon. Member from gesturing. I have merely indicated that too much pointing is not what I would like to see in this Assembly. But sweeping gestures, gestures which the Prime Minister sometimes uses, are, I think, quite in order.

Mr C. H. Koh: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I wonder if speakers could be allowed to drink some water whilst they are going on. My throat is getting a bit dry after 14 months of silence!

Sir, I think it is about time the People's Action Party stop talking about their sweeping majority in the elections of 1959. After all, the number of people who voted for the 43 candidates, for the 43 winners of the People's Action Party, numbered only 273,000. The people who voted for the other parties, that is the Opposition to the P.A.P., numbered 243,000.

Mr S. Rajaratnam: How many did you get?

Mr C. H. Koh: I got 6,100 votes as compared to the P.A.P. candidate of 5,300.

Mr Byrne: Next time you will get 60 votes!

Mr C. H. Koh: To be sure - Well, I had better not. As I said. I do not want a coffee-shop brawl. So I had better set an example, Mr Speaker, whatever may be the provocation [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Members on the Government Front Bench should set an example, and I might also remind once again the Member for Joo Chiat that he is addressing the Chair. Possibly if he looks at the Chair he might not notice interruptions.

Mr C. H. Koh: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not the looks but the sounds. However, Sir, if I may go back to the speech, bearing in mind the background with which we shall deal with this speech.

Now the Hon. the Prime Minister has accused the Opposition in toto of being completely unable to debate with him on subjects of tremendous importance in this country. Well, Sir, there is one thing which I must say. It may be that we so highly respect the brain that gained a triple first in Cambridge that we would like to give him a chance to show us what such a brain can do for this country. The other thing, Sir, is that whatever we say in this Assembly gets steamrollered out of this Assembly. But he has very kindly invited us to help him. That is the gist of his invocation to the Opposition Members. Let us put a kindly interpretation on what he said. I cannot remember his exact words, Mr Speaker. It may be nice to us or it may not be nice to us. But the gist of it is this. "I would like the Members of the Opposition to speak strongly and debate strongly so that we can get somewhere in the crucial matters of this country." Right, Sir. We shall now give it to him. In this nuclear age, Sir, the entire country was waiting with trembling knees for a highly charged and dramatic speech from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. We were hopelessly disappointed. The speech. I think the general word used in the country today, was "tame". Mind you, Sir, the entire country heaved a sigh of relief when they heard the speech. No general policy of higher taxation. No general policy of increased assessment. Thank goodness for that kind of speech! But, Sir, there are dangerous inaccuracies in that speech which must not be allowed to go by without emphatic remarks.

First of all, the statement in the speech that we are now enjoying economic prosperity which this country has never seen during the last 15 years.

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to read the passage of the speech because I cannot see the word "prosperity" in that passage. I might have been looking at the wrong passage, of course.

Mr C. H. Koh: Sir, it is in Hansard, Vol. 13 No. 1 col. 5:

`The correctness of the policy laid down in the Five-Year Plan has been shown by the fact that under the new Government. Singapore has enjoyed greater political and economic stability than it has known during the last 15 years.'

The Prime Minister: Where is "prosperity"?

Mr C. H. Koh: Why did you not include "prosperity"? That is the point.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to keep interrupting the hon. Member. But I can assure him I did not write the speech. But when he says "you" he is referring to the Chair.

Mr C. H. Koh: I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, for the exuberance of a maiden speech! And I blush for it. Sir, now that I come to see it, it is a peculiar thing that the word "prosperity" has been left out. I think it was the intention of the Government to make people believe that after one year of their government, this country is economically in a wonderful position. But they dare not put it in words, because they would immediately then be faced with this grave fact. Whereas the whole of Europe and America are today enjoying one of the biggest booms in the world, Mr Speaker, Sir, our stomachs are getting more and more hungry as we go on from day to day under the P.A.P. Government, except in the case of people of a certain inclination who may have got their salaries raised by promotion from civilian life to non-civilian life. I think it is well known whom I mean. They are the people whose total income in previous days may have been $100 a month and who are now getting $500 a month. Or are certain political parties taking so much of their Members' money that the Members do not get the full allowance that they are entitled to under the law? People of a certain class who used to earn $800 or so - I will not look where - are now earning much more than that. Those people, of course, are enjoying greater political and economic stability than they have known during the last 15 years, than the whole of their lives. Apart from that, we cannot deny that this is the first time in the history of Singapore, the first time since 1819 and even before that, that Singapore has a slump when the rest of the world is enjoying a very great boom. I hope the Prime Minister will give us some explanation of that when he replies in this debate. He has the last word, Sir.

The Prime Minister: I hope the Member will give some authority to say that there is a slump in Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Order. This is getting to be like a coffee-shop! I think the hon. Member had not given way when the Prime Minister spoke.

Mr C. H. Koh resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: I take it he has given way. Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: I was wondering whether the Member for Joo Chiat will quote the authority for saying that there is a slump in Singapore, because I have not noticed it in the market report.

Mr C. H. Koh: Mr Speaker, Sir, that remark of the Prime Minister is typical of him and of the entire P.A.P. Government. They blind themselves to the facts. Does he not know the prices of shares on the Malayan Stock Exchange today as compared to those of 15 years ago? Or we need not even go so far. As socialists, they may say that they are not shareholders. But as the Government of this country, the prosperity of this country is a matter in their hands, and they should know it.

The Prime Minister: What do we not know?

Mr C. H. Koh: I will reply, Mr Speaker, Sir,I am just in the first half-hour of my speech. [Laughter].

The Prime Minister: Does he not claim -

Mr Speaker: Order. We will never get on this way.

Mr C. H. Koh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, far from enjoying political and economic stability, I would say that in the last year the economic condition of this country has never been more unsatisfactory. That is one inaccuracy which I would like to point out in the speech. I do not want to go too much into it. I will now say it in general terms - that it is full of inaccuracies.

Sir, I think one paragraph in this speech typifies the entire speech. That is in col. 13 of Hansard, Vol. 13 No. 1, under the title `Poultry Farming'. "Chickens" to those who do not know the word!

`An improved strain of chicks has been bred which will grow much faster than the local Canton fowl and which will lay 40 per cent more eggs. Each fowl of this strain will lay up to 150 eggs per year whereas the local Canton fowl can lay only between 90 and 100 eggs per year. Day-old chicks of this new strain will be distributed to farmers to improve their livestock.'

That is the quotation. A tremendous enunciation of a wonderful policy! I suppose this paragraph was put in for the benefit of the farmers of this country whom the P.A.P. are so bent on currying - no, Sir, that may not be parliamentary - whom the P.A.P. are so bent on -

The Prime Minister: On helping.

Mr C. H. Koh: Now, listen to this. `Helping' is the word of the Hon, the Prime Minister. Does the Hon, the Prime Minister know the true facts? The White Leghorn - before I say anything, Sir, let me say that whilst a few of the hon. Members on the opposite side were just crawling alongside their cradles, I have been keeping chickens. [Laughter]. Is there anything wrong, Sir, in keeping chickens? I know what is in their minds.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): What about old hens?

Mr C. H. Koh: Now, listen to this. Listen to the help you are giving the farmers of this country.

Mr Byrne: Point, gesture!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr C. H. Koh: The White Leghorn, Sir, which is a very well-known international breed of egg-layers - [Laughter] Sir, I do not understand. If there is a joke, I do not understand it. I hope -

Mr Speaker: The Speaker has not laughed. [Laughter] Order.

Mr C. H. Koh: Sir, it is a wonderful inspiration to us to have a Speaker who is so dignified in this House.

The White Leghorn can lay up to 280 eggs per annum as compared with the marvellous breed which the Government proposes to introduce in this country and which can lay only 150 eggs. 280 to 150. There is another difference, Sir. The local eggs are l oz. to 1¼ oz. in weight. The White Leghorn egg is 2 oz. to 2½ oz. in weight. Sir, I know there are people in this country who do not like White Leghorn eggs because they are coloured white. Of course, in time to come they may not bother about it as long as it is fresh. But for the time being. I concede that White Leghorn eggs may be a little unpopular even though the noble White Leghorn can produce 280 eggs per annum as compared to the 150 super strain of fowl which the P.A.P. Government proposes.

Sir, there is another breed which produces a pinkish egg. And that is the New Hampshire breed, in particular, the Japanese New Hampshire breed. They have been imported into this country. They will survive in this country. They will eke out very well in this country. I speak also from personal experience -

An hon. Member: You do not lay eggs!

Mr C. H. Koh: Mr Speaker, you and I did not hear that remark. However, they are pinkish eggs, and they also weigh a minimum of 2 oz., generally 2½ oz. Sir, the New Hampshire eggs are very desirable in this country. I have imported 50 New Hampshire chicks lately. They are, according to the people who export them and according to the experiences of the people who have experimented with them on quite a large scale in this country, a breed that will produce a minimum of 240 eggs per annum. What has the Government got to say about this marvellous, nameless strain of theirs which can produce only 150 eggs per year, Sir? An inaccuracy which can be very dangerous, because money will have to be spent on purchasing these day old chicks to introduce the strain into this country.

Again, Sir, mathematically, I will prove to the House that the help which the P.A.P. Government wish to give to the farmers of this country will be their undoing and will lead to their bankruptcy. It costs approximately 3 cents per day to feed one laying hen. That is what is known in the trade as the free range system of keeping layers. In other words, it costs roughly 90 cents to $1 to keep one hen. If that hen can produce only 150 eggs per year, that will be approximately 12½ eggs per month. Sir, the present wholesale price of eggs is 8 to 8½ cents each. Therefore, there will be no profit for the farmer. So where is the help? That is the simplest calculation possible, without taking into consideration the services rendered and the employees the farmers may have to employ to run the farm. With this production cost of eggs on the market, there will be no profit. Help from the P.A.P. to the farmers! Sir, that is, in my humble submission, typical of them.

But the last paragraph of the speech is a saving grace:

`The second year of office of the P.A.P Government will be a year of construction.'.

Sir, as an independent Member of this Assembly, I say that as things stand at the present moment, we do not see any alternative to the P.A.P. Government. I for one, Sir, although I will do my best emphatically to criticise them, will also not be behind in giving them encouragement. Let them make the second year of office a year of construction. We wish them well. We have on a number of occasions said that we mean it, regardless of the insults thrown at us. We, the older Members of this Assembly, do hope that with the passage of time the younger Members of the Government will mature with age and bear the heavy responsibilities, of governing this country. Let them spend their time, Sir, in administering this country and not in blowing hot air at the Opposition.

Sir, when I sit here and hear comrade blasting at comrade, I sometimes wonder whether we, the old pioneers who have sweated in the service of Government to prove our point that the people of this country are capable of governing themselves, did not step on the accelerator a bit too hard. We had hoped that self-government in this country would produce prosperity and the other good things of life. The Government had promised us this, and this last paragraph, Sir, is full of good promises. But it still rankles in our minds, Sir, that instead of making a sporting admission of their mistakes of the first year, they mix with the words, "We have made mistakes," these words, "We will still say it is a period of reorganisation." A reorganisation, Sir, can be of many forms. Tumbling things over, turning things topsy turvy, and calling it reorganisation may go down with certain people, but not with intelligent people. Anyway, we do hope that the Government in their second year will call a spade a spade within their councils. We do not care a hang what they say outside, but we pray that within their councils they will call a spade a spade and that they will call the first year a year of complete failure and a year of amateurish methods, which cannot but produce failures and mistakes. Sir, the old hands in this country did not fight just to have amateurs take over the Government of this country and experiment with the people and the economics of this country. We are still prepared to help the Government if the Government will speak to us in a civil tone and not in a bantering and -

The Prime Minister: You still want to try?

