MALAYANISATION - EXPATRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS

3.27 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name,

That this Assembly urges the Government to take immediate steps to Malayanise all expatriate administrative officials.

This motion is one of Hong Lim's 16 resolutions. I am grateful, Sir, that I am being given this opportunity to debate this issue in this Assembly. It is indeed absurd to find it necessary for me to introduce this motion five years after the publication of the report of the Malayanisation Commission, one of whose members on the Government benches is the Minister for Culture. It is even more absurd to find it necessary to urge the so-called P.A.P. Government to fulfill and implement Malayanisation policies laid down by a Labour Front Government and endorsed by the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, the administrative class in the Government provides the key to the power of control of the State. Let me just refer to page 25 of the Interim Report of the Malayanisation Commission, which quoted an extract from "The Civil Service Today" by T. A. Critchley. It is about the administrative class in a modern state. It says:

'...the modern administrative civil servants are the permanent links between the Cabinet and the bulk of the Civil Service. They are the "intelligent amateurs" to whom the day-to-day government of the country is entrusted. They are concerned with policy, with directing the business of whole Departments, with preparing new legislation and drafting regulations and circulars, with assisting and advising Ministers in the conduct of their Parliamentary business, and above all with constructive long-term thinking and the co-ordination of the activities of government.'.

Mr Speaker, this shows the importance of the administrative class. The expatriate administrative officials very often occupy top positions in this administrative class - that is, in the administrative class hierarchy. There is no need to further emphasise the vital importance of British administrative officials in the power of the State. It is sufficient to say that they are the people who keep the Union Jack flying in the colonies. They run the British Empire. Our Prime Minister is aware of this position. In 1956, he said, in Hansard Volume 2, No. 15, dated 5th December, 1956, column 1088:

`There is little time left for us to take over the whole apparatus of state and to make it function more efficiently than it did under the colonial system. In this apparatus of state the administrators are a decisive factor.'

In the debate on 5th December, 1956, the Prime Minister said - please refer to column 1080 of Hansard:

`...the major recommendations of this White Paper'-

The Prime Minister was referring in 1956 to the White Paper on the Malayanisation statement of policy of the Lim Yew Hock Government (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 65 of 1956):

`...the major recommendations of this White Paper were acceptable to most Members of the Opposition, namely the acceptance of the principle that the control room of the civil service will be taken away from the white man and put into local hands immediately.

...We are not supporting this statement of policy because we believe that if this White Paper is implemented Malayanisation will become an accomplished fact. We support it because once the principle of handing over the control room is accepted and implemented, then the flood gates are opened, and the white men will be swept out of all positions of administrative control in the next few years. That is why we have accepted in principle the statement of policy laid down in this White Paper.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, we never make quotations out of context and try to destroy the meaning. These speeches of the Prime Minister were made four years ago. Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the correct basic stand on this issue of Malayanisation to be taken by every true and loyal patriot of this country.

In 1956, the Malayanisation Commission - please refer to page 29 of its interim report - stated categorically that the, whole administrative service of the Singapore Government can be Malayanised in two years. In 1956, the Malayanisation Commission stated that we can replace British administrators with local officers within two years, that is by 1958. Why is it necessary for us today to bring up this motion? Why is it we still have in Singapore, five years after the sitting of this Commission and more than one year of the P.A.P. forming the Government, the presence of expatriate administrative officers holding key positions in the State - as a matter of fact, holding more important positions than they did under the Lint Yew Hock Government? Despite the fact that the Lim Yew Hock Government's Malayanisation policy had varied in some respects from the recommendations of the Commission, it was still generally acceptable and its broad principles were accepted by the P.A.P. and endorsed by the Member for Tanjong Pagar in the debate in this Assembly in 1956. It is a shame that this Malayanisation issue, which has been endorsed by all parties concerned, should today be the subject of a debate. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a debate urging the so-called P.A.P. Government to expedite Malayanisation and also to repatriate expatriate officials who are already Malayanised - I repeat "who are already Malayanised" - but whose terms were extended both by the previous Government and by the present Government.

Mr Speaker, since the new Government was formed, it has never made any clear stand on this issue of Malayanisation, The Lim Yew Hock Government's Malayanisation policy of 1956 still requires implementation and accomplishment. Could the Government clarify its intentions and give us a progress report of the Malayanisation situation department by department?

Mr Speaker, Sir, events during the past one year have raised doubts in my mind about the Prime Minister's stand on this important issue. I simply cannot understand why we can allow expatriate officials to exercise so much control in the State - in fact, to exercise tighter control than they did during the days of the Lim Yew Hock Government. For instance, Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the purpose of retaining George Thomson? [Interruption]. You cannot smile it off. The Malayanisation Commission had already recommended in page 37 of its interim report that the post of Public Relations Officer (which George Thomson had occupied in 1955) can be replaced by a local journalist. The Prime Minister supported the Malayanisation Commission Report. The Lim Yew Hock Government's Malayanisation policy laid down, that the post of Public Relations Officer could be retained for a year and, according to this statement, George Thomson should have been repatriated in October 1957. However, the previous Government extended his stay till the general elections in May 1959. Mr Speaker, Sir, we understand and forgive the Labour Front Government for extending Thomson's stay and contract despite its declared policy, because we, all know that had Thomson been dispensed with, many of the Ministers in the previous Government would have been unable to make coherent political speeches. But what we cannot understand is why should George Thomson be retained under a P.A.P. Government? Does he provide the same services?

The Prime Minister: After quoting extensively from me, you -

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I will come back to that, Mr Prime Minister. He wrote your speech at the opening of the Art Exhibition for India.

The Prime Minister supported both the White Paper and the Malayanisation Report on this matter. It has also been pledged in the general elections to the people that George Thomson must go under' the P.A.P. regime. But is that the case? No, Mr Speaker. George Thomson is still here, going as strong as Johnny Walker! In fact, he is occupying a far more important position than he ever did in the previous Government.

Mr Speaker, we are not interested in, attacking personalities. Since the P.A.P. crisis, we have confined our debates on principles and, on political issues. We wish to make it manifestly clear that in today's debate on the expatriate officials we are not making any comment on them as private individuals but only in so far as it involves their official duties. These expatriate officers may be honest and capable officers. If I may say this, all these fights boil down to the struggle for political power between the British colonialists on the one hand and the people on the other as to who shall guide our destinies and decide our fate. Once upon a time, the Prime Minister liked to attack harshly and ridicu1e on this side of the House the private persons of expatriates like Goode, Sutherland and others. He once remarked that he would kick the white men out into the sea. Mr Speaker, Sir, we, are, not interested in driving any people into the sea, for that matter the British included, We are only interested in putting an end to this evil system of colonialism. And for that matter, all the peoples in the world, particularly in Asia and Africa, are now up in arms against this system of colonialism - an evil system of political and economic exploitation by Imperialist countries of subject peoples, of human indignities and moral disgrace. Was it not so long ago that the United Nations adopted a unanimous decision to end colonialism as a clear declaration of the wishes of all the peoples? We are fighting a system and not its individuals. British individuals can remain here as friends but not as masters. Why did the Prime Minister several years ago attack the British in a personal way about their comforts and their clubs here? Was it because he admired their privileges? However, once he himself enjoyed those same privileges when he became Prime Minister he ceased to fight and those whom he had attacked suddenly became his close friends - as the saying goes: "A friend, guide and philosopher."

Mr Speaker, so today, Mr Thomson became a friend, guide and philosopher of our Prime Minister. The Prime Minister wanted to retain him. Why? I am still searching for the key to this riddle.

Mr Byrne: You have forgotten Meadows!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: We will come to him later on, We will go slowly, and take in every one of them step by step, Mr Minister.

In the first few months of the new Government, the Prime Minister indicated his desire to retain George Thomson. He said that he would be a good ghost writer and that he would provide research material for speeches.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order. I absolve the Member for Hong Lim from any secrecy because I make no secret of this. I would like him to quote the time, place and instance where I ever said such a foolish thing.

Mr Speaker: It is not a point of order.

The Prime Minister: It is such a blatant lie.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must not rise on a point of order and then not speak to the point of order. If it was a point of clarification, he should have said so and it would be up to the Member for Hong Lim to give way. It is not a point of order. Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Ong Eng Guan rose -

The Prime Minister: Then on a point of clarification

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Sir, if a statement is made which is a blatant lie -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid the Prime Minister is probably a bit excited, but he must know that "a blatant lie" said of an expression of a Member of this Assembly is completely unparliamentary. He must not use that expression even if he thinks it is true.

The Prime Minister: May I then, in more cultured and genteel terms, say that if an untruth uttered in this Assembly in the presence of someone who knows it to be an untruth goes unchallenged, then it will be believed? I therefore deem it my duty to say that it is out of order for any Member of this House -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister is probably challenging the ruling of the Chair and he cannot do that. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to speak, in one of two ways: one is to ask for clarification if the Member speaking gives way; and the second is to wait until it is his turn to speak. I do not know whether the Member for Hong Lim has given way for clarification. He appears to have given way for clarification.

The Prime Minister: May I have, very simply, the time, place and circumstance in which that statement was made?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, I do not carry a tape-recorder whenever the Prime Minister speaks to me, nor do I keep a diary of every word he says. But later events prove the truth of my charges.

The Prime Minister: The time and place.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: The Prime Minister said that George Thomson would be a good ghost writer and would provide research material for speech-making. You should have been more patient. Mr Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Hong Lim must remember that he is addressing the Chair.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Thomson is a walking encyclopaedia - better than the Encyclopaedia Britannica! But it was difficult to retain him as the Director of Information Services because the duties of that post had been taken over by the newly created post of the Minister for Culture. So for the first few months, George Thomson was occupying a room on the third floor of the City Hall (the Prime Minister being on the second floor) writing some speeches for the Prime Minister and doing some staff training. Whether George Thomson was providing political blueprints for the Prime Minister, I am not in a position, however, to know.

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Sir, it is often believed that if you repeat a lie often enough, it might be passed off as a truth. I challenge the Member for Hong Lim to repeat that outside this Assembly, and I will give him an opportunity to prove it in the Courts.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Eng Guan, on the point of clarification with a challenge, which is partly out of order!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do believe that the Prime Minister does always like to challenge.

The Prime Minister: Coward!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: You know this is true.

Mr Speaker: Order. Did I understand the Prime Minister to call the Member a coward? If he did, he must withdraw the expression. It is unparliamentary.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I hope the Speaker would sometimes not be so sensitive of hearing, because there are a few things which perhaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, one could often miss in the asides of a debate.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister is a bit unfortunate in that my right ear is not as deaf as my left! But perhaps he will withdraw that word.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I withdraw it in so far as it connotes moral turpitude. But in so far as it is an involuntary expression of moral indignation on my part, I am sorry I could not contain myself.

Mr Speaker: Of course, the Prime Minister must remember that a withdrawal must be unqualified. And the word "coward", even by itself, if it connotes a different meaning, is still unparliamentary. Will the Prime Minister please withdraw, and withdraw unqualifiedly?

The Prime Minister: Sir, at your behest, I withdraw it for the sake of peace and good order of this House.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not in the fortunate position to have four good lawyers to give me free legal service and a host of other British lawyers who are always willing to give free service to our Hon the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of further information.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: The Member has given way.

