YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH (DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS) (THIRD DAY)

Order read for resumption of adjourn ed debate on Question [19th December 1961],

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

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

Question again proposed.

2.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Chor Yeok Eng): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now continue from where I left off yesterday.

Yesterday, I talked about certain allegations made by Members of the Opposition and I will deal with some of them.

During the course of debate on the Yang di- Pertuan Negara's speech, the Opposition Members, especially those in the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Hong Lim, made certain allegations and accusations which were not quite artistic. They tried to draw a picture of a dragon which was not realistic and certain parts of the picture had to be painted over by other artistic painters. The picture drawn by them was incorrect and very poor indeed. Before we talk about poverty, we have to take the economic situation in Singapore into consideration. If we are faced with an economic situation which cannot meet our requirements, then we will have to look for other avenues to help us tide over it. In recent months, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have not tried to help us with improving our economic position. On the other hand, they accuse us of having put our economy in a predicament. Because the people are poor, they are unable to buy goods. This contributes to the poor market and products are not easily sold. The blame for some of these things should, to a great extent, be put on the shoulders of the Barisan Sosialis. When merger with the Federation of Malaya is achieved, our products will have a larger market, and this will help to improve our economic situation. This is one of the steps towards this aim. But the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have been trying hard to hinder this move towards merger.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have indicated already that there can be no reference to merger which will excite a debate. The hon. Member is just doing that when he says the Barisan Sosialis are trying to hinder merger. He must not touch on merger in that strain.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was only mentioning it in passing. I will now continue with another part.

Mr Speaker: I indicated to the Member for Toa Payoh yesterday that merger must not be referred to in that strain even in passing.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, now let me reply to the Barisan Sosialis accusations regarding certain situations in the rural areas. They mentioned street lights, water, electricity supplies. On these questions my colleagues already replied yesterday. The Minister for National Development also replied. But I would give a further reply to certain points raised. In the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, it is clearly stated that we will build more agricultural stations next year, and will send more agricultural officers and veterinary officers to carry out services in the rural areas in this respect.

Let me give an example. We will increase medical services and veterinary services. The services rendered to chickens in the past have been super seded. We are using scientific methods to treat chickens and other domestic animals and reduce their fatality. On the other hand, we are increasing the production of chickens and other domestic animals. This will help the farmers to a certain extent. We will also introduce many kinds of scientific methods to enable the farmers to use these methods to improve their agricultural work and to compete with old methods. There is proof to show that agricultural products have been increased this year. In the past our market was a consumers' market, but nowadays we are able to export our agricultural produce. This is concrete proof of the achievements by the Government.

Mr Speaker, just now I have been talking about the rearing of chickens. Now I will mention the feeding of pigs in Singapore. These past few years we have been importing pigs of good strain from Europe and America and these have been sold at one-tenth the original cost. This also is to help the farmers in their production. In agricultural experiment situations the chickens hatched every month are sold to the farmers at very low prices. In all these fields we have been trying to help the farmers increase their produce by the aid of scientific methods. We will show them how to achieve artificial breeding of domestic animals. This will also help them to a great extent.

I will now talk about fisheries. On this question, in order to increase their production and reduce their costs, we have been teaching them how to use new fishing boats and fishing implements and we have been supplying certain fishing implements to them. We have conducted for them courses in fishery. In the coming year we will establish more of such schools teaching these courses along the east coast. This is to increase the technique of the fishermen in order to enable them to make a living and be able to compete with others in the business of catching fish. We have also established a mobile motor service station which is to help repair fishing boats on request. Certain officers will proceed to the place where such services are required to repair their motor boats. As to the question of fishermen on certain islands, we have this year already carried out a scheme of distributing goats to them. My colleague will give details of this scheme later on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, besides agriculture and fishery, we have been providing tractors to the farmers to help increase their production and to reduce labour hands and thus reduce their cost of production. This service has been well received by the farmers. We have also established a mobile teaching institution to teach the farmers how to take care of their lands and how to carry out agricultural and other activities. The aim is to help the farmers increase their production and reduce their cost of production and in this way help them generally.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if all these measures are not directed at helping the farmers in the rural areas, then I cannot understand what can be construed as helping the farmers. I believe everybody will agree with me, that the lot of the farmers cannot be improved just by shouting a few slogans. The Members of the Barisan Sosialis have claimed themselves to be revolutionaries. If they are really concerned with the livelihood of the farmers, then let them do something to help the economic development of Singapore and not hamper it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will talk about the shortage of arable land, which the Opposition Members have been talking about during these few days. The Gov ernment has already taken steps this year to reclaim lands in the Sungei Poyang area. This project will be completed at the beginning of next year. After completion the land can be put to three uses. First, the land reclaimed can be used to grow vegetables. Secondly, the land reclaimed can be used for fish ponds to increase production. Thirdly, certain lands can provide prawn ponds. All these will help to increase the agricultural products for the needs of Singapore. In this way we will be helping the farmers in their livelihood.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the debate, I can come to this conclusion. For the record, I will point out to this House that in the modern political arena, there are two ways in which you take part in political activities. One is where the activities are carried out in accordance with constitutional means to improve the lot of the people, and with the consent of the people. This has been our policy all along. The second way is to create political trouble and damage the economic position of Singapore behind the scenes, thereby hampering the livelihood of the people, to arouse their dissatisfaction, and to urge or excite them to seize political power. This way is adopted by the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to avoid this tragedy occurring in Singapore, I hope the policy statement by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can be realised and that Singapore will merge with the Federation of Malaya.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, the important question in Singapore today, the question that is in everybody's mind, is the question of unemployment. The Government have indicated that they hoped to ease the unemployment problem through industrial expansion, But we are told, Sir, in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara this is Hansard, Vol. 15, col. 13:

'Before, however, any significant improvement in the economic and industrial expansion can take place, there must be brought about a situation of political certainty and stability, within which it will be possible for long-term investment of capital to be planned with confidence.'

Sir, His Excellency says, "must be brought about". That indicates that it does not exist today. Sir, may I refer you to an earlier Hansard, Vol. 11, No. 1 of 1st July, 1959, in col. 7. It says here

'The political stability which is a pre-requisite for expansion and which has been lacking for so long, has been achieved by the election with an overwhelming majority of a Government whose declared policies are clear-cut and unambiguous.'

It says that in 1959, Sir, this stability has been achieved. Again in 1960, Sir, - I refer you to Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 1, col. 5 - it says here in line 9:

'... Singapore has enjoyed greater political and economic stability than it has known during the last 15 years.'

Sir, we were told in 1959 that stability had been achieved. In 1960 we were enjoying greater stability than was ever known in 15 years. In 1961 we are told that we must go and find that stability; "bring it about". May I ask what has happened to the stability that has already been achieved? Sir, I doubt whether what has been lost can be regained, because when the Government had a powerful majority of 43 against 8, they lost the stability that was already there. Now with a weak 26, it is not likely and not easy that they could regain the stability they have, lost. The trouble is this. There can be no political stability where there is political corruption.

Sir, non-P.A.P. citizens have chosen non-P.A.P. members to represent them in certain constituencies. They have indicated in no uncertain terms that they have rejected a P.A.P. candidate. They do not want a P.A.P. candidate to represent them. They want somebody else. And what happens? They have a right, Sir - political franchise - to choose whom they like. The Government, if they recognise political franchise, if they claim that Singapore has political franchise, must recognise the representative that has been chosen by the people. But not the P.A.P. Government, Sir. They force their representatives on the people. In divisions where the electorate have chosen other than the P.A.P. representatives, they have been forced to accept the leadership from P.A.P. Assemblymen or defeated candidates.

Sir, I hope you will allow me to quote one more example, Sir, to substantiate my accusation that there is political corruption. When the school at Guillemard was built with public funds, [Laughter] - the Minister laughs; he knows what this is all about because he is guilty of it - that school was built. What happened? When the people went there they did not see the leader that they had chosen. They did not see the person they chose as their representative, but a P.A.P. Assemblyman from a neighbouring constituency was brought into that constituency to act as leader and representative of the people to open that school. Sir, the electorate have indicated whom they want as their leader. Why must they be forced to accept a neighbouring leader to come and lead them? Why must the leader that they have chosen be brushed aside? Sir, I take it this is an attempt to confuse the public into thinking that the P.A.P. Assemblyman is their leader and to make them get used to the idea that the P.A.P. Assemblyman, the P.A.P., is their leader. [Laughter] Sir, the Minister laughs. I tell him this. I have won Mountbatten in a clean fight in the last election, and if the P.A.P. wants Mountbatten, let them fight it in a clean fight in the next election and not rob me of the constituency.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Mountbatten is perhaps getting too excited. It is not too good for this Chamber. It is not too good for the Speaker. But I would suggest to the Members of the Government Front Benches not to deal with these matters with such frivolity and not to sneer at remarks passed by the Opposition Members.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sorry, Sir, I take it that not only am I robbed of my constituency, but the constituents are robbed of their leader too. The same attempt has been made. It was not an oversight because this has happened more than once. When the Mountbatten community centre was opened, as has been mentioned before, I was not even invited. In Joo Chiat you knew what happened, Sir, It has been mentioned that a defeated candidate was asked to open that centre.

How can there be political stability when there is such political corruption? Sir, public funds have been spent not on improving the lot of the people or the State, but to pay P.A.P. cadres, such as Political Secretaries and the People's Association's staff. As I have said before, Sir, the P.A.P. cannot deny this, because the staff have been called upon and told that they either be loyal or be asked to quit. The wishes of the masses have been thoroughly ignored.

We know that there are 60,000 unemployed, plus the thousands that will be leaving school each year who will be seeking jobs. It looks as if the P.A.P. is unlikely to regain the political stability sought to be brought about. Then what happens? If the solution of unemployment lies in the expansion of industry, if there is no political stability, and it can not be obtained or regained by the P.A.P., I ask them, Sir, for the 60,000 unemployed and the children who leave school, where do they go from there?

Sir, we have been told in the speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 1, col. 23 (31st October, 1961), that:

'The problem that is always uppermost in the deliberations of the Government is that of unemployment. This problem has been partially alleviated . . .'.

It says it has been "partially alleviated". I cannot understand how it has been alleviated when in 1958 we find in statistics that there were about 16,000 unemployed; in 1959, it went up more than double, 36,000; and recently, at the end of 1960, I think, in answer to one of my questions, I think the figure 59,000 was given. Sir, from 16,000 it has gone up to 59,000, and we are told that the problem has been alleviated. I remember the P.A.P. did argue that the big number does not mean very much because it was their confidence in the new Government that made them rush to register. The unemployed had always been there, but it was because of their confidence in the new Government that they have come on to the register now. Sir, if you read the Annual Report of the State of Singapore, 1959, page 133, statistics there show that this argument is not very logical unless the unemployed has a funny logic. In 1955, out of 1,381 registrants of unemployment, 368 were given employment, that is about 25 per cent roughly. Then in 1959, out of 3,059 registered, only 313 were given employment, which was less than in 1955. This is only about 10 per cent. Sir, when 25 per cent of those who registered were given employment, the unemployed had no confidence to register, but when only 10 per cent registered, they had all the confidence in the world and 59,000 people rushed to register. Sir, I am sure that is not very logical. But that is the way the Ministers have argued.

Then, Sir, there has been a lot of talk about industrial expansion. We have been told in the same Hansard as I have read just now, i.e., Vol. 15, No. 1, col. 23, which says the unemployment problem has been partially alleviated; it goes on to say:

'...by the present boom in the building industry and the gradual materialisation of plans for industrialisation.'