Mr C. H. Koh: - angry tone. I almost feel tempted to reply to the side remark of the hon. Prime Minister, but you may not like it, Sir.

Sir, at the time when the Hon. Prime Minister was in the Opposition and at the time when he had his quarrels with his own comrades, he did get help from the Lim Yew Hock Government to dispose of his opponents within his own Party. Sir, that power wielded by the Lim Yew Hock Government is in the hands of the Lee Kuan Yew Government. Let us now see whether the Hon. Prime Minister will act as he had asked the previous Government to act. We, the outsiders in this tremendous struggle between the two factions of the P.A.P. will be only too glad to see strong measures taken by the present Government. We hope there will be no vacillation on the part of the Hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet.

Sir, the speech of the Hon. Prime Minister in opening this debate was a wonderful speech. I give him every praise for it. It is the kind of speech which I do not think any Member of the Opposition, either inside this Assembly or outside this Assembly, can improve on. It is a real product of a brain which gained triple honours in Cambridge.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr C. H. Koh: Hear, hear! Sir, whether it is a speech a Right-winger might make or not is immaterial. Both that side and this side agree it is a wonderful speech. But some parts of it are not so wonderful. The part which strives to belittle the amendments of the Opposition. It is a favourite technique of the P.A.P. immediately and at the very beginning to rebut a good argument by belittling it - a very well-known tactic of the hon. Members on the other side of the House. And because they have seen fit to belittle my two amendments, I find great encouragement in thinking that they must be tremendous amendments.

Sir, I wish I could ask this House to stand in silence for two minutes [Laughter] - it is no laughing matter - to commemorate the death of Mr Wong Siong Yin, a victim of a kidnapping (the second of the victims of the kidnappings to pay with his life). Kidnapping is not a small subject in Singapore today. The Hon, the Prime Minister in his speech said that I was introducing a subject which affects only a few rich people, meaning to infer, of course, that I have turned capitalist. But, surely, his intelligence is not as low as all that. Surely, his Intelligence department within our Scotland Yard could not be so inefficient as not to give him reports of what is going on in this country. Whether admitted officially or not, and whether reported to the Police or not, kidnapping is not the affair of a few, Sir. As a result of the wave of kidnappings business has been tremendously curtailed in this country. Perhaps as a result of moving about with a certain class of people, the Members of the Government have failed to appreciate the full significance of these kidnappings.

Sir, if the economy of this country which we are so keen to improve is not in a prosperous state, we will all suffer. The economics of this country are affected by the actions of certain classes of people in this country. A very important class is the merchant class. Whether they are millionaires or not and whether they are in big business or not, these are the people who control the economics of this country, Sir, and these people today are in a very jittery state. They dare not go to their clubs - that is, those remaining clubs which are allowed to be in existence by the Government.

An hon. Member: Which club?

Mr C. H. Koh: And, Sir, whether the Government laughs or not, a great deal of the business of this country is done in the clubs. It may be right, it may be wrong, it may be anything you like; but the fact stares you in the face that a great deal of the business of this country is done in the clubs. Because of this fear of being kidnapped, the merchants - big and small - of this country are afraid to go to their clubs. There was a kidnapping outside one of the biggest clubs of this country which ended these night visits to clubs. The purposes of these night visits to clubs could have been various, but the main purpose was to do big business, Sir. The Government may like to check on that. We have a sufficiently intelligent section within our Scotland Yard to check on that simple fact.

Sir, when these merchants get into that frightened state of mind and refuse to do too much business, it must result in a deterioration of the economic condition of this country. If there is a deterioration in the economic condition of this country, it is the poor man who will suffer. The rich man will not suffer because he will be able to buy his food and his luxury. If he stops business or if business activity is curtailed, then it is the poor man who is going to suffer - and the poor will suffer in large numbers. And yet, the Government of this country says that they are the Government for the poor! And yet the Hon, the Prime Minister wishes to belittle the subject of kidnapping. Perhaps I could give an illustration in that strain, Sir. We have a large number of restaurants in this country. In those restaurants, big businesses used to give dinners attended by big business people. But now with this fear of kidnapping, big business people will no longer use these restaurants. Who will suffer, Sir? The workers in the restaurants will suffer. And yet, the P.A.P. Government says. "Kidnapping affects only a few rich people."

There is another aspect of kidnapping, Sir,It is beginning to be said in this country that if the rich people who can afford to pay for security measures are unable to protect themselves, then what chance is there for the poor to protect themselves from the evil elements in this country? The entire Police system is in disrepute, Sir, because of the kidnappings and their inability to catch the kidnappers.

You might remember, Sir, that in the Tan Puay Choo kidnapping, the Police were notified 12 minutes after the kidnapping. In the Ng Sen Choy kidnapping, a much longer interval elapsed between the time of kidnapping and the information reaching the Police. In both cases, Sir, the kidnappers were brought to book. In the Tan Puay Choo kidnapping, the Hon. the Prime Minister defended the kidnapper. Thank goodness his skill failed and the kidnapper was hanged. In the Ng Sen Choy kidnapping, Sir, a man was also arrested. The point I want to emphasise, Sir, is this. In both cases, the time interval was much longer than the time interval in the C. K. Tang kidnapping. The Police received a telephone call (on their admission) - unless the newspapers are wrong - within three minutes of Mr Tang being taken by the kidnappers, and they were not able to arrest anybody. What kind of Police have we got? How much earlier notice of a kidnapping do they want before they can catch a kidnapper? I suppose there must have been shouts within a few seconds of the kidnapping of Mr C. K. Tang. Where were all the Police? What have we been paying millions of dollars for? It is a very dangerous state of affairs, Sir, when the country loses confidence in its Police. Yet the Government say that they want Assemblymen to have talks with the Police in order to create closer liaison between the Police and the public. The surest way of ensuring confidence in the Police is to ensure results - results every time.

The Hon. the Prime Minister tried to belittle the kidnappings. We all know that the Straits Times never copies big articles from the other newspapers in this country. Yet it had to copy the article concerning the alleged proposals of the Government regarding kidnapping from the Chinese newspapers three or four days after the latter headlined it. Why, Sir, did the Straits Times do this? Could it be that the Straits Times was compelled to say something because the whole country is talking about it? People from the highest to the lowest are talking about this subject of kidnapping. Everybody is terrified to go out of his house. Yet the Government says that it is a little matter with which Mr C. H. Koh wishes to break his silence in this Assembly.

Sir, the second part of my amendment deals with the recall of those civil servants who resigned. Sir, in the past one year, we have lost the services of Government servants in many ways. Some have retired on attaining the age limit. Some have been properly dismissed. And there is a third category. Sir, - those who resigned because conditions were made so intolerable for them in their departments that they had to resign. Of course, the Government can easily laugh it off, but there is the other side to the problem. Sir, most of these people are not the rank and file. They are, what we can call, the foreman class in the country. I have told you, Sir, that we have Cabinet Ministers with great qualifications - from Oxford, Cambridge, the University of Malaya, etc. We also have the working rank and file who are very good. They have learned technical subjects and they are acknowledged to be quite good by world standards. But, Sir, there is a middle stratum - the foreman stratum. Without the foreman of works, the works might go awry. It is all very well for the Cabinet Ministers to evolve wonderful policies. It is all very well that we have the workers to carry them out. But if we have not got the foreman to come in between, all their works will fail. And that is what has happened in the last one year.

Therefore, Sir, the subject of my second amendment is not a puny little subject. It is of great moment if Government is serious about the last paragraph of the speech. If they seriously want to construct, then they must have the foremen. And if they want the foremen, the key to the solution of construction, they must give an opportunity to those Government servants who left not because of rightful dismissal but on other grounds. I think it has been acknowledged that mere age - the retirement age is 55 - need not necessarily be a bar to coming back into the service, provided the man is strong enough physically and has the necessary skill which the service requires. It is for that reason, Sir, that I have introduced the second part of my amendment, and I do pray that the Government will not just try to laugh, because in its third year they may have to laugh the other side of their face.

There is just one subject, Sir, that has not been mentioned in the policy speech, which one would like to see. And that is this, Sir: we have today a Ministry of Law and Labour.

Mr Byrne: Labour and Law.

Mr C. H. Koh: Labour and Law - thank you. The Ministry of Labour and Law is causing great concern to many people, It is an unusual combination. The Minister for Labour must stand by the labourers. The Minister for Law must introduce laws which are agreed to by both sides, labour and law. Would a man, prejudiced in favour of labour, be the right man to introduce impartial laws into the subject? The concern became greater when the Hon, the Minister for Labour and Law said, in a loud and angry tone, "We may have to use the P.P.S.O. against the employers." Hardly the thing, Sir, to induce employers to create new factories, and hardly the thing that is likely to bring about laws which are impartial to both sides.

Sir, may I now formally move,

"at end, to add -

'but (i) this Assembly regrets that the Government has not given any assurances in regard to any effective steps the Government has taken or will take in regard to kidnapping; (ii) this Assembly urges the Government to give to those civil servants who have resigned an opportunity to return to the Civil Service and other Government Services to make possible the construction of the various projects outlined in the speech'."

Mr Speaker: Is it the general agreement that we should suspend?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: I therefore suspend until 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.50 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

`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 Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present session of this Assembly.".'

Since which two amendments have been moved by the Member for Joo Chiat. I think it would perhaps be for the convenience of hon. Members if I take these two amendments separately. The first amendment is, at end, to add, `but this Assembly regrets that the Government has not given any assurances in regard to any effective steps the Government has taken or will take in regard to kidnapping;'.

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

Mr Speaker: I need not remind hon. Members that the debate will now be confined to kidnapping alone.

5.31 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that after 14 months of silence the Member for Joo Chiat has at long last awakened to the events of the world outside and brought forth this world-shaking problem of kidnapping which has afflicted the wealthier and more fortunate members of our society. This is not to belittle the gravity of the problem. Only that it is a little disappointing that after 14 months of profound thinking, the Member for Joo Chiat should bring up not an issue based on some high political principles affecting the very fabric of our society, but this minor issue of no political significance. In so doing, I hope the suspicion of the kidnappers would not be aroused to the possibility that the Member for Joo Chiat might be in the same class of this minority section of the population and make him their next target. This is not to say that the Government is not going to do anything about it, or is not doing anything about it; but rather considerable efforts and manpower have been devoted to this problem of kidnapping out of all proportion to the number of people affected.

