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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of adjourned debate on Question [9th 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.

Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid (Kallang): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will continue with the speech which I started yesterday.

On the first day of this debate, the Member for Hong Lim accused the Government of failing to implement democratic practices. Before the Member for Hong Lim introduced his 16 resolutions into this House, I personally know that these 16 resolutions brought up by the Hong Lim Branch were read out by the hon. Member at our Party Conference. The resolutions were rejected. Subsequently the hon. Member again raised the issue of the 16 resolutions at the Badminton Hall rally where he made accusations against the Government. At the same time, he boasted that he was the real fighter for the detainees and for the interest of the trade union movement in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really amused at the antics of the Member for Hong Lim. If he is so very much concerned about the deregistration of the four unions and the detainees. I would like him to answer this question: when did he start to fight for the welfare of the detainees and the trade union movement? Has he ever undergone the hardships experienced by the trade union movement? Has he ever gone through the experience of being detained? Anybody can give the answer, Mr Speaker - that he has not experienced all that. This is an attempt on his part to gain power for his own ends, by hoodwinking the people of Singapore. I know full well, Mr Speaker, Sir, about the circumstances relating to the deregistration of the unions, the trade union movement in Singapore as a whole, and the position of the detainees, as I have been personally detained on two occasions in the past. The Singapore Trades Union Congress interviewed the Minister for Labour and Law and exchanged views on the four deregistered unions, after which they were satisfied. Before the Member for Hong Lim raised this issue, we from the S.T.U.C. and the other unions had already submitted our views to the Minister for Labour and Law. But the Member for Hong Lim - Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to use unparliamentary words as I may be asked to sit down - might have borrowed or stolen the views of other trade unions. I still remember a story told to me when I was at school about Sang Kanchil and a heron. Sang Kanchil is very intelligent and wily and can outwit all the other animals. But all the same, he has one weakness - his insincerity. Although he is wily, he is insincere. Tigers, elephants and crocodiles can be outwitted by the wiliness of Sang Kanchil. The story goes like this. One day, he asked a heron to cross a river on a river crate with him with the thought of outwitting the heron. When Sam Kanchil felt sure that he could manage to get across safely to the other side, he caused the river crate to sink. The result was that Sang Kanchil was drowned but the heron was able to fly to safety. This is analogous to an insincere man who will ultimately drown himself. I hope that the labour movement and the people of Singapore will not be confused by the 16 resolutions. We must be on guard against any action initiated by the Member for Hong Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to refer to the speech of the Member for Aljunied. I was shocked to hear the blind accusations of the hon. Member against the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development. He accused the Parliamentary Secretary of trying to win over the constituents of the Southern Islands so that he would be successful as a candidate for that ward in the next general elections. Sir, this is like the story I related just now about Sang Kanchil. The members of the P.A.P. do not go about their work with a view to offering themselves as candidates in the next general elections. This is a false and nonsensical accusation calculated to confuse the people. Can the Member for Aljunied substantiate his accusation that the Parliamentary Secretary invited the peng-hulus of the Southern Islands and told them that it was his intention to stand as a candidate for that ward in the coming general elections? If he cannot substantiate his accusation, then it is false. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the hon. Member has run out of ideas to further confuse the minds of the people of Singapore.

The People's Action Party will constantly be on the look-out against any activities initiated by the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Aljunied. We will continue to oppose insincere leaders in the interest of the people as a whole.

2.41 p.m.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the past few days, I have been listening to the speeches of Members of the Opposition. All of these speeches are feats of acrobatics showing purposeful abstruseness, distortion of Government's policies and the creation of disharmony. Since the formation of our Party, we have never deviated from our consistent stand. We have been expressing our independent character and have never been controlled by others. Before the general election, the P.A.P. had told the people that it was non-Communist. We did not conceal our policies and we have been trustworthy. During the general election, we were also telling the people that we were non-Communist in order to win over the people. The situation in Singapore has been fundamentally secure since the P.A.P. took over the government after its victory in the election 14 months ago. This fact shows that the P.A.P. policies are successful and right. The former Chief Minister. Mr Lim Yew Hock has not remembered this fact and does not absorb our experience. On the contrary, he still wants to go back to the road of anti-people and pro-colonialism. He has been very stubborn and has not reflected on the lesson of the failure of his S.P.A. even up to the present moment. Now, the Member for Cairnhill wants to pull us into the water and make us go along his old road of failure. Since we have expressed our non-Communist attitude, we will never change it, no matter what misleading and challenging words we may encounter from the Opposition Members. Our present task is to seek the welfare of the people and serve them in a better way.

The Member for Cairnhill has become very belligerent and challenges us to a light in the by-elections. The people are not interested in this and it is, in fact, wasting people's resources and energy. We will not be so childish as to do this. I would like to ask the Member for Cairnhill why does he want to drag us into the water and what is his motive in wanting us to be anti-Communist? He wants to have an effortless gain by making us fail in our pledge by betraying the people and creating disorder. Is this not a naive fancy of his? Mr Speaker, the Member for Cairnhill talks a lot about anti-Communism, and is very much interested because he wants to become a hero of the anti-Communist movement in Singapore, thereby earning another title for that, like the one he has received from the Federation of Malaya. Even if he should obtain a title for being a hero of the anti-Communist movement, would it benefit the welfare of the people and solve the unemployment problem? Could he achieve results by being just anti-Communist? What the people, both the Chinese and English-educated, are greatly concerned is whether there is security of livelihood and the possibility of solving the unemployment problem, and not merely the question of whether the State is anti-Communist or pro-Communist. The road that the Government is taking is the most practical road, that is, to find out ways and means to create situations for the purpose of solving the unemployment problem and to look after the livelihood of the people. This is a practical and effective way of checking the development of pro-Communist activity.

Mr Speaker, the speech of the Member for Cairnhill is lengthy, but it has not expressed any anti-colonial feelings at all. Many of my colleagues have clarified that we are not tools of either the colonialists or the Communists, and I doubt whether the Member for Cairnhill himself is a tool of the colonialists.

Mr Speaker, after hearing the speeches of the Members of the Opposition, I am of the opinion that they have not contributed any constructive criticisms of Government's policies. An Opposition Member's responsibility is to speak for the people and to make useful suggestions to raise the standard of living and welfare of the people, and not simply to oppose this and oppose that. Members of the Opposition have not done this. For the past few days, their lengthy speeches are misleading, and their purpose is to make political capital out of them. They have not even suggested how the basic problems may be solved. For example, a few days ago, the Member for Joo Chiat said that he had reared chickens. Does he mean to say that, by having reared chickens, he is a qualified farmer and understands the hardship of the farmers? Deceiving people by this means does not amount to an expression of concern for the farmers. In fact, the farmers already know how to increase their production. The problem is how best to market their products. This is also a problem of rural economy, and a problem relating to land. He did not mention all this. So, let me remind him that without going to the farmers and without knowing their hardship, one cannot serve the farmers. The Member for Joo Chiat said that Japanese hens and leghorns can lay about 240 to 280 eggs per year. The Deputy Prime Minister has touched on this. But I would like to point out his childish, political cheating -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I heard the expression "childish, political cheating". If that is so, then, of course, that is an expression which should not be used. Perhaps the hon. Member can assure me that that was not the expression he used. If it is the expression he used, then he must withdraw that expression.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): I think, Mr Speaker, just now I was -

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I have a reply? If the expression "childish, political cheating" was used, then it has to be withdrawn. If it was not used, then the hon. Member can tell me that it was not the expression used.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw the words "childish, political cheating".

As a matter of fact, the farmers have reared these two breeds of chicken. Because the local climate is different, these hens cannot lay as many eggs as the Member for Joo Chiat claimed. The egg production is, what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, about 260 a year.

I would point out here that the Deputy Prime Minister's speech is based on facts taken from books. We must know that in Australia and Japan. the climate is different from ours, and this yield of egg production is possible. But over here, because of our climate, we cannot expect the same results.

The Prime Minister has said that the Opposition Members are weak in their judgment. The correctness of the Prime Minister's judgment can be proved here by all these facts.

2.56 p.m.

The Minister for Health (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, at the Assembly sitting a few days ago the Member for Tanglin, among other things, complained like a babbling old man that too much time had been wasted in this Assembly in debating the internal matters of the People's Action Party. Besides that, the hon. Member also complained that the analysis of the political situation in Singapore, as presented in the speech of the Prime Minister the other day, confused him and that he did not understand the analysis. Sir, in fact, the Member for Tanglin said that he wanted to know the significance of that part of the Prime Minister's speech which reads [Hansard, 3rd August, 1960, col. 64]:

`What is the worst that can happen in the immediate future for us as a Government? it is that the Government may find itself out-maneuvered and out-propagandaed by these Left-wing adventurers, in which case the P.A.P. will have to take the count in this fight, and the Communists will be counted out for many years to come.'

It would appear that he did not comprehend the meaning of that statement of the Prime Minister, that it is the business of the Government to ensure that if a collision is to take place between these Left-wing adventurers and the colonialists-imperialists, the P.A.P. should let them break their heads on each other.

I am fully convinced that the Member for Tanglin did not understand and was confused about such matters, because his inability to comprehend has already become chronic, and the reason is not difficult to seek. His whole intellectual approach operates on the old wave-length, which means it cannot receive messages about happenings in our country which are being sent on a new wave-length. His approach to our problems still clings on along political lines of the pre-Rendel and Progressive Party era. It is too well known that during those years political questions were decided by tete-a-tetes with the colonial governors and at cocktail parties.

The Member for Tanglin ought to realise that times have changed. We have moved on to an age of mass politics. The social forces which decide political problems now move and act in ways which are no longer similar to those found in the pre-Rendel years. Mr Speaker, Sir, for example, the attitude of the Member for Tanglin to political parties is typical of the approach of politicians in that age. The pre-Rendel political parties, as exemplified by the Progressive Party, the Democratic Party, later the Liberal-Socialist Party, and the Labour Front have no roots in the people. The leaders of those political parties did not reflect major political forces. As such, splits and dissensions within those parties had little or no impact on the political life outside their own ranks. The P.A.P. on the other hand, because of its deeper roots in the political life of the people, therefore mirrors the line up of political forces as they really exist in Singapore. It is clear that the Ong Eng Guan affair is important and merits attention in so far as it provides an opportunity for forces which have been referred to as Left-wing adventurers to challenge the non-communist socialist approach of the P.A.P. Government.

Mr Speaker, allow me to give a more frank elucidation. The line-up of forces in this Assembly does not actually mirror the political forces in this country. The decisive political manoeuvres are taken either on this side of the House or outside the Assembly. The alternative force to the P.A.P. cannot be found in any of the political parties or individuals represented on that side of the House.

Mr Speaker, this claim is not arrogance on our part. It is a statement of fact. Perhaps by now Members of the Opposition are able to see that the Prime Minister's analysis when he opened the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's policy statement itself shows that both the actions and speeches of Government are designed primarily to influence and manoeuvre against political forces outside this Assembly. In this Assembly yesterday, it appeared to me that the Member for Joo Chiat, who had maintained a self-imposed silence for the last 14 months, and who had himself claimed that he had not been deaf nor blind during that period, had admitted that there is no alternative to the P.A.P. at present. But, of course, it does not matter two hoots to us even if the Member for Tanglin and others do not make this admission, because the actions of the People's Action Party are based on facts and the truth regardless of whether other people admit them or not.

Mr Speaker, if the opposition forces we have to contend with are the opposition Members, then our task would be a very simple one indeed. Unfortunately, the position today is not so. I have explained about the position of the S.P.A. members and the Member for Hong Lim can only be looked upon as a puppet being used to further the ends of the people outside this Assembly.

It should be clear to everybody that the issue before us is whether or not non-Communist socialism can succeed in our country. If the non-Communist socialist system based on parliamentary democracy fails, then the alternatives are either a resurgence of colonialism or a resurgence of rebellious violence. I trust the whole Opposition will understand what I have said.

Mr Speaker, the other day, the Member for the Southern Islands touched on the question of merger. My apologies here. It seems that he does not understand that the communal problem, the problem of uniting the various races into one strong united Malayan nation, is a problem which not only must be faced and solved by the Singapore Government alone. The truth is that that problem is similarly faced by the Federation Government also. The Alliance Government in the Federation of Malaya is busying itself with various ways and means so that non-Malays, which number almost 50 per cent there, will show their undivided loyalty towards this country. Briefly, if the communal problem can be solved slowly in the Federation, it follows that the communal problem in Singapore will follow suit. In fact, in as much as the Federation Government is constantly anxious and vigilant, I repeat - is constantly anxious and vigilant in regard to the doings of Malay or non-Malay communalists over there, the P.A.P. Government in Singapore is, no less vigilant and alert towards all types of communalists and Chauvinists in Singapore.

When a dedicated and revolutionary Government comes into power at the close of a colonial era, we must all, including the honourable Members of the Opposition, expect to find drastic alterations taking place to change the emphasis of the services provided for the people, and also the speed at which old ways are to give place to new. As an honest Government, the P.A.P. has already admitted, in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, that errors and mistakes took place as a result of our early zeal. But it would be wrong to let our self-admitted mistakes entirely overshadow the very real advantages of the swift moving changes and policies in our first year of office. A feature of that first year has been the time given over to planning. I am sure Members of the Opposition must agree that any sensible Government should plan, and that the effective implementation of Government policies for the good of the people as a whole are only likely to yield good results if based on careful thinking and careful planning right from the blueprint stage.

I would now like to indicate some of the achievements of the first year as they affect my Ministry.

The change of emphasis from the curative to the preventive aspects has taken place in several ways. Legislation for compulsory immunisation against Diphtheria and the compulsory vaccination of school children against Tuberculosis will help to spread an awareness of the need to control these diseases among the younger population. Immunisation among very small children through Maternity and Child Health Clinics was stepped up against Diphtheria. Whooping Cough, Tetanus, Small-Pox, and T.B. In spite of rapid changes, the Ministry managed to do 30,000 Diphtheria immunisation and 60,000 B.C.G. vaccinations during the year. In addition, Mr Speaker, some 60,000 Tuberculin tests were made as the voluntary campaign among primary school children was intensified. I am sure we are all glad that the absence of the so-called tropical diseases has continued during the year and that Singapore is free from Cholera, Plague, Yellow Fever anti Malaria.

Ante-natal and post-natal services were intensified in 25 Maternal and Child Health Clinics, 22 Visiting Centres and 8 Village Midwifery Centres. Of these, some 28 are in the rural areas and we shall continue to encourage home confinements among the city and rural population.

As regards Mass Health Education Campaigns, we all know that a Blood Donation campaign organised by the Ministry registered 6,000 donors out of which 2,500 have already donated blood. Studies were made for the implementation of a Family Planning Campaign and plans are well advanced to stimulate intelligent planned parenthood among the adult population. During the past year plans for a Mass Health Education Campaign to cover nutrition, maternal and infant care have been completed and these should be implemented within a reasonable period of time.

Members may be glad to hear of our efforts to eliminate obvious inadequacies existing in the Health Services. Integration of Government, City Council and Rural Board Services has reached an advanced stage. The Thomson Road Hospital now operates as a general hospital for acute cases, and it is only a matter of time before the whole hospital is fully functioning in the service of the people. Two new Out-patient Clinics have been prepared at Jalan Kayu and Lim Ah Pin Road, and both will help in relieving the pressure eventually on the Out-patient Service in the General Hospital. In changing the functions of the Thomson Road Hospital, we have not forgotten the chronic sick. The renovation of four blocks at Wood-bridge Hospital to house this unfortunate category of the sick has been completed.

I do not need to remind Members that TB, is still our greatest scourge. The Report of a Pilot Survey conducted under the Colombo Plan, was completed in 1959 and set the incidence at 3.7 per cent of the population in this country. On my instructions, a Committee enquired into the incidence of T.B. among industrial occupations. Unfortunately, the Committee was unable to relate specifically the incidence of the disease to particular occupations, but the Committee's labours have indicated what kind of data is lacking before preventive measures can be devised. We are now making arrangements for the necessary data to be obtained in a Mass X-ray Campaign planned for the end of this year. I have already mentioned legislation to compel the vaccination of our children. Members will be glad to know that every baby born in the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital is vaccinated with B.C.G. as soon as possible after birth, provided the parent agrees.

Ample opportunities for staff training were offered during the year and the courses selected for training will help raise the standard of our Medical Services and also assist our talented staff to obtain higher qualifications of a world standard.

By example, precept and instruction, we have sought to ensure that kindness, courtesy and consideration to patients and the public is given in all hospitals and provided at all Out-patient Clinics.

The Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech has mentioned our efforts to recruit Chinese and Malay educated persons into the Nursing and Midwifery Services. This policy will be continued.

My Parliamentary Secretary has given an indication that we will make efforts to recruit doctors from overseas.

In this connection let me quote from the P.A.P. Election Manifesto. We said last year:

`It cannot be denied that in Singapore the medical situation leaves room for improvement. There are six Government hospitals, 650 doctors, of whom 350 are private practitioners. The ratio of population to doctors is about 2,300 persons per doctor. This compares unfavourably with Japan, as well as with advanced western countries. With the rapid increase in population special steps would be taken to increase the output of doctors in the next few years...'

and again:

`The number of doctors produced each year by the University of Malaya is not sufficient to sustain the rates of expansion envisaged in our programme. As will be seen, a large number of doctors will be required to staff the district hospitals, a chronic hospital and a network of people's clinics. Accordingly, it will be necessary to import doctors from abroad and from available information, the best sources of recruitment would be Western Germany, Japan, India and Hong Kong.'

As Members have been informed, we have had negotiations with the representative of the Japanese Government and as a result, we shall have available, at our service, 27 Japanese doctors. These Japanese doctors shall be on two years contract to the Government of Singapore; their passage fares to and from Japan shall be met by the Japanese Government.

It is expected that those doctors shall be made available for service in Singapore before the end of the year.

I would also like to announce that the Singapore Government has been in close consultation with the Government of Israel with a view to enlisting their assistance in order to improve the Health Services in Singapore. The Government of Israel has expressed its willingness to assist us in the supply of Specialists, and has also offered two or three places in the Hebrew College of Medicine for Singapore citizens wishing to take up undergraduate courses. Two Israeli Professors, Prof. Moshe Rachmilewitz, Prof. of Medicine, Dean of the Hebrew University, and Prof. Prywes, Associate Dean of the Hebrew University, are now in Singapore for a two-week stay to appraise for themselves the medical facilities available in Singapore prior to the Government of Israel sending their specialists to work here.

The Government of Israel has also stated that it would like to send out a Medical Research Unit to work in collaboration both with the Government of Singapore and the University of Malaya. The University of Malaya has expressed its desire to co-operate with the Medical Team that the Government of Israel wishes to send out.

The Ministry of Health has also received applications from medical officers from India, Ceylon and other Commonwealth countries. These applications are being considered and it is hoped that by the end of the year at least twenty Medical Officers shall be recruited from Commonwealth countries.

With this recruitment the present pressure of work upon our doctors would be considerably relieved and a far higher standard of patient-care would be achieved. In addition, the recruitment of doctors from overseas countries would enable the Ministry to proceed with the expansion of the health services, i.e. the full occupation of Thomson Road Hospital, the occupation of eight vacant wards at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, and the occupation of the new Gynaecological Block at Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital.

In addition, the presence of doctors from overseas will enable the Government of Singapore to release more local doctors for post-graduate studies. More scholarships will be provided for local doctors for such studies.

At present, there are 25 local doctors on post-graduate study courses in the United Kingdom and Australia. It is my intention to provide every facility for local doctors to proceed overseas for post-graduate study.

The Ministry of Health is giving close attention to its development projects and the planning out of its staff training programme. It can be expected that the standard of medical care in the State would be considerably improved by about the middle of next year.

I have limited myself to the cold hard facts of planning and achievements during the course of the year. Let these speak for themselves as our efforts in the coming year will, I am confident, speak for themselves.

Mr Speaker, I now come to the accusation that has been levelled against the Government by the Member for Cairnhill. I fail to understand the Member for Cairnhill. He has misled this House and attempted to mislead the public by saying that the Parliamentary Secretary has ridiculed the conferment of the honour and title "Tun". I have been closely following the speeches of Members. It might be that he was basing his speech on rumours outside. I would like to deny categorically here the accusation made by the Member for Cairnhill, because there was not a single Member from the Government side who had derided the honours and titles of the Federation Government. I know it was only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development who spoke in reply to the Member for Kampong Kembangan, that if the Prime Minister had declared his unequivocal stand as a non-Communist, he might have been conferred a title as had been conferred on the ex-Chief Minister. This was the statement made in this Assembly. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development has clearly reiterated our non-Communist stand. He has also explained that every fighter in the struggle for freedom does not hope to receive or seek honours and titles from the sky. It is hoped that the fruits of our struggle will be of benefit to the people as a whole.

Another point, Mr Speaker, I was surprised to hear the Member for Aljunied when he read his speech like a schoolboy and defended his colleague, the Member for Hong Lim. The programme for the Southern Islands was initiated by the man whose name has been mentioned in this Assembly, that is, Mr Meadows. Then the Member for Aljunied went on to show the sincerity of the Member for Hong Lim who is said to have allocated $200,000 for the development of the Southern Islands, which is now being looked after by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development. I would like to say that at the beginning of this year the Parliamentary Secretary offered the services of two graduates of the University of Malaya to carry out investigations in a voluntary capacity and to draw up a scheme in order to assist the fishermen of the Southern Islands. What did the Member for Hong Lim, who was the Minister for National Development, say at that time? He rejected the offer with the excuse that there was no money and that the sum allocated was not for the Southern Islands. In April this year, Mr Speaker, it was only after this matter had been discussed at the Executive Committee meeting of the P.A.P. that the Minister agreed to set aside the sum of $200,000 which was mentioned by the Member for Aljunied. He is not in the Executive Committee. Therefore, he does not know what he is talking about and he only mouths whatever is fed to him. A scheme to help Malay fishermen by way of giving them she-goats has already been submitted to the acting Minister for National Development, as was mentioned in the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday. I am really sorry for the Member for Kampong Kembangan and the Member for Geylang Serai on account of their short-sighted view on the subject of culture. It is a well-known fact that culture is an influencing factor in the livelihood of a community. The term `culture' can be defined as the mode of living of a people, embracing its political, economic and social systems. Therefore, if Malay culture were to be made the basis for a national culture, in the political sphere, for instance, then we would have to dissolve our Legislative Assembly; we would have to reject parliamentary democracy in its entirety as it is a political concept which is imported from the West; the labour unions would have to be banned in this country as this is another social concept which originated from the West. If it was insisted upon that Malay culture should be the core in all these cultural fields, then it would mean that we would have to go back to the era of 200, 300, or 400 years ago when there were neither elected legislatures nor labour unions. Is that what the Member for Kampong Kembangan is striving for?

The charter of the National Assembly - which is the outcome of the Cultural Congress of Malaya - has enunciated five cultural precepts, i.e. nationalism, sovereignty, unity of language, kinship and religion. The characteristics are (a) a movement for a Malayan national culture germinating freely from the people, (b) the movement taking the form of organisations or efforts from individual skill, and (c) activities in the fields of economy, politics, sociology and art.

Perhaps their intention is merely that the Malay language should be the basis of national literary and dramatic art. If that be the case, then the advice of the Member for Kampong Kembangan is superfluous for the reason that the P.A.P. Government has already recognised the Malay language as the national language of this country, and in the future Malayan literature will certainly be based on the Malay language as the national language, because `Language is the soul of the nation'.

3.35 p.m.

Madam Sahorah Binte Ahmat (Siglap): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the address of the Prime Minister thanking the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech in this Assembly on the opening day of this session.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is it the intention of the Opposition that the P.A.P. Government should have done everything in the interest of the people within the short space of the last 14 months? This is not possible because the protection of the interest of l½ million people is not something light. The Opposition should not be so unjust in their accusations against us on this side of the Government.

The Member for Cairnhill yesterday issued a challenge to the Government to hold general elections now. Does the hon. Member think that we are foolish enough to ignore the wishes of the people who have voted us in? The holding of general elections costs a lot of money and this money could very well be used in the interest of the people of Singapore.

Yesterday, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Tanglin said that the Government recruited P.A.P. members into the Work Brigade. I refute this accusation very strongly because it is not true. We took in anybody who made an application. We did not take in only members of the P.A.P. We, as representatives of the people, who hold power today believe in unity and we are not afraid of telling the truth, of the good that we have done for the people as a whole during the past 14 months, and of the plans for the future because we are always working and not just sitting comfortably in this House. The Opposition have criticised us as much as they want to but deep down in their hearts they know that we on this side of the House have done many good things in the interest of the people during the past 14 months. We are prepared to listen to the criticisms and the views put forward by the Opposition. Mr Speaker. Sir, sometimes a bitter pill makes good medicine. We will carry on and do our duty in the interest of the people as a whole, and not in the interest of a minor section of the people. We will not go about it in a blind way to the detriment of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember that during a round-table conference on self-government for Singapore, U.M.N.O. demanded through its representatives, the Member for Geylang Serai and the Member for Kampong Kembangan, that there should be a provision in the Constitution to the effect that Malay should be the national language. In an emergency meeting of U.M.N.O. it was decided that this was an internal affair and that a provision to that effect should not be put into the Constitution. We have said that Malay is the national language of this country, and this has immediately been implemented when the Yang di-Pertuan Negara delivered his speech last year. What then is the Member for Kampong Kembangan worried about? Is he trying to win over the Malays in the same way as the 16 resolutions put up by the Member for Hong Lim?

Mr Speaker. Sir, the Member for the Southern Islands said that he was not satisfied with the aid given to the Malays in the field of education. He said that the British Government had given help by instituting special Malay classes. It appears that the hon. Member still thinks about the days of colonialism. Is it not a fact that since the time of Sir Stamford Raffles, only primary Malay schools were established in Singapore and that there has not been a single secondary Malay school at all? Has the hon. Member forgotten that Malay school children have been regarded as "stepsons"? Is he trying to gain the confidence of the Malays by trying to close his eyes to the real situation in the country?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we on this side of the House, who are voluntary workers in the field of health, know that the last one year has been a year of planning; but it has also been a year of many changes for the people in the rural areas. In this connection, maternity hospitals, child health centres, anti-natal care clinics for pregnant mothers and post-natal care clinics for mothers and infants have been provided. There are 27 big clinics, 22 visiting centres, 8 centres for village midwifery service, and 20 clinics in the rural areas. In addition, village midwives have been stationed in 28 clinics in the rural and urban areas. These clinics are open to all the people at all times. Advice is given to the people in the villages about health matters and mothers are told how and where to be treated. Serious cases are referred to the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital for special treatment. The Government will continue to build more health centres in areas where it is considered to be necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, more clinics, out-patient departments and district hospitals, which will enable the villagers to get medical treatment will be built in the rural areas.

In our health service programmes the needs of the people in Malay kampongs will not be neglected and efforts will be made to send fully qualified Malay midwives and nurses to help the villagers. In the villages where Malays are predominant, many opportunities have been offered during the last one year to Malay girls with Malay school education wanting to become midwives and nurses. This policy will be carried out and will encourage more people to make full use of the opportunities. This is our policy on health.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we will not sit down quietly but we will continue with our work for the benefit of the people because we are the representatives elected by the people.

3.44 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, in spite of its colonial past and certain existing objective conditions beyond the control of the Government, the process of transforming the Police Force into a popular and friendly force to safeguard the interests of the people has made progress in the last 14 months and will continue in the year ahead. Apart from the efforts of the Assemblymen in bringing the people and the Police together through periodical meetings and the organisation of vigilante corps, the keen response to join the Police recently by youths from the Chinese-educated stream in particular, has helped to broaden the base of the Police, and thus make it more alive to the problems of the people. This effort by the Government and the public must be met by a greater realisation of the Police of its role and its duties to the people and the State. The spirit of dedication to the service of the people must be kept up and heightened in the year ahead. There is no place in the Police Force for those who are corrupt, lazy, arrogant, and unresponsive to the challenges of the times.

The efficiency and high standard of the Police must be maintained and improved. Discussions are now under way on the proposal to recruit a corps of University graduates to strengthen the officer corps of the Police, and also to undertake a certain specialised field of work. The number must of necessity be small and a scheme so worked out as not to affect the legitimate prospects of the officers who have risen from the ranks.

Finally, no matter how good and well intentioned the policy of the Government may be, such government cannot function well if the men responsible for the execution of government policy do not understand the political philosophy and intentions of the government in power. For this reason, the Government is considering the inclusion in the year ahead of political education in the curricular of the Police Training School for new recruits as well as regular lectures for those already in the rank and file. The main contents will be the political philosophy of democracy and the Five-Year plan of the Government, and other matters directly connected with problems which affect the society in which we live. Apart from attempting to make the Police, the servants of the State, understand the policies of the Government, the other purpose of the proposed political education course is to make the Police more alive and responsive to the feelings and problems of the masses they come into contact with.

All our efforts to bridge the gap between the people and the Police, and to build up an efficient and strong Police Force, may come to nil if we allow certain irresponsible individuals, for reasons of their own, to work up ill feelings and hatred, particularly of law-abiding workers towards the Police. On one or two occasions lately, the Police has been the target of attack and political intimidation by forces seeking to undermine the good relations that have been gradually built up between the people and the Police. Their reasons for doing this are clear. These irresponsible elements want to undermine the authority of the Police.

As long as we are in control, the role of the Police will always be to safe-guard the rights of the people, the authority of the Government and the democratic system through which we seek to realise our Five-Year plan of bringing greater improvement in the living standards of the people. And this can only be achieved if stable conditions are maintained for industrial expansion and industrial peace with justice to the workers. So long as the Police are called upon to maintain peace and order, they will do their duty. If the Police have done wrong or if the individual officers are arrogant or corrupt, by all means, criticise the Police so that errors may be rectified and similar mistakes avoided. But such criticism should be constructive with a view to improving the Police Force and increasing its efficiency. Such criticism should not undermine the effectiveness of the Police as an instrument to protect the rights and liberties of the people according to the law. Equally greater diplomacy is required on the part of the Police. While they should be firm with evil-doers, they. should deal politely and sympathetically with law-abiding citizens.

While the Government will take firm action against criminal elements, we would be failing in our duty if we did not at the same time take effective steps, to make sure that those who are committed to penal institutions are reeducated and rehabilitated so that they may, on their release, be fit to lead decent and useful lives as law-abiding members of the community.

Under colonial administrations of the past, the emphasis was usually laid on the purely punitive aspects of penal institutions. Very little thought or action was directed to the re-education of offenders, with the result that we have an unduly high proportion of residivists or persistent offenders among our prison population.

The social and political renaissance which is sweeping Asia today has also expressed itself in a dynamic and positive approach to the problems of crime and criminals in such Asian countries as India, China and Ceylon. We in Singapore do not propose to be backward in this respect. Indeed, with the establishment of the Pulau Senang settlement for the rehabilitation of secret society detainees, Singapore has already attracted international interest and attention.

It is the Government's intention to take steps to transform all penal institutions in Singapore as centres for the rehabilitation of offenders, and to institute effective after-care arrangements as an integral part of the total process of rehabilitation begun in the prisons. The first steps in this direction will be taken as soon as the Government receives the report of the Prisons Inquiry Commission. The Commission is expected to submit its findings and recommendations in the near future.

An honest and dedicated civil service is vital to make the State machinery work efficiently so that the policies of the Government may be translated into action with imagination and tact. The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau has a specific task of fighting corruption in the Government service. Their work in the past year, however, has been hampered by the shortage of staff and the out-dated regulations dealing with disciplinary procedures which have proved to be unrealistic and impracticable in many cases. The Prevention of Corruption Ordinance passed two months ago will no doubt strengthen the Government's hand in investigation of cases of corruption. However, not all the cases investigated will go before the Court. Many of the cases are dealt with departmentally on the State Advocate-General's advice. Effective action against corrupt officers is hampered by exacting procedural requirements which are more appropriate for the Judicial Court. At the moment, proceedings in cases of corruption are protracted either because the ad hoc disciplinary committee members, all drawn from the civil service, have little time or are lost in a mass of unnecessary details.

From experience, it has been found that the strongest deterrent against corruption is a swift and severe retribution. When a case is prolonged for six months to one year, the effect is lost. For this reason, action will be initiated for the amendment of the regulations governing discipline, and with the approval of the P.S.C., the appointment of a permanent disciplinary committee with a panel of members composed of civil servants and those who are not civil servants.

Steps are being taken to recruit special investigators and it is heartening to note that a good number of University graduates have applied.