The Prime Minister: Could he tell me who my British lawyers are who are advising me at this moment? Because I would like to know where I am getting all this valuable advice from.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: For instance, Mr Green, your (the Prime Minister's) good friend, who has always been giving you free legal service.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether Mr Green is my good friend. I know him, but I do not know whether he likes me! Will the Member please remember that he is addressing the Chair?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, -

The Prime Minister: This Mr Green, is he the only one -

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Member for Hong Lim does not wish to give the information, he need not do so.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the appointment of George Thomson was not all quiet and peaceful, as today's proceedings show. George Thomson's speeches appeared now and then in the newspapers and there were comments everywhere. I managed to pick up a few clippings during the weekend - George Thomson laughing merrily with the Minister for Culture at a meeting of the Tourists Information Bureau. George Thomson laughing merrily -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have indicated in the past that if a newspaper is to be quoted from or referred to, that newspaper ought to be produced. Unless the Member can satisfy me that it is not possible to produce that newspaper, then, of course, I might be prepared to allow him to refer to a cutting. But I think I am correct in saying that copies of all past newspapers are retained in Assembly House.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: The one I mentioned just now - where Mr George Thomson was sitting in the centre of the audience and the Minister for Culture sitting next to him -

Mr Speaker: Order. Does the Member assure me then that the original paper, or a copy of the whole paper, is not available?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot get a copy of the whole paper, but I can only produce a cutting.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed, and identify that cutting.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: It is from the Nanyang Siang Pau of 17th February, 1960. The picture here looks like Mr George Thomson all right, and the name says so. With him sitting in the centre, the Minister for Culture on one side and on the other the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. And this paper, it shows who is the boss.

The Prime Minister: Is the Member for Hong Lim aware that he was a Member of the Government then?

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister must not speak until he catches the eye of the speaker. If it is a point of information or clarification, he must wait until the Member speaking has sat down. Is it a point of clarification?

The Prime Minister: On a point of explanation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Point of explanation, Mr Ong.

Mr Ong Eng Guan remained seated.

The Prime Minister: He has given way. I think he is so flabbergasted that he is giving way every time.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I must be quite certain whether the Member for Hong Lim has given way or has not just been pushed back!

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Order, order. Has the Member for Hong Lim given way? It is a point of information or explanation.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: On the point of information which the Prime Minister wants, I give way.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member then take his seat?

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: Now, Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: May I indicate that there was a slight inference that I might have intimidated the Member for Hong Lim into going flat on his back? But I can assure you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I am unarmed, and I have no intention of doing anybody any harm. All I wish to ask the Member is this: whether he is aware, as a colleague and member of the same Government in February 1960, that it was his duty, if he had thought that the Minister for Culture had sold out on the Government, to have brought the matter to the attention of his other colleagues?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister is unarmed here because of the rules of the Assembly, but he has mastered the art of unarmed combat!

Mr Speaker, George Thomson's speeches appeared now and then in the newspapers and there were comments everywhere. About a dozen P.A.P. Assemblymen who attended a study course on the 19th October, 1959, were shocked to see George Thomson's entry into the lecture room at Fullerton Building and he started lecturing to them on the principles of Western democracy. That was the subject. I do not know what he had introduced. The Assemblymen there and then protested and wanted to stage a walk-out, and the Prime Minister had to call them up immediately to explain matters. He told the Assemblymen that we can use Thomson's knowledge. The Assemblymen could think for themselves and discern whether George Thomson was telling the truth or not. The murmurs and grumblings grew day by day within the rank and file of the P.A.P. and among the masses of Singapore.

Early in August 1959 the Central Executive Committee of the People's Action Party decided that George Thomson must be dismissed. Nobody dared put on record objections to that motion, not even the Prime Minister. Since that meeting, the Central Executive Committee of the People's Action Party -

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of information.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: The Member has given way.

The Prime Minister: Sir, not even the Prime Minister, in spite of his knowledge of unarmed combat, telepathy, manipulations from the rear, can lodge an objection when he is not present at the meeting. It is not possible. And there are minutes to show I was nott present at that meeting.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister may be good at unarmed combat, but definitely not telepathy, otherwise the three of us would not be sitting here.

In early August 1959, the Central Executive Committee of the People's Action Party had decided that George Thomson must be dismissed. Since that meeting the Central of the P.A.P. held fewer and fewer meetings, and any meetings that were held thereafter were discussions of a routine administrative nature, until they almost ceased to exist. However, this unanimous decision of the Central of the P.A.P. was never carried out; no disciplinary action was ever taken against the culprits, because it is just an impossibility for the Secretary-General of the People's Action Party to sack the Prime Minister of the Singapore Government. Despite the decision of the Central of the P.A.P., George Thomson was retained -

The Minister for Health (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim): (In Malay): On a point of order, Sir. About the remarks of the Member for Hong Lim, I would like to ask whether they are relevant to the motion that is being debated in this Assembly.

Mr Speaker: The point of order is whether what the Member for Hong Lim is saying is relevant to the motion. I have been listening to it very carefully and up to now he is, I should imagine, on the borderline; but I think he is relating his remarks to the pith or the meat of the motion. Therefore, up to now I must rule that he is relevant. But once he becomes irrelevant, then of course I will have to stop him.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, we have always tried to keep to the subject of the debate. To those who have listened to these Assembly debates and to those who have not - they can read the Hansard - they can see that that has always been our stand.

Despite the decision of the Central, George Thomson was retained. His contract was extended and he was given a position more significant and with more authority than what he had enjoyed under the previous Government. In October 1959 the Political Study Centre was instituted and George Thomson became its Director, assisted by a full-time staff tutor, the ex-Labour Front Organising Secretary, Gerald de Cruz. Here in this Political Study Centre, these two anti-P.A.P. stalwarts before the elections were -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have had occasion in the past to ask Members to modulate their voices, because, firstly it upsets my hearing, and, secondly, I think the sound equipment of this Chamber is very good!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, anybody in this position would feel the same amount of anger. Here were George Thomson and Gerald de Cruz who, before the elections, were anti-P.A.P. stalwarts. Now, under the P.A.P. Government, they set upon themselves the vital task of brainwashing the civil servants. However, the brainwashing of the civil servants in the name of political studies was only part of the duties of George Thomson. He became a Krishna Menon, the roving Ambassador - a Minister without portfolio - getting paid officially as Director of the Political Study Centre. His presence was felt everywhere in Singapore. He delivered lectures at meetings, symposiums and forums. He was sometimes found close by the Prime Minister when the latter delivered speeches. He was present at television -

The Prime Minister: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: The Member has given way.

The Prime Minister: Just name three occasions when the man referred to as George Thomson was close by when I was delivering speeches and prompting me. I repeat this once more. Say this outside the Chamber -

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister, I think, is forgetting that he is addressing the Chair. I am afraid I cannot name these three occasions.

The Prime Minister: Can the Member for Hong Lim give three instances where I was the ventriloquist's dummy and George Thomson was the ventriloquist? And if he just repeats that Outside this Chamber, then we will have a battle royal to establish whether the Prime Minister right now standing before him is a ventriloquist's dummy or whether he is prepared to speak his own mind any time, any place, and in any circumstance.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, that was not the case during the special Party conference. Why name three instances -

The Prime Minister: Give us three instances.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Why name three instances? The Prime Minister knows that the papers only came out with one. The others were not published as photographs in the newspapers. In one particular instance which I recollect, we could see the Prime Minister standing up, with George Thomson sitting next to him, addressing a meeting of headmasters. Was that not right?

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of information?

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Is the Member for Hong Lim then drawing the inference that the Prime Minister was saying things under the prompting of Mr George Thomson, that he has no mind, no speech of his own, and no thought of his own?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, unless the Prime Minister is guilty-conscious, I never made that allegation.

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: May I ask what is the abstruse significance of having Mr George Thomson by my side on one occasion?

An hon. Member: Inspiration!

The Prime Minister: Was he protecting me?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: George Thomson became a Krishna Menon, a roving Ambassador, a Minister without portfolio, getting pay as Director of the Political Study Centre. He will be seen -

The Prime Minister: On a further point of information.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Is he suggesting, therefore, that since I have my deputy, Dr Toh, sitting at my side, he is another Krishna Menon, a roving Ambassador who is giving me a constant source of prompting and encouragement as to how I should deport myself?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister still earns some respect from the people of Singapore, and he is a good screen to be provided for you.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is flattered or not. He is alleged to be a screen for the Speaker. I trust that is not the meaning of what the Member for Hong Lim has just said.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, you do not need a screen. I mean a screen for the Prime Minister.

I sometimes ask myself which Ministry he is looking after. George Thomson seems to have a finger in every pie. How can he do it, unless it is under the express directive and with the sanction of the Prime Minister, who is above all Ministries? No Permanent Secretary has been in that enviable position. Mr Speaker, these brainwashing lectures in the Political Study Centre are an utter disgrace to the Government and to the P.A.P. Two of the staunchest opponents of the P.A.P. before May 1959 are being paid fat salaries to organise classes to brainwash civil servants and others under the guise of political studies. Civil servants in groups of about twenty are compelled to attend these indoctrination classes every working day, six days a week, for a duration of about three weeks, from 2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. The day session starts with so-called general lectures, very often innocent and harmless ones, by some Ministers -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What has this rubbish that he is saying to do with the motion -

Mr Speaker: Order. Of course, the first thing the Minister for Finance must do is to withdraw the word "rubbish". Will he withdraw the word "rubbish"?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I withdraw the word and -

Mr Speaker: Unqualifiedly.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Unqualifiedly, and may I substitute -

Mr Speaker: No. The motion before the House is,

That this Assembly urges the Government to take immediate steps to Malayanise all expatriate administrative officials.

And I take it that the Member for Hong Lim is giving these details to indicate that there is at least one administrative official who should be immediately malayanised. If that is what the Member for Hong Lim means, then, of course, he is relevant up to that point.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is what the civil servants have been supplied with, the word just used by the Minister for Finance. The day session starts with so-called general lectures, very often innocent and harmless ones, by some Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries or Political Secretaries -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Hong Lim is probably going into details which is taking him a little too far from the motion itself. I do not think he will be justified in going into details as to what actually happened in the Political Study Centre.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, unless I give some little details, it is impossible to convince the people that such posts can be taken over by local people. The day session starts with a so-called general lecture by some respectable person to provide a screen. It just boils down to nice but empty talk. After a break for tea the real stuff, in the form of small discussion groups, began, like the tutorial system in the universities under the guidance of George Thomson and Gerald de Cruz. This is the media through which indoctrination is hoped to be effectively carried out. In this tutorial system several people, who once hated the P.A.P., talk about Communism and other subjects to the civil servants, occasionally casting aspersions on individual Ministers they do not like. It is free discussion. Everybody is encouraged to express his thoughts, and you, Mr Minister for Labour and Law, are included in the aspersions.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member for Hong Lim is not only forgetting that he must keep to the motion itself, but he is also forgetting time and again that he is addressing the Chair. He must remember that he is addressing the Chair.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I apologise, Mr Speaker. It is a free discussion. Everybody is encouraged to express his thoughts. They often invited lecturers from outside the Government, mostly Europeans. The more they hated the P.A.P. once upon a time, the more welcome they are now. In these discussion groups, the civil servants will sit there and hear anti-Communist stories and sometimes personal castigations like old worn-out gramophone records. This is one of the agencies that the Prime Minister can use to spread his smear campaigns against those he does not like -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have been very lenient, but I really think that the hon. Member for Hong Lim is now straying very far away from the motion. He must now try and convince me that what he is saying is, in fact, relevant. I understood him to say that he is advocating that that type of work could be taken over by a local man. I that is what he means, then perhaps he can go on.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of George Thomson has been fought for more than a year. He is now occupying the post of Director of Staff Training. I wonder whether that post has been openly advertised, and whether it has passed through the P.S.C. Despite the fact that brainwashing methods in the second half of the twentieth century have been developed into almost an exact science, I still cannot be convinced that colonialists like George Thomson, who was openly hostile to the P.A.P. not long ago, can suddenly be converted into P.A.P. missionaries. This issue was fought a long, long time. There was a fight in the Central in August 1959. There was a fight in the P.A.P. Special Party Conference in June 1960 on this issue of expatriate administrators. In between these two dates, the fight went on unabated, and one of the casualties in this struggle was Tan Gak Eng, former Assistant Organising Secretary of the P.A.P. In the month preceding his dismissal in November 1959, he waged a constant and fearless battle for the dismissal of George Thomson and other expatriate officials. A secret trial was planned by the Prime Minister against him in November 1959 and he was subject to a great ordeal -

The Prime Minister: On a point of order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: What is this secret trial that I had staged?