We are told that plans for industrialisation are materialising and there is a boom in, the building industry. Yet, Sir, if we look in the Malayan statistics, it shows that in the industrial field, manufacturing shows 50,878 employed in 1958 and 42,945 in 1960, both in September, the difference is 7,933, nearly 8,000. 8,000 labourers less employed in manufacturing, but we say that our industry is expanding and the expansion is taking in more unemployed people.

We are told that there is a building boom when in the same statistics it shows that in the construction section, there is 3,159 less labourers employed. Sir, we do not know which to believe the statistics or the statement. Anyway, about unemployment, up to June 1959, there was an unemployment relief scheme which gives temporary relief to the unemployed. There was, I think, in 1959 before June 1,165 who were receiving anything between $3 and $5 with two katties of rice and one katty of sugar to take home to their families. This was abolished immediately the P.A.P. came in, and was substituted by the Work Brigade. Sir, what is the Work Brigade? We all know the meaning of "work", but what is a "brigade"? The Oxford Dictionary gives three meanings: Subdivision of army (and its description), uniformed workers and disciplining and occupying boys. Sir, is our Work Brigade an army? Are they workers or are they delinquents that need to be disciplined? The Government have said, in answer to some attempts to form a union, that they are not workers. They cannot form a union because they are not workers. Then are they a subdivision of any army or are they delinquents meant to be disciplined? We all know what they are, Sir. We have seen what they have been used for, because the P.A.P. has turned an unemployment relief scheme into a Work Brigade spending $7 million not, as stated in this report, to expand opportunities for work. It says here: it has been used to build an army to fight the P.A.P. political battle. It has been organised to form a section of workers who will be depending on the P.A.P. Government for survival and must therefore of necessity be loyal to them. So they thought. We knew what happened. To stand on the roads and cheer the P.A.P. whenever they come to this Chamber the first day of Assembly.

Sir, in 1959, the P.A.P. came to power with an overwhelming majority - 43 against 8. That shows the people accepted their policies and have given them a full mandate to implement these policies. It shows the people had confidence and trust both in their policies and in the Party. All the people wanted were employment, houses, food and water, peace and stability, personal freedom, good education for their children, a just, honest and sincere government. They were promised these, Sir. But the question is: Have these promises been fulfilled? What is the position today? Today there are very many more unemployed than ever before. Sir, the promise of solution of unemployment has been given, but we find there are more unemployed than ever before. Sir, I say that the misery of unemployment and other miseries that have befallen Singapore have been brought by the P.A.P. due to their neglect of duty to the people and the State, due to their arrogance, their mismanagement and their political corruption. In 2½ years they have spent millions of dollars of public funds; they have used almost every Government department to build up a little P.A.P. empire. The people's welfare has been postponed from year to year.

In the Hansard of Vol. 13, No. 1 (20th July 1960), col. 5, we have been told, Sir, that "The first year of office was one of reorganisation, consolidation and preparation. It was taken up largely with clearing the ground and setting the course for the year of construction ....". But, recently, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister, when moving the motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, said that between 1959 and 1961, that is the first year, "We first took over the Government, we had to feel our way." he says the first year was "feeling our way". here it says the first year was planning, the second year construction, which means, first year plan, second year action. Here it says the first year was only "feeling our way", second year was for plans for economic development, and only the second half of 1961 marks the beginning of implementation. Well, I hope, Sir, the calendar will not be moved one year back again; it has already been moved one year back; first year planning, second year implementation, and now we hear first year "feeling our way", second year, planning, third year, implementation. I hope something new will not be invented next year.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Third year - acceleration.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, as I have said, they have failed to give employment.

The next one is housing. Have they succeeded? As you know, Sir, they built practically nothing the first year. When they were exposed here in answer to some of my questions as to the number of houses built, and when it was found that they had built practically nothing, they conveniently at that time blamed the Member for Hong Lim. But now that they have built some, Sir, what do we find? Rents are terribly high; the people cannot afford the rents; and there are lots of houses vacant. Now, Sir, at a time when thousands are on the waiting list, Government keeps the houses vacant. As high as 18 per cent of the one-room, 16 per cent of the two-room and 6 per cent of the three-room premises are vacant, Sir, In all, it comes to a total of 879 units vacant. There are thousands on the waiting list. Not only are the rents high, but they are so ridiculous that certain portions of those houses are naturally vacant and are not likely to be occupied because where they charge $35 per one-room unit - the kitchen, water closet, washing facilities are communal they charge $20 for a room which only has the W.C. as a communal facility, the rest are self-contained. Naturally, nobody wants to take the $35 type of unit. When I ask why, I was told because it was Mr Ong Eng Guan's plan. Sir, we do not care whose plan it was, but the Government must do something. They must not leave those houses vacant forever and ever and lose not only the rent, but the Housing Board has to pay assessment to the Assessment Department. All that, Sir, is unfair, because it adds to the cost of the house. This paying of assessment is from one Government Department to another. They do not lose. All that is added to the cost of the house and the poor tenant eventually has to pay for the shifting of money from one Government Department to another, which is really unfair.

Another factor which adds on to the rent which makes their policy cock-eyed is the paying of property tax on vacant premises. It affects other people badly enough, Sir, but it also affects this Housing Board. It ,pays property tax and, therefore, as I have said, whatever they lose is added on to the cost.

I think a lot can be done about housing. Far too many houses are vacant for reasons which could easily be rectified.

The other sore point about housing are the unauthorised huts. Instead of nipping it in the bud, as I have suggested right from the beginning, as in the case of those houses that have come up in years past, and to take a very firm control over the future position to see that nobody builds unauthorised huts, this sore has been allowed to fester and fester and fester until now it is almost in unmanageable proportions. The longer they delay, Sir, the more unauthorised huts there will be and the bigger the problem will be and the more difficult the solution. They should handle it sooner, authorise the huts that deserve to be authorised - because having lived there for so many years people have nowhere to go - and then start controlling either by legislation or otherwise to see that no more unauthorised huts go up. Unless they do that, Sir, this sore is going to fester and eventually be fatal, I am afraid. Just now I read to you that the Government has claimed that there is a building boom. But on page 28 of the "Malayan Statistics" of October 1961, we see the lowest number of units built in 1960. Sir, in 1958, it was 437; in 1959, it was 774; in 1960, it was 422; and in 1961 it was 266. In all these cases, the period covered was from January to August. It was the lowest in 1961. Yet we are told that there is a building boom. [Interruption] I agree that the building position has improved, but I would not call it a boom. It would not have improved if the Government had not decided to rectify their detrimental decision on the development charges in respect of water, electricity and other services. In fact, when they rectified that, the building trade began to show a revival. But I say, Sir, that it has not come to a satisfactory position yet because developers now - leaving aside those charges - are hesitating to build because of the stupid decision to charge assessment on vacant houses. I have shown just now how it has affected the tenants; but now it affects the developers too because if a house can be rented at $200 and a developer decides to build 1,000 houses in an estate, he pays assessment at the rate of 36 per cent, which is $72. That means he pays $72,000 every month until his houses are sold. Sir, which developer will not think twice before he starts developing? In fact, the landlords too are hesitating to expand their business here. They would rather go to the Federation or any other place where they do not run the risk of facing bankruptcy from having to pay assessment on vacant houses, if their houses happen to be vacant. While superficially it seems to be capable of bringing in money for the Government, it is destroying the building trade. It is no use blaming the Member for Hong Lim or Members of the Barisan Sosialis for not having done their duty when they were on the other side of the House. Because they were the P.A.P.'s choice and if the P.A.P. leaders do not have the quality of choosing the right men to run their business, whose fault is it, Sir?

Another two essentials of life are food and water. Sir, I am sure you will agree with me that any stupid government can supply water during the rainy season. But it is the sign of a good and efficient government which plans ahead or makes adequate arrangements to meet unexpected droughts. On page 14 of Hansard, Volume 15, No. 1, dated 31st October, 1961, it is stated:

'Concerning water supplies, the Tebrau Waterworks in Johore has been recently extended to give an increased supply of 15 million gallons per day. Furthermore, an agreement to extract water from the Scudai River in Johore was recently signed and the construction of the Scudai Waterworks will commence at the end of this year. The project is expected to take approximately two years to complete. The first phase of the Scudai Scheme will produce a further 15 million gallons per day. The Tebrau extension should meet our ordinary needs until the Scudai Scheme is completed.'.

"our ordinary needs", Sir. Does it mean that if there are further droughts next year, we are going to have further water rationing until the Scudai scheme is completed, in the next two years? If the Member for Farrer Park is right - and he should be, having had such experience in the City Council before - that means even after the completion of the Scudai scheme, we might still have water rationing. If they cannot give us employment and houses, at least give us water to drink. What type of a government is this which cannot give us water to drink?

An hon. Member: What is beer for?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: That is not what beer is for. That is the P.A.P. mentality. The poor cannot afford beer, Sir.

Sir, next to water is food. The poor and the rich need food. This Government is a Government that claims to work for the poor. They plan and they work for the poor. They are chiefly concerned with the poor. I was surprised to find in the "Malayan Statistics" that the prices of food which finds its way to the table of the poor have gone up very much and the food that finds its way to the table of the rich and the middle class have gone down.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: No, it is impossible.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Yes, definitely, Sir, In the case of fish, it is the rich man who goes for ikan bawal, pomfret, kurau, large prawns, and so on. But the poor people take ikan bilis, selah and tamban. If you look at the statistics, the food that usually goes to the table of the poor has gone up quite a lot in price, by about 18 cents per katty, whereas the food for the rich has gone down by about 20 cents per katty. I will not go into details, but just to show you that the food of the poor is going up. The Government might think that this is a frivolous matter to bring up in this House, but I would like to point out that a small rise in the price of food for the rich is nothing - it would probably mean less hoarding of money; for the middle class, it might mean just cutting out a bit of luxury; but for the poor, Sir, it would mean malnutrition, weaker youth for our next generation. It is no exaggeration, Sir. It would mean less resistance to disease. It would also mean that school children would be affected in their work if they are undernourished. I am not speaking as a woman who understands the difficulties of a housewife with a limited purse, but I am speaking as one who has been the principal of a school right in the heart of Chinatown and has seen little children suffering from malnutrition. As a social worker, I have made a study of it and I have found - without exaggeration - that it does affect the children. If the Government does not want to bother itself with visiting these places and making a study, they just have to read reports from the F.A.O. and E.C.A.F.E. which stress the importance of nutrition. They have also stressed the dangers of malnutrition in the countries of South-East Asia. I do not know why they seem to be very frivolous about this, Sir, whenever we talk about children. When we talked about the Chinese school children the last time, the Prime Minister seemed to be very happy and he laughed over it. The Government Members always laugh when the dangers facing children are pointed out to them. I do not know why, Sir. Probably they are children themselves.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): On a point of order. I live in the midst of the poor-

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. Member knows that. Mrs Seow Peck Leng.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, in the health section of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, we have been told that there are extensions of hospitals, clinics, and so on. I appreciate all this and we need them very badly. But I have this to say on health. No extensions of hospitals or clinics are going to be sufficient if we do not take preventive measures to see that diseases do not spread. I have complained and I am complaining again, but the Minister says, "It is typical of the Member for Mountbatten. She has seen me in my office and she brings up this subject here." Yes, Sir, because I did not get satisfaction. I took the trouble to go and see why the drains were blocked and I travelled up to the sea to see where the boulders were. I then told him. But until today the drains ate just as blocked as on the first day I went to see him.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Mountbatten is probably going into too many details. Let us go into the general policies now.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, if the Minister for Health does not take steps to prevent diseases from spreading, in spite of the building of hospitals and clinics, he might find himself running a risk with disease germs. You just have to look at Raffles Place and see the filth strewn by the hawkers. I am not blaming the hawkers. In fact, I admire them for wanting to earn an honest living and I think the Government should appreciate that and help them by allocating to them a proper place so that there will be no danger to the health of the public in spite of the hawkers earning a living. But, Sir, it is the bad administration - it is not the fault of the hawkers - that is making Raffles Place into what it is.