The demoralising effect of yellow culture on the youths, be it in the form of publications, films or other forms of entertainment, is too obvious to require further elaboration. Vigorous steps have been taken in the past year to suppress and eliminate yellow culture, and will continue in the year ahead. From experience, it has been found that because of the free flow of literature between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, the mere detention of books under the Undesirable Publications Ordinance is not as effective as it should be. In the year ahead, therefore, increased use of section 3 of the Ordinance may be necessary.

As a result of stricter censorship, 60 feature films have been banned from public screening from June 1959 to June 1960, as compared with only 10 for a similar period in the previous year. A start will be made in the course of the year to review some of the films approved for public screening during the past few years. Special regard will be paid to the subject matter of these films to ensure that undesirable themes are not presented.

The Government has no desire to slow down its anti-yellow culture campaign. At the same time, it realises that it is a long and difficult battle and requires the vigilance and cooperation on the part of Government and the people. We are aware that irresponsible pedlars of yellow culture are still actively seeking ways and means to evade Government's attention. Already there is a revival of singing troupes in the amusement worlds. We hope these promoters will bear in mind that, apart from their profit motive, they have, like any ordinary citizen, a responsibility to the society.

The success of the P.A.P. Government hinges on its industrial expansion programme to provide for more employment opportunities to the increasing working population. It is obvious that a stop has to be put to the entry of persons from abroad who will compete for any new jobs that may be created. The present high standard of social services too should not be jeopardised by a large influx of immigrants. The resources of the State obviously are not meant to provide jobs and social services for the non-citizen immigrants. Consequently, the value attached to citizenship has been enhanced. For these reasons and in the interest of promoting national consciousness and loyalty, the immigration and citizenship laws were amended at the end of 1959 and early 1960. Although the full effect of these amendments will be realised in the next one or two years, nevertheless, some discernible effect has been felt. Already the number of immigrants has fallen from about 7,300 between June 1958 and June 1959 to 4,400 for the same period between June 1959 and June 1960, a drop of nearly 3,000.

The identity card, which was introduced in 1948, has outlived its original purpose. The identity card has now become an important and almost indispensable document for obtaining various forms of assistance from the Ministry of Labour and Law, such as public assisttance, legal aid or relief in times of natural disasters; but most important of all is the use made of the identity card in the preparation of electoral rolls under the system of compulsory voting. While the importance of the identity card has increased and its use broadened, yet the identity card itself remained in its present crude and temporary form which is very unsatisfactory from all respects. The Government, therefore, has set about exploring the best method of changing the present identity card system since last year. Preparation is now ahead for the introduction of a plastic card which is more durable and more difficult to forge.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the year ahead will see greater efficiency and improvement being made to the Police in their service to the State and the people and a sustained effort against all forms of corruption. The Government is confident that with the support of the people, it can achieve what it sets out to do in the year ahead as outlined in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in this Assembly.

4.06 p.m.

Mr Ng Teng Kian (Punggol): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, after reading the policy speech by the Lee Kuan Yew Government, I found it is not basically different from that of the Lim Yew Hock Government, one which was thoroughly criticised by our Prime Minister. In the past few days, my comrades had already clearly analysed that under the one-man "collective leadership" of our Prime Minister, the present Government has practically turned into an agent for the great compradore class, an abettor of the British rulers. It has turned into an abettor of American imperialism. Mr Speaker, I believe you are also clear about it! Our turn-coat Government now finds that the Asia Foundation is not adequate enough, and so our Minister for Finance has gone to America to borrow capital from Uncle Sam. Not only this, but yesterday, the Member for Cairnhill again winked at the Lee Kuan Yew Government, suggesting the organisation of a so-called "Grand Alliance". Mr Speaker, Sir, we dare not look down upon the Lee Kuan Yew Government. It is still "strong" and "stable", because it is in control of great power. It has the Police; it has the support of the colonial forces. The only regrettable thing is that it does not have the overwhelming support of the people, the reason being that it has turned against the general masses of Singapore.

This Lee Kuan Yew Government, which is against the people, when finding itself forsaken by the general masses, and in order to prolong its dying life, has to bring out every trick it has at its disposal to lobby Assemblymen, control the Press, suppress free speech, intimidating and soliciting to their extremity. Mr Speaker, I have heard that the allowance for Assemblymen from the P.A.P. is going to be increased and that there would soon be Deputy Parliamentary Secretaries in our Government. In another few weeks, maybe there, would be another group of Assemblymen who will be sent abroad on "official duties" - I dare not say they are going on holiday excursions.

Today, my comrade, the Member for Aljunied, has received a reply from the Government rejecting his application to hold a mass meeting in the Shenton Field on Sunday. The reason? Very simple. They said the application should be for a piece of Government land in Aljunied. But according to my knowledge, there is not a single piece of Government land in Aljunied big enough to be used as a place for a mass meeting. Mr Speaker, Sir, you should understand that when a person has come to the end of all his means, he has to act without regard to the means used, whether good or evil.

I believe, Mr Speaker, you will agree with me that, being a representative of a rural area, I quite understand conditions in rural areas. When my comrade, the Member for Hong Lim, was the Minister for National Development, there was an addition of more than two hundred public standpipes in the rural areas. But when Mr Meadows took over, there was not a single standpipe constructed. Only after this incident had occurred were another 10 odd stand-pipes constructed, and then there appeared such headlines, "Development of Rural Areas", "Care for the Village Folk" - one after another - in the newspapers. I believe there are better and better plays later. What kind of a game is this? Mr Speaker, Sir,I sincerely appeal to the Lee Kuan Yew Government not to treat all the people in the world as fools!

At the same time, let us remember that at the time of the Lim Yew Hock Government, the one who was responsible for rural development was Mr Meadows. In the present Lee Kuan Yew Government, the one who is responsible for rural development is also Mr Meadows.

In these five days, we have heard grand speeches consisting of thousands of words, and we have seen many brilliantly-written essays.

But no matter how eloquently you speak, you cannot blind the bright and discerning eyes of the people. Does this Government really care for the poor people? No! We say no. The people of Singapore also say no. Only they themselves said they do. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us look at how they "courageously rectify errors" concerning the pawnbrokers; how they generously give tens of millions of dollars to the Turf Club; how they protect the compradore class, forgetting their original stand. You must understand what they are. What I do not understand is this: why does this self-styled "working for the welfare of the poor" Government not let the man in the street-taxi-drivers (for example, giving them petrol coupons) and the working class - have a better livelihood?

I have many more things which I do not understand. I must request -

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Member for Punggol could speak a little slower, I think perhaps the interpreters will be able to keep up.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have many other questions on which I hope I could be enlightened:

(1) If the Lee Kuan Yew Government still follows the Party Manifesto declared when the Party was formed, why does he not dare to reaffirm the P.A.P. 1954 revolutionary manifesto?

(2) If the Lee Kuan Yew Government is not following the Lim Yew Hock Government, and is not going against the wishes of the people, why does it not dare to reaffirm the firm stand in the struggle against colonialism?

(3) The Lee Kuan Yew Government has agreed that the present Constitution cannot satisfy the needs of the people and said that in the last year, the political and economic conditions have never been better. Why should there not be plans to reopen talks with Britain?

(4) The Lee Kuan Yew Government has repeated the wish to merge with the Federation. Why are talks not held with the Federation to understand the difficulties?

(5) Has the Prime Minister fought for the release of detainees in the Internal Security Council?

(6) If the Lee Kuan Yew Government is really protecting the trade union movement, and hope to see it well developed in the interests of the workers, why should its action-ordered in the morning and changed in the evening not be reprimanded?

(7) Before the Prime Minister assumed office, he was proud to say that Asians could rule Asia. Why does he not Malayanise all expatriate administrative posts immediately?

(8) The Lee Kuan Yew Government knows how to order the T.U.C. under his control to call for meetings to discuss supporting the Prime Minister of Malaya in his South African policy. But why, has not a mass meeting been held so that, through concrete action, we can support the Tunku's South African policy and boycott South African goods?

(9) If the Lee Kuan Yew Government is really the people's Government and one which looks after the poor people, why are the poor people specially picked out for heavier taxation?

(10) If the Lee Kuan Yew Government really wants to build our State into a peaceful, happy and prosperous society, why should the Gambling Ordinance not be repealed? And why should the Anti-Yellow culture campaign not be strengthened?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope to get unequivocal answers "which are not derived after looking sideways and talking about something else".

If the Lee Kuan Yew Government can execute the above policies as contained in the Hong Lim Resolutions, we shall then cast our votes supporting the policy speech of the Lee Kuan Yew Government.

4.23 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Speaker, I rise to second the motion in the name of the Prime Minister. There is a difference between last year and this year in the debate on the motion of thanks for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. Last year, the speech was delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara who was a colonial official and adorned with a uniform which symbolised the colonial authority. On the Opposition there were only the S.P.A., and U.M.N.O. This year the speech is delivered by a Yang di-Pertuan Negara who is a Malayan and who wears a Male van dress which has no vestige of the colonial era.

On the Opposition side besides the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O., there is an additional group of three persons who have been expelled from the P.A.P. The attacks made by the Opposition on the Government were also different from those of last year. The S.P.A. alleged then that the P.A.P. Government was begging the capitalists to make investments in Singapore. This year, the S.P.A. repeats the same old tune which they hummed during the election campaign-that capital has flown away from Singapore and that there are intimidations and restrictions under the P.A.P. Government.

4.25 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr G. Kandasamy) in the Chair]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr Wee Toon Boon): The Member for Hong Lim claims that he is a genuine anti-colonialist and alleges that the P.A.P. has deviated from its declared policy and become pro-colonialist. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is a difference between the P.A.P. and the other groups on the Opposition side. The S.P.A. wants and has always wanted to maintain the status quo whereby the rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer. For the P.A.P. it is a fight for political independence to create a more just and equal society where there is no exploitation of man by man. The P.A.P. fought the last election with a Five-Year programme which is embodied in the booklet entitled "The Tasks Ahead". From the day the P.A.P. assumed office it has sincerely and consistently been implementing its Five-Year programme. For instance, the Labour Ministry under the P.A.P. Government: this Ministry under the previous Government was so ineffective and inefficient that the interests of the workers were not protected. It was used for the interests of the capitalists. Sir, there is a great contrast since this Ministry came into the hands of the P.A.P. Government. Under the present Government the Industrial Relations Section, the Labour Court and the Inspection Section for the last one year have done much work to assist the workers, work which is equivalent to several times that done under the previous regime. The Inspection Section has collected a colossal sum of money from numerous employers who have defaulted in payments of overtime, public holidays and other provisions provided under the Ordinance. What we have done last year for the workers has proved that we have not deviated from our Party policy, as alleged by the Member for Hong Lim.

The Member for Hong Lim has accused the P.A.P. Government for deliberately retaining expatriate officers to run the Government on behalf of the Party. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us examine what Malayanisation means to the Member for Hong Lim. In the City Council when he was the Mayor, the Gas Department was and at present is still under the control of expatriate officers. The head of that department then submitted a request to purchase additional machinery. I wanted to query the department for its justification to purchase this additional machinery. But what did the Mayor, now the Member for Hong Lim, tell me? He said that as that department was entirely in the hands of expatriate officers, we should not bring forward any query which might cause displeasure to the expatriate officers who might resign from the service.

Mr Byrne: Shame!

Mr Wee Toon Boon: He seems to have such a high opinion and confidence in Mr Owen. When he was Mayor at the time the expatriate official who was holding the post of Treasurer went on leave, why did he not appoint Mr Owen, whom he thought so highly of, to act as the City Treasurer? Instead, he appointed another expatriate officer to act in the post, although, apart from Mr Owen, there were other local officers who were more senior in service than this acting expatriate officer.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Wee Toon Boon resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Deputy Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Law is, as my friend the Member for Aljunied has said, a different social being from when he was a City Council -

Mr Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of clarification.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes, I will come to the point. He has forgotten that we had only 13 votes in the City Council, which number was later increased to 14. We were not in a position to make staff changes whenever we wanted to.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Deputy Speaker, since the Member for Hong Lim so proudly claims that he is a champion of Malayanisation, is there any logic when he says that at that time we had only 13 votes in the City Council and we were therefore not in a position to change the officers in the department?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the other day the Member for Hong Lim also mentioned that members of the Work Brigade were specially brought down from Pasir Ris to applaud the Assemblymen as they walked from the City Council to Assembly House. The opening of the Assembly is a national occasion. A paid public holiday was granted to the Work Brigade. There was no reason why they should not have wanted to attend the opening ceremony. In fact, on National Day, if it were not for the rain, the Work Brigade and the People's Association would have been on parade in full view of the public. Perhaps the Member for Hong Lim was annoyed that he was not clapped.

He mentioned also that the House would be surprised to know that the Government preferred appointing an expatriate as Chief Justice rather than confirm Mr Justice Tan Ah Tah as Chief Justice. The Member for Hong Lim himself subscribed to the proposal that Inche Ahmad Bin Mohd. Ibrahim be given a salary higher than a puisne judge, and he, together with his other Cabinet colleagues, agreed that the State Advocate-General should be given higher priority in the table of precedence than that of a puisne judge. Yet he now says that the case of Mr Justice Tan Ah Tah has been overlooked because of the action of the Prime Minister. This clearly proves that he is a man always ready to make any false accusation should it suit his purpose.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the other day he also mentioned Shaw Brothers. It is true that Shaw Brothers donated $200,000 to the Government unconditionally to be used in whatever way the Government deems fit. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are many young people in Singapore, and in order to provide them with a place for recreational and educational purposes, the Government thinks that it is advisable to make use of this money to build more community centres. Is this not for the benefit of the people? The hon. Member claimed that the Government tried to protect the Shaw Brothers. This House will recollect that not long ago the Finance Minister, whom he hates so much, has had the courage to introduce in this House an amendment to the Cinema Ordinance by which the cinema magnates have to pay more taxes than before.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these are the things that the Member for Hong Lim has done and uttered in this House to show to the public that he is an ardent anti-colonialist, and to create an impression that the rest of the P.A.P. Members are enjoying the spoils of being in the Government and thus forgetting about our struggle. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not being personal with the Member for Hong Lim, but I will tell him what I think of him. It is because of his meanness and because of his greedy and selfish methods to achieve personal glory that I have denounced him.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the S.P.A. always instil fear in the people with the hope of deceiving them from supporting the P.A.P., but they have failed in the past in many instances. Now, the Member for Hong Lim is trying to adopt the same tactics as the S.P.A. by attempting to deceive the people that he is the only ardent anti-colonialist and that the other members of the P.A.P. are pro-colonialists. It is a matter of time before he will be exposed and meet the same fate as the S.P.A. He failed to make use of the P.A.P. to promote "Ong Eng Guanism" and he now turns round to denounce the P.A.P. that it has deviated from its declared policies and has become pro-colonialist. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has survived the past attacks by colonialists and other forces because of its consistency in its policies. Let the Opposition not be under the impression that by scaring and smearing the P.A.P. it will abandon its struggle and join forces with the Right-wing reactionaries or with the Left-wing adventurers. The P.A.P. has been and will consistently and determinedly struggle to achieve an independent, democratic, non-Communist and socialist Malaya. This is the Party's long-term objective. The P.A.P. is a Party which has its political beliefs and it progresses according to the actual situation. We do not believe in shouting empty slogans like the Member for Hong Lim for publicity or for personal glory.

As I have said just now, we fought the elections With a Five-Year programme and we have stated in no uncertain terms that during these five years we will try, within the limitations of an internal self-government and the resources available in our country, to achieve economic expansion. With that objective, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for the years ahead, the Ministry of Labour will not only look after the interest of the working class who are at the moment employed, but will also raise their standard of living. But, on the other hand, we must not overlook the fact that there is a great number of the people who are still unemployed. Apart from whatever social legislation that we will introduce, we will work closely with the Ministry of Finance under the guiding principle of industrial peace with justice to offer more employment opportunities to our population.

4.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, during the last few days, Opposition Members have levelled their attack on the Government. Some of them blamed us for not going Right, that is, to take an open anti-Communist line. Others alleged that we are too Right, and that we should go more to the Left. They expected us to shout empty slogans of "Down with Colonialism". They expected us to close our eyes and toe the line of the extreme Left-wing adventurers without facing realities. There were also others who are incapable of grasping the political situation Singapore is facing. They could only deal with matters of imaginary fantasies and attacked Government on minor matters. Some went even as far as to accuse us of not believing in fatalism! After 14 months of silence, the Member for Joo Chiat had nothing better to say than to talk on how to rear chickens!