The problem of kidnapping has attracted so much attention principally because of its sensational news value, since men of wealth and high social prestige are the vicious. On the other hand, the poor hawkers, trishaw-riders and small stall-keepers, who have been forced to submit to the demands of criminal elements for years, have never received such headline attention in the newspapers. Unlike the hawkers and others, these wealthy men have the means and the resources to minimise considerably the risk of being kidnapped. I can assure the House that the Police is, in fact, doing all it can under the circumstances to protect all citizens from criminal gangs and thugs. Indeed, substantial results have been achieved by the Police. But to be more effective, there must be the will to resist and sincere cooperation with the Police.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is no good criticising the Police publicly for not protecting them while on the sly ransom money is paid and the Police are kept in the dark. Obviously no police force in the world can keep watch over every millionaire when there is a host of defensive or preventive measures that the potential targets of kidnapping gangs can avail themselves of, such as by accepting the Police offer of providing escorts and other devices at a price that all the victims of the recent kidnapping wave can well afford.

There are two aspects in tackling this problem. The first is to try and restrain, as far as possible, the activities of kidnapping gangs, that is, to take preventive measures. And second, the investigation aspect by the police. In as far as preventive measures can be taken by the potential victims, the best means at present is the offer by the Police of providing Police escorts. Yet when this offer was made, the response was disappointing indeed. The stock argument that the presence of an escort will only attract the attention of the kidnappers is ridiculous, because the kidnappers are not men without any intelligence as to be unable to distinguish between men of substance and men too insignificant to merit their attention.

I am glad to say that after the kidnapping of Mr C. K. Tang, the response is now better. In the meantime, mechanical devices such as radio phones and alarm bells can be installed in motor cars, and defence weapons such as the American tear-smoke weapon, will be made available when requests are received.

All these preventive measures, Mr Speaker, Sir, are within the means of the millionaires, including the Member for Joo Chiat.

Mr C. H. Koh: You are right.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: As for tie investigation aspect, an anti-kidnapping squad of the C.I.D. has been formed, with men detailed specifically for this, task. Since the beginning of June 1960, when this anti-kidnapping squad commenced operation, a total of 23 persons, including a woman, have been arrested under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. This figure does, not include the Chia Yee Soh case, in which 11 out of 14 perpetrators have been arrested and detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, and the two cases involving schoolboys, in which the gangsters concerned have since been convicted for seven years. Members of the House may wish to know that in the case of Tan Beng Siong, four persons have since been detained and three are to be arrested. In the case of Tan Boon Khak, 14 persons have been detained and seven more are to be arrested. In the case of Tan Eng Hooi, one person has been arrested, and in the case of Koh Eng Pang, which should more appropriately be classified as murder, seven were detained while 10 more are to be arrested.

Investigation reveals that from a highly organised gang of 20, led by an ex-prisoner with secret society connections, mushroom gangs of kidnappers have sprung up. This is due perhaps to the fact that kidnapping has proved to be far more profitable and relatively easier than robbery and kindred offences. To-date, four different gangs have been uncovered. As a result of intensive investigation and interrogation of the persons arrested, it was discovered that attempts have been made to abduct three towkays. But these had not actually been carried out due to a lack of opportunity. One of the three potential victims has since confirmed the Police information that an unsuccessful attempt was made on him, while the other two have since been warned by the Police to take adequate precaution.

It is worthy of note that of all the 23 arrests made, not one has been as a result of the cooperation given by the victims or their agents. It was entirely due to the Police effort that such detentions were made. More arrests could have been made if the victims or their agents had cooperated wholeheartedly with the Police. Indeed the Police has reasons to believe that a number of these victims are in a position to identify some of these 23 persons arrested, but have refused to give the necessary assistance to help bring these gangsters to Court with a view to imposing deterrent sentences.

In view of the poor co-operation given by the relatives of the victims, the Government intends to change the policy on police action, which has so far been avoided as it might jeopardise the safety of the victim. The Government also proposes to institute measures to arrest those who pay as well as receive ransom money in cases where friends and relatives of the victims have not cooperated wholeheartedly with the Police.

They will take any action they can to prevent persons hindering their work regardless of the safety of the victims, and even place police officers in any houses or offices in which ransom demands may be expected to be received.

At the same time, consultations with the Minister for Labour and Law will be held with a view to imposing a death penalty for a conviction for kidnapping, and the possibility of amending the law to include a presumption that unless evidence is produced to the contrary, the drawing of a large sum of cash or the borrowing of a large sum of cash by any relative or associate of the kidnapped victim may be regarded as .evidence of abetting the offence of kidnapping.

The whole object of these measures is to make kidnapping a less attractive business and to make it more hazardous. The Government believes that with the adoption of these measures, increased efficiency of the police and greater cooperation from the public and the victims of the families in particular, the police can deal more effectively with this problem. The amendment motion of the Member for Joo Chiat is therefore pointless.

We are concerned today with fundamental political issues affecting the survival of the democratic system of the State and the freedom of the people. In the face of all this, the amendment motion of the Member for Joo Chiat appears trivial and insignificant and an anti-climax to all the 14 months of silent wisdom.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose the amendment.

5.47 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs has chided the Member for Joo Chiat for having broken his self-imposed silence by moving this amendment to the motion. He says it is a matter of small significance which has agitated the mind of the Member for Joo Chiat. The Minister says that this is a matter which only concerns the wealthier and more fortunate members of society, such as now exists in Singapore. He also says that kidnapping has no political significance whatsoever and, therefore, the amendment to the motion is of little importance to him as Minister for Home Affairs, in whose portfolio lies the safety and protection of individual citizens in the State, be they rich or poor. I do not think even the Minister for Home Affairs would dare challenge that statement. It is no sin, Mr Speaker, to be wealthy. It is no crime to be wealthy. In the state of society such as now exists in Singapore, the search for and the amassing of wealth is not a crime. Even the P.A.P., after one year of government, has now come to the conclusion that, in view of the conditions that exist in Singapore and around it, they must tolerate the capitalist system of society. They have admitted that and they have announced it. Whether as a matter of policy or a matter of political ethics that is right or wrong, Mr Speaker, it is entirely a different matter. But let us face the facts as they are. The P.A.P. are self-confessed realists. At least I have heard them say so on a number of occasions here. They take a realistic view of the situation even though it goes against their political credo.

Here is a situation where, whether they like it or not, the capitalist system has to exist for some considerable time. In a capitalist system there is capital, and when there is capital there is a wealthy class. Therefore, a Government which rules such a society as ours has an obligation both to the rich and to the poor. Therefore, it creates very little confidence in Singapore not only from the citizens' point of view but from the point of view of the world at large, when a responsible Minister, particularly the Minister for Home Affairs, gets up and says, "What is the Member for Joo Chiat worried about, he being one of the wealthier and more fortunate members of society? His amendment has no political significance. Has it an economic significance? Or political significance?" I am sorry the Minister for Finance is not here. I think he will say, "If we do not succeed economically, we are bound to fail politically."

These wealthier people are the people who are keeping the wheels of industry and trade moving smoothly in this country. If you pooh-pooh them, if you do not give them a place in your society, and if the Minister laughs at them, what sort of an impression is created. Mr Speaker? What sort of an impression will the world at large get? The P.A.P. want Singapore to succeed. We all want Singapore to succeed. And yet very often, Mr Speaker, Sir, I hear responsible Ministers making statements which belie what they say in general terms. They say, "We want to do this," and yet they pooh-pooh somebody else who is doing it effectively. This sort of statement by Ministers, Mr Speaker, Sir, has gone on for a long time. If the P.A.P. Government really intend the second year of their Government to be a year of construction and success, one which will lay the foundation for the next three or four years of their Government, then they will have to stop making, if I may be permitted to say so, these childish statements.

Mr Speaker, kidnappings have a great economic significance in Singapore. It upsets the mercantile community, and the mercantile community are essential to the life of this country. There is no use denying it. If one is a socialist, just as the Minister for Home Affairs is, must one laugh at the capitalists? I concede the point that he is a socialist and a good one; but, unfortunately, he is connected with a country which cannot be socialist in every respect. It is wedded to a capitalist economy for the time being, and so long as that is so, then, if he is going to be a good Minister, he must look after his capitalists. There are no two ways about it. He must resolve to do so, whether he likes it or not.

Mr Speaker, we have read in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech of Ministers who have gone abroad looking for money in England and in America. We want capital from abroad and we want capital from within in order that our industrial and building programmes will succeed. What sort of news does, this make locally and abroad - Mr C. K. Tang, the curio king, kidnapped? Mr C. K. Tang is a figure of some world importance, because every tourist who comes to Singapore visits the House of Tang. Whether the Minister for Home Affairs likes it or not, that is what is happening. Every visitor who sets foot on this island goes to the House of Tang. And from being merely a wealthy man, after his kidnap he has become the king of the curio world. I understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the news of his kidnap was headline news in London and America. What sort of confidence do the people of the United Kingdom or America have in Singapore when somebody tells them that kidnappings are daily occurrences in Singapore and there is nothing that the police or the Government can do to prevent them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not blaming the police. I do not want to go that far. All I am interested in is in assessing the objective results of these kidnappings in so far as the State of Singapore is concerned. It is doing us no good whatsoever, either internally or externally, and the sooner we realise it, and not mock at the rich men or mock at the kidnappings, I think the better it would be for all of us. I am glad, Sir, that the Government are considering active measures which they think will bring an end to kidnapping, if not an end, at least minimise it. Some of the measures which they propose to take and which they outline here seem very serious. I am not quite sure whether the death penalty for kidnapping is the correct thing. However, it is a matter which we will consider at the proper time when measures are introduced to that effect.

Is the Minister for Home Affairs taking every possible step he can to minimise these kidnappings? He has told us that he has had inaugurated an anti-kidnapping squad, or anti-kidnapping squads, within his Criminal Investigation Department. I am also told that guard and escort units are available for wealthy people, even for not so wealthy men. People temporarily in positions of power could avail themselves of this guard and escort unit.

When the news of the C. K. Tang kidnapping broke, the Police Secretary put out what I thought at that time a very peevish and childish statement. The first thing he did was to complain about how nobody co-operated with the police, and that is why all these things were happening. He may be right. But I would have thought that, in those circumstances, he should have dote something else before making the peevish complaint. What I do hear is that these people, who would like to engage protection for themselves, for reasons best known to them, are not very keen on engaging guard and escort units. They are not very keen on engaging the anti-kidnapping squads which the Minister has had formed for the protection of the people in imminent danger of a kidnap. Sir, there may be many reasons why these people do not wish to engage them. It could be that these people have not got the confidence in these units. Whether they should have confidence is another matter. But the factual position is that they do not have the confidence in these units, and they would like to engage somebody else to look after their persons. And when such requests are made to the police, I understand the police are most uncooperative.

In order that a person might be detailed to protect the future victim, it is necessary that the protector should be provided with a revolver. When a request is made to the police that the person is willing to look after a millionaire or a wealthy person and that he be provided with a revolver, the police very often turn that request down. They say, "Well, if you want protection, we have got our guard and escort unit; we have got our anti-kidnapping squads. You can go to them. If you do not go to them, well, we do not care what happens to you." I can understand the diffidence of the police in wanting to give this revolver, because they want to be satisfied that the persons to whom they give these revolvers are trustworthy persons.

