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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of adjourned debate on Question [8th August, 1960],

`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.

2.31 p.m.

Mr S. V. Lingam (Aljunied): MrSpeaker, Sir, in my speech yesterday I have given evidence and have concluded that this is a Government for the colonialists. This is a Government for the Shaws and the big compradores. This is not a true P.A.P. Government. I have asked, "Why is the Lee Kuan Yew Government so tied up with the Shaws?" I have also given evidence and concluded that what happened in the City Council was not real integration but "Meadowisation". The followers of Mr Meadows are now controlling key positions in the City Council. The latest move was to abolish the post of Administrator and replace it with the post of Chief Administrative Officer - only a change of name! Mr P. C. Lim, the most senior local officer in the City Council, who had worked in the City Council for more than 30 years, was demoted and the Director of Social Welfare - a relatively junior officer from the Government - was asked to act as Chief Administrative Officer. Is this not an insult to the City Council local officers? What does the Director of Social Welfare know about City Council matters? It must be remembered that Mr Meadows was also once the Director of Social Welfare. In the City Council, we will still be hearing them talk of integration for many years to come.

Mr, Speaker, Sir, this is a Government for the Shaws, by Meadows, in the name of the Prime Minister.

For the last one year, the Lee Kuan Yew Government has done almost nothing for the people except consolidation, reorganisation and preparation to further their own ends. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development talked about Malay welfare. Is he really interested in Malay welfare? Or is he really interested in free overseas trips? He asked his ex-Minister to send him to Indonesia to "study" fishing, but the ex-Minister refused. Several weeks later, there popped up the idea of sending him to Indonesia at great expense to the Government to "study" education. Out of the $800,000 in the 1960 Budget earmarked for primary production, $200,000 had been allotted by the Member for Hong Lim for Malay welfare, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development was asked to put up schemes. Despite repeated reminders for many months, he had not even put up one scheme. Instead he spent his time planning how to get free overseas trips. When the Government was first formed, the Member for Hong Lim drew up plans to foster Malay welfare. Within three months, a scheme to build 100 houses in the Jalan Eunos Malay Settlement was started. A scheme to benefit the Malays in the Southern Islands was started and completed. There were other minor projects in the Geylang Serai area to benefit the Malays.

Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development tried to play on communalism. Let me remind him that whatever the Lee Kuan Yew Government is, it is a Right-wing Government, and it is definitely a Government against communalism. We support the Prime Minister in his strong attitude against all forms of communalism.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development tried to distort the case of the proposed Sembawang Malay Settlement. When the Lim Yew Hock Government was in its last days, it tried to win votes by gazetting several places as proposed Malay Settlements. Some of these places were satisfactory. One of these satisfactory places is Jalan Eunos; and when the P.A.P. Government was formed, the building of the houses there started immediately. An unsatisfactory place was a piece of land in Sembawang for a proposed Malay Settlement. The land had not been acquired and a very high price had been agreed to by the previous Government with the British owners. This land was also full of squatters. The Government intended to find, as a substitute, a piece of State land where there were no squatters. As a matter of policy, the Government should not acquire land where there are many squatters who have to be evicted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before his powers were curbed in October 1959, the Member for Hong Lim had launched two big projects to promote Malay welfare, namely, the Southern Islands scheme and the Malay Settlement housing scheme. These were completed within the short space of two to three months. What the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development had done was to call up the ketuas of the Southern Islands, or occasionally to visit them. What for? Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that he is looking to the Southern Islands in the 1964 general elections. He is more interested in his own welfare and in his own future. Bukit Timah would not be a safe ward then.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard during the past six weeks how the Prime Minister consolidates his position with the Assemblymen. The main object is to make them part and parcel of the status quo, a part of the existing social system, and thus resistant to social changes demanded by the overwhelming masses of the people. He has devious methods: brain-washing, free trips (sometimes compulsory free trips), control of Assemblymen's pay. These are a few of the methods employed. The City Councillor Mr Low Por Tuck getting $150 a month is a different social being from the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance - he is now getting ten times more income. Five of the Parliamentary Secretaries have compulsory savings. By the end of the five-year term -

Mr Speaker: Order. All these references to personalities and personal acts of Assembly Members seem to me to be quite irrelevant to the question before the House. I have tried to stop references to personalities. I have indicated definitely that I will stop references to personalities for the rest of this debate. So I ask the Member for Aljunied not to indulge in personalities.

Mr Lingam: Sir, six motor-cars seized by the Customs were sold to the Parliamentary Secretaries below market prices.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Aljunied must have due regard to the authority of the Chair. The ruling is that all references to personalities must not be indulged in.

Mr Lingam: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not the P.A.P. which the masses understood and voted for. We are the true P.A.P. We stand for the aims and ideals of the P.A.P. which the people understood, believed in and voted for. The Lee Kuan Yew Government stands for the Shaws, the compradores and the colonialists.

2.42 p.m.

Mr John Mammen (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, after 14 months of long silence, the Member for Aljunied has now opened his mouth to utter complete lies in this Assembly.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is deliberately going to use unparliamentary words which he knows are unparliamentary, then he will not be permitted to speak. "Lie" is an unparliamentary word which should never be used in this Assembly. The hon. Member must withdraw that word.

Mr John Mammen: Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw that word, but may I substitute the words "twisting the facts"?

Mr Speaker: I will not even accept the words "twisting the facts" in this context. The hon. Member must withdraw those words.

Mr John Mammen: Sir, I withdraw the words.

The Member for Aljunied stated that he was not given a chance for the last 14 months to speak in this Assembly. The other accusation was that all the speeches made during the last 14 months by P.A.P. Assemblymen were prepared either by Mr Lee Kuan Yew or Mr George Thomson. But after hearing the speech of the Member for Aljunied yesterday and today, it is now quite clear who is reading from written speeches.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I go into the details of the speeches made by the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Aljunied, I would like to say that they were of a similar nature but, of course, the wording was different. The most important thing the Member for Hong Lim touched on was Malayanisation. Let us go back to the activities in the Ministry of National Development during the last one year. What did the Member for Hong Lim really mean by Malayanisation? For example, let us take the Architects Department. One fine morning, there appeared in the Straits Times and in all the local newspapers an article about Mr Ong Eng Guan's plan of 4,000 units of houses to be built in Singapore. One does not need a technician to give a Press statement. Anybody can call in the Press and put forward his views. But to carry out the plan of building 4,000 units of houses, you must require efficient and experienced architects. What did the ex-Minister for National Development do on the pretext of Malayanisation? It was "Melbourneisation"! Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim is a graduate from Melbourne University. He was of the opinion that one must be a graduate from Melbourne University, otherwise he could not be a true socialist and an anti-colonialist. That is what happened in that department. Why have the local architects left the service of the City Council? It is not because they fear the P.A.P. Government, as put forward by the S.P.A. Members. It is not because they are afraid of their future. It is because they have not graduated from Melbourne University, that they have no future in that department as long as that man is there as the Minister.

The Member for Aljunied talked about Lui Boon Poh in the City Council. If I am wrong in what I have to say, I hope the Prime Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary will correct me. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Prime Minister took over the City Council from the Minister for National Development, the whole sewerage system was on the verge of collapse, because we had an "efficient" administrator in Lui Boon Poh. And the ex-Minister for National Development himself admitted in this House Mr Lui's qualifications and experience as an administrator. When the Prime Minister took over the City Council, there was only one engineer left in the service, and he also had tendered his resignation. That was the State of -

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr John Mammen: I think it is not necessary to clarify.

Mr Speaker: The Member will not give way.

Mr John Mammen: And that was the state of affairs left by the so-called socialist and anti-colonialist who is now parted from the P.A.P. because of his "broad" colonial attitude. That was what he had done for the people of Singapore. And in his speech today, the Member for Aljunied boasted of the achievements that he and the ex-Minister for National Development had done - they had done so much for the Malays, they had done so much for the Southern Islanders. Let me remind them: they were expelled from the P.A.P. only recently. Whatever the Member for Hong Lim did was done in his capacity as Minister for National Development, and not as Mr Ong Eng Guan; also he did it as a P.A.P. candidate and a P.A.P. man. So the credit does not go to Ong Eng Guan, but to the P.A.P. He was elected to this Assembly as a P.A.P. candidate in Hong Lim; he was not elected as an Independent candidate. He ran his Ministry as a P.A.P. Minister, and whatever good he did or encouraged was not personal. Maybe he had done something bad, and that is why he is no more with the P.A.P. now.

Another important point which the Member for Hong Lim as well as the Member for Aljunied brought up was the case of Mr Owen in the City Council. It appears to the people of Singapore that the three so-called socialists went from the Government side to sit in the Opposition to fight Owen's case. It seems that they are the mouthpiece of Mr Owen, and the common man might think that they are obliged to Mr Owen.

Before I speak on the details of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, let me go through this pamphlet, Mr Speaker, Sir, on "How to Fight Colonialism". It is a fine heading and can easily get the support of the masses. Everybody wants to fight colonialism; not only Ong Eng Guan or Mr Lingam - I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the hon. Member for Aljunied - but the whole P.A.P. organisation, the working class, the masses are all interested in fighting colonialism. It is a 10-page pamphlet of speeches delivered at the Badminton Hall on 12th July, 1960. If you go through all this, what way has this so-called anti-colonialist given to the masses to fight colonialism? All these speeches are merely a personal attack on Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee, and three expatriate officers - George Thomson, Blades and Meadows. In other words, if you are an anti-colonialist or if you are fighting colonialism, you must first fight George Thomson, Meadows and Blades. And if you kick them out, you are really an anti-colonialist. That is the stand taken by the hon. Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Aljunied. On the last page of the pamphlet, the following conclusions were arrived at the meeting on "How to Fight Colonialism":

`(1) That the greatest enemy of the people is still colonialism and that all sections of the people must be united to carry on the fight and complete the revolution.'

That is the P.A.P.'s aim. Besides that, these so-called anti-colonialists could not concretely put forward to the public ideas on "How to Fight Colonialism". That is because the Prime Minister gradually and bit by bit took over the departments in the Ministry of National Development and finally the ex-Minister for National Development had nothing in his portfolio. That is the root of this so-called split in the P.A.P.

Let me turn to the 1959 P.A.P. Election Manifesto. At that time the hon. Member for Aljunied and the Member for Hong Lim were Central Executive Committee members, and they were involved in the drafting of the P.A.P. Manifesto. Let me read from this, Mr Speaker. On page 2:

`To this purpose, the P.A.P. has recently week by week issued its policy statements on the work that will be carried out in government in the next five years.

The plans we have laid down in these policy statements are not all ambitious ones. They are realistic plans, based on existing political, social and economic conditions. In drafting these plans, we recognise that an internally self-governing Singapore is not an independent Singapore because control of our foreign affairs and external defence remains in the hands of the British Colonial Office, and so in a sense we are a semi-colony.

We recognise the severe restriction of land space, a mere 220 square miles, and a present population of 1½ million, which is still going on at the rate of 65,000 a year. We recognise that our little island has no natural resources and that our economy has for the past 100 years been dependent only on the entrepot trade, and has remained static.

We recognise the complexities of our multi-racial society and the special problems they pose. It is within this framework that we must work, and within these limitations we must construct our labour basis for a future socialist society.

The next five years will be critical years of testing those people who believe, like the P.A.P. that socialism can be achieved step by step through peaceful constitutional means.'

This is the P.A.P. Manifesto which was carried out by the Member for Aljunied and the Member for Hong Lim; and they wholeheartedly supported it.

When this Ong Eng Guan issue was first published in the papers, there was an outburst in Singapore, and the people really did not know what it was all about. Maybe 30,000 or 40,000 people attended the mass rally, and that was the force. But that does not mean that the 40,000 are supporters of the so-called anti-colonialists and supporters of the Members for Hong Lim and Aljunied. The people were quite enthusiastic and wanted to know what were the real differences in the Party and why these Party Executive members, elected on P.A.P. tickets, were suddenly expelled after one year of office. Slowly when the explanations were given, and when everything was over, the people began to realise what the real issue is: whether the P.A.P. has become pro-colonial or whether the so-called anti-colonialists who caused a split in the Party are pro-colonialists. The people of Singapore now begin to realise that the split in the Party was not because the P.A.P. deviated from its basic stand of anti-colonialism, but because of personal grudges. If I may put it bluntly, Mr Speaker, Sir, you cannot have two Prime Ministers in one State - and that was the whole trouble that happened in the Party. We can afford to have only one Prime Minister, and luckily we have an efficient, able and honest Prime Minister to lead the State.

The P.A.P. is accused of being pro-colonial because it retains George Thomson, Meadows and Blades. The P.A.P. is also accused of being unsocialistic because the Shaws and millionaires are here.

May I ask: since when did our ex-colleagues become so anti-colonialistic? Since when did they learn that the P.A.P. is pro-colonial? The P.A.P. was formed in Singapore in the year 1954 by the working class. Maybe some of its founders are not in this Assembly, but they are still with the P.A.P. outside, and it is they who began the anti-colonial movement. It is they who supported the P.A.P. from the very beginning up to now and the P.A.P. still has the full support and confidence of the masses in Singapore, especially the trade union movement. The P.A.P. leader, who is now the Prime Minister, attended the Constitutional Talks with the then Chief Minister, and upon his return the Party held many meetings and explained to its members and the people what was the Constitution that was agreed upon. At that time the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Aljunied were with the Party, and they completely agreed with the Party's stand on this Constitution. If they had not agreed to the Constitution, why did they contest the elections on P.A.P. tickets? Because the P.A.P. categorically stated their stand on the Constitution. This was explained in Petir and Party meetings - that we had to work this Constitution for two or three years, and then we had to go back to London for a new Constitution. And the Party as a whole agreed to it. `If the Member for Hong Lim thinks that the present Constitution is pro-colonial, that the whole administration is pro-colonialist, and that it is not a workable Constitution, then he should have realised, at the time of the election, that he was going to contest the election on a P.A.P. ticket, that is, as a candidate of the Party which agreed to the new Constitution, and which was confident that it would come into power. At that time, it was quite apparent that this was the only Party which was going to get a complete majority. The Member for Hong Lim agreed with it. After working one year within the Constitution, he suddenly gets a vision that it is not workable because Mr Lee Kuan Yew is there and Dr Goh Keng Swee is there, and they are pro-colonialists, because they are educated in -

Mr Speaker: The Member must mean the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance.

Mr John Mammen: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. Another attack came from the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Aljunied on trade unions - the cancellation of the federations of trade unions. I will say quite frankly to my friends that the trade union leadership is quite efficient in looking after their own interest. I ask them to leave the trade unions to their leaders The whole membership of the trade unions has complete confidence in its present leaders. So better leave the trade union movement alone and do not interfere with the movement.

If the Members think that by making an unwarranted attack on the T.U.C. and its leadership they can divide the trade union movement and get their support, then I think they are wasting their time in doing this unhealthy thing. The trade union leadership is here, and they can look after their interest.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr John Mammen resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, we have never on any occasion attacked the T.U.C. What we did at the Badminton Hall was to expose Mr Woodhull for what he was.

Mr John Mammen: That is exactly what I was explaining, and the Member for Hong Lim admitted it. Whether it is in the Badminton Hall or in the Assembly or outside, he has admitted it. Whether or not the Member for Hong Lim and two others attacked the T.U.C. and its leadership? He admitted he attacked it. He cannot deny it because it is written in this speech, `T.U.C. and Mr S. Woodhull'. That is what I would like to remind hon. Members. If by attacking the T.U.C. and its leadership and making an unwarranted attack on them he thinks that he can really become a revolutionary and an anti-colonialist, and he can get some of the union support, then I think politically he is going to be a bankrupt.