Mr Speaker: I was just trying to trace the point of order, Mr Prime Minister. Perhaps a point of explanation, is it not?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I want to know how this secret trial came into this motion.

Mr Speaker: A point of explanation for the Member for Hong Lim.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister knows what a secret trial means. I wonder -

Mr Speaker: Order. The point that worries the Chair now is, how is that relevant to the motion? Will the Member for Hong Lim link that secret trial to the motion?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister was trying to ask me to explain what is this secret trial. It is not related to the motion, and, therefore, I am not dealing any further with the secret trial. I wonder if it is not a strange coincidence that on the eve of the debate on this subject Tan Gak Eng was arrested -

Mr Speaker: Order. That is the point. I think, before the Member expands on the arrest of Tan Gak Eng, he should convince the Chair that that arrest is relevant to the motion.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was trying just now to explain to this House the various phases of the struggle against the repatriation of expatriate administrators, and, as such, this part of the struggle is also important.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Logically, Sir, is there any connection between a person's, arrest in connection with threats having been issued to an Assemblyman, and the sending of a knife, and the repatriation of Europeans who were never in any way in the picture? Logically -

Mr Speaker: Order. That is what I would like to hear from the Member for Hong Lim.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I have explained just now that -

The Prime Minister: Logic, logic!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - there are many phases in the struggle for the repatriation of expatriate administrators and that this is part of the struggle.

The Prime Minister: What struggle?

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I have not seen the logical connection yet between the different phases. From the phase of a person being arrested in connection with threats to Assemblymen, to this phase about repatriation of officials. That is all that I -

Mr Speaker: Order. I was waiting for the Member for Hong Lim to continue. He has said that there is some connection and, as the Prime Minister has pointed out in another point of order, he has not as yet explained what that connection is. If he can do so, then I will be in a better position to rule.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, broadly speaking, I could outline for you the different phases of the fight. The first phase was on the formation of the. Government till August 1959, at the meeting of the Central Committee of the People's Action Party. The second phase culminated in the dismissal of Tan Gak Eng from the People's Action Party. The third phase ended in the special Party Conference of June 1960. Today is more or less the beginning of the fourth phase.

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for Hong Lim alleging then, as a matter of fact, that Mr Tan Gak Eng was arrested because he was against the retention of this administrative officer? Is he alleging that as a matter of fact?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes, Mr Speaker. That is what I asked the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: On a point of order? Yes.

The Prime Minister: What have these four phases got to do with the motion, assuming that there are these four phases? We all have to stretch our imagination very far and very hard, and we are quite prepared to do that. But what have they got to do with the motion?

Mr Speaker: Order. I understood the Member for Hong Lim to say that, in his view, the arrest of Tan Gak Eng was because he opposed the retention of the services of George Thomson. That is what the Member for Hong Lim has alleged in this Assembly, and he is entitled to allege that. Whether he has any foundation or not it is not for me to say. The Member for Hong Lim is a responsible Member of this Assembly and he must first have grounds before he makes an allegation of that nature.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can find no other reason for the arrest.

The Prime Minister: On a point of information -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have not cleared this point yet. Well, in that case I must rule that the reference to the arrest of Tan Gak Eng has no relation whatsoever to this motion, if it is only on hypothesis.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, Tan Gak Eng was dismissed from the People's Action Party because he was charged with smearing the name of the Secretary-General by retaining Blades, Meadows and Thomson. It is relevant to my debate today.

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the Member for Hong Lim then alleging that the man was arrested because of that? If so, has he grounds for it? That is, I think, the pith of the whole matter.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, as I have said just now, I have known Tan Gak Eng's political activities and his past associations with the P.A.P., the manner he was dismissed and the charges that were brought against him, and I cannot find any other reason. If the statement about the knife is true, then the Prime Minister will charge him in court. If his association with the gangsters is true, then he will be charged in court. Tan Gak Eng, with 20 years experience; will not sign G.T.E. Action Group, which means Gak Tan Eng's Action Group.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member for Hong Lim is now embarking on a defence of Tan Gak Eng. I do not think that can be permitted. Having touched on that subject, he should now proceed on to another aspect of the, motion.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister feels very sorry for George Thomson to leave. He will miss his friend, guide and philosopher. Due to the growing discontent on this issue, I understand there may be some changes! I believe the post of Director of Political Training will shortly be Malayanised. There is one good way, though, to thank the staff tutor, Gerald de Cruz, who has worked hard behind the scenes for the Government. As a matter of fact, few people in Singapore know that today Gerald de Cruz exerts more influence on the long-term policies and decisions of the Government than many Cabinet Ministers of the P.A.P -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry I have to interrupt, but I think I must try and keep the debate within the four walls of the motion. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hong Lim is alleging that Gerald de Cruz is an expatriate administrative officer. If he is, then, of course, the Member for Hong Lim is in order. But if he is not, then, of course, he is completely out of order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: So the possibility of George Thomson being Malayanised by Government is very great -

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for Hong Lim then satisfied that all reference to Gerald de Cruz is outside the ambit of the motion?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I agree, Mr Speaker. But would the Prime Minister tell us when George Thomson is to be Malayanised and where is he going? Is be going to be really Malayanised? Did the Prime Minister create the conditions for the appointment of Mr George Thomson to be the first Professor of Political Science at the University of Malaya? So George Thomson will be able to brainwash University students a few hours each day and draw up political blueprints for the Prime Minister during his spare hours -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid interruptions are becoming rather tedious. But if the allegation is that George Thomson is to find a post in the University of Malaya, I cannot see any Ministerial responsibility, and, therefore, the Member for Hong Lim. I think, cannot satisfy me that that allegation is within the terms of the motion, which is a motion to urge the Government to do something in relation to expatriate officers.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Malayanisation Commission sat on the proceedings and in these proceedings it deliberated not only on the Malayanisation of Government services but also on expatriate officials in Governmental agencies and corporations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now I shall dwell on another important expatriate administrator. The second of the Big Three is Mr P. H. Meadows. During the Lim Yew Hock Government, .Meadows was Deputy Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing, Chairman of the Rural Board and Chairman of the Planning Committee of the S.I.T. When I was appointed Minister for National Development, which combined the former portfolios of the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, and various other departments, Meadows automatically became a member of the staff in the Ministry of National Development. As I became more and more familiar with the work of the Ministry. the presence and activities of Meadows began to give me cause for alarm. From whatever files that were not missing from the Ministry of Local Government and from reports, I began to form the opinion -

The Prime Minister: On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, a very serious statement has been made that files were missing from the Ministry, and this is mentioned in reference to this particular officer, Mr P. H. Meadows. I think it is very important that we should be informed if files are missing, particularly as the Minister knew about it, as he then was the Minister. It is a very serious thing. Theft has taken place. For all we know, great misdemeanour might have been committed by the former Minister with his servant. I think the Assembly is entitled to full facts and a full disclosure so that the appropriate action and punishment can be meted out to all who deserve it.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was ready for a U-2 incident to happen here. To give just one example: on 5th June, 1959, a firm of lawyers wrote to the Ministry in reply to the suspension of duties of an officer of the City Council. The file reference number was CC/22. Despite my instructions in the Ministry that all letters concerning the City Council ought to be given to me for reference and decisions. Mr Meadows replied on his own account to the legal firm, but quoted instead a new file number, CC/17. Now, Mr Speaker, file CC/22 from then onwards disappeared. I have the index cards to prove it and, if you want, I shall produce for your - as a matter of fact, Mr Speaker, I have shown this to the Prime Minister in a meeting with him on 12th of August -

The Prime Minister: Very serious.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - when the Prime Minister called me up.

The Prime Minister: Sir, with regard to the cards and the files, may I ask whether we could have a proper Inspection of these documents, because I think a very serious allegation has been made of theft and it should be properly investigated and pursued?

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think this is the forum where an investigation shou1d be made. What should happen is that the Prime Minister now takes note of whatever is said by the Member for Hong Lim who, I take it, is speaking in this Assembly with some foundation. I made a remark a little while ago, that Members must realise that they have a responsibility not only to themselves and to this Assembly, but also to members of the public who are outside this Assembly and who are not here to defend themselves. Therefore, any serious allegation should not be made unless the Member is fully satisfied that the allegation can be proved up to the hilt.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: That is why, Mr Speaker, I have reduced to the minimum possible my touching on personalities, instances and incidents in order to prove my arguments; otherwise I would be making a more lengthy speech today.

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. I cannot allow it.

The Prime Minister: Sir, it is a very important point I am making.

Mr Speaker: I see.

The Prime Minister: The file which the ex-Minister handled is a Government file. Could I ask him when he removed it from the Government Ministry?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not remove the file. I only took photostat copies.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the file -

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: The file cover is a Government file.

Mr Speaker: Order. This sort of running commentary and cross-questions are completely out of order. Of course, the Member for Hong Lim is inviting it by giving way. But I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he bide his time and, when he makes his speech, if he is speaking on the motion, he could bring all these points up.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, I wish to make it clear why I gave way. It is because all what I have said is nothing but the truth.

The Prime Minister: Repeat it outside.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I formed the opinion that Meadows was an important political planner in the Labour Front Government and not merely an expatriate civil servant. I must say that not all expatriate civil servants are involved in political planning. The suspension of the City Council, the Commissions of Inquiry and many incidents in the City Council can be traced to Meadows. The ex-Minister knew very little of what went on. Although Meadows was in theory only the Deputy Permanent Secretary, he was in practice actually running the Ministry of Local Government, just as he is now actually running all the departments in the name of the Prime Minister. Meadows, like Thomson, should have been Malayanised in 1955 under the Report of the Malayanisation Commission. The Lim Yew Hock Government -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order, Sir. When the hon.. Member makes statements of fact based on the Malayanisation Report, should be not, in fairness to the officials concerned, quote chapter and verse? To my knowledge, what was said about Mr Meadows' date of Malayanisation is utterly untrue.

Mr Speaker: The matter has been placed to me as a point of order. In fact, it is not a point of order but a point of clarification. I might repeat that when hon. Members make certain allegations in this Chamber, it is their responsibility to see that they do not, in fact, say something which is not correct.