I understand there is an organisation in Singapore which engages police officers who are on the retired list of the police force who are drawing pensions. I explicitly mention that, Mr Speaker, Sir, because, as they are officers of the Government drawing pensions, I take it they are reliable persons; and as police officers who have been pensioned, their record has been clean with the police. When a person has requested that a retired and pensioned police officer be provided with a pistol to guard him the answer from the Commissioner of Police has been no. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, I consider a most unhelpful way of solving a very difficult problem. However, Sir, I personally welcome the proposals of the Minister for solving this problem, not because I hold a brief for millionaires, but because I think we are all interested in the survival of Singapore and its welfare. And if the impression were to get round abroad that Singapore is a lawless place, I ask the Minister for Home Affairs what effect that will have when the World Bank Mission comes here to investigate into the question whether Singapore should get any loans from the World Bank.

6.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker: The Question is on the first amendment to the Original Question, at the end, to add -

`but this Assembly regrets that the Government has not given any assurances in regard to any effective steps the Government has taken or will take in regard to kidnapping;'.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Speaker: We are now on the second amendment. At the end of the Original Question, to add -

`but this Assembly urges the Government to give to those civil servants who have: resigned an opportunity to return to the Civil Service and other Government Services to make possible the construction of the various projects outlined in the speech'.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

6.01 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chew Chua): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara described the first year of office of the People's Action Party Government as a year of reorganisation, consolidation and preparation. The resounding victory of the P.A.P. in the general elections last year reflected the confidence of the people of Singapore in the collective leadership of the Party and the progressive policies it pursued. But the P.A.P. did not achieve power by making false promises to the people. We have always been conscious of the limitations under which we would have to govern this island State for the next five years. Accepting these limitations, Sir, particularly in the fields of internal security, defence and foreign relations, one must admit that the first year of office of the P.A.P. Government has been a year of progress.

I would like to touch on the measures taken by the Government in the fields of communications and rural development. I need not stress the vital role of shipping, civil aviation and communications in the economy of Singapore. The Government is taking active steps to train our citizens to become qualified marine engineers and naval architects. We have to redouble our efforts in this direction to make up for the inactivity of the previous Government in training local personnel for jobs in the merchant marine. It is expected, Sir, that very soon the new administration block at Paya Lebar Airport will be ready for occupation. We would then be better equipped to offer the most modern facilities at the Airport to meet the increasing demands made on the Airport in the jet age.

Sir, the Government has paid special attention to rural development during the last year. Flood alleviation schemes are being pursued with vigour. Water and electricity supplies have been brought to the remote rural areas, and many new link roads have been built. Great strides will be made by the Government in improving the lot of the rural population in the year ahead, in accordance with the Party's Five-Year Plan, it should be remembered, however, that the success of the Government in implementing its policy will depend to a very large extent on the political and economic conditions we may expect in the year ahead. During the last year, we have had periods of calm. We have had also periods of less calm. If any government in power were to pursue extremist and short-sighted policies such as those advocated by the Member for Hong Lim, then it can only result in utter disaster for the people of Singapore. It is much easier to shout popular slogans than to govern the country wisely with a view to improving the lot of 1½ million people who have just emerged from a long period of colonial rule. The declared objective of the Government to create a more just and equal society cannot be achieved merely by shouting slogans and parading the 16 resolutions.

The people of Singapore, Sir, will judge the P.A.P. Government on the basis of the concrete achievements of the Government in the years ahead. The Prime Minister gave a vivid analysis of the many dangerous forces now at work in Singapore trying to create political instability. It is our duty, Sir, to see that extremist elements are kept in check and stopped before they can grow powerful enough to pose a threat to the security of the State. Every loyal citizen of Singapore should be made aware of the disaster that awaits us if these extremist elements ever gain control of this island.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Leong Keng Seng): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, last Friday and today we have heard the speeches made by the Member for Mountbatten and the Member for Tanglin. We have seen their political myopia. They only see one side of things. They only see the one side that is black but they cannot see the opposite side that is white.

The Member for Tanglin only sees the problem facing the religious schools, English schools, and civil servants. But he never sees the problem facing the non-religious schools, the non-English schools, and the poor masses. The hon. Member is against the six-day week, and wants a five-day week for teachers and school children. But in our Chinese schools, there has always been a six-day week and things have always been peaceful. This state of affairs has been so for many years. But the Member for Mountbatten and the Member for Tanglin only see the religious issues and the problems facing religious schools, because they want to go to church on Saturdays or Sundays. Therefore they only consider the interest of a few people. They never give thought to the children attending non-religious schools, the non-religious parents and the non-religious teachers. If the children of non-religious parents do not go to school on Saturdays they will roam about the streets and mix with bad and evil men. We know that all teachers must be responsible for the education of these children.

As regards the bursaries, scholarships and allowances -

Mr Speaker: If the Parliamentary Secretary is touching on variable allowances, he is, of course, out of order. We have dealt with variable allowances. He must not touch on that topic any longer. It was the subject matter of an amendment which has been disposed of.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. In our education policy, there are three main principles:

(i) equal treatment to all the four streams of education;

(ii) the acceptance of Malay as the national language; and

(iii) the increasing of facilities for the teaching of science and mathematics.

We all know that the rulers in the colonial era appreciated only one thing - to find ways and means of procuring for themselves the maximum profit from society. They never gave a single thought to the problem of how to educate the local people, to see that they were given the fullest encouragement in education so that they could acquire a considerable amount of knowledge and modem technical skills. We all know also that the aim of the past colonial government in the field of education was to create only a white-collar class and, therefore, English education was greatly expanded. Malay education, which was comparatively backward was not nurtured. Chinese education, which was in a more advanced stage was suppressed. The purpose of such a policy was to perpetuate the colonial rule. Therefore, during the colonial regime, the education of the various communities was not on an equal status with English education. However, in the self-governing State of Singapore today, the education policy pursued by the Government is based on the principle of equality. In accordance with this principle of equality of treatment to all schools and with due regard to our economic situation and social demands, the Government is building more schools for children of school-going age in this State. Each year, the Government intends to build five secondary schools and 14 primary schools for the four streams of education. Malay secondary schools and Tamil secondary schools have been established. Special allowances have been paid to principals of schools of the various language media. Teachers who have had more than 10 years' teaching experience are normally allowed to cross the efficiency bar regardless of the type of school they are teaching in. All these things go to show that the schools in the four language media are accorded equal treatment.

The Government's acceptance of Malay as the national language is completely in accord with the present state of our society. To create a common outlook, and mutual understanding among people of various races so as to enable them to become loyal citizens of this country, we have courageously accepted Malay as our national language. This is the only way by which people of various races can understand one another. Mutual suspicion and distrust can thereby be eliminated. Therefore, the creation of a national language has become a very effective means in bringing about racial unity. The Government's policy to make Malay the national language has received the enthusiastic support of the people. The Government will take positive measures to foster the growth of our national language so that it will acquire a practical status in the near future.

The third aspect of the new policy is the increase of teaching time for science and mathematics. The main purpose of our education policy is to train our children to become useful citizens so that they will be able to adapt themselves to our economic policy and play their part in national construction, so as to lay a firm foundation for our future socialist society. In other words, our education is geared to the need for industrialization. Hence, our education programme must turn out more people with scientific knowledge and productive skill.

The fourth aspect of our policy is the promotion of adult education and mass literacy. Today, there are 500,000 illiterate people in our society, i.e. about one-third of our population. This poses a very grave social problem. Illiteracy is a typical by-product of a colonial society and an unhealthy social phenomenon to our self-government State. The campaign to wipe out illiteracy will raise the cultural standard of our people. Hence it is social education. The Adult Education Board has been formed by Government to carry out this important task. In this respect, the aim is not only to teach the illiterate section of the people to be able to read and write, but also to teach them to understand the democratic system of government and to observe and know how to use their democratic rights effectively. The task of eliminating illiteracy is a difficult one, and takes a long time to accomplish. To succeed, there must be co-operation between the people and Government. Only then can we get rid of this unhealthy social phenomenon which we have inherited from the colonial society.

As regards the special position of the Malays, Government has promised to provide free education in primary schools for the Singapore Polytechnic and the University of Malaya, to Malays born in Singapore, or whose parents are Singapore citizens. The Government has also promised to give to Nanyang University the same amount of financial aid as that enjoyed by the University of Malaya provided Nanyang University carries out a reorganisation and maintains its academic standard.

Government's education policy is based on the urgent needs of the present society - to bring up our future citizens to be loyal citizens and willing to serve this country. The aim of our education programme is to give ample opportunity to our citizens to benefit by education so as to give them the chance to acquire knowledge and technical skill.

As our Prime Minister has said, "Our Government comes from the people and will go back to the people." Therefore, basically, our policies reflect the aspirations of the people. In short, they are determined by whether they serve the interest of the people or not.

I support the motion of thanks for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

6.22 p.m.

Mr Lee Teck Him (Tiong Bahru): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, at the sitting last Friday, I heard the hon. Member for Tanglin say that in the little booklet of the P.A.P., it is stated therein that the Government is anti-religious. This is very strange and untrue. I myself am a Christian and a Member of this Assembly. At the time of the last elections I prayed to God for victory. Today I am an elected representative of the people, and I thank God for it. But I must also thank the people in my constituency who supported me. At that time, the opposing candidate in my constituency was also a Christian. He was Mr Ling Ngo Lin and he was very pious. He used to go to church every Sunday. But now he does not go to church. When I prayed at that time, I said, "Oh, God, I have not been to church for a very long time and I have sinned against you, but if I am elected, I will go to church regularly." I still go to church. Therefore, this shows that our Party is not against religion. In our Party there are religious people, Christians and others. It is true that we are not against religion.

The Member for Tanglin said that in the P.A.P. booklet, it is stated that man-kind must rely on themselves. He said this is wrong, because man must depend on God. We do not say that everything must depend on God. We must depend on ourselves too. Those who read the Bible know that in the Book of Genesis, it is stated that after Adam and Eve had sinned against God He drove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. He said to them, "You must toil and sweat before you can have your stomachs filled." So, therefore, we must use our own strength and depend on ourselves to build a new country. We cannot entirely depend on God. I remember when I was a boy I was very lazy. I did not like to study, but I used to pray. I said, "God, please let me have good results and be the first boy in my examination." But in the end, I got zero and also my results were bad. This shows that we cannot entirely depend on God. This is a common mistake made by the Christians. This is a contradiction. The Member for Tanglin said that we must depend on God. I am not against God, but I say that we must also depend on our own strength.

In building a new nation, everybody must do more work in order to compensate for the lack in the past. For instance, in our education policy, we have introduced the six-day week. An Opposition Member said that this was oppressing the teachers and putting too much strain on them. Just now our Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education said that we must not look at one side of a question and support one particular party, but we must look to the considerations of all. This is correct. We Christians want to have half a day's rest on Saturday and to go to church on Sunday. This is good, but what about those non-religious people? The Government must take into consideration all aspects of the matter. We must not only take into consideration the interests of those who are Christians. We must also look into the wants of non-religious people too. Only in this way can we be correct. Therefore, our education policy is correct. We must insist on a six-day week. The education policy up to now has been very poor. Therefore, our children must now study more. The Opposition Member's accusation that parents and students are all against our new policy is wrong. Last year, at a teachers' conference held in the Happy World, our Prime Minister requested all teachers to give some more time and effort towards educating the children. All the teachers who attended that meeting supported him. A representative of the teachers expressed the support of the teachers. There is proof for it. Parents have also supported our education policy. If there is no schooling on Saturday many children will roam about in the streets making themselves bad. Therefore our education policy is correct. We say that to make Saturday a school day is correct.

