FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1962 OF THE STATE OF SINGAPORE (CMD. 11 of 1962)

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted day].

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

The Chairman: Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before the Committee proceeds?

The Minister for Finance and Acting Minister for Culture (Dr Goh Keng Swee): I so signify.

The Chairman: Cmd. Paper 11 of 1962. The summary is at page 3.

Head 49-

The Chairman: Head 49, Ministry of Culture. There are amendments standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Havelock.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead "Temporary Staff for Television Service".*

• The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Low Por Tuck.

Sir, in the list of posts under Schedule A, I notice a very important omission: that whereas for the Broadcasting Division there are three posts for Programme Assistants in the Budget Estimates for 1962, looking after school programmes and such like educational items, here I see no provision for a similar post. Sir, we know that as an educational medium, television is far superior to radio broadcasting or the cinema. In fact, television will reach a larger number of young people in their homes,, whereas in the case of a cinema theatre, they must go to the theatre and buy tickets. In the case of television, children can just press certain buttons or turn certain knobs and there the film will be brought to their own homes. If, therefore, in a television programme the films shown are not suitable for our young people, then I am afraid the object of the Government in helping the young people will be defeated. In view of the fact that more than half of the people of Singapore are young people, I should think that posts similar to those provided for the Broadcasting Division should also be provided here. Very likely it may be due to an oversight because there are three phases, and this being only the first phase, maybe the thought was that it was not necessary to include it since there will be just a three-hour programme and only one hour will be for the news and the rest will be for films. But the selection of the films then becomes a very important thing unless the Government is going to invite the Programme Assistants in charge of Schools from the Broadcasting Division to assist also in the Television Section until such time as they are able to provide for separate posts for Programme Assistants in charge of Schools. Sir, I draw attention to this omission so that the Government will remedy it so as to prevent the wrong type of films from being televised with harmful effects to the young.

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know whether the Government would advertise all these posts in Schedule A, or whether in fact they are at present working.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to inquire whether Government would consider allocating one channel of television for use by an independent nonprofit authority to be appointed in accordance with statutory provisions so that the people of Singapore can have the opportunity of at least one channel where they can get honest news and views.

We are conscious that the philosophy of the Government with reference to Radio Singapore is that they are perfectly entitled to utilise it for biased propaganda purposes and, in fact, for party purposes. All we ask at this juncture - recognising that it is too much to ask that an organisation of such vital importance to the nation for the dissemination of news and views should be in independent hands - we wish to inquire whether they will permit one channel, not depriving themselves of anything, but to permit one channel to be used and paid for by a non-profit independent authority appointed in accordance with provisions of a statute to that effect.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, I fully share the fears expressed by the Member for Tanglin that care should be taken to see that morally undesirable films are not transmitted over the television network.

Mr David Marshall: What about news?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I will come to that in due course. The Member for Anson must really learn to contain his impatience. Then there might be a better co-ordination between his tongue and his mind.

Now, as I say, I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by the Member for Tanglin. But I think he is technically wrong in saying that there has been an omission in respect of the establishment of a television station. Broadcasting is broadcasting, and television is completely a different activity. Also one must not he too hypnotised by words. We may call in the broadcasting service a grade of officers, programme assistants. In the television service they may be doing similar duties but under different names. May I refer the hon. Member for Tanglin to the grade of producers - 10 producers?

An hon. Member: What do they produce? Lux Soap?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: They are Division I posts and none of them are programme assistants. Also there is the Chief Executive (Services), Grade F, and the Chief, Production Facilities and Films. In this hierarchy there will be officers whose responsibility it is to vet and arrange programmes to ensure certain standards of taste and decency.

Now as for the Member for Havelock, these posts will be advertised when men are required. In fact, two months ago some lost have been advertised and the Public Service Commission have made selections for some of those and are making selections for others.

The Member for Arson now wants an independent television service. How nice, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we can afford this sort of thing. He says the authority should be independent, non-profit making. But the trouble with this sort of venture is that when you have a fairly small number of receiving audience, there may well be a loss. It is not a question of making a profit, but avoiding losses. Our calculation is that the television service will make losses of several million dollars a year for quite some time before it recoups losses through advertising revenue licensing fees. So if the Member for Anson can let me know, in my capacity as Minister for Finance, not in my capacity as Acting Minister for Culture, any philanthropic organisation which is prepared to shoulder part of the losses that we are going to incur, then I shall be delighted to receive his suggestion.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the Four-Year Plan of the Government can only have this part concerning T.V. materialised. We also know that in carrying out the T.V. services, the Government is trying to help itself with political propaganda and therefore, at the present juncture, the Government has stepped up its speed in setting up a temporary station in Bukit Batok in order to facilitate the propaganda work of the P.A.P. Therefore, I hope that the Acting Minister for Culture will assure this House that the T.V. service will not be taken advantage of for the purpose of political propaganda of the P.A.P.

The second point I would like to find out from the Acting Minister for Culture concerns this. As far as I know, there are two surveying teams, one from New Zealand and the other from Japan. Can the Minister concerned tell the House whether in, the future T.V. service which country will be responsible for the assistance given to the T.V. service in Singapore?

Mr David Marshall: Is the Minister not aware that, in fact, on television it is possible to have several channels, and an additional channel to the one proposed would not entail proportionately equal expense, and would he be prepared to consider the question of renting a channel to an independent television body? Would Government consider bringing in a Bill to create such an independent television body?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the only so-called independent television bodies who may be interested in running either the whole or part of the television service would be commercial companies who will want to make use of the facilities purely to make profits, if there is any question of renting out a studio room or television time to them, it is obvious that the only consideration between them and the Government would be just how much money they would make.

I do not think that is the sort of independent television authority that the Member for Anson is thinking of. On the other hand, if he is thinking of something independent, like the British Broadcasting Corporation, then the question is: who is going to put out the money to pay for what can be fairly substantial losses in the first few years of operations? So until we get clear answers to these problems, I do not think it is worthwhile to pursue the subject here.

The Member for Choa Chu Kang expresses fears that this would be used as unfair propaganda. He is entitled to his views, but we do not share them. So I do not intend to pursue this argument further. As for assistance from abroad, it is true that we have two missions; one is from Japan and that is concerned mainly with the technical aspects of setting up a television service - where should the site of the transmitting station be; how fast can it expand; and whether the cost could be covered up in the long run, and so on and so forth. The Australian experts came here to advise us on the details of setting up the service.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): New Zealand.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: New Zealand. The details of setting up the service were, e.g., what staff to recruit, what equipment to buy, how to tender for them, and so on and so forth. We shall, of course, get the benefit of expert assistance from whatever source is available. But we are at the same time training our own local personnel in these new techniques, and every year anything between half a dozen and a dozen technicians are being sent abroad for study and training.

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry to pursue this, Mr Speaker, but it seems only to be partly understood and I do ask the indulgence of this House since it is a matter of some importance. The Minister did refer to the British Broadcasting Corporation. But, of course, he is aware, as we all are, that in the United Kingdom the potent influence of the radio and television is not in the hands of Government or of any political Party. It is, in fact, in the hands of a non-profit public body created by statute. I appreciate the Government in the circumstances it finds itself in, and I will elaborate no further their wish to maintain control of both radio and television. But could we not create an independent radio and television body by statute empowering it to rent at a rental paying the Government for a wavelength on the air and a channel in respect of television? And they could recoup themselves by power to take in advertisements. These have been tried out and have been found successful in other countries. As I have pointed out, the additional cost of a channel in television is not proportionate to the original cost of establishment, and it could easily be borne by the advertisements which would be attracted to this independent television channel. Would the Government consider, at least, and investigate the possibilities of the creation of such a body?

The Prime Minister: From time to time we are indebted to Members of the Opposition for making valuable contributions to the problems that confront us. I am quite sure if the Member for Anson will elaborate on his plan and put it on a document, it will receive proper consideration.

It is one thing just striking a bright idea across the sky, but it is another thing formulating it in a coherent, practical and feasible manner. I am quite sure the Member for Anson is capable of putting it on a document, both the structural consideration of creating an independent body and the running of one channel in the same studios. I do not know myself how these things are done, how the B.B.C. and the I.T.F. do it. I am told they have two completely different outfits - one set of studios run by the B.B.C. and another one run by the commercial T.V. outfit. These are problems which I do not think either the Minister for Finance (in his capacity as Minister for Finance or otherwise) or the Minister for Culture is in a position to speak with any authority, let alone myself; but no doubt the Member for Anson has spent some time before he makes the suggestion of just hiring out one channel, and if he will spell out all the implications, I give him the undertaking that it will receive proper consideration and a proper reply.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express a hope that the Minister will give an answer to my question, i.e. that the future T.V. service should not be taken advantage of by the Government for political purposes.

Next I would like to find out from the Minister concerned, from what countries will such facilities be obtained for the T.V. service?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I had said, in reply to his first question, that he is entitled to his own view, and we to ours. We deny that there is any improper use of radio facilities, and we deny that there will be any improper use of broadcasting facilities. So no assurance whatsoever is called for from us.

As regards the second question, the main equipment for the transmitting station and the studios has been ordered by tender and the successful tender has been Marconi Company of Great Britain. Most of the equipment will be purchased from them, though part of the studio and outdoor service equipment will be ordered from Japan.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the assurance given to my query, may I beg leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 he reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead "Malaysia Grand Prix".

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the First Supplementary Estimates at page 2 we find that about $114,000 was received. And it says that "the major portion of which was derived from the sale of tickets and advertisements." Sir, I would like to know from the Minister what are the actual figures for sales of tickets and for advertisements.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I do not have the figures or the details, but I will be sending for them in due course.

The Chairman: Does the Member wish for a vote?

Mr Low Por Tuck indicated dissent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead "Malaysia Week".

Mr Speaker, Sir, during Malaysia Week I think everyone of us realised that posters put up by the Government were really not to boost Malaysia Week but rather that the Government was dirtying the buildings and places all over Singapore.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): What about unauthorised Barisan posters that clustered up all Singapore?

Mr Low Por Tuck: The other point is that Government restricted other Parties and organisations from putting up posters during Malaysia Week. But the Government itself - of course, that definitely is the P.A.P. - put up posters, all over Singapore. That is merely a waste of public funds. I would like the Government to ensure that such waste should not be allowed in future.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I intend to give no such assurance, Mr Speaker, Sir,I do not know what are his objections. First, it could be an objection to' Malaysia. That is fair enough. He objects to Malaysia, we like Malaysia; and if we want to propagate the idea of Malaysia, we do it. That may be one objection, and I consider that as an invalid objection.

Second, he may say that if the Government puts up posters, then other people can put up posters. Well, other people can put up posters. There are laws regulating the putting up of posters, and if they make their application and conform to the laws, then posters are put up. On the other hand, if they instigate school kids to put up posters at 3 o'clock in the morning, then they are merely looking for trouble. So that may be the second objection - that if we put up posters, and they should be putting up anti-posters, then I say that there is provision for that sort of thing.

Now, the third objection could be that he does not want posters to be put up at all. There is great merit in that proposal. I mean, in a well ordered and rational society, appeals through propaganda such as posters, advertisements and so on will be completely unnecessary. In fact, no country in the world has reached the stage of being completely well ordered and perfectly rational. Therefore, these appeals to human reason, to human emotion perhaps, through various media of publicity are necessary.

Mr Tee Kim Leng (Pasir Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the money spent by the Government on Malaysia Week was merely wasted. In the so-called "Malaysia Week", I believe you can say that a good amount of money was spent on a variety concert put up on the Padang before the City Council, but which attracted only a small crowd. Moreover, the purpose of this Malaysia Week was to mislead the people of the Borneo territories. Malaysia Week was a flop.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, Sir, Members of the House will remember that when the question of Malaysia was debated in this House, the Member for Anson moved an amendment supporting the principle of Malaysia, and I believe all Parties in this Chamber also supported Malaysia except the Barisan Sosialis who were opposed to the Tunku's concept of Malaysia because they wanted Malaysia to include Indonesia. Now, since the majority of Members in this House support the principle of Malaysia, and therefore they represent the majority of the people in Singapore, it is quite right that Malaysia Week should be celebrated, and if public funds were used to celebrate Malaysia Week, it was done to good purpose. I therefore see no reason why Members of the Barisan Sosialis should today say that it was a waste of money. It might be a waste of money in their eyes because in their concept of Malaysia Indonesia is not included.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): You see, some malicious lies, or falsehoods -

The Chairman: Order. The Member for Queenstown should take control of himself and realise that he starts off straight away on the wrong foot by using unparliamentary words. He has withdrawn the word "lies". I accept that, but perhaps he can contain himself now and start off in' a cool, collected and calm manner. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is typical of the P.A.P. to distort and twist the Opposition stand, and this is a typical example. They say that we want Indonesia to be part of Malaysia. We have never said that, Sir. They tried to quote instances to show that our Secretary-General had spoken to some correspondents of Bintang Timor and things like that, but this has been denied time and again. In spite of that, just because the Government has control over the propaganda machinery, just because they have the radio, just because they have rediffusion, just because they have a very friendly Press -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You are getting jealous.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - therefore they can keep on repeating and repeating the big falsehood. Everybody knows, Sir - I do not know whether "lie" could be used here, Sir; it does not apply to anybody in particular -that if a big lie is repeated long enough, some people will come to believe it. That is the whole strategy of the P.A.P. They want to keep on repeating a falsehood and they want to keep on repeating it so as to fit in with their own strategy of things. The present concept of Malaysia which makes Singapore a so-called partner and which gives Singapore unequal status is not the' form of Malaysia which we can accept. The present so-called Malaysia Week was a pure P.A.P. propaganda stunt in order to boost their merger proposals.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I am very glad to know that: the Opposition do not like money spent on Malaysia Week. Obviously it hurts them.

Mr David Marshall: The Barisan Sosialis.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Barisan Sosialis. I do beg the pardon of the Member for Anson. The Barisan Opposition do not like it. So obviously what we did in Malaysia Week has hurt them, and I regret that we did not spend more money to hurt them more.

Now, the Member for Queenstown said that it was untrue to say that leading members of the Barisan Sosialis had publicly stated that they wanted merger with Indonesia. There is one honourable Gentleman in this very House -

An hon. Member: Will you quote instances?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: We have quoted, Mr Speaker, Sir, not once but several times, not only in this House but also in the newspapers. There has been no answer. I can give the Member for Queenstown several newspaper cuttings or statements issued by the P.A.P. Political Bureau on this very subject.

An hon. Member: We do not even read them.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: He reads them. He winces every time he reads them. He pretends that he does not read them.

The Chairman: I think the Minister has made his point. All this is completely irrelevant, of course. It started with a small irrelevancy which is becoming a major development. But I think the Minister has made his point. There will be another opportunity of discussing this very interesting subject.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): I do not want to start a debate on Malaysia, Mr Speaker. Sir,I am quite certain that you would not be allowing us to do that, even if we want to, but I do not know whether the Government Benches want a renewed debate on Malaysia and if they do want it by all means, initiate it and we are quite prepared to have a long debate up to midnight on Malaysia.

An hon. Member: We have had one.

Mr Bani: Sir, we have had one and the understanding of what happened at that debate is either not accurate or they deliberately choose to distort what was in fact said. I agree that the Ministry - not the Ministry of Culture - everytime I think of the P.A.P. Political Bureau, I think of the Ministry of Culture. It is true that the P.A.P. Political Bureau has been issuing statements quoting -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Quoting you.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Bani: - not quoting me, alleging that I had said Malaysia should include Indonesia. I do not want to waste more time than is necessary. I just want to say that I never said that Malaysia should include Indonesia.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): What did you say?

Mr Bani: The word "Indonesia" was only used in the context of explaining the original context of Malaysia.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am getting worried - how often they do not understand what they are saying. I remember the Member for Thomson distinctly saying - my colleague, the Minister for Law, is busy in the Library getting the relevant passage - "Indonesia is the heartland of Malaysia and any Malaysia that does not include Indonesia has not got a heart." Now, Sir, if that does not mean he is in favour of Indonesia being in Malaysia, what does it mean?

The Chairman: It is completely irrelevant. Perhaps the Member will have an opportunity of answering that. I think the Member for Queenstown has given notice of a motion which might let in that.

Question on the amendment put, and, negatived.

The sum of $970,240 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962.

Head 51-

Mr Low Por Tuck: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 51 be reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead "Singapore Infantry Regiment - Second Battalion".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see any necessity for having this Second Battalion. When this Second Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment is formed, will it do honour to the Prime Minister on ceremonial occasions only or will it be used to repress the people?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Repress you.

Mr Low Por Tuck: I would like to know from the Government the necessity for having this Second Battalion.

The Prime Minister: Sir, we have always known the Member for Havelock to be by far the least warlike of all the 13 Assemblymen who form the new Barisan Sosialis, and I am quite sure that if all the other people in the Barisan So sialis have an aversion for physical collision as we know he has, then obviously it would not be necessary to have people standing guard over essential services, like electricity, water, gas and to maintain the essentials of life which from time to time those in charge of the unions in connection with transport and other essential services can threaten the community with.

But I can assure the Member for Havelock that the Second Battalion really can do no more than just augment the ordinary static guard duties and the ceremonial duties of the First Battalion. The ultimate objective when all British troops are withdrawn - as we are quite sure in due course they will have to be withdrawn - would be to maintain throughout the whole of Malaysia something in the region of 15 to 20 battalions for the defence of Malaya or Malaysia. I am quite sure he would not share the view of those who believe that the British Army should protect our shores.

3.30 p.m.

After all, his counterpart in the Federation of Malaya, the Socialist Front, is, constantly passing resolutions for the withdrawal of foreign troops. Surely. Sir, those who do not want foreign troops should welcome local troops to main tain the integrity of this country from attack, either from within or without and those who have no intention of aiding either the invader from outside or, the subversive from inside should have, no fear of the martial qualities of a Second Battalion.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I can see from Schedule B in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure the request by the Government for $1 million that it is intended just to increase the number of soldiers and officers by a few. I think it is a mere waste of public money to spend more than $1 million to recruit not more than 400 officers. There is no' necessity at all to have this Second Battalion. Why cannot the Government use' this sum of over $1 million to build hospitals, schools and other public utility services such as pipes, building roads and so on? From these services ,and facilities, the people can derive some benefit. But now the Government has spent one million dollars of public money on the establishment of this Second Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment. It is not the proper way to spend public money, Mr Speaker, Sir. You will know that at present the Singapore Infantry Regiment's work is only to suppress and curb riots and violence, and perhaps to protect the P.A.P. Headquarters. This year there' was an occasion for this Infantry Regiment, combined with the Police, to protect the P.A.P. Headquarters. Mr Speaker, Sir, as representatives of the people, we have the duty to supervise over the Government's use of the money derived from the people in a proper way. We should not spend this $1,040,725 on something that is not necessary. I am of the opinion that the Government from now on should, spend public money on services for the benefit of the people and not on military Services.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we can understand well the Member for Choa Chu Kang's apprehension regarding this Second Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment. We can understand his feelings. Mr Speaker, Sir, if in Singapore there are no subversive elements who Want to sabotage Singapore, then there is no necessity to have such a military establishment, and everybody would agree that the sum could then be used to build, say, hospitals, schools and do other things to benefit the people. But under the present practical circumstances we have such a necessity. Especially judging from the present and future political situations, it is very necessary for Singapore to have this Second Battalion. We know that if the security situation in Singapore deteriorates and there is turmoil in Singapore, all construction work such as hospitals and schools will be frustrated. Of course, if we want to accept the proposition by the Vice-President of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Woodhull, to preserve British military bases in Singapore, then it is not necessary to have a Second Battalion. Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of having the' Second Battalion is that Singapore will, by 1963 or before, merge with the Federation of Malaya and become in dependent. Therefore, it is necessary for us to have our own military forces to take over the responsibilities at present borne by the British Military Services.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir. you see how the P.A.P. always contradict themselves. The Prime Minister himself not so very long ago had preached to the whole of Singapore that it was not necessary to have troops in Singapore. Even the Civil Defence Corps, you remember, was' dissolved. It was not necessary according to the Prime Minister and also to the Minister for Home Affairs, and you see what he has said today. It is necessary to have troops. For what? To make sure that strikers and workers will be suppressed: to make sure that if they want to carry blacklegs along to break a strike, they make it a military operation. Just to make sure that if there are people sleeping inside the Work Brigade Camps, the troops can go in, all ready in battle-dress -

The Prime Minister: Wake them up!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Wake them up. And not only wake them up, make them stand in the sun for hours on end. That is what the P.A.P. intend to do. Sir, they have so lost touch with the people that when the people go along to see the -Ministers, the Ministers lock themselves up and even call special police to make sure that nobody can ever get in to see them. This is actually what is happening today. The P.A.P. dare not have rallies. For example, just to touch a little on Malaysia Week -

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is a bit too late. We do not know whether the special guards come from the Second Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment. If they do, then the Member is in order. If they do not, then he is not in order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will skip that part. And see what excuses they give today for having more troops. They say they hope to keep order in Singapore after Malaysia and they need their own troops. If they talk of defending Singapore, a few hundred troops will not make any difference, Sir. The Prime Minister went to great lengths to convince us in days of old that even a few thousand troops could not look after Singapore. He said anybody who controlled the Federation could just walk into Singapore, like the Japanese troops in 1942. So what is the point of having those few hundred troops? Those troops are meant not to protect the people of Singapore but to protect the Headquarters of the P.A.P. That is what is actually happening, and the training which our local troops are having at the present moment is not the training to meet the enemy from outside Singapore, but to see how they can surround blocks and buildings and to ensure that nobody escapes the cordon. That is what is happening, Sir,It is well known in Singapore. They time the operation to see how many minutes it, takes the troops to arrive and to see how many people can get in and get out. That is what our troops are trained for. Just to make sure that our own citizens cannot get out of their houses, is that not the P.A.P. meaning? While the whole world think of reducing armaments and troops, our Government wants to increase armaments and troops. [Laughter] They think by laughing it away the people will not notice their illogical and nonsensical way of doing things.

Sir, I do not want to go into details, but you will remember the incidents we quoted of Singapore troops having been used against workers and the Work Brigade. We had already explained that it was not necessary to use troops on those occasions. Money that can be saved on such troops can be put to better purpose. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has already given you an indication as to how money could be used on schools, houses and on improving the services of the Government in general, especially the reduction of rents. The people of Singapore are complaining of the high rentals of our own houses. If the money which they want to spend on troops could be spent on facilities for the people, then at least they would have some justification. As it is, what justification have the P.A.P. to use more money. It is only meant to repress the people in stead of uplifting them.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, we have seen that the Front Benches of the Government are asking this House to approve more than a million dollars and they are laughing over this matter. We cannot accept their attitude. According to the explanation given by the Minister for Home Affairs, he seems to say that in future, perhaps after 1963 when the P.A.P. collapse, they will require these troops to take over the government. Does he mean that?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am very impressed by the speech made by the Member for Choa Chu Kang. The Leader of the Barisan Sosiahis, the Member for Queenstown, says that the establishment of the Second Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment is really to protect the P.A.P. Headquarters.

3.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, it is clear that the Barisan Sosialis intend to use violence in stead of conducting the struggle in a constitutional manner. Mr Speaker, we will not use military forces to suppress the trade union movement and other organisations, but it has been proved by the Barisan Sosialis themselves that they intend to create confusion in Singapore. Mr Speaker, we have explained that the duty of the Police is to maintain peace and order. So it is with the military, to all those who are innocent, law-abiding citizens. They need not have any fear. Only thieves and robbers need fear the police. There is no reason why we should not welcome the creation of the Second Battalion. I think we should eject all these foreign troops, but when it is time that we should increase the strength of the local troops, the Barisan oppose it. It is clear that the Barisan Sosialis prefer to see foreign troops on our soil.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: From their own Back-Bencher, from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister himself has come the truth of why they want the troops. The troops are going to be used, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, against people who will use unconstitutional means. Sir, we have seen how troops have been deployed in a provocative manner against the holding of union meetings. Sir, I wish the Front Benches, especially of the Government, will remember this. In the discussion on the Referendum Bill, we have been laying great stress on one particular point. That if the Government will not allow the people peaceful and constitutional means to fight for their aspirations and wishes, if the P.A.P. is not going to give the Opposition a chance to fight peacefully and constitutionally, if the people are not going to be given a chance to say 'Yes' or 'No' in a peaceful and constitutional manner, then, depending on the temper of the people if things develop, the P.A.P. will have to bear the full responsibility of all the consequences and no amount of troops will help the P.A.P. The troops will not help the P.A.P. The P.A.P. dare not go to a general election. They dare not even hold a rally. When invited to a rally, they dare not attend. If they want to make speeches to a crowd, they want to first put up a show so that other people can go to see the show and listen to them incidentally. That is all.

The Prime Minister: The passion with which the Member for Queenstown is moved at the prospect of a second infantry regiment has impressed upon me two things. First, he has an unholy fear of cordons of disciplined troops which, perhaps in his wilder moments in bed, he dreams will he enclosing upon those who are wicked: and, second, in the last resort, he has, in violent threatening language, warned the Government that a second battalion is not enough. I concede that point when I first speak on this. It has been estimated that for security purposes, maintenance of law and order, in times of insurrection, there should at least be five battalions deployed in Singapore and several more battalions in South Malaya and several other battalions in Malaysia. We have been threatened from time to time by the Member for Queenstown about the use of force: force if they cannot say "yes" or "no"; force if Malaysia is brought into being. Not unnaturally, it is the duty of the Government to ensure that, if, I hope, in the unlikely event of those behind the Member for Queenstown who not only talk force but actually use force and had occasions in the past to have met force with force, we should not fail in our duty to protect the lives and limbs of our popu lation. That is the duty of the Government. That is the duty of any government. I need hardly remind the Member for Queenstown that the Chinese People's Republic has a standing army of 5 million out of a population of 650 million, about one per cent of the population. It has a total militia of 50 million men. The Indian Army is somewhere in the region of 600,000. The Indonesian Army, which has had to appeal for volunteers, was no less than 370,000 men. This was at a time when on one occasion the Minister for Home Affairs and I had a casual conversation with an officer of the Indonesian Army who happened to pass through Singapore. I would say 817 for the first regiment is a very modest number to ensure that when dignitaries like the Member for Queenstown attend some of our ceremonial meetings, they are received with the proper decorum and courtesies. The Second Battalion would augment this panoply of protocol and courtesies extended to those who are peaceful and law-abiding. To those who are not peaceful and not law-abiding, it is obviously our duty to ensure that when this wild talk should lead to wild action, the wild men are put away.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak on this amendment earlier on. I gathered the impression that it was a token amendment for the purpose of raising the inappropriateness of the utilisation of our troops in the past. With that I would have been in full agreement in so far as the evidence in my possession goes. But when the issue is directed, as it seems to be directed, as to the necessity for a second battalion, frankly, Sir, I must join issue with those who deny that necessity. We are a people of one and a half million, Sir, with a large city. It cannot be doubted that though a vast majority of our people are peace-loving and decent, there have in the past been unhappy incidents where important numbers have been misled. There have been unfortunate acts which have caused damage and personal injury, and in one or two instances death. In the context of our experience, Sir, within the lifetime of this Assembly in the last seven years, we cannot deny the validity for the request for a further battalion. It is true that troops can be misused and that power can be abused. But that is another question. The real issue that should be before this Assembly is, are there adequate powers for an honest Government to deal with possible situations where crises of violence are threatened? I am in an acutely embarrassing position of finding myself in agreement with the P.A.P. on any aspect. But, Sir, I must be quite frank in this instance. I do agree with them that one battalion is inadequate and that a second battalion is necessary.

Sir, I deplore the implication in the speech of the Member for Queenstown that our people could, in their despair and frustration, which is perfectly legitimate, consider the utilisation of unconstitutional methods for the expression of that frustration. I do not seek to wear a halo in this instance. I am not speaking of what is constitutional be cause professionally I am trained to respect the law. I say, Sir, as a practical human being, I face the basic fact that experience has repeatedly proved that where there is violence, only the people suffer, not those in authority. The workers suffer and the poor suffer, and any violence would react a hundred-fold to the detriment of our people. There is no way out for the people of Singapore in the frustration they suffer from P.A.P. rule except the constitutional process. In the name of the Workers' Party, Sir, and as a Member of the Opposition who feels very deeply the dishonesty of the proposed conduct of this Government, I say that we do not agree that there should ever be any question of unconstitutional conduct and violence. The thought of such action could but bring our people into grave danger and would be a retrograde step which would take us way back into the tragedies we suffered under imperial rule.

I know that in the heat of anger, in the agonising position where, by virtue of the constitutional position, we are fighting a losing fight for decency, a rearguard action that we know will mean in the end defeat by virtue of their majority, but in action we must see through. I know that in that position one tends in one's frustration sometimes to indulge in sentiments which are wholly inappropriate. I would suggest that the Member for Queenstown may well utilise the opportunity to speak again in Committee to deface the unhappy implication of the possibility of unconstitutional violence as a reply to P.A.P. dishonesty. I do support the provision, Sir, for a second battalion, because I think it is legitimate for an honest Government, and this is a provision not merely for the P.A.P. Government.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I just want to say a few words, Sir. This is not merely to answer the Member for Anson. We never advocate violence but we want to warn the P.A.P. against provoking the people into violence. That is what we want to tell the P.A.P. All actions of the P.A.P. have been designed towards that end. All the time they want to provoke the people into doing something and we want to warn the P.A.P. again: Do not misuse the troops that are meant for the defence of the island against an external enemy. If you want anything for civil defence, you do not use troops. You use the police maybe, or the civil defence maybe. The P.A.P. have for a long time been advocating that school children should be trained to be policemen. They wanted the citizens of Singapore to be trained not for violence, but to respect law and order; and schoolboys had been asked to enlist as policemen or police constables in order to attend to their civic duties. Troops are never meant to be used inside their own country against the people. That is what I want to stress. That is what the P.A.P. must realise. Never provoke the people with the use of our own troops.

4.00 p.m.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has forgotten what he has said in the past. About one year ago, he had on occasion told Members of the Opposition that if they wanted boxing, then they must observe the Queensberry rules. We must not have Siamese boxing. But today, the Prime Minister himself wants to resort to Siamese boxing. It is not we who want to resort to Siamese boxing.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has accused us of thinking of violence to destroy the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it is not we who are trying to destroy the Constitution, but the P.A.P. It is obvious that the National Referendum Bill is a measure by which they want to destroy parliamentary democracy. It is proof and evidence that they want to do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore can now see clearly that the so-called democracy of the P.A.P., the so-called constitution of the P.A.P., is to resort to military force.

The Prime Minister: I think the general intention of political Parties and their leaders can often be discerned not only through their actual words, and actions, but by the manner in which those words are uttered and the emphasis with which they give to their actions. I think the Member for Queenstown, in the last attempt to score off the rugged edges of his first performance, was hard put to sound like a cat when actually he was roaring like a tiger. You cannot make a tiger mew. That is not one of the things which the Member for Queenstown, in spite of his many versatile and variegated skills, can do. As I have said, those who have no evil intentions can sleep well and nice. As the Member for Anson has said, we have a duty to ensure that those with evil intentions do not imperil the lives, the limbs and the safety of the people. The Second Battalion will only be a start. Eventually the trouble which those manipulating the Member for Queenstown face is this. Troops cannot defend a colonialist administration, be cause more than force is required to sustain the government. But when the attack is against a popularly-elected administration representing the bulk of the people, an effort by an armed organised militant minority can often be frustrated quickly, effectively and easily by the immediate and effective deployment of armed force.

Let me give an example of the Work Brigade last year. It was round three in the battle between the Communists manipulating the Barisan Sosialis versus the Government. There were bicycle chains, tyres and open acts of indiscipline. Had there been hesitation; had there been fumbling, a few people would have been hurt, injured and maimed. But because of the First Battalion, because it