Mr Ong Eng Guam Mr Speaker, this is from page 119 of the Interim Report of the Malayanisation Commission. In 1955, during the sittings of the Malayanisation Commission, Mr Meadows was occupying the post of Principal Assistant Director of Social Welfare and the present Minister for Finance was the Assistant Director - he should know that better than I do. Item 2 of the recommendations reads:

`The posts of Principal Assistant Director, Social Welfare, and Assistant Director, Social Welfare, [the Minister was studying in England and was coming back to fill the post] at present occupied by expatriate officers can be filled immediately by promotion of local officers in the Department.'

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of explanation.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The hon. Member is completely confused in his mind as to the distinction between the Malayanisation of posts and -

Mr Speaker: I think that is a point which the Hon. Minister can make in his speech. It is not really an explanation or elucidation of what the Member is saying now.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the distinction very well myself.

Meadows, like Thomson, should have been Malayanised in 1955 under the Malayanisation Commission Report. The Lim Yew Hock Government extended his contract and switched him over to some other post which required Malayanisation at a later date. But what I cannot understand - I can understand the actions of the previous Government - is the action of this Government, the so-called P.A.P. Government. When Meadows was working in the Ministry of National Development between June and September, 1959, I had the opportunity to watch his activities. I shall narrate here some of the more interesting events concerning his official duties. After the victory of the P.A.P. and the Government was in the process of being formed, the Prime Minister-designate asked me to appoint one Mr Meadows, who was the Deputy Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing, as the Chief Administrative Officer of the City Council. This was the first time I heard about him but I told the Prime Minister that on no account should an expatriate head the City Council again, as this would be tantamount to going back to the pre-Rendel days. Later, I appointed Mr P. C. Lim, the most senior local officer, to be the Administrator; but unfortunately, when the Prime Minister took over the City Council in October 1959, his earlier intention of making Meadows the real boss of the City Council materialised. Again, on the day before the swearing in ceremony of the new Government, the Prime Minister told me to sign an order declaring the post of C.A.O. redundant. He said that the Permanent Secretary would wait for me outside the Council Chamber; but when I left the Council Chamber I was surprised to see instead Mr Meadows who adjourned to the Committee Room. I read through the order and found it unnecessary. The suspension of any civil servant does not require a Government order. Suffice it to say that the effect of signing that order would have been detrimental to the interest of the City Council.

Mr Speaker, you will see that I am trying to avoid mentioning as many names as possible. What I do not understand was the great haste taken to get me to sign this order. After a discussion, Meadows agreed with me that the suspension of the post of any civil servant did not require an order.

Again, the Singapore Improvement Trust, which was synonymous with corruption and inefficiency during the Lim Yew Hock Government, was to be reorganised. I asked Meadows, who was the Deputy Permanent Secretary, one or two days after the Government was formed, to put up a paper appointing the most senior local architect there as the Chairman of the S.I.T. to start a cleaning-up campaign. Meadows was a former member of the S.I.T. and Chairman of its Planning Committee. This proposal and later proposals to reorganise the S.I.T. were turned down by the Prime Minister, and from the tone of the discussions it was manifestly clear that he had contacted, directly or indirectly, Mr Meadows before the meetings.

The Prime Minister: On a point of clarification.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: "Directly or indirectly, contacted Mr Meadows" at the time when Mr Meadows was supposed to be working for the Minister for National Development, is that the suggestion? Mr Meadows, as a civil servant, bypassed his Minister and contacted the Prime Minister. Is that the suggestion?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, it depends on whether it was done openly or covertly.

The Prime Minister: On a point of information.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Is the hon. Member saying that the Prime Minister, in complete disloyalty to his own colleague, conspired with a civil servant working under that colleague? I ask the Member for Hong Lim to repeat that outside and he will have ample opportunity to prove these things.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: After the threats and arrest of Tan Gak Eng and company, there are more threats!

Files from the Ministry were missing. Meadows wanted a certain person appointed as Chairman of the Rent Board, to which I objected. When the appointment of another person was sent to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara (Sir William Goode), it was delayed and the Prime Minister wanted me to reverse the position. I stood by my decision. There were many other matters which would require days of de bate. As a result of all these incidents, my patience was drawing to an end.

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: For the sake of the record, that should not go unchallenged. The Member said he stuck to his decision about the appointment of the Chairman to the Rent Conciliation Board. He did not, Sir. After the matter was raised by the Member for Farrer Park - if he will remember - it was contrary to certain principles, and the appointment was altered with the concurrence of all parties, due to no fault of the appointee.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, soon I will expose the whole story of the appointment of the Chairman of the Rent Board, and I shall prove to this House that many of the questions raised by the Member for Farrer Park were always discussed earlier in the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I am now wandering in a morass. The Member for Hong Lim must try to relate all his remarks to the motion and not dart away from it and then come back to it. It is a bit puzzling to know when he is relevant and when he is irrelevant.

The Prime Minister: On a point of clarification. Is the Member for Hong Lim suggesting -

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister must remember that he should not start speaking until he is called by the Speaker.

The Prime Minister: Can I be called?

Mr Speaker: Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: The Member for Hong Lim has suggested that the Member for Farrer Park and I were in collusion to ask questions which were discussed in the P.A.P. Central Committee. I do not know whether the Member for Farrer Park considers it a great honour to have been consulted by the Prime Minister on this matter, but I consider it a grave aspersion on any Prime Minister to have engineered with the Opposition, questions discussed in his own Party Committee. I would be grateful if the Member for Hong Lim would assert that by giving one or two instances. I can assure him that he will not be arrested under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance.

Mr Speaker: That is, of course, completely irrelevant and if the Member for Hong Lim attempts to answer it, he will be irrelevant. Let us get back to the motion.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Member for Tanjong Pagar prophesied as early as 1955 was true. Please refer to Hansard, Volume 1, No. 2, dated 26th April, 1955, col. 58. The Prime Minister in 1955 said:

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister aptly summarised the whole position in 1955. Meadows, with his colonial octopus, was building an army of resistance around his air-conditioned room where he could plan and contact all his key people in private. With the presence of Meadows, there was no doubt in my mind that the reorganisation work of the Ministry would be difficult to push through. Any governmental measures aimed at cutting the existing privileges would be difficult to implement. Difficulties were imposed on my plan, for instance, to impose assessments on Shell properties in Pulau Bukom (they pay no assessment and do not need to follow building and planning by-laws; Pulau Bukom is run by Shell Company, exactly like a foreign concession), my plan to impose taxes on military vehicles which cause great damage to our roads (military vehicles pay no tax at all), and my plan to revise assessments on military properties (they pay little or hardly any assessments at present). The Cabinet discussed certain questions on assessments on military -

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the hon. Member can relate all that to the motion. The fact that Mr Meadows gave some advice which was turned down surely has nothing to do with the motion.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, unless one has experience in administration, it is difficult to understand really what the Prime Minister meant and said so aptly:

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

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of information.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: At that time, Mr George Thomson was serving another Government -

Mr Speaker: We are talking about Mr Meadows.

The Prime Minister: I am talking about Mr George Thomson now, Sir. We want to stick to one at a time. I would be grateful to the Member for Hong Lim if he could inform me: who wrote that speech for the Member for Tanjong Pagar?

Mr Speaker: Perhaps the Prime Minister is just as puzzled as the Speaker. We are on Mr Meadows and not on Mr George Thomson.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1955 the Member for Tanjong Pagar was a true nationalist; today, he is not any more. During those few months I was told that Meadows held an important rank in British Military Intelligence. Of course, there is no way to check its accuracy. I told the Prime Minister what I heard, and related all the incidents when he called me up on 12th August, 1959, to consider, what he said, sending Meadows to Siberia. The Prime Minister considered my asking Meadows to draw up schemes for the development of the Southern Islands and Changi beach, as sending him to Siberia. Later the Prime Minister transferred Meadows out of the Ministry.

The Prime Minister: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Sir, there are different ways of doing things. Despite its lack of tranquility, if the P.A.P. want to fix a guy, we are not so crude as to knock down the windows, doors and walls of a person's room - that is what I meant by allowing the icy winds of Siberia to blow through Mr Meadows; not to send him there. I hope the Member is not proud if he knocked down the four walls and removed the windows.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, towards the expatriates, the Prime Minister is always kind and gentle. Towards his own people, many have to flee the country, like Mr Owen and Mr Lui Boon Poh, and others have to be sent to gaol under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. Later the Prime Minister transferred Meadows out of the Ministry of National Development and wanted him to be the Director of the Special Branch. How can a person who has no experience as a top officer -

The Prime Minister: On a point of information, Sir,

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: This is the first time I am hearing so many things about myself. I am really wondering whether or not there are two persons in me. One is me, and the other is the man that exists in the Member for Hong Lim's imagination. Mr Meadows and the Director of the Special Branch are two completely unrelated subjects. Can the Member please explain in what particular nightmare this visitation of God struck him?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister is exactly such a person, and he was ably pictured in the latest issue of the S.P.A. magazine. This plan was not pushed through due to stiff opposition. So in September 1959 P. H. Meadows became Secretary to the Prime Minister with special duties. There is no such post in the Budget; it is out of circulation. We have the only Prime Minister in the world with a foreigner as Secretary. And he is not an ordinary secretary, but a special secretary. The ex-Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock, did not have an expatriate as his Secretary. This Special Secretary took control of the Prime Minister's Office and his power increased as the departments of the Prime Minister's Office increased in numbers and size. To give an indication of his powers, I say that Meadows has more power in running the City Council, the Rural Board, the Singapore Harbour Board, the Planning Department, the Land Office, the Survey Department, and so on, [Interruption] than, say, the Member for Crawford has in running the Ministry of Labour and Law. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour and Law cannot even issue Press statements. Just imagine!

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder how that statement can be related to the motion. As I say, the Member for Hong Lim seems to be darting here, there and everywhere, forgetting that he must try to keep to the motion.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, if there were no interruptions from the Government Benches, I can assure you there would be no replies to all these interruptions.

Mr Speaker: Order. I would suggest then that the Member for Hong Lim has a remedy, and that is not to give way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Meadows was the man who secretly went to the United Kingdom, before the Minister for Finance went there, to prepare the way for a U.K. loan of $65 million. The budget under the control of Meadows is more than half of the total national budget. The staff and employees under the control and administration of Meadows -

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: The Member has given way

The Prime Minister: This is just for his information, Sir. I cannot be responsible for other people's paranoic tendencies, and I hope the Member for Hong Lim does not suffer from these. But I can assure him that the Budgets both of the City Council and the Government are under the Minister for Finance and will be presented to this Assembly as one Budget and not as it was done before when he budgeted it in the Gazette. This will be done this year.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is irrelevant to the motion, otherwise I would make a very substantial reply. The staff and employees -

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: The Member has given way.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member is most accommodating, Sir,I was really surprised to learn that I had secret allies during my talks in London. Can the Member for Hong Lim please tell me in what secret way or by what secret method did Mr Meadows depart for London - was it by submarine U-2 or what?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is also irrelevant, otherwise I would show how it was done.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think on this occasion there is no irrelevancy at all about it. A statement was made by the Member for Hong Lim and the Minister for Finance has asked for an elucidation, albeit in a rather lengthy manner!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Meadows went a few days before the official delegation from the Ministry of Finance went. Mr Meadows went on his own, getting three weeks' leave from the City Council. He is a City Council employee, paid, of course, as the Deputy Permanent Secretary to the Prime Minister. He made the necessary arrangements there, I presume, and came back in a plane different from that which the official delegation took. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is all part of the game. The budget under the control of Meadows -

The Prime Minister: Under the control of the Minister for Finance.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - is more than half of the total national budget. I can prove and show that the Prime Minister, who runs the City Council, knows nothing about the City Council Budget.