The Member for Tanglin asked why we wanted to oppose foreign investment. This is not correct. Our purpose is to encourage our local capitalists and rich people to invest their capital for industrial expansion so that they can contribute to the well-being of the people and our country. Our policy is correct. On the other hand, we must also have foreign capital in order to strengthen the building of our country. This is also correct. I do not want to speak at length. My colleagues can elaborate on this. This is only what I have to say.

6.30 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, from the speeches of the Opposition, I cannot help feeling that they have not been fulfilling the function of the Opposition in a democratic Parliament. As you know, Sir, I have been appointed a delegate of the Singapore Branch to attend the Seventh Regional Conference of C.P.A. Branches to be held in the course of the week at Kuching. The subject for discussion happens also to be on the functions of a Government majority and the Opposition in a democratic Parliament. I dread to think how our Opposition would stand up in comparison with the Oppositions imbued with a sense of responsibility in the other Assemblies around us. Here was our Prime Minister giving an incisive analysis of the political situation. And what sort of reaction did we get from the Members opposite?

Up stood the Member for Mountbatten, and in the name of her Party, challenged the statement, which has been repeated a few times already, that "Singapore has enjoyed greater political and economic stability than it has known during the last 15 years" in the introduction of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. According to her, there is no stability. Then came a senior executive of the same Party, the Member for Tanglin. In answer to a jibe of the Opposition being irresponsible, he asked, how would he know of the interplay of political and social forces at this juncture when everything was so rosy? Sir, may we ask, whom are we to believe? The Opposition have only very few representatives in the House, and different Members speak differently on the same subject. All the views are contradictory. Perhaps the S.P.A. too has to think of rectification.

Sir, instead of rising to the occasion and seeing things in their proper perspective, and perhaps thus learning how to serve the people better by giving thought to more momentous affairs of State, they merely stick their noses into the mundane business of pay cuts. They dodge the criticism by saying that we are seeking their support in what the Member for Tanglin calls the crisis in the P.A.P. Surely, there is no necessity to get a mathematician to count the number over here, though a bit depleted now, and the number over there. A Primary II schoolboy will be able to tell the difference between 40 and 11, and 40 is many times 11. Of course, if a school teacher cannot make out the difference between 40 and 11, and insists on calling that instability in the Government, then perhaps there is justification after all for reporting such ignorance to the Ministry. To quote Shakespeare, who lived in a feudal age, in support of his pious, moral re-armament type of interpretation of the cancellation of a parade as due to the wrath of God is puerile.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Speaker has always a difficult task in drawing a line somewhere. I have allowed words like kindergarten' and childish' already, but the hon. Member has placed a little more venom in the word puerile', and I must therefore say that puerile' is unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I thought it was only childish, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. There seems to be a habit arising in this Assembly of contradicting the Speaker. I asked the Member to withdraw, and there must be an unqualified withdrawal.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I withdraw, Sir, and would substitute instead -

An hon. Member: Not worthy of a school master.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Not worthy of a school master. Then there is the voice from the wilderness. All of us thought that some gem of wisdom might be forthcoming at last, but instead we only found platitudes, a recitation of a page from a Primary II school book, and a dissertation on how to lay eggs, and finally - a request for water. I suppose that was because of the blowing of hot air that he was complaining about. All he could say of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech was that it was "tame", and that it was inaccurate. What sort of constructive criticism did he offer? Nothing.

The Member for Mountbatten ranged over all the Government's activities, and, as usual, blamed the Government for all the faults under the sun. Most of these charges are time-worn, and have been convincingly answered before. Fancy calling our Ministers a pack of playboys! She must be jesting and she really cannot be serious. Look, Sir, at our Minister for Labour and Law. Does he look like a playboy? Or our Deputy Prime Minister? These are Ministers who work 14 hours a day.

An hon. Member: They never play!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They devote all their time and attention to the affairs of State. I do not think the wives of our Ministers would take kindly to such an attack from the only lady Member of the Opposition. But the perennial charge is that of P.A.P. inconsistency. Now consistency is a quality entirely foreign to the S.P.A. set-up. No amount of high-pressure cooking, as she called it, with Carnegie courses, will make people believe that the S.P.A. can ever believe in such a thing called consistency. On the other hand, consistency is part and parcel of the P.A.P. Let me now give two examples that have been mentioned in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. These are things the Opposition will never know very much about. They not only prove P.A.P. consistency, but also that the P.A.P., in all its actions, has always the interest and welfare of the people as its first and only consideration. It has all along been our plan and policy to encourage intelligent planned parenthood. Singapore is a small island with limited resources, and has a very high birth rate. This bears repeating, and, incidentally, this is an example of revolutionary zeal being tempered with adaptation to local surroundings. For there are other socialist countries which encourage population increase because of different surroundings. However, in dealing with such a situation in Singapore, we have been practical in our approach. We cannot afford to wear blinkers as the past Government did. Still less can we afford to bury our heads in the sand.

It is the poor masses who are the greatest sufferers in health and education as a result of unplanned and unrestricted parenthood, which is also a major contributory factor towards the causation of slums. Bearing all this in mind, therefore, Government has promised to initiate a campaign for intelligent planned parenthood. We hope to bring knowledge and enlightenment to the ignorant, and sunshine and happiness to the superstitious, fatalistic and neglected. We want to help wipe out the misery of the masses and, at the same time, show them a way how they can help others as well as themselves. To many of our younger children and to those as yet unborn, it would mean a better opportunity to go forward to a more equal and just society.

The other example, Sir, I wish to bring forward is our policy of equal treatment given to the four streams of education. Parallel to this is the recruitment of non-English educated nurses and midwives into the medical services. Gone are the days when certain sections of the people of Singapore were discriminated against, simply because of language difficulties. New ground was opened up for the people to serve in the health services with the formation of the P.A.P. Government. It has all along been and will always be the struggle of the P.A.P. to have more equal opportunities made available to the people. Only then can there be any meaning in democracy. Others may crow and preach about democratic practice and anti-colonialism and so on. But it has been left to the P.A.P. to make democracy real and meaningful to the people and to lead them step by step, democratically and constitutionally, towards a more equal and just society.

Coming to our ex-comrades, I feel a little sad, Sir, and puzzled too, as to how and why our ex-comrades have railed so vehemently against our Party. The Member for Hong Lim has given us to understand that bad blood exists only between him and two of our Ministers. All the rest are still his friends, he claims. Yet he attacked the Party, and not on a factual basis. This has been amply demonstrated and testified to in all the speeches so far. It appears to me that he attacked with, I would not say malice, Sir, but certainly with an unholy desire to see that everything in the P.A.P. goes wrong. In so attacking the Party to which he once belonged, he is not only attacking a few Ministers, but he is attacking each and every one of us inside the Party. How can he still call us friends then? His actions belie his words. That is why I said "puzzled" because it does not add up. In this debate, the Member for Hong Lim has clearly shown that since he cannot get control of the P.A.P., the next best thing for him to do would be to destroy it. We see a person like a megalomaniac who thinks -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the word was "megalomaniac". If that is the word then, of course, it is completely unparliamentary. It must be withdrawn.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We see a person -

Mr Speaker: I do not think the Member has withdrawn that word yet.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I withdraw, Sir. Anyway, Sir, illusions and delusions are the strange bedfellows of such a person, and when the soap bubble which he thinks is carrying him up and up finally bursts and he starts tumbling down, there will be a terrific crash and a terrific anti-climax.

Sir, we have been harangued with lectures on Colonialism both by lecturers here as well as lecturers outside. It has been very extensively commented on in the House, and it is not my intention to bore Members here with a further discussion on the subject. Colonialism in its various forms, political as well as economic, past and present, has been studied, discussed and analysed to the minutest detail in various books. Similarly with socialism. But I say to the Member for Hong Lim that if he thinks he is the only anti-colonialist in the House, then he is gravely and woefully mistaken. We cannot speak for the Members of the House opposite, but all of us on this side of the House, the Front benchers as well as Back benchers, are as anti-colonial as anti-colonial can be. We do not have to shout from rooftops and advertise ourselves as anti-colonialists. It does not necessarily follow that he who shouts anti-colonial slogans is an anti-colonialist; nor that he is more anti-colonial than another who does not shout and who does not use the Badminton Hall to do so; nor that he is therefore necessarily also a revolutionary. A true revolutionary, Sir, faces the problem squarely. He collects all the relevant facts and data, sifts them through with a fine comb, studies the problem from all angles, puts up all the pros and cons, and after exhaustive discussion and analysis with his colleagues, he puts up certain possible lines of action. And further elimination of these one by one leads finally to a solution most likely to produce success. This has been done in the P.A.P., and the fruit of the Party's labour is to be found in the 4th anniversary souvenir of the Petir. Has the Member for Hong Lim similarly worked out a workable line to better the life of the masses in Singapore? If he has, then we know nothing about it.

Sir, you can see that to be a revolutionary does not mean that one has to be doctrinaire. Even Marxian textbooks tell us never to be bound by the strait-jacket of doctrinarism. A true revolutionary therefore applies basic principles with local adaptations and in the circumstances obtaining in Singapore today - that has been often repeated - the P.A.P. line of democratic socialism is the only sensible and practical line. All other approaches end up in blind alleys. Of course, society is never static and conditions, change. But until conditions change and new social forces enter the arena, we have to do the best we can. That is why the P.A.P. have captured the hearts and the minds of the intelligentsia as well as the masses of Singapore. We are both progressive and realistic at the same time. Sir, deep inside each and every one of us there is a burning desire to right the wrongs of the present society, and also a burning desire to help level off the unequal opportunities and the unequal distribution of wealth inherent in our present system. Socialism, in the words of Bernard Shaw, is merely a proposal to divide up the income of the country in a new way. And this is where we differ from the Communists. The P.A.P. proposal of effecting the change is through peaceful, constitutional, democratic socialism. It is a slow and painful process, perhaps too slow to some shortsighted self-styled revolutionaries. But still, we prefer it to the bloody alternative of wanton destruction with the toll of lives and misery that follow. What we cannot do today, Sir, we shall have to leave to our children to do better tomorrow.

6.55 p.m.

Mr S. V. Lingam (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, today's speech is my maiden speech in this Assembly after 14 months during which I had never been given a chance to speak. The right of speech of P.A.P. Assemblymen is decided by the Prime Minister through the Whip.

Mr Speaker. Sir, this Assembly sitting has been converted from a debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech to a forum on the Member for Hong Lim. What are these rantings compared to the horrors of the secret trial which the Member for Hong Lim had experienced on 20th June, 1960, and which I witnessed? "Carry on with these rantings," said the backseat Dr Goebbels. "Mass-produce more of them!"

An hon. Member: Gobble!

Mr Lingam: Events during the past six weeks have proved that personal and unprincipled attacks and distortions will do these people more harm than good. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech did not say a word on Malayanisation. I wish to remind the Prime Minister what he said in 1956 in this Assembly. I would like to quote cols. 1806-9 of Hansard, Vol. 1 of 4th April, 1956, which read:

'Merdeka comes first. So much the better, but even without Merdeka, let us take charge of the control room, as this (Malayanisation) Report puts it.