Sir, in conclusion, I would say that the whole trouble with the P.A.P. policy is that it has not been an honest policy. The overall policy clearly aims at eventually controlling all social and recreational groups through the People's Association and the community centres, all workers through the T.U.C. which has now failed, all the unemployed through the Work Brigade, all the effective politicians by giving them good posts of $1,100 a month to do no harm, and all the farmers and rural people through their associations. In this way, Sir, the P.A.P. hope to control the different sections of the whole of the population of Singapore. If this had been achieved, Singapore would have got a one-Party dictatorial government in the next election. Thank God, their scheme has been foiled. Thank God, the public have seen through their strategy and have realised that their standard of living has been going down. On two occasions, thank God, they had the courage to reject the P.A.P. and showed them that they were no longer wanted - at Anson and Hong Lim. The people have now realised that the unprecedented increase in unemployment and trouble in Singapore is the result of lack of stability and lack of confidence in the Government brought about by P.A.P. political corruption.

3.43 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are debating the major annual Government policy speech a little late. It is now more than 1½ months since this policy speech was delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and the Government can hardly be said to be paying His Excellency much respect by having pushed in all sorts of interjectory motions. It is a pity that the Budget debate had to come before the debate on the main policy speech. The result was that many matters had been touched on rather inadequately because of the time guillotine on the Budget debate. However, Sir, never have we seen any government policy statement so utterly dry and so completely devoid of colour and imagination. One cannot but feel that the Government this year is simply not interested in forwarding any policy at all. Gone are the days when the P.A.P. could put forward policy statements full of imagination and drive that reflected the vigour and dynamism of the earlier days of the P.A.P. In the first year of office, the P.A.P. had called it a year that would lead to a more equal and just society. In the second year the P.A.P. had painted it, as Members have already said, as the year of construction. This year the P.A.P. has not bothered to give it a name, let alone a policy. So what has happened to the P.A.P.? Where have all the imagination, the vigour and the dynamism of the P.A.P. gone to? It looks as though all these qualities have left the P.A.P. with the entire rank and file who walked out of the leadership to form the Barisan Sosialis. What is left of the original P.A.P. is a colourless, uninspiring group of desperate politicians whose sole aim in life is to keep themselves in office.

I have said, Sir, that the first year of the P.A.P. might be described as the year of excitement, and the second year as the year of confusion. If the P.A.P. is honest, it will call this year the year of desperation.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): You are a desperate chap!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, Sir, a year of desperation and a year of sell-out as well for politicians who have refused to remain faithful to the people who elected them to office. The P.A.P. leaders have now thrown overboard all their carefully planned and thought out election programme. They are only interested in trying to keep afloat their fast sinking ship. Next year, from what the Member for Mountbatten has asked, I doubt if the P.A.P. will still be here then. So there is no need to talk about next year.

Sir, minus the parts of the speech touching on merger, there is really nothing in the policy statement that merits serious consideration. They are more like the departmental reports from the various Government Ministries; dry and insipid, and it looks as though the P.A.P. this time has merely taken out pages here and there from the various departmental reports and bound them together as their policy statement. For instance, in col. 15 of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, at the end of the first paragraph, it says:

'Water rationing will be lifted when the rainy season breaks and the reservoirs are filled.'

What is there so informative about that little statement? Surely the Government has something more important to say in this annual major policy statement than mere routine matters of Government departments. Many have been led to believe that in Singapore today the water pressure varies not proportionately to the rainfall but inversely to the political pressure on the Government, that is, the greater the political pressure on the Government by the people-

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The less the water pressure.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - the less the water pressure. That is right. For all of us. Sir, reviewing the activities of the Government during the last few months, it is perhaps not strictly correct to say that the Government is completely devoid of a policy. For the Ministers have clearly a very determined policy to keep themselves in office.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You can have it.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: In fact, this is about the only policy the Government has this year. It is clear that the entire efforts of all the Ministers are concentrated towards this aim. They are so busy playing politics that they have completely forgotten that the purpose of their coming to office was to improve the lot of the people. In fact, Sir, our Prime Minister is hardly ever in Singapore these days. He is hopping everywhere from Singapore to K.L., from K.L. to Singapore, and now to Borneo, and tomorrow I understands he is going to Thailand and play golf. That is what the report says, Sir. And in these moments when our Prime Minister is here in Singapore he is too busy over Radio P.A.P. Sir, it is a pity that on the debate on such an important policy speech of the Government today, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance have to get out of Singapore again. I do not know what they are up to. Is that the only thing they think of - playing politics or playing golf? Sir-

Mr Speaker: Order. There is too much of this reference to-

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Golf.

Mr Speaker: Order. I might ask the Leader of the House to assist the Chair in keeping order. He is there as Leader of the House for that very purpose.

The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion. There has been too much of this reference to the personal conduct of hon. Members. I ask the Member for Queenstown to refrain from making any comments on personal conduct.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): Point of order, Sir, Is it in order for a Member to sleep in the Chamber?

Mr Speaker: I had to rule on that point of order sometime ago. It is perfectly in order for a Member to sleep in the Chamber. He is only out of order when he starts snoring! Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, the Government now appears to have lost their smug arrogance, though basically they still retain their contempt and disregard for the people. It is easier now to get immigration permits for relatives from abroad - thanks to representatives from Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen and branch executives. Various other small favours are now granted with a view to buying votes. Hence, the restoration of paycuts and increase of social welfare benefits for the various unfortunate members of our society. Sir, these concessions are correct and should have been given long ago. Everybody knows that the change in Government policy is motivated not by any sincere intention to relieve the suffering of the people but simply to buy votes. Sir, the people have not forgotten that only a few months ago the Minister for Finance firmly refused the civil service a full restoration of their allowance because of the supposed need for a stringent economic plan. Now when the Government is about to topple, it suddenly has plenty of money to throw around. Sir, either the Government was telling a falsehood a few months ago or it has now decided to abandon all long-term economic policies in order to meet the immediate and urgent need to keep themselves in office.

Sir, talking of the Government's attitude towards our civil service brings me to the Government's policy towards the English-educated section of our community. We all know that it has been said - and it has been said several times before, Sir - that the P.A.P. leadership came to power mainly on the vote of the workers and the Chinese-educated section of our community. The greater part of the English-educated, because of the vicious falsehood and smear campaign by the S.P.A. and the Straits Times, was led to believe that when the P.A.P. came to power they would have their properly confiscated, their rice bowl broken and all would be forced to live in communes. Instead of explaining away these genuine fears and misunderstandings towards the socialist movement, the P.A.P. Government, however, thought fit to insult and intimidate the English-educated the moment it came to power. Now that the P.A.P. has lost the support of the workers who brought them to power, its leaders are following the same dirty tactics of the past. They hope to woo the English-educated by smearing and vilifying-

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The Barisan.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - this time not the P.A.P., but the Barisan Sosialis. But let me tell the P.A.P. this: that just as the same smears and falsehoods invented by the S.P.A. and the Straits Times against the P.A.P. In 1959 did not stop the people from electing the then P.A.P. to power, so the smears and falsehoods which the P.A.P. is now levelling at the Barisan Sosialis will not shake the determination of the people from supporting Barisan Sosialis in the next general elections.

Mr Speaker: Order. I hope the Member for Queenstown is not now embarking on an election speech. We are now dealing with Government policy.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I have no such intention, Sir, It is regrettable, anyway, that the P.A.P. has not learnt the lesson of history in Singapore, history in which they themselves have played a prominent part.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: As you have just said, Mr Speaker, the Member for Queenstown is departing from the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. Yesterday you gave the Member for Moulmein ten minutes to rectify his speech. Perhaps you could do the same for the Member for Queenstown.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of elucidation. The Leader of the House must not take advantage of procedural devices. He is out of order himself. The Member for Queenstown has now assured me that he is not embarking on an election speech. If he does, I will stop him. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do not think I need answer that jibe from him. It is not necessary. Sir, never in my reading of socialism have I learnt that socialism can be achieved by insulting and intimidating sections of the people into accepting socialist thinking. Indeed, we must be able to understand why certain sections of our people are apprehensive about socialism. It is our duty as socialists to try and explain away these fears and misunderstandings. Only thus will all the people participate willingly and actively in our sacred task of improving the livelihood of all our people. Insults and intimidation will only drive those who do not understand socialism further away from our movement. We are happy to note, Sir, that today the English-educated worker is becoming more and more politically conscious. The recent strike at Robinson's shows that our English-educated are no longer spineless and soft. Sir, unlike the P.A.P., we the Barisan Sosialis believe that the English-educated will have an extremely important role to play in this socialist movement of our country. Sir, I am English-educated myself. Being a Barisan Sosialis Member I am confident that the English-educated will join us in supporting the cause of the workers.

Talking of the rise of the English-educated workers leads me now to comment on the Government's labour policy. It is clear, Sir, that the Government has abandoned its election promises to unify the trade union movement. There is no mention at all of this in the policy statement. Today the Government has clearly divided the workers into two camps, those unions which are sponsored or controlled by the P.A.P., and those which are not prepared to be tied down to the P.A.P. The Government has styled all those workers under P.A.P. control as nationalists and smeared all those who refuse to be under P.A.P. control as pro-Communist. By this the P.A.P. hopes that the workers will be frightened into accepting P.A.P. control. Sir, this is really an insult to the intelligence of the workers, because every worker knows, for example, about A.U.P.E., a Government-sponsored splinter union which featured prominently in the recent Public Daily-Rated Workers strike. Every worker knows that it was the Government's insistence on foisting upon the workers this Government-sponsored union that had sparked off the strike, in spite of all that the Government has said about the evil men behind the scenes. Sir, all this talk of the P.A.P. wanting to spend millions of dollars to build a trade union centre is not going to deceive the people about the anti-worker attitude of the Government today. In the light of the Government's labour policy of divide and rule, this extensive building may well turn out to be a mere white elephant.

As regards unemployment, the situation today is just as bad as ever. What have they done about this? The Member for Mountbatten has already asked. The only answer we can hear is, nothing; nothing. Instead, Sir, today the P.A.P. uses the police and armed troops against the workers. We have seen how the City Council workers were bullied by the use of brute military force. We have seen how simple street cleaning was turned into major political operations. There were more troops than black-legs in each operation. Encouraged by this successful use of troops against the City Council workers, the Government is now employing the same tactics against workers in the Work Brigade, workers who were struggling to form a union to seek redress for their grievances.