Mr Speaker, since this trouble started in the P.A.P., there may be some in the trade union movement who think that they can also become revolutionaries like the Member for Hong Lim. Let me remind them that the future of this State depends on industrialisation, stable government and a healthy atmosphere in the whole political arena. And if the so-called adventurers and some of their leaders want to create unrest in this country under the pretext of anti-colonialism, then I think the whole trade union should be aware of this fact. We should be prepared to face the situation, and show that we are more responsible and more able, and that we can understand the situation more clearly, even though we - the trade union people - are not graduated from the University in Melbourne. We must show to the world that industrial and economic expansion can be achieved in Singapore with the co-operation and help of the trade union movement and their confidence in the present Government.

The Member for Aljunied in his speech has said that the Parliamentary Secretary to the ex-Minister for National Development was bringing up communal issues in this House in regard to the political situation in Singapore. But the Member himself indulged in that by bringing up communal issues when he said that the only two people in this Assembly who are interested in the welfare of the Malays are the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Aljunied. Whatever Government did for the people for the last one year was not done by the P.A.P. Government, but by these two individuals. Where did they get the money from? It is this Government which passed the money, and the Member for Hong Lim acted in the capacity of the P.A.P. Minister for National Development. How can they come here and tell the public that whatever was done in the Ministry of National Development was done by Ong Eng Guan and not by the P A.P. Government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Member for Aljunied was attached to the Ministry of National Development, we, the P.A.P. Assemblymen, even at that time considered him, with due respect to him, as part and parcel of the civil service, because, from the information received from our colleagues in the trade union movement - I stand subject to correction, Mr Speaker, Sir - he used to pay periodical or daily visits to the departments and find fault with the civil servants. Yet today in his speech, he says he is the only man who can fight for the local officers, and he is the only man who can give something to the civil servants. But he himself has forgotten that when he was attached to the Ministry of National Development, he was an elected representative of the people and not a civil servant. Today, when he is away from the P.A.P. he himself brings forward the accusation that we are giving trouble, that we are forgetting or neglecting the local officers and civil servants.

Mr Speaker, Sir, they want to fight colonialism, they want to malayanise, but they are not interested in the whole set-up of the civil service and the technical staff. What they are interested in is this. As long as the three chaps are there - Meadows, Blades and Thomson - then the whole administration is colonial. And if these three people go out, then the Members for Hong Lim and Aljunied are the real anti-colonialists and socialists in this country. But when we say that we are anti-colonial, we categorically state that we are not interested in fighting Europeans. We do not fight them because they are white, they are colonialists. We fight them because of their political ideology. We must know that, especially in dealing with our colonial masters, we must be tactful and use our brains. If the Member for Hong Lim thinks that, by getting rid of these three chaps, our fight is over, that we are completely independent, and that we are really socialists, then we are far apart. We will never be able to agree with him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, it is stated that the Government is going to build a trade union house and that a committee will be set up to draw up plans. This was wholeheartedly supported by the people when the P.A.P. put this proposal forward during the elections. We hope that with the co-operation of the trade union movement, the building will be completed soon, so that all the unions can utilise the facilities and work for a better and prosperous Singapore.

3.10 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the fifth day of the debate on the address of thanks for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. an address that does not merit such a lengthy debate. But what has brought about the lengthiness of this debate is because the Honourable the Prime Minister, in moving his motion, has to find it necessary to level an attack on the hon. Member for Hong Lim. And he has thus opened the gate so wide that this Assembly has been treated to, shall we say, the unhappy spectacle of comrades and excomrades quarrelling among themselves, and of exposure after exposure. And that reminds me of a saying, Sir, which we all know. "When blank falls out, honest men will come into their own." Sir, I have not used the word "rogues" because I know that these honourable men are not "rogues". But when something falls out, honest men will come into their own.

It is typical, Sir, of the P.A.P., not only of the Prime Minister, not only of his Ministerial colleagues, but also of the back-benchers, to rave and rant, to attack unnecessarily the Opposition, and to ridicule the Opposition even before the Opposition has opened its mouth. So the Prime Minister in his speech said; What is this I see, the amendments that are proposed by the opposition. What a comic relief.' Sir, what we have been sitting here for five days listening to has been the comic relief provided by the P.A.P. Assemblymen, Ministers and ex-comrades. That is the kind of comic relief we have. Surely, Sir, the Prime Minister must have felt in his heart that some such comic relief would take place in this House, and that is why he used the word. Of course, he has to turn it around and say, We are providing the comic relief!'

Sir, the Members on the other side said that we had not pronounced any world-shaking events. We have treated the world-shaking pronouncement of the Prime Minister with little concern. Sir, I will touch on that in due course. But they, Sir, in all their speeches, have not even accepted in their own minds, that there was such a world-shaking statement made by the Prime Minister. They went into ridicule, jibes, and criticisms. They even went so far as to suggest that all the ills that they have perpetrated during the past 14 months are the ills they inherited from the past Government. And yet the Member for Hong Lim said that all the good things, all the buildings that they claimed they had built, were built by the past Government. I say, Sir, in this House: let the people judge the Government not by what the previous Government did or did not do. They will judge them by what they themselves did or did not do during their time of office.

Last year, Sir, we were treated to a famous statement of the P.A.P. - "We mean what we say and we say what we mean." Let us examine their credence. Sir, when the previous Government felt that Mayor Ong Eng Guan was not doing the right thing by the people of Singapore, and felt that he had been doing a number of acts that were detrimental to the interests of the people of Singapore, my colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing in the previous Government, instituted a Commission of Inquiry into the misdeeds of the Mayor and the P.A.P. Councillors. At that time, what did the Prime Minister do? He defended that man and said "What he did was right. What he did captured the imagination of the people of Singapore. What he did had caused fear in the minds of the Government. They knew they were going to lose. They knew that we were going to win." All those things were said in the courts. And now what do we hear? "Ha, that Mayor Ong Eng Guan! Oh, that silly boy! Naturally, if we had not protected him, he would have been dead long, long ago. Look at all the misdeeds he did! Look at the discredit he brought to the P.A.P.!" And yet, Sir, it was the deeds - I call them misdeeds, but they call them deeds - of Mayor Ong Eng Guan that won them that election last year. Had they not played up Ong Eng Guan as a god and as a hero of the people, they would not have been sitting here. Therefore, if they say. Sir, that Ong Eng Guan was wrong, that the deeds of Ong Eng Guan were misdeeds, then I say this with due respect to you and to them. Sir, that they have been voted in under false pretences.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): You forgot Chew Swee Kee and another Commission of Inquiry.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, from their own mouths they say that Mayor Ong Eng Guan, that comrade of theirs-[The hon. Member gestured].

Mr Speaker: Order. I had occasion to indicate to the Member for Joo Chiat that I do not like too many gestures. The Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair, and to turn his back on the Chair, I think, is not polite.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, what I did was just to focus attention on a great hero of theirs who has fallen. Sir, they say that the great Mayor, Ong Eng Guan, was the hero, the man who had captured the imagination of the people of Singapore and who had brought standpipes to the poor. Do you expect them to drink water when they go hungry without rice? Who had brought bus shelters to the people? Do you expect them to be there when they do not have the money to pay for the bus fare? And they say, `We say what we mean and we mean what we say.' Tch, tch! Is that saying what they mean and meaning what they say, when today they say that what they said was not what they meant to say? Is it not a fact? Is it a laughing matter? They now say that what they meant to say was not what they meant to say what they said to mean. That, Sir, is almost right. What did the hon. Member for Hong Lim describe it? Dr Goebbels' propaganda. Again, Sir, what do we have? Last year, Sir, on the Budget debate, the Minister for Finance let the cat out of the bag. I think he said this. It is at col. 797 of the Hansard, volume 11, No. 13 of 25th November, 1959, which reads:

"To these people, we can say with perfect candourl that members of the P.A.P. political leadership are not lacking in talent, vigour or self-confidence. A combination of these qualities, however, may well lead to recklessness bred out of arrogance and ignorance if it is not tempered with a sense of realism."

I picked on those very words of the Minister for Finance during that debate. I said that the Minister had let the cat out of the bag. That there were some Ministers in the Cabinet who had been arrogant, who had been handling the destiny of the country with arrogance and recklessness, and who had not been tempered with any sense of reality. And what did I get, Sir? As usual, the Prime Minister said that the hon. Member for Cairnhill was ever fond of fishing in troubled waters. "I have the greatest confidence in my colleague the Minister for National Development." His greatest confidence, Sir, has now matured in expulsion. The Prime Minister -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: He never said that.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - now would want us to believe that what he said he meant was not what he meant to say. Then, Sir, before I come to the world-shaking pronouncement of the Prime Minister, allow me the indulgence of this House to reply to some of the attacks of the speakers on the other side that have been levelled at the Opposition. What did the Minister for Labour and Law say in reply to the speech by the Member for Mountbatten? What had the previous Government done to industrialise Singapore? Then he quoted a number of inquiries that were started then and at that particular time when he was the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Commerce and Industry.

Mr Byrne: I am in a position to know.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: So being in a position to know, Sir, the hon. Member must have been aware that as a senior civil servant there is such a thing as an oath of secrecy. But he feels, "What is an oath after all to the P.A.P.?" What is it after all? Let us forget it. They have forgotten it. Ministers exposing Ministerial acts. Ex-Minister exposing ex-Ministerial acts. I am not criticizing. But one thing I took objection to was this, Sir.

Mr Byrne: It is true.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: It was that the previous Minister for Commerce and Industry went to the United States to attend the P.A.T.A. conference and had discussions on -

An hon. Member: Merger.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - the manufacture of cigarettes.

Mr Byrne: Correct.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: And the Minister for Labour and Law had made the allegation, Sir -

Mr Byrne: It is true.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - that the Minister for Commerce and Industry went there to find out how best he could himself start a cigarette factory.

Mr Byrne: Correct, that is what he did.

Mr Speaker: Order. I must remind the Minister for Labour and Law that this sort of running commentary is completely out of order. He must remember that he must keep silence.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: In spite of their having a Minister for Culture, they are not so cultured.

Sir, the Minister for Labour said that the previous Minister for Commerce and Industry went to the United States to try and find out how best to start a cigarette factory for himself. I knew, as his Chief Minister then, that he went there to find out how to start a cigarette factory, bringing into association local capital. Let us take the case of the British-American Tobacco factory that has been opened after the PAP, came into power. They wanted to reopen their factory in Singapore. We said to them, although we did not claim, as they are fond of claiming, to be anti-British capital, "If you want to restart your factory, we will welcome it. But you must allow 51 per cent local capital." They accepted that. But they said the elections were coming, and so they could not accept it. But they were prepared to accept in principle 51 per cent local capital participation. Yet, Sir, this factory started soon after the P.A.P. Government came into power with a 100 per cent British capital. What about that? No shares from the other factories? A hundred per cent British capital. And this Company has, since its starting a new factory, knocked out almost all the other factories manufacturing local cigarettes. Why has it been so? It is all because they have popular brands. They are able to sell Capstan, a popular brand, at a cheaper price because they claim that the cigarettes are locally manufactured. And to show how popular the brand is, Sir, can be measured by the price. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance has even produced a packet of Capstan cigarettes. What is wonderful is that this Government claims that colonialism means the choking of the economic structure of a colony. Yet we had beaten this British company down to accepting a 49 per cent capital participation. And the P.A.P. Government, immediately after coming in, has given them 100 per cent. That, Sir, must be due to the flexibility in the struggle against colonialism as enunciated by the Government. They say that the struggle has now entered a flexible stage where they must employ flexible tactics.

Then the Minister for Labour and Law claims, "Have you not read the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech? Did we not say that there would be $101 million capital that might be invested in this country?" And he went on to say about the Shell Company with a $54 million investment. The Shell Company started its discussions with the previous Government. The Shell Company wanted the piece of land that has now been given to a Japanese company. We were not prepared to give it for free. We asked for the full price. The British said, "No, no, do not ask for the full price. You know we are helping the country. Give it to us at a cheaper price." We said, "No deal." We refused to give that piece of land. And now that land has been given to a Japanese foreign company. But Shell is still going ahead with their proposal of a $54 million refinery that was discussed during the previous Government's time. So do not try to claim something that is not true.

Sir, did the Minister for Labour and Law mention how best to get the trade unions into line? The Government is going to build them a trade union house. Do not say no to that. Sir, any trade union worthy of its name and its desire to struggle for justice and just rights must not accept any sop from any Government or any political organisation, because then it will lose its own character and its own integrity. But no, the plan of the Government is to build a trade union house for the Trades Union Congress, because, as the Member for Hong Lim has said, they hope to capture the Trades Union Congress. And they have already made plans to capture the Trades Union Congress. We have heard in this Assembly of a trade unionist who takes pride in accepting a sop from the Government. Does that mean to suggest to the outside world and to the workers throughout the world that the workers of Singapore are not united enough to raise funds to build their own trade union house? Are they not confident enough that they have the masses with them and that with only $1 from each Member, they could put up a house which they can proudly call their own? Don't they have any sense of shame? I wonder.

The Minister for Labour and Law said, "We believe in Malayanisation. We do not believe in Batu Pahatisation." This debate, Sir, has brought in a number of words that we never dreamed would have crept in: "Batu Pahatisation.". "Meadowisation". But I say this, Sir: the people of Singapore know what kind of "isation" has been going on in the civil service and in the authorities that are controlled by the Government. It is not "Malayanisation". It is not "Batu Pahatisation". It is not "Meadowisation". It is "P.A.P.-isation" and they cannot deny that. Just ask any man who has got a new job. "Are you a P.A.P. member?" - "Yes, Sir." "Are you a good P.A.P. member?" - "Yes, Sir." "Ah, you can be promoted. You can get a job." "P.A.P.-isation" - the killers of the Singapore civil service! And yet they say "Batu Pahatisation"! Sir, even if it had been "Batu Pahatisation", they with the collective leadership must accept the collective responsibility for having done something that is not good for the country.

The Prime Minister: We do accept responsibility and we have put it right.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The Prime Minister said, "Look around, it is a review of the political situation." And he went on, "There is no opposition force to us. The Opposition as represented today are an inert and ineffective force." Those were his words. I say this to him: if he really believes that that is so, let us come out for another general elections. [Laughter] They can just laugh it off, Sir, but they will have to eat their own words. They are afraid of a general election because they know - and know full well - that the public cannot be bluffed for too long, that all this P.A.P.-isation and all that has been going on have not been good for the people of Singapore. But if they feel that there is a danger of their being overthrown, then I say to them, "Do not come out and make accusations that you are not prepared to back up. Do not say that we are inert and ineffective because you will be knocked out if you have the courage to come out today."

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): You said that a couple of years ago.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, an inert and ineffective force is now told that they will not want to fight with us.

Sir, I have some notes jotted down about the speech of the Prime Minister in relation to the Member for Hong Lim. I do not think it is necessary for me to waste the time of this Assembly or to lower my dignity or the dignity of this House to participate in the character assassination between ex-comrades, it does not profit us. In fact, if the truth be told, we are rather ashamed as Members of this Assembly to hear the words used by honourable men of this Assembly. But there were certain allegations brought out by the Member for Hong Lim, and these allegations have not been denied so far either by the Ministers or by the Back-benchers. What did the Member for Hong Lim say? "The Government had to use six lorries to convey members of the Works Brigade, P.A.P. community centre leaders and others to the City Hall to line up the streets from City Hall to this Assembly, hoping that they would cheer when these people who represent the masses marched to the Assembly." And it has been told that these men did not cheer. But what I want to bring out is this, Sir. Such a charge has been made in this House and that charge has not been denied. I would not like to say that that is true, but so long as it is not denied during this debate, then it must be true.

