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

Debate resumed.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no intention to repeat what others have said. What I want to do is to mention the most important point. Having done so much, the said company only engaged one extra worker. From what we have revealed about the various economic advantages and disadvantages of Singapore, we can easily come to this conclusion, which is that the P.A.P. Government, which has been in office for 30 months, has not carried out its promises made in 1959. The whole economic policy is near the stage of bankruptcy. The livelihood of the people has become more difficult. The whole situation in Singapore is very confused. It is in a state of turmoil. All this can be attributed to the P.A.P. In the P.A.P.'s pamphlet, it is also mentioned that the unemployment problem in Singapore is very acute. If we do not try to resolve this problem now, then by 1962 the situation will be out of hand. It will be very difficult to tackle it. The P.A.P. is now trying to salvage its political fortunes and to save itself from dying. To do so, it is now trying to carry out a kind of phoney merger in order to achieve its own purpose of maintaining its political position and political power.

Lastly, I want to say that if we want to make the economy of Singapore a prosperous one, we have, on the one hand, to eliminate colonial influences and forces and, on the other hand, to try to build an independent and autonomous economic system. Therefore, our major economic tasks now are, first, to eradicate colonial economic control and economic forces and to eradicate all kinds of unreasonable phenomena from our society. When there is no exploitation of man by man can we then achieve our purpose of having a more just and equal society, which is our long-term aim.

7.21 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to waste the time of this Assembly to do roundabout talking, because we have been sitting in this Assembly for quite sometime and we are almost tired of words being repeated again and again. I do not think this is necessary for the people of Singapore. I feel that we, as represen tatives of the people, are big enough and we are quite aware. We can understand what we say. But unfortunately there are people who could not understand.

My intention in debating the Address of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in connection with the Government's policy is to draw the attention of the Government, who has governed Singapore for two and a half years, to certain things. It is necessary for us to look back during the two and a half years and see what are the achievements confronting us now. This Government was elected to power because it promised to bring prosperity to the people of Singapore. The people of Singapore are still waiting for the promises to be fulfilled. But what we get is just the reverse. There are things which are not satisfactory to us. There are political conflicts among the people. We find more unemployment, and it is getting worse each day. This is one instance which shows that the Government, who claims to be a socialist Government, has not fulfilled the promises it made.

Another instance is this. There are rules and regulations as to where hawkers are to set up stalls and what will happen to them if they do not comply with those rules. It is not that these hawkers wish to be like this, but they have to rely on their livelihood as hawkers. But it is wise on the part of Government to plan long-term development programmes, although the results will not be achieved within a short space of one year, two years or three years. Such long-term objectives will not immediately effect a change in the livelihood of the people. Everyone in Singapore needs all the basic necessities and amenities of life, as are required by ordinary human beings. A short-term objective can be achieved within a specified time. It is not because we are half independent but because of the restrictive constitutional conditions that we are barred from finding ways and means. I feel this is merely an excuse put forward which is not in the interest of the public. I think there is no difficulty which cannot be resolved. If there is a will, there is a way, Mr Speaker.

For instance, today we are providing houses. There are unemployed persons and the money spent an housing will be wasted because the houses will not be occupied by people because they are unable to afford the rentals. This is the reason as explained by a Member of this Assembly. This cannot wholly resolve the unemployment problem. On the contrary, it will lead to communal distrust. They will have no faith in the Work Brigade which, it is said, was in fact established for the good of the people, although the object of the Work Brigade was to help in the implementation of the Government's development programmes. I do not wish to go deeply into the details, but it is obvious that the Work Brigade is merely for the good of the party in power and not for the good of the people of Singapore. Similarly, Mr Speaker, although we admit that the present Government was elected on the basis of parliamentary democracy and that it is the responsibility of the Government to govern, we cannot get the support of the people if the methods of administration are not implemented in the true spirit of democracy. Democracy does not mean that the Party that has been elected to power can force plans down the throats of the people. The people are not like hens which we feed with maize. We as humans beings can distinguish the good from the bad.

The Prime Minister himself has admitted that he has no confidence in nominating persons to the Public Service Commission who are not closely asso ciated with the P.A.P. So when such a method is adopted naturally there is a feeling of dissatisfaction among those persons who cannot get through the P.S.C. I think this question of having no faith in the non-P.A.P. members is a mistake, because the Government are not merely responsible for P.A.P. members. They are not going to provide a livelihood for P.A.P. member's alone. They are responsible for all the people of Singapore, numbering 1½ million. Therefore, if this practice is continued by the Government - we experienced Japanese administration for over 3½ years - I fear more chaotic conditions will be suffered by the people of Singapore.

On the subject of land planning, Mr Speaker, I know the Government is basing it on the Master Plan which, according to this policy speech, says that the Master Plan will be revised to fit in with the prevailing conditions as to the provision of houses for the public and the development of factories and so on. I would like here to draw the Government's attention to the fact that it is right and proper that some revision be made to the Master Plan. I think suggestions for the amendments have already been submitted to the Government for consideration. I raise this matter, Mr Speaker, in view of the unsettled conditions, that is to say, wherever vacant land is found, there will be erected unauthorised huts. But I do not wish to go into details. Admittedly in accordance with the law the people who build these unauthorised huts are at fault. These people deserve to be punished. The Government has taken action to demolish these huts. But one thing which I would like to awaken the Government to is that these people are the people who have been neglected. To the best of my knowledge, these people are unemployed or are not fully employed. They are hawkers selling satay and things like that. They are renting cubicles at $20 per month, sometimes $25 per month. They do not like to rent such cubicles because of the unhealthy and insanitary conditions. Naturally they wish to seek better accommodation. These cubicles are not in accordance with the building regulations. Because circumstances force them to do so, they have no alternative but to erect unauthorised huts. Although these unauthorised huts had been demolished by the Government, they were prepared to live in them. So this is a matter to which the Government should give serious consideration. These people are prepared for the worst. They are not prepared to quit. This is a serious matter and I have brought it to the knowledge of the Prime Minister. I have suggested to him how this delicate problem could be overcome. But up to today, my Party has not yet received a positive reply whether our recommendations have been accepted in order to overcome this very delicate problem.

In this policy debate I have heard Members of the Barisan Sosialis who, in addition to attacking the present P.A.P. Government, have also seen fit to criticise the Federation Government which is not in this Chamber. But as a member of a Party-

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Member did hear me over-rule the Member for Havelock when he attacked the Federation Government. I do not think he should expand on that now.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib: (In Malay): I bow to your ruling, Mr Speaker. I will not reply to the criticisms levelled by the Member for Havelock. Once again I emphasise that the elected representa tives of the people must speak with sincerity, that all that they express in this Assembly is, in fact, for the benefit of the people. If they have to depend on the backroom boys, I think it is no use.

7.42 p.m.

Mr Ng Teng Kian (Punggol): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the third policy statement read out by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in regard to the Government's policy, and we feel very disappointed. We realise the P.A.P. Government is now at a loss to know what to do, and so it has to pin its hopes on merger to save its fate

Mr Speaker: Order. I have repeatedly directed hon. Members to keep away from the subject of merger. We have dealt with it. It should not even be touched upon in passing.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just mentioned the word "merger" in passing. I will not mention other details. Mr Speaker, Sir

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps what I have said has not been understood by the Member. I have indicated that the word "merger" or any reference to merger even in passing might provoke rejoinders. So the best thing any hen. Member can do is to refrain from touching on merger, which took us, I think, about 12 days to dispose of.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): I thank you for your direction, Mr Speaker, Sir. Let us look at the P.A.P. in its handling of the political and economic fields. What has the P.A.P. achieved in 21 years in the political and economic fields? The answer is nothing. The negotiation for a common market between Singapore and the Federation has not come to fruition. This House has not been informed of any result so far. The Four-Year Development Plan, as far as we can see, is nothing but a mere plan in which the P.A.P. tries to make itself happy. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the whole of the policy statement for the present session, we can discover that the Government is now indulging in another kind of argument. It is contradictory to what they said last year. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like your permission to make some quotations from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech appearing in column 12 of Hansard dated 31st October, 1961:

'With merger now in prospect, the assumptions on which the original economic policies of the Government were based must be reviewed. As part of a greater entity, Singapore can stand up better to its...'-

Mr Speaker: Order. Here again the Member for Punggol is developing an argument which involves merger. I have indicated that that has already been dealt with and I do not want a debate to develop on any aspect of merger.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember that the Minister for Finance declared last year that the Government wanted to increase the registration fees of businesses and the property tax. At that time, my colleague the Member for Hong Lim, with a mandate from the people, criticised the Minister for Finance by saying that the Estimates were going to extract money from the people. The Minister for Finance tried to defend himself and this resulted in a very heated debate. At that time, the Government insisted on its own views and refused to revise its economic policy which was based on a certain assumption. The P.A.P., in wanting to prevent itself from coming to a political end, changes its policy from time to time. We can see this very often and there is no need for us to speak a lot on this. In order to survive, the P.A.P. has resorted to all sorts of tactics. It has restored the pay cuts and it has cancelled the registration fees for business and professions. The Government is now in a pathetic position.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have already approved about $6 million as expenditure for the Work Brigade next year. This is a considerable amount of money. But we have not as yet seen any comprehensive plan which the Government proposes for the Work Brigade. I am not personally against the Work Brigade or its members who are very young and useful people. If the Government can take good care of them, they would then be able to help in nation building.

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

7.50 p.m.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: Unfortunately, due to a lack of leadership and ability and the lack of a comprehensive plan, these young people are just like heroes who have no way to express their abilities. As a result of this, public funds are being wasted on the Work Brigade. This is, however, not so bad. But now the Government is even making use of military forces and the police to suppress members of the Work Brigade. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I can see that this Government is becoming more and more fierce. The Prime Minister is now as fierce as Hitler was. I think if this amount of $6 million is spent on the construction of roads and amenities in the rural areas, the people in the rural areas will derive a great deal of benefit.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we can see that the Government have done hardly anything in respect of health. We know that the population of Singapore is increasing from day to day. At present the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital has to attend to too many people. I wonder whether the Government are considering any plan to expand this hospital. As a result of the present congestion, many pregnant women can only stay in the hospital for one day. As a result of this, mothers and babies are not receiving proper care. On the other hand, instead of doing something to extend the hos pital, the, Government are building more and more community centres from public funds.

Sir, the P.A.P. have not helped the poor people very much. I can quote an example to illustrate this. Clinics, which are a help to the poor people, are not being built in great numbers. I want to quote some facts to, show how the Government are ill-treating our poor people in Singapore. At the 6th milestone, Upper Serangoon Road, there is an old post office which has been turned into a children's welfare clinic. This old post office building is very small and every day you have many mothers bringing their children to this converted clinic because they cannot afford to incur medical expenses. When there is a big crowd, they have to line up in the hot sun. I would like to ask the Government whether such treatment of the poor people is proper.

On the contrary, we can take a look at the other side of the picture. In Upper Serangoon Road, there is a new community centre which is closed in the day. It is only used in the night when there are a few people playing some games. At the 9th milestone, Punggol, there is not even a single clinic although it is a very crowded area. The Government would do a better job if they spend money on the building of more clinics than on community centres. We made these proposals during the Hong Lim by-election.

Sir, I remember that when the P.A.P. came to power in 1959, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who is now the Member for Nee Soon, invited me to visit the Woodbridge Hospital which is in the constituency of Punggol. I had occasion to visit the voters living in the neighbourhood and I noted that the workers lived in a crowded area. In some cases, many people lived in a small room. The ventilation was bad and so was the other aspect of health. Therefore, I asked the Minister for Health to pay a visit to this place. He agreed to do so and we went together to inspect the quarters of the workers. The Minister for Health agreed to my suggestion and promised to do something about it. He even went to the extent of saying in an angry tone that this came about as a result of colonial rule. He told the workers that the Government would do their best to improve their living conditions. But now the Minister has changed and the promised improvement has not come about. I hope the new Minister for Health will one day pay this place a visit. A man with the physique of the Minister for Health will not be able to go into the building. I am not making a joke at his expense, but it is a fact that the building is too small for him to enter.

Sir, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister referred to what the Government have done in respect of road construction in the rural areas. Yes, we agree and we cannot deny what they have done, but what I want to say is that they have not been doing things in a positive manner. The construction of roads and the installation of standpipes were carried out to a great extent by the present Member for Hong Lim who was then the Minister for National Development. Within a short period of one year about 300 standpipes were installed. I spent two weeks working on the job. In the morning I had to get up at 6 a.m. to go out with the engineers-

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member is going into details, such as how the Member worked, and so on. We are discussing the speech setting out the Government's policy.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will not take long. I am just mentioning it in passing. And so this work was done, to a great extent, by the former Minister for National Development. The remaining part of the work has been done by the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee. Its present President is the Member for Tampines who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister. He lives in the rural area and he knows this area well. He is an old man to whom I pay respect. He is one of those old men whom I respect most. So I hope he will, in the spirit of service to the people, carry out work in the rural area with the powers which I hope the Government will give him. I believe that during his term of office he will be able to-

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member should discuss the Government policy, and not, the Member for Tampines' personal policy. Will the Member please come back to the subject of the debate?

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): I am of the opinion that this work in the rural area is closely connected with the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee. Now I am making some views in this respect. I hope that this is not a departure from the debate. What I have been saying is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister knows full well the conditions in the rural area. I hope the Government will give him more powers to enable him to do some work in the rural area during his term of office. In the meantime, with the additional powers he has, he will be able to do some more work for the welfare and interest of the rural people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me touch upon the land and building constructions in the rural area, especially the procedure for applications to build houses. During the general elections, the P.A.P. used to promise the people that once t came to power it would simplify all applications and procedures for permission to put up houses. But now, as far as I can see, there has been little improvement in this line. I am of the opinion that the Planning Department is closely related to the rural area, because mans parts of the rural areas have been referred to as "the green belt" on which no houses will be allowed. On the one hand, the land in the rural area is not well defined as far as the boundaries are concerned. So when the rural people apply to the Land Office for permission to put up houses, they are always turned down by the Planning Department because there is a lack of land. Now, if a piece of land is not defined, well, there will be no roads. It does not mean that inside the land there is no system of roads. If this situation is not improved, then the rural people will find it difficult to get permission to put up attap huts. The procedures regarding such applications should be simplified as far as possible. It is the stand of the United People's Party which has not changed at all. When we were struggling with the P.A.P. we had the courage and confidence to fight it. We the United People's Party will continue the work left behind by the P.A.P. in the City Council and we will try to do our best to express the opinion of the people and to alleviate the suffering of all classes of people.

8.08 p.m.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, two and a half years ago the keynote in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech was one of great confidence and optimism regarding the future. In that speech he gave us three forecasts of fine weather ahead. The first was that the P.A.P. Government would build up a climate of confidence for great expansion and industrial growth. The second forecast was that there would be political stability since the Party in power held 43 out of 51 seats in the Assembly. The third forecast was that there would be no industrial unrest; instead there would be industrial peace with justice.

Sir, at that time the Opposition was very small in number, but we warned the Government that there would be hidden rocks ahead, that there would be unseen dangers-

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Thirteen unseen rocks!

Dr Thio Chan Bee: - and that there might be stormy weather. Sir, at that time the Members of the Barisan Sosialis were Members of the Government Party. Today the hidden rocks have become visible. Today, the three weather forecasts have proved to be wrong. Instead of a climate of confidence, we have today a climate of uncertainty among the people. Instead of political stability as promised, there is now great instability, and the Government majority has been reduced to one vote. Instead of industrial peace, there is now grave industrial unrest and an epidemic of strikes.

We now see Singapore becoming a veritable battle-ground of two contending groups of trade unions - an unfortunate state of affairs which the Government seems unwilling to tackle vigorously. Apparently things have been allowed to go on indefinitely. Under the circumstances, no wonder the tone ,in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech this year is no longer optimistic but instead is a very cautious one.

The Government now talks about two roads - the main highway leading to peace and prosperity, and the sidepath leading to disunity, to chaos and to economic ruination. Sir, we contend that we are not at the crossroads. We contend that since 1959 the people of Singapore have been led down that sidepath to chaos and economic ruination. Sir, we hold both the P.A.P. and the Barisan responsible. They misrepresented the sidepath then as being the main highway. And today, instead of having greater peace, unity and prosperity, we are already in a serious state of affairs. We are not facing the crossroads. We are not facing a political crisis or economic crisis. We are now in the midst of a political and an economic crisis. I am sure the P.A.P. now agrees, Sir.

The problem of unemployment has been soft-pedalled. We know, and all political Parties know, that we are facing a very grave situation as regards the unemployment problem. The Government has seen fit, while mentioning the seriousness of the situation, to underplay it and say that it has been partly alleviated by the present boom in the building industry. Employment figures in that industry show that the number of people employed has not reached the level of that in 1957. [Interruption] We will come to that, Sir. The Government has decided that, under the circumstances, it is impossible to solve the unemployment problem without remedying the political situation. We are not allowed to touch on the question of merger, Sir, and so I will not refer to that. But in the Four-Year Development Plan, they did say that under certain very favourable circumstances described as "under conditions of maximum acceleration" the Government hoped to solve this problem by inducing private investors to invest to the tune of $600 million to provide jobs for 30,000 workers. The rate estimated would be $20,000 per job per worker. Sir, that is the target which under the present circumstances we know cannot be achieved, even in the next two years. If the conditions were as in the Federation, one could say that the target could be achieved. But under the present conditions, what do we see? Instead of maximum acceleration, we might describe the conditions in Singapore as those of maximum retardation and friction, because in the struggle for political power between the Barisan group and the Government group, the welfare, the livelihood, the prosperity of the people have become subordinated. This is most unfortunate, because the situation is really grave and almost desperate. When we think of the workers of Singapore, people have not realised that we must think not in terms of the workers in employment only but also of the workers in unemployment and those leaving school seeking employment. According to the Government's estimate, there will be in 1964 something like 83,600 unemployed. Sir, I believe this is an underestimate. Very likely the figure is very near 100,000 or even more. It has not been realised by many people that there is another picture somewhat hidden, and that is that the number of workers employed has since 1957 been reduced by something like 15,000. I shall be quoting figures to support this. So we have a double picture of this tragedy. One, employment since 1957 becoming less and less and less; more and more being retrenched. The number in the queue of unemployed seeking employ ment increasing year by year because of the thousands coming in from the schools.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): No birth control!

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister has estimated that the annual intake is something like 15,000, increasing year by year. In the 1960 Annual Report of the Labour Department, Command Paper 24 of 1961, the total number of employed workers in Singapore was 123,000 in 1957. In September 1959 it went down to 106,800, and in the following year, in September 1960, it went down again to 105,600. I am quoting this sentence, Sir:

'The above figures give a picture of declining employment.'

A total reduction of 17,400 workers in three years.

Sir, the field of building construction, regarded as the most optimistic field that - I agree - shows the same decline from 1957 and a slight rise, I might say, beginning in 1960. We hope building construction will increase in volume as the years go on. The figures, however, from 1957 have been very discouraging. In September 1957, there were 15,000 workers in the construction industry. In 1958, 12,000 workers. I think-

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is going into too many details. This decline in unemployment has been dealt with at length at the beginning of this session by the Opposition Members who put the question to the Government side. Even during this debate, this decline has been quoted in the Labour Department's Report. The Government has given an explanation. I think the hon. Member should come back to the general principle of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I am touching on something quite new. It has been shown that unemployment has been increasing-yes. But it has not been shown that the employment figures have been decreasing. I am showing here that by the time we reached September 1959, it has gone up to 8,000.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the Member can just touch on it as a passing remark, but not in detail.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: If that has been accepted by the Government, Sir, we proceed to the next. What was this factor that happened in 1957 that brought about an economic crisis? In 1957, the People's Action Party took control of the City Council. A new factor came into the scene. Less workers in employment. In 1959, another new factor came on to the political scene. The P.A.P. won control of this Assembly by 43 against a small Opposition. Strange to say, the victory of a Party that has declared itself to be for the workers resulted in a less number of workers being employed. Sir, today the Barisan star has come out of the lightning or from behind the lightning. It remains to show whether in future the people have learnt a lesson, whether the workers of Singapore are going to suffer some more. We hope that by this time they have learnt to read the signs.

Sir, in 1959 when we warned that there would be rocks and stormy weather, they laughed at us. Now we see the rocks here, [Laughter] and we realise that it is not a laughing matter for the people of Singapore. They laughed, Sir, but we did not laugh. They took a tiger, put a pink ribbon round it and then told us and the public, "This is a tame pussy-cat being domesticated. There is no fear at all."

Mr Chan Chee Seng: It will bite you!

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Today they have learnt that we must give respect to the tiger and let it be free in its own habitat.

Mr Rajaratnam: They are behind you!

Dr Thio Chan Bee: We cannot expect to ride the tiger and fare well. Maybe they fare well. But we do not fare well. The Prime Minister has given up the role of trying to hide his tiger. We notice that the Member for Queenstown is undertaking this job. Maybe being a doctor by profession, Sir, he hopes to chloroform-

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member should bear in mind that we are debating the Government policy as outlined in the Yang di- Pertuan Negara's speech. When listening to the Member, it seems to me that he is completely away from the motion.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am trying to give the cause of this political instability which is a very important factor in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. I am trying to show that this political instability will continue so long as the tiger is being treated like a pussy-cat. If the Barisan leader is trying to treat it in the way the Prime Minister did, then he may regretfully meet with the same fate. I was trying to show that he, being a doctor, might try another method, to chloroform the tiger, but in the struggle, the stopper of the chloroform bottle might get loose and the doctor himself become chloroformed. I am glad to see that Members of the Government know from experience that this can happen.

Sir, the Member for Stamford made a statement with which we wholeheartedly agree. She said there are women who want employment in order to secure bread and freedom. The only thing is that she limited that freedom to freedom so that the wife could be independent of the husband. Sir, I am sure, in fairness to husbands, she should allow the same freedom to the husbands. In political life the same principle holds good. When we want bread and freedom for ourselves, whether we are in a community or in a party or in a nation, we must concede that there must be also the same desire to allow bread and freedom to be available to people of other groups, even to other political Parties, and other communities. In that spirit democracy will prevail.

I shall now touch very briefly on certain aspects in the policy statement of the Government. First, on housing. Few people realise that whenever private enterprise builds three houses in the city area, one house is donated to the Government, and for every four houses built outside the city area, another goes to the Government. So that by encouraging private people to build, workers to own their own houses, the Government is lightening the burden that they could carry themselves. No doubt they have removed the development charges, but I have been told that they have increased the deposits to the point where they will become a deterrent. I hope the Government will look into this matter because, if it is their desire to encourage housing, here is one way by which they can encourage it. Let us remember that Government will be benefiting in the long run not only through houses, as they are donated to them, but by way of increased revenue, payment of light, water and other charges.

Sir, on education, I understand the Government is thinking of building multi-storey primary schools, and that the first one will be in the Selegie Road area and there will be 7 storeys -

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Ten.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Ten storeys. This has been tried in certain cities. When f was in New York I remember being shown a very tall building and they said that was a school. Sir, I hope the Minister has taken all precautions to prevent accidents, because young children, being thoughtless, are apt to push one another and there have been instances where small children have been pushed out of windows. Luckily, in these particular cases, they just fell to ground level, about six feet below. Precautionary measures would require wire mesh over windows. Another thing is the lift, lifts are liable to go wrong. I hope there will be liftmen provided. We cannot expecct young children to know all these things. After one experiment, if the results are not proved to be very good, I wonder if the Minister will reconsider the whole thing and have multi-storey secondary schools rather than primary schools, because secondary school boys can always have their games on playgrounds sited a distance away from their schools.

Sir, when the Government carry out their policy of having the good boys in schools in the city area and the failures in schools in the rural areas, great hardship will befall parents who are unable to pay the extra transport involved and they are now being forced through circumstances to look for private schools in the city area. Under the circumstances, it may be wise for the Government to reconsider the present policy of actually killing the private schools by allowing those private schools which are up to the right standard to carry on, because they are also playing a useful part in solving this problem of education over here.

Sir, regarding the Government policy of building more and more State schools so that they exceed the number of aided schools, I think it is only right that the Government should bear the greater responsibility. But let us also remember that it is important to provide keen competition for the Government schools so that the standard will not be lowered. Sometimes the spirit of free enterprise does more than the State can do. The parents' wishes must be considered so that where they want to have their children sent to certain schools to the private or aided Chinese middle schools - there should be no attempt made to prevent them. In such cases our Barisan friends will not have any cause to complain because, after all, we must allow the parents to decide to which schools they want to send their children.

8.34 p.m.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to spend too much time on the policy statement of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I am personally in full support of the Prime Minister when he thanked the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for reading the policy statement in this House. He said that we have made headway in achieving things for the people in Singapore. We have made some improvements in the basic requirements of life. Members opposite, regardless of whether they are Left or Right, whether they are adventurists or not, when they see the results of the P.A.P. in serving the people, feel a bit sour about it. In the broad masses there is political awakening, which is unprecedented. So the Right-wing remnants are no more hopeful. As to the Barisan Sosialis, which claims to be the most progressive Party, well, these Left-wing adventurists cannot do anything good, but they will make a mess of things. Their desperation and their excitement today have come about as a result of the selfishness of their backseat drivers, and also as a result of their lack of analysis of the political situation in Malaya. At present they are launching a desperate campaign which is not supported by the people. Neither have the people any sympathy for the campaign. But it is our responsibility to remind these reckless people that they must be rational and exercise self-restraint, especially the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, when he said at a mass rally last week that the Singapore citizens will become people with no country-

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. This is irrelevant and out of order. If the Member wants to reply to the attack of the Barisan Sosialis Members on the Government, he is at liberty to do it, but he should not go into details on the Barisan Sosialis' merits and demerits.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): The attacks made by the Opposition Members, I can say, are regrettable because the so-called socialists are playing a very dangerous communal game. Just now the Member for Havelock described the Federation Government as feudalistic and Singapore as a slave. This, l think, will not do any good in regard to the unification of the peoples of the two territories. In fact, such a statement will be discarded by the peoples of the two territories.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as regards the achievements of the Government in the past 21 years, many of my colleagues have already touched upon them in some detail. So I do not wish to repeat what they have said. I only wish to say something about the Work Brigade today in this House. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Toa Payoh has attacked the Government and described the Work Brigade as a concentration camp. He mentions how members of the Work Brigade are restricted. But he forgets that, in the past, he was all praise for the Work Brigade soon after its inception and establishment. So you find a lot of contradictions in the Member for Toa Payoh. He is a man of no principle. It seems be has forgotten that when he was responsible for the Work Brigade, he made use of his position and power to give favourable positions to those in whom he had trust and to those who followed him. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Work Brigade has come to the present situation of turmoil and trouble and I think the Member for Toa Payoh has a certain responsibility for this state of affairs. Can he deny he has agitated the rebellious members to form a union? The Chairman of their Action Committee is an important leader in Geylang East. The Barisan Sosialis Members think that by going through their stooges in the Work Brigade they can agitate members in the Work Brigade to form a union to go against the Govern ment, so that they Work Brigade will be dissolved as a result of their activities. But the facts of today have shattered their beautiful dreams. All the 10 camps of the Work Brigade have come back to normal. About 1,600 members are now leading a normal life of discipline and doing collective work. So the plot of the Barisan Sosialis leading to the dissolution of the Work Brigade has failed miserably. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have the responsibility to reveal the sins and crimes of the rebellious members of the Work Brigade and the Barisan Sosialis. Because of their foolish act to defy authority, some 300 innocent members of the Work Brigade have suffered. Members of the Barisan Sosialis must be responsible for this.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Toa Payoh has smeared the Work Brigade without any grounds at all. It is really shameless of him to make such an attack and smear. There is no need for us to refute him at all. He says men of the Headquarters in the Work Brigade, when going round the camps, found magazines published by the Nanyang University Society, namely, the Torch, but we have not discovered any such magazines. What we have discovered are some applications for membership of the Barisan Sosialis. So you can see the intention of the Barisan Sosialis in the Work Brigade. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have tried to do something about the Work Brigade, I know they are now in a state of desperation. Let me remind them that the Work Brigade of today is fully supported by the broad masses of the people. Barisan Sosialis Members have talked at length and made irresponsible attacks and criticism on the Government. They are very naive indeed in so doing and it is a matter for regret as far as I am concerned. They are trying their best to do things in their own way in Singapore in order to achieve their political aims. They just adopt all sorts of tactics to mislead the innocent people of Singapore. These are hard facts which we must face. Why should they not lead these innocent people in the right way? Why should they try to adopt unprincipled means to mislead them? We believe Members of the Barisan Sosialis will perhaps feel as sad as we do over the whole situation when they discover that their own children have been misled and tricked by politicians.

The Member for Toa Payoh was responsible for the Work Brigade before hoe became a turncoat. It was the same in those days as it is now. There is no one trying to force members of the Work Brigade to join any union. But today, the hon. Member says it is like a wartime concentration camp. This is nonsense.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is my opinion that it is not easy to he a fighter of true socialism especially in a place like Singapore where political influence is still in existence. The people are quite happy with a peaceful life; so they do not wish to have radical changes made to the existing system. In the meantime, the colonialists are taking advantage of this weakness of the people. They are trying to perpetuate the existence of this social system in order to obtain benefits for themselves. We are aware of this present phenomenon and so are the Members opposite. When anti-colonial people have some power, it is easy for them to be influenced by the colonialists. The Members in the Opposition were at one time champions for the cause of the poor people but when they came to power, they just did things in the interest of a minority. As a result of this, they have not only changed their political stand but they have also changed their mode of living.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Members in the Opposition have made criticisms against the Government today. In their criticisms they have ranged from the important question of merger to the question of primary schools. All they have said boils down to this, that the Government is always wrong, but they have never pointed out how and where we have been wrong. They have never suggested how things should have been done. I am of the opinion that if the Opposition Members are men with conscience, who have the interest of the people at heart, they should not play political games to distort the policies of the Government in this House. They should sincerely try to work for the people of Singapore. It is only right that they should work for the welfare of the masses.

8.52 p.m.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is getting late now and therefore I will cut off two-thirds of nay speech.

Sir, this House is debating the third policy speech of the Government which was delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. It tells us that the Government has entered its third year of office. The P.A.P. called the first year a year of reformation, and this year a year of construction.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr S. Ramaswamy): On a point of order, Sir. This theme has been repeated by all the Members of the Barisan Sosialis - the year of construction, the year of liquidation, and so on.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I wish to remind hon. Members of the Standing Order. In fact, I was on the point of calling the Member for Choa Chu Kang to order when the Parliamentary Secretary rose on a point of order. May I remind hon. Members that they will be ruled out of order for repetition?

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all along the P.A.P. Government have been boasting about 1960 as a year of construction. Let us see the extent of this construction.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hen. Member that he said that the time was getting late and he wanted to cut off two-thirds of his speech? May I also remind him that he should address the Chair and not Members on the opposite side, other wise he will get more excited?

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope I can get the co-operation of the Members opposite. But if they want to interrupt, I intend to speak for three hours.

Sir, the P.A.P. Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and Assemblymen said that our criticisms on the policy speech and the examples we quoted were based on a distortion of facts. It is regrettable that in the course of the Budget debate, the Government have not realised their past year's mistakes. In this connection, I wish to make use of some simple figures to point out where they have failed. In this year's Development Estimates, a sum of $166.2 million was voted for the Government, but as a matter of fact they have only used $67.8 million up to the end of this year. It is only 41 per cent of the total amount voted. Therefore, this year of construction has become a year of disappointment and a year of failure.

Sir, for the past two days, the Government Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and Assemblymen have stressed in this House that the criticisms put forward by us were groundless. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development also pointed out that our criticisms were based on a distortion of facts. I would like to point out who is really distorting facts or ignorant of the facts. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development said that agricultural production has increased because of the help given by the Government and that therefore we are able to export our foodstuffs to other countries. I do not know whether he has investigated the real state of affairs or he wants to deceive the Members of this House. I would like to point out that what he said is a distortion of facts. I wish to quote from the Report of the Select Committee on the Agricultural Leases Bill, 1961, which was published on 15th May. On page A10 of this Report there is a memorandum which was submitted to this Assembly by Dr Tham Ah Kow - the Director of the Department of Primary Production. The Speaker was the Chairman of the Select Committee. The second paragraph of the memorandum reads:

'A large quantity of eggs, vegetables and fruit, however, has still to be imported. In 1959 the imports in respect of these items are as follows:- Type Quantity (i) Eggs 136,000,000 pieces (ii) Vegetables locally grown in Federation 20,000 tons (iii) Vegetables imported from places other than Federation 96,000 tons.'

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore have to spend $49 million on foodstuffs imported from other countries. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development said that we exported our foodstuffs to other countries. I hope the Minister could defend him. I hope the Minister for National Development can point out to us whether the report is wrong or what the Parliamentary Secretary said is right.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: (In Mandarin): Point of order. To say that we do not export our foodstuffs to other countries is wrong. As far as we know-

Mr Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Member is going to make a long speech. I think it is not a point of order.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is mentioned by the Director of Primary Production. He is an expert on agriculture. He understands his work. He also knows the agricultural output of Singapore. I think he knows better than the Parliamentary Secretary. What the Member knows comes from the Director of Primary Production.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now the Parliamentary Secretary said the Government provided many roads for the people this year. I have studied the Estimates. There is not an item of provision of roads. There is a provision for the repair of roads, but no provision for roads. What the Government provides is electricity or water supply but not roads. I do not know-

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: (In Mandarin): Point of order, Sir. What I said just now was the provision of electricity and not provision of roads. He mentioned everything together, including roads.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Perhaps he can listen to the tape record. Just now the Parliamentary Secretary was talking about reclamation of land in Sungei Boyang. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has revealed how much the Government has spent on this work out of the total vote in the budget. The Government should complete this plan. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we were discussing the Estimates we pointed how the Government has failed in this respect but because of the limited time we, were not able to do it in detail. Therefore the whole project to reclaim land is a failure. It should be completed this year and not started just now.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Education has said that ten years hence the P.A.P. Government will be able to build more schools to accommodate students and then there will not be so many private schools. I believe what the Minister meant when he talked about private schools was aided schools. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can the P.A.P. Government survive to 1964? We are not sure, about it. However, since the Minister for Education has said that ten years later the Government can build many schools to accommodate pupils, I want to point out his intention and motive for saying this. I got this impression and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education can reply to us whether after ten years there is no need for aided schools to exist in Singapore. Does the Government think that the present aided schools do not help the Government in solving the question of vacancies for the students? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a very serious statement if the Government does not clarify this point clearly, whether by aided schools in Singapore it means Chinese, English and Tamil schools. All along these aided schools in the past 100 years were supported by people who gave money to these schools. Especially under the colonial rule they were struggling to exist, to carry on to expand national education. According to what the Minister for Education has said, does the Government think that ten years later all these schools will have to be closed down? Does the Government think that they want to take back all these aided schools ten years later? On this point I hope the Minister for Education or his Parliamentary Secretary can give us clarification.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the whole content of the policy speech, we can see that next year there will not be any development in Singapore, and that the development next year is only a con tinuation of what the Government is doing this year. The whole policy speech as delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, has been described by our leader as a collection of reports from various departments and are then later submitted to this House. Many projects which were mentioned last year do not appear in the policy speech this year. For example, in the labour sphere last year the Yang di-Pertuan Negara said that the Trades Union Bill would be tabled after amendments, but in the whole policy speech this year we do not see any indication that the Government is going to table this Bill. Does it mean that the P.A.P. Government is going to give up its policy of unifying the trade union movement?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the political stability and economic expansion of a country depend on whether the Government has met the demands of the people materially and spiritually. As regards the material demands of the people, my colleagues have made very detailed criticisms, and I am not going to repeat the arguments here. The people of Singapore cannot see any achievements by the P.A.P. Government in the past two years. What do they get from the year of construction? What benefits do they derive? They have lost their confidence in the so-called construction work by the P.A.P. Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as has been fully said by the Member for Bras Basah, the greatest enemy of the people is colonialism. On the spiritual demands, what the people want is greater freedom of speech, of assembly, of organisation, and other activities. All these freedoms are not mentioned in the policy speech delivered by the Yang di- Pertuan Negara. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore have placed high hopes on the P.A.P.'s fighting for these freedoms. What is the result? The result is that they have been disappointed. The P.A.P. Government have deviated from their stand. Not only have the people not received any material benefits, but they have also not received any spiritual benefits too.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under parliamentary democracy, if the deeds and words of the Party in power depart from the Party's original stand, the people will be the first to suffer. Without citing concrete facts to prove that the Party in power has now pursued a Right-wing political line, we cannot prove they are doing so. Now, I want to quote some of the speeches made by the P.A.P. leaders to prove that the P.A.P. are now pursuing a Right-wing political line and that they have gone contrary to their pledges made during the elections.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has failed in construction and has also failed in politics.

9.15 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Ong Chang Sam: In order to save the time of this House, I do not intend to quote old newspapers and magazines. But if it is thought necessary, I shall quote the relevant articles to prove my arguments. Mr Speaker, Sir, after carefully listening to my speech, I believe you will understand why the people of Singapore are not satisfied with the P.A.P. Why has the P.A.P. lost the confidence of the people? Why is the policy speech empty and vague?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 31st May, 1956, at the Joint Conference of the Central Executive Committee and the branches, the Prime Minister said:

'We must point out that what we want is only internal self-government. But we must not allow the British to control our State, to manipulate our military and economic activities.'

In 1958, the leader of the Party, in the Fourth Souvenir of the P.A.P. said:

'1958 saw the end of a historical stage in Singapore, and in this coming year, Singapore will get internal self-government. There will be a popularly elected government and the political status of Singapore will become a semi-colony. However, defence and foreign affairs will still be in the hands of the colonialists. Therefore, we cannot say that our campaign for independence will come to an end.'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from these speeches by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, we can discern clearly our present mission. Both speeches also show us the political situation in Singapore, namely, that Singapore is still a semi-colony. We still do not have full internal self-government. We must carry on with our struggle against colonialism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government has discarded the anti-colonial fighters and has come to a compromise with the colonialists. Their stand in not distinguishing between friends and enemies is a departure from the original stand. I ask the P.A.P. to reply to us as to who has really departed from our political stand and principles. Mr Speaker, Sir, in July 1956 at a mass meeting held at the Badminton Hall to protest against the failure of the constitutional talks, the Prime Minister said :

'In a democratic society every legal political Party has the right to hold mass rallies to convey their opinion to the people. But now the Government is in control of the radio and the Press, and our Party cannot convey our views to the people, except by resorting to the holding of mass rallies. However, the police have tried to hinder us. After a protest by our Party leaders, our application for a permit to hold a mass rally was approved.'

Mr Speaker, this was spoken by the Prime Minister in 1956. But today, in 1961, what is the situation? The Member for Tanjong Pagar is now our Prime Minister. We would have thought that, as a Party which is consistent, they should have rectified all the bad practices in the past. But instead of doing that, they are worse than the previous Government. Not only do they control the radio and the Press-

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member relate what he is now saying to the policy speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara? I have reminded hon. Members time and again that this debate must be confined to the policy of the Government as outlined in the speech. I ask the hon. Member to relate what he has been saying to any part of the speech we are debating. If he can do so, then he can carry on, but if, he cannot, he is out of order.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin):

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I was aiming at was to point out to you that the Government and the Ministry of Home Affairs have departed from their original stand in dealing with democratic rights and civil liberty.

Mr Speaker: Order. Is there any passage in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which touches on that?

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have pointed out that the whole construction work was a failure. The people are not satisfied with what the Government has done because it does not meet the material and spiritual demands of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me point out what the Prime Minister said during the May Day celebrations in 1955. He said:

'Today [meaning Labour Day] we are happy because the workers in Singapore are awakened now. They know how to use their strength to improve their living conditions. We have proved that we are united.'

He also said:

'Today the workers are still living in a miserable condition. They are not free. Even on this day there are five or six strikes staged by the workers. Do you think that we workers like to strike? No. A strike is the last weapon of the workers. The workers are compelled to strike by the big-bellied capitalists. These strikes show that the people are still living in a very wretched condition. We appeal to all workers in Singapore to support the workers who are on strike.'

He went on to say:

'Do you think that we have democracy when we can meet here? This democracy is only a bluff. In the day-time you can hold a meeting, but at night you cannot hold a meeting. All of us must remember that the Emergency Regulations are still hanging over our heads. Without the abolition of these Emergency Regulations, we are not able to improve our living standards.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 1st July, 1959, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in his policy speech to this House said:

'The best way of ensuring industrial peace is to encourage workers and employers to use the machinery of collective bargaining instead of taking direct industrial action.

This implies strengthening workers' organisations so as to enhance their bargaining position vis-a-vis the employers. This means the emergence of a unified labour movement.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the 1959 election, what was the labour policy of the P.A.P.? They said we must have a strong trade union movement so as to be able to safeguard the interest of the people. In order to achieve this aim, we must revise the T.U.C. Constitution or absorb the T.U.C. into a new organisation. Mr Speaker, Sir, our Prime Minister was shouting that the workers must be united. We must support the workers on strike. We must abolish the Emergency Regulations. How fine and beautiful are these phrases! How progressive are these phrases! But now when the workers are forced to strike, he says these strikes are political strikes. When workers support the strikes, he says the workers are inspired by the Communists. When workers demand unification of the trade union movement, he says the trade union organisations are heavily infiltrated by the Communists. When people ask for the abolition of the P.P.S.O., he says this is because the Communists are afraid of the P.P.S.O. When workers demand the cancellation of yellow trade unions, the Government dissolve the Trades Union Congress and openly support the, splinter trade unions. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past workers were forced to strike. But what about now? Are the workers glad of striking? In the past the workers were told to be united. What about now? Is there any reason why they should not be united now? Should the Government be allowed to dissolve the Trades Union Congress? I hope the Government and the Ministry of Labour can answer these questions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Emergency Regulations are a means of suppressing the anti-colonialist fighters. When the P.A.P. was formed in 1954, the abolition of these Regulations was also one of the objectives of the P.A.P. When the P.P.S.O. was tabled in this House, the Prime Minister both outside and inside this House opposed it. All the progressive organisations in Singapore also attacked it. They held several meetings to protest against it. Perhaps you can recall that when the P.P.S.O. was debated in this House, many people outside this Assembly wore black bands and carried banners to protest against it. In this House the present Prime Minister, then the Member for Tanjong Pagar, also attacked the unreasonableness of this Bill. What about now? The P.A.P. not only does not want to repeal the P.P.S.O., but it also extends it to five years instead of one year for a review. Should this be done by a socialist Party? The Prime Minister, when he attacked the P.P.S.O., was a non-Communist socialist-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member has made his point. Let us not go into further details. He has attacked Government policy in retaining the P.P.S.O., and I think that is enough.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): I want to ask the Government - who have departed from their original stand and their policies? Who are inconsistent? Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1956, the Prime Minister, on the 8th of December at a mass rally in the Badminton Hall, posed three questions. The first was that those who were detained should be brought to trial in an open court or be released. The second was to convene a round-table conference of all the political Parties. The third was that the Lim Yew Hock Government had carried out its anti-Communist campaign. Would the British respect him? He was wrong. What the British wanted was not his anti-Communist ideology. What the British wanted was the wealth of the people in Malaya. If Lim Yew Hock wanted to be a national hero, he should emulate President Nasser of Egypt. He should not collaborate with the colonialists. He should lead the people to attack them. Lim Yew Hock wanted to be an anti-colonial hero, but at the same time he-

Mr Speaker: Order. Whatever has all this got to do with the Government policy we are now debating? We are now debating the Government policy as con tained in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. What has all that got to do with it? It is completely irrelevant.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to ask the Government is that they should release the political detainees as soon as possible without any conditions whatsoever. Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to assist you in understanding my argument, I must say that my argument is based on what the Prime Minister has said before. In this way, I will not be accused by the Government as being a Communist. It was the Prime Minister himself who claimed in those days that he was a non-Communist socialist.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are greatly disappointed in the policy statement of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, especially in regard to the Employment Exchange of the Labour Department. The Employment Exchange has this year given jobs to only 1,400 people in Singapore - on the average of less than 4 persons per day. I am doubtful indeed whether the Government is justified in spending so much money and energy in running a big organisation such as the Employment Exchange which can give only 1,400 jobs to people in a year. Has the Employment Exchange lost the confidence of the employers in Singapore? Perhaps the employers in Singapore do not go to the Employment Exchange to get their employees. I remember at one time the Government did appeal to employers in Singapore to make use of the facilities of the Employment Exchange to get their workers. In the meantime, it was also the policy of the Government to get people from the Employment Exchange to fill Government vacancies. But today, what we can see is that it has given only 1,400 jobs to the people of Singapore. I hope it will truly shoulder its responsibility so that many people in Singapore who go there hoping to get jobs will not be disappointed. In fact, many people who are registered in the Employment Exchange have to wait for several years without getting any jobs. I hope the Minister for Labour will be able to get co-operation from the employers as far as possible. He should appeal to the employers in Singapore to make full use of its facilities so that more and more people will be able to benefit from registration there. In this way the people can have more confidence in it.

9.42 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will try to do my best to make my speech as short as possible. Since June 1959, when this State began its self-government under the new constitution, this House has heard three policy statements delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on behalf of the Government. I am of the opinion that of the three policy statements, the one we heard on 31st of October this year is most void of content. It is the most hollow of the three policy statements. I have been reading it over and over again, but I am unable to find anything about social reforms therein. Apart from the mention of merger, this present policy speech is the same as the policy speech delivered by the governor of the colonial government from year to year. Formerly, the British Colonial Government ruled Singapore through a Governor, and the policy statement delivered by him was mainly concerned with the construction of roads, the building of houses, the increase of hospital beds, the building of schools, the expansion of social services and how the Government was going to expand the facilities of the port and telecommunications and so on. However, the policy statement of the colonial Governor could never give excitement or joy to the people of Singapore, because the people were just not satisfied with such things. True the people require houses, hospitals and factories, but they also require democracy and freedom. They also require a thorough reform in the social system. They also want to shake off the colonial yoke. Based on this fact. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will know that after reading the policy statement delivered on the 31st October by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, the people of Singapore are very disappointed. This policy statement is nothing but a slipshod affair. It has been rushed through. This explains how the P.A.P. Government is trying to pin all its hopes on merger. Apart from this-

Mr Speaker: Order. I have already stated time and time again that there must be no reference to merger in this debate.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): The Government is no longer interested and is no longer capable of dealing with the day-to-day business of the people in Singapore. In the first year of office of the P.A.P., there appeared in the policy statement of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara some very good phrases which gave joy to the people, such as social reforms, political, economic and cultural revolutions, etc. It also touched upon the fact that under colonial rule only a minority were enjoying certain privileges. But in the policy statement delivered on the 31st October this year, we do not find any more such phrases. Perhaps the big shots of the P.A.P. are of the opinion that since they have taken office for two years, the social reforms, the political, economic and cultural revolutions have been achieved. So there was no need for them to mention any more of such things. In the second year when the policy statement was delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, although there was a lack of fighting spirit, we must admit that there was some courage ,on the part of the Government to admit that it had made some mistakes and that it had its own shortcomings. In this second policy statement, the Government announced that it wanted to have more consultation and understanding with the people. But in the policy statement delivered en the 31st October this year, this courage of self-criticism and this courage to admit mistakes and shortcomings no longer exist. The P.A.P. leadership today have changed. They are no longer courageous enough to face their own mistakes. Recently the P.A.P. has even gone to the extent of putting the blame on the Barisan Sosialis for the mistakes they made. They described the Barisan Sosialis as Communists.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, let me make a comparison of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's policy statement from another angle. In 1959 when the first policy statement was delivered, it was full of confidence that the Government would overcome difficulties. It touched upon the fact that the Government would not hesitate to bring about economic expansion. It also said that the Government would not hesitate to do unpleasant things in the interests of the people. But in 1960, when the second policy statement was made in the very beginning, it stated that the Government had certain limitations in carrying out its work. It even stressed that the existing conditions were not favourable to the achievement of a socialist society. Obviously after coming into office the P.A.P. has met with many difficulties, but unfortunately the ambition and the confidence of the Government has been lessened a great deal by hard facts and difficulties. This year we have the third policy statement made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. In this we can see how the Party in power is miserably trying to tell the people, "Well, hurry up. You had better merge with the Federation. Otherwise you will be finished."

Mr Speaker: Order. I have told the Member already that no aspect of merger can be touched upon. He is deliberately going back to the merger problem.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): The P.A.P. Government has lost its stamina in social reform. Although there is an opportunity, it dare not face the influence and strength of the colonialists. On the other hand, it is afraid of the growing strength of the courageous people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy statement of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is nothing but a statement written on paper. Even then it is capable of reflecting the change of stand and ideology of the Party in power in these few years. My colleagues have already quoted many classical examples in this House to explain how these changes have taken place. They have also pointed out how this change of stand and thought on the part of the Party is not in the interests or the welfare of the people. I do not wish to repeat, neither do I wish to supplement their statements attacking the Government.

I would like to tell the P.A.P. Government that we, the thirteen of us in the Barisan Sosialis sitting on this side of the House, are always prepared to support the Government in all sorts of economic construction and welfare services which are in the interests of the people. We want to ask the Government to learn from its mistakes and try to turn away from the wrong direction so that it will go back to the broad masses of the people. We also ask the Government to carry out what was said in the first policy statement, that is, to strengthen the unions and organisations and to give assistance to local industry and businessmen. We want the Government to carry out what it declared it would do in the second policy statement, that is, to give assistance to farmers and carry out a thorough campaign against yellow culture. We also contend that the present Ministry of Education should be thoroughly reformed so that the colonial education policy will be discarded. We are not happy with changes on the surface only. It is hypocritical. We feel we must try all we can to help the development of national education. We hope the P.A.P. leadership will wake up so that they will discard all its plots and intrigues against the Left-wing progressive forces.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Paint of clarification.

Mr Speaker: Let the Member carry on.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): The strength of the people is invincible. It is the people who direct the course of history. It is not to be directed by a minority of people who think they are clever politicians. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have nothing praiseworthy to say of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's policy speech delivered this year.

9.57 p.m.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, on reading the Government's policy statement presented to this Assembly and read by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on the 31st of October this year, one most lamentable fact comes to light. In the text of the whole speech, there is not one single reference to socialism, nor is the word "socialist" written anywhere. For a Party that was swept into power on a socialist platform during the elections, for a Party which had written into its Party objectives socialist ideals, such an omission must be considered as something very grave indeed. To understand why socialism is excluded from the Government in its third year of office, one must trace the events that led to the third year of office of the Government. A good way is to go back very briefly and look into the speeches made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in the first and second year of the P.A.P.'s term of office. His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, on the 1st July, 1959 (Hansard, Vol. 11, col. 6), said in the Introduction:

'This session of the Legislative Assembly is another step away from the past. The immediate future is clear and certain. During the next five years a Government elected by a decisive majority of the people will, through peaceful and constitutional means, take the social revolution a step further. It is a Government pledged to bring about a more just society.'

In the same speech at column 15:

'The P.A.P. Government stands for an independent, democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya. It cannot be pressured into deviating from this stand.'

It is curious that only a month ago, the Prime Minister, when he was addressing the University of Malaya Students' Union, deviated from this stand. For in place of the word "socialist", he substituted the word "nationalist". And he now pledges that the P.A.P. Government stands for an independent, democratic, non-Communist, nationalist Malaya. These are words enshrined in Hansard and yet the Government does not pay heed to them.

In moving the motion thanking the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for delivering the speech on behalf of the Government, the Leader of the House said - I quote from Hansard, Volume 11, column 118:

'In 1959 conditions have now changed. The P.A.P. has led the people of Singapore to obtain a new Constitution which provides for complete control of internal self-government in Singapore.'.

He went on to say at column 119 and 120:

'The People's Action Party has a positive ideology. We believe that our ills, the ills of our society, can only he solved on the basis of a socialist ideology, and it is because we hive a Political belief, we therefore have a principle, and having a principle, we have the ability to lay down a line of action by which we hope to advance our cause and the progress of our society.'.

Brave words, Sir! The lamentable fact is that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here to hear me quote his words.

The second year of office of the P.A.P. resulted in a speech that is of a slightly different tone. It recognises the mistakes of the past, for it says in Hansard, Volume 13, Col. 5:

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

The third speech, Sir, is more a speech given by a caretaker Government, for it says at column 12 of Hansard, Volume 15, No. 1, last paragraph:

'For the immediate future, the task of the Government is to proceed with the work already initiated.'

Since in the first two years of office very little has been initiated, by implication, it must mean that the Government has no intention to initiate anything in its third year of office and it must necessarily mean that it is only acting as a caretaker Government in its third year of office. In the first year of office, we saw the Members on the Government Benches - I was then privileged to be on, their side but now I am privileged to be on this side-speak arrogantly with revolutionary fervour. The Prime Minister in Hansard, Volume 11, column 373, said these brave words:

'I say, without the slightest immodesty on the part of my colleagues and myself, that we are the only group that has the coherence, drive and the convictions to build something more than ourselves - a democratic, socialist movement within a revolutionary situation . . . If we do not continue recruiting as we have done in the past five years, then we shall eventually wither and die.'

Further down in the next paragraph, he says:

'And you can only recruit if you convince those whom you intend to recruit that you are recruiting for a worthwhile cause.

Let me draw one lesson for the Members on the other side. There is not one single Member - apart from the U.M.N.O. [that, of course, means the S.P.A., Sir] Members who are representing a portion of the Malay people - who represent the people.'

Then the S.P.A. did not represent the people. But now they represent the people because they have saved the P.A.P. The Prime Minister went on to say:

'They represent a group which is spent, lost and exhausted.' They do not seem to be very much exhausted today, because when the Government falls they are the people who stretch their hands to lift it up. He then had these gracious words to say of the Opposition - the same Hansard, column 375:

'I tell the Opposition this. They provide us, and I hope they will continue to provide us in the next five years, with that vivid contrast which will throw up the virtues of the P.A.P. into magnificence.'.

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the Member for Nee Soon can explain how that is connected with the debate we have embarked upon for the last two days.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: With great respect, Sir, I was just trying to show the differences in the first, second and third speeches of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara because-

Mr Speaker: Order. What have the alleged weakness of the S.P.A. and the strength of the U.M.N.O. got to do with it?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: With great respect, Sir, if I might be permitted to answer that. In the first and second years of its office, the P.A.P. could steamroller the Opposition. Today it cannot, Sir, and it is the S.P.A. and the U.M.N.O. which help to keep the P.A.P. in office.

Mr Speaker: What has that got to do with Government policy as illustrated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech? We are now debating Government policy. Let us get on with it.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: I bow to your decision, Sir. The financial policy of the Government lays great stress on industrialisation. To achieve this goal, the statement makes great play of the Economic Development Board, the Industrial Research Unit, the Common Market and the Four-Year Plan. Sir, these things have been said in the past and I have no doubt they will be said in the future.

Mr David Marshall: If they are here in the future.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: But what good can these things do for the Government if there is no political stability in the country? If the employer-employee relationship in the country is not stable, all these very nice plans will be in vain. If the Government is sincere in wanting to industrialise the country, it must pay heed to stability in labour and employer relationship. One of the important ways of encouraging stability in this relationship is to help build up a unified trade union movement. In Hansard, Volume 13, the third paragraph in column 8 of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, reference is made to the stability of employer-employee relationship:

'A further important factor is stability in labour-employer relationships, for nothing is more harmful to economic expansion than the unpredictable outbursts of industrial strife.'

The P.A.P. in pursuing its trade union policy today is doing exactly the opposite. It is splitting the trade union movement which is just beginning to be unified and splitting it for political purposes. Much has been said of the Government's manoeuvres of the trade unions and the dissolution of the Trades Union Congress-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Nee Soon knows that Members of his Party have touched an that aspect probably about a dozen times. Let us not have any repetition.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Thank you for your guidance, Sir, I was going to say that a lot has been said about it and that I would not like to repeat it. If you had been patient and listened to what I was going to say, it would have been well.

Now, since much of the text has been covered by my colleagues, I will just pick up a few parts which have not been adequately touched upon.

Housing and housing subsidy. We on this side of the House would like to congratulate the Government on stating that the question of subsidy to the Housing and Development Board is under review. For we know that in the past, the S.I.T. houses were subsidised, but when the P.A.P. Government came into office and started to build cheap housing units for the poor people, it was, then discovered that the cheap houses were hardly subsidised at all by Government, for it was the Government's own admission that an economic rent was charged for those houses. I believe that when the Government mentions "economic rent", it means rent worked on the most economic computation, and if it is, economic it cannot be subsidised. We have read today that the Government has seen its mistakes and is reviewing the whole policy of housing subsidy. We look forward to the day when the Government will subsidise the poorer people's houses as much as the middle-class houses have been subsidised in the past.

Now, I come to the Ministry of Health. Going through the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, I find it curious that no mention has been made of family planning. It cannot be that because I have left the Ministry that no mention has been made. If one refers to the Four-Year Plan of the Government, the biggest problem of the State is the state of over-population and the fast and rapid growth of the population which i, a very young one; and the absence in the Government policy statement of any mention of family planning and birth control is surely something very serious. It is said in this book, Sir, that unless the population growth is checked, unless family planning is properly taught to the people, no amount of industrialisation plans could solve the Problem of the people of Singapore. Yet today, I see the complete absence of this very important subject in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. I recall, Sir, during the time of the last Government, when the subject of birth control and family planning was brought into this House, there was a free vote. The reason was that the then Minister was a Catholic. Now that I see the total absence of the subject in this year's statement, I am very tempted to draw some similar conclusions. However, I shall not labour the House with such conclusions.

We welcome the Government's intention to enlarge the Tan Tock Seng Hospital because we know that there are a lot of people on the waiting list for admission to the Tan Tock Song Hospital. We know that the only reason preventing the expansion of the hospital is the shortage of medical staff and nurses. We have been assured in this House by the Minister for Health and Law that the situation of the doctor shortage is much better today. In fact, the Minister has said that he has more applicants for medical officer vacancies than he has provision for in the Budget to take them in. It is very glad tidings to one who has been in the Ministry before and who understands how acute the shortage has been. But on, the question of the expansion of the Tan Took Seng Hospital, the remedy does not lie only in the recruitment of doctors. The nursing staff is a very important branch of the hospital service. It is known that there are wards now ready to be opened in many hospitals, including the Tan Tock Seng Hospital, but are not opened because of the shortage of nurses. We would, therefore, urge the Government to reconsider the conditions of service and the salary scale of nurses and to look into the possibility of recruiting more nurses, particularly from the Chinese stream, into the nursing service. In its first year of office, the Government was quite successful in recruiting Chinese school girls into the nursing school. But today, I understand that applications from Chinese school girls have dropped very considerably, partly because of dissatisfaction with the way and the method in which the courses are conducted and partly on account of other grouses and grudges.

An hon. Member: You were there!

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: However, Sir, we urge the Government to look into the possibility of enlarging the Nursing Training School and the training of more staff, particularly the Chinese school girls.

Now, Sir, I come to the end of the speech Crime. In column 24 of Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 1, dated 31st October, 1961, it is stated:

'Because of continued pressure against secret society gangsters, the incidence arising out of secret society activities had been kept at a reasonably low level.'

In view of this, Sir, and in view of the fact that I did not get satisfaction from the Minister for Finance a few days ago, when we were on the Budget in the Committee of Supply, I would urge the Government to look into the possibility of lifting the 7.00 p.m. ban on political meetings. If the Minister for Home Affairs thinks that it is a laughing matter and that it is an absurd request, might I perhaps refresh his memory by reading some of the speeches made by the Prime Minister, who was then a Member in the Opposition?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: What has that got to do with secret societies?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: In urging the then Government to lift this ban and to allow political meetings to be held after seven o'clock, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, now the Prime Minister, said this. I quote, Sir, Hansard, First Session, Vol. 1, dated 26th April, 1955, col. 59. This is for the benefit of the Minister for Home Affairs who thinks that my request has been frivolous and not worth considering. The then Member for Tanjong Pagar said:

'But we either believe in democracy or we do not. If we do, then we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from any democratic process, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed. If a man chooses to carry a hand grenade or a revolver, or some other lethal weapon, in times when the Governor and the High Commissioner have proclaimed a state of emergency, then he takes the supreme penalty the law has laid down for him. But if a political party wants to hold an election meeting, or even a post-election meeting after 7 o'clock, they are told : "We do not believe in democracy after the election. We only believe in democracy once in four years, for one month." That is not the kind of democracy that you can inspire men with, to fight for and die for. That is not the kind of democracy that is going to make it tick in South-East Asia, if you tell us that we can hold a public meeting in the heat of the sun at four o'clock or five o'clock when nobody would come to listen...[He was speaking on behalf of the P.A.P. then. But a lot of them came to listen to ours, Sir.].. when nobody would come and listen to us, when therefore there would be no real danger of any democratic movement starting, but that we cannot hold a public meeting after 7 o'clock, when by the habits of the workers they would have returned from work, the earth has got cooler, the walls have got cooler, the night is getting mellow and warm speeches can he made. But, no! That is not allowed. And yet, we are asked to believe that this is democracy. I must say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this is a very queer and curious democracy, ....'.

That is only read for the benefit of the Minister for Home Affairs because he considers my request to be frivolous. I would urge him very seriously to reconsider and to take cognizance of what the Member for Tanjong Pagar said when he was in the Opposition. Or perhaps the Prime Minister does not mean it today because he is in the Government. If that is so, we would be happy if the Prime Minister would tell us.

The second last item - television, Sir. We welcome the advent of television into Singapore, if only for the modernisation of Singapore. But, Sir, we cannot welcome television to come into Singapore as yet another political arm of the P.A.P. We would .

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that point has been made by three or four Members of the Barisan Sosialis. The Member is merely repeating what his Party has said.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Sir, if you will just bear with me, I will not take more than five minutes. I would just like to quote some of the remarks that the Prime Minister made about television not so long ago when you yourself, Sir, presided in this Chamber. We would welcome television in Singapore as a medium of information for the people of Singapore. We certainly cannot welcome it as yet another political arm of the People's Action Party. We do not mind T.V. P.A.P., Sir, if the People's Action Party paid for television-

Mr Speaker: Order. Is that what the Prime Minister said? I thought the Member for Nee Soon was quoting from the speech by the Prime Minister or the then Member for Tanjong Pagar.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, I have not come to that. If I had, I would have given you the reference.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have indicated to the hon. Member that he is repeating what his colleagues have said. But if he wishes to add something new to what his colleagues have said, then, of course, he is perfectly in order.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: With great respect, Sir, unless I quote the whole thing, I must give a slight-

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Slant!

An hon. Member: Twist!

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Not twist - background before I can quote. Otherwise I would be obliged to quote the whole section. When the Prime Minister was in the Opposition, he said this. I am quoting, Sir, Hansard, Vol. 2, 5th September, 1956, col. 62, in the third paragraph; about six lines below:

'Can there be any doubt at all that Radio Malaya [which is Radio Singapore today] should be divorced from the Government and run as a public corporation? Is there any real doubt that if we wanted to introduce television, and if the committee sitting on it should want to recommend it, it should be done by a public corporation? I am not an uncritical admirer of the British. For their own country, they institute public corporations to run their radio, but they allow it to become an adjunct of a government department in their colonies.'

"But they allow it to become an adjunct of a government department in their colonies." Sir, from the Prime Minister's own words, for Government to run television and radio together in Singapore would be the perpetuation of a colonial practice.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Decolonialise yourself.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: That would be a fair interpretation, Sir, In the next page, col. 63, about half-way through, just the last sentence, the then Member for Tanjong Pagar said:

'We raised this matter of a public corporation for Radio Malaya at the very opening of this Assembly last year. After 17 months of office to be told that the Government is still thinking of it, one wonders what could have been the achievement in the last 17 months.'

And the Prime Minister has been in office for almost 30 months, or more than that. Still he never thought about what he said just a few years ago.

An hon. Member: Colonial days.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Colonial days?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The times have changed.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: There is no difference, Sir. If television run by the Government in a colonial society is to serve a colonial Government and to serve the motherland of the colonial Government, surely in a self-governing country, it should only be fair that a public corporation should run it so that the views of the different Parties should be presented. Surely what applies then should apply now. In any case, Sir, as I have indicated, I will take only five minutes. I do not want to exceed that time.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member has been speaking from ten o'clock!

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, in a debate of this kind where it has been found necessary to see that unnecessary repetitions are not made, I find it difficult to be at the tail end of all the speakers, particularly after 13 Barisan speakers who kept on repeating what the first one had said. So if I, in my innocence, repeat something which the Barisan Sosialis have said, I would ask your indulgence. All I can say is that it has not been said by my Party and I would like to say it.

Sir, before I go to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, there are one or two matters which I would like to raise and which I would like the Government to think about. First and foremost, the Tamil school teachers for high school. Sir, it has been represented to me that there is no possibility of recruiting any Tamil school teachers to teach in a Tamil high school. There is nobody in Singapore qualified enough to take on the job. Therefore, I would ask, the Minister for Education to consider whether it would be in keeping with the policy of the Government that qualified Tamil high school teachers should be allowed to be recruited from India in the same way as the Government has already recruited a large number of teachers of Bahasa Kebangsaan from Indonesia.

Sir, the other one is water. It seems that in spite of all the rains that we have been having, the public still have to be under a system of water rationing. It would seem that even the gods are not pleased with the P.A.P. Government.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: We do not believe in God. We are atheists.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The Deputy Prime Minister does not believe in God, so he says. But when the water shortage hit Singapore the Prime Minister said, "Only the gods could save us." And the only way the gods could save us, according to Chinese culture, would be for the Government just to strangle itself and that would ease the ire of the gods and more water would flow.

There is one very important matter that has not been touched upon by the Government nor by many speakers on this side of the House. What I refer to was the world-shaking event that was disclosed by the Prime Minister in his speech last year when he moved the motion of thanks for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. He said, if I remember rightly, that the Communist forces in Singapore were building up. If I may, Sir, with your indulgence, quote from Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 2, col. 54 [3rd August, 1960]. This is what the Prime Minister said last year:

'Meanwhile, Communist sympathisers and activists, who had scattered and gone under cover before the last elections, began the work of regrouping and reorganisation. Over the last 14 months, a build-up of their ground strength through ground cadres working on the workers has been taking place in the trade union movement. These pro-C. P. activists have worked hard to secure the support of the rank and file.'

Sir, when he made that pronouncement last year, we in the Opposition at that time did not have the Barisan Sosialis with us; they were on the other side. We had, of course, the three U.P.P. Members with us. We in the Opposition, particularly the S.P.A.-U.M.N.O. Alliance, told the Government that if they were really sincere in meeting this threat, then the only way for them to do it was to cleanse the Party from within, and I gave them instances where the Party could be cleansed. I would not like to quote from Hansard, Sir, but I think I can remember what I said. I said those political bodies who were not loyal to the Party should be dismissed. The People's Association and the Work Brigade are Frankensteins created by the Government, and the Government should take steps to see that these Frankensteins do not come out to devour them. I said a number of other things too. But then the Prime Minister - it was typical of him - came along and said, "This discredited Member for Cairnhill, who lost the general elections, has the nerve to stand up here and teach me how to suck eggs." Look at what happened. Those 12 awful disclosures over Radio P.A.P. We told them, "You sack these people in your midst." "Oh, no. We are a clean Party. They were comrades of ours. We were non-Communists. We had no Communists. No, we never had them." But then let us examine those 12 awful disclosures over Radio Singapore. The very first thing they said was, "Yes, we had the Communists working with us in 1954." Yet they deny here that they ever had Communists working with them. The previous Government took action against what we then did not call Communists - because we did not feel that we should call them Communists; but we called them subversionists; people who were out to destroy the security of Singapore. We had by force of circumstances to arrest them. What did the present Prime Minister, who was and is the Member for Tanjong Pagar, do? He sat here and tabled a motion deploring the undemocratic action of the Government. He said those were his comrades; they were good fighters; they are not Communists. Today, he has admitted that they are Communists. I never called them that. The Prime Minister called them Communists. Talking of inside pressures, they have not yet learnt-

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: They are behind you now.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, in 1959, when they came to power, there were 43 of them and we faced them. We were happy to face them because we could see them and therefore we knew what they were up to. Unfortunately for us now, we have 13 behind us and we do not know what is going on behind. Because at times while sitting in front, I can hear a lot of noise coming out attacking the P.A.P. although they graduated from the University of the P.A.P., attacking the P.A.P.-

Dr Toh Chin Chye: They have never attacked S.P.A.!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I knew they have attacked S.P.A. just a few times. Apart from that, what I want to point out is this, if I may. That today we have in this debate 13 Barisan Members who ran down this Government more bitterly than the previous one. More bitterly because some of the things were due to some personal hurts which they had suffered and the awful disclosures that they had to make. Yet out of the 13 who spoke against the Government - I look through the records and I see that 8 of them were then speaking against poor me and my friends here - the Government was good, the Government was first-class; the Opposition was talking rubbish and all that. Now they have joined this side, maybe more of them may come over, I do not know.

Sir, let us come to these "awful disclosures". I am afraid I have to speak out very strongly on this because it would appear that in spite of the fact that they come out today - I mean, the Prime Minister comes out today and openly calls his ex-comrades Communists, Communist front men, Communist sympathisers. At one time it was the lunatic Left and Communist; now it is real Communist. Yet he says, "Oh, no, I am not going to do anything. I am not like that foolish Lim Yew Hock. He did all those things. We are not going to fall into the trap that we laid for Lim Yew Hock and into which he fell." Sir, I think it is wrong of him to say such things. If he does not intend to look after the security of the country, then he should not go out of his way to smear them as Communists, fellow Communists, and Communist front men, because by openly calling them Communists, Communist front men, and Communist sympathisers, and saying, "You can have your fun, boys," you are just giving encouragement to people who will say, "Well, it is all right. I do not mind joining the Communist ranks now because the Government is not going to do anything about it." You are just encouraging people to come out and join them. If they are really Communists, there is only one answer. The security of the country is vested in the Government. It is the most sacred duty that the Government has to look after. It is not for them to say, "No. We had slept with them since 1954, but only last July they came out." At that time, I said you cannot sleep with the Communists without getting contaminated. Now they say, "No, I did not get sufficient enjoyment and it is time for me to go and tell the world." It is all bad. They have a Ministry of Culture and that is the kind of culture the P.A.P. has-

Dr Toh Chin Chye: No honeymoon.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: There is another one about the "Plen". The Prime Minister said, "I had a talk with the Plen in 1950." My God, if I had known there was a Plen, I would have taken the great Prime Minister and put him in Changi. I did not know that. But then it does not matter. What he said about this Plen was funny. Here is the great Prime Minister. He knew the Plen in 1958. But when he became the Government, he said, "I went to the Special Branch and saw the picture of the Plen." May I quote that little bit here-

Mr Speaker: Order. May I suggest to the Member for Cairnhill not to go into so many details? He can make his point anent the Government policy in these matters but he should not go into so many details.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With respect, Sir, I am talking about the Government's policy of sleeping with the Communists when it suited them and then denouncing them when it no longer suits them-

Mr Speaker: Order. That is exactly what I have indicated to the Member for Cairnhill, that that is the policy; he has made his point. But going into these little details will not improve matters; it will only waste time.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With respect, Sir, I am talking of the Prime Minister whose primary duty is to look after the security of the country. Yet although he went to the Special Branch and saw the picture, he now says, "Oh, I never told the Special Branch. The Special Branch can find it out." This is what the Prime Minister with the Special Branch at his service should do - see that the Special Branch is properly informed and not come and say, "I know who the Plen is. I saw the picture. But I never told anyone." As if it was a clever thing to say! As the Prime Minister he never told his own Special Branch who the Plen was. Nobody is, going to believe it.

An hon. Member: We are not strangers.

Another hon. Member: But I do believe.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, what hurts the S.P.A. is this. The Government have admitted now that when they were nearly swallowed by the Communists in August 1958 - when they had six Communists versus six non-Communists - they did not know what to do. But then poor me at that time felt that those who were out to damage the security of the country should not be allowed to continue to do, damage. So the previous Government took in five. I want to say here, Sir, since all these awful disclosures that have come out of it, Sir, it was because it was, felt that perhaps if the P.A.P. could be rid of the Communist stranglehold on them they could come out clean. I knew they could win and come out clean and run the country clean. Instead, immediately after their victory, they said, "Oh, comrades come out!" They released all the eight before they took office. It does not matter if they released the eight. They gave them jobs at $1,100 a month. We kept telling them it was wrong, "Do not do it," and they told us to suck eggs. Now they openly admit that they have been sleeping with the Communists. They now say that what they have done other people should not do. Sir, there are people who feel that it is this group of people who have brought the P.A.P. to power and they happen to fall out together at the same time. The P.A.P. are now trying to say that only they had the right to be friendly with the Communists. Anyone else who wants to be friendly with the Communists, like their ex-comrades, is ridiculed, jeered and laughed at. So the P.A.P. could do no wrong, according to them. Fortunately, Sir, in the Negara's speech the most important part of it has been settled. So we say that as far as the other part goes, the Government has failed the people of Singapore, and we will show by our vote that we consider the Government has failed. Many previous speakers have spoken on the first year of reorganisation, the second year of construction, and the third year of liquidation. But I say to the P.A.P. that the day of their funeral will be the day of the general election and they will be buried so deeply that there can be no rejuvenation.

Allow me, Sir, before, I sit down, to answer the unjust attack levelled at us by the Members of the Barisan Sosialis. One Member who spoke before me said that the S.P.A. was giving a helping hand to the P.A.P. Previously, there was also another Member of the Barisan Sosialis who said that the S.P.A. and the P.A.P. are going together. Let me, as leader of the S.P.A., say solemnly in this House that we will at no time have anything to do with the P.A.P.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Hear, hear!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: And, in fairness, we must say that there have been no overtures from the P.A.P. to us nor from us to the P.A.P. of any coalition. We know them and because we know that they have not played the right thing by the people of Singapore, it is our duty to see that they are knocked out of the Singapore political field. In spite of all the exposures by the Barisan Sosialis Members, I would like to say that it was we on the Front Bench who were able to expose certain acts of the Government that should have been challenged. As a result of pressure from us and with the help of Members of the Opposition - we were united in this - we got the Government more or less to bow down to the wishes of the Opposition insofar as the 1963 Budget was concerned.

Mr Speaker: Dr Toh, in reply.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to Members of the Opposition, I find I am now faced with the task of sifting the chaff from the grain.

I have said once before that I am quite prepared to listen to any constructive suggestions made by the opposite side; but when it comes to spending hours in this Chamber listening to rubbish, it takes quite a lot of patience to understand what the Opposition is driving at.

Sir, first of all, I would like, before going into generalities, to answer a few specific points raised by Members of the Opposition and which I think ought to be answered, because it is necessary to dispel any false allegations made by the other side.

The Members for Farrer Park and Cairnhill have again and again harped on water rationing. The Member for Farrer Park, in particular, asked the Government to consider using Johore River as a source of water supply instead of proceeding with the waterworks at the Scudai River. Now it is important that I must place before the House the true picture of the history of negotiations between the Singapore Government and the Johore Government. In 1927, an agreement was entered into between the Sultan of Johore and the Municipal Commissioners of Singapore for the use of Gunong Pulai and Pontian as sources of water supply. This agreement expired in 1948. In 1952, fresh approaches were made between the then City Council and the Johore Government to renew the use of Gunong Pulai and Pontian and, at the same time, to include the Tebrau and Scudai Rivers as sources of water supply. No agreement, however, was reached between the Johore Government and the past City Councils. In 1958 a proposal by the City Council to the Johore Government to include the Johore River in the agreement was turned down. After this, nothing more was heard about the Johore River. When the P.A.P. formed the Government in 1959, we inherited a situation where no fresh agreement had been signed between Singapore and the Johore Government for the extraction of water from Johore sources. It was only in October this year that an agreement to use Gunong Pulai, Pontian, Tebrau and Scudai Rivers was signed. Now that this agreement has been signed, the Johore Government has agreed to open negotiations for use of the Johore River. These negotiations have just started. It is not possible to predict when a firm agreement can be arrived at with the Johore Government for the use of the Johore River. In any case, any scheme to extract water from the Johore River will take four years, costing $50 million. It is not possible for Singapore to wait for four years without looking for other sources of water supply. The Government, therefore, decided to proceed with the project to extract water from the Scudai River. It will take only two years, costing $20 million. The output from the Scudai River will be the same as that of the Tebrau River. The Gunong Pulai, Pontian, Scudai and Tebrau Rivers as sources of water supply should be able to cope with the demand for water until the Johore River Waterworks Scheme is implemented at some future date.

It is quite clear that it is not that the Singapore Government is reluctant to go to the Johore River for our water supply but that a concession from the Johore Government must first be obtained. Past City Councils failed to obtain this concession, and it is only now that the Johore Government has agreed to open formal discussions on the use of the Johore River.

Just now, the Lady from Mountbatten alleged that since the P.A.P. took over the Government, food prices have gone up. She quoted from the Malayan Statistics. I have just referred to the latest Malayan Statistics dated October 1961 and nowhere in the Statistics is there any indication that there has been an increase in food prices. In January this year, ikan tamban (sprat) cost 41 cents per kati. In September, it was 39 cents per kati. Pomfret - which the Member for Mountbatten described as the food of the bourgeousie - or what the Malays call bawal puteh, cost $2.42 a kati in January this year and the price in September was only $2.17 a kati. In January, the price of rice was $1.25 per gantang; in September, it was $1.29. Poultry cost $1.60 per kati in January and $1.57 in September. From these figures, it is quite obvious-

Mr David Marshall: Chinese New Year.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Still far away as yet.

Mr David Marshall: January.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: February. It is quite clear that the prices of food have therefore remained more or less at a steady level and there has been no increase in the cost of living. The slight increase in the price of rice is a reflection of the large purchases made by China to cover up the agricultural deficit in that country. It is only natural that when there are competitive buyers, there is an increase in price.

The problem of unemployment is not a new one. In fact, when we first came to power in 1959, this problem was very clearly stated, to the people when we held a meeting at the City Hall steps on 2nd June, 1959. The Member for Tanglin has alleged that there has been less employment during the tenure of office of the P.A.P. Government. However, I would like to inform the House that his allegation is false. From figures in the Malayan Statistics, in September 1959, the total number of workers, excluding clerks, peons, watchmen, domestic ser vants and shop assistants, was 106,771. In September 1960, the number was 105,605. This is only 1,000 less and is part of what we call "fiction" unemployment, that is the workers who change their jobs to look for other jobs. With the boom in the building and construction industry, there is an increase in the number of workers engaged in this industry, as I have already explained. The statistics for 1961 are not yet available, but I am convinced they will show an increase in the number of persons employed. In 1962-

Dr Thio Chan Bee: On a point of explanation, Sir.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I think I will wind up now, Sir, In 1962, when there is an acceleration in the development programme of the Government, it is likely that the figures of people employed will also be increased.

The Member for Farrer Park did raise an important point and that was a suggestion made by him that the Industrial Arbitration Court should present an Annual Report which will show to the public the usefulness and importance of this Court. In fact, I understand the President of this Court will publish the Annual Report which will be available by January 1962.

Another point raised by the Member for Farrer Park was on the terms of service of the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court. It is true that he was appointed on a three-year contract, but his contract of service however does not in any way affect his status or interfere with the execution of his duties as laid down in the Ordinance.

References have been made by Members of the opposition to the Government majority of one. They have been made by Members of the Barisan Sosialis, the U.P.P. and S.P.A. But let me remind the Members that the new Government in Australia also has a majority of one in the House of Parliament and the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Menzies, who I think is more experienced than any of us in this House, has said that he is delighted with his majority - [Interruption] No. I would say this to Mr Menzies: we are doing fine.

Much use of the smear has been made by the Barisan Sosialis on the use of the military in the recent City Council strike and the trouble in the Work Brigade. Let me say this : the first duty of any government is to maintain peace and order. The task of the police force is to uphold the law. It acts as a deterrent to evil-doers. The military is only called in when backing-up force is necessary. I hope Members of the Opposition are not suggesting that the 800-odd troops in the Singapore Infantry Regiment are to be deployed only when there is a possibility of a foreign army invading our shores. That would be ridiculous indeed. One of the functions of this small military force is the maintenance of internal security. Now, as long as workers strike peacefully and do not seek to create public disorder or damage public property, or intimidate and injure members of the public, we leave them alone. But when any group of persons seek to disrupt the peace by a show of violence, then violence must be counteracted by an equally firm determination on the part of the Government to uphold orderliness in order to protect the public. No responsible government can allow persons to go on a rampage of destruction throughout the City. We are not the first to use the military to assist the police to maintain tranquillity. Previous governments have done it the Government of the Member for Anson, the Government of the Member for Cairnhill. In fact, I can quote other instances. When rioting and disorder broke out in Little Rock in the United States over the question of admission of negroes to schools attended by whites, it could only be contained by the use of the army. If the Barisan want other examples, we need only remind them of Hungary and Tibet. The employment of violent tactics by any group is anti-social and against the welfare of the community. It is the first duty of any government, be it Left-wing or Right-wing, to uphold peace and orderliness in the use of forces at its command. It gives us no pleasure to deploy the Singapore Infantry Regiment in the recent City Council strike as we are naturally exposed to the smear of using armed force against violence.

Mr David Marshall: You have earned it.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: But we are not like the Member for Anson. As the Minister for Finance has said, he was driven from pillar to post because he wanted to make everybody happy. Let me say this: we will not shirk our duty as a government. The House is fully aware that if we had not taken prompt action, the violence which appeared in the early days of the strike would have grown to such proportions as to provoke rioting in the city. As it turned out, the use of armed forces had a salutary effect on a small group of people who had made up their minds to use violence to intimidate not only the Government but also members of the public.

When the P.A.P. fought the general elections in 1959, we were the only Party to draw up a Five- Year political programme found in The Tasks Ahead to which the 13 Members of the Barisan contributed little to its thinking. But it is gratifying that the Barisan Sosialis nevertheless throughout this debate still make reference to our booklet The Tasks Ahead. In order to implement this political programme, we had to have an economic programme. Therefore, some time was spent when we formed the Government in 1959 to draft out the Four-Year Development Plan. As far as our political policy is concerned, it has already been enunciated in The Tasks Ahead. Therefore, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech only seeks to explain the steps the Government intends to take next year to implement the Government's political policy through its Development Plan. In the implementation of a political policy, we have encountered difficulties and sometimes even resistance. It may be that part of our political programme is acceptable and part of it is controversial. We do not claim to be infallible. If we have made mistakes, then we must obviously be told where the mistakes are so that we can rectify them. The six-day week for English schools, for instance, has not brought happiness to teachers in these schools.

Mr David Marshall: I am sure of it.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: But if it is the view of educationists and parents that this policy should be reviewed, we are going to have it re-examined. In fact, the Minister for Education has earlier today announced that he will set up a Commission of Inquiry into the six-day week. Such is the parliamentary democratic system which we hope to operate. The Government's policy is debated, the Government's Budget is debated-how much the Prime Minister spends, how much the Deputy Prime Minister gets in allowances is debated. All this is done without fear of reprisal. Members of the Opposition, including the Member for Anson, can either be constructive or destructive. But I will say to them; if their idea is to spend their time in this Chamber only to jeer, then I say I will respect them more if they also, particularly Members of the Barisan Sosialis, have the courage to jeer in Moscow or Peking where the government is monolithic.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

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."