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to waste the precious time of this Assembly to reply to their criticisms, because many of my colleagues have already dealt with them. To sum up, their criticisms can be classified into two categories. One is the theory adopted by the Member for Hong Lim and his two followers. Their theory is very simple: to harp every day on "Down with Colonialism", George Thomson, Blades, Meadows, and a few other falsehoods. The Member for Cairnhill asked why we did not deny all these false accusations. If we waste time on denying all these falsehoods, then we will not have the time to do anything else. The Member for Hong Lim perhaps believes in Hitler's theory, that is, if you repeat a certain falsehood every day, it will one day be more or less believed by the masses. Therefore, after he had spoken, his two followers harped on the same theme, like the playing of records over and over again. The other category consists of those who want us to be openly anti-Communist. The Member for Cairnhill said that if we are not anti-Communist, then we are not democratic. This perhaps is his own political theory. From what I know, the opposite of democracy is not Communism but dictatorship, and the opposite of Communism is capitalism. Many Communist countries claim that they are practising a democratic system. Anti-Communism is not a political and philosophic theory; it is a negative political attitude. The mere act of putting on a hat, the arresting of people, and suppression cannot destroy Communism, and it cannot also raise the living standard of the people. We want to raise the living standard of the people through the system of parliamentary democracy. This is a new and daring approach in the politics of Singapore. What I wish to emphasise is that the line which the P.A.P. is taking is the line of peaceful revolution. We are striving to achieve our aim of establishing a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya through peaceful revolution.

To achieve this aim, we must consider the objective political situation and environment in Singapore and Malaya, and we must adopt a more flexible and practical strategy. In the long-term interest of our people and our country, we do not propose to close our eyes and rush forward recklessly. For if we do so, we will fail in our peaceful revolution, and at the unnecessary sacrifice of many of our people. We do not propose to gamble with the fate of our people and our country.

The success or failure of a political movement depends largely on the ability of its leaders to have a correct political analysis and to choose the right line of action. If we turn back the pages of the history of the Asian revolution, we can find many clear examples of the danger of political adventurism. Take, for instance, the Chinese revolution. In 1927, the Chinese Communist Party blindly followed Li Lik San's dogmatism and started a revolution in Shanghai, where there was a concentration of the proletariat. They suffered a disastrous defeat. At that time, Li Lik San was the brains behind the policy-making body of the Chinese Communist Party. He followed the dogma of the Marxist, believing that a revolution could only succeed in places where there was a concentration of proletariat. History has proved that this theory failed!

The Chinese Communist revolution succeeded because of the correct analysis of Mao Tze-tung in that the peasants should be the backbone of the revolution. This, however, does not prove the validity of Marxism. It merely shows that the correct strategy is one which has regard to the facts and fit the facts. In plain words, one must take correct measurements before making a shirt to fit one's body, and not try to disfigure one's body to fit a shirt made without taking correct measurements. Li Lik San's failure has proved an important point, i.e. any political struggle, notwithstanding the courage and revolutionary enthusiasm of its supporters, will only meet with disaster and unnecessary sacrifice on the part of the people if the leadership is too subjective and it takes the wrong path.

I wish to explain here that I was not comparing the Member for Hong Lim with Li Lik San. The former is a political opportunist of the present Romantic age, who has not shown any talent for political analysis, and the latter was a Left-wing adventurer who had committed an error of Left-wing infantilism and dogmatism. The former should by no means be put on the same level as the latter.

I have just said that any political movement which ignores the objective realities, the political conditions and environments, and which seeks to follow the dogmas of a foreign political theory is bound to fail. The failure of the armed revolution in Malaya could also be attributed to the above and to the lack of understanding of the objective realities and environment of the Malayan political situation. The failure was also a result of not evolving a doctrine deduced from facts.

The facts in the past few years have proved that the P.A.P. could get the support of the people and could successfully overcome many political storms, because its leadership always understood the objective, the political realities and the situation. Our leaders have made a correct political analysis and chosen the right path. We realise that in the present circumstances the armed revolution in Malaya is bound to fail, and we have therefore chosen the path of peaceful revolution. What we are striving for is to achieve a democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya. We believe that so long as we continue to move towards the right direction, we will one day realise our dream.

To achieve our long-term objective, we must strive for a merger. But merger is not as simple a problem as the Member for Hong Lim imagines. Who does not wish to have immediate negotiations with the Federation of Malaya on the merger problem? But can this be done in the present political situation? The Member for Hong Lim is not unaware of the difficulties facing this problem. When he was Minister for National Development, he did not raise this suggestion of negotiations with his former colleagues, because he knew the difficulties. Only after he had raised the 16 resolutions, one of which was about merger, did he realise that his political fortune was fast fading. They were meant as a "charm" to ward off political opponents.

He had suggested negotiations on a merger in order to mislead the people into believing that the present leaders of the P.A.P. are not interested in the merger, and that he was the only one interested in it. Empty slogans, though they make more noise, will not lead us to a merger. The P.A.P. has made an analysis of this problem. We feel that the first step to achieve the merger is to clear racial suspicion and communalism, which were the left-overs of the colonial era. Through practical action, we are instilling into our people a spirit of loyalty and national consciousness. The National Loyalty Week, organised by the Government last December and other measures to bring about a cultural interflow have produced visible results. We believe that so long as we continue with this effort, and so long as the people continue to cooperate with us, we will attain our ultimate objective.

I wish now to review the past year's work and future plans of the Ministry of Culture. The P.A.P. Government have established a Ministry of Culture because we feel that in our effort to build a socialist country, political and economic revolutions alone are not enough. We have also to carry out a cultural revolution.

The divide and rule policy implemented by our former colonial masters had caused unfortunate cultural barriers among the different races. Colonial education had also left us with a lack of national consciousness among the people. One other thing of the colonial past was that the appreciation of art was confined to a small group of the privileged. All these are obstacles left over by the old society and they have to be overcome in our effort to build a Malayan culture.

During the past year, the Government have carried out many measures aimed at fulfilling our cultural revolution. Broadly speaking, our objectives are three-fold:

1. To eliminate yellow culture and to promote healthy cultural activities;

2. To cultivate national consciousness and a spirit of national loyalty; and

3. To promote cultural fusion and create a Malayan culture.

Let me now first deal with the National Cultural Brigade, which was mentioned in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

During the past year, the Ministry of Culture, through Aneka Ragam Ra'ayat, have aroused the interest of the people in the appreciation of healthy cultural activities. We feel that the passive methods of eliminating yellow culture alone will not help us to achieve the aim of our cultural revolution. We wish to build a foundation of healthy, meaningful cultural activities from the debris of yellow culture. Previously, our colonial masters not only did not encourage healthy cultural activities, but had openly allowed yellow culture which catered for the lower instincts of mankind to intoxicate our youth. Under the influence of such environment, the people could only go for such entertainment of a lowly debased nature for recreation. Certain worthwhile cultural performances, of course, were performed. But they were confined to a small circle of so-called high-class society and privileged group, because of the high prices of the tickets. Because of the past environment, many artistes had also to hide themselves in the ivory tower and to play music, dances or drama to only a limited audience. They had therefore for a period lost touch with the rest of the masses.

Our present cultural task is to eliminate this unhealthy state of affairs. We want to make cultural activities part of the daily life of our people, and we want to bring art to the people so that in their leisure they will also have the opportunity of appreciating music, dances, drama, paintings, and other forms of art. We also hope that they will take an active part in such healthy cultural activities so that life will become richer and more meaningful, and so that the people of all races will also cultivate the spirit of understanding and cooperation.

During the past year, cultural organisations and cultural workers have given us good support in promoting healthy cultural activities. It cannot be denied that the past year has been a boom year for cultural activities in the history of Singapore. The enthusiastic response of the people of all communities towards the National Theatre Fund proves that the people are interested in healthy cultural entertainment, The past year's experience tells us that if we wish to popularise art and to expect further creative development in the field of art and culture, we should not depend only on voluntary amateur cultural organisations to shoulder the entire burden alone. We know that the majority of the cultural workers are non-professionals. They are amateurs, and have their own jobs. They can only participate in cultural activities during their leisure hours. Thus, in the promotion of healthy cultural activities, they have often found it a handicap because of the lack of time and energy. Therefore, the purpose of the National Cultural Brigade is to enable a group of cultural workers to carry out full-time work to augment the deficiency of voluntary cultural organisations, so that there will be better results in our efforts to promote a Malayan culture.

In the past, many of the so-called community centres were used by a small group of privileged class to make money. Gambling, dancing and other `funny' things were rampant in .these centres. With the formation of our National Cultural Brigade, we intend to use members of the Brigade to help organise cultural activities, which will be of physical and moral benefit to our people. We believe that as more community centres are developed, and with the effort of the National Cultural Brigade, healthy cultural activities will be popularised throughout every corner of the island.

Two other important aims of the National Cultural Brigade are to instil a spirit of national consciousness and the promotion of cultural fusion with the ultimate objective of creating a Malayan art and culture. This is a task which cannot be fulfilled by the solitary effort of voluntary cultural organisations or within a short period. In order to proceed with this heavy and important task, we must attract into the Brigade experienced artistes of all races who are prepared to work hard. They will undertake the task of research and other creative cultural work. We will also invite cultural experts of all races to form a panel of experts for the Brigade.

I wish now to mention the organisation of the Brigade. Generally speaking, the Brigade will be divided into two sections. One group will comprise artistes of higher educational level, and who have creative abilities. They will do research work in music, dances, drama, and art of all races in Malaya, and to arrange and edit them. They will also help in the work of creating music, dancing, or drama of a Malayan content. The other group will comprise those who have good experience and technique in performances, such as musicians, actors, dancers and artists. They will perform cultural items produced by the research section and introduce them to the various community centres. They will also help to provide new cultural programmes for the Aneka Ragam Ra'ayat and help organise cultural activities in the community centres. The panel of experts of the Brigade will comprise experienced leaders of the various cultural fields of the various races. This panel of experts will not only advise the Brigade, but will meet from time to time to exchange views on the promotion of cultural interflow and to explore the ground for the creation of a Malayan art and culture. Further details of this plan will be announced soon.

In order to accomplish our cultural revolution, we do not intend to fold our arms and wait for results. We intend to take active measures to cultivate the artistic taste of the people, to instil a national consciousness among them, to promote cultural fusion, and ultimately to create a Malayan art and culture. The Cultural Brigade is only one of the few weapons to accomplish our cultural revolution.

On the establishment of our Institute of National Language and Culture, I had, two months ago, given a full explanation when I moved the Second Reading of the Dewan Bahasa dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan Bill. As I said, the Institute, apart from publishing translations of outstanding works of literature, and promoting the growth and spread of the National Language, will also encourage original works, literary and scientific, with a Malayan background by local writers. Regarding the organisation of this Institute, we shall soon have good news for the people of Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the Member take some time?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy indicated assent.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Then, is this a convenient time to suspend for tea, Mr Deputy Prime Minister?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I therefore suspend this sitting until 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.04 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Question again proposed.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, speaking of television, the Member for Hong Lim distorted the aims of the Government in wanting to establish a T.V. station. He claimed that the Government was afraid to face the public and thus had to use T.V. as a political propaganda machine. This argument is not only laughable but childish. T.V. is now recognised by countries of the world as an excellent medium to educate the masses. Not only in Western countries has it become popular, but also in Communist countries such as Russia and China. Was he trying to say that the governments of these advanced countries have established T.V. stations because they are afraid of the masses? In fact, in the present atomic age, a city without television cannot be considered a modern city.

Coming to think of it, the Member for Hong Lim has developed a fear of T.V. since he was expelled from his post. In fact, the plan to establish television was mooted by the Government long ago, and I understand the former Minister for National Development was very interested in T.V. He might have been thinking that in future his unusual physiognomy would be appearing in T.V. and that there would be a big applause by spectators, and by himself too. Now that the fulfilment of this dream has vanished, T.V. to his mind has suddenly become a propaganda machine to bridge the gap between the Government and the masses.

When can Singapore have T.V.? We cannot at present give a definite answer to this. I can only say that the Government is positively studying the plans proposed by foreign T.V. experts. At any rate, the innovation of T.V. will be beneficial to the people of Singapore. The Government will make good use of T.V. to educate the people, to inculcate in them a national consciousness and loyalty, and to foster the fusion of the cultures of the various races.

The Member for Cairnhill has asked why we do not deny the accusations levelled at us by the Members for Hong Lim, Aljunied and Punggol. Just now I have said that the eyes of the people of Singapore are bright and discerning, and that these meaningless utterances do not merit our denying them one after another.

The Member for Hong Lim said that the Press reported Thomson's article in 2,500 words, whereas his article was only allowed 500 words. I wish to clarify this. Thomson's article was not issued by the Government, but was copied from the Police Gazette by the Press. Perhaps the Press thought there was more material in Thomson's article than in the Member for Hong Lim's. The Chief Editor and editors of the Press are responsible people. They can see for themselves what news should be magnified and what news should be abridged. If the Member for Hong Lim wishes to have more columns devoted to his articles then he should make more constructive proposals, such as on raising the living standard of the people, etc., and not harp on the same tune every day. I have been a reporter for 13 years, and I know reporters do not like to "fry old rice".

Furthermore, the Member for Hong Lim accused the Minister for Culture of intimidating Mr Huang Tze-Chin of the Sunday Mail. I have to explain this. After the publication of the article by Mr Huang Tze-Chin, the Minister for Culture felt that he (Mr Huang) seemed to be toeing the line of the Left-wing adventurers, and he reminded the Press concerned. Mr Huang Tze-Chin personally telephoned the Minister saying that he wished to talk about that article with the Minister. It is true that he spent a long time with the Minister. Consequently he returned to the Press office and told the Chief Editor that he had prevailed upon the Minister. Does this mean intimidation? He himself said that he had prevailed upon the Minister and not that the Minister had intimidated him.

One last point: just now the Member for Punggol said that the P.A.P. Government has now lost the support of the people. It should be turned this way. We have today lost the support of three persons. The Member for Cairnhill challenged us yesterday to a General Election. I wish to remind him that his former Chief Minister, Mr Marshall, had also challenged us likewise, but where is he now? I should think that a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush.

5.43 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been debating the motion on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech for the last six days. This is the evening of the sixth day. There is little assurance that this debate will finish tonight. What the House has been debating, Mr Speaker, to my mind, after listening for the last six days, is not the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, bit the domestic affairs of the political party that happens to be in power today. While I have every sympathy for their domestic difficulties which have led to public exposures, Mr Speaker, I feel that probably this is not the proper forum to discuss their domestic affairs, particularly when much dirt comes out in the wash. However, gone is the proud and arrogant attitude of the people sitting in front of me when they were here on the last occasion debating the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. One got the impression, Mr Speaker, that next to God in the order of creation was the P.A.P., that there was nothing human about them, and that their advent to power was something God had ordained and, therefore, immutable and indestructible. We are now 14 months from that last historic occasion, and we now discover, when we look under the table, that their feet are not six feet above the ground, but that they are well and truly set on the ground and that they are made of clay. If they could have got on with the business of government in an objective manner, if they had realised their responsibility and be humble in the realisation that power has been placed in their hands in order that they may serve the people, then I think the mistakes and errors of the last 14 months could well have been avoided.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may now turn to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech as reported in Hansard, and start from the beginning. The introduction to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is a very cleverly contrived introduction written by a very skilful hand. And in it I see the inimitable hand of the Hon, the Prime Minister. It is a statement which really apologises for the Government for not having done anything during the last year and promising a great deal for the future. In col. 4 of the Hansard, vol. 13, No. 1 of 20th July, 1960, it reads:

`The people were aware what they could and could not expect of a P.A.P. Government.'