Another allegation made by the Member for Hong Lim - and this is a very serious allegation - is that the Government intimidates the Press. We have a champion of the freedom of the Press sitting in this House as the Minister for Culture today. The Member for Hong Lim made allegations that editors and newspaper reporters were called in and told to toe the P.A.P. line. That resulted in only one little denial from the Minister for Culture who was, and I hope still is, a defender of the freedom of the Press. He said. "What about this Ong Eng Guan issue? No doubt, I called them in and talked to them. But they themselves told me that they did not want to play up this issue because all the statements of Ong Eng Guan were not true." That may be correct, Sir, and I would not want to challenge that statement. But there were other instances of the Press not doing the right thing - not maintaining the freedom of their own Press. When the Opposition had some statements to issue which were not to the credit of the Government or to the P.A.P., and when Members of the Opposition had said a number of things that should have been brought out into the light of day, the Press did not print them. Sir, I would not like to make a sweeping statement that the Government has intimidated the Press, but I would like to say in this House that they have told the Press to be careful of what they write and what they publish. When they are accused of suppressing the Press, the Minister for Culture - the great defender of the freedom of the Press - stands up and smilingly says, "I did not tell them anything. I only told them to be careful to publish what is good and what is bad." [Interruption] But, Sir, that kind of intimidation is worse than pure intimidation. Pure intimidation can be nailed, but suggestive intimidation cannot be nailed. [Interruption] It seems, Sir, that there must be some truth in my statement that there has been intimidation of the Press because even the Hon, the Prime Minister looks hurt. There is a Malay saying. Sir - "Siapa makan chilli rasa pedas." It could be true. They either laugh it off or they burst out in anger.

Sir, in respect of the two detained journalists, the Member for Hong Lim said that one of them was detained 15 minutes after having left his Press conference on his way to the office to telephone a report to the papers in Kuala Lumpur. The two journalists were detained and the Minister for Culture was the one who stood up in this House to justify their detention under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. What did he tell us? "Oh, they are K.M.T. propagandists. They have been trained in K.M.T. camps. Therefore, they are a danger to the people of Singapore." If that is the way we want to go about it, then all those people who have been trained in the other camp - the Communist camp - to do this and that but have not done anything yet should also be detained.

Mr Rajaratnam: They did something.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: What have they done, Sir? During the time of my Government, the Communists roused the school children to disobey even their parents and here we have a Member of the Government who says, "I pray to God every day." These Communists even told the children, "Thou shall disobey thy parents. Thou shall forget all those things. Come out and fight." And here we have this other group of men who say, "Tch, tch, do not do this. That is wrong. We are fighting Communist tactics and Communist subversion. We are not trying to bring about the downfall of the Government but we have, in fact, tried to help the Government." They are detained today for acts which they did some three years ago. Can the Government say that since the P.A.P. came into power, these two journalists have indulged in subversive activities detrimental to the welfare of the people in order to overthrow this Government? What have these two journalists done? They felt that the Ong Eng Guan issue must be brought to light. They felt that since all the Singapore Press would not want to publish what the Member for Hong Lim had said, they should try and do something at least for the people and let them know what is going on. Therefore, their activities were not prejudicial to the interest of the people of Singapore nor to its security, but their activities were prejudicial to the continuation in power of the Government that we have today - and that is subversive activity! I think the Prime Minister, in his speech, did define subversive activity. It is in the Straits Times -

The Prime Minister: Get the Hansard.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The Hansard is not out yet.

The Prime Minister: Of October 1958.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The Prime Minister is trying to confuse me so that I will not be able to find those words he said. In the Straits Times of 4th August, 1960, page 5, this is what the Prime Minister had to say about subversive activity:

`"We had defined subversion before the elections and made it quite clear what we meant by that term: that whether it comes from the Right or from the Left, any subordination of the interests of the people of Singapore to outside interests we consider an undermining of the authority and integrity of the State,..."'.

Now, what had these two reporters been doing? Just to give the Member for Hong Lim an opportunity to have his words read by a section of the public? Are these activities prejudicial to the State? Are these activities undermining the authority and integrity of the State? Is this not another way of intimidating the Press and saying, "Boys, if you do not behave, and do not write what pleases us, watch out!" They said that that placing of the facts, the ability of their pen to put the words of the Member for Hong Lim across to a section of the people is subversion from the Right. And yet, the Prime Minister has said that there is a reorganisation of Communist forces in Singapore. He knows it. He says it. And therefore he knows how many people, at least some people who have been reorganising. Has he today told us that he has also detained these people under the P.P.S.O.? Oh, no, they cannot do that because they are a democratic government. They must give ground play. And until they are ready to bite, ah, then the big sword will be drawn. Yet these two journalists have been detained under a law which is not intended to be used for such purposes. The Minister for Culture, Sir, as ex-President of the Singapore Union of Journalists, will remember the occasion when he came to see me about the detention of a journalist. We had satisfactory evidence to detain that man, who is now the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. And yet the Minister, when he came to see me, said, "Look, it can be misinterpreted as a destruction of the freedom of the Press!" I took the course of releasing this detainee because the freedom of the Press must be maintained at all costs. The Singapore Union of Journalists has clearly stated in the papers - I do not know how it came to be written, but anyway I read it - that the activities of these two people who are detained are not subversive but only "bad journalism". They said so, I did not say it - "bad journalism". And yet they are still detained under the P.P.S.O.

Sir, I have brought this out in some detail in order to strengthen my contention that there has been suggestive intimidation of the Press, although I cannot at the present time say that there has been open intimidation. The Minister for Culture has explained the detention of the journalists, and also explained the stand of the Singapore Press not to give publicity to the Ong Eng Guan issue. But he has not explained another allegation made by the Member for Hong Lim. He said that a writer in the Sunday Mail, Huang Tze-chin, was sent for by the Government and interrogated for four hours. He did not find it necessary to deny that. But now because I have taken the opportunity to remind the Ministers that they have forgotten to deny something, they suddenly wake up, "Ah, ha, this is a dangerous thing. It must be denied." And I hope some chits may be passed around to one of the Ministers who will be quick enough to jump up to his feet and deny in categorical terms that such a thing has happened. That fact has not been denied in this House so far by the Minister for Culture, under whose portfolio is propaganda, the Press and the radio.

Again, Sir, talking of the anti-colonial struggle by the Government Benchers, the speeches from the other side brought out one factor, and one factor alone - the colonial struggle. Even then that has already been stated by the P.A.P. leadership, and what did they say about it? It takes some time to look it up, Sir - the colonial struggle:

"`The present phase of colonial struggle requires more flexible and effective tactics."'

It is so flexible and effective, Sir, that they have granted 100 per cent ownership of a cigarette factory to British capital in Singapore. It is so flexible and effective that they, during the elections, had damned the British and wanted to throw them into the sea, had gone to the United Kingdom to say, "Tolong-lah, I want some money", and got $65 million. They say, "Ha! What are the Americans? Troublesome people!" And yet the Minister for Finance is not here today. He is over in America, begging for money. I do not say that what the Minister for Finance is doing is wrong. In fact, what he is doing is right and should be given every support of the Opposition. But I say that it is wrong to go and slap people unreasonably and expect them to come to your assistance when you need it. It is definitely wrong.

The Prime Minister: On a point of information. Can I -

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister with his Special Branch service and the civil service must be fully informed. He need not be informed `by me of the trends in Singapore.

Sir, even if what has been said outside and by the Member for Hong Lim may not be true - I do not think it is true - that the flexibility of the tactics in the colonial struggle requires the expulsion of Ong Eng Guan, it has been said, and said so often, "Before you want any money from the British, that horrible Mayor who had insulted us must be expelled." Therefore, he is out, before the Minister for Finance -

The Prime Minister: For $65 million.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - travelled to the United Kingdom. That, Sir, is the flexibility in the colonial struggle. I have a bit more to say about that later on. And because this matter has been brought out by the Prime Minister in his speech, I want to touch on it. I think he said something about that little man, the Member for Hong Lim, who was not wanted by Left-wing adventurers during the P.A.P. Annual Conference in 1957. He said that that little man was rejected by his group of Left-wing adventurers. Why did he bring this out, Sir? Did we not know that at the time when that little man had been ousted by what the Prime Minister wished to describe as "Left-wing adventurers" and what I would describe in unambiguous terms as "Communist sympathisers and activists"? When he was removed from the Party treasurer-ship, was not the Prime Minister and his "collective leadership" then most unhappy? And was there not great joy when this foolish Lim Yew Hock Government had to take action against six members of the Central Executive of the P.A.P. in 1957?

The Prime Minister: Five! You have got your numbers mixed up.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The Prime Minister, Sir, is so well informed. He even knows the number - it is five.Strange that he knows it, and I do not. And now, accepting that he is better informed than I am, how many were taken? Five! Five!

The Prime Minister: We know what you are doing better than you know your own self!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Five! He knows it. So let us limit it to five. I thank him for the correction - five. Five members of the Central Executive were released by this foolish Lim Yew Hock Government. And then what happened? Great joy! "Ong Eng Guan, come back, my brother. I like you!" He went back and he was again made the Treasurer of the P.A.P. Then we had what we had - the triumvirate complete: Chairman, Dr Toh Chin Chye, the Deputy Prime Minister; Secretary-General, the Prime Minister; Treasurer; the ex-Minister for National Development. That was in 1957, and they worked as a team. Elections were coming - the City Council would have a Mayor. So they planned how best to make an inroad into the hearts and minds of the people of Singapore. "Ah, our beloved comrade, the Member for Hong Lim, is a good tactician. He knows how to work. He knows how to make a standpipe worth more than a school." Therefore, he was sent out, "Go, and fight." And they won, Sir, because the Labour Front at that time was foolish enough -

The Prime Minister: To take $500,000.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - outside of my presence, to agree to a pact with them. They won, and then the great Mayor was born. Yet, Sir, the Prime Minister had the heart, shall we say, the peevish heart to say in this Assembly, "That little man was rejected by the Left-wing adventurers." Sir, we do not play that kind of politics. We play clean.

Here, Sir, the art of denying allegations as practised by the P.A.P. Government is to deny what can be denied, and try to forget what cannot be denied in the hope that the people will forget. The Member for Mountbatten said that the community centre in Joo Chiat was declared open by a defeated P.A.P. candidate. That was not denied. But what they tried to say was, "Oh, no. The community centre in Mountbatten was opened by our beloved Deputy Prime Minister. He was there because he is dressed like we are, and the Opposition would not dare to dress as we dress. He mixes with the people. He goes around, but certainly not the Member for Mountbatten. And she cannot go around dressed as she is in that group." Sir, we, who are in the opposition, are not ashamed of the dress we put on. We dress ourselves in these clothes because we respect the dignity of this House. But when we are outside, we go where we like. And we need not have to say that we are the beloved of the masses. And yet when they go about, there are at least two bodyguards going round with them to see that the masses do not turn round and fight them. We go quietly. We go wherever we want. We even do not have to come -

The Prime Minister: To some interesting places in Geylang too!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: We do not have to come to a meeting in this place, a well-guarded house, with about 30 bodyguards outside. We do not have to -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Member to carry on up till now, but it seems to me that all these details are completely irrelevant to the topic we are discussing, that is, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With respect, Sir, this is in reply to the charge made by the Minister for Labour and Law on the question of our dress and on our not having the courage to go out among the people.

Sir, that is one example. When something is made about something else, an explanation is made about other things, so that the whole thing could be lost in a jungle of words.

Sir, I would now like to speak on some important matters that are exercising the minds of the Government. Sir, in this House, we are so used to the declaration of the P.A.P., "We are a democratic, non-Communist, socialist Government." That word "non-Communist" has been used so often. They are very fond of declaring that, at every opportunity, whether in this House or outside. They say, "We are a democratic, non-Communist, socialist Party." Sir, I would hesitate to try and teach the P.A.P. the meaning of the word "democracy". But surely, Sir, democracy itself is the very antithesis of Communism. You cannot be a democrat and a Communist at the same time. You cannot be a Communist and claim to be a democrat at the same time. Therefore, there is no earthly reason for the P.A.P. if they are real democrats, to say that they are non-Communists too. But as I see it, Sir, there are two very important reasons which impel the P.A.P. to keep on repeating this word, "non-Communist", "non-Communist", as if it were a ritual. The first reason, Sir, is to drum consistently into the heads of that section of the P.A.P. membership described by the Member for Hong Lim as Communists. They want to keep on drumming into the heads of this section of Communist sympathisers and activists in the Party the word "non-Communist", so that these people will accept it and keep quiet; so that this section will not think that they should try to run the collective leadership and force them to do acts which they could not defend. But in order to keep this Section quiet, something must have been done. Some concessions could have been made to this group of people. Therefore, they were quiet. This group of people in the P.A.P., Sir, together with what they claimed to be the good work of Mayor Ong Eng Guan, helped them to win the elections. They are their comrades in arms. They have been with them and, as the Member for Hong Lim has said, they are still with them. They know, Sir, that they must satisfy this group of people, and must satisfy the other group outside. So they say, let us use the word "non-Communist". It does not mean we are anti-Communist. But we are non-Communist. Do they not realise that any action by the Government of a Communist character, that any attempt to implement what this section would want to see implemented, would result in immediate reaction from the Federation and would result in the withdrawal of the Federation from the Internal Security Council, and might result in a suspension of the Constitution?

Sir, the second reason for repeating this word "non-Communist" so often, as `what one Minister said, like a gramophone record, is to try to readjust the minds of the public, who are already convinced that there is a section in the P.A.P. yesterday and today who are Communist sympathisers and activists. And, therefore, the collective leadership thinks that by repeating this word "non-Communist", "non-Communist", "non-Communist", the public will believe them. The public, Sir, I am sorry to say, do not believe them.

Sir, why do they not believe that? Why is it not possible for the public to believe that there is no section of Communist sympathisers and activists in the P.A.P.? It is because of what came from the very lips of their ex-comrade, their beloved Mayor, their beloved Minister for National Development, and their beloved Treasurer. He made a statement to the effect that there are Communists in the P.A.P., and no one, not even up till today, has denied the presence of that section in the P.A.P.

Sir, then we come to a very important, and perhaps world-shaking, issue in the eyes of the people of Singapore - merger with the Federation. Sir, merger with the Federation was one of the important issues promised by the P.A.P. during the last election: everyone was glad there was this realistic approach to bring about political and economic stability through merger with the Federation. But, Sir, what do we see today? Not one word in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech, and not one word about merger in the Prime Minister's speech. It is true, Sir, that during the early days of the P.A.P. Government, there were a few bleats of merger with the Federation. But we all know that with every little bleat came the quick statement from the Federation Prime Minister, "No merger." And recently, Sir, the Prime Minister, in a Press statement, tried to lay down the foundation for the time when they, the P.A.P. Government, will have to admit to the electorate that no merger is possible. And what is the excuse they used? The communal issue. The Federation Malays do not trust the Singapore Chinese. Sir, the Federation Government and the people know that there are Chinese and Chinese. They themselves have given citizenship rights to the Chinese in the Federation. What the Federation people and Government do not trust is the group of Chinese who are led by or who may fall easy prey to Communist sympathisers and activists. There has been no denial that in the P.A.P. there is a section of such evil-doers.