Sir, a few days ago, troops in battle dress and armed with bayonets fixed to rifles launched surprise dawn attacks not on an invading army but on sleeping workers in the Work Brigade camps. This unscrupulous use of brute force in commando dawn attacks and assaults against unarmed and sleeping workers is a provocation of the gravest nature, such that it might well have led to violence and bloodshed. We cannot but admire the workers for their calm and self-restraint in the face of such grave provocation. We admire them for having accepted humiliation with such dignity. Such tactics of the P.A.P. Government are merely attempts to terrorise and intimidate the workers of Singapore, but workers are not so easily terrorised and intimidated these days. Let the P.A.P. Government realise that. It is indeed ironical, Sir, that it should be a Government that was elected to power by the workers of Singapore that is now using troops and the police against the workers.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Ask the people's democracy!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, I doubt - there are very few Back-benches left anyway - if the P.A.P. Back-benches realise what their Government is doing.

I need not say much about Radio Singapore, Sir. It is now completely monopolised by the P.A.P. It is obvious to everybody. What is not so obvious, Sir, is the subtle pressure exerted on the Press in Singapore. We have seen how mounting dissatisfaction amongst the Chinese school students was completely blackout in the Press until the matter blew up and caught the people of Singapore completely by surprise. We are told, for example, again, that many reporters are becoming increasingly frustrated. They find that what they faithfully reported were often not published in the papers. This is particularly so, Sir, I understand, among the reporters of the English Press, who in many instances found their reports completely re-written by the sub-editors to suit the P.A.P. Government policy. We also understand, Sir, that certain newspaper headlines have had to be altered after frantic telephone calls from the Ministry of Culture.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I wonder if the people of Singapore know all this. Sir, that little bit on the Ministry of Culture should be enough. But it is pathetic that immediately following the portion on labour, the policy statement should harp on television and the national theatre. We would like to ask the Government: what is the use of tele vision and the national theatre to workers when their basic wants are not satisfied? Let us hope that television will not turn out to be merely an instrument of Government propaganda.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Let us hope there will not be another series of twelve television talks.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Thirteen!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Let Radio P.A.P. give fair news reports and not distorted and doctored versions from the P.A.P. propaganda machine.

Sir, the rest of the policy statement is really not worth commenting on except a small section on education. We have seen how the recent inept and arrogant handling of the delicate problems of Chinese education nearly plunged Singapore into a blood-bath. The Government's attempt to blame everything on Communist manipulation-

Dr Toh Chin Chye: And the Barisan Sosialis.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: -does not deceive the people. The Government must be responsible for their mishandling of the recent dispute in the Chinese schools. I do not wish to comment on the merits and demerits of the education policy. We welcome the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into all aspects of the Government education policy, including the English stream of education, as has been promised by the Minister for Education. But I would urge the Government to use this opportunity to allow all teachers in Singapore to air their genuine grievances. The question of a unified service scheme for teachers long promised by the P.A.P. Government has still to be met. Let the Government remember that for the attainment of the best possible education results for our children, a satisfied and contented body of teachers is an essential prerequisite. Let the Government handle this matter with tolerance, understanding and patience and not with the usual arrogance and haughtiness, the outstanding qualifies widely associated with the Ministry of Education today.

It is regrettable, Sir, that this year the P.A.P. policy statement completely omitted any mention of its professed policy to help the Malays. We in the Barisan Sosialis believe that the Government must exert greater efforts to help the Malays in Singapore. We congratulate the Government on their having built the first Malay Secondary School in Singapore and a Fisheries Training School for fishermen.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Thank you.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But these, Sir, are not enough. We are sure that the Government can do more if it will but put its mind on the job. Let them not play politics too much.

The Government is also pursuing a very dangerous communal policy as regards many things, but especially as regards, as has been evidenced recently, the Work Brigade. Soon after the workers of the Work Brigade had tried to form a trade union, the Government had segregated the Malay workers from the non-Malay workers in the Work Brigade camps. We cannot see why the P.A.P. Government, which is supposed to believe in communal unity and harmony, should want to practise communal segregation. We hope it will not persist in this communal approach because this is merely playing with fire.

4.15 p.m.

Mr Leong Keng Seng (Serangoon Gardens): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech on the question of education, the Government promises to build 19 schools every year. But let us see what has happened in these two years. The P.A.P. Government could only build one Malay secondary school, namely, Sangnila Utama Malay School, and another Chinese School, namely, Whampoa Chinese Secondary School. They could only build four Chinese middle schools namely, River Valley School, Teck Min School and two others. From this we can see that the Government is biased towards English education. The integrated schools have been said to be very successful, according to the policy statement. I doubt this because these integrated schools are mainly English schools. Before these schools were opened, they were chiefly English schools. Later on, because of other reasons, they became integrated schools. Because there were vacant classes and most of the classes were meant for the teaching of English - two-thirds of them for the English stream - the balance was allotted to other vernacular languages. The facilities in all schools are mainly meant for English schools. Other classes for vernacular education are only meant as supplementary classes and the use of these classes will have to depend on from which stream of education the principal comes. Among the students some of them have to express their opinions in the vernacular languages in these integrated schools. Can this be claimed to be successful? Is this policy really conducive to the so-called promoting the mutual understanding among the various language streams? The Government has built about 9 schools - The $3 million spent last time has now been increased to $9 million and it is spent on building a few schools. They have promised to build 19 schools. The sum spent on capital expenditure, i.e., building schools, last time was $3 million; but now it has been reduced to $1 million, one-third of the amount. Most of the schools are English schools and most of the Chinese schools are Government aided schools. From this we can see that the Chinese schools cannot develop smoothly and that is the main reason. On the other hand, it is very difficult to apply for school building funds. Therefore, it has hampered the development of Chinese schools. When a school wants to apply for expansion of the school building, it has to go through the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of National Development. Very often certain officers in these Ministries shift the burden to other Ministries, evading the responsibility in dealing with applications. Thus applications are delayed for several months, sometimes for several years. For instance, the application for the building of Nanyang University and the application relating to school expansion in Chung Cheng High School. These are good examples. The procedure has not been explained by the Government to the schools. So the schools applying for capital grant, because they have not applied in accordance with the regulations, have not been able to get the grant. For instance, Kwong Yong High School could not get any grant. It put the Board of Directors in a difficult position because the Ministry of Health demanded too much of the school without considering its special and economic conditions. The Ministry concerned insisted that the site should be large, the space should be ample, and there should be certain kinds of conditions applicable to sanitary facilities and so on and so forth. How could the applicant school afford to pay so much? When a school building plan is given to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry not only entirely changes it, but very often certain structures already put up have to be added in, such as window, ceilings and so on, thereby putting unnecessary restrictions on the applicant school and causing much trouble to the Board of Directors. The Ministry also insist on the land lease to be 30 years minimum, instead of 30 years. But then the Government, on the other hand, would not grant a lease for 30 years.

In this way how can the Government help the development of vernacular schools? I suggest that the Government should establish a special department to deal with these matters so as to enable the applicant schools to facilitate their applications and so that they can approach the relevant quarters and realise their aims early. The Government should provide these facilities and assistance so that the Chinese schools in Singapore can shoulder their responsibility in respect of education in their educational stream. In this way the Government can achieve what they profess to do, namely, to give equal treatment to the four streams of education, including the Chinese stream.

We know that in the Ministry of Education there is already established an Examination Syndicate to manage and control matters relating to common examinations in all standards. It is not known when the present examination system, which has been conducting colonial examinations, is to be abolished, and when the Government is going to conduct examinations for secondary schools and higher secondary schools. Everybody knows the Government has been saying that the contents of the textbooks should be based on a Malayan background. But if the Senior Cambridge Examination and the Higher School Certificate Examination are not abolished, then this is not quite correct, because the contents of the textbooks used for these examinations are colonial in nature. The Government says they want to unify the contents of all textbooks in all educational streams, but there are still contents of a colonial nature in the textbooks. How then can the Government achieve the purpose of promoting Malayan culture and achieve a Malayan type of education!

About technical education, I am not satisfied with what the Government has done because it has only established technical classes in the secondary schools. They do not have workshops and laboratories. For example, the students in the technical schools have to go to the Tanjong Katong Girls' School to do their experimental work, and the students in Hua Yee School have to go to the Queenstown Secondary School to do their experimental work. This is a waste of time on the part of students and causes great inconvenience to the students.

4.29 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Mr Leong Keng Seng (Serangoon Gardens): Without a full technical school, how are we going to train technical personnel? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are about 8,000 graduates from the Chinese secondary schools this year; 5,000 Secondary III graduates and 3,000 Secondary IV graduates. Next year a few will be able to go to the Upper Secondary classes or to the Universities. There is no other employment opportunity for them except to be teachers. How many graduates can be absorbed into the Government service! The Government should open a two-year teacher training course to absorb the graduates from the Chinese secondary schools so that they will not be unemployed. It should also set up a department in the Polytechnic in which the medium of instruction should be Chinese to enable the Chinese school students to receive some technical training. This is the demand of the Chinese parents and the school committee members. I hope the Government will put into practice the demand of the people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Adult Education Board was formed in April 1960. There were about 21,000 students. But in July 1960, there were about 17,400 students. We do not know the number of students in 1961 because the Government has not announced the number. Perhaps the number has been reduced still further. It is said that there are now a few students in certain classes. In order to have enough classes, the teachers in the adult education classes have asked the pupils in the day schools to augment the number in the classes so as to falsify the number of students. As the number of pupils are so few in the classes, the teachers are naturally very slack in their work. How then are we going to wipe out illiteracy if we organise such classes? On the other hand, the Government does not dare to co-operate with the civic organisations and, as a result, these organisations run better classes than those run by the Adult Education Board. This should be reviewed by the Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us review the work done by the Ministry of Culture. It can be summarised in eight words - "It is meant for decoration and show only." Let us see how the Ministry of Culture whitewashes its work. Last year the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in his speech to this House pointed out that in order to stimulate Malayan art and culture the Government would establish a national cultural brigade. When this scheme is implemented, it will provide a fixed venue for cultural activities. This is a very good scheme. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture gave details about the work of this cultural brigade at a meeting last year in the belief that this project would be carried out. He said that if we were to carry out this heavy work, we must absorb talented and hard-working artistes into the cultural brigade and organise a systematic research in art and creative work. He also spoke on the problem of organisation. He said that, on the whole, the cultural brigade would be divided into two groups. One group would consist of those with a higher intellectual ability and they would be entrusted with the compilation of artistic works such as songs, dances and other cultural activities and then, after some research, with the production of Malayan music, drama and dances. The other group would consist of those talented as performers, for example, musicians, dancers, singers and dramatists. These performers would take part in open-air concerts and would assist in the cultural and recreational activities of the community centres. It seemed that the Minister for Culture wanted to gather all the talented people and artistes and give them scope to express their artistic talents. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after a lapse of 14 months now, has the cultural brigade been formed? What songs have been written and what dances have been arranged? How many artistes have been recruited? I can answer these questions for the Minister. The answer is that all these plans have been thrown into the wastepaper basket. Could it be that the Minister for Finance does not approve the expenditure for this project? If it is not so, how can they explain it away? Does it mean that we do not have enough talented artistes in this State? If it is so, then how can one explain the fact that many concerts and many cultural festivals have been successful? Can it be explained on political grounds? If that is so, how is that the Government invited them to give performances? The people of Singapore are perplexed on this question.

Mr Rajaratnam: You are.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): But I can answer this question: the Ministry of Culture is only meant for show!