Sir, there are parts of this Report which I think the House would forgive me if I make reference to. The introduction reads:

"Self-government would be an empty phrase unless the government is entirely or almost entirely carried out by the people of the country and to have the Public Service staffed by expatriates at the highest levels where policy formulation and execution take place would be derogatory to the dignity of the people of a self-governing country. Therefore, self-government and Malayanisation are closely related, and in order to satisfy this legitimate aspiration complete Malayanisation should as far as possible not lag behind the attainment of self-government.

In order to place the subject in its proper setting we should see it in historical perspective. History shows that a group of people can only function as an entity if there is cohesion within the group, and this cohesion does not depend merely on the homogeneity of the population but on the sameness of purpose created by the stimulus of the common geographical and human environment, and can only exist if the people are thrown together to brave the same dangers and share the same fate. There must be no alternative. -

If a section of the population..."',

and the Secretary-General of the P.A.P. pointed out that that means the Hon. the Chief Secretary,

`"has the option of returning to their country of origin when faced by some unpleasant challenge, that section constitutes a weakness to the state and can never contribute to the cultural progress of the country. In other words, success in the building of a nation can only be achieved by a group of people if they have no ties of loyalty with the country which they have left-they must burn their boats and give undivided loyalty to the country of their adoption."

It then goes on at great length to prove that if you are in receipt of an expatriate allowance, you cannot give undivided loyalty to this country.' -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member must differentiate between what he is quoting and what he is adding to the quote. I do not know where he has reached at the moment, but he must remember that all he can do is to quote extracts and not the whole speech.

Mr Lingam: Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I have quoted extracts. I was just reading extracts from columns 1806 to 1809.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member hopes to read all the four columns of Hansard, then I must stop him because they are definitely not extracts.

Mr Lingam: Sir, I am just reading the important extracts in support of my speech.

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): That is all you can do - to read!

Mr Speaker: Order. It is out of order if the hon. Member wishes to read word for word from four columns of Hansard. That cannot, under any stretch of the imagination, be termed extracts.

Mr Lingam: Sir, I am not going to read very much more except to quote one or two extracts:

"...we fought to have the Malayanisation of the Public Service speeded up so that within the next two years we can say that we are in control of all the key positions of the administration. Mr Speaker, Sir, the English educated class that hopes to man the administrative machinery in the immediate future, when the white man leaves: I hope, gracefully, can, if given the opportunity, rise up to the situation which confronts this country. We have no time to say. "We must send a man..."'-

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I certainly cannot follow where these extracts are coming from. Will the hon. Member indicate where they are?

Mr Lingam: Sir, I do not have the Hansard with me here. I think it must be in column 1808.

Mr Speaker: I must point out that it is, of course, strictly out of order to read from a typewritten speech for the purpose of quoting extracts from Hansard. The Hansard itself should be produced so that hon. Members, if they so desire, could follow whether or not those extracts are complete extracts or taken out of context.

Mr Lingam: Mr Speaker, Sir, times have changed. The Assemblyman who said those words is now the Prime Minister, and constancy is the virture of fools. This is what the Lee Kuan Yew Government says now. May I quote from the Straits Times of 16th July. 1960:

`He [meaning the Member for Hong Lim] had no plan because his Malayanisation was so complete that he had no architects and planners, local or foreign, to draw up plans.

Malayanisation does not mean just throwing out people. It means getting rid of expatriates by putting qualified local men in their place. And that is how the other Ministries have functioned - and that is why they continue to function efficiently.'

Can the Lee Kuan Yew Government explain how the 4,000 units of S.I.T. flats mentioned in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech have been drawn up? By men from Mars? Are they not the work of local architects newly engaged by the Member for Hong Lim when he was in charge of the S.I.T.? These local technicians were recruited to take the place of expatriate technicians who were Malayanised and they are now doing all the construction work in the Housing Board, which is mentioned in the policy speech.

What is meant by the second paragraph? Does it mean that those Government departments which are under the control of so-called colonial "dynamos" are functioning more efficiently than when they were under the Member for Hong Lim? The Government kicked out the Member for Hong Lim and substituted the colonial "king-pin". Meadows. It kicked out a local accountant Mr Owen and brought back an expatriate. Mr Scales, to take charge of the City Council Treasurer's Department. Before Mr Scales came back, an expatriate officer from the Government named Hibberd who cannot multiply 450 by 60 was sent to sit with Mr Owen and to supervise the latter's work as an accountant. Mr Speaker, Sir, have a look at the paying counters in the City Council Treasurer's Department now and you will see the long, long queues.

Mr Speaker, Sir, listen again to the speech of the Minister for Labour and Law in the Assembly debate on 4th August, 1960. After all, the Minister had been promoted to Permanent Secretary due to Malayanisation by the Lim Yew Hock Government. This is what the Minister for Labour and Law said:

`Mr Thomson was the former Director of Information Services -'.

Mr Speaker: If that is another extract, may I have the reference, please?

Mr Lingam: This is the speech the Minister for Labour and Law made on 4th August, 1960, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Is it in Hansard?

Mr Lingam: No, it is not in Hansard.

Mr Speaker: Was that speech made in the Chamber?

Mr Lingam: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Then it must be reported in Hansard. Can I have the quotation?

Mr Lingam: I quote:

`Mr Thomson was the former Director of Information Services -'.

Mr Speaker: Order. I hope I have made myself understood. If that is a quotation of a speech made in the Assembly, then the hon. Member must direct me to the appropriate column in the Hansard.

Mr Lingam: Sir, this is an extract taken from the Straits Times of 5th August, 1960.

Mr Speaker: Order. I understand that it has not come out in Hansard yet, if the hon. Member can produce a copy of the Straits Times, then he can read the extract from it.

Mr Lingam: Sir, I do not have a copy of the Straits Times here. Can you give me time to bring it from the C.P.A. Room?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have very often said in this Chamber that if an hon. Member wishes to quote from a newspaper, he ought to produce that newspaper. Even cuttings from newspapers are strictly out of order. If a newspaper is available, it ought to be produced. But as the hon. Member has not got a copy of the Straits Times with him, will he then undertake to produce that paper later on and lay it on the Table? I allow him now to continue.

Mr Lingam: Thank you, Sir. This is what the Minister for Labour said:

`Mr Thomson was the former Director of Information Services, but he was also a lecturer and good lecturer, at the University of Leeds. The policy of the Political Study Centre was controlled by members of the Government and Mr Thomson could only lecture within the scope of that authority.'

So when Thomson worked for the Lim Yew Hock Government, Sir, he was called by the present Ministers a colonial propagandist who should be sacked. But as he is now working for the Lee Kuan Yew Government, he has been transformed into a "good lecturer from the University of Leeds." He is now ably "controlled" by members of the Government to indoctrinate civil servants, P.A.P. Assemblymen, the Police and headmasters on the aims and prin ciples of the P.A.P. Mr Thomson is now a "socialist" and a staunch "anti-colonialist". He is indeed a good lecturer from the University of Leeds, who is capable of changing from a staunch colonialist propagandist to a P.A.P. propagandist.

How about Mr Meadows, who was once recommended to be the Director of Special Branch, and who now controls half the State of Singapore? The ex-Minister for National Development sent him to the Southern Islands because he was deemed what the Prime Minister aptly described in 1956, in Hansard Vol. I, column 58, as:

`...I would not call it sabotage, but I would just say, general dislocation...'.

On 12th August, 1959, the ex-Minister for National Development was hauled up by the Prime Minister and was rebuked for this "ungracious" act. It is believed that Mr Meadows, the Minister for Labour and Law and the Minister for Finance were very old friends when they were in the Government departments together. I believe, Sir, that they are still good friends now - firmer friends with a common bond.

Sir, take the case of Mr Owen, a local accountant whom the Minister for Labour and Law tried to smear. Mr Speaker, Sir, permit me to take some time to make some clarification on behalf of Mr Owen who is now overseas, to clear away the personal smears on him. Why should a Minister and, in fact, a big-sized Minister, talk about Mr Owen's marriage to an Australian girl? What is wrong with inter-racial marriage? Mr Owen was born in Singapore and is a qualified accountant from the University of Adelaide. He had years of professional experience in Australia and he entered City Council service during the time when the Member for Farrer Park was in the City Council and he was not, as was said, engaged by the Mayor. The Member for Hong Lim knew him only months after he became the Mayor. Mr Owen resigned because of persecutions against him. For instance, an expatriate (Mr Hibberd) was transferred from the Government to sit in the same room with him, and Mr Owen had to take orders from this Mr Hibberd who knows geography but not accountancy. I can show you, Sir, correspondence to prove that Mr Hibberd does not even know how to multiply 450 by 60. Needless to say, Mr Hibberd would not understand the difference between a credit entry and a debit entry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I crave your indulgence to allow me to read this letter dated 31st January, 1960, from Mr Owen addressed to the ex-Minister for National Development.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon.. Member has gone as far as he ought to in these details. We are not debating Mr Owen or Mr Hibberd on their capacity for figures. We are now debating Government policy. I think the hon. Member has made his point: that is, perhaps in his view, the attack on Mr Owen was unfair. I do not think he should go into further details.

Mr Lingam: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Owen has been considerably smeared in this House, and I hope you will permit me to read some extracts from the letter.

Mr Speaker: I have already indicated that there are other methods of bringing these matters to light, and one method is to request a personal explanation under Standing Order 22. I might explain that a Member is entitled to a personal explanation to explain away any smear on any member of the public who is not in this Chamber. So that there is an opportunity under Standing Order 22, subject, of course, to the proposed statement being submitted in full to the Speaker (or in his absence, the Deputy Speaker) before it is made. I do not think that this Assembly should be worried with details of that nature in this debate.

Mr Lingam: Sir, I would like to read a letter from Mr Owen. He wishes to come back to Singapore, but the letter said, "I cannot do so in the present circumstances." Can I quote one more extract from his letter, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already indicated to the Member for Aljunied the steps he can take, and I think he would be advised to take those steps if he feels so strongly about the matter. Let us now proceed with the debate on the Address.

Mr Lingam: Sir, Mr Owen had to leave the country for reasons best known to us - the persecutions of the Lee Kuan Yew Government. I must put it on record in this Assembly to clear up the smear made by the Minister for Labour and Law, and later by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, on the professional integrity and on the personal life of this man. This is absolutely necessary for him for he hopes to come back to the society where he really belongs and where his heart lies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy speech implied that we are now no more under colonial rule. However, two weeks later, in his speech, the Prime Minister slightly touched in a lukewarm manner on the word "colonialists".

Mr Byrne: Not "worm"!

Mr Lingam: This was after one year of eerie silence and unnecessary suspicions about anybody who attacked colonialism. Sir, Members on the Government benches may laugh at my English. Well, I am not so well educated as the Prime Minister, because my father was only in a position to provide me with a Std. V1II education. Sir, may I remind the Prime Minister about what is written in the Petir editorial (English edition) of August/ September, 1956 issue, entitled "The Tasks Ahead":

'Unity of all Races and Classes in Malaya

The solution of our economic and social ills has always been clear. We must be rid of colonialism. To be rid of colonialism all races must unite against it. To unite effectively all classes, workers by hand and or brain, merchants and national industrialists must unite.

To unite all races and classes in the Federation and Singapore we must work out a national programme to benefit all communities and all classes.