I remember, Sir, that in the heat of the election campaign last year, the Prime Minister accused the Straits Times of trying to sour relations with the Federation, and warned that any attempt in this direction would immediately result in the detention of the persons concerned, be they editors, reporters or any kind of worker. They would be detained under the P.P.S.O. But there have been two instances that have come to light since that statement was uttered and that warning issued. And these two matters refer to Ministerial statements. Sir, when Tunku Abdul Rahman said at the U.M.N.O. conference that there was present in Singapore at that time a Russian trade delegation, the Minister for Culture immediately issued a statement denying the statement of the Federation Prime Minister.

Sir, I cannot understand whether it is the kind of culture that the P.A.P. Government has that a minor Minister, be he the Minister for Culture at that, should issue a statement denying a statement of a Prime Minister of the country with which we hope to achieve merger? And now, Sir, what do we hear from the lips of the Prime Minister? In his speech he said - and I quote again from the Straits Times of August 4, 1960, page 5:

`Do they not know that even the presence of a Russian delegation to an ECAFE conference in Singapore on small-scale industry was viewed with suspicion and disfavour?

Are they unaware from Press reports that even the giving of a residence visa for more than a transitory visit to a Russian representative had caused excitement and brought opposition?'.

From the lips of the Prime Minister, Sir. It is clear that the statement of the Federation Prime Minister at that time was materially correct. And yet the Minister for Culture had the temerity to issue a statement to deny what was said, which is not said to be true. What is the impact of, that denial, Sir? It almost amounts to saying that the Federation Prime Minister was a liar. Who then, Sir, is trying to sour relations with the Federation? Is the Prime Minister going to put the Minister for Culture under detention under the P.P.S.O.? Or does his collective leadership mean that they accept the collective responsibility of souring relations with the Federation?

Sir, there is another instance which I would like to mention here, because it has been said in this Assembly. Sir, we read in the Press recently that four federations of unions had been deregistered, because of the Internal Security Council. I know, Sir, that under the Constitution such matters do not come under the Internal Security Council. And I dare say that this de-registration did not issue from the Internal Security Council at all. Is this a method used by the P.A.P. to try to hoodwink their Communist sympathisers and extremists that what they themselves do in the discharge of internal security is not what they themselves want to do but that they have been told to do? Sir, the exercise of this act rests squarely on the Singapore Government, and this Government claims that it is a strong and responsible Government. I would therefore ask them if, they are strong and responsible, to tell the truth. But here they do an act which is not pleasing to a certain section of the P.A.P. membership. Sir, is it fair to bring in the Internal Security Council on a matter that does not affect them? And is it fair to bring this in especially when the Federation Government has a representative in it as a member? Would not that sour relations?

Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance was so carried away when he was replying to the Member for Hong Lim on the question of, merger. He said - and I must quote, Sir, from shorthand notes - that the P.A.P. are not out to seek honours and titles from the Federation Government like the ex-Chief Minister -

Mr Byrne: Tun.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - who has been made a Tun. Sir, it is typical of them. Here is a Government anxious to achieve merger with a country and yet ridicule the orders of that country. That is the type of mentality we have of a Government that wants to achieve merger in the interests of the people they govern and yet ridicule that Government. "Tun Lim Yew Hock!" These are the men who have been entrusted with the duty of achieving merger with the Federation. Surely, they know, Sir, that I am very proud today of being a Tun of the Federation, because it means, in simple words, that I, in Singapore, am trusted and loved by the people of the Federation. Not like these people who are distrusted and could never be loved by the Federation. And yet they want to achieve merger. It is better for them to come out straight away now and say, "Sorry, boys, no merger because we do not have enough culture."

Sir, then we come to the claim of the Government in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, about the relations with the Federation. I quote from col. 6 of the Hansard, Volume 13, No. 1 of 20th July, 1960, which says:

`With regard to the Federation of Malaya, the danger then was that the Federation might pursue policies which did not take into account the legitimate interests of Singapore. This danger was happily averted. On major matters of financial and economic policy, the two Governments have taken pains to carry out mutual consultations. Examples of these are the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, the new Currency Agreement, fiscal proposals over a broad field and, last but not least, the current talks on the Common Commodity Market.'.

Sir, I quote the two opening sentences again:

`With regard to the Federation of Malaya, the danger then was that the Federation might pursue policies which did not take into account the legitimate interests of Singapore. This danger was happily averted.'.

Sir, it has never been averted, and it cannot be averted so long as this Government stick to their policy of a democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya while at the same time having in their membership a section of Communist sympathisers and activists. But then they introduce a certain claim to prove that the crisis has been averted. Let us examine this claim. The Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance - it was inevitable that there should be joint consultations between the two Governments because the Income Tax law is pan-Malayan. On the Currency Agreement, this was reached by the previous Government and not by the P.A.P. Government. But it is hoped, Sir, that the Government will not do anything to jeopardise the continuation of this Currency Agreement. In regard to fiscal proposals over a broad field, Sir, this means nothing. It means, because we have a currency agreement, therefore there must be agreement on general and broad principle. Let us now see what they say about the common commodity market. Yes, talks are still going on, and we would like to know when these talks can be reported to this Assembly and when these talks will bear fruit.

Sir, so much news has been made by the Government of the presence of the Internal Security Council in our Constitution that I feel that, as leader of the delegation that brought about the new Constitution, I must present the Internal Security Council to the people in its proper perspective. Sir, paragraph 24 of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference held in London in March and April 1957, Sessional Paper, No. Misc. 2 of 1957, reads as follows:

`Her Majesty's Government indicated that it was their intention that the new Constitution should confer upon Singapore Ministers full responsibility for maintaining internal law and order and preventing subversion.'.

It is clear, Sir, from this paragraph that Singapore Ministers have full responsibility for maintaining law and order and preventing subversion. Sir, section 65 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, that is the Government Gazette Supplement No. 81 of 27th November, 1958, clearly lays down the functions of the Internal Security Council. It reads:

`The Council shall have the following functions, that is to say -

(a) to consult together on all questions of policy relating to the maintenance of public safety and public order in Singapore;

(b) to maintain the efficiency of all organs of the Government of Singapore which are concerned with internal security;

(c) to ensure equal access by the Governments of the United Kingdom and of Singapore to the services of the said organs and to all information at the disposal of those organs.'

This means, Sir, that the Internal Security Council is a kind of referee to see that law and order is properly maintained by the Singapore Government, and that effective steps are taken by the Singapore Government to prevent subversion. So long as the Government is strong and discharges its duties and responsibilities vis-a-vis the Internal Security Council in the interests of the people of Singapore, everything is rosy, and the Internal Security Council sits back happy and contented. What gave birth to the Internal Security Council were two factors that had to be resolved during the negotiations in London. What if the Singapore Government turned out to be a weak Government and vacillated in its full responsibility for internal security? What if the Singapore Government turned out to be a bad Government refusing to discharge the full responsibility for internal security to protect the interest of the people of Singapore? So, Sir, to look after either of these two eventualities, it was agreed that section 66 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council. 1958, would be brought into play. I will just quote paragraph (1), because the whole section is so detailed and paragraph (1) will give the meaning that I want to put across to this Assembly:

"66.-(1) It shall be competent to the Council to make decisions for the maintenance of the internal security of Singapore or for the due performance of the functions conferred on it by the preceding section."

Sir, this section will only come into force when we have a weak Government or when we have a bad Government. But the P.A.P. proudly boasts that it is a strong and responsible Government. Therefore, if they are indeed strong and responsible, then they must accept full responsibility for internal security. They must accept, without qualification, the continued detention of all those that were detained by the previous Government under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and all future detentions under the P.P.S.O. are their full responsibility if they claim that they are a strong and responsible Government. Why then, Sir, if they are a strong and responsible Government, bring in the Internal Security Council to explain away a number of things that are confusing the minds of the people? Why then bring in the Internal Security Council to explain away the continued detention of Communist sympathisers and activists under the P.P.S.O.? They are always claiming, as I have said, Sir, that they do not lack courage and they never lack courage. Then I would ask them, Sir, to pluck up sufficient courage to declare that they accept full responsibility for the continued detention of those people who are comrades-in-arms of that section of the P.A.P. described by the Member for Hong Lim as Communist. Perhaps, Sir, there is another reason why the Government makes use of the Internal Security Council. Is the collective leadership playing a game with that section of Communist sympathisers and activists in the P.A.P.? And is the collective leadership playing, at the same time, another game with the British? This looks to me, Sir, like a double game: one game here and one game there. We know, Sir, that a double game generally ends in a double cross. Sir, how is this double game played?

The Prime Minister: Poker!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: It is a very simple matter, Sir. It does not require much intelligence but it requires a lot of agility. Tell that section of Communist sympathisers and activists in the P.A.P., "Boys, this Constitution does not give full powers. The Internal Security Council is still here. The great colonial master is still here. If you behave and be quiet and if you have belief and trust in the collective leadership, then we will see to it that your comrades are returned to your loving arms." And to the British, "Oh, British, we the collective leadership are playing this game for keeps. Please, it is a dangerous game. We believe that these Communist sympathisers and activists must be detained. If they are released, there will be a conflagration. But you know that there are some comrades of ours to whom at least we owe a debt of gratitude for helping us to win the' elections and we must keep them quiet." "Can I say, Internal Security Council, boleh-kah?" And the answer is, "Go ahead." And therefore the Internal Security Council is brought in to explain away a responsibility that should be fully discharged by a Government that claims to be strong and responsible. They say. Sir, "On one side, we have the Communists -".

An hon. Member: Hey we are not!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: " - and on the other side, we have the British colonialists. When these two forces clash, we duck." Sir, this kind of game is not going to allow them to duck. I think they will be well and strongly ducked when the time comes. They will not duck but they will be dead ducks. The game of the Internal Security Council is puzzling us all here. I have a worried feeling for the collective leadership, because it may not be improbable, Sir, that the final words of the Minister for Culture may turn out to be true. In an attack on the Member for Hong Lim, the Minister for Culture ended by saying, "May his Left-wing adventurers have mercy on his soul when they decide that they have had enough of him." Sir, if I could have the permission of the Minister for Culture to substitute some words, I would like to say, "May the Communist section in the P.A.P. have mercy on the souls of the collective leadership when the Communist section decide that they have had enough of that collective leadership."

Sir, it is an open secret that the P.A.P. Government is pursuing a policy vis-a-vis Communist sympathisers and activists of trying to win them over to the cause of democracy. They say that the policy of the previous Government was wrong; the policy of taking the war into the Communist camp was wrong and did not pay dividends, and that this action resulted in the downfall of the Government. Therefore, what is most necessary is to try to win them over to the democratic - hence, non-Communist - socialist way of life. And they say that because the previous Government had taken the action of mass arrests under the P.P.S.O. they had brought out antagonism in the hearts and minds of the people of Singapore. Sir, what was the previous Government to do at the height of the riots and civil commotion? To surrender, or to play a game? This, the previous Government was not capable of doing. So the P.A.P. Government has, during the last 14 months, to try this policy out. But from one. Sir, who knows the game and its consequences, I say that their policy of trying to win over Communist sympathisers and activists to their cause is a foolish policy, for the Communists are past masters in the art of making use of people. particularly people who are fond of power, for their own ends, while at the same time giving the false notion to the people they use that they are being used by such people. They have had 14 months of trying it out, and the statement of the Hon. the Prime Minister in this Assembly a few days ago is an open admission that that line did not pay dividends. He has now warned the country that Communist elements are reorganising and are trying to recapture the trade union movement. Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech did not give an indication of this potential danger, but the Prime Minister had to disclose it. It could be, Sir, that when the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech was being prepared, it had been hoped that the Ong Eng Guan issue might not have reached such a magnitude as to cause dismay to the Government and force them to tell the Prime Minister to make such a statement. He has made it. It came as a bombshell to many of us, but it did not come as a bombshell to me because I knew something like this was going to happen. It has happened. But in that statement on the Communist threat, the Prime Minister had, in my submission, introduced a statement which is not correct. He said that Communist forces had "scattered and gone undercover before the last elections." I disagree, Sir. I cannot accept that statement. Communist sympathisers and activists had not scattered and had not gone undercover. They were out in full force working against the Government, and helping in a big way to bring victory to this Government; this so-called democratic, non-Communist, socialist Government.

Sir, before I further touch on the statement of the Prime Minister on the danger ahead. I would like - the Minister is staring at me in the face - to say a little bit that is not connected with what I have been saying. The Minister for Labour and Law, I think it was, charged the Member for Hong Lim, in his capacity as Minister for National Development, for giving a Press interview, which reads like this in the Straits Times of 19th September, 1959, headlined, `$415 million to be spent in the next five years. Beaming Minister Ong said, "We have worked hard on this plan." And now, Sir, the Minister for Labour and Law says, "We have not authorised that statement, and when we charged our colleague, he said it was a leak". But let us look at this paper, Sir, front page news and back page news - they corner the market as far as front and back page news are concerned. Back page - who is this man? Ah, ha, he is the Premier. "Big Housing Scheme" to cover 1,160 acres of Government land. Is this not a Government statement? What is all this? The Prime Minister: "Yes, my picture must be in also." All right, his picture was in. And now he says, "No, no, we never did it. It was Ong Eng Guan. We never said such a thing." I do not know what is the truth, but there is the Straits Times

• to them a colonial paper.

Sir, I now come to the world-shaking pronouncement of the Prime Minister. For the first time, we are told in this House of the impending Communist threat - there has been a Communist build-up over the last 14 months. As I have said, there has been no such pronouncement in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech. The day the speech became public, everybody said, "Wonderful. Everything is fine." But now after the bombshell has been dropped, everyone is looking around and saying, "My God! I have promised to bring in money here. I had better take it out. I am not going to stay here anymore. Trouble is coming." Sir, the fact that the Prime Minister has informed this House and the public of the seriousness of this threat is a credit to him, a great credit to him in this regard - that he wants to fight them. He means to fight those Communist sympathisers and activists, and in this fight we are with him. But why did he keep quiet until now? Why did he wait for 14 months to come out and say, "There has been a Communist build-up"? Sir, in this fight against Communist underground activity, every one who loves his country must join in, and we in the Opposition pledge our full support. But there are a few matters which we would like to place before the Government for serious consideration. The Government has done certain foolish things, and these they have admitted. They have done certain foolish things -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mistakes, not foolish things.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - wittingly or unwittingly, thereby strengthening the other side. It is quite human, Sir, to make mistakes, and the Government has declared that it will rectify those mistakes. And therefore the sincerity of the Government in this rectification programme will be put to the test before the real issue comes up.

Sir, I say in this House that it was a grave mistake to create the posts of Political Secretaries, and to give jobs those detainees released by the Government before taking office. What did the Government hope to achieve by this? Offer them $1,100-jobs so that they would keep quiet and not open their mouths? Or, offer them these jobs and if they accept they would become discredited in the eyes of their comrades by their acceptance of this personal advantage at the price of silence? Does the Minister for Finance, that very able man, require a Political Secretary to advise him? He knows, and it is known to many people too, that there is no love lost between the Minister for Finance and his Political Secretary, and that the Political Secretary is seldom in his office. And yet there is a Political Secretary to the Minister for Finance! It is not only a foolish mistake, but a grave mistake. Again, the Minister for Labour and Law has a Political Commissar in his office overseeing his work. Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Law, before taking office, took an oath of secrecy and yet sits outside the office. The Political Secretary, who does not have to take an oath of secrecy, sits in the same room with the Minister for Labour and Law. Is the Minister for Labour and Law put on good behaviour? And is the Political Secretary given all eyes and ears to see that the Minister does behave?