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us go back to the policy speech made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara last year in which he said at column 22 of Hansard dated 20th July, 1960:

'This year will also see the establishment of the Institute for National Language and Culture. The aims and objects of the Institute have already been explained to Members of the Assembly. The Institute, in addition to publishing translations of outstanding works of literature and promoting the growth and spread of the national language, will also encourage original works, literary and scientific, by local writers.'.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is very significant. When tabling the Bill on the Institute for National Language and Culture, the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture said that the P.A.P. would pay great attention to the establishment of this institution. I would like to summarise briefly what he said. He said that the institution would be responsible for the publication of textbooks on the national language for non-Malays and for the publication of simple magazines in the national language and also for radio broadcasts in the national language with Chinese, English and Tamil translations on politics, economics, science and international cultures. This grandiose scheme was described by him in this House on 11th August, 1960. He said that he would bring good news to the people of Singapore on the establishment of the Institute for National Language and Culture. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, through the assistance of the Indonesian Government, Professor Sulamo was recruited by the Singapore Government and he is the Director of the Institute for National Language and Culture. I believe the famous Professor Sulamo will run the Institute well. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have so far not been able to see any publications published by that institute or any textbooks in the national language. Translations of these works are not to be found in the bookshops. Is it because the Minister for Finance did not give money or is it because of the shortage of personnel? It was said that when Prof. Sulamo was appointed, he did not even have typists and cupboards in his office.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in the policy speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara last year, the Government boasted about the achievements of the Government's construction work. Not a word was mentioned about the work in the Ministry of Culture. Is it because the revolution has not been successful? If it is so, the Government should tell the people. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the past one year this so-called cultural revolution by the Ministry of Culture was nonsense. There was no system at all. Last year the cultural brigade and the Institute for Language and Culture did not achieve anything. This year they say they will put up television. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara says:

'This medium will prove to be a valuable ally not only for popular education but also for hastening the development of a Malayan culture and consciousness.' In this respect it is true that in the twentieth century when all sciences are very advanced, the establishment of television and the dissemination of knowledge through T.V. will be much more effective than the radio broadcasts and the audience will be able to comprehend better the programmes. The programmes will be more vivid and can be seen on the screen and will be more penetrating and moving to the audience. If it is used to educate the masses and to wipe out illiteracy, television can-

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): Point of order, Sir. The Member seems to be reading from his speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I do not think he is reading, but he is making occasional reference to his notes. If he is reading, then I will rule him out of order.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government's purpose is not really to make use of T.V. to foster Malayan culture and help bring about a Malayan consciousness, and to build a Malayan nation. But according to the work done last year we can see that the Government intends to suppress the formation of Malayan culture and consciousness. From this we can see that the T.V. plan will not be successful. But when one talks about T.V., it is not so very simple a matter. I think T.V. programmes will be prepared in time unless the P.A.P. Government collapses in the near future; otherwise the Government will not give up the plan to build a T.V. station. If it is so, then the question is not so simple. Let us study it. What is the motive of the Government in promoting mass education? Everybody knows, and the P.A.P. leadership also knows, that the P.A.P. is at present faced with a very difficult situation. It has its back to the wall, because it has betrayed the people and has no courage to face them. It has no courage to express the strength of the people and has lost the support of the people. Therefore, in future there will be no masses appearing at mass rallies or street comer meetings or large-scale meetings. The only people who want to attend will only be a few pickets and it is likely that there will be no pickets at all when they hold any meeting. It will be just like one of those minor political Parties in 1955. It will have to show some kind of films and play some music in order to attract people to attend its meetings. In the past the P.A.P. has been attacking others and accusing them of many faults. Now it is doing the same. It is very difficult for them to explain away this. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, the leadership of the people have now thought out a very cunning way to go round it. They have thought out a T.V. plan. Then in all the community centres, the playgrounds, shops, houses, everywhere, T.V. sets can be set up, and the Government will be able to contact the people through television programmes and to conduct their mass rallies. By that time the Prime Minister can come on to the stage to continue his mystic stories. The people will not only be able to hear the voice of the Prime Minister but will also be able to see him in person. All his acts and gestures can be seen clearly on the screen. This will be of quite good use to the P.A.P.

There are two ways in which they could help the P.A.P. First, it will get them out of a situation if they should convene any meeting and nobody at tends. Secondly, perhaps they may still say there are 650,000 citizens attending the P.A.P. mass rally and there is applause all round. They can claim that the people have been supporting them and they can cherish this spirit of Ah Q. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, on the 11th of August this year said something which is quite true. He said, in the past one year-

Mr Rajaratnam: Point of order, Sir,Is it in order for the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education to keep on referring to the present Parliamentary Secretary for Education as the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture.

Mr Deputy Speaker: If the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education was, the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, and the hon. Member is referring to the ministry of Culture, then he is in the right to say the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture.

Mr Rajaratnam: Tedious repetition, Sir.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for your guidance. He said in the past year the cultural artistes and cultural organisations had greatly assisted the Ministry of Culture in promoting healthy cultural recreation and cultural work. It is undeniable that the past one year can be said to be the most active year in the history of Singapore, in respect of cultural activities. I agree with what he said, that 1959 was a year in which cultural activities were the most active. Was it the result of active encouragement by the Ministry of Culture? How many cultural organisations did the Ministry of Culture help to carry out their activities? How many cultural workers or artistes did the Ministry of Culture help? What was the attitude of the Ministry of Culture to cultural workers? What was the attitude of the Ministry of Culture towards cultural organisations?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the Member is going into too much details about this Ministry of Culture. Perhaps he could bear in mind that we are discussing the policy of the Government, so the Member should confine himself to the policy of the Government and not to details about the Ministry of Culture.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Point of order, Sir. Perhaps you could not understand

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Parliamentary Secretary please come to the microphone so that the interpreters could translate what he has to say?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Perhaps you do not have the advantage of understanding Mandarin. I heard the Member repeating the same sentence twice and some times three times.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Although I do not have the advantage of understanding Mandarin, what is spoken by the Member, I believe, is translated into English. I have been listening to him carefully and I cannot find any repetition at all.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker: No. Mr Leong Keng Seng.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): I was touching on the policy in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech in relation to culture. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture can have plenty of time later on to debate this.

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

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Only a little more.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Please continue.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): I can say that the Ministry of Education left the cultural organisations alone, leaving them to die. The Ministry of Culture did not help cultural workers at all. On the other hand, it misused them. When they were needed, they were asked to take part in programmes and concerts and so on. But when all these things were over, they were forgotten by the Ministry.

Mr Deputy Speaker, what is the attitude of the Minister for Culture to local authors and playwrights? I remember the Political Secretary to the Ministry of Culture has encouraged local artistes and playwrights to write more plays and books with a Malayan background and give up feudalistic thought. Rich creative work will have to be written by local playwrights and artistes; such as on the lives of rubber tappers and tin miners. This is a very good subject to write about. If you write a book on the happiness of the rubber tappers and so on, this may have a certain significance. If you write a book on the difficulties and the difficult lives of the rubber tappers and the miners, then a certain meaning may be construed. If you write-

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going into too many details. We are discussing the major policy of the Government. The Member should confine himself to the major policy of the Government as contained in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, but not go into details as to what kind of books should be written.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now briefly sum up. Only a few minutes more. I have been saying that the cultural revolution conducted by the Ministry of Culture has amounted only to this. The Ministry of Culture has only published certain pamphlets on the speeches made by the Ministers and so on. At the quiz forum of Radio Singapore, the Ministry of Culture even pays money in this kind of programme. From this we can see the revolutionary and creative work done by the Ministry of Culture amounts to nothing.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting for tea now. The sitting will resume at half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Order. Any further speakers?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard six Barisan Sosialis-

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock) rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Low Por Tuck: Yes. There is no quorum.

Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present.

Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

Mr Speaker: I think hon. Members will realise this is the second time this Chamber has been treated with such scant respect. It is the job of the Government Whip to see that there is a quorum so that Government business could continue without unnecessary interruption. If there had been an Opposition Whip, it would have been his duty to see the Opposition benches were filled. Mr Yong.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard at least 6 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen speak on the question of education in respect of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech for the year 1962. I should like to take this opportunity to answer the main points raised by them as far as possible on education.

Firstly, the point raised by the Member for Stamford on Tuesday when discussing the question of women's rights. She referred to cases of certain Chinese married women teachers who paid for substitutes out of their own pocket before they went on maternity leave. It would seem from what she said that the teachers concerned entered into this arrangement voluntarily. I mean it is a matter between the individual teacher and the school authorities. I would like to explain, for the information of all concerned, that married women teachers, whether in Government service or aided schools, are eligible for maternity leave up to a maximum of 60 days upon certification by a doctor. While the married woman teacher's on maternity leave, the school is expected to make internal arrangements to cover her work, but such internal arrangements neither require the teacher to find a substitute nor to pay for the substitute. But when too many women teachers are away on medical leave in the same school or when the absence of any teacher during maternity leave is unnecessarily prolonged, the Director of Education has his discretion to consider and approve the appointment and payment of substitute teachers provided always such appointment is essential for the proper running of the school. It is therefore clear, Sir, from what I have said, that the cases mentioned by the Member for Stamford are not authorised by my Ministry. We cannot interfere with the teachers' desire to enter into any voluntary arrangement with their own school. But I hope I have made it plain that it is unnecessary for married women teachers to make such arrangements as they are entitled to maternity leave without having to find substitutes.

Now, coming to the Member for Pasir Panjang, it is quite a change to find him changing from being the vanguard of Chinese education to stand up in defence of Tamil education. The Member for Pasir Panjang referred to the case of the Government having built Labrador School on the playing field of Pasir Panjang Tamil School, thus depriving them of the use of a playing field. I assure him that he has been misinformed - they are always misinformed unfortunately. Although Pasir Panjang Tamil Aided School is occupying State land, Labrador School was built outside the perimeter fence of the Tamil School. Only a small portion of the Tamil school compound was used for constructing an approach road Ro Labrador School. The Tamil school building itself is in a dilapidated condition and provision has been made to offer them accommodation in the new Labrador School building. In addition, the Tamil school pupils are being offered use of the common playing field for Labrador/Batu Berlayer Primary Schools and the Pasir Panjang Secondary Schools.

Unfortunately the Member for Changi is not here, but he did raise the matter about Nanyang University. I think it is necessary for me to refer to it somewhat in detail. Members of the Barisan Sosialis follow the regular pattern of lifting sentences out of context from P.A.P. literature or statements and give them a twist and distortion where such interpretation or intention is not intended. The false allegation has been made by the Barisan Sosialis Members that we have failed to uphold our election promise to give financial aid to Nanyang University. The relevant paragraph on Nanyang University in the education policy statement made by us in April 1959, more than 2½ years ago, reads as follows [The Tasks Ahead, Part 2, page 11]:

'The University [i.e. Nanyang University], however, does not officially exist, in the eyes of the Federation government, although 60 per cent of its students are from the Federation. Until there is a change of heart in the Federation, any government grants to the Nanyang University must therefore come solely from the Singapore government. To have two governments support two Universities is obviously easier than for one government to support two Universities. The out look actually would appear to be that if the political separation between Singapore and the Federation continues, then the Singapore government will be faced with the responsibility of supporting the University of Malaya in Singapore and the Nanyang University. Faced already with an education bill amounting to 25 per cent of its budget and an increasing population of young children, the prospects of supporting two universities may well strain the resources of the Singapore government to the limit.'