Mr Speaker: Order. As I said, my difficulty is trying to relate all these remarks to the motion. I should imagine that just a passing comment on these actions by the officer concerned would suffice.' But if the honourable Member for Hong Lim goes into detail, then, of course, I think he is possibly going a bit too far away from the motion. I must now try to confine the debate to the narrowest channel possible.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, I am only dealing with the broad general principles - only one sentence on the budget, that is all. The staff and employees under the control of Meadows are enough to equip two divisions of an army of about 30,000 people. The Prime Minister -

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the honourable Member for Hong Lim then suggesting that because Mr Meadows has an army for his staff, he should be malayanised? If he is, then, of course, he is relevant; otherwise he is irrelevant.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, I have brought up two points at the beginning of my speech. First, the role of the administrators whose say is decisive in the control of power of the State. Second, the present expatriate administrators are more powerful in the Lee Kuan Yew Government than under the Lim Yew Hock Government. I am trying to drive my point home. The Prime Minister busies himself in many other duties and feels most happy to leave the running of his departments to Mr Meadows. And today, the Prime Minister's knowledge of the departments under his name is as much as, if not less than, what perhaps Mr Braga knew about the Ministry of Health, or Chew Swee Kee knew about the Ministry of Education.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know how all these remarks - these asides, to put it that way - have any relevance whatsoever to this motion. Let us try and be relevant from now on, and I think if we are relevant, we might finish before midnight!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I felt so sorry for the Prime Minister when, in a debate on the policy speech in August, he narrated matters concerning the City Council - about the power station, accountancy qualifications, sewerage engineers, and about other officers. He had little knowledge of what went on.

Mr Speaker: Order. Can the Member tell me how that is related to the motion - the so-called failings of the Prime Minister?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, have I not driven home the fact that when he put an expatriate administrator in that position, that person controls the fundamentals of our State? That is the reason why we should put a local officer in that key position, particularly when we have a Prime Minister who is so busily occupied with other multifarious duties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we now come to the last of the Big Three among the expatriate administrative civil servants.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think it is time for tea. I suspend this sitting, and shall take this Chair again at half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.58 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we now come to the last of the Big Three among the expatriate administrative civil servants, namely, the Commissioner of Police. I shall quote below the relevant parts of the 1955 Report of the Malayanisation Commission on the Police Force. Page 55 of the Interim Report says:

`The posts of Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and the remaining post of Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police can be Malayanised in three years.

The Commissioner of Police should be asked to remain as Adviser to the Police Force for 1 more year.

Thus the Police Force can be completely Malayanised in three years without loss of efficiency.'

Mr Speaker, that was in 1955. And this is what the Prime Minister had said in the debate on 5th December, 1956, on the statement of Malayanisation policy by the Lim Yew Hock Government. Please refer to Hansard, Vol. 2, No. 15 dated 5th December, 1956, cols. 1081 to 1082. Mr Speaker, Sir, on 5th December, 1956, the Prime Minister said:

`The Commissioner of Police himself admitted before the Malayanisation Commission that the police force including his own job could be Malayanised in five years. The Commission recommended a period of three. The Government has chosen six. To a certain extent, the experience of Members on the other side of the recent disorders in the Colony of Singapore when they found that their own lives and property had to be defended by Gurkha troops and police and European officers may have weighed heavily in their minds, The Asian officers in the police force no doubt are somewhat frustrated and embittered about the Malayanisation of the police force.'

And then in col. 1082, in paragraph 2, the Prime Minister continued:

`Sir, I say this to the Asian officers, if they demand the right to take over the police force, let us see their mettle. Let us see the grit that is wanted in men who are to hold the rifle barrel in this little island. Unless they can prove to us that they have guts, courage and integrity, then they deserve what they have got in this White Paper.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, this was the debate on the Lim Yew Hock Government's White Paper.

Mr Speaker, the police force is at present far from being Malayanised. Although the number of expatriate police officers has been considerably reduced since the publication of the Malayanisation Commission Report in 1955, yet the effective control of tie police by the British is by no means less. This is achieved by a systematic centralisation of power in the hands of the Commissioner. What has the Prime Minister done to give local officers a chance to prove themselves? Suffice it to say that were it not for the intra-Party struggle waged between the pro-colonial line and the anti-colonial line in the P.A.P. since the Government was formed, the important posts of Deputy Commissioner and the Chief of the C.I.D. would still be in the hands of the expatriate police officers today. The Prime Minister seems always to have a higher regard for expatriates. According to the Malayanisation Commission Report, the Malayanisation of the police force can be completed now. It is a shame to the people of this country to have the police force controlled by a handful of foreigners. Or is the Prime Minister now in the same boat as the former Chief Minister was? This is what the Prime Minister once said in 1956 in the debate on the Malayanisation of the police. As I quoted just now from Hansard, Vol. 2, col. 1081:

`To a certain extent, the experience of Members on the other side of the: recent disorders in the Colony of Singapore when they found that their own lives and property had to be defended by Gurkha troops: and police and European officers may have weighed heavily in their minds.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps this now weighs heavily in the mind of the Prime Minister. I can find no other reason for the Prime Minister not being interested in the complete Malayanisation of the police force than the above reason. Has he no confidence in our own people? That our own local administrators can run the Prime Minister's Office. That our own intellectuals can organise political discussions based on our own national identity and thinking. That our own local Police officers can maintain law and order when entrusted with the task. Or does the Prime Minister still prefer an expatriate who cannot multiply figures by six to a local accountant? As an accountant, I say this, Mr Speaker, that this local officer is easily considered to be one of the top local accounting brains in Singapore, both in Government and private enterprise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in this debate, we have confined ourselves to the question of expatriate administrative officials only. It does not mean that the question of expatriate technical officers is not important. Although they have control over our power structure, their control is not as fundamental as the expatriate administrators'. Mr Speaker, the source of Government power in Singapore is not to be found in the P.A.P., nor in the Central Executive Committee in the P.A.P., nor in the P.A.P. Assemblymen, nor in the Cabinet. The Cabinet only gives the formal approval of power. The source of power is to be found in a group of individuals most of whom are not elected and responsible to the people. The day-to-day running of the government of the country is being undertaken at present by these five men: first, the Prime Minister, second, the Minister for Finance, third, Meadows, fourth. Blades, and fifth, George Thomson. I do not blame the latter three. Their duty is to the British Empire, and for that they have shown and given loyal service. The Internal Security Council, the Singapore Constitution and the British Military Force have their respective tasks to fulfill, other than the day-to-day running of the Government. The Ministers are more like the Permanent Secretaries. It is something of the nature of de Gaulle's Cabinet. Mr K. M. Byrne, as the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the Lim Yew Hock Government, had more power and authority than he has as a Minister under the present Government.

Mr Speaker: Order. Can the hon. Member for Hong Lim relate that to the motion?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, it shows that other than the two important Ministers in the Cabinet, these three expatriate administrators, vis-a-vis their own Ministers, are more important and more vital, and they have the decisive say in matters of policy. In the present context, Mr Meadows, although in theory only possessing the status of a Deputy Permanent Secretary, speaks with far more authority and exerts far more power than the Minister for Labour and Law.

Mr Byrne: How stupid!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, he will wake up one day to see his pants stripped off! The issue in today's debate is the Malayanisation of all expatriate administrators. We have brought up for special mention three of them because they are the most important. And its illustration will give the people a clearer insight into the importance of expatriate administrators and their control of our State. How can we allow this state of affairs to continue? Have faith in our local officers. Have faith in our people. Perhaps as the final report of the Malayanisation Commission said in its conclusion:

`During the transition period there may be some diminution of general efficiency not because local persons are incompetent or because they belong to an inferior biological species but simply because of the fact of change.'

But Mr Speaker, Sir, we must have faith in the ability of our own people to solve our own destiny and plan for our own future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, the most apt words uttered by the Member for Hong Lim were those in his introductory sentences. You will recollect that he has said that it is utterly absurd for anyone to have proposed the motion, and if only he had followed to the conclusion that this statement leads one to, he would have kept his mouth shut and sat down, thereby sparing this Assembly a most sorry exhibition, I do not think the dignity of the Assembly has been heightened by the pitiful spectacle of misrepresentation, lack of logic and incoherence with which we have been regaled for the last hour and a half. Before I deal with the substance of the motion, may I first make a few preliminary observations to clear up some misunderstanding which might arise from what the Member for Hong Lim has said?

I did rise on a point of clarification to point out the distinction between the Malayanisation of a post and the Malayanisation of an officer. The Member for Hong Lim said that the distinction was quite clear to him. But he immediately made it quite evident that he is completely ignorant of this very elementary fact. When you say you Malayanise a post by such and such a year, it means that that post will not be held by an expatriate officer, After that time, the post will be held by a local officer. But it does not mean that the then incumbent of the post would be Malayanised. So it was in the case of Mr Meadows, when he held the post of Deputy Secretary in 1955/1956, and that post was recommended for Malayanisation and was duly Malayanised. But Mr Meadows was a member of the Malayan Civil Service, and, as such, was available for transfer to other posts. And his Malayanisation date is not due to take effect until some time in 1962. The Member for Hong Lim, therefore, misled the Assembly. I hope, in charity, that he did that unconsciously. But he misled the Assembly in trying to make out that the present Government has extended the terms of Mr Meadows' service beyond his due date. The Member for Hong Lim said that he based his whole case on principle. But for more than an hour, we have been treated to a personal attack on three expatriate officers, their lack of integrity, their perfidy and their unreliability. The Member for Hong Lim, as a Member of this Assembly, occupies a position of privilege when he utters any word in this Assembly, if he were to make the same statement outside the Assembly in the same reckless manner that he has done, I venture to suggest that he would soon land in a libel suit.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir,

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Minister will not give way.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member will have time later in the debate to make use of the occasion. Time flies and we do not want to be held up in this rather foolish motion for the rest of the night.

Sir, the Member for Hong Lim, as everyone knows, is a great lad for gimmicks. We have seen his predilection for this line when he was given free rein during his first Mayorship in the City Council and his brief but disastrous career as a Minister in the P.A.P. Government. Everytime he built a stand-pipe, an opening ceremony was duly arranged with pomp and splendour, whereby the generosity of the then Mayor could be publicly acclaimed.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: It was for the Party!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: He wanted to chase all cars from Raffles Place.