Sir, I have not visited the other Ministries, and so I cannot say what is going on there. But I would like to say this: that these detainees - I would clarify by saying that some of these detainees are not qualified for appointment as Political Secretaries who, in our view, are nothing but Political Commissars. A grave mistake. If they really mean to fight the Communist threat that is mounting up in strength, I say, "They have the enemy inside." Can they fight it? Is there any sincerity when they declare they will fight it when the enemy is tolerated in their camp? I would therefore ask the Government to make their fight easier - and they will fight, I know they will fight - by removing all those Political Secretaries who have shown by their actions during the past 14 months to be unworthy and disloyal to the Party and to the Government.

Here, I would ask Government to ponder, and to ponder well before they reintroduce the Trade Unions Bill. Certain major amendments will have to he made, if they do not want to create a Frankenstein that will destroy them at the critical hour. Sir, there must be a reason for His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara withholding his assent to this Bill. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives power to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to withhold assent to a Bill of this character. It could have been on the advice of the Government in that they wanted time for more thought. It is good. I would ask them to spend not only more thought, but still more thought, on the trade union movement. They claim and say that the Communist underground movement is working up in the trade union field. But they claim that they have got the movement under non-Communist control. Sir, as a trade unionist, I have this unhappy feeling - the Government is losing out in its fight with the Communists in the trade union field. Therefore, since the Bill has not been assented to. and since a new Bill has to be introduced, I would ask the Government to reassess the position, make major amendments to the Bill, and to ensure that there is no danger of the Communists capturing this massive organisation, the workers' organisation.

Sir, then we come to the Work Brigade. The Work Brigade is another possible source of danger.

Mr Speaker: I am wondering whether the hon. Member will take a long time.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I might take some more time, Sir.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.59 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

5.31 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said that we are glad that the Prime Minister and the Government have now awakened to the threat of the Communists reorganising in the Singapore political arena. I say in all sincerity that the Opposition will join in this fight against Communist subversion. But I have pointed out that the only way to get the Opposition and the people behind the Government is to see that they make certain rectifications in the Government and in the Party.

I was talking about the Work Brigade before the tea break. The Work Brigade, Sir, is another possible source of danger. If the allegation made by the Member for Hong Lim is true, that members of the Work Brigade were used by the P.A.P. to cheer their Ministers and Assemblymen during the opening of this second session of the Assembly, and that they had not responded as anticipated, then, Sir, I say another Frankenstein has been created.

Sir, the deliberate creation of a P.A.P. force of community centre leaders may be another source of danger. The loyalty of these leaders may not be to the collective leadership when put to the test, when the fight comes out into the open. They may not be a force that the Government anticipate that this P.A.P. group of leaders in the community centres could be.

Sir, the most important point is that the P.A.P. must cleanse itself. I know how difficult it is for any organisation for that matter to rid itself of undesirable people, especially when a debt is owing to such people. But the interest of the country should be placed above all things, above Party and above Government. And if the P.A.P. leaders have the will, the desire, the integrity and the honesty - and I know they have - then purge the P.A.P. from within. Do not allow this group of Communist sympathisers and activists remaining in the Party to become a sore and a danger to the Party, to become a focus of attention of those who are not for the P.A.P., because the threat is genuine, as has been uttered by the Prime Minister. We on this side of the House would like to see the P.A.P. strengthen itself and get rid of that group of people which is a source of danger to them in the fight that is to come. Get rid of them. They will then have the respect of everybody in Singapore, including the admiration of the Opposition.

There is one thing I would ask the P.A.P. not to keep on doing. Do not continue to be arrogant, and think that they are the ones entrusted by God, by the people of this country, to guide the destiny and the interest of the people of Singapore. There is greatness in humility, there never is greatness in greatness itself. Learn how to be humble. Learn how to appreciate, in this big fight that faces the Government today, that the effort of each and every one - man, woman and child, P.A.P. and non-P.A.P. - is necessary to wipe out this threat. I repeat again. I pledge the resources of the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. in this fight ahead. But I would ask the Government to come clean.

Sir, I had thought of pointing out a few more statements in the speeches made by the Members on the other side. But because of the seriousness of this threat of Communist subversion, I feel that I should end my speech on this serious tone. Let us all get together, genuine democrats and socialists. Do not call ourselves non-Communist. If you are democrats, you are not Communists. Democrats and socialists fight against this Communist subversion, which, if not checked, will soon not only swallow the P.A.P. but also this side of the House. It may mean the end of parliamentary democracy. So if we want to preserve what we all love, let us forget this non-Communist declaration. Let us come out together and fight, but fight with a clean Party.

5.39 p.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion in the name of the Prime Minister to thank the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present session of the Assembly.

Education is always a subject of controversy in any country even where it has to deal with one race and one language. The problem of education in Singapore, therefore, is rendered more controversial because of the multi-racial character of our people and the acceptance of the policy of equal treatment for the four language streams of education which are at different stages of development.

During the first year of the People's Action Party Government, the difficult task of re-organising the legacy of a colonial system of education to a national system of education had to be undertaken. Almost every aspect of education, from Primary, Secondary, University, Teachers' Training College, Polytechnic and Adult Education, was ca1led upon to face the new situation arising out of our changed political status. For with responsible self-government in our hands, we cannot pass the buck when errors are committed. We must have the moral courage to face issues boldly, not run away from them like the Member for Hong Lim, who is not present, and in its place shout empty slogans.

It was a sad and sorry exhibition to' see the Member for Hong Lim carry under his arm volumes of Hansard, quoting from them, in extenso, statements made by the Prime Minister' when he was the Member for Tanjong Pagar in the last Assembly. The manner in which the Member for Hong Lim read excerpts and extracts made us feel as if he was responsible for those brave words in the fight against colonialism. What is sad is that he was unable to appreciate what one says as a Member of the Opposition, and what one is expected to do as a Member of the Government. In the case of the Rendel Constitution, the People's Action Party Government decided that they would act the role of the Opposition to expose and bring about a breakdown of the Rendel Constitution. But when the new Constitution came into being, the People's Action Party decided that they would have a five-year policy programme, and that they would tight in order to win and to work the constitution, The Member for Hong Lim was given a wonderful opportunity to see how he would perform. Unfortunately, he failed miserably, and just shouting slogans will get nobody anywhere.

Regrettably, in the past, he carried on a whispering campaign, which were verbal statements passed privately. It is just as well that now that he is a Member of the Opposition, he will be entitled to freedom of expression in the Assembly to make statements which would be challenged because they were based on terminological inexactitudes.

Let it go on record, Sir, that every statement made which has not the backing of evidence will be recorded to be untrue. It is all very well to read romantic histories like the Three Kingdoms or even the Rake's Progress, but people who read such stories or such legendary histories should realise that they are reading them and should not attempt to emulate the heroes who are mentioned in such books.

At one stage of his speech, the Member for Hong Lim had the temerity to suggest that an article appearing under the name of the Minister for Culture was not written by him but by somebody else. Surely this is a thing which members of the world's Press would laugh at because, although the Minister for Culture is a very modest man, he has great attainments. Perhaps the Member for Hong Lim is not sufficiently well read to realise that one of the short stories written by the Minister for Culture, when he was a journalist, is included in the volume known as the World's Best 100 Short Stories. I challenge the Member for Hong Lim to write something which is worthy of inclusion in print. He wondered why the local papers would only print 500 words of what he had to say at public meetings. He should know the reason that it was because editors felt that the majority of his words were only fit for the wastepaper basket. Members of the public have for quite some time considered politics a dirty game. I suggest that the tactics adopted by the Member for Hong Lim will make such suggestion seem true, but Members on this side of the House are trying their best to tell the people of Singapore that politics can be a clean game if you have integrity both in principles and in behaviour. Since the Member for Aljunied is in the House and he has made his maiden speech last evening, it is, I think, necessary for me to disabuse what he has said - that he was making his maiden speech as a Member of the Opposition because he had had no freedom of speech when he was on the Government Bench. This is typical of the wild statements which the expelled members of the P.A.P. have been guilty of for some time. We pride ourselves on being a disciplined Party. If during the period that the Member for Aljunied was a member of the People's Action Party he failed for some reason or other to attend meetings at which the Backbenchers were called upon to do their share of speaking, then we cannot be blamed nor can the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House be blamed that he had not been given a chance. It is more correct to say that he had evaded his responsibility. In fact, it perhaps shows his true colours, that he was not prepared to accept the collective leadership of the Party.

I do not think I will miss out the Member for Punggol by commenting about him too. He made certain statements at the Badminton Hall rally referring to what I had done. Here again, if only he had got his facts right. I would have nothing to say. But I would like him to keep making statements in this Assembly, have them on record, and we shall challenge them.

The performance of the Member for Aljunied was indeed pathetic. Every time there was an interruption, it was just like the playing of an old gramophone record - not the modern one - where you had to lift up the needle and if you put it back too far in front, then you had the same thing played back a second or third or fourth time.

Suffice it to say that the three expelled members of the People's Action Party could be regarded as cancerous limbs which have been amputated and thrown across to the Opposition for better or for worse. The People's Action Party is healthier without these three cancerous fingers.

To the Member for Tanglin, I say that every section of the Ministry of Education is active, not just the Complaints Section. As the principal of a school he has the responsibility of administering corporal punishment on naughty boys with a rod, but if he chooses to maintain discipline by quoting chapter and verse from the Bible and the boys still remain naughty, then evidently he has not prayed hard enough. Only two aspects of education have been left somewhat alone during the last year, i.e. kindergartens and private schools, which only cater for a small minority of the school-going population, being 13,000 in all (6,000 in kindergartens and 7,000 in private schools) as compared with the large mass of 340,000 pupils in Government and Government-aided schools. We do, however, look into complaints when lodged in respect of kindergartens and private schools, and we shall reorganise these too, in good time, when the larger issues on education have been resolved.

The Member for Kampong Kembangan raised the question of religious education in Malay schools. I wish to say that whatever religious education is being conducted in Malay schools it is going on as before: but the Government is having this subject under serious study and I am not in a position yet to make a statement.

It is only natural that during a period of reorganisation, a certain amount of unhappiness will arise, especially from those accustomed to the colonial way of life and privileges, and who, sad to say, are still living with "blinkers" on, like the Member for Tanglin. The return to the five-day week, the return of the variable allowances, the return to the good old days of colonialism. Fancy the suggestion that the six-day week is not compatible with local climatic conditions! Is the Member for Tanglin suggesting that in the hot, torrid climate of Singapore there should be just a one-day week so that teachers and principals can rest for the next six days, and Sundays for prayers?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: I have never said that.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: No, I am saying that the Member might suggest it would be a wonderful Utopia. Does he realise that in Japan, where the literacy rate is almost 95 to 99 per cent, teachers have to put in 44 hours a week? To such people, the burden of nation-building, which would involve some personal sacrifice on their part, must appear not only irritable but must be resisted with: less work. Some have gone to the extent of resignation, but a number have since withdrawn their hasty letters of resignation and gone back to their desks. On the whole, we are glad to see that the majority of teachers have come out well during this difficult year of adjustment, and the outlook for the future should be good. If I may make an analogy, what we have been able to achieve in education during the past year was like changing the course of a river by diverting the waters through land, previously untouched by water, so as to irrigate it for useful purpose and to find its proper outlet to sea at a spot we want it. In this process, those accustomed to drawing their water from the old river course would naturally grumble over their loss of supply, whilst others would resist and grumble over having to give up their land and property which will now be under water, being in the path of the new course of the river. It is an accomplished fact that the course of the river of education has been changed and the scenery is different as you course down the river. The foundations of the new educational policy have been firmly laid and, in the words of the Prime Minister, hereafter, even in education, it will be one of construction.

Side by side with the principle of equality for the 4 streams of education, we have endeavoured to achieve uniformity so that ultimately we may evolve a single integrated system of education which will retain the best features to be found in the 4 streams of education.

Uniformity in structure has been initiated. For the first time, registration for the admission of an estimated 52,000 children in all 4 streams of education is going on for 1961 Primary I admission. Primary education is now 6 years for all streams. When we took office it was 7 years for the Malay and Tamil streams. At the end of this year, the first Primary School Leaving examination in all 4 language streams will be held for an estimated 32,000 children. The Primary School Leaving examination replaces the Government examination previously known as the Secondary Entrance Examination in the English stream, it will be noted that 5,000 of those who failed the Secondary Entrance Examination last year have been admitted to special post-primary schools since they are unable to go into the ordinary secondary schools. It is the Government's aim to ensure that those who are not inclined towards academic studies in secondary schools would be given a two-year post-primary education with a vocational bias. Until the proposed Commission of Inquiry on vocational and technical education is set up which would produce the plan of vocational training to be followed for the time being, the course of education in post-primary classes will be one of further education based on strengthening the knowledge of languages and learning the more practical aspects of normal school subjects. I wish to assure the many anxious parents, therefore, that those who fail the Primary School Leaving Examination at the end of this year will have a place in our post-primary classes.

Secondary education is now a uniform four-year period. The Chinese stream, previously on a 3-3 year structure, will be running the six and four year basis during the transitory period until 1962. For the first time in the educational history of Singapore, secondary education in the Malay and Tamil streams came into being this year. Furthermore, the enrolment in our secondary schools dramatically increased by 30 per Cent over 1959, which is twice the average normal rate obtainable in past years. The Government has in mind the expansion of greater opportunities for secondary education and more diversification into technical and commercial secondary education as well.

At present, the Government conducts the secondary school leaving examination for the Chinese stream only, known as the Government Senior Middle III examination (that is, after a six-year secondary course). With the establishment, of a uniform four-year secondary education, it will be necessary before long, Mr Speaker, Sir, to conduct a secondary school leaving examination in all four streams, and with this in mind, an Examinations Syndicate will be established to control and supervise examinations for both primary and secondary schools.

In November last year, I appointed the Educational Advisory Council and I am pleased to say to Members of the House that numerous teachers and educationists have put in considerable work during the last eight months to produce eight common syllabuses which have since received my approval.

They are: - 1. Malay for Malay Primary schools; 2. Malay for Malay secondary schools; 3. Malay for non-Malay schools; 4. Chinese for Chinese primary schools; 5. Chinese for Chinese middle schools; 6. Chinese for non-Chinese primary schools; 7. Chinese for non-Chinese secondary schools; 8. Tamil for Tamil schools.

Work continues apace and the fruits of their labour will be noted with gratitude by all of us in this responsible work of common content for schools; and it will be the task of educationists hereafter to spend their time writing worthwhile textbooks for our schools which will receive every encouragement from both the Ministries of Culture and Education.

Yet another way to achieve a single integrated system of education, in time, would be to integrate the different streams of education now and have an interchange of qualified teaching staff to raise the standard of language teaching in our schools besides breaking down communal barriers. We have made a start at integration in two secondary schools, Bukit Panjang and Serangoon Garden High Schools, with the English and Chinese media. Next year, we will have no less than eight integrated primary schools, four with English and Chinese media, and another four with English and Malay media.

In the field of sports, we have been able to achieve encouraging results by the creation of two Joint Athletic Sports Councils, one for primary schools and the other for secondary schools, whereby schools of the four language media are being grouped into districts and activities held at district and inter-district levels.

Recognising the special position of Malays, we have since decided on the policy of free education for Malays up to University level which will in the long run ensure that their economic status will be raised to the level of other communities in Singapore.

The Teachers' Training College is continuing to play its vigorous role in providing the training of thousands of qualified teachers to qualify in the national language, that is, Malay, and the Adult Education Board is also making its great contribution in the provision of similar facilities for the adult population at night literacy classes. As and when more teachers are qualified to teach the national language, more periods would be set aside in, the school curriculum for its study. In the meantime, priority will be given to those studying at secondary school or upper primary school level.