One of the main reasons why the P.A.P. was returned to power in the manner in which they were returned is because they gave the country the impression that they were a united, cohesive and well-organised party. The admiration of the people of Singapore was excited on that account, whereas their opponents were a derelict group who could not agree among themselves. For that reason, a lot of the people who did not agree with the ideology of the P.A.P. voted for them, because they felt that in the P.A.P. at least they had a Government which knew its own mind and, therefore, could set the ship of State on its correct course and keep it firmly on an even keel. That was the opinion of a number of people who, although somewhat perturbed about the future, having listened to some of the speeches of the P.A.P. during the election, yet felt that the need of the time was for a firm and stable government in the economic context of Asian adventures. The P.A.P. got the Government and, Mr Speaker, Sir, during its 14 months of office one wonders why this strong Government that has been elected by an overwhelming majority was unable to achieve anything in a practical manner. I think we now know the real reason - that they were a divided Government. And when there is division in the Cabinet, precious little can be done, as history tells us, unless the dissident vote in the Cabinet is expelled at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I congratulate the P.A.P. Government on having taken this step so that they would have a Cabinet which is of one mind and will go forward with the programmes and the objectives that it has set itself. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not for me to say who is right and who is wrong in this matter. We do not know the whole facts. When one listens to the statements from behind us, one imagines one is hearing the truth. Then the very minute when Members of the Government get up, one thinks that they are telling the truth. Sir, there is something in between which we do not know and, therefore, I do not propose to judge them. But as a citizen of Singapore and as an elected Member of this Assembly, I would like to see that, so far as the Cabinet is concerned, there must be complete unanimity. What is discussed in the Cabinet is a matter for the members of the Cabinet - for them alone - and not for anybody else, not even for your ears, Mr Speaker. What is discussed in the Cabinet is completely secret. But over the last four or five days, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have had a number of occasions in this Assembly when what was discussed in the Cabinet - even memoranda - was sought to be produced which should only be available to the eyes of Cabinet members. Therefore, Sir, there was a weakness in the P.A.P. Government which had resulted in in-action on their part in so far as the beneficial effects for Singapore were concerned. I think the Prime Minister must take a great deal of responsibility for the present situation. He is the Prime Minister. He is the head of the Cabinet. I appreciate, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in the Cabinet they are all equal. But if I may borrow a phrase from the Hon, the Minister for Finance who is not here tonight, the Prime Minister is more equal when he is in the Cabinet than any other Cabinet Minister. I think it was his duty, not only to himself but to the country, to have taken very early steps to get rid of this dissenting voice in the Cabinet. So, therefore, to that extent the Prime Minister must take a great deal of blame on his shoulders for not having acted earlier, and for having acted at a late hour when he did.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Opposition, so far as the State of Singapore was concerned, there were a lot of rumours flying around that there was dissension in the Cabinet - that Ong Eng Guan was challenging the leadership. The rumours were thick and rife, Mr Speaker, Sir, for one reason, because the Press dare not publish anything. To the Minister for Culture, I would say this, that when the Press is not free to print and publish things as it thinks fit, then we must be content to assume that rumour is right and gossip is right, and anyone is liable to believe the most dangerous gossip which might be to the great detriment of the State.

Sir, what could the Prime Minister have done? It was within his power - I will go further, Mr Speaker, Sir, and say that it was his absolute duty in those circumstances to have taken steps to dismiss this difficult Minister from his Cabinet.

When I asked the Minister for National Development during the debate on the Budget speech how he was going to build all those houses, I suppose it was Cabinet solidarity which gave the impression to the House that the statement which the Minister for National Development had released to the Press was not disagreed to by the Cabinet, if I may say so. At that time, the Prime Minister and his colleagues knew that the Minister was out of line to the extent that he was releasing to the Press a statement which, on the face of it, was committing the Government to an expenditure of $400 million in five years, when the Minister for Finance himself said that the Government could not afford it. And yet the Prime Minister took no action. Why did he not take any action? By virtue of the Constitution, by virtue of the powers entrusted in his hands, he and he alone could have done it. All he had to do was to go to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and say, "I want this Minister out of my Cabinet," and the Minister would have been out in a jiffy. But he was not. He remained for a long time like a sore on the Cabinet and the Cabinet was not able to move this way or that way because it did not know what the Minister for National Development would do next. He was the source of weakness in the Cabinet that caused the P.A.P. Government not to be able to do anything over the last 14 months.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the matter gets even more difficult from the point of view of the State of Singapore when one thinks that the Member for Hong Lim might still have been addressed as the Minister for National Development had he not been so unwise, as matters turned out, to challenge the leadership of the Prime Minister at his own Party meeting. Reading the papers, Mr Speaker, Sir, I got the impression that if the Minister for National Development had not chosen that particular time to challenge the leadership of the Prime Minister or the collective leadership as they prefer to call it - I will call it the collective leadership of the P.A.P. as embodied in the leadership of the Prime Minister - I think he might still have been sitting over there. Would the country then have had to wait for another 14 months before the Minister for National Development took it into his head to challenge the leadership of the P.A.P.? No, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Party in power owes a greater duty to the State than this Party in power did, in fact, show to the State. Sir, the events of the last 14 months have shown that, if there is a conflict between the interests of the Party and the interests of the State, unless the Party in power is prepared to place itself above its own interests - and in the final analysis, it is the interests of the State that counts - then it is the Party which has to be sacrificed and not the State. However, Sir, I congratulate the Hon. the Prime Minister that action was not taken too late. Action was in fact taken. But what I do hold against him is this. That tie took it so late. But no-t too late perhaps, let us hope.

Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, in the introduction to his opening speech, said, in col. 5 of Hansard as reported:

`The Government does not wish to give the impression that there have not been mistakes and shortcomings during the past year. It is aware that some of its measures should have been more carefully planned and expertly executed, in some instances, it moved too fast and without preparing public opinion adequately for the changes. Some of the legislation resulted in inconveniences or misunderstandings which could have been avoided by a little more foresight, a little more consultation, discussion and a little more explanation.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember the very arrogant attitude of the Minister for Labour and Law when the Opposition Members criticised his Bills. He would tell the Opposition, "You do not know what you are talking about. You have not even read the Bill. Even if you have read the Bill, you have not understood it." These were invariably the replies one got from the Hon, the Minister for Labour and Law. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not deny the high intelligence and the high qualities of the Minister for Labour and Law. They are entirely in proportion to his political attainment. That I will admit. But for the Minister for Labour and Law to accuse the Opposition, maybe a Member of it, and to say that he has read the section and has not understood it when he himself could not find the answers to the questions put, is a little short of not playing the game. It is this attitude over the last year which has, to some extent, contributed to their shortcomings and their mistakes.

Sir, this Assembly with you, Mr Speaker, with the Government and us of the Opposition is the Legislature. We are the three necessary ingredients of a Legislature and the Legislature, as the Member for Hong Lim has expounded, is one of the three bodies which carry out the democratic processes of this country - the Legislature, the Executive and the Judicature. In the Legislature, you, Mr Speaker, see that we do not go to war too much, they on the opposite side to govern and we to criticise. When listening to the Minister for Labour and Law, I found that he was sometimes impatient when criticism was levelled at his legislation. However, Sir, I think these were all mistakes of the past and I hope in future we will get on quite nicely as a Legislature if the Minister for Labour and Law does not think that all of us on this side of the House do not know what we are talking about, particularly when he himself does not have the answers to the questions posed to him!

Sir, the Government said that they were sorry they did all these things without preparing public opinion adequately for the changes. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember that when the question of Political Secretaries was discussed in this House and the necessity for creating an extra civil service post was discussed, the Prime Minister explained it away by saying that it was necessary, in the political context of the present day, that these particular people who were appointed as Political Secretaries should be so appointed because they were the persons who would interpret the Government to the masses and, in turn, bring the masses to the Government. At that time I asked the Prime Minister what necessity there was for such appointments when he himself had proudly claimed that he and his Party were deeply rooted in the masses. However, I had to be satisfied with the explanation of the Prime Minister then. How now the position where legislation has been enacted without consultation and without putting it across to members of the public? When the tobacco duties and petrol taxes were being raised - this subject, I believe, comes under the portfolio of the Minister for Finance - what was his Political Secretary doing? Was he in his small air-conditioned room all the time, or was he out of it; and if he was out of it, where was he? According to the Member for Cairnhill, apparently he was with the Political Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Law. He was apparently not doing his job, and he was paid $1,100 of good Straits currency for not doing his job. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, some of the things we have heard during the course of the last year or so seem to take on a different hue when we examine those statements in the light of what has happened during the last 14 months and in the light of, shall I say, the excuses the Government is now making for the year of inaction.

Then, Mr Speaker, Sir, in column 5 of Hansard dated 20th July, 1960, the last paragraph of the Introduction to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech reads:

`But these are errors arising from zeal and impatience to get things done.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing wrong with zeal and there is nothing wrong with impatience. The P.A.P. is a very young Government judged by all standards. That is not a discredit. In a young country like Singapore, it is quite right that a young Government should be in power. Probably they can reflect the views and Opinions of the people better than the old fogeys who are about 60 years old. But young people have zeal and young people are impatient. Those things in themselves are not wrong. They could be channelised into a source of power. But what was really wrong with the P.A.P., Mr Speaker, Sir, was not zeal and impatience, but a lot of zealotry on their part - impatience profound! They could not understand anybody else's point of view. Their point of view was the only point of view that mattered. Nobody else could be right because they thought A was X and therefore A had to be X. The P.A.P. may have learned that zeal and impatience are good things because these are the things that get things done; but zealotry, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a thing to be condemned in the strongest possible terms, and that is what they were suffering from during the last year or so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may come to the section on "Finance" - I was wondering whether anybody in this House would touch on that particular section. Everybody in this House has been saying that the financial condition of Singapore was the most vital thing for its survival and yet not one single Member on the Government side decided to go into the question of the finances of the country. Perhaps, Sir, it is because the Hon. the Minister for Finance is not here tonight but elsewhere looking for money. Sir, I will read the first two paragraphs under "Finance" in column 5 of Hansard dated 20th July, 1960:

`Members will recall that a year ago the State of Singapore faced many financial and economic difficulties. There was a deficit looming on the horizon. There was considerable uncertainty as to the stability of the political foundation of the State and this led to hesitation on the part of potential investors. Our two great neighbours, the Federation of Malaya and Indonesia, then looked upon the events in Singapore with some reservation.

The far-sighted policies of the Government announced last year were firmly carried out and in 12 short months we have seen a complete reversal of position.'

Might I read the last sentence again, Mr Speaker, Sir:

`The far-sighted policies of the Government announced last year were firmly carried out and in 12 short months we have seen a complete reversal of, position.'

Now, the first statement reads:

`Members will recall that a year ago the State of Singapore faced many financial and economic difficulties.' Putting that into reverse, Mr Speaker, Sir, the State of Singapore now is an abundantly wealthy State. To complete the reversal of position, we have no financial and no economic difficulties. If English means anything at all, that is how I interpret it. So today the position of the Government is that they have no financial and no economic difficulties. There was a deficit looming in the horizon. We are now told that the deficit is now a surplus of $9 million. I quote again:

`There was considerable uncertainty as to the stability of the political foundation of the State...'.

There is now a great deal of confidence in "the stability of the political foundation of the State". And yet the Hon, the Prime Minister said in his opening Address thanking the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech that there was a lot of play underground which is undermining the State. I read on:

`...and this led to hesitation on the part of potential investors.'

The reverse position, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that people are now coming in to get themselves investments in Singapore. The reverse position then is that the Federation of Malaya and Indonesia which "looked upon the events in Singapore with some reservation" are now completely and wholeheartedly behind us, particularly our great neighbour, the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the second paragraph goes on to read:

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

That is the budgetary position. To state it shortly, there was a surplus of $9 million for the year ending 1959. When the Government came into power, it anticipated a threatened deficit of $14 million. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some little experience of financial matters, how budgets are worked, how they are drafted, how they are presented, and how eventually, from a big deficit, a big surplus ensues. Judging by what the Government of Singapore has done during the last year, the number of buildings that have not gone up but could have gone up under the Budget, the number of pay-cuts that have been imposed, and the number of posts that have not been filled, I venture to hazard a guess that the surplus is not in the region of $9 million, but I think it is double that figure. However, this is only an opinion of mine at the moment. We will soon know it when the accounts for the year 1959 have been published and are made available to the public. In saying that, I also appreciate that the accountants are very good at figures. There is a phrase known as "an adjusting entry". We know how some companies work their balance-sheets when they want to hide surpluses. They put it here and they put it there - what they call it is "an adjusting entry". The final result is that less profits are made by the companies and less surpluses made by the Government. [Interruption]. Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, less profits made by companies so that they might evade taxation, and less surpluses made by the Government in order that they might evade criticism from their civil servants whose salaries were cut because a threatened deficit was in the offing!

Mr Speaker, Sir, the next paragraph in column 6 of Hansard dated 20th July, 1960, goes on to read:

`Relations with Indonesia entered a stage of cordiality. This was principally due to a more realistic appraisal of relations between the two States. 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...'.

Mark the phrase, Mr Speaker, Sir - "have taken pains".

`...to carry out mutual consultations.'

And the given examples over which they have taken pains are interesting:

`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.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may quote the last sentence first:

`...taken pains to carry out mutual consultations [on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill].'

Mr Speaker, Sir, whether they like it or not, consultations must take place on amendments to the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, because the Income Tax Ordinances in both territories are on a Pan-Malayan basis. There is no question of taking pains in that matter. It is just a question of a "must". On the new Currency Agreement, of course, there must be consultations, because the currency question affects Malaya, Singapore and other parts in this area. The "fiscal proposals over a broad field" is a broad clause put to us. Nobody knows what those broad fiscal proposals are. Last but not least, "the current talks on the Common Commodity Market". Well, those talks are now in progress. We do not know what the eventual results of those talks will be, but I do hope that the Government will be able to do something in those negotiations with the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on this statement by the Government that they have taken pains to consult with the Federation of Malaya in order that Singapore and the Federation of Malaya might act in unison and go along the same path both politically and economically, so that in the very near future - if not today, then tomorrow - the two territories might come together in a merger, when one examines the present position with regard to these consultations between the Federation of Malaya and our Government, one finds that some of the things that are being done in the Federation are things which are not in the interests of Singapore. A number of things are being done in the Federation today, Mr Speaker, Sir, which are going to bring about a financial loss to the territory of Singapore. I wonder if there have been consultations on these matters between the two territories before such action has been taken.

I understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a stock exchange has been set up in the Federation of Malaya. I also understand that a rubber market is being set up in the Federation of Malaya. These are two important things which are going to detract attention from the State of Singapore as a commercial and financial centre of Malaya, and as a trading centre. We may not feel the results today or tomorrow, Mr Speaker, but within the next year or so the effects will most certainly be felt. Another small instance where I dare say no consultation has taken place is this: formerly it was possible to get goods through the Straits of Johore, over the causeway on c.i.f. Singapore invoice, Mr Speaker, without the Customs asking that the market price of the goods should be declared for purposes of Customs duty. Anything that had previously been set out on the invoice price was accepted for purposes of Customs duty. But the present position in such matters, I understand, is that it is not the c.i.f. invoice price on which Customs duty is leviable, but the market price. In other words, it is the c.i.f. invoice price plus something else on which Customs duty is leviable. Now, what is the effect of the present position? The effect of it is this: many traders, instead of using the port of Singapore for the landing of such goods, are in future going to use Port Swettenham or some other port in Malayan territory. That is a loss to Singapore financially. Have there been consultations on such matters as this? The impression one gets, Mr Speaker, is that the causeway is there but that the entente cordiale has not gone across the causeway yet.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister, what efforts he has made to reach cordial understanding with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. Occasionally, we hear of the Prime Minister meeting the Federation Prime Minister at the Airport. That, of course, is an act of courtesy which very properly the Prime Minister of Singapore accords to the Prime Minister of the Federation. But what we want to know, Sir, is whether the two Prime Ministers of the two territories - the two territories should get together politically and economically - have got down to serious talks. Such talks could do more to bring about an eventual merger of the two territories than anything else at the moment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we find in the same col. 6:

`Applications for exemption under the Pioneer Industries Ordinance alone give a total paid-up capital of more than $101 million from 13 major concerns. These new industries range over fields as wide apart as oil refining, rolling of aluminium products, flour milling, sugar refining, production of foodstuffs such as chocolate, condensed milk, etc.'

We know, during the course of this debate, Mr Speaker, Sir, that of these 13 applications, one of them is from the Shell Company, and that alone accounts for a little more than 50 per cent of the $101 million from the 13 major concerns. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that Shell has started its work and that in a year or so it will start operating, and, as a result of that operation, we will benefit both in the labour market and the financial market; and, economically, it will be a very good thing. But what I would like to ask the Prime Minister is this: what of the other 12 major concerns? All we know is that their capitals have been paid up; that is all. That, in itself, means nothing. Have they started work? Have they got the sites? Has the Government given them sites? Have they purchased sites? Have they started to build? Are they going to build now or three years hence? The Prime Minister says, "If we don't build next year, we've had it, boys!" - forgive the colloquialism, Sir, but I think it brings out the point very well, and I think the Prime Minister is correct, too! Could we then be told whether the 12 pioneer industries, over and above contributing monies by way of paid-up capital, have done anything further to set up their industries in Singapore?