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder if the Minister can relate those remarks to the motion. I think I have to keep asking that question. It does not seem to be related to the motion at all.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I shall soon be arriving at the point that this motion is just another gimmick, an example and a theme will develop as further details -

Mr Speaker: Order. That, of course, does not make those remarks relevant to the motion, The remarks themselves must be relevant to the motion. We are not now debating the character of the Member for Hong Lim.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, if you so rule. I was merely saying that the firm and relevant point is that there is no substance whatsoever in his motion, and I was trying to illustrate, by various incidents in his career, that it is very much in keeping with his character. I trust that that will be -

Mr Speaker: Order. Unless the actions described relate to expatriate officers, I am afraid they must be irrelevant. Because the actions must be related to expatriate officers.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, this motion is but the second of the motions to be introduced by the Member for Hong Lim. At the last sitting, he introduced a motion on political detainees, and I have no doubt that in future sittings we shall continue to be regaled at each meeting with further motions until we reach the magic number of 16. The Government has vigorously countered his first motion and today we shall slap this second motion down just as effectively.

Let us first consider what the Member for Hong Lim proposes to achieve by introducing this motion. First of all, let us never imagine that the purpose of the motion is what he purports to do, namely, to advance the cause of local officers. Civil servants in the City Council, the Ministry of National Development, the Housing Board and other Government departments, over whom the Member once held sway as overlord, know him too well as a tyrant and a bully. His departure from the City Council was greeted by a spontaneous outburst of joy and relief on the part of local officers, many of whom held celebrations on the day the news was announced. So it was too with the Ministry of National Development, the Housing Board and other departments.

The Member for Hong Lim is not foolish enough to imagine that at this late stage he could retrieve his reputation with the local officers. What he hopes to achieve by this motion is simply this. He is trying to get across to the public the motion that the present Government is pro-expatriate and that this is just one more piece of evidence of the soft attitude of the Government towards British Colonialism. In this way, he hopes to maintain his post as a true defender of the people against British Colonialism.

I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that such a pretence will not deceive even a child, if the Member for Hong Lim had taken pains to get his facts straight, he would have found that, in the light of what is taking place, this motion is utterly nonsensical. Let me present to the Assembly some figures about the numbers of expatriate officers now in the administration.

This motion does not deal with technical officers such as engineers, doctors, architects and so forth. It is concerned with officers who are engaged in the administrative functions of Government departments. We can grade such expatriate officers into two groups. The first consists of members of the former Malayan Civil Service, the Malayan administrative pool and such types. They are the elite of the former Colonial Administrative Service. Indeed, at one time it was common-place to call them the heaven-born, because of the prestige they enjoyed and the power they wielded. They held the key posts in the administration and it was they who decided policy and executed it. Before the Malayanisation Commission made its recommendations in 1956, there were 48 such European administrative officers, and most of them were members of the Malayan Civil Service. Under the programme for phased retirement of these officers, if these officers had elected to serve their full term of service, there would be serving in Singapore no less than 33 of these expatriate administrative officers. What is the position today? There are no more than three of them. And may I hasten to add that these three are not the famous trio who have become the bête noire of the Member for Hong Lim. In the face of this, only a fool would maintain that there should be anxiety about the pace of Malayanisation of administrative officers of this grade.

There is another group of officers who perform administrative functions though they do not belong to the Malayan Civil Service. By and large, they serve in various departmental services such as Customs, Income Tax, Police, Audit, Broadcasting, Education, Prisons and so forth. They administer particular Ordinances for which their departments are responsible. Before the Malayanisation Commission made its recommendations, there were about 250 of these officers. Under the programme of Malayanisation, there would be remaining in Singapore today 135 if all had chosen to serve their full term of service. In actual fact, there are now only 24 of them. So we see today, out of a total of some 300 expatriate officers who were in various administrative positions in the Government service, only 27 now remain. All the others have exercised the option for retirement before the date of Malayanisation.

In the face of these facts, the conclusion must be that Malayanisation is no longer an issue that need cause any anxiety as to the point of retention of unduly large numbers of expatriate officers. As regards the magical powers which the famous trio have been ascribed to have, may I say that these only exist in the paranoid imagination of the Member for Hong Lim?

Large-scale retirement of expatriate officers has left great gaps in the administrative machine. These have been gallantly filled by local officers whose performance is a credit both to them and the country. In the brief space of three or four years, nearly all the responsible positions in the administration are now in local hands. In many instances, comparatively young officers have had to take on responsibilities which they normally would be required to do at a much greater stage of seniority.

The question of Malayanisation has been discussed in the Assembly during the debate on the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I will quote at some length from this debate, but I think it is necessary here to point out that the approach of the Government and the approach of the Member for Hong Lim towards the issue of Malayanisation are radically different. We want to fill the posts vacated by expatriate officers with the ablest of our local officers. The Member for Hong Lim, however, regards Malayanisation as an exercise whereby his cronies from Batu Pahat could occupy high official positions for which they are completely unfitted. This point has been clearly brought out by the Prime Minister in his final address in the debate on the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, and the case of another famous trio, the Lu: brothers and young Mr Owen, is now public knowledge. Nevertheless, I cannot resist the temptation to quote some extracts from the Prime Minister's Address. First, there was Mr Lui Boon Poh who was appointed by the Member for Hong Lim, when he was the Minister for National Development, to take charge of the three great departments of Singapore's public utilities - the Electricity, Water and Gas Departments. At column 578 of Hansard, Volume 13, No. 8 dated Thursday, 11th August, 1960, the Prime Minister said:

`Lui Boon Poh was educated at Batu Pahat...'

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

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I intend to carry on. He can make all his observations and clarifications when he winds up the debate.

Perhaps it is a remarkable coincidence that Batu Pahat is the birthplace of the Member for Hong Lim where he -

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I happen to be born in the same place as the Minister.

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Member for Hong Lim should make extensive notes and then reply in detail. Dr Goh.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Prime Minister went on to say:

`...He [Mr Lui Boon Poh] had previously been a salesman with Fissions Chemicals, selling patent medicines amongst other things. He was appointed first as Superintendent, City Cleansing Department, and then as Deputy Administrator (Public Utilities). He was not dismissed immediately after I took over. He was given, three months to show that, despite the fact that his past experience and qualifications were somewhat not in keeping with the job he was holding, he is an extremely competent administrator. Unfortunately, after three months, our high hopes and expectations were not realised. He is now back in the Federation...'.

Then there was the famous friend of Mr Lui who took over the City Cleansing Department, doubtless on the ground that he had experience in selling patent medicines -

Mr Speaker: Order. I take it that these officers named were appointed as replacements of expatriate officers; otherwise I cannot find any relevance whatsoever.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Indeed, Sir, this was an example of the process of "Batu Pahatisation" landing the whole administration into a complete mess.

Well, this gentleman, a former ex-medicine seller, took over the Cleansing Department and decided that the incinerator at Kolam Ayer served no useful purpose, and that it was better that the rubbish be dumped there to sink into the swamp, thereby making the ground firmer so that it would not be necessary to go to the extent of expensive piling when you ultimately build on the site. The result was that tremendous swarms of flies soon plagued the area, greatly to the distress of the residents in that area. This is one of the effects of the Malayanisation programme not only recommended but actually carried out in the desperate days when the Member for Hong Lim was a Minister of the Government, The same dismal episode was repeated in all Boards and Departments over which the Member for Hong Lim had control in the past. In the City Council, his policy led not merely to the resignation of expatriate officers but to the resignation of 38 local senior officers, many of whom were persons of long experience and special technical training. In the Singapore Improvement Trust, of which the Member appointed himself as Chairman when he was a Minister, the position was even worse. May I quote the Prime Minister's account of what happened in the Singapore Improvement Trust? I quote from the same Hansard (Volume 13, No. 8, dated 11th August, 1960) at column 583:

`...he reduced it to near paralysis, unable to handle any housing or planning projects of any consequence. The manager, architects, planners, financial, estates and other officers all left. The position is something like this, Sir. Eight expatriate officers resigned and, of these, the Minister wanted to retain two. He told me that personally, He said he wanted two of them. They did not want to stay. Ten were retrenched. Two senior local officers resigned, one was retrenched, and 58 local junior officers were retrenched. Sir, in their places came a whole host of personal appointees - some qualified, many unqualified. Twenty-two others who took the place of the junior retrenched officers were either unqualified or under-qualified. An example is Mr Lui Boon Phor, the brother of the man who was told to send someone to the Pasir Panjang Power Station. Sir, he is also from Batu Pahat. He was appointed Chief Development Officer. On 20th August, 1959, his salary was $450 per month as Lettings Officer. Then he was promoted. On 1st of October, 1959, his salary was $670. Sir, apart from just being the brother of Mr Lui Boon Poh - he had a few other things to commend him. One of these is that he was unqualified. He was a part-time teacher in adult education. But, he was, of course, put in charge of all the lettings in the S.I.T.'

Sir, I think I have established my point that the motion standing in the name of the Member for Hong Lim has no merit whatsoever. Accordingly, I propose the following amendment to the motion,

To leave out all words after "Assembly" and insert -

"approves the policy of the Government in taking proper steps to Malayanise all administrative expatriate officials in a systematic manner and so as not to repeat the blunders of those who misinterpreted Malayanisation to mean replacing competent officials with unqualified friends and supporters".

Amendment handed in.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The full amendment will therefore read as follows:

That this Assembly approves the policy of the Government in taking proper steps to Malayanise all administrative expatriate officials in a systematic manner and so as not to repeat the blunders of those who misinterpreted Malayanisation to mean replacing competent officials with unqualified friends and supporters.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: The original question is:

That this Assembly urges the Government to take immediate steps to Malayanise all expatriate administrative officials. Since which, an amendment has been moved:

To leave out all words after "Assembly" and insert -

"approves the policy of the Government in taking proper steps to Malayanise all administrative expatriate officials in a systematic manner and so as not to repeat the blunders of those who misinterpreted Malayanisation to mean replacing competent officials with unqualified friends and supporters".

The first Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." As hon. Members know, the debate may range over the words proposed to be inserted. In other words, the whole of the motion by the Member for Hong Lim and the whole of the amendment by the Minister for Finance are before the Assembly for debate. If there are copies of the amendment, I will ask the Clerk to hand them round to Members.

Copies of the amendment handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

6.15 p.m.

Mr Low Por Tuck rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Low Por Tuck, in Mandarin?

Mr Low Por Tuck: In Mandarin.

Mr Speaker: Has the hon. Member supplied a copy of his speech to the interpreters? Is it a lengthy speech?

Mr Low Por Tuck: No, it is not. (In Mandarin) Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the amendment moved by the Minister for Finance. The Malayanisation issue raised today is one that is expected. When the Member for Hong Lim moved his motion, he was repeating what he had said before at the sitting in August, when he touched on it. At this sitting, we clearly declared our stand on this Malayanisation issue. Mr Speaker, allow me to read out what the Prime Minister said about Malayanisation and our attitude towards it. Let me quote it from the Nanyang Siang Pau of 12th August [Hansard, 11th August, 1960, col. 585].

`Sir, let me add that only a political innocent would still be shouting the same old slogan of "Down with white officers - Malayanisation!" They are already politically down, and we can get them out any time We want to. Our problem is not a simple one of dislodging expatriate officers... The problem now is how to find sufficient numbers of local men with the ability and the skill, capable and efficient, to learn quickly enough to carry out the functions of the State and maintain the efficiency of the administration.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me repeat this:

`The problem now is how to find sufficient numbers of local men with the ability and the skill, capable and efficient, to learn quickly enough to carry out the functions of the State and maintain the efficiency of the Administration.'

This clearly shows our attitude towards Malayanisation.

Let us see what is the Malayanisation policy of our first Mayor.