We have estimated that for the next four years, 1961 to 1964, we would require something like 4,300 teachers or a little over 1,100 teachers each year. Of these, about ten per cent would have to be graduates for the increased number of secondary schools to be created hereafter. That is why it has been necessary to rationalise the Teachers' Training College and to introduce a single, in-service system of training to provide a three-year course for primary school teachers in three language media and a one-year course for University graduates in two language media. One interesting innovation in the training of our teachers at the T.T.C. is the inclusion of a political study course. I might mention at this stage that 150 principals of schools have gone through this course of whom 30 were from the Chinese middle schools, another 30 from the English primary schools, and 90 from the Chinese primary schools. More courses will be held during the course of the year and there is no question of doubt that the principals of our schools are beginning to appreciate the problems of the Ministry and will be giving their full-hearted support in its difficult task. An Advisory Board has been formed and the T.T.C. is expected to make its maximum contribution in the important task of teacher-training. It is worthy of note that the School of Education of the University of Malaya is giving its fullest support and co-operation in the work of the T.T.C.

The Polytechnic, which was reorganised soon after the new Government took office, is making great progress and steps are being taken to ensure that its diplomas will be recognised, not only by Singapore but by adjoining territories as well. We shall plan our vocational and technical education to produce the thousands of semi-skilled and skilled workers who will be required to sustain the industrialisation programme which we intend to embark upon.

With the recent announcement that the Singapore Division of the University .of Malaya would become the University of Singapore by 1962, we now see the healthy development whereby a genuine effort is being made to absorb those who come from the non-English secondary streams of education. We understand that the 78 who are being admitted to the pre-University course this year are being considered as a "token" intake by the academic authorities of the University, and that long-term plans are being considered for much larger intakes from 1961 onwards. Only when the University of Singapore seriously absorbs the best products from the secondary streams of education existing in Singapore can it legitimately claim to be a truly national institution.

I have already mentioned the important part played by the Adult Education Board (that is, Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa) in the popularisation of Malay as the national language amongst the adult population. The vigorous manner in which the Board is conducting its activities, especially its recent further education classes on the history of Malaya and allied subjects, has created a great impression. To the many thousands who have volunteered in the work of this great venture, we express our deepest gratitude and look forward to the early eradication of illiteracy from our midst.

The Member for Mountbatten - who unfortunately is not in the House - has tried to belittle the school building programme of the new Government. She did so because she failed to understand the answer given by my Parliamentary Secretary for which she had to depend on the translation facilities of the House. For 1959, the school building programme was largely frozen; the freeze for the first half of the year was the work of the last Government, and the second half of the year resulted in a deep freeze by the new Government in order to study the financial position of the State. As indicated in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, a careful estimate has been made of our requirements for the next five years which will be made known when the Government's Five-Year Development Plan is tabled in this House in the near future. We envisage a school building programme of 19 schools each year, 5 secondary and 14 primary. The Member for the Southern Islands mentioned about building a school in Blakang Mati. I should like to say that for the present most of the school children at Blakang Mati are either attending school at Pulau Brani or on the mainland. However, a team of officials visited Blakang Mati on the 20th July to see to the possibility of erecting a school which would provide education to nearly 300 children; 100 Malays, 187 Chinese and 18 Indians.

For 1960, $14.2 million has been earmarked for building new schools. Because of the need to utilise all available sites, which are scarce, planning work is in progress for a new standard-type 4-storeyed school. It is intended also that school halls to be erected in our new secondary schools will have a ceiling height of 35 feet to accommodate three badminton courts to be used at one time, so that our pupils can improve their standard of badminton with the ultimate hope that the Thomas Cup will return to Malaya as soon as possible. There will also be a 6-storeyed school at Silat Road, and a 10-storeyed one at Selegie Road which will probably be the tallest school building in Asia. We are planning this 10-storeyed building to be ready for 1962 Primary I admission to take in no less than 3,000 pupils on a two-session basis.

When the P.A.P. Government does things, its impact will be felt by the masses whose welfare we are here to serve. We do not expect to retire and become owners of iron mines, like a former Minister for Education.

6.17 p.m.

Mr G. Kandasamy (Kampong Kapor): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

The speech by the Prime Minister, which opened this debate, was a sober and objective analysis of the situation in Singapore, which it would be foolish to ignore. All progressive-minded people can have only one preoccupation at the present time, and that is, to preserve the unity and strength of the broad political and social movement of the people led by the P.A.P. Anything that is done to weaken the P.A.P. is also calculated to weaken the progressive forces in our society. As a socialist Government, the P.A.P. has always maintained and upheld the basic rights of the workers. No socialist government worthy of the name can do otherwise.

The Member for Hong Lim, who has lately discovered all kinds of faults with the Party which nursed him, has seen fit to cast doubt on the P.A.P.'s bona fides with regard to the trade union movement. I would merely point out that the Member for Hong Lim has never been one who has been associated with the trade union movement. Indeed, there is not one single trade union issue that the Member for Hong Lim has taken up as a member of the Party. His interest in "enlightened trade unionists" has only been of recent origin and for obvious reasons. The workers of Singapore will not forget that the Prime Minister, whom the Member for Hong Lim so much maligns today, has a far more distinguished record of service with the trade unions than anyone else in the P.A.P. He was adviser to 51 trade unions before he took office as Prime Minister. Unlike the relationship of the Prime Minister with the trade unions, which was on an entirely ideological and non-professional basis, the Member for Hong Lim. I believe, has audited the accounts of several unions for a consideration.

The socialist movement is a mass movement. Therefore, it can only be successful on the basis of the heroism and sacrifice of the masses, not on the basis of individuals. Collective leadership is one of the most essential requisites of success for a socialist movement. Individuals of overweening ambition and pride can only do harm to the cause of socialism. The Member for Hong Lim pretends today that, with his 16 resolutions, he can cure all the ills of our society. But he is not the doctor who will cure our ills. He is, in fact, the disease. It is the disease of inflamed egoism and individualism, which periodically afflicts even the best organised of socialist movements.

Sir, everybody in Singapore knows that the trade union movement in Singapore is militant and progressive. Can the Member for Hong Lim now point to one single trade union leader of note in Singapore who would choose to join him on any public platform? Indeed he cannot. And he knows the reason why.

In an open democratic society the trade unions cannot be expected to see eye to eye with the Government in all its tactics and priorities. The trade unions are involved with the welfare of one section of the community. They are concerned with the problems of wages and conditions of employment of the workers, whereas the Government has the responsibility for all sections of the community, be they workers or not. There are bound to be differences of emphasis between the approach of the trade union to a problem and that of the Government. This is natural and to be expected. Even in the best of families, differences do arise, but the families are not permanently separated. This sort of differences over tactics and emphasis must not be mistaken as being differences over fundamentals. There can be no doubt that at the bottom there is a feeling of affinity and sympathy between the P.A.P. Government and the trade unions. It must be clearly understood that the trade union movement is not part of the Government, but organisations with their own functions and priorities. The charge that the trade unions are part of the Government is often made by Members of the Opposition, as they fail to grasp the reasons for the comradeship that exists between the P.A.P. Government and the trade unions. The comradeship that was forged over the years between the P.A.P. and the broad sections of the working class in the common struggle against colonialism, makes certain of this close affinity. The socialist party that makes the Government and the trade unions are but two wings of the same progressive movement. The working class can only achieve its aims and aspirations in cooperation and in conjunction with a left wing government. Any action, therefore, which is aimed at dividing the Left-wing government from the workers is calculated to weaken the strength of the whole movement. And any person who is guilty of an action that will weaken the power of the working class ought to be condemned as an enemy of the working class.

At this stage it may be useful to draw the attention of Members of this House to a Press statement that the Singapore Trades Union Congress issued on behalf of the trade unions in Singapore, publicly registering their vigorous protest against the Government's action to de-register four trade union organisations. Sir, I repeat that the differences between a socialist government and the trade unions will only be on tactics and not over fundamentals or objectives. The Member for Hong Lim, who did not understand the ideals and objectives that bind the trade unions and the progressive government into one force, sought to exploit this little misunderstanding. By including the re-registration of the de-registered trade union organisations, he hoped to become the champion of the trade union movement.

The Trades Union Congress, Sir, issued a statement on the unwarranted championing of trade union interests by the Member for Hong Lim. It was published in the Sunday Times of 10th July, 1960, under the heading "TUC criticises Ong Eng Guan." Sir, with your permission, I would like to read extracts from this statement:

`"We feel that in the present situation it is incumbent on us to maintain left-wing unity and distinguish between progressive and opportunist forces.

We wish to state that we consider the present P.A.P. Government a left-wing government."'

The consolidation and safeguarding of the unity of the socialist movement against individualist aberrations was only possible if the political and trade union wings worked in harmony. It is the joint responsibility in the Singapore situation for both wings of the same movement to combat any manifestation of disruptive individualism and opportunism. The Secretariat said that the workers were capable of distinguishing between issues raised by Mr Ong and Ong himself. As such, they "will not be confused by the opportunist tactics of Mr Ong." It declared that:

` the TUC and leadership of the unions were competent to safeguard the interests of the working class "without outside interference or championship."'

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the general elections the S.P.A. were never tired of telling the people of the terrible things that would happen in the industrial field should the P.A.P. form the government. This was their view of things and was no doubt created by their own experience while in government. But the analysis was wrong and was proved wrong. While the previous Government was a right-wing Government, because of its own policies and the demand of its supporters, i.e., the colonialists and the capitalists, it could only hope to maintain peace by naked suppression of trade unions. The trade unions were left with no other alternative and had to resort to brutal force. The P.A.P. was then in a different position entirely. It was the spearhead of the working class movement, and as such it enjoyed the wholehearted confidence and support of the workers and their unions. The workers, when they voted in the P.A.P., approved of the P.A.P. policy of industrial peace with justice, and believed that only a P.A.P. Government could ensure that justice was done.

A review of the past year of office of the P.A.P. Government will show even to the most sceptical person that the workers' faith in this Government has not been misplaced. Industrial peace has been maintained and it has been maintained with justice. The emphasis has been on justice. True, there have been strikes, and there `will be strikes as long as our country is under a democratic government.

With the setting up of the present T.U.C., Sir, a united front of all sections of the workers of Singapore has been achieved for the first time in the history of the trade union movement of Singapore. This unity of all sections of the workers - industrial, clerical and technical, Malays, Chinese, and Indians - has been achieved after very many years of struggle, and this achievement was in no small measure made possible by a P.A.P. government. This unity is only possible on the basis of adherence to the principles and ideals which both the trade unions and the P.A.P. share in common.

Let us examine the trade union movements in the neighbouring countries. In those countries we find the trade union movements divided on the basis of race, religion and political affiliations. This must never be allowed to be introduced into our movement. Political alignments on the basis of pro-P.A.P., non-P.A.P. and anti-P.A.P. should never be introduced into our movement, for that will destroy the united front of all workers in Singapore.

In conclusion, Sir, I wish to emphasise that if any section of the trade union leadership attempts to take measures which will only benefit the pro-Communists but which will be detrimental to the interests of the socialist movement, then that section must bear full responsibility for the harmful consequences to the workers of Singapore.

6.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr Chan Sun Wing): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Prime Minister's motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the policy speech which he delivered on July 20th on behalf of the Government.

The Yang di-Pertuan Negara pointed out in his speech that the P.A.P. Government in the past one year placed emphasis on the work of reorganisation of Government departments, the consolidation of the relationship between the people and the Government, and the preparatory work to implement the Five-Year Plan.

Obviously the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's policy speech was not a proclamation of revolution and did not provide much "flavour" for those drunk in the stormy revolutionary type of life.

The Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech dealt, in simple and calm term, with the objective reality of the small island in which we live - its financial and economic conditions, schools, port, housing, communications, health, social welfare establishments, etc. The speech contained neither empty and boastful nor cold and fierce language. But is there anything wrong with this?

The people handed us the responsibility of government not with the wish that we would continuously create instability and stimulate revolutions, but that we might find ways of opening factories to enable the unemployed to find work, that we might build more houses, schools, and hospitals for the poor in order to better their lot, and that we might provide a means of livelihood for the island's 1½ million population. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech reflected the Government's actual effort towards a just and rational society. Is there anything wrong with this? What reason is there for alleging that the reduction in the number of anti-colonial slogans constitutes collaboration with the colonial forces in doping the people?

Mr Speaker, on 3rd August, when the Prime Minister proposed a motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech, he made a very accurate and profound analysis of the present political situation in the State of Singapore. In my opinion, everyone who supports the P.A.P. should study carefully and deeply his speech which explains the political stand of the P.A.P.

Much has been said by the Prime Minister about the Communist Party and the Left-wing adventurers. I wish to make some supplementary statements here based on what I personally have understood from a study of the Prime Minister's speech.

Mr Speaker, according to what I personally understand, the various points on the Communist Party and Left-wing adventurers found in the Prime Minister's speech are nothing but a statement to the world that the P.A.P. is an independent political force which does not depend on others for its existence and which does not lend itself to be conveniently controlled by the political opinions of other people. It has its own analysis and understanding of the movement for a merger between Singapore and the Federation, and for a breakaway from colonial rule, of the fight for the ultimate victory of Socialism in Malaya, and of the problem of racial unity in Malaya, etc. In the past, owing to the fact that the political force represented by the P.A.P. was one of patriotism, socialism and anti-colonialism, many people regarded it as a companion to or a pioneer of the Communist Party; this is entirely wrong.

Whether people like it or not, as an independent political force, the P.A.P., on all matters, has its own initiative and views which result from a cool analysis of the present political, economical, social, racial and other conditions in Malaya. The P.A.P. not only refuses to follow other people's slogans, but it also has complete faith in sticking to its own course, i.e., a non-Communistic, democratic, socialistic course, so as to shoulder the responsibility of leading a social revolution.

Some people thought that there was discrepancy in the P.A.P.'s stand before and after its coming into power. I think this is a wrong concept. These people erred either in not understanding the non-Communistic, democratic socialism, or in wrongly regarding individual talks in the P.A.P. as the initiative and stand of the P.A.P. as a whole.

Mr Speaker, everyone who pays attention to the situation in Asia knows that, as a non-Communistic, democratic, socialist force, the P.A.P. now faces in Singapore a complicated situation which is not easy to deal with. But the facts of the past few years have shown that, compared with many other countries in Asia, Singapore is most prominent in its performance. Democratic socialist forces in many Asian countries are, being crushed by cold and hard reality. But no matter what the situation in other countries is, according to my observation and understanding, the effort of non-Communistic, democratic socialists in Singapore has very important significance and effect.

Here, besides our Malay countrymen, there are the English-educated and Chinese-educated classes. This arose from the long colonial policy.

Regarding the English-educated class, the responsibility of the non-Communistic, democratic, socialistic force lies in awakening them and urging them not to be enamoured of the colonial era, in educating them to understand and sympathise with the suppressed class, and not to regard all the spontaneous struggles of the suppressed class as a desire of the Communist Party to engulf them. The non-Communistic, democratic socialists must assure them that the State power shall not fall into the hands of members of the Communist Party. It must also educate them to adapt themselves voluntarily to the colossal social change, which has swept across the whole of Asia and Africa, so as to convert themselves into upright people with national pride.