Then, Mr Speaker, Sir, in col. 7:

`The most important single objective of the economic policy of the Government is to increase the rate of gross capital formation in the State.'

And at the end of this column, Sir, it reads:

`The greater part of the money for public investment, however, must be found from our own domestic resources.'

Now, "the greater part of the money for public investment, however, must be found from our own domestic resources." "Domestic resources" could mean a number of things, Mr Speaker. It could either mean the money from the Central Provident Fund or from such other fund. But I will be happier if the Prime Minister could assure us that these monies would not come - most of it anyway - from the Central Provident Fund, but from the people of Singapore themselves, which would be an indication of the confidence they have in the State of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt that there is plenty of money in Singapore, but whether there is plenty of confidence in Singapore in the Government, I am doubtful. And the way the P.A.P. Government has gone about it during the last 14 months, Mr Speaker, has not induced the creation of confidence in the mercantile community in Singapore. With due respect to the Minister for Labour and Law, I think he is one of the worst offenders. He really is. You will recall, Mr Speaker, Sir, the time when there was trouble in a pineapple factory. We will not discuss the merits or demerits of that strike. The Minister for Labour and Law was so dissatisfied with the behaviour of the employer that he threatened to lock him up under the P.P.S.O. He might not be joking so much today, but was he joking! I can think of no other rational explanation for the Minister for Labour and Law talking like that except that it was one big joke. Persons in responsible positions cannot -

An hon. Member: Joke!

Mr Rajah: - cannot enjoy the luxury of being able to joke, Sir, because somebody else might take it seriously; the price he pays for being the Minister for Labour and Law is that he cannot joke any more! Not even if he be a joker, Sir. So when the Minister for Labour and Law thundered in front of the Pressmen, "I shall lock that chap up under the P.P.S.O.". naturally the mercantile community - you know, Sir, capital is very shy, shyer than a 16-year old maiden - would bend its head down, and take itself somewhere else - worse than a shy maiden. If the Minister for Labour and Law were to create that impression on shy capital, where then is the Minister for Finance going to get his money from "domestic resources"? Except from the Central Provident Fund, which is the money from the poor clerk who is being made to save compulsorily.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in col. 8, on Industrial Expansion, a statement is made:

`Several factors which have generated confidence and stimulated industrial expansion are worth noting. They must be strengthened to consolidate the advances we have made.

The first of these must be a firm and stable Government whose policy and actions are consistent and predictable.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, in other words, what that paragraph seeks to show is that the Government must behave in such a way that people will know today what it is likely to do tomorrow, or even the day after. The basic difficulty in Singapore today, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this: that the people do not know what is going to happen tomorrow. That really is the trouble. If, by some magic, the P.A.P. could produce a wand and wave it over Singapore and make the people believe that, believe me, Sir, all our troubles are at an end. The monies that are being locked up either in banks or in safe deposit boxes or in some other places where the prying eyes of the Government cannot see them will certainly come out. So let me give a word of advice to the Government - if they will accept it - that the thing they must do is to see that their behaviour should create this impression on the people of Singapore; that what the Minister for Labour says today, he will say tomorrow, and he will say it for the next four years. If the Minister for Labour and Law can get that across to them, then our troubles are over. Instead of which, the Minister for Labour and Law - when he says anything, says it in the most dynamic manner of which he alone is capable - gets up and says, "This is a Government of the workers." And when he says that, Sir, the capitalists tremble in front of him. And on top of that, he says, "I shall lock you up under the P.P.S.O. if you misbehave yourselves." Do not forget, Sir, he is the Minister for Law too! Then, of course, the position becomes desperate for the employer. What does he do? He either locks his money up or he slips across the causeway - at least the Government do not tell him that over there. If the employer does not go across the causeway, maybe he goes to Hongkong. And the net result is a flight of capital. And the poor Minister for Finance has to fly to America to get money. If his own ex-colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, would only behave himself, and work together with his ex-colleague, the Minister for Finance, everything would be all right in the State of Singapore. So really, Mr Speaker, it is the Government that brings upon itself all its own troubles. The State of Singapore is stable, but the Government is making it most unstable by its most difficult and unpredictable actions.

Sir, there is nothing wrong with the statement that this Government will maintain the balance between employer and employee, with justice to the worker. Who can complain about that? Not even the most reactionary capitalist can complain about that. That is a perfectly just statement which should be made by any Minister of any government - be it a capitalist, ultra-Left wing, or socialist government.

Let us examine the statement in the light of what the Labour Ministry does with regard to labour disputes. A strike takes place. The workers advice their union or some other union which rushes to the scene, grapples with the problem as every trade union should, and after grappling with it, rushes off to the Ministry of Labour, which is the Ministry of Law too, I am told. The Minister, who has been insistent on this power in his Trade Unions Bill will then send a chit to the employer to come. And he must come, which he accordingly does. Or the Minister even telephones him to come, and he comes pronto. And what happens, Sir, is that the employer is "persuaded" - remember, Sir, he is not allowed to take with him an advocate or a solicitor, because that advocate or solicitor might tell him to do things which he might not want to do. Therefore, he goes on his own and the Minister "persuades" him to take such and such a step. And if he should be so foolish as not to be persuaded by the Minister, terrible trouble will ensue.

Sir, let me cite to the House some instances of how the Ministry of Labour and Law settled these strikes. Mr, Speaker, Sir, I know of one particular strike because I was personally involved in it long before the present Trade Unions Ordinance came into force. There was a strike in a bakery in Sembawang. The workers went on strike and, in accordance with the usual trade union practice, pickets took up their lawful position and would not allow persons into the bakery. Now it happened that the employer and his wife were living on the premises. Sir, they had to go through the pickets to reach the premises, where they lived and slept during the night. The pickets refused to admit them. The woman - she was 45 to 50 years of age, and as women do, because they have a touching faith in human rights - insisted on going in, whereupon the biggest of the trade unionists gave her a good wallop. Then, of course, she knew that the trade unionists meant business. So she left. She was no longer, beguiled by her illusions about the rights of women. She went to the police. I believe there is a police station at the 13th milestone in Sembawang. She went and made a report there that a big brute of a male had walloped her - a poor, defenceless female. She made the report, and what did the policeman tell her? "Oh, saya ta'boleh champor dalam ini hal la. If it is a strike, saya ta'boleh. The Minister for Labour and Law has told me that I cannot interfere." So this poor woman - the trade unionist had walloped her, and the police would not help her - turned to the last-known remedy that a democratic State provides. She went to a solicitor. The solicitor took this woman to the Commissioner for Labour and put the case to him, not on the basis of a trade union matter, but on the basis of the violation of human rights, that is, assault of a defenceless woman by, I would not say a brute of a trade unionist, Sir, a big trade unionist. The Commissioner for Labour, who was a human sort of chap - he was a civil servant - was really worried about the whole situation. He said that he would look into it. Knowing how Government works, Sir, I take it that what he meant was to tell me, "While I entirely sympathise with you, there is not a thing I can do unless I consult my Minister." So I left him, knowing that the matter was in safe hands. He must have consulted the Minister, but I did not hear from the civil servant. I also understood that to mean that the Minister had told him to mind his own business. Then, Sir, we appeared before his Parliamentary Secretary. The negotiating team was there and I put this proposition to the Parliamentary Secretary. I said, "Before we go into the question of the rights or wrongs of the strike, I want you to put a question to the trade unionists on the other side. Ask them whether it is good trade union practice - P.A.P. or any other political party - for a trade unionist to strike a woman when that woman wants to enter her own house." The Parliamentary Secretary is not here. Unfortunately, he refused to put the question. But he had sufficient decency, Sir, to put his head down, which meant, of course, that he completely disagreed with the assault on the woman. But the state of affairs in Singapore was such that the question was not put and an answer was not obtained. Sir, this may be a small story. This may affect one woman. This may affect one employer - a poor baker. But, Sir, the story gets around. You know, Sir, the freedom of the Press. The story gets around quicker. The grapevine is faster than the written word. So it gets round all the employers, and they know this is how the Ministry settles a strike between an employer and an employee.

I give another instance if the Minister for Labour and Law is interested. This concerns an employee of an ice-cream factory - one of the vendors of ice-cream. On a number of occasions, he was found to pilfer the ice-cream. Whereupon, in my humble view, and I think in the humble view of the Minister for Labour and Law too, the employer, in those circumstances, is entitled to dismiss his employee without pay, which he did. He did dismiss him, and this resulted in a strike. There was a visit to the Ministry. The net result of the negotiations was this. "Yes, you can dispense with him, but give him three months' severance pay." Three months or two months - I forget now - it is immaterial. The point is that the employer had to pay severance pay. Now these are the things which upset the confidence of the employers in the Government If an employer finds that he is unable to dismiss a dishonest employee and that the Ministry of Labour and Law protects such dishonest employee, what confidence can capital have in Singapore, I ask you, Sir?

I give yet another case. There is a restaurant in Stamford Road which is doing well. The cook, like some cooks, took a knife and chased the employer. One would think that in those circumstances the employer is entitled to dismiss this chap. Which she did - brave woman, but foolish woman. What happened was a strike. Result - a visit to the Ministry of Labour and Law. The cook is back in employment, Sir, and the strike is settled. He still cooks, but whether he still wields a knife, I do not know. Perhaps the Minister for Labour and Law has persuaded him to discard it.

These then, Sir, are some of the things that are happening in Singapore which tend to detract from the climate of confidence which the Minister for Finance is so eagerly and so anxiously seeking to establish. May I say to the Prime Minister that it is important that all his Ministers work in unison to one end and purpose? It is no use one Minister saying to the man with capital, "I want you to come in. Your interests will be protected." And the Minister for Labour and Law doing something else which the employer knows is not good for his interests. This then, Sir, is the state of Singapore in the month of August 1960.

Sir, in col. 9 of the Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 1, under "Communications, Construction and Housing", this statement is made:

`Shipping, civil aviation and telecommunications play a vital role in the economic life of Singapore.' Now, might I just deal with civil aviation? Singapore has an international airport, and it has been serving as an international airport for the Peninsula of Malaya, and the Peninsula of Malaya is currently composed of two independent States - one is the Federation of Malaya and the other is the State of Singapore. The Government make the statement that they have been at pains with the Federation Government to come to some understanding where both of them will walk in line and not walk away or against each other. And yet, Sir, we read in the newspapers that the Federation of Malaya is going to establish an international airport in Kuala Lumpur. Sir, if and when that airport is established in the Federation, even if it does not entirely kill the international airport in Singapore, it must detract from the traffic which this airport would attract to itself. If one airplane company makes two flights to Malaya, one will land in Kuala Lumpur and one in Singapore. In simple arithmetic, it means that we will lose at least 50 per cent of our air traffic to Kuala Lumpur. I understand from the papers that the Federation of Malaya is going to spend $40 million on the development of this civil airport. The net result of all that expenditure will be, Sir, that Singapore will be the loser. Things are being done there which are not to the benefit of Malaya as a whole. I ask the Prime Minister to take such steps as he is able to, to persuade the Federation that in the matter of economic survival, so far as Malaya is concerned, we are one, and any economic disaster to Singapore must be a political problem to the Federation. I think, Sir, there are factors on both sides which must bring us together, and it is our Prime Minister who must put it across to them. Unless we do these things quickly, things are going to be done there which will eventually leave us with a lot of population and nothing to feed them on. We will lose our airport, we will lose our port, and what then is left? We cannot industrially expand because the Minister for Labour and Law just takes the knife away from the man and lets him loose, as in the instance of the cook I have just mentioned.

Sir, these are some of the things which I wish to touch upon in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

If I may come to the Prime Minister's speech when he moved the motion to thank the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. He gave an exposition of the political situation in Singapore as he saw it. And who is in a better position to see it than the Prime Minister himself, with all the facilities and opportunities which the State provides for him? When I read the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, quite frankly I had no inkling that these things were going on in Singapore. How should I? How should any Member of the Opposition know that these things were going on? Perhaps the Member for Cairnhill may be in a better position to know it, but the rest of the Members of the Opposition are not in a position to know it. Therefore, when the Prime Minister made his speech on the motion, we on this side of the House were quite frankly surprised.

Sir, there can be no doubt that the Government is wedded to, and believes in, a democratic form of government. On this side of the House, we also believe in a democratic form of government. The P.A.P. say, and keep on saying, that they are a democratic, socialistic, non-Communist Party. If the Prime Minister will forgive me, I would like to analyse those phrases which he must have had a hand in inventing when the P.A.P., was founded and promulgated its policies and its hopes to the people of Singapore. "Socialistic and democratic". Sir, as I understand a socialist and a Communist. The difference, Sir, between a Communist and a socialist is in the manner in which they seek to attain their objective. The Socialists want to do certain things in the State in a certain way. They want a certain state of affairs reached. The Communists also want the same state of affairs reached. But the difference between the Socialists and the Communists, as I understand it, Sir, is that the Communists want to employ violent methods to upset the existing system of government in order that they might achieve their objective the more quickly; and they also believe that the only way socialism can be achieved is through violent revolution and that the revolution should be at the beck and call of the working classes namely, in political jargon, the proletariat. Sir, that was the theory propounded by Karl Marx in 1848 when he put out his Communist manifesto. Since then, Sir, much time has passed and there has been in Europe a discarding of the revolutionary method of attaining socialism in favour of the democratic form. So that, basically then, the only difference between a Communist and a Socialist is the manner in which each of them seeks to attain the ultimate objective.

Sir, when the P.A.P. leadership talk about a democratic, socialistic non-Communist government, what exactly do they mean? When they say they are social democrats, it means that they have rejected the idea of a violent change of society in order to achieve their own objectives, and that they agree to adopt the existing state machinery to achieve that position. Where then is the need for the phrase "non-Communistic"? It is entirely unnecessary. I think the Prime Minister knows it. The Minister for Labour and Law knows it, and the Minister for Culture also knows it. The word "non-Communistic", from the point of view of the English language, serves no useful purpose. But I can hardly believe that the Prime Minister who, as the Member for Joo Chiat has said, gained a triple first at Cambridge could not have used the word for no reason whatsoever. He and his colleagues must have had a specific purpose. Why then must they use that phrase? Sir, we have been told in this House, "You are a colonialist; I am an anti-colonialist; he is a pro-colonialist," but nobody has said, "I am a non-colonialist." Does the phrase mean anything, Sir? "You are a colonialist; I am anti-colonial; he is pro-colonial" - those three phrases have some meaning. But "I am a non-colonialist" - what does that mean? "I am a Communist; I am an anti-Communist; I am a pro-Communist: I am a non-Communist." Is the word "non-Communistic" so senseless, so meaningless in the context which the Prime Minister seeks to use it now? What then is it intended to serve? Is it intended to show a group of persons in Singapore that we are not against them, so long as they are not against us? Surely the events of the last 14 months have shown the Prime Minister, and he has said so, that there is a grouping of forces at the lower level. The impression I got from his speech was that they are grouping with evil intent, but not to upset the Lee Kuan Yew Government. If it is merely to upset the Lee Kuan Yew Government, Sir, it is a matter of small importance to the State of Singapore. It is, of course, a matter of great importance to the Lee Kuan Yew Government. But that is not the point, Sir,If it is merely the question of upsetting the Lee Kuan Yew Government, I would say, good luck to them, because I am in the Opposition. But, Sir, it means something more than that. Surely that is what the Prime Minister meant. It is not the upsetting of the Lee Kuan Yew Government that is going on at the base, but it is the upsetting of the whole social fabric, the way of living, and the manner of government that is at stake, not the Lee Kuan Yew Government. The Lee Kuan Yew Government is just incidental to the problem. It might have been the Lim Yew Hock Government or any other government, I do not know. These are personal factors that do not enter into the picture, Sir. They just happen to be in situ at that time. But the stakes are greater. That is the impression I got listening to the Prime Minister. Sir, when you know that a person is completely inimical to you and that he is about to kill you, you do not say, "I am a non-you." When the cobra rears its head up, you do not say to it, "I am a non-hater of you", and just stand by. You take the nearest stick, if you are fortunate enough to get one, and knock it on its head, hoping that you will kill it. Sir, if I am convinced that a man has got a gun in his hand and he is pointing it at me, not merely to frighten me to run away but to kill me and my family and everything that I stand for, Sir, would I be doing the right thing for myself and my family if I merely stood by and said, "I do not hate you. I do not want to do anything to you."? Sir, if the Prime Minister is convinced that those persons at the base are moving around with evil intent, not against him merely, Sir - he is a passing figure on the stage of history - but if these people are out not to destroy him only but to destroy him and the way of life and the way of government that he stands for, then is it not time to drop the phrase "non-Communistic" and just say the democratic, socialist Party - the P.A.P.?