At a meeting on 30th June, 1958, he said (this was a verbatim report) that among the 71 expatriate officials, only 8 must be immediately malayanised. The Malayanisation policy regarding the other 63 officials was this: 5 would be guaranteed retention in service until retirement; 16 would serve until 1st January, 1959, or retirement at 55, or optional retirement at 50; 11 would be employed up to 1st January, 1964, or when they wished to retire on reaching 50 or 55 years of age; 11 would be retained until 1st January, 1962. These officials would include Mr Scale and Mr Embley.

Our Finance Minister has just now told us that among the administrative officers there are at present only three expatriate officers. The Member for Hong Lim cannot even now mention a fourth. According to this Malayanisation policy, at present there should be 33 remaining. As to the technical side, there are only 34 expatriate officers remaining. According to the Malayanisation policy, there should be 135 expatriate officers remaining today. From a comparison of our Malayanisation scheme with that of the former Mayor's, we can clearly see that from what the Member for Hong Lim has said just now, he has not only been harping on the same tune, but his speech does not hold water. He is distorting facts and trying to confuse the people. If he is really interested and is in earnest, he must raise the issue with a comparison. This should be the correct attitude. Our Malayanisation policy is not like his. I remember that I touched on the same question in this Assembly on 5th August, 1960. It appeared in the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 6th August [Hansard, 5th August, 1960, Col. 250]. I will quote from it.

`We can see that the thinking of the Member for Hong Lim is very simple. According to his understanding, the so-called Malayanisation means not the substitution of capable local people in place of expatriate officers, but the substitution of Ong Eng Guan's people for expatriate officers. According to his way of thinking, the so-called Malayanisation is only "Ong Eng Guanisation".'

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I have said is not to distort the facts but to give the truth. I will make mention of the so-called Mr Owen whom the Member for Hong Lim praised as very worthy and capable. We do not know whether he is capable and worthy. He is an officer responsible to a Government Department controlling millions of dollars, and he has obtained his accountancy certificate only two years ago. From this we can know what the position as regards financial control in this department is. It must be in a great muddle. The Prime Minister in his speech on 3rd August, also touched on this. It appeared in the Nanyang Siang Pau. According to the former Treasurer of the Department, he had planned for a budget deficit of $5 million. All these were related to the former Minister for National Development.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on this Malayanisation policy issue, we do not want to utilise this chance to build up a personal empire and to consolidate our own position. If it is so, then the person concerned will have a pitiful future. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the Member for Hong Lim will want to raise another issue at the next sitting of this House harping on the same tune again. Let us hear what he has to say.

Another point which needs clarification is this. Just now the Member for Hong Lim touched on George Thomson concerning the episode in the Staff Training Centre. He said some Members were trained there. At that time, some Members were wondering why this Mr Thomson was there to brainwash them, and so many Members withdrew from training. This is not a fact, and is only an attempt to distort facts.

6.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim went to a great extent to repeat what he had said over and over again about George Thomson, Meadows and Blades. I am not concerned here with the allegations he made against these officers. What I am really concerned is the mental health of an honour-able Member of this House.

He alleged that my Minister, the Minister for Culture, and I were seen at a party in connection with the tourist trade, and our picture appeared in a newspaper. Sir, this is the paper which he has referred to, the Nanyang Siang Pau of 17th February, 1960, page 1, "Local News". I was there; so was the Minister. Five persons appeared in the picture, and the man who sat in the middle was referred to as Mr George Thomson. I could not remember Mr George Thomson having any connection with the tourist trade. For your information, Sir, the person referred to as Mr George Thomson was actually Mr J. G. C. Thomson, a partner of Cooper Brothers & Company. He was the Chairman of the Preparatory Committee of the Tourist Association. I am really concerned, Mr Speaker, that an honourable Member of this House should have the audacity to produce -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have overruled the word "audacity" and that word must still be overruled. Will the Member please withdraw that word "audacity"?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: I withdraw the word, Sir. I think an honourable Member of this House should not be so dishonourable.

Mr Speaker: Order. Even "dishonourable" is unparliamentary. Perhaps "irresponsible" might help.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: I will substitute the word "irresponsible". I would have stood up on a point of information to deny the whole thing but I was not sure and, being a man of integrity, I took the opportunity at tea time to recheck the facts before I came to speak. I do not want to waste the time of this House. This little fact alone is enough to prove that our hon. Member for Hong Lim should be more careful when he makes further allegations.

6.32 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take up from where the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture left off, which is the key-note of the speeches, that is, we do not want to waste the time of this House. Obviously, whatever the shortcomings of the former Minister for National Development, he must have had a purpose in moving the motion and making the speech he did. For the politically simple and straightforward, let me explain how tortuous one's thinking can become, so that one becomes completely oblivious of truth, principles, or decency in the quest for publicity to boost up oneself and to damage one's enemies.

The Member for Hong Lim is not concerned with the debate in this House, nor with your rulings, nor with the vote. He knows he has to face on this side of the House 40 sane, reasonably sober people who have known him for a considerable length of time, and who had correctly anticipated what he was going to say and what he was going to do. He is concerned with the hand-outs that he is going to give the Press, and which the Press will publish because they are privileged. This is important and it may not be known to the public - that whatever is said in this House is privileged in the sense that no lie, no libel, nothing derogatory can be the subject of an action because the Constitution ordains that the representatives of the people freely elected by secret ballot should have only you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Standing Orders and the sense of decency and honour to guide them.

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

Mr Speaker: On a point of clarification

The Prime Minister: There will be plenty of time for clarification after my speech. The newspapers, knowing that what is spoken here is privileged, because it is in an Assembly sitting, are therefore completely immune when they publish any lie or any libel against any person. But, Sir, if anything said in this Chamber which is untrue, derogatory or defamatory is repeated outside, then the public may be interested to know that an action for defamation and damages arising therefrom can be brought in any court of law, if anything said in this Chamber is repeated outside and an action ensues and the statement is proved to be true, then he who brings the action fails and he will have to pay costs to the person he has brought into court.

Sir, you will forgive me if I have to explain this elementary point of law, because, unfortunately, not all people in Singapore are acquainted with these technicalities. The mass effect is this. Here is the newspaper, here is the headline, and this is what is said. Nothing happens. It is repeated again and again, and after some time it may be accepted. It may be passed off as true.

There has been nothing of substance, no argument, no facts on this motion. The facts were given by my colleague, the Minister for Finance. There are only three administrative officers left who are expatriates. There should have been 30 odd officers, but they have left, and we are carrying on. But that is not the point. The point is in the asides - to do as much damage as possible to the character and reputation of those whom the Member wants to destroy.

I do not want to waste the time of this House because nothing of substance has been brought forth by the Member other than some, what I have called "cowardly" but which you have overruled, allegations made against his former colleagues. As for the allegations against me, Sir - that I am a stooge, the mouthpiece of an expatriate political theoretician, that I am incapable of setting the Party line, of writing my own speeches, that I am just like Mr Braga, inept, incompetent, a buffoon and a playboy, who does not know what is going on in his Ministry; who allows Mr Meadows, this wicked, evil, British intelligence genius, to manipulate me, and Mr Blades and so on - everyone of those statements of fact and the inferences that he sought to draw from them was an untruth. Sir, it is a very funny thing about Parliamentary language, if I may allow myself one aside, if you use the simple Anglo-Saxon monosyllabic word, "liar", to nail a man, it becomes a little bit obscene. But if you substitute it with the word "untruth", it passes off as parliamentary. However that may be, Sir, a person who utters an untruth is nevertheless by definition a liar.

If what I have said is a lie, then I can be sued. Outside this Chamber at the end of this debate. It is very simple. The gentlemen of the Press are here. I ask the Member for Hong Lim to hand them his typewritten notes, with all the allegations about me and George Thomson sitting by my side prompting me: and Meadows; that I am like Mr Braga: and tell them outside the precincts of this Assembly, "Here is what I say of the Prime Minister," and I say we will have a battle royal. Either the Member for Hong Lim is right and I am a stooge, a fool, an idiot, a half-wit, a toy, a puppet of three expatriates; or he has uttered an untruth. Sir, I say he has uttered an untruth, and at the end of this debate I shall use a four-alphabet word without the cover of privilege of this House to tell the Press what I think of him.

May I go back to the somewhat mildly worded amendment of my colleague, the Minister for Finance. We all have our recollection of what happened over the last few years since not just 1955 - Malayanisation was an issue which started in the years after the war when, with the output of more and more graduates from Raffles College (as it then was) and from universities abroad, pressure mounted, to take over all these points of power in the cockpit of the State. As far as the main issue was concerned, it came to a head with the Malayanisation Commission, its recommendations therefrom, the White Paper which was tabled, and the stand which the People's Action Party took at that time.

Our problem, quite simply now, is how to get the machinery of the State to function in the most efficient way. Let me tell the great anti-colonialist, the self proclaimed anti-colonialist, the Member for Hong Lim, what the real burning issues are now. Not to quibble about three expatriates who can be denounced, defamed and dismissed at will, since they have already taken their compensation terms and are quite safely out of harm's way, and who will go if at any time we want them to go. The burning issue is, quite simply, this. How do you keep this island of 224 square miles alive and viable, when its economic existence is controlled indirectly by companies in London and companies in Kuala Lumpur? In a situation where numerical and other logistic superiority is overwhelmingly on the side of the Federation, and indirectly on the side of the British, how do you establish Singapore as part of an independent State? For the Member's information, we are bringing out, in another anniversary number of Petir, our ideological arguments and our stand-point brought up to date. And we do not require Mr George Thomson, good though he may be as a student of political science, to tell us how to analyse our own future. What I think we must do is to make sure that not only you, Mr Speaker, but also the Members of this Assembly understand this, that the written word as published tomorrow in the Nanyang Siang Pau, the Sin Chew fit Poh, the Utusan Melayu, the Berita Harian, the Tamil Murasu and the Straits Times, will leave no doubts in the minds of the people as to what the real issues are. They are not concerned with Mr Owen and Mr Lui Boon Poh and the aberrations of the Member for Hong Lim when he was invested with tremendous power. But they concern the destinies and the way out for a million and a half people living on an extremely sensitive entrepôt economy - a people who are tremendously active, physically and mentally; a people who, politically, are extremely mature, ready and willing to run the apparatus of an independent State but who are denied the where-withal. How do we create a vital economy, a situation in which independence can become a reality, an independence which can become the basis for a social revolution, to create an economic system that will live up to the platform of a socialist party - the creation of a more just and equal society? We do not pretend that we are doing that, because you cannot create a more just and equal society when you cannot change the basis `of the economic system. But what we do say is that we are providing the people with the maximum social benefits, given the limitations that are imposed on this State, not constitutionally but by the economic facts of life. If he can think out some of the answers to these problems, then he can stand up and say, "Yes, I will drive the Naval Base into the sea, or I shall take it over and change it into a commercial dockyard. I shall take over Changi Airfield and turn it into a new Farnborough showground for South-East Asia. I shall take over the Army installations at the B.O.D. in Pasir Panjang and turn them into brigades for the reconstruction and revitalisation of the independent people of Malaya." Tell us how and we shall listen with avid ears. But if he does not, then I say, keep up his subscriptions, if not to the Party, because he is no longer a member, then at least to Petir, to which he can subscribe, in order that he can keep up with the political education which the Party has given him for all these years.

Sir, that is the danger of those who must have mentors. Never quarrel with your mentors, otherwise you go adrift. My colleagues and I are in the more fortunate position of being our own mentors. If the Member for Hong Lim says that that is a lie, that it is not true and that it is George Thomson and Blades and Meadows who run the government outside this Chamber, then we will give him the time of his life. And I hope, Sir, he has sufficient funds to defray the whole cost of what I think will be enjoyable proceedings. We saved him, Sir - my friend, the Minister for Labour and Law, myself and a few others - from the excruciating and terrifying experience of being put in the witness box.

Let me just wind it up, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is one thing to shout into this inert microphone, to the discomfiture of the ears of the Speaker - one ear of the Speaker - and to the discomfiture of the other 50 hon. Members of this House. It is another thing to repeat those lies in the witness box in a calm, dispassionate manner where every fact has to be established or every lie has to be eaten - and heavy damages paid at the end of it. Either I am a stooge, a fool, a half-wit, in which case I deserve to be called so outside publicly; or he is a fabricator of untruths. Sir, I am going to say outside what I think of him, and I hope he will do likewise on the facts that he has stated in this Assembly. If he does not, then the people of Singapore will know the worth of his motions which will come month by month. There is nothing new. It is all in the 16 resolutions. Because it is very difficult to think up something new when you have not got a mind that is prepared to be objective, a mind that is prepared to analyse, to argue and reason. But when all you can do is to repeat malicious falsehoods, then I say, he is down the slippery slope at the end of which is perdition.

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members do appreciate that if they wish to speak on the main motion, now is the time.

The original motion was,

That this Assembly urges the Government to take immediate steps to Malayanise all expatriate administrative officials.

Since which an amendment has been moved,

To leave out all words after "Assembly" and insert "approves the policy of the Government in taking proper steps to Malayanise all administrative expatriate officials in a systematic manner and so as not to repeat the blunders of those who misinterpreted Malayanisation to mean replacing competent officials with unqualified friends and supporters".

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The Question now is:

"That this Assembly approves the policy of the Government in taking proper steps to Malayanise all administrative expatriate officials in a systematic manner and so as not to repeat the blunders of those who misinterpreted Malayanisation to mean replacing competent officials with unqualified friends and supporters."

Members who have not spoken on the main motion may now speak.

Mr Ong Eng Guan, in reply?

6.53 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker. Sir, this is the usual way the Prime Minister has been running this country of ours for the past 16 or 17 months. His behaviour today is a clear manifestation of how he runs the country - (1) Intimidation of the Press; (2) intimidation to take legal proceedings against people who speak against him, in the courts of law, but not in the debates of this Assembly. Because he knows very well, Mr Speaker, that whether the proceedings are judicial or not, he can always tear people down. This is because he has free access to legal advice, the control of the State apparatus and, most important of all, plenty of funds.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister as usual in his debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech did not answer the points I raised about the control of our State by the expatriate administrators, especially by the three most important of them. You might be wondering why I was so patient with his interruptions just now. It was because what I said was the truth except, perhaps, in a small technical matter which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture raised just now.

Mr Byrne: He has been exposed!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has not denied that Mr Thomson has appeared at television sittings and on occasions when the Prime Minister gave lectures to head-masters of schools. We can also see his presence in the newspapers every now and then until the June 1959 Party conference. Mr Speaker, one way that the Prime Minister answered the charge that the expatriate administrators have key control of the Government was not to answer the charge, but to shift the course of argument by shifting the basis of the argument. He turned over from arguing what I said about the activities of George Thomson, Mr Meadows and others. Instead of refuting these charges, he shifted the basis to a discourse or a dissertation on the economic problems of Singapore.

The Prime Minister: On the law of libel outside this Assembly.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has not only got control of the State's free legal advice and plenty of funds, he has also, as we have seen lately, control of laws like the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, which he can exercise at any time on both employers and employees, trade unionists, politicians, civil servants, and everybody who does not toe the Lee Kuan Yew line.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister mentioned just now about how he saved me from commissions of inquiry. May I take one or two minutes to clarify this matter, since he was trying to appear to the public that he was my saviour, and that I was not grateful to him -

The Prime Minister: You bet I do!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is now time for me to tell the people that he, the Prime Minister, was half responsible for the P. C. Marcus affair, and that during the commissions of inquiry he had to take up my case. There was no choice for him especially after the 26th of January, 1959.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the trial, every time when witnesses on the other side cast aspersions on me, like the Mayor's entertainment allowance or the use of the Mayor's car, the Prime Minister would just keep quiet. He would only save the situation when it concerned the name of the P.A.P.

Unlike the Prime Minister, since he cannot do so otherwise, I do not like to call people names. If we were to go through the speeches in the Hansard during the last few debates, I think. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Assembly can compile a compendium of abusive language.

I also do not want, as Members on the Government benches did just now, to cast a slur on the professions, the qualifications and the experience of people like Mr Owen and Mr Lui. I have mentioned sufficiently about their positions during the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

In this debate today, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have never cast any slur on the qualifications, the professions or the ability of the expatriate officers. We have fought on a matter of principle, that the control of the apparatus of our State should be in the hands of our local officers. To this argument and on this vital political principle, the Government benches offered no counter arguments. They just replied by shifting the basis of argument and casting slurs on people. For instance, they tried to cast a slur by moving this amendment reading, "to mean replacing competent officials with unqualified friends and supporters".

Mr Speaker, Sir, what is meant by "qualification"? Is there a University where one can get a degree in "cleansing"?

The Prime Minister: There are Polytechnics where you get certificates in cleansing.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I am correct in saying that the Member for Hong Lim did not interrupt the Prime Minister. Perhaps the Prime Minister could do the same.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the same manner there is no University or Polytechnic where people can get diplomas in S.I.T. flat lettings.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Can you tell us how you managed it?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I would not like to dwell at length on the relatives, the brothers-in-law and the unqualified friends and supporters whom the Prime Minister and his friends have put into the Government service, the City Council -

The Prime Minister: On a point of order. A serious allegation has been made that, as Prime Minister, I have put in relatives, unqualified friends and others - an allegation against me in my capacity as Prime Minister. I say, substantiate that by way of a motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is obviously not a point of order. I think the Prime Minister should not take advantage by rising on a point of order when it is not a point of order. Those allegations can be met in the proper way.

The Prime Minister: Sir, may I rise on a point of elucidation on your ruling?

Mr Speaker: Yes, certainly.

The Prime Minister: All I am saying is that the Member for Hong Lim has cast an aspersion on my conduct in this House in my capacity as Prime Minister, that I have done something despicable and dishonourable by getting jobs for friends and relatives who are unqualified. And if that is so, I should be sacked.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps I had better remind the Prime Minister of the Standing Order in regard to the personal conduct of Members:

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

That is in regard to personal conduct. The allegation is against the Prime Minister in his official capacity and, therefore, in so far as the Standing Orders are concerned, the Member for Hong Lim is in order.

The Prime Minister: Sir, may I -

Mr Speaker: Will the Prime Minister allow the Chair to continue? If the Hon. the Prime Minister thinks that there is an aspersion against his character, there are other ways in which the Government can delve into this matter. But I must say definitely that what the Member for Hong Lim has said is relevant. He is in order and therefore he is at liberty to say what he has said.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I further elucidate on my point of order, to bring it home that I cannot in my official capacity have properly done the thing that I am accused of doing, and that I must have done it surreptitiously for the benefit of my own personal capacity? The point I am submitting to you, Mr Speaker, Sir - you are as much a lawyer as anybody else in this Chamber - is this: to say that a person has abused his official position to get benefits and jobs for his friends is a very serious aspersion on the person's personal character.

Mr Speaker: The allegation is really against the Prime Minister's official character and that is exactly why I have permitted this amendment which, in fact, is an aspersion against the character of the then Minister for National Development in his official capacity. It is now alleged that he, in fact, interpreted Malayanisation by "replacing competent officials with unqualified friends and supporters". That, of course, is also equally a very serious aspersion, but that is an allegation against the then Minister in his official capacity. Therefore, it is permitted. Mr Ong Eng Guan.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to draw attention to Standing Order 46 (6) which reads:

`No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member.'

What the Prime Minister brought out just now was that the Member for Hong Lim had imputed that, in his capacity as Prime Minister, the Prime Minister had put in his relatives and friends who are unqualified into the public services.

Mr Speaker: The Standing Order is quite clear. It says:

`No Member shall impute improper motives...'

I cannot see any imputation of an improper motive if there is an allegation that a Member does something in his official capacity, namely to let in his friends and relatives, so long as there is nothing surreptitious and out of the ordinary, and so long as the people do know that appointments are made by the Public Service Commission. Therefore, I do not think that the time of this Assembly should be wasted on a debate on the Chair's ruling. As I say, I have let in a similar allegation against the then Minister for National Development, for the same reason that that was an allegation against his conduct in his official capacity. Therefore, I think the Prime Minister ought to be content with that. Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I always listen with patience about the so-called "Batu `Pahatisation" without trying to retaliate by revealing the exact position of the present governmental structure, of appointment of civil servants and of Boards and Commissions. In today's sitting, I only want to clarify the position with regard to this particular amendment. Despite the challenge of the Prime Minister - not that I cannot quote names and facts, but this is not within the context of my motion - I shall perhaps defer it to some other date.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I do understand very well the distinction raised by the Minister for Finance between the Malayanisation of a post and the Malayanisation of an officer. The previous Government played on that distinction and the present Government is doing likewise. For instance, according to the Report of the Malayanisation Commission, the post of Public Relations Officer (occupied by George Thomson) should have been Malayanised by 1955 or 1956. The previous Government changed the post of P.R.O. and called it Director of Information Services; and the present Government has changed this post of D.I.S. (which should be Malayanised) to Director of Political Training; and very soon it is going to be changed to Professor of Political Science. It was the same with Mr Meadows - from Principal Assistant Director of Social Welfare to Director of Social Welfare, then to Deputy Permanent Secretary, and later to Secretary (Special Duties), and then he changed back again to Deputy Permanent Secretary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance alleged that I smeared Meadows. I have only exposed a small fraction of what I know and of what has happened in order to avoid giving the impression that I tried to smear him. I have nothing to say about his capabilities, efficiency and qualifications as an officer. The Government Benchers have tried to shift the basic issue by smearing a few local officers.

The other point raised by the Minister for Finance was about the number of expatriate administrators in the Government service now. He said that we have only 27 of them and that, as a matter of fact, according to the programme, we should have more. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, the control of the State machinery does not depend so much on the number of British officials. For instance, in the old Government, there were only three British Ministers compared to six elected Ministers; but I say that the three British Ministers in the old Government exercised far more power than the six elected Ministers. As I said just now, although the number of British police officers has been reduced considerably, the control of the Police Force by the British still remains, by the system of centralisation of power in the person of the Commissioner.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in today's sitting we have seen clearly that the Government side cannot offer any constructive reply to our arguments. They have replied by pure intimidation right from the beginning of this debate. They have replied by intimidation of the Press and of the Assembly. They have replied by shifting the basis of the argument. They have not provided one single constructive reply to all the points I raised in this debate on this vital issue of Malayanisation.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly approves the policy of the Government in taking proper steps to Malayanjse all administrative expatriate officials in a systematic manner and so as not to repeat the blunders of those who misinterpreted Malayanisation to mean replacing competent officials with unqualified friends and supporters.