Regarding the Chinese-educated class, the responsibility of the non-Communistic, democratic socialistic force is that of enlightening them on the objective reality of Malaya, so that they may appreciate that heated slogans from foreign books of revolution are not only unable to triumph over the military suppression by the colonial rule, but also unable to achieve the aim of uniting other communal groups. The non-Communistic, democratic socialists want to convince them of the possibility of democratic constitutional struggle and to point out that the method which is liable to result in long social economic regression is not one which can be used for social reform.

Mr Speaker, some revolutionaries view the English-educated class as undesirable and think that they should all be cleared out of the government departments. But the P.A.P.'s view is not like this; we want to patiently educate them. We refuse to discard or punish them.

Mr Speaker, in the eyes of some hysterical anti- Communists, all Chinese-educated non-Right-wing social active elements should be gaoled. But again the P.A.P.'s view is not like this; we want to distinguish among them those who are not Communists and to channel their energy for the service of a society capable of fostering racial harmony.

Non-communistic, democratic socialism is a course not welcome to the colonialists and members of the Communist Party. But we think that, in the realistic environment of the present stage, there is no political course that is clearer, more rational and ultimately more acceptable to all the races in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. did not come out to govern without prior observation of the difficulties under this new Constitution. Our Government under the new Constitution differs greatly from the Lim Yew Hock Government under the Rendel Constitution. The Lim Yew Hock Government under the Rendel Constitution collaborated with the British Imperialists in deceiving the people. The P.A.P. Government under the new self-rule Constitution wants to take a step further in awakening the people's political consciousness and interests.

Last year's General Election has entrusted to us the fate and livelihood of the 1½ million population for the next 5 years. This is not an easy job. If it were an easy matter to solve the problems of employment, housing, schools etc. the British would not have felt it necessary to grant us self-government.

Mr Speaker, the new Constitution is not an ideal one. Everybody knows this. However, since we have decided that this is the right and forward stage and that, in this stage, we democratic socialists can effect positive and progressive historical reaction, we really have no reason to arouse, before the fixed date for resumption of the constitutional talks, a political storm which will not bring us favourable results.

The Member for Hong Lim is not ignorant of our election promises to the electorate. It is a pity that he took up political work for the sole purpose of becoming a hero. He has not the slightest understanding of the history and significance of the democratic, socialistic movement. He may be an outstanding conspirator; but I dare say that he will never become a helmsman of a political movement.

In the last one or two months the Member for Hong Lim has never let an opportunity slip without describing himself as an anti-colonial democratic vanguard. He may really hate the colonial force; but I think a person as lacking in the group concept and as disobedient to the group discipline as he is, will never be able to overthrow colonialism. In spite of the numerous important basic differences between we non-Communistic, democratic socialists and members of the Communist Party, there is one point on which we non-Communistic democratic socialists should follow the members of the Communist Party, i.e., the group concept and determination which enables the members of the Communist Party to evolve as a die-hard fighting force. If we do not, it will be difficult for us to overcome the obstacles on the road ahead.

Mr Speaker, before concluding my speech, let me say a word or two on the question of Nanyang University mentioned by the Member for Hong Lim in his speech made in this House last week.

After his disciplinary judgment by the party, in order to win over the people's sympathy and support for himself, he has degraded himself by using indiscriminate means. His picking up the question of Nanyang University for talking is, in fact, a further instance which reveals his usual unprincipled behaviour. If the so-called 16 Party and country saving proposals could not save himself, it is futile now for him to catch hold of Nanyang University or other questions as life-saving potions.

Everybody knows that the question of Nanyang University is not a simple educational issue. Besides the question of expenditure, administrative re-organisation and staff relationships, it involves the people's cultural concept and inter-racial feelings. With the addition of the political separation between Singapore and the Federation, the question of Nanyang University has become even more complex. The solution of this question depends on the cool deliberations and discussions of those concerned. The government has reiterated its stand on and attitude to the question of Nanyang University, i.e., it will first and foremost look after the interests of the Nanyang University students; it will adopt the same attitude of equality towards Nanyang University, as it has adopted towards the various racial streams of education, and it hopes to see in the Nanyang University a university for Malayans.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Upper Serangoon electorate let me support the Prime Minister's motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his policy speech delivered on July 20th in this House.

6.55 p.m.

Inche M. Ismail Rahim (Geylang East): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I thank His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for reading the policy speech which, I have counted, runs to 24 columns. What impresses me most about the speech is that it shows that the first year of the P.A.P. Government has been a year of administration. It is up to the P.A.P. Government to strengthen the economic stability of the State. However, the People's Action Party is well known for its boldness in carrying out the tasks and responsibilities that have been left to it by the previous Government. Mr Speaker, we all know that Christmas Island has been sold. However, during the past 14 months since the P.A.P. assumed office, the economy of Singapore has been strengthened. But the Opposition views this with jealousy. This is because the Government is "berwang", meaning, "the Government has money at its disposal". But the word "beruang" which has a similar phonetic sound, means "a bear" in English.

On behalf of the Government, I say that at the moment the Government is doing its best for the people. The amendment to the original motion relating to the restoration of the pay cuts, which was defeated yesterday, was moved just to confuse the people. This is because the previous Government was in the past frightened into hating the P.A.P. But the answer to this is that the P.A.P. is well able to retaliate with the "bear" which I have mentioned just now to the Opposition. The P.A.P. mixes freely with the masses and has its roots firmly embedded in them. The Opposition, who have been living in luxury, will quite naturally envy us.

The speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara relates to the second year of Government which will be a year of "reconstruction". The scope of this term is wide. But we, on the Government side, comprehend the term "reconstruction" as meaning that we should work harder to safeguard and protect the State and its people. This is the responsibility of the People's Action Party.

The main theme of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech is to get the people to realise the awakening that has taken place in Singapore where even small children are proud to sing "Majulah Singapura". We are awaiting the day when independence will dawn on us. With trust and faith in each other, Singapore will positively gain independence through merger with the Federation of Malaya. All this could be achieved by the efforts of the masses who must owe undivided loyalty to the State, but not by the efforts of those who try to split the people, and who would like to see the exhortation "Majulah Singapura" (let Singapore Flourish) degenerate into one of "Mundor-lah Singapore" (Let Singapore decline).

Mr Speaker, Sir, we, on the Government side, call on the people, irrespective of class, creed or colour to strive together to attain a common Malayan outlook. We know this is not an easy task, but with earnestness and confidence, it is yet possible to achieve that goal. For the past five years, we in the P.A.P. have practised understanding and tolerance in our movement which is supported by people of various races. And it is by virtue of this that we have been successful and we are now holding the reins of government.

If the intention is good, it is sure to be well rewarded, but if the aim is to destroy, then God will not give it His blessing.

Hitler's might was destroyed; and so was the might of the Japanese who once occupied Singapore, because their aims incurred the wrath of God. From what I have said, would you say that we are Communists?

Our struggle is that of the people, and the P.A.P. will try to achieve what it has set out to achieve within five years, not in one day. It is quite confident of its ability to do so. Therefore, I fail to understand what purpose is achieved by the mere shouting of slogans now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are living in a modern age and the masses too are modern in outlook. In other words, they are wide-awake. They cannot be hood-winked. Ideally, the Government and the Opposition, from whatever parties we come, should work together for the benefit of the people as a whole. But instead the Opposition merely sing praises for their own Parties and have nothing worth while to show to the people. Since the day the Yang di-Pertuan Negara delivered his speech, they, who claim to be the leaders and, according to our Indonesian term, "fathers" of the people, have merely indulged in confusing the people. We are, everyone of us, endowed with a brain, but some of us have used the brain only to confuse the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, each member of the P.A.P. has self-confidence, but we also place full confidence in our collective leadership, unlike our erstwhile colleague who, I regret, is now sitting on the other side of the House, because, as a leader, he is lacking in discipline. Our Party fully realises that our collective leadership comes from the people, and it works for the people. It is well to bear in mind that we have a term of five years. As elected representatives of the people, whether we are on the government side or on the Opposition, we should work hard in mutual cooperation for the benefit of the people in our respective constituencies in all matters, from the smallest to the largest. But it is strange to see certain Members of the Opposition use all sorts of pretext to make appeals here in the Assembly, whereas the matters raised could satisfactorily be dealt with by the various government departments concerned. If no satisfaction is obtained, they could be brought up to ministerial level. Only if this step proves ineffective should they then be brought here before the Assembly. It is true this Assembly is a public forum for the people, but it is not a Government department. Once again I would say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we, as elected representatives of tile people, should each show our ability to the people. But the words we utter should be reasonable. My former colleague, the Member for Hong Lim, stated that the P.A.P. now is not the same as the P.A.P. in former days. This is obvious even to a child. For formerly the hon. Member sat on the Government side, but now he and two others - what I would call "The Three Musketeers" - sit on the Opposite side of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, some of the Members who are now in the Opposition are there because our Party has no place for people who have no discipline. That is why the three are now sitting yonder, on the other side. There must be discipline in any household. To be strong, a union must have discipline. In a disciplined political set-up, it is collective leadership that strengthens the Party, welding it into a body as strong as steel and which cannot be easily destroyed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the two Members who have spoken have criticised the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Labour and Law. This, I say, is futile. For whatever is hurled at one is also hurled at all collectively. We cannot go forward together to achieve our aims so long as there are elements who serve to confuse the people. We all know that our former colleagues were loud in their criticisms of the Lim Yew Hock Government, but now they are loud in their praise of the Lim Yew Hock Government. And what is more, the praises are welcomed by the Member for Cairnhill, for he set his necktie right, turned round and smiled in acknowledgment. This is very significant.

Mr Speaker, we know the aspiration of the Member for Hong Lim. "The desire of the heart is to embrace the mountain, but unfortunately the arms are not long enough." In fact, not only was the Member for Cairnhill praised, but even you yourself, Mr Speaker, were complimented by the Member for Hong Lim.

Mr Speaker: Order. I had better remind the hon. Member that we are on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, and the Standing Order says distinctly that the debate thereon - that is, on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech - shall be confined to the policy of the Government. I do not know whether the policy of the Government is embracing the mountain, but perhaps the hon. Member could talk about the policy of the Government from now on.

Inche Ismail Rahim: (In Malay): I apologise, Sir. I was touching on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech on the matter of reconstruction. We human beings are not infallible. We should have understanding and, as responsible people, we should not try to show how good we are and how bad others are. The Opposition Members may themselves feel competent to talk about external affairs, but I would like to talk about matters concerning the people in Singapore. I was a postman for 22 years, and for ten years I delivered letters to Government and City Council offices. I came into contact with people of low and high status. All these people praise the P.A.P. for the wise action it has taken to expel the three Members of the P.A.P. who are now sitting on the opposite side. They wish the P.A.P. well. The three Members opposite tried to teach us how to fight colonialism, but all we heard were the names of G. G. Thomson, Meadows, Owen and another mentioned over and over again. Is it not a fact that we are the employers and pay the salaries of those individuals? If they do anything improper, we would certainly take appropriate action. They are people who are competent in their various spheres of duties important to the Government.

Actually, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim would like to bully Meadows. The Member was then Minister for National Development, and I was attached to that Ministry, and therefore I know. On one occasion, Meadows and a number of us went to an island. He carried wood and did manual work with others and his clothes were torn. Were we doing prison labour? No, we were doing voluntary work. So by such bullying tactics, perhaps the Member for Hong Lim hoped that Mr Meadows would resign without getting any benefits whatever. It was because of this that Mr Meadows was transferred to the Prime Minister's Ministry. Is this the way to fight colonialism which the Member for Hong Lim bragged about when bringing up his 16 resolutions?

Mr Speaker, the Member for Aljunied talked about the increase of tax on petrol. If we wish to merge with the Federation, where the price of petrol costs $2.00 a gallon, it is not right that our price here should remain at $1.50. So if we wish to be of equal status, let the taxes be at the same level.

Another matter raised concerns cigarettes, about which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance also had something to say. I myself smoke "Pigeon" brand cigarettes, three packets per day. I pay tax to the Government when I smoke them.

Mr Speaker: Order. I was wondering whether it would be correct for the Speaker to allow advertisements!

Inche Ismail Rahim: (In Malay): I apologise again, Mr Speaker, for I am still at the stage of learning. On the question of evading tax, I think formerly I talked for 5 minutes but now I am taking a longer time, to evade tax is easy. I myself have with me now leaf-cigarettes not in order to evade paying tax but in order to economise. But if the hon. Member opposite wishes to avoid paying any tax at all, I would advise him to take to chewing betel leaf instead.

So, Mr Speaker, I on this side of the House share the views of the Government. There is another thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, which I would like to say before I end my speech. Although I look at you while I am speaking, actually I am reading what is before me. But I say this - this is my own speech which I wrote myself. I noticed that the Member for Aljunied too read his speech, page by page, prepared by the Member for Hong Lim, when dealing with the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

7.17 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a well-known fact that one can record brainwaves, and what is curious is that the brainwave pattern of a beetle is identical with that of a human brain-wave. But there the similarity ends. A beetle on a table cloth sees only the threads, but it does not see the pattern or the picture that is woven into the table cloth. A beetle that walks on a ceiling wonders why it is the only creature right side up and the rest of the world is upside down. And there are people whose minds are like that of the beetle - narrow and circumscribed. So it is, after listening to Members sitting on the Opposition Benches, that I cannot help but feel that there are beetles in this House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Hon. the Leader of the House is anticipating that he would be pulled up, because to liken Members to beetles is, I think, perhaps unparliamentary. And as Leader of the House, he ought to give some lead as to what is parliamentary or not.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, if you deem that is unparliamentary, well, I do withdraw. May I substitute then that there are - may I repeat? - people who are beetle-minded?

Quite rightly, Sir, the task of the Opposition is that of criticism, but during this debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, we have witnessed the Members sitting on the opposite side going on a rampage of destruction. There are two sides to every person - the God in him and the devil in him, the ego and the id, the positive and the negative, the constructive and the destructive. Rogue elephants are known to invade kampongs and destroy what man has built and cultivated. Tigers become man-eating when they reach the age of decay. Sir, it is very easy to destroy, but it takes years of sacrifice, suffering and sweat to build even the little that we have.

The day that this Assembly House turns into a place where representatives of the people, using the privilege of free speech in the Assembly, uninhibitedly give free rein to the destructive side of their nature, then on that very day, the respect which the people themselves give to this Assembly will turn to ridicule and contempt.

All leaders, especially leaders in the political field, have a responsibility not only to themselves but also to the community and the society in which they live. If political leaders were to take action only on impulse and not calculate the consequences of their actions then there can result only confusion and chaotic disorder.

Sir, there is an animal which lives within the Arctic Circle. This species is called the lemming. Its zoological name is Lemmus-lemmus. It is described as a small mouse-like rodent about five inches long. It is a peculiar creature because it is dominated always by an impulse to get moving. You find the lemmings, in their thousands, always move downhill towards the sea. The lemmings advance regardless of all obstacles, answering only to their own impulse, swimming streams and meanwhile committing considerable devastation in their line of march. Finally, the lemmings reach the cliffs with the sea below. The leading lemmings jump off the cliffs onto the rocks or into the sea. Hundreds of other lemmings follow; they plunge themselves into the sea and so a generation of lemmings is drowned.

Irresponsible political leadership is like the lemming. It would not matter so much if the impulse for self-destruction were confined only to a person, but usually a political leader does not destroy only himself. He also drags down with him to destruction others as well. When Hitler committed suicide, he did not just destroy himself. He also, in the process, destroyed the lives of millions of unknown soldiers and civilians.