Sir, there is no use blinking facts. The young are anxious. They have plenty of zeal. Their tendency is to be on the left. It was Bernard Shaw who said that if you are not extreme left in your 20's, then you will be an old fossil when you are 40. There is plenty of truth in that, Sir. The man of progress, the man of ideas at 20, is an extreme Left. As the Prime Minister has said, "A tenth of an inch beyond me, and you are in the Communist camp." I think he said that in the Assembly, Sir, if you will remember. Sir, the Prime Minister in his speech has said that there are a lot of people to the left of him. If I may therefore use his own words - they are not only a tenth of an inch beyond his left, but they are a whole lot beyond him there. In which camp then are they, Sir? On the Prime Minister's own argument, they are in the Communist camp. And if the Communist camp is up to no good, if it is out to destroy the Prime Minister because he is the person in power, what will he do about it? He is the objective, and they want to eliminate him. But it could have been the Minister for Labour and Law or any other Minister on the Front bench; that would not matter. The source of power is the source to be attacked. Because once you kill the source of power, then you kill the rest. That is the game as I understand it from the Prime Minister's speech. And yet, Sir, if the Prime Minister does not do anything about it, will not history tell of him, as I have told him today, that he himself must share a great deal of the blame for the inactivity of the P.A.P. over the last one year, because the responsibility to eliminate that disintegrating factor was in his hands? Sir, the people of Singapore and destiny have placed him where he is today. Let him not stand idly by, as he has done over the last 14 months, with regard to a colleague of his. Sir, I could understand that. It is a human failing which one could admire. "We were comrades-in-arms; we built the Party together; we brought the Party into power, and we are in power." It is always difficult, Sir, for one with humanity in him to discard such an individual even though he may be a danger to his Cabinet. But the position here is a whole lot different. It is not the comrade who has trodden the road together who is the danger. It is not the comrade who, while treading the road, "has built a path with me and my friends whereby we have come to power" who is the danger; but it is someone, Sir, who is always at the back of your mind, who is ready to destroy you, who is the danger. And if he gives a semblance of wanting to help, it is not because he is interested in helping you, but because he is using you for his own ulterior motive.

Sir, the Prime Minister in his speech has said that the Opposition is not aware of the dangers facing Singapore. They are fooling and fiddling when Rome burns. Rome is burning, Sir, because the democratic way of life is now in peril. That is what the Prime Minister meant. And he said we were fiddling with topics such as the restoration of pay allowances and kidnapping. Against that position and that background, I might even agree with the Prime Minister that we were fiddling, but our excuse is that we did not know that Rome was burning. The Prime Minister knows that it is burning. He has got the water-can at his disposal. I hope he has plenty of water. If he has, he must put the fire out. If he does not, when he can do so, then history will judge him as the person who failed his destiny.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) rose -

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister, in reply?

6.52 p.m.

The Prime Minister: In reply. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been lectured and heckled in the last few days. I think the Opposition mistook our calculated understatement, designed to pitch the tenor of this debate on a more serious tone, as one of weakness. Yesterday the Member for Cairnhill wanted to tell us how we should govern as a Government. Today, the Member for Farrer Park told us how I should run the P.A.P. as a Party. Sir, coming from the ex-Chief Minister who failed dismally in the last Assembly to govern with the consent of the people and with the support of the majority, and from the Member for Farrer Park - I am not sure today whether he belongs to the S.P.A. or whether he has a political party, and I do not know when he joined the S.P.A. - who told me how to run a political party and how to conduct the Cabinet, I am greatly abashed. It is with great diffidence, and I hope with genuine humility, that I proffer this as a thought which perhaps we should all reflect upon. Sir, if they knew better than we do, and if they had the ability to do better than we can, then they would have been here and not we. Some time before the elections I said that we did not pretend that we could solve all the problems that were facing us. It was quite clear what the state of the game was, and what any government which assumed power had to face. But if it is any consolation to my colleagues and me, I would say that there are very few who could have done better than what my colleagues have done in the last 14 months. It has not been a period of inactivity. It has been an extremely intense period of change. Lack of firmness and skill would have meant that the lid would have been blown off. It was a change of the social order, because once the base upon which power was mounted altered, then you must expect the reflection of the basic power position to find its reactions in all echelons of our society. It was a change in which the English-educated had to take a few knocks, according to the scheme of things, and I hope they will continue to come in and work the democratic system. It was a change in which the dispossessed felt a lot of bitterness and hostility towards those who had it good. It was through good government that the mutiny was contained in expectation of a greater change by peaceful and non-violent means.

Sir, I have propounded this theme so often that I wonder if I could take up the time of the House in re-phrasing the problem of the revolution in Malaya. Power was handed over to the nationalist groups both here and in the Federation - here, in a contained and controlled exercise. But all the nationalist groups had developed sufficient sinews to grab power from a colonial authority. There is nothing new in this. The problem that we face is the acceleration of the catalyst effect of the Communist revolt in 1948. This brought a whole chain of events at a speed which the Indians and the Ceylonese did not have to face, and saddled us with some real long-term problems, not only of how to take over the machinery of the State from the colonial authorities, but how to man it with sufficient effectiveness at all strategic points so as to be able to withstand the Communist contender for ultimate power.

In a curious way, the Member for Hong Lim and his two associates have made this Assembly a more lively and interesting place. For the first time since the last elections, the people whom we have called "Left-wing adventurers" - the definition of which I gave when I moved the motion on 3rd August - have found a proxy in this Chamber to shout their slogans and espouse their cause from time to time. Sir, that is not to say that the Member for Hong Lim and his two associates are Left-wing adventurers. Far from it. For we know that some of these Left-wing adventurers, whatever our fundamental and abiding differences with them, have a depth of political beliefs, albeit misguided. They have dedication and are prepared to sacrifice personal interest for their long-term political objectives.

Sir, it is the tragedy of the Malayan Communist Party that they made so many fundamental mistakes in Malaya. First, in starting the armed revolution in 1948. Next, in not gracefully ending it on or before 31st August, 1957, when the Federation got their political independence. And third, in still refusing to recognise right now that national solidarity between the various races and their cultures in this country must come before any socialist State can be established. All these factors, Sir, have driven them out of the constitutional arena into the wilderness where their party and their followers - these Left-wing adventurers - are so completely cut off that they can only make themselves heard through the open channels of the Press and the radio through proxies. Their challenge is the abiding challenge not only to our country but to the whole uncommitted regions of South-East Asia, the Middle East and now Africa. Sir, their challenge is the real challenge to the authority of the established State, not the formal opposition in the Assembly, but the silent underground and on-the-ground resistance to the policies of the Government - the vicious smear and distortion - to turn the people sour against the Government. To the extent that they can get some of their views heard in this Chamber via proxies who are prepared to lend their services in return for expected support, it is useful to get the issues thoroughly debated and put into perspective. What is interesting is that the intelligent Communists at the very top of the Communist leadership in Malaya know full well the folly and futility of the orthodox line of class struggle and revolution in a multi-racial and a multi-cultural society like Malaya.

From the Communist point of view, the anti-colonialist line - the united front of all progressive forces to fight colonialism, feudalism, imperialism and capitalism in all their manifestations and all their forms - was the best way to establish the widest possible support for their cause; and right up till 31st August, 1957, they came near to succeeding. But they recognised that the independence of the Federation on 31st August, 1957, had radically changed the complexion of all anti-colonial slogans. Before that, to fight against the State - the established constituted authority of the British colonialists and imperialists - was to accord with the slogan of uniting all classes and social groups to fight against the colonialists. After Merdeka, he who fights the established independent nation of the Federation of Malaya and its Government becomes a rebel and an enemy of the people.

Sir, the position in Singapore - as I shall elaborate later on - is not the same. It is this curious subtle distinction between a completely independent Federation and a semi-independent Singapore which, I think, has obscured the vision of many who, in their desire to reduce complex truths to simple lies, are egging an1 inciting the P.A.P. Government to take a plain, simple straightforward anti-Communist line. But there is nothing that I said on 3rd August which is a basic change in the political philosophy or beliefs of the P.A.P.

I am gratified, Sir, that my statements from time to time have stirred and inspired the Member for Hong Lim and given him sustenance for his political slogans. He has quoted at great length from my speeches in the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, and in every one of them there was a fierce consistency in the anti-colonialist line. "Unite and fight the common enemy. Fight the British." But he did not quote me on the meaning and significance of the anti-colonial struggle after independence in the Federation of Malaya. Sir, the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. discussed, analysed and anticipated the radical change in the power position after independence. For the benefit of the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Tanglin, let me quote what I have said, not because whatever I have said is worthy of being quoted, but because I wish to prove one simple point, that is, that the position has not altered and the P.A.P. line has not changed. I refer to column 2510 of Hansard, Vol. 2 dated 21st August, 1957. If you will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir,, on that occasion we were moving a motion to convey our felicitations to the Federation of Malaya which was going to be independent ten days from the moment when we were in debate. Let me quote what I said then:

`I would like to accede to that request [this was an altercation between me and the Chief Secretary] but I think we would be deceiving ourselves if we do not realise the deep significance of the change that will be taking peace after 31st August. At the moment those of us who read only the English Press are preoccupied with new official dress, palace for the new Paramount Ruler, and embassies being opened abroad. These are the more extravagant manifestations of an independent state. But those who are preoccupied with what is going on not in these high places but in the hearts and the minds of the people, are more concerned with the reactions of the various groups in Malaya and in Singapore to these changes.'

And at column 2512, I said:

`Before 31st August, every policeman, every Home Guard officer, every member of the Federation Regiment who is shot in the armed revolution is shot as a running-dog, or it can be said ho was a running-dog, of the British. But after 31st August - and this I think is in the mind of everybody - every soldier, every Home Guard shot, is a shot against a guardian of the newly-found freedom of the people of Malaya, and therefore the $64,000 question: What is the Malayan Communist Party going to do? If it goes on shooting, then the consequences will be catastrophic for them and for the country.

This is a new phase and if there are leaders who have the interests of other than just their parties at heart, we should be able to make the democratic system work, for this simple reason if nothing else, that the people of Malaya have not lost faith in the democratic system. It is the democratic system - or the democratic constitutional Parties taking advantage of the overall three-cornered fight in Malaya - that brought freedom to Malaya, That is the first fact that must be acknowledged. Secondly, the people of Malaya are not at the moment in favour of any armed totalitarian revolt.'

The three-cornered fight has, I think, been forgotten in the Federation for good, because there one contestant hopped out of the ring, leaving two contestants. There is a straight battle between he who has now become independent and he who intends to usurp the State.

Sir, I went on to say:

'I was talking to a friend of mine, a colleague of mine who is now enjoying the hospitality of the British Government in one of the prison camps in Changi. He said - and I think he said it with absolute sincerity - "After 31st August let them pack up this armed revolution before they do great damage to the country." And we say this: Whoever does not declare where he stands after 31st August is a fool. Up to 31st August in the Federation, the question is: Do we have an independent Malaya? After the 31st the question is: What kind of independent Malaya do we make of it? And we say categorically - I say it for myself and for my Party - we believe in an independent, democratic, non-Communist [socialist] Malaya.'

Sir, may I pause there and define my term, because the Member for Farrer Park has alleged that the purpose of putting the word "non-Communist" is to tell the Communists, "We are not against you, you are not against us." Sir, any man who starts off with a completely passive and inert attitude like that must perish. The word "non-Communist" means "no Communist", "not Communist". If you will slowly look over the back numbers of magazines - and I think all Assemblymen get large quantities of them - like the New Leader, British Commonwealth or Commonwealth Challenge, you will see, Mr Speaker, Sir - and I hope from time to time you will have occasion to browse through these ideological tracts on anti-Communism - that there is a swing from the use of the words "anti-Communist States" to the words "non-Communist States". There is a clear distinction between an anti-Communist State and a non-Communist State. Nobody classifies Nehru's India as an anti-Communist State. It may be a non-Communist State, but that does not mean that when the Communists twist his left arm, he will allow them to twist his right arm also. From time to time, I think the Indian Government have to demonstrate that they are the authority. And from time to time, all governments have to demonstrate the efficiency of the administrative machinery. But what is important is this: we, the uncommitted nations, are not prepared willy-nilly to back one side, right or wrong. We do not start out with the major hypothesis that whatever the Communists do, it must be bad or it must be downright wrong. Just as there is the battle of words, the battle of slogans, and the battle of symbols - thousands of words pour forth every day over radio stations throughout the world and in newspapers - there is the battle for supremacy of ideas. And the word "non-Communist" has to be inserted there, because the Communists keep on saying that they are democratic socialists. To ensure that no Communist supporter or sympathiser enters the portals of the P.A.P. headquarters by an error, because we call ourselves democratic socialists and other people also call themselves democratic socialists, we say quite clearly we are non-Communists.

Sir, may I come back to that at a later stage in my reply? But what I would like to remind the Member for Hong Lim now is that all his quotations from my speeches, however gratifying they may be to my ego, are completely and utterly irrelevant in the context of the political platform and the political policy upon which we clearly entered the elections. In order that there shall be no misunderstanding and in case anybody chooses to shift his stand, let me read to him a pledge which all P.A.P. candidates signed and which quite clearly and categorically defines the political basis of the P.A.P., the political programme and policy upon which it is to govern for five years if, as it did, it won the last elections. It says here:

`I, Ong Eng Guan, of No. 3B Fair Drive, off Haig Road, Singapore, hereby acknowledge that I have read and understood the 4th Anniversary Celebration Souvenir issue of the "PETIR", the organ of the People's Action Party, published on the 22nd November, 1958, and the Five-Year Plan of the P.A.P. announced at the Special Party Congress of Saturday, 25th April, 1959, and I declare that I am in full agreement with the People's Action Party policy as set out therein.'

And he signed it before the elections on 30th May; sealed and witnessed. A very curious thing that we, who are alleged to have departed from the principles of the P.A.P., have to quote back the basic beliefs, documented for this particular purpose long before the elections. Has he forgotten this Fourth Anniversary Souvenir, to which he has not referred, or the Party programme, to which he has never referred, or the articles entitled "The New Phase Since Merdeka", and "Our Tasks and Policy", which was issued by the Central Executive Committee of the Party, of which he was a member? It states on page 2:

'Basic Aims of the Party

It was four years ago, on November 21st, 1954, that we published the manifesto setting out the aims and objectives of the P.A.P. They have been four eventful years; the course of history of Malaya changed in this period. Three years after 1954, the Federation of Malaya became an independent nation on 31st August, 1957, and the artificial division between Singapore and the Federation has been accentuated and has hardened. Singapore is not part of the independent nation and cannot become independent by itself. Next year it will only become internally self-governing. The time has now come to take stock of our position and to restate our aims and objectives.'

This is a testament of faith to which the Member for Hong Lim pledged himself. Let me tell the House and the country that there is nothing clandestine, there is no subterfuge about what the P.A.P. stands for and intends to do. We take the simple approach that the best thing to do is to tell the people quite clearly what your aims and objectives are, and what you intend to do, so that they will make a habit of taking you at face value. Let me read from the same page 2:

`The creation of an independent, democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya (Federation plus Singapore) is a task which will occupy our whole life time. They are enduring objectives for which, as socialists seeking a just system of organising society, we must always strive. But our immediate tasks have changed, not so much in objectives as in emphasis.

Four years ago -'

that is, 1954, and the revolutionary manifesto was in 1955 -

`we were preoccupied with fighting for freedom. Colonialism in its crudest and most direct form chafed and exasperated us. The country was run by an overlordship of British officials, led by Governors, High Commissioners and Generals. A vast army of British troops and foreign mercenaries held the opposition down. So our manifesto emphasised the need for freedom from foreign domination.'

Sub-title "The New Phase Since Merdeka":

`Now the circumstances are different. The Federation has been politically independent for more than a year. True a good number of British officials are still working in the Federation. But now in the Federation they are no longer the arbiters of policy they used to be. Elected ministers have taken over the direction and control of our destinies in the Federation. It is up to them to complete the independence they won on 31st August, 1957, to make political independence more than just a shouting of "Merdeka", and to translate the power they have acquired on the people's behalf, into homes, schools, hospitals, jobs and a decent life.' Page 3 - "Why the Alliance Government is Anti-Merger":

`The present Alliance Government is anti-merger for different reasons. The Alliance leaders have put out different reasons at different times, but we can summarise them into two: first, Singapore has about one million Chinese (about 70 per cent of Singapore's population or 18 per cent of the Federation's population).'