Malaya is a country rich in natural resources. Our people are resourceful and hardworking. But the wealth that they produce is largely channelled to the benefit of the British and a few local compradores and merchants. The people are therefore discontented with the Colonial regime.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now talk on Malayanisation and colonialism. The basic fight today is still between the colonial forces and the anti-colonial forces, as stated in "The Tasks Ahead". Can we deny that in Singapore today the forces of colonialism are stronger than ever? But let us hear what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health said on 4th August, 1960, in this Assembly, as reported in the Straits Times of 5th August:

`I cannot help feeling disappointment to hear him [meaning the Member for Hong Lim] rant on Colonialism and Malayanisation on notes which sounded both false and hollow.

Disappointed, because he saw fit to shout at us, in this House, slogans out of context both in relation to time and space.

I state categorically that the P.A.P. is anti-colonialist, but we are realistic enough to know that in order to survive the interplay of forces between the extreme left and extreme right we must compromise.'

So they now have to compromise. To compromise with whom? Is it with colonialism? So that they can keep their cushy jabs? Why not say it before the elections? The Prime Minister used the words "flexible tactics". The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health used "compromise". The latter is frank and should be given a bouquet for it. "Compromise" - that is the word. These are the people who have compromised, and who have betrayed the aims and the policies of the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are the people who are now afraid of Mass Rallies and of freedom of the Press. They have rejected on three occasions the use of Hong Lim Green to the Member for Hong Lim. I also sent in an application on 2nd August, 1960, to the Land Office of the Prime Minister's Ministry for the use of Shenton Way open field on Sunday, 14th August, 1960, between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. This is a historic place where the P.A.P. used to hold its meetings. Is the Prime Minister going to reject it? Or is the Prime Minister going to wait till the last day and then approve it so that we have no time to organise?

Again, I believe there is to be no Assembly sitting until 21st September, l960 - no more sittings like before, once every three weeks. Some "good" reasons can always be given. Why should there be Assembly sittings when, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health has described, the Member for Hong Lim can rant on colonialism? Why should there be mass rallies? Why should there be freedom of the Press when, as the Minister for Culture says, the Member for Hong Lim can "stir up tension and agitation"? This is exactly what the Lim Yew Hock Government said of the P.A.P. before the general elections, "Why should one worry unless one is politically bankrupt?" The Prime Minister now says that all this talk of 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. How nice if we have a one-man rule like the K.M.T. A one-man rule in the P.A.P. is not satisfying enough; There is now seldom any talk of collective "leadership". We have exploded its myth, and convinced the people that it is a one-man leadership. It is now collective responsibility. One-man leadership, but collective "responsibility". Slowly but surely this one-man rule of the Party is extending to one-man rule of the State. What is their present view of democracy? It is, "All this talk can only confuse the English-educated world."

The interesting thing about the speeches heard during the past few days is that it is an all-out unprincipled attack on the Member for Hong Lim. No interest was shown in the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. No interest in attacking the Member for Cairnhill. After all, the differences between them were like the differences between the former Labour Front and the Liberal-Socialists, which attacked each other before they formed a national coalition. Are the Prime Minister and his Minister for Finance going to accept the advice of Huang Tze-chin and form a second "National Coalition"?

The speeches by the Minister for Labour and Law delivered in this Assembly on 4th August, 1960, have not done the Lee Kuan Yew Government any good. If it is something which is actively helping us to raise our prestige, it is definitely the speeches of the Minister for Labour and Law. He is reasonable if he does not lose his temper. But it is a pity that he is so easily instigated.. When he gets angry, he is capable of saying all sorts of things, including how the Member for Hong Lim tried to bribe him with a cigarette case worth $5 on Christmas Day.

Mr Byrne: It was worth $50!

Mr Lingam: Most of these people,. Mr Speaker, Sir, are being forced to speak or not to speak. Those who had not spoken at the Special Party Conference, and particularly those whom they considered waverers, will be required to attack on one occasion or another in order to commit themselves. This is the usual technique of the Prime Minister. After the Special Party Conference, the Member for Punggol and other Assemblymen present at an Assemblymen's meeting on 21st June, 1960, at 3 p.m. in the former City Council Chamber,, were given blank sheets of paper by the Prime Minister and asked to write up "charges" against the Member for Hong Lim. If any Assemblyman had any difficulties in writing out the charges, there were two Nanyang University graduates present to assist. Let the people understand this clearly: the Prime Minister is very fond of forcing people to read or sign prepared statements, "charges", prepared speeches, and so on.

The Prime Minister is also fond of the tactic of personal smear. We fight on political principles. We do not believe in calling names and using unpleasant adjectives. Mr Speaker, Sir, while you were absent from the Assembly during last Friday's debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance had used words, which I am sure you would have stopped him from using if you had been present. The Assembly became the City Council Chamber where -

Mr G. Kandasamy rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Lingam resumed his seat.

Mr Kandasamy: I think the Member for Aljunied is challenging my ruling.

Mr Speaker: Can I have the Member's point of order, calmly and collectedly?

Mr Kandasamy: On a point of order, Sir. I pulled up the Member for Aljunied when he raised a point of order, but it was in fact a point of clarification. And he has made mention just now that while you were absent there was a difference in ruling. I take it was a misinterpretation of my own ruling.

Mr Speaker: The Deputy Speaker is probably referring to Standing Order 53, which is quite clear. The Deputy Speaker is quite correct.

`The Speaker in the Assembly -'

"The Speaker in the Assembly" includes the Deputy Speaker -

`or the chairman in Committee shall be responsible for the observance of the rules of order in the Assembly and Committee respectively and his decision on any point of order shall not be open to appeal and shall not be reviewed by the Assembly except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose.'

So that if the hon. Member is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Deputy Speaker, his remedy is to send in a notice of motion to question the ruling of the Deputy Speaker.

Mr Lingam: The Assembly became the City Council Chamber where, instead of Tang Peng Yeu, we have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. During the past weeks, and during the debates here, there were personal attacks on Owen and others which were untrue and prefabricated. For instance, Owen.

Mr Speaker: I do not think that I can allow the word "prefabricated". It is being indicated that there have been some lies said in this Assembly. "Prefabricated", I think, must be withdrawn.

Mr Lingam: I withdraw the word "prefabricated" and substitute the words "made up". For instance, Owen. The Minister for Labour and Law said that the Mayor gave Owen a job, and implied that they were friends in Australia. Sir, they did not know each other until the Member for Hong Lim became Mayor. If the Minister has studied geography, he should know that Australia is a continent, and that the distance between Adelaide, where Owen studied, and Melbourne, where the Member for Hong Lim studied, is like that between Penang and Singapore. The second untruth is that `the Mayor gave Owen a job'. Owen was employed by the City Council during the time of the Member for Farrer Park.

The Prime Minister: The honourable Mr Owen is a stooge of colonialism.

Mr Lingam: Another of his many false allegations is about Batu Pahatisation. He refers to the engagement of Mr Lui Boon Poh by the ex-Minister for National Development as Superintendent of Cleansing.

Mr Byrne: I did not.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lingam: When I was working in the Special Squad, I knew Mr Lui. He used to start work at about 5 a.m. -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Serjeant at Arms should see that order is maintained in the Strangers' Gallery. There appears to be unseemly laughter from that section of the gallery on my left.

Mr Lingam: Sir, the second untruth Is that the Mayor gave a job to Owen, who was employed by the City Council during the time of the Member for Farrer Park.

The Prime Minister: We have heard that before - many times.

Mr Lingam: When I was working in the Special Squad, I knew Mr Lui. He used to start work at about 5 a.m., doing the rounds; and during his time, he effected much reorganisation which was long overdue in the City Cleansing Department.

Inche Yaacob rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Yes.

Mr Lingam resumed his seat.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker. I cannot follow the speech because he is reading it too speedily, and it is not possible for the interpreters to follow with the translation.

Mr Speaker: Order. The point of order has been raised that the Member for Aljunied is reading his speech. I have noticed that he is, in fact, giving great attention to the typewritten script before him, and he must assure me that he is not, in fact, reading it. Again he must assure me that he is not, in fact, reading somebody else's speech. So, if the Member for Aljunied can satisfy me on those two points, he can carry on.

Mr Lingam: Sir, I am not reading the speech and I have said that this is my maiden speech -

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

The Prime Minister: I did not listen to the translation in Malay. The point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development was that the speed of the reading was so great that he could not follow the translation, and he asked that it be read more slowly. He was not objecting to it being read.

Mr Speaker: The Hon. the Prime Minister, of course, knows that speeches cannot be read. I take the point of order to mean that the speech is being read, and I have made my ruling, and the hon. Member has indicated that he is not reading. He is the best judge of that. Mr Lingam.

Mr Lingam: Sir, there are records to show Mr Lui who was working in the department.

The Prime Minister: Which department?

Mr Lingam: In the cleansing department. I understand the Member for Hong Lim knew Mr Lui only several months before he: knew the leaders of the P.A.P. Mr Lui Boon Poh is more a Singapore citizen than are many of the Ministers. He was born in Singapore, whereas seven out of the nine Ministers in the original Cabinet came from the Federation. He spent more time in Singapore than many of the Federation-born Ministers. His life was spent more in Singapore than in the Federation. He spent more time in Batu Pahat and other Federation towns. But what is wrong with Federation people? He has the same educational qualifications as the previous Superintendent of the Cleansing Department of the City Council -

Mr Speaker: Order.I wonder if the hon. Member for Aljunied can assist me in this matter, and tell me how those remarks are related to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

Mr Lingam: Sir, this is a clarification of the smear by the Member for Havelock, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. Mr Lui was given a two-year contract by the City Council when the former -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that is another matter which could more appropriately be raised under Standing Order 22. I suggest that that would be a better way of doing it. That is, a personal explanation to explain away any smear there may have been on a person who is not in this Assembly to defend himself.

Mr Lingam: Sir, Mr Lui Boon Poh was smeared in this Assembly by the Member for Havelock.

Mr Speaker: Order. I take the hon. Member's word for that. I am indicating how the hon. Member could wipe out that smear by acting under Standing Order 22. Too much time has already been spent on matters which are completely irrelevant to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. I am trying to channel the debate to the correct course at the moment.

Mr Lingam: Sir, the Member for Havelock was speaking about Mr Lui on that day, and I have to clarify to him about Mr Lui. Mr Speaker, Sir, I must put on record the facts, because Mr Lui's good name has been smeared.

Mr Speaker: Order. That, of course, can be done under Standing Order 22.

Mr Lingam: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim definitely does not suffer from nepotism. I can give too many instances of the nepotism practised by the Prime Minister and his Minister for Labour and Law in the Government and in the Party, but I do not want to indulge in personalities [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lingam: I can prove that the present regime is exactly like Chiang Kai-shek's big families as mentioned in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister for Labour and Law should have some regard to the authority of the Chair. He is not helping matters by intervening in this way.

Mr Lingam: Sir, let me quote one more thing. Or let me clarify one more thing for the Member for Havelock.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have just awakened to the fact that the Member for Havelock is a Parliamentary Secretary, and, therefore, he should be addressed as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.