The position today remains unchanged. Nanyang University is not wholly for Singapore students. As stated, the Federation students form about 60 per cent of enrolment in Nanyang. Now, whereas the Federation Government is prepared to reimburse the Singapore Government to the sum of $4 million for Federation students who will attend the University of Singapore next year, it is not prepared to consider the existence of Nanyang University. That is the problem to be resolved. Who is to carry the financial responsibility for 60 per cent of the students in Nanyang who come from the Federation?

An hon. Member: Singapore.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: According to the Government's policy statement on the 10th of February, 1960, on publication of the Nanyang University Review Committee's Report - I refer to Hansard, Vol. 12, No. 3, col. 143, the bottom paragraph, Sir - it was stated:

'The Singapore Government has no hesitation in accepting its share of these deficits, for the Singapore students in Nanyang University who are estimated at 40 per cent of the total student population.'

The Member for Changi talks of Government asking for what he considers unreasonable conditions from Nanyang University. But he does not state what are the unreasonable conditions. What exactly are the conditions, Sir? I refer to col. 143 again, it is at the middle of the column:

'...in what manner and under what conditions will the Singapore Government be prepared to support Nanyang University?'

The answers are given. I turn, first of all, to col. 146, bottom paragraph, where it states:

'The Singapore Government accepts, in principle, the main recommendations contained in the Gwee Ah Leng Review Committee's Report on Nanyang University.'

That is the basis on which the Singapore Government is prepared to give financial aid, thus accepting the main recommendations contained in this Review Committee's Report which calls for reorganisation.. We will come back to paragraph 4 at col. 143:

'... the new Government will be prepared to support Nanyang University on the same basis as it does the University of Malaya, provided that there are similar safeguards as to the maintenance of proper academic standards...'

There have been accusations that the Government was criticising the standards of Nanyang University. We have accepted the critical findings of the Gwee Ah Leng Review Committee. We have not criticised Nanyang University but we have accepted the recommendations of an expert Committee:

'...the maintenance of proper academic standards and proper accounting of public monies.'

And just one final paragraph at the bottom of column 145 where we said:

'Nanyang University must therefore be reorganised, academic standards must be raised, and the general policy of Nanyang University must be entrusted to a group of people with high academic reputation and experience to discharge such onerous duties, and adequate checks made on expenditure and accounts.'.

I now move on, Sir, to other aspects of criticisms lodged by Members of the Opposition, especially the Barisan Sosialis. The Member for Changi made passing reference as to why, whereas the non-English medium schools have English as a compulsory subject in schools, in English schools the students are not compelled to study Asian languages like Malay, Chinese and Tamil. That is exactly what the Government intends to do. We realise that the English medium schools in the past was unfortunately concentrating far too much on the use of English alone. That is why the English schools have been on a six-day week to give the students more time to learn the Asian languages. But we cannot do it overnight. Even though we have accepted Malay as the national language, there is a paucity of teachers to teach the language. We are not in a position to insist that Malay should be taught compulsorily, otherwise we would have 370,000 children wanting to learn Malay and we have only 600 teachers. There are not enough Malay teachers even to teach in the Malay stream. We have started secondary education in the Malay stream and we find it difficult to get the right teachers. So it is useless asking why we do not make it a compulsory subject. We intend to. But the time must be given to train the teachers to be adequate in such languages. For example, in conducting the Common Primary School Leaving Examination in the four streams, we have a situation where it is possible for students from the Chinese medium schools to take a second language paper other than the language medium of instruction, that is English, but it is not possible to insist on the other language streams to take a second language because in the past there was a rather indifferent attitude towards the study of such second languages. Yet we have indicated that next year a second language paper for the four streams will have what is called a half-unit. We will take it into account for examination purposes, and by 1963, we will have a full unit. First we must give some time for this to come into operation. We are hoping to introduce a regulation whereby we will insist that if a Primary VI student has had three years of continuous learning of a second language, then it will be compulsory for him to take the second language paper. But I think we have made attempts towards remedying a previous defect.

Then the Member for Toa Payoh picked out a little sentence - he seems to be a protagonist for farmers in the rural areas - that somewhere in our policy statement we have indicated that the farmers in large rural areas should be given some education to help them in their rural life. He also said that the Government had done nothing about it and that the teachers in the rural schools should know. Well, Sir, we have appointed a Commission of Inquiry into Vocational and Technical Education. The Government just does not go "bang" and introduce things off the cuff. We believe in getting people who are experts in education to sit down, make a close study of the subject and make recommendations, and then Government will give thought to whether the recommendations can or cannot be accepted. Well, this Report has already been tabled and, as I said, a White Paper is forthcoming. There is a recommendation here by the Commission of Inquiry at the top of the paragraph on page 23 which says:

'In the primary schools, syllabuses could be modified to take account of the particular needs of rural children, and of those urban children who will eventually enter careers involving also the use of their hands.'.

So we have done something and in the right way - not by just picking out sentences here and there and not being able to follow them through.

My former Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Serangoon Gardens, lamented the fact that students from the two Chinese secondary schools, Dunman and Hwa Yi, had to waste a lot of time moving over to the Tanjong Katong and Queenstown secondary schools to pick up some technical secondary education. It is quite a change, Sir, to see the Member, for Serangoon Gardens saying so many things about education. When he was my Parliamentary Secretary, he was well known for his silence. If only he had all these ideas when he was assisting me for the last two years, we could have done something. However, here again, I would refer him to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Vocational and Technical Education. The recommendations are being considered and when the White Paper is published, perhaps I would like to know what he has to say then on the subject. Because of the existence of this Report, we have not pushed forward our plans. After all, there is an expert Report in hand, and we may as well make use of the brains of those who produced the Report before involving the State in expenditure of millions of dollars. It would cost at least $1 million to build a good secondary technical school and to equip it properly. In fact, the Report recommends the Government not to go too fast about it.

I come next to the criticism lodged by the Member for Toa Payoh and by my former Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Serangoon Gardens, over the lack of liaison between the Adult Education Board and other organisations like trade unions and so on, and that therefore the Adult Education Board is failing to give that drive to get pupils to burn the midnight oil. In the Constitution of the Adult Education Board, there is provision for two representatives from the trade unions. In fact, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Lim Ching Siong, and one of my colleagues, the Member for Ulu Pandan, serve on the Board but unfortunately Mr Lim Ching Siong is noted for his absence from meetings. So, far from getting co-operation, we got little, if any, co-operation by his lack of attendance. Of course, with the politics that went on and with the dissolution of the T.U.C., they are no longer on the Board. But we do hope that proper representatives of real trade unions and not politicians will come in to support the Government.

Criticism again was lodged by the Member for Changi and the Member for Serangoon Gardens about the continuance of the Cambridge Examination in English as something that is colonial. I like to hear the strong anti-colonial fervour of our great anti-colonialists as expressed by Members of the Barisan Sosialis! We have it as an objective in our education policy statement that we should have an Examination Syndicate. It is something to be achieved. But let us not fool ourselves by throwing things to the winds. After all, we are very much tied up with the Federation of Malaya with whom we are to merge, and the Federation Government conducts its public examinations closely with the Cambridge Syndicate. We are also using the Cambridge Syndicate for the conduct of our English medium examinations and many Singapore students, after obtaining the Cambridge School Certificate or the Cambridge Higher School Certificate, will have to find employment in the Federation or seek entry into the new University of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur to take up engineering and agriculture, or to proceed overseas anywhere in the world because they are certificates known to anyone as certificates of recognition to Universities abroad. Now we do not just tear it all up in order to comply with the so-called anti-colonial fervour of the Barisan Sosialis. We will do it if we can be sure that the certificates in the English medium, when we do con duct such examinations locally, will be accepted by the Federation Government as equivalent to the Cambridge School Certificate. This is something which we do not just do overnight. We should have discussions, close liaison; perhaps people in the Federation setting the papers and vice versa, where probably we do the marking on their behalf, and so on. It takes time and, in fact, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis mentioned quite earlier on during the previous debate on merger that hordes of Chinese from the Federation come down to Singapore in order to take the examinations that are conducted in the Chinese medium but regretted the fact that such certificates are not recognised outside the State of Singapore. So let us be clear about this. Let us not say, "Yes, we shall conduct our School Certificate Examination in English in Singapore," and find the sad position that such certificates are not accepted outside Singapore. It is an entirely different picture for examinations conducted in other than the English stream. Nobody is providing for such examinations and it is the duty of the State to conduct such examinations for the Malay medium by 1962 and give it equal recognition with certificates conducted by the Cambridge Syndicate. I think it is time that Members of the Barisan Sosialis should also think a little bit more before they start criticising, that all these are colonial actions and so on; that anything English is colonial. Paper questions on History and Geography are sometimes set by local people on textbooks which have been malayanised. It is a question of keeping certain standards that are world recognised.

I come now to the complaints raised by the Member for Changi and the Member for Serangoon Gardens about the so-called stringent regulations for the granting of capital aid to schools. The Member for Serangoon Gardens was my Parliamentary Secretary until a few months ago. He knew that I had in mind the relaxation of the regulations to assist rural schools. Let him and his colleagues not get away with it. They have raised all these points so that they can say the Government was under pressure to concede to them. No, they do not get that credit. Try not to still the thunder from the Government which has been working on this.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon): There is no more thunder, only a squib.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: We now come to the question of integrated schools where my former Parliamentary Secretary, the present Member for Serangoon Gardens, again lamented the fact that we are trying to have integrated schools which are only an adjunct to the English schools. Now, according to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, it is the intention of the Government to have more and more of such integrated schools. By that we mean one school building taking in two different language streams. We believe that by bringing together different streams, it is one way to break down communal barriers and communal schools. Since it is our plan to bring multilingualism into our schools, I think it will be possible before long for a happy exchange of teachers to be effected between the two language streams. Let us assume that we are talking of an integrated school in English and Chinese, of which we have about ten by now. The Chinese language teachers could come from a Chinese school and the English language teachers for the Chinese stream could come from the teachers in an English school, That raises the standard of language teaching in both streams, so that they would be fairly good in both Chinese and English. Next month, at the new school to be opened in Jalan Kaki Bukit, we are introducing an integrated school in the English and Malay media. We hope the children who come out of this integrated Malay/English school would be very good both in Malay and English. In the past it has been such that products of Malay schools are generally unfortunately weak in English, but we hope to remedy that situation in course of time. We might even say, Sir, that the integrated school could well become a national school of the future, as the language medium of instruction begins to be more and more in the national language and where all the races would be together in one school building and the correct type for the teacher.

I come now to the question of the school building programme where the Member for Serangoon Gardens stated that the Government was only able to establish two secondary schools so far, one, the Whampoa Chinese Secondary School, and the other, the first Malay Secondary School known as the Sang Nila Utama School. He has forgotten, I am afraid, the new secondary school which was opened sometime ago by my colleague, the Member for Tiong Bahru, which is the Queensway Secondary School in the English medium. Sir, it is one thing to say that we want to build 19 schools a year, or maybe 16 or 17 depending upon whether the schools concerned are six storeys instead of three storeys, so that there will be fewer schools but they will take in the same number of pupils; but it is another thing to see the schools really built. So far I think we have been able now to build up to ten new schools, of which three are secondary schools. But I think next month we will have at least three new schools and we will have to open one new school almost every month. So the rate of new buildings will catch up, and we hope that by 1964 there would be no less than 17 new schools. But the way the Member for Serangoon Gardens has put it is that the Government has done nothing for Chinese education. Everything that is being built is for English schools. It is that chauvinistic twang - if it is an English school, therefore, it is colonial and, therefore, this Government is colonial; and so on and so forth. Sir, the only way to prove it is by deeds, by facts.