I do not wish, Mr Speaker, to dwell upon the negative aspects of this debate. It is fruitless and a waste of nervous energy which can be deployed into more useful and creative purposes. But let all those who aspire to be demigods, remember: 'The evil that men do, lives after them, The good is oft interred with their bones.'

Mr Speaker, let me pass on. It has been said that the sublime is related to the ridiculous, and the ridiculous is related to the sublime. The ridiculous is only one shade above the sublime, and the sublime is one shade above the ridiculous. I am quite sure, Mr Speaker, that in your many years of enough in this Chamber to bear that statement out. And over the past few days, we have seen the ridiculous and the sublime.

Sir, there are two main tasks of government. Sometime last year in the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, I had occasion to say, which is reported in Hansard, Vol. 11, No. 3, col. 120, that:

`There are two basic general problems which we face. First is one of nation building. Second, the conversion of our existing economy from a non-productive one to productive one.'

Those two tasks were the tasks of the Government last year. They are still the tasks of Government this year, and they will still be the tasks of Government for the next ten years. The task of nation building goes hand in hand with the development of political consciousness - the development of consciousness or of duty and of responsibility to a Malayan society. The consciousness of belonging to a Malayan society is relatively new. It was barely evident, a few years ago. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, one-third of the people living in Singapore are immigrants. Secondly, the variety of educational and cultural backgrounds Where then do we start the task of nation building? The base upon which we have to build the nation must lie on the young.

It is therefore for this reason that the Work Brigade was established to absorb our young people to impart to them the consciousness of belonging to our Malayan society, and to impart to them the consciousness of building and creating. It would be a mistake if we were to neglect the older generation, and therefore the community centre was reorganised. The organisation of the community centre was so directed that the older generation as well as the young could be drawn to participate in the activities at a community centre.

The Member for Cairnhill today sees only a Frankenstein in every organisation - the T.U.C., the Work Brigade, and the community centres. He should include the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides in his place. It is a pity that he sees his surroundings only in monochrome and not in technicolour. And the one-coloured vision is not only dull, but incapable of fine resolution of details. I have said that the Work Brigade and the community centres are devoted to the task of nation building. And any group which seeks to abuse that purpose will be severely rapped on the knuckles.

The Member for Cairnhill has dwelt at length on fighting the Communists. In a parliamentary democratic system, we have to accept the fact that competition between different ideologies will always exist and must be allowed to exist - between Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats, Socialists and Communists. But there is one rule of the competition which must be observed. If our society is based on the acceptance of parliamentary democracy, then the rules of the game, as observed in the Constitution, must be adhered to. We cannot have in the boxing ring one boxer who adopts Queensberry rules - he is told that he cannot punch his opponent below the belt - and the other boxer using the tactics of Siamese boxing, who not only uses his fists but his legs as well. And the boxer who adopts Queens-berry rules of boxing is punched, and in next to no time he is hit not only on the jaw but he gets a kick in the bottom as well!

Five years ago when the Labour Front Government took office the reserves were $322 million. But five years later, in 1959 - the first year of the P.A.P. Government - these reserves had gone down to only $87 million. And on top of this discovery was the other discovery that in 1959 the Government was heading for a deficit of $14 million.

There were ample funds for the last Government to deploy for development. In fact, they used over $235 million of the reserves. We do not question that the last Government has not carried out any development, but what we ask is how much have they got to show for the amount of money spent? We maintain that, given the same flourishing economic conditions which the post-Korean War boom had endowed the rubber industry in particular and trade in general, the P.A.P. Government can achieve much more than what previous Governments have done.

The Member for Mountbatten went to great lengths to repeat that in 1955, the first year of the previous Government, 6,734 dwellings were completed. Mr Speaker, I have no doubts about the personal charm of the Member for Mountbatten, but I would like to warn the House not to be deluded by her figure. The figure of 6,734 was housing provided from three sources, namely, the Singapore Improvement Trust, private enterprise and those public authorities which built quarters for their staff. Half of these buildings completed in 1955 came from the private sector which was enjoying the post-Korean War boom. The contribution of the S.I.T. was only 2,907 units.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I will, Sir.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, Hansard will show that what I said was 6,734 built under the previous Government, and 2,907 built by Government.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Members of the Opposition have been critical of the fact that the P.A.P. Government, in its first year of office, has done little in the way of housing development. Since the Member for Aljunied yesterday claimed that the buildings put up by the Housing and Development Board today are due to the Malayanisation efforts of the former Minister for National Development, I am obliged, on behalf of the Housing and Development Board, to place certain facts before this House. During the six months term of office of the Member for Hong Lim as Chairman of the Singapore Improvement Trust, work commenced on only 821 units. In the six months since he ceased to be Chairman, the Housing and Development Board was formed, and under its direction, work was commenced on 2,729 units. The slowness - admittedly the Government was slow in getting housing development to start - was due to the depletion of technical staff and the haywire changes in building plans. A total of 79 monthly-rated staff left the service of the S.I.T. They were dismissed, or they resigned, or they retired. And of these 79, 22 were senior officers, five being heads of departments and five were heads of sections.

Tenders for two phases for the Tiong Bahru fire site development were submitted to the former Minister for consideration in June 1959. These were turned down, and instructions were issued for fresh plans to be drawn up to substitute communal units for self-contained flats. On this new instruction, a revised lay-out was produced, but again there was a change of mind. Plans had to be drawn up all over again, and eventually only 280 communal units were included in the development. Because of this indecision and frequent changes of mind of the former Minister, these two contracts were not officially approved for letting until November 1959 and January 1960, a delay of over five months.

As long as the Member for Hong Lim was a member of the Government, we, the Government, had to admit liability for his mistakes. And as a collective body we have to accept responsibility for the fact that our housing development programme has not got off to a fine start.

The Housing Board was constituted in February 1960 and one of the first things it did was to make a thorough study of the housing problem in Singapore, it was estimated that to solve the existing housing problem, at least 14,000 dwelling units per year should be built for the next 10 years. For the last 12 years, from 1948 to 1959, a total of 46,918 permanent dwelling units were completed, of which 43 per cent were built by the former S.I.T., while 38 per cent were constructed by private enterprise, and the remainder 18 per cent by Government and other public authorities. The former Singapore Improvement Trust built on the average 1.700 units per year, and during its best year in 1958 it constructed 3,841 units. To overcome the housing problem a big leap must be made from the average of 1,700 units per year to at least 10,000 units per year.

The Board has drawn up a Five-Year building programme to provide some 52,842 units costing $230 million within the next five years. When this programme is completed, it is anticipated that the critical housing shortage will be greatly eased. The programme is in implementation of the policy of Government to bring housing within the means of those in lower-income groups least able to afford suitable living accommodation and whose needs will not be catered for by private enterprise.

The Five-Year building programme concentrates building mainly in the City limits, in Queenstown, MacPherson Road, Kampong Tiong Bahru, Alexandra Road, St. Michael's Road, Kallang, Toa Payoh and certain central urban districts.

At present 4,720 units are under construction, of which 1,800 units will be completed at the end of this year, while 7,000 or more will be completed at the end of next year.

In accordance with our policy of observing the special rights of the Malays, I would like to say that special preference is being given to Malay applicants who apply for housing built by the Housing and Development Board. Two extra points are given to each Malay applicant under the present points system of allocation. At present, there are altogether 3,928 Malay families living either on the Housing Board estate or in Government quarters.537 Malay applicants are now on the waiting list of the Housing and Development Board, and we can give an assurance to them that their applications will be treated with due consideration.

With the increasing development of built-up areas, the flood problems in Singapore have become increasingly serious year by year. Briefly, the problems of flood alleviation deal with the drainage of the following catchment areas:- Sungei Bedok and Ketapang; Geylang River Catchment; Singapore River and Sungei Ulu Pandan; Bukit Timah and Stamford Canal; Jurong River; Sungei Whampoa, Sungei Kallang and Sungei Seletar; Sungei Api Api and Tampines.

Of these seven schemes, only the Sungei Bedok scheme has been completed.

The Geylang flood prevention scheme is now two-thirds completed. Final stages will consist of the construction of two main drainage channels running through Geylang Serai and Kampong Ubi.

The Singapore River and Sungei Ulu Pandan scheme is also under construction. This scheme is designed to deal with flooding in the catchment of the Singapore River with particular reference to the Alexandra area from Delta Circus up to Queenstown.

Research will be made on the diversion of flood waters from the Bukit Timah canal. One proposal is to divert the water from the canal near Holland Road southwards through tunnels into Sungei Bangkong. This plan has certain merits in that land acquisition will not entail taking much valuable land.

The Sungei Api Api is now being widened by the Work Brigade for 2½ miles, and a tidal gate will be constructed at the outlet of the river to keep out the tide, which at present inundates the whole downstream area at every high tide. When this scheme is completed in the next six months, 1,800 acres of the Tampines area will be relieved of floods.

In addition, there are a number of other schemes being prepared, to be carried out by the Work Brigade. These include two schemes in the Jurong area, one in the Malay Settlement off Jalan Eunos and another for the main drain running North from Bukit Panjang into Sungei Pang Sua.

In the City area, work has been going on in Nelson Road and in Orchard Road for the last year. These two schemes will be completed this year. In this year's budget we have funds for schemes at Pasir Panjang, the area between Bartley Road and Playfair Road. All these will be completed in 1961.

Side by side with housing development and the creation of industrial estates, more roads have to be built. The expenditure on road works each year is of the order of $10 million. At the present time, the Roads Section is engaged on the construction of new Link Roads:-

(1) Between Jurong Road and Chua Chu Kang;

(2) Between West Coast Road and Jurong Road;

(3) Between Braddell Road and Serangoon Garden Estate.

The expenditure on agricultural track construction and kampong road construction will amount to half a million dollars this year.

A further big programme for the erection of over 100 bus shelters throughout the Island has recently been approved, and up to $200,000 will be spent on this work this year.

There are about 30,200 people engaged in farming and fishing in Singapore. Although the number is small, their production is considerable. This group of workers annually produce 750,000 pigs, 204,000,000 eggs, 18,500,000 fowls, 480,000 gallons of milk, 34,000 tons of vegetables, 1,800 tons of fruit, 340 tons of tobacco and 11,300 tons of fish.

Sir, these are interesting figures and they show that, given the opportunity, facilities, the correct environment, our people can devote their energies to productive work.

25,000 farmers in Singapore now occupy about 16,500 acres of land for the cultivation of vegetables and the rearing of livestock. Another 19,000 acres is used for rubber and coconut plantations. Expansion in farming, however, is limited because of the shortage of land; and further settlement on land is curtailed since the use of marginal land for agriculture must give way to more economically productive uses such as for industry and housing. Any further advance and progress in agriculture, animal husbandry, etc. must therefore be qualitative. It is the policy of the Government to assist farmers, and this policy must be based on teaching new techniques to the farmers so that their output will improve quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

The proposed legislation to give farmers better security of tenure means that in those areas best suited for agriculture and animal husbandry, farmers should be given long leases and so have the assurance that they will not be evicted or disturbed for the period of the lease. The areas are mainly those marked in the Master Plan as suitable for agriculture as well as other isolated pockets. The ultimate use of marginal lands, i.e., those which have poorer soil and which have lesser agricultural economic value, must be weighed ultimately between the needs of agriculture and other more productive uses, such as industry and housing. Eventually, however, in "land-hungry Singapore" only good land can be reserved for long leases. On such suitable land, long leases will be of benefit to farmers and would provide inducement for more improved farming techniques. In those areas which have to give place to industry or housing, provision of compensation along the lines of the present Government scheme is to be written into the new legislation. This legislation will come before the Assembly in due course. It is in this manner that this Government will ensure that the interests of the farmers are protected.

Government will assist vegetable gardeners by using tractors to help them plough the land in preparation for planting.

A scheme to assist the fishermen is now being studied and it is intended to hire at nominal charge outboard diesel motors. A fisheries training scheme for boys living in the rural areas will also be conducted. In order to assist Malay fishermen living in the Southern Islands to supplement their income, the Government is considering a scheme to distribute female goats to them for rearing.

Let us now come to eggs and egg laying. It is a pity that the Member for Joo Chiat is not present this evening. It is presumed that he is having a busy time with his hens. Sir, the Member for Jon Chiat is no chicken in the political field. After all, he was one of the founder Members of the Labour Front. The Member for Cairnhill will bear me out. We are glad that after a year's silence he has made his maiden speech.

All farmers know that when a hen has laid an egg, it announces the event with quite a tremendous amount of fluttering of wings and clucking, a sort of maiden speech in the poultry world. It is true that some white Leghorns do lay more than 200 eggs per year, but these are champion birds. The average white Leghorn lays 180 eggs per year, but after some time of residence like expatriates in a tropical climate, their egg-laying propensity diminishes, because they cannot get acclimatised. No doubt the chicken is not as good as the mother hen, and it is no use, Sir, laying eggs which are not in popular demand. White Leghorn eggs do not sell readily in the local market for some reason or other. Because they cannot sell their eggs, the farmers themselves show no enthusiasm for white Leghorn egg-layers. The Government research station at Sembawang has succeeded in producing a crossbreed that will lay 180 eggs per year. It is twice the output of the local fowl. These eggs fulfill the local demand for colour and flavour and, therefore, find a ready market. Moreover, the new strain is smaller than the Leghorn or the Hampshire. It costs less to rear them and, at the same time, they are productive for their size. But egg-laying, Mr Speaker, is not only a science. It is also an art. The Member for Joo Chiat will confirm this. The pullets of hens have to be persuaded to increase the production of eggs. One way of coaxing the hens to lay more eggs is to keep them in artificial daylight, sort of making them work overtime. But there are some hens which will just not lay at all, unless there are male birds or cockerels around to coax them. Even hens have their vanity. The Member for Jon Chiat claims to produce 280 eggs per year. Sir, that is something to cluck about. He is in the championship class. We do not know how he manages it, but the Government research station at Sembawang would very much welcome his services, and experimental hens at the station will no doubt look forward to a demonstration from the Member for Joo Chiat.

7.55 p.m.

Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid (Kallang): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to draw attention to the speech of the Member for the Southern Islands, who has said that he views with suspicion the Government led by the People's Action Party. Mr Speaker, he says the reason is that the People's Action Party, which holds the reins of Government, is not positive in its stand on colonialism and its action against Communism is negative. What does that mean? Is the Member for the Southern Islands suggesting that we be positive to the extent that we could use aeroplanes to drop bombs, rifles and other weapons? It is not necessary for us to wait until the Member for the Southern Islands has faith in the P.A.P. Government.

Mr Speaker, in the past, the Member for the Southern Islands has often mentioned the Malays, so that they would hate the P.A.P. But this method which he has adopted in the past was a failure. This time, by using a new tactic to besmirch the People's Action Party, which holds the reins of Government, by using a phraseology such as "suspicion and not positive in its action towards Communism", he hopes it will mislead the Malays and the people of Islam so that they will be influenced by him. However, this time, the Malays, including the people of Islam and other races, will not believe him, because the P.A.P. has made efforts in the religious field and in matters affecting the Malays, whether they be in the Southern Islands or not. Efforts have also been made to provide them with houses, as mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope that the Malays and the Muslim people will not follow the advice or take the attitude that has been adopted by the Member for the Southern Islands, because if we do so, the Malays and the Muslim people themselves will stand to suffer.

Mr Speaker, in addition, I would like to touch a little on matters which have become heated over the past months. They concern the 16 resolutions put up by the Hong Lim Branch of the P.A.P. and which were raised here by the Member for Hong Lim, Mr Ong Eng Guan. At the conference of the People's Action Party, he was not satisfied to let the -

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Resumption of debate tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: Tomorrow, Sir.