Mr Lingam: On the question of qualification, let me remind the Prime Minister of what he said on 5th December, 1956, in Hansard, Vol. 2, cols. 1083-1084:

`In the administrative service we congratulate the Government for having created an executive service so that no man shall be debarred from holding the highest of administrative posts just because he did not go to a university to take an Honours degree and so join the elite. We live in an egalitarian age. A man is judged for what he is worth and what he can contribute to society, not by the hallmarks that he has acquired in his lifetime in some venerable institution of learning.'

Sir, we need an engineer to run electricity, but we do not need a University qua1ification to organise workers on how to sweep the roads and clean the night-soil buckets.

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

The Prime Minister: On a point of clarification.

Mr Lingam resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: The Member has extensively quoted me. Whilst I stand by every word that I have said about dispensing with the hallmarks of a formal education, it does not mean that one can sell patent medicine one day and become director of a cleansing department the next day. I mean that the two things are not ejusdem generis.

Mr Lingam: The Minister for Labour and Law refers in his speech to the fact that the people had gone to the Badminton Hall to hear our stand on the question of detainees and the de-registration of trade unions. He said that these people went away disappointed. This is far from the truth. Why then should the Prime Minister get worried about the crowd which he tried to imply was the work of the Left-wing adventurers?

The people of Singapore know our stand on these two issues. But the Minister does not know our stand. Just to remind him on the unions, the Member for Hong Lim asked the Government to waive the Official Secrets Act. He received no answer. If the Minister forgets also what the Member for Hong Lim has said in this Assembly on these two issues, let me repeat them here again.

`Fight for the detainees in the Internal Security Council and get them released without conditions. I (meaning the Member for Hong Lim) have made my stand clear at its first meeting. Since the last meeting I was not allowed to speak. Re-register the trade unions without conditions.'

`These were two reasons given at different times for the de-registration, and these two reasons are contradictory. On the 25th May, 1960, it was reported in the Press that the reason given by the Minister for Labour and Law for the de-registration of the Unions was "there should be no registration of trade unions within any of the categories of unions set out under the new Trade Unions Ordinance, 1960, until the Ordinance had become law." Later they found that this reason was not good, because the Trade Unions Ordinance had to become law sooner or later, and when it became law, according to this reason, you had to re-register the unions. A second reason was thus given days later - the Internal Security Council. Any trade union worker who studies the reasons would know how contradictory they are. From what I know these reasons given were not the true reasons.'

On the question of the detainees, this is what the Member for Hong Lim said in the Assembly, "Fight for the detainees in the Internal Security Council and get them released without conditions." The Member for Hong Lim made his stand clear at his first meeting of the Internal Security Council. "Since the first meeting, I (meaning the Member for Hong Lim) was not allowed to speak."

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are the people who hate people reproducing their speeches from Hansard. As the Minister for Labour and Law has said, "It is no use to hark back to 1954, 1955 and 1956. The purpose of the policy speech is to review what the Party has done last year." Yes, Mr Speaker, it is so convenient to forget the pre-election aims and policies of the P.A.P. and what the masses had thought we stood for. For one thing, these people knew they had betrayed the P.A.P. and are now retreating to their second line of defence. The Committee members of the People's Association, announced on Sunday, will take the place of the Central Committee of the P.A.P. before the elections when the branches and the masses melt away. The community centres, where some Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are now holding their meet-the-people sessions (they held them in P.A.P. branches before the Special Party Conference), will take the place of P.A.P. branches. Community centre leaders are sent to attend American-sponsored World Assembly of Youth Conferences. We remember the World Assembly of Youth Conference held in Singapore in 1955, organised by Eric Wee, and opened by Malcolm Mac-Donald. Many of these community centres are built from funds donated by Shaw, and we can see his presence in a seat reserved for a guest of honour at the opening of community centres. The U.S.A. Asia Foundation also donated equipment to the community centres. Is this so-called "centre" a "third force"?

I am sure hundreds of thousands of dollars must have been spent on the Work Brigade, but no important construction work has been done. During the opening of the second session of the Assembly, about 200 of them got a paid public holiday by going to the Supreme Court Building to wave at the "leaders" as they passed by. They did not wave. Neither did they shout Merdeka. I suggest the Government gazette the opening session of the Assembly as a public holiday, and direct all civil servants to wait at the Supreme Court Building and train them, using the Political Study Centre, to shout Merdeka. This would be more effective.

The Prime Minister: Do you not have new ideas to put forward?

Mr Lingam: After the Special Party Conference, the Community Centres' Workers Training Centre conducted an examination. Those who passed would be given jobs at the centres. Questions were asked - and this was a compulsory question, "How would you explain to the masses the recent Ong Eng Guan incident?" No wonder the Shaws and the U.S.A. Asia Foundation spend so much money in financing these community centres.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really ashamed of the $9 million surplus. That is hard-earned money from the poor and the lower middle class; the petrol tax on the taxi-drivers, lorry drivers, fishing boats and white-collar workers. They are from the cigarette tax imposed on local brands of cigarettes manufactured in Singapore and smoked by the workers, hawkers, taxi-drivers, trisha-riders, farmers and other poor people, and people like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance when he was a City Councillor. But it is not so for him now. Now it is "Lucky Strike". The recent lotteries tax -

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Low Por Tuck) rose - Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Low Por Tuck: On a point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: I do not know whether the Member will give way.

Mr Lingam resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: He has given way.

Mr Low Por Tuck: I am not smoking "Lucky Strike". What I am smoking are locally-manufactured cigarettes.

Mr Lingam: The recent lotteries tax is also a tax on the poor. In the Federation of Malaya, which openly and honestly declares itself as a Right-wing Government, all the revenue from the lotteries goes to the Government. But in Singapore, which calls itself a socialist Government, I believe half of the income from the lotteries goes to the Singapore Turf Club which is dominated by European interests and the compradores, and about half goes to the Government. Is not this financing the colonialists and the compradores by collecting, in ten cents and twenty cents, from the sweat and the toil of the hundreds of thousands of the labouring masses?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed) rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Yes. Mr Speaker, I hope the Member for Aljunied will read at a slower rate to enable the interpreters to cope with -

Mr Speaker: Is the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister for National Development alleging that the Member for Aljunied is reading? That is a point of order if he alleges it. If he does not, it is not a point of order.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker. I have no objection to the Member for Aljunied reading, but I only hope that he will go slow -

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Lingam: Sir, the Minister for Labour and Law has said that the Government expects $10 million a year from the lotteries. From what we know of the Singapore Turf Club operations, the Singapore Turf Club itself will also get an equal amount of tax, i.e. $10 million a year. Mr Speaker, Sir, $10 million a year for the Singapore Turf Club from the workers, the farmers, the students, the clerks, the hawkers, the petty traders, the taxi-drivers, the Trisha riders - all these people who may be the buyers of lotteries -

The Prime Minister: Small -

Mr Speaker: Order. It is getting a bit difficult. Perhaps the Prime Minister will contain himself.

Mr Lingam: Thank you, Mr Speaker. And, Mr Speaker, these are the Committee members of the Singapore Turf Club:

Chairman -

Dr E. Laidlaw Thomson.

Committee members -

Rumme Shaw

V. C. Bath, J.P.

W. Mcgregor Watt, J.P.

T. W. Ong

I. G. Salmond, O.B.E., J.P.

Ng Sen Choy, O.B.E., M.C.H., J.P.

Why is the Lee Kuan Yew Government so tied up with Shaw? Remember what the Prime Minister said before he formed the Government? I reproduce here an article in the Straits Times of 16th April, 1959, which was during the general elections:

`Mr Lee Kuan Yew, secretary-general of the People's Action Party, said today that P.A.P. government may hold an inquiry into the cinema industry.'

He told an election rally in the Fullerton Building car park:

`"It may be necessary for the Government to intervene and free the cinema from all monopolistic (strangeholds) and restriction-"'

The Prime Minister: Stranglehold! Do not misquote me.

Mr Lingam: -'"practices of film producers, distributors, exhibitors and cinema owners."'

Now times have changed, and very fast too. The Lee Kuan Yew Government is now the "Protector" of the Shaws and looks after their interests. I understand the Prime Minister sent his Political Secretary, who is also Chairman of the Film Appeals Board, to Japan, to so-called "represent" Shaw in the Asian Film Festival held in Tokyo recently. After his return we saw a spate of all types of Japanese films which cannot be described in clean language. Sky Cinema was specially converted to screen these films. After our exposure at the Badminton Hall Rally, these films were withdrawn. The scapegoat was the staff in the Film Censor's Department. On the 3rd of June, 1960, the Prime Minister opened the National Economic Fair at Shaw's Great World Amusement Park. One night of the admission receipts goes to the National Theatre Fund, but the receipts for over 20 nights go to the coffers of the Shaws. The name of the Nation was used to sponsor this private fair. To boost up the attendance, the Government sent. I believe on two occasions, cultural concerts into the Great World. Were the expenses for these concerts paid by the Government? Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a Government for the Shaws and the big compradores. This is not a true P.A.P. Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall now refer to the so-called integration of the City Council. The City Council is far from being integrated. What has been done is to assign the less important departments to the various Ministers. This assignment of responsibility is only in theory, because the ultimate say on all City Council matters, whether the departments have been assigned or not, still rests with the Prime Minister and Mr Meadows. Finance and staff and other administrative details are still decided by the Prime Minister and Meadows. Just to quote an example. Although the City Engineers' Department and the Transport Centre have been assigned to the Ministry of National Development, the Prime Minister, at his own discretion, has sacked a driver at the Transport Centre without giving any reasons, and following the usual staff procedure of the City Council. What has actually happened in the City Council is not integration but Meadowisation. The "Supremo" of the City Council, Meadows, has been organising the departments in such a way that he can put all his followers in key positions.

Just to quote some instances. Lim Chuan Kim, who had worked under Meadows when the latter was Chairman of the Rural Board, and who had resigned, has been re-engaged and is now in the City Council. Another was the Chairman of the District Council. He is now the Chairman of the Rural Board, the Chairman of the Urban and Rural Services Coordinating Committee, and holds a key position in the Planning Committee. The Health Department, the Hawkers Department, and the Cleansing Department have now been put under the charge of Mr Kanagaratnam, another follower of Meadows. Dr Ng See Yook, City Health Officer, who is higher in status than a Permanent Secretary, now has to take instructions from relatively junior medical officers. Lui Boon Poh has been kicked out from the post of Superintendent of City Cleansing.

The Prime Minister: Deputy Administrator!

Mr Lingam: It is understood that the position of Loh Puay Kay, at present Acting Superintendent of Hawkers, is also shaky. It is believed the post of Superintendent has now been advertised, and the qualifications have been so specified that Loh Puay Kay will be left out. The Acting City Treasurer. Mr Owen, a local accountant, was forced to resign his position; and Mr Scales, an expatriate who had taken his Malayanisation compensation, was taken back. Before the return of Scales, an expatriate geography graduate, who does not know how to multiply figures by 6, was asked -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am just wondering whether that is not bordering on tedious repetition. "A man who cannot multiply figures by 6." Anyway, it is now the moment of interruption. Before the Assembly adjourns, I would like to remind the Member for Aljunied that if he is going to quote from newspapers tomorrow, he has to produce those newspapers; and if he is going to quote from Hansard, he has to produce the Hansard. Further consideration tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: Tomorrow, Sir.