Sir, the latest census has put it up to 80 per cent -

`The inclusion of this one million into the Federation will upset the racial balance of power in the Federation. Second: Singapore has too many "Leftists" who are supported by the one million Chinese in Singapore. The Alliance leaders are not very clear in their distinction between Communists and socialists. They believe all "Leftists" may be Communists of varying degrees.'

And here, we stated in page 3, "The Immediate Primary Task of a P.A.P. Government":

`It is therefore our duty to clarify the position of the people of Singapore, principally the Chinese. We must allay these fears and create the conditions for merger. This is our immediate task. To achieve freedom, it is no longer Just a simple question of fighting the British. We must also resolve the two fears which make the Malay majority in the Federation not want the Chinese majority in Singapore.'

And on page 5, Sir, under the sub-heading "Democratic Socialism and Communism":

`It is only among the Chinese of recent immigrant origin that Communism has found its disciples. But if Communism is ever to succeed in Malaya, it must be through all races including the Malays and not through the Chinese alone. The more Communists are Chinese, the more the Malays will be against Communism, fearing not only Communism but also Chinese domination. This is the dilemma which the Communists cannot resolve in Malaya. They can only win if their army can win, but their army cannot win because of the superior forces of the Federation Government backed by the British army.

If Malaya wants to create a socialist society without inter-racial strife, it can only be through the more tolerant and humane road of democratic socialism, because socialists believe in revolution by concept, not revolution by violence. They are provided in Malaya with the best conditions for success. The less uncompromising method of persuasion through the democratic system ensures that social changes are not forced against emotional and violent resistance of the people. The Malays are not anti-socialists; the majority of them are poor peasants and they desire a more just society. Islam is not anti-socialist, because socialism does not, like Communism, take on the sole of a rival religion.'

Sir, we did not write, discuss and approve these treatises and get our candidates to take a pledge on them just for fun. We clearly envisaged that so long as that analysis stands, so long as it is valid, there is going to be a lot of difficulty for any Government that has to maintain the integrity of the State to keep the people reasonably patient, to educate them to correct attitudes, and correct values which are Malayan and not communal. That a vigorous and vibrant Chinese majority in Singapore would chafe at anything less than independence. Therefore, it was clearly explained why it was so and why it must be so.

Sir, I expected a challenge to this at the time when the ex-Chief Minister said that the forces did not scatter. But they did. If they did not scatter, I do not think he would have got off so lightly, nor would the P.A.P. have had such an exclusive sweep in the elections. It was because they were scattered that it took them some time to re-think and re-sort their position. And they know that in an atmosphere where reason, argument and realism prevail, their recruiting campaign must suffer, because there is no victory round the corner. 1954, 1955 - everybody knew that the British Raj was on its way out. It is just like the Congo just before independence. Everybody bought and sold and took chances on what would happen after independence. Independence was sure to come. Now there is the prospect of long years of painful, may be fruitless and barren struggle to upset not a colonialist, imperialistic regime in the Federation, but one popularly elected by the people, the majority of whom are Malays who are Muslims and who will not take to Communism so lightly. And the curious position is that the more vital and vibrant city of Singapore is in a state of semi-tutelage, and we made that semi-tutelage clear as we knew it was bound to chafe, and a challenge must come, as it has. It is our duty to fight this challenge, and it may well be that the next elections, for which the Member for Cairnhill made a half-hearted call, may be fought on this election issue, and on a broader division of political forces than the last election. But until then, this is the programme and this is the policy, and we govern on this programme and this policy.

I do not think the Member for Hong Lim has alleged that we have departed from this document or from the Party programme. No quotations have been made from either one of these two documents upon which he took a pledge. What I would like to suggest to him is that in an act of political opportunism, he decided to abandon the stand and go back to the pre-historic battle cry, "Down with imperialism! Up with Malayanisation! The P.A.P. has lost its revolutionary fervour of 1954." It is all right shouting slogans, Sir, like uniting all classes without barriers of language and race and so on. It has been done by hundreds and thousands of active and sincere, and some insincere, people. But when a former colleague says, on the Nantah question, that Nanyang University has reached a deadlock because of the language issue, then I say, as the Minister for Culture said yesterday, that he has reached the point of no return. Has he not read the statement of policy on education inside this document on which the pledge was taken? There is an article there called the `National approach to problems of education policy', and it was written, to his knowledge, by a founder Member of the P.A.P. who was, at the time of the publication of that article, in prison for his political beliefs. Let me just read the conclusion to settle this nonsensical and dangerous talk, designed and calculated to stir up unrest and disaffection on issues upon which the greatest delicacy and restraint have been shown, not only by the Education Ministry but by associations of teachers, unions of students and, to a certain extent, by the whole of the Chinese people in Malaya, not only in Singapore but in Malaya. This is from page 23, Sir. I hope, for the intellectual delectation of those who rear chickens and others who have not got time to read this, they will read a few articles in the reading room. With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir:

`The people of Singapore strongly desire a political merger with the Federation of Malaya. An important pre-condition for such a merger is that our own education policy in Singapore should approximate as closely as possible in essentials with that of the Federation of Malaya. We cannot expect the people of the Federation to show any enthusiasm for a merger with Singapore if our education policy is based on principles which are opposed to those which obtain in the Federation. The treatment of the national language in Singapore is a case in point.'

This was in November 1958, Sir.

`The Singapore Government's White Paper on education (No. Cmd. 15 of 1956) does not manifest any aspiration towards a unified national education system based on the acceptance of Malay as the national language. Unlike the practice in the Federation, the Malay language is not taught as a compulsory second language in the Colony schools. Malay is only treated as an optional subject in schools in Singapore. Even as an optional subject facilities for its, teaching are woefully inadequate. These are unpardonable omissions in the education policy of a territory which claims to desire a political merger with the Federation, and they are omissions which ought to be urgently rectified.

Further it is of vital importance to the success of our aspiration that the whole education policy of Singapore be reviewed with a view to bringing it into line on all matters of principle with the education policy of the Federation of Malaya.'

Sir, any fool outside this Assembly knows the attitude of the large mass of the Malays towards the national language, education, national schools, Chinese schools and Nanyang University. And the fact that we, the Government of Singapore, have to carry and have promised to carry a large section - for us a large section, 15 per cent - of non-Singapore students to keep the Malayan character of that institution alone, I think would have been sufficient reminder to anyone in his right senses that there are certain issues where the best thing to do is never to open Pandora's Box. They tried it in Ceylon. I do not think they ever got the genie back into the Box when they decided to close it up.

May I read the conclusion, Sir?

`We have discussed briefly some of the essentials of a national approach to education policy; what it means and the responsibilities and obligations it imposes on all those who sincerely desire a united Malayan nation.

If Malaya is to survive as a nation, and if our people are to achieve social, political, economic and cultural advancement in the modern world, the most essential prerequisite is to abolish the communal divisions, antagonisms, rivalries and distrusts which threaten the unity of our country. This can only be done by working devotedly for a united Malayan nation based on a united national consciousness and a common loyalty to Malaya. The instrument to achieve this aim is a truly national education policy.

The P.A.P's, stand-point is clear and unequivocal. We have neither time for nor patience with narrow-minded and short-sighted communalistic approaches to problems of education policy. That way lies national anarchy and ultimately national suicide. We stand for a united Malayan nation and a national education policy. That way lies unity, peace and progress.'

Of course, the Member for Hong Lim does not believe in all that now.

Sir, we were treated yesterday by the former Chief Minister to a gratuitous lesson on how to fight Communism and defend democracy in Singapore. Sir, first, I want to congratulate him. I thought that, having lost the services of this ghost writers of the past, he did well in finding new ghost writers, particularly for those parts of the speech relating to the Internal Security Council and how to fight the Communists. Those parts of his speech, Sir, came from typewritten scripts, and it had a flow of language, if I may say, which is somewhat out of harmony with the informal note upon which the former Chief Minister usually pitches his own speeches. It is important, Sir, that we should answer the Member for Cairnhill, and whoever his political mentors are, who inspired this simple anti-Communist line. We are obliged to him, if for nothing else, for providing us with the background contrast in attitudes and approach between what I call our positive, socialist, non-Communist stand - just to distinguish ourselves from the Communists, because they also call themselves socialists; that is the reason and there is nothing sinister about it - and their stand as anti-Communists. Caltex made the stand that their brand "Caltex" had a red star with five points long before the Soviet Union came into being. I think nowadays if you go to a petrol pump, the petrol pump operator will somewhat apologetically explain to you that he is not selling you Russian oil. Sir, he is also non-Communist to that extent, just to distinguish himself from the Communists. It is a pity, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Member for Cairnhill should have given his game away very early in his speech, because he said, and he said this with disapproval, that it was an open secret that the P.A.P. was pursuing a policy to win over Communist sympathisers and activists to the way of democracy. He obviously does not believe in this. He thinks all this is dangerous, stupid and irresponsible stuff, because when he was the Chief Minister and leader of the last Government, he did not believe in all this nonsense about winning over Communist sympathisers to the way of democracy. He believed in the negative approach. Crush them, break up their organisations and lock them up, which is sometimes somewhat unfortunate but inevitable and necessary. But of all the people who have had the temerity to proffer us advice on how to govern the country and develop the democratic system, I can think of no one less qualified and with less reputable credentials than the former Chief Minister. If anybody wanted to know how not to do it, he proved it conclusively.

In the years 1956 to 1959 - true it was a bit difficult then because at that time it was a more tricky position and Singapore was even more semi-semi-independent - he had to kowtow to Chief Secretaries and Attorney-Generals and Financial Secretaries. This therefore made him more easily a victim of a smear. But the point is this. All that he has to show for the advice given, which obviously he must have found out from his own experience and trial, is a political movement which consists of an address, a publication called The People which appears once in six months whenever there is trouble somewhere out of which they think they can get some profit. Otherwise, they go into a deep coma. Four Assemblymen, one having, by his inertia, probably caused by looking after the fowl world, departed from their ranks, This is the result of that policy. The former Chief Minister said that democracy was the antithesis of Communism and he insinuated that a man who calls himself a non-Communist democrat is contradicting himself. According to his definition a democrat is a person who must first be an anti-Communist. When we are using these terms, I think it is important to define what we mean. He wound up by recommending his line to us with promises of support if we make common cause with him. Sir, I stated at the beginning that it is the business of each contender in this three-cornered fight, which is still on in Singapore, to pull us to their side. Here we have an example of discredited reactionaries trying to get us to make common cause with them on a sterile, straightforward, simple, anti-Communist stand.

Sir, let me start at the other end of the definition on how Communists define people. I think the former Chief Minister would do well if he would spend some time, besides reading the glossy magazines, to read tracts like the forbidden ones (they are very useful) particularly over the monitoring digests, like Mao Tze-tung's contradictions about the people. "Who are the people?", he begins with. And he says there is a good Marxist dialectician who said the definition of the word "people" changes from country to country and in each country from time to time. He said in China, for instance, when they were fighting the Japanese invader, all those who fought the Japanese were the people, and all those who aided the Japanese were the enemies of the people. Therefore, by that definition, the K.M.T., the Liberals, the Social Democrats, the Communists, all were the people, and Wang Ching Wei and his gang were enemies of the people, because they were on the other side. After the liberation of China, who are the people? First of, all, who are the enemies? The enemies are those who resist progress, change, and the establishment of a socialist State. And the people are all those who want the establishment of a socialist State. Therefore the K.M.T., the American imperialist supporters and so on are enemies of the people and the rest are the people. That is basic and fundamental. From their point of view, who are the Communists? All those who support Communism. Who are not Communists? All those who either oppose or do not support Communism. That is their definition, but from time to time it varies.

Sir, I have been given a great deal of credit, quite unjustly, I think, for the rather eloquent phraseologies which my colleagues in the Cabinet contribute from time to time. I would say, Sir, that it would be a mistake for people to believe that my colleagues lack dialectical stamina and skill. In the same way we are also flexible when we define "Communists", "non-Communists" and "anti-Communists". Who are the people? I say the people are all those who want to see industrial peace and expansion, prosperity, progress and the resolution of our unemployment problems.

Mr Rajah: And support the P.A.P.!

The Prime Minister: No. That would be a mistake. I think that is where the Member for Farrer Park would be making a cardinal error. The great Chinese Marxist dialectician never said that all those who support the Chinese Communist Party are the people, because then he would be left with 15,000,000 people. That is all he has right now. At the time of the liberation of the mainland, he had only about 5,000,000 cadres. We say "the people" embrace all those who want to see the establishment of industrial peace, industrial expansion, progress and prosperity, and the creation of pre-conditions for merger with the Federation. All those who oppose those objectives obviously want chaos, disaster, confusion, no merger, a prolongation of colonial rule, unhappiness and no prosperity. They must therefore be classified as enemies of the people. I ask each of the individual groups, whatever they call themselves - Left-wing adventurers, pro-Communists, Marxists, or reactionaries (whether or not they fall within one or the other side of that definition) - are they enemies of the people or are they the people, depending upon whether they want what we have decided - industrial expansion, prosperity, peace and pre-conditions for merger - or are they those who want strikes, chaos, unemployment, irreconcilable struggles that lead to perdition? We do not punish for intent until the intent is made manifest. But if the intent is made manifest, then what shall we do, Sir? Let me assure the Member for Cairnhill that we will fight for our own cause, a cause more worthy and more likely to succeed than his own sterile and negative one. And the Communists have not found us negative either, let alone passive victims in either the ideological argument or the organisational battle for power. We shall fight them ourselves on our own issues of our own making, and at a time of our own choosing.

Sir, there is one thing that we, as a Party and as a movement, have achieved more than any other political party since l9 - I wanted to say 1948, but to be true, I think it is 1945. We have won over (and we are the only Party that has done so) large groups of people, who might otherwise have been sympathisers or supporters of the Communist cause, by our positive approach, a non-Communist ideal to distinguish ourselves from the Communists, a democratic socialist approach, because they also call themselves democratic socialists.

Sir, as long as we keep on doing that and succeed in doing that, then we shall remain a virile and a vigorous force and a movement to be reckoned with in the Malayan political situation.

Sir, the world ideological battle is a ceaseless and unrelenting one and no one political leader's pronouncements on this subject in Malaya can do more than just to add a little more argument in deciding the thinking of the people of Malaya on this ideological conflict. Let us say quite clearly that the oversea Chinese, not just in Malaya, are fully aware of the tremendous strides that have been made by the Communist Government in China in industrialisation and effective administrative organisation. As far as the ideological battle is concerned, it is the example of Communist China - an example of rapid progress and an organised and efficient society, and not the dismal failures of the M.C.P. - which has sustained the Communists in getting recruits into their oft-depleted ranks in Malaya. That is a problem which we will have to face. If you start off by saying, "I am anti-Com munist. I am in the same category as Chiang Kai-shek, Ngo Dinh Diem, Dr Syngman Rhee", then I say you will convince nobody in Malaya to even look at the alternative which, in our submission, is the only practical and sane way to peace and a united and prosperous Malaya. We say categorically and emphatically - and we stand or fall fundamentally in the last analysis on whether we are right or wrong in this - that violent revolution by the Communist Party in Malaya, particularly a party which is only founded and mounted on one section of the population, is doomed to failure from the word "go" and is unable to bridge the division between the races, their languages, their cultures, their religions in Malaya. So when those of us in this Chamber blithely talk about the unity of economic forces, this P.A.P. lying about cultural consciousness, national consciousness being a lot of piffle, I say we stand by the test of time. If we are wrong, then verily we shall pay for it. But if we are right, then we shall be magnanimous about it.

Sir, the business of any political party that sincerely believes in the democratic system is to win over the mass of the Chinese and the other peoples in Malaya away from Communism to the democratic system. In Malaya we would be stupid if we failed to recognise that the M.C.P. has been working in the schools, talent-scouting and recruiting a whole host of intelligent, honest and sincere young men and women to their ranks. It is because of this negative approach of the Member for Cairnhill that he never had a political party, let alone a political movement that ticked. All he had were the Mak Pak Shee's, the Chew Swee Kee's, the Lazarouses, the Member for Joo Chiat, chicken rearers and others.

Sir, let me pose this problem. Nearly half of the population of Malaya are Chinese. More than half of these Chinese are educated in Chinese schools. For the time being, the appeal to Communism finds its best response amongst the Chinese section that considers itself politically and socially ostracized. For the time being, -

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Further consideration tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: Tomorrow, Sir.