When we came into office in June 1959, the enrolment in Government Chinese schools was as follows: Primary, 2,233 pupils; Secondary, 1,361 pupils, making a total of 3,594 pupils. By June 1960, these are media figures; the Primary enrolment had increased from 2,233 to 5,775. The Secondary enrolment was increased from 1,361 to 5,230. The total enrolment jumped from 3,954, which is just under 4,000, to more than 11,000, i.e. close to a 279 per cent increase. June this year (1961), Primary school enrolment was raised to 7,911; Secondary school enrolment was raised to 6,571; total school enrolment in Government Chinese schools was 14,482, or 365 per cent over the figures before we came into office. Sir, there are more than a hundred thousand students in Chinese aided schools and it is not possible to absorb all of them into Government schools. But if the Government is able to keep up with the school building programme of 19 schools a year, I think perhaps within a decade the majority of all pupils in all streams would be in Government schools and a minority in aided schools, of whatever language stream they may be.

Sir, I think I cannot do better in concluding my short address than by referring to my Party's publication, Petir, Issue Vol. 4, No. 1, Saturday, 17th June, 1961, to an article written by Mr S. Woodhull, now the VicePresident of the Barisan Sosialis on "The Two Years of Concrete Progress of the P.A.P.". He had this to say on education. I will just quote the relevant paragraphs.

'Education

In The Tasks Ahead we drew attention to the fact that our population was increasing by about 60,000 each year. There was a need, therefore, to provide schools for about the same number of pupils each year. The Ministry of Education has handled this problem of providing education with the greatest zeal.' Another paragraph on the Adult Education Board which Members of the Barisan Sosialis now criticise. He has this to say:

'In September 1959 itself, night classes were launched for 13,000 workers who registered with the Board. Schools and community centres in various parts of the Island are be ing used for the purpose of adult education. Further, 6,000 adults who desire a secondary education have been provided with this oppor tunity. It is only a matter of time before illiteracy will completely be wiped out in our society.'

Sir, either Mr S. Woodhull is the most insincere man when he wrote this "Two Years of Concrete Progress of the P.A.P. Government" or the Barisan Sosialis are not people who stick to their word or honour it.

6.13 p.m.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the once strong P.A.P. which secured 43 out of 51 seats in the 1959 general elections have now dwindled in number. They are only about-

Mr Speaker: Order. I might as well warn the hon. Member that I will not allow any repetition. This sentence that he has just delivered has been repeated by every Barisan Sosialis Member who has spoken. Let us get down to the Government policy now.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the phenomenon of the present Session of the Legislative Assembly. Everybody has the same feeling. If they do not give vent to these feelings, they will feel rather unhappy. But let us see. Today, there are a few more left of them. See how many can survive until 1963. They are now hoping. At every street corner in Singapore everybody is doubtful and guessing, and even the P.A.P. Ministers and Assemblymen themselves are guessing and speculating whether they can preserve their present seats until 1963.

Mr Speaker: Order. All that has been said by the Barisan Sosialis Members. I ask the Member now to carry on with the debate which is confined to the policy of the Government as outlined in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. Mr Low.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a man who in a very short space -of five years and without passing through any major political storms, such a youth, namely the Secretary-General of the P.A.P., has now become the Prime Minister of Singapore, without much merit on his own part. Thus this has made him very arrogant and haughty. He thinks all the people of Singapore are not as good as he is. He has, now forgotten the people who once supported him. He has relegated them to oblivion. The attitude of the leaders of the P.A.P. towards the people is one of enmity. They are now collapsing-

Mr Chan Chee Seng: On a point of order. What has all this got to do with the policy speech?

Mr Speaker: I have already indicated that even if it has got anything to do with the Government's policy, all this has been said time and time again. It is becoming very tedious. I would now like the hon. Member to relate what he has to say to the policy speech and nothing more.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy statement of the Government for the third session deals chiefly with the P.A.P. sell-out type of merger. It also says that it is going to do something for the benefit of the people and to provide them with certain social amenities. But then what achievements have the P.A.P. Government made? The Government's promises made in the policy statements in the previous sessions - have they materialised? Have the Government kept their promises? Nothing has been achieved. The policy statement for this year is very poor indeed in content. There is nothing in it. Everybody is disappointed when reading this policy statement.

In the 1959 general elections, Dr Goh Keng Swee, namely, the present Minister for Finance, read out certain policies of the P.A.P. to the people. I quote from the Chinese pamphlet. This is on the economic policy of the P.A.P. It says:

'The objective of the economic policy of the People's Action Party Government will be to obtain for the general masses of the people a happy, full and secure livelihood.

Everything which can be done within the limitations of our economy to achieve this will be carried out by the P.A.P. Government.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, today, the P.A.P. is holding the reins of government for the third year. The welfare and the wellbeing of the people have not been safeguarded. More people are unemployed. Many graduates of local secondary schools are still unemployed. I shall give a simple example. We read from the newspaper last month that the Ministry of Education wanted to recruit 1,000 teachers from all the language streams as teachers. There were 11,683 applicants. From this it is clear that when the Ministry of Education asked for applications to fill 1,000 posts, there were so many applicants 11,000 applicants from middle school graduates. There are graduates from the Universities who are also unemployed. Cases of robbery and all kinds of crimes are happening everywhere and everyday. The Government does not try to solve these problems. Instead, it resorts to certain tactics and actions against those people who do not see eye to eye with it; for instance, members of the Work Brigade and the staff of the People's Association. From all this, we can see what the Government's attitude to them is.

Let us ask the hawkers and the workers what their livelihood has been. They can all tell you that they are very disappointed with the P.A.P. Government. It is true that the P.A.P. Government has been a great disappointment to us. What then is the cause? In the 1959 general elections, did it not clearly promise the people of Singapore to improve the economic situation of Singapore and to resolve unemployment? The P.A.P. also printed in booklet form their promises. I will quote them in order to show that what I am saying is correct. Otherwise they will say I have no proof. From this booklet we can get our answers to rebut them. We can see that all the promises made by the P.A.P. at that time have not been realised. I will mention some of them and to refute everyone of them to show whether the P.A.P. Government has lived up to its promises. In the first book of the P.A.P. pamphlet on the hive-Year Development Plan, there is a short passage which reads:

'Let us briefly consider what factors work to our advantage in industrialisation, where the difficulties are likely to arise, and how our favourable factors can be put to the best advantage to overcome the difficulties. The correct economic policy would then emerge.'

In this small pamphlet it is also pointed out that in regard to the industrialisation of Singapore, there are four economic advantages. It says, first, we have in Singapore a hard-working, resourceful and enterprising people. Our workers, if given the proper training facilities to develop their skill, are able to reach the highest standard achieved in a modern industrial nation. Let us examine the first point. How does the P.A.P. Government treat our hardworking, resourceful and enterprising people? Let us see. Not only does the Government not organise and mobilise all workers to create a more beautiful and more reasonable society, but instead it has resorted to all means to defeat them, and give them much trouble. It has also de-registered four trade union federations. The Government is also making use of certain yellow trade unions, which have been banned before, to defeat the other legitimate trade unions.

As to the promise of giving the workers certain kinds of training to equip them with higher skills and scientific training in order to serve society, it depends on the people themselves to acquire the knowledge, to study and to practise. Given encouragement by the Government all this can be realised. But the basic attitude of the P.A.P. towards the workers is not a friendly one. It is at enmity with the workers. How can they talk about improving the technique and skill of the workers?

Let us talk about the Singapore Polytechnic, which is meant to train workers, to provide personnel skilled in scientific knowledge. But how many workers have the Polytechnic trained? How many workers are studying there? The Polytechnic does not provide any technical education to Chinese stream students.

The pamphlet says that the second advantage of Singapore is that its central position, with its excellent sea communications with all places in the world, gives her an advantageous position to obtain cheap raw materials from nearby countries. The absence of the raw materials in the island itself will not be such a drawback to industrialisation since we can obtain cheap supplies from nearby countries. Now, that is the second advantage Singapore has in industrialisation. Since we have these favourable conditions and these advantages, why has the Government not tried to make use of them to carry out its promises? Why then does the Government make such pathetic accusations as that it does not have raw materials and skilled labourers and other things and contradict what it has said before?

As to the third advantage, the pamphlet says there is a fairly substantial amount of capital accumulated by local concerns and public authorities; that much of this capital is lying idle or is invested in foreign countries. This advantage would give confidence to the people in respect of the future economic prospects of Singapore. But all these good prospects can materialise only if Singapore can shake away from colonial economic control and shake away the yoke of colonial rulers, and promote the local economy and encourage local people to take part in economic activities. But what the P.A.P. Government has done during their term of office has greatly disappointed us. The P.A.P. rulers have kowtowed to colonial rulers. They are now trying to grovel. They are now trying to resort to appeasing foreign capitalists, to come to terms with them. They have neglected our economic development and industrialisation policy. In this respect, there is one very important factor, which is to make use of our present local capital and not try to depend entirely on the investment of foreign capital. This point is also mentioned in the Chinese pamphlet of The Tasks Ahead. It says:-

'The P.A.P. profoundly disagrees that the survival of Singapore depends on foreign capital and foreign capitalists. That is to say, there is ample local capital for this task.'

It continues to say:

'But it would be foolish to imagine that whatever we do, foreign capital will come in on the scale needed to solve our problems. Our salvation lies in our own hands. There are no benevolent foreigners knocking around the world anxious to discharge these duties and responsibilities which are rightly our own.'

There are also a few lines which say:

'Let us never forget that self-government is not possible without self-reliance. This is true both in politics as well as in economics.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is what the P.A.P. promised in 1959. How grand it sounds! But it is a pity that our Minister for Finance is not here. He has said that we should not face our economic problems with the mental attitudes appropriate to colonial servitude. Can he still remember what he said? I believe he has relegated this statement of his to oblivion. During these 30 months, how has the P.A.P. Government dealt with the economic situation? Has it carried out its promises? I am not a Doctor of Economics. I have not studied economics much. Of course, I am not used to giving grand talks on economic theories, but from the realities of life and facts, I feel they have already forgotten their resolute belief made at that time. I say this not because I am now in the Opposition. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, I also mentioned this to him on many occasions. I suggested to him how to deal with the local economic situation and how to deal with foreign capitalists. But he seemed to feel that he is a very famous economist well known in Singapore, so he took my suggestions as something acquired from others. When somebody else says so, I also say so. That is what he thought of my suggestions. But during its 30 months of office, has the P.A.P. Government taken steps to encourage local capitalists and industrialists? Has it tried to gather scattered local capital in order to invest locally and to develop local industries? We have to ask our local national capitalists and industrialists this question. Their answer will be the same, that they are greatly disappointed. The Government has not done so. The P.A.P. Government has not only not reclaimed the money invested in England to invest it in local industries, but instead it has reinvested large sums of money in England. How disappointing it is to us. The P.A.P. Government is giving special treatment to foreign capitalists and their local compradores. It has given foreign monopolistic capitalists a five-year tax holiday from income tax. It has also given them pioneer status and certain favourable terms for certain Government industries and manufactures. Although local capitalists and manufacturers can apply to have such terms, there is a provision in the Income Tax Ordinance which gives the Government power to claim arrears of tax retrospectively for 12 years. Of course, the Government, if it is in the hands of the people, can have such a law to prevent the evasion of paying tax. But during the previous Government the people tried to evade paying tax. This was inevitable because, during those colonial days, this was one way to hit at the colonial rulers by evading paying taxes to the colonial government. When the relevant laws were formulated in those days, they were specially meant to deal with the general public. But now, if anybody or any national capitalist tries to evade paying tax, he will be running a risk. It is mostly in the past that they tried to evade tax. If they were to, put in capital, they run the risk of investigation by the Government under the present law and they fear that they may be required to pay the tax which they evaded in the past. Therefore, they would rather carry out some other kind of business in order to avoid investigation by the Government. So this policy of the Government is not very correct. It is trying to get golden eggs by killing the goose which lays the golden eggs. But in the end it will lose both the golden eggs and the goose. If only it does not take stringent restrictive measures against the local nationalist industrialists and capitalists who help to promote local industries, commerce and trade, and economic development, they will be more than willing to help. But the Government is in favour of foreign capitalists, and is neglecting our local national capitalists and industrialists. How can the Government now explain away what it has said before, of encouraging our local industrialists and nationalists? How can the Government now be able to stimulate economy and achieve its economic purposes? I will again quote from the small pamphlet on the economic policy of the P.A.P.:

'Let us never forget that self-government is not possible without self-reliance. This is true both in politics as well as in economics.'.

The Minister for Finance must be very absent-minded, because how can he now explain this? Perhaps he has now forgotten what he said in 1959.

When touching on the fourth advantage of industrialisation in Singapore, he said that large natural markets exist in neighbouring countries with whom the merchants of Singapore have good relations and that manufacturers in Singapore could have access to these markets provided they could produce goods at competitive prices. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is obvious. There are large natural markets existing in our neighbouring countries, not only in the Federation of Malaya. The P.A.P. is adopting a grovelling attitude to the Federation of Malaya as though the people of Singapore cannot exist without the Federation of Malaya. The P.A.P. Government despises our local capitalists and industrialists. It does not encourage and guide them. What is the use then of these large natural markets? The Government has ignored the local capitalists and industrialists. For instance, most of the people engaged in the biscuit, soap and leather-shoe industries have closed down. Some of them have gone bankrupt while others are in a very bad economic situation. Are these not good examples? If the Government had taken good care of them so that they could have sold their products at a lower cost to world-wide markets since they had close links with these markets - the local economy would have improved. We should try to lay a sound foundation for our local economy to help the local industries prosper. But has the Government done anything towards reaching this objective? Has it any plans? No, none at all.

Let us see again whether the P.A.P. Government, during the last 30 months of its office, has tried to remedy any defects in industrialisation. In their small pamphlet there is a passage which reads:

'On the other side of the picture, there are certain weaknesses. The first is that the free entry of foreign goods places local manufacturers at a disadvantageous position especially in lines where it would take some years for a factory to reach full efficiency. Also foreign price-cutting is not unknown as a method of killing locally established industries. This increases the risk of investing in manufacturing industries.'.

In order to cure this weakness, we must first break away from the colonial economic yoke, eliminate the colonial forces and help establish local industries. That is the basic method. The preservation of Singapore's status as a free port and the development of Singapore as an industrial island are two contradictory objectives. Therefore, the Government should try to find some means whereby we can preserve our entrepot trade and, at the same time, promote industrialisation so that we can offer more opportunities for employment to our rapidly increasing population. Therefore, we have to expand our industries rapidly. In order to protect our local industrial products against foreign goods and at the same time compete in other markets, the Government should impose certain tariffs on foreign goods. But it is regrettable that the Government has-

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the Member for Havelock has had an opportunity of seeing the Bill presented yesterday. It is called the Customs Dumping and Subsidies Bill which seeks to do exactly what the hon. Member is urging now. I would suggest that if he has any comments on that particular aspect of his speech, he reserve it until the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason is that we have not received the Bill in question.

I was talking about how to protect the locally manufactured goods and local industries, that the locally manufactured goods have been badly hit because of competition with foreign goods.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is now going into too much details. I have indicated that there is a Bill which has been introduced and when we come to debate it, he can go into these details. Let us touch on general policies.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if that is the case, I will go on to the second weakness in the P.A.P.'s economic policy. This is very important. In the P.A.P.'s pamphlet, it is stated:

'The second disadvantage is that the large market in the Federation is not open to Singapore on the same terms as it is open to the Federation manufacturers. A factory in Johore Bahru does not pay import duty on its products but one sited five miles away along Bukit Timah Road will have to pay a duty on goods exported to the Federation. So long as this is the case, there will be a strong incentive to manufacturers to establish plants in the Federation rather than in Singapore.'.

This is what the Minister for Finance said at that time. Everybody can clearly understand how the Federation Government is treating us. It is just like an elder brother bullying a younger brother who has all the time been tolerant of such treatment.

Let us recall what the P.A.P. said in 1959. This is to be found in the Chinese version of the pamphlet:

'Hitherto, Federation manufacturers have enjoyed not only free access to Singapore markets but could also depend on Singapore's entrepot services to help them to penetrate overseas markets. On the other hand, Singapore's products are treated as foreign goods in the Federation. The Federation need not assume that such a one-sided arrangement could continue indefinitely.

The establishment of a common tariff-free market within the framework of a larger economic union based on a co-ordinated development programme is the only way whereby both territories can find answers to their pressing economic problems.

It goes on to say:

'It will be foolish in the extreme for one territory to take temporary advantage of the other, for this will set off a chain reaction of reprisals and counter reprisals which will lead to the ruin of both territories. In Malaya, as indeed elsewhere, prosperity is indivisible.''

This has been correct. Discussions on a common commodity market between Singapore and the Federation have been going on for two years. Up to now, this question is still being discussed between the two Governments. This proves that the Federation Government does not have any regard for the wishes and hopes of the people of Singapore. Where then are the ambitious aims which the P.A.P. manifested some time ago? The P.A.P. are adopting an ignominous, shameful and begging attitude by asking the Federation to help them. This description by me is not exaggerated. Let us examine what the P.A.P. said in 1959 in their pamphlet:

'A P.A.P. Government in negotiating with the Federation Government for the abolition of import duty on Singapore manufactures need not approach the Federation Government in the role of supplicants for favours.'

Is it not very clear from this? The P.A.P. said that we would not approach the Federation Government in the role of supplicants for favours. Let us now hear again what the, Minister for Finance said on the 25th November, 1959, when he made his Budget Statement. He pointed out that the interests of the two territories are indivisible. It is to be found in Volume 11, No. 13, col. 780 of Hansard. Then he said:

'It is clear from the foregoing account that an arrangement of this kind accepts the fact of the economic unity of the two territories. Whatever the political divisions, it is obvious that they must co-operate in economic fields and it would be injurious to both countries to take an independent and competitive line of action in promoting industrial growth.

From the point of view of the prospective manufacturer, the attraction of investing in Malaya would immensely increase. A Federation investor, for instance, would be assured of a protected market not only in his own country, but also in Singapore. Similarly, a Singapore manufacturer would not have to surmount the tariff wall which the Federation now places against Singapore products. It is therefore hoped that an early decision would be reached. Any delay in reaching a decision would merely mean that prospective investors may be induced to adopt a waiting policy.

Singapore's attraction as a partner to the common market is much greater than the comparison of the population figures of the two territories would suggest. While the Federation has more than four persons to one Singaporean, the purchasing power of the two territories by no means follows this ratio. This is because ---'.

Mr Speaker: Order. I really do not know what the hon. Member for Havelock is driving at. He is either in favour of or against the Common Market, I do not know. If he is in favour of the Common Market, all he need say is to tell the Government to carry on with it. But going into these details is irrelevant. We are on general policies.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I mention this to elucidate what the Minister for Finance said in 1959, and to show how the P.A.P. rulers have forgotten what they promised at that time, and that they have not-

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think we should carry on with what was debated in 1959. We are now debating what is being said in 1961. There is something about the Common Market, I think, in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. Well, let us confine ourselves to the Common Market as a general policy.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not oppose this Common Market with the Federation of Malaya, but we think that negotiations by the present P.A.P. Government on the question of a Common Market have not come to any results yet. Instead the P.A.P. Government is taking a kind of grovelling attitude towards the Federation of Malaya. Mr Speaker, if you think it is not necessary to quote what the Minister for Finance has said for comparison, then I will not mention it again. But there is one point, Mr Speaker. I think, in criticising the Go vernment, the most effective weapon is to attack it with its own words. The economic interests of the two territories are indivisible. Neither side should take advantage of the other side, but the Federation of Malaya achieved independence in 1957. After its independence, the Federation Government not only has not helped us but has been pressing hard on us, somewhat like persecuting us. Yet the present P.A.P. Government is adopting a kind of trying to please attitude.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Member is justified in debating the policy of the Federation Government now. The Federation Government is a friendly government and I do not think he ought to say anything derogatory about it.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, are we supposed to stare at the P.A.P. while they sell out the interests of the people of Singapore? Of course, we should not allow them to do such a thing. But, Mr Speaker, we think that Singapore can stand by itself. We do not have to kowtow to anybody. We do not have to supplicate anybody. Everything in the world is created by labour. As long as we have faith in ourselves, we can live and exist. There is nothing difficult in the world. The only hindrance is that there is no faith in oneself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us now examine the fourth weakness. It says the merchants of Singapore pay too much attention to commerce and little attention to industries. Singapore has been the centre of commerce for over a hundred years. The British colonialists, for the sake of exploiting the primary materials, products and wealth of South-East Asia, did not in the past try to expand the local trading facilities. Whatever they did was only for their own interests. They did not have the interests of the local people at heart. They did not have any intention to promote our local industries. So without any safeguard, local national capitalists and industrialists would not dare to invest money in industries. We should blame the British colonialists for what they did. But the present P.A.P. Government has not accused the British colonialists. Instead the Government is accusing the local industrialists and capitalists of not in vesting locally. It has also accused the workers in Singapore of not following the line of the Government. As I have said just now, Singapore has been a commercial port for over a hundred years. So to revert it to an industrial centre is not a very easy matter. Therefore, the Government will have to encourage local industrialists and mer chants and national capitalists, to persuade them and give them more confidence, and try to help them in all ways to give them confidence to invest locally, to promote industries and to create more employment opportunities. The livelihood of the people will then be solved partially. But the Government has not encouraged local national capitalists and industrialists to develop local industries. On the other hand, it has only been ridiculing the simple family industries and businesses carried on by them. Of course, industries managed by a family are not run on scientific lines. But the Government has the duty to teach them, to encourage them, to help them run their businesses on modern lines. So this attitude of the Government is only impeding the development of industries in Singapore. When the country is at the beginning of industrialisation programme, we cannot expect it to be up to modern standards, up to 100 per cent. Our local national capitalists have been going through a long period in which they have been exploited by foreign monopolistic capitalists. They have been suffering. But the Government has not tried to help them. The Government has said that it wants to help build local industries. But, on the other hand, it is actually helping foreign monopolistic capitalists in industry locally. There are foreign monopolistic concerns established. That is the Shell Oil Refinery. When it was established, the concern employed only one extra worker. I remember that-

Mr Speaker: It is getting rather fantastic how the Barisan Sosialis Members are repeating arguments which have been advanced by their own Members in this Chamber. Let us try not to repeat. Let us touch generally on the Government's policy. Mr Low.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir

Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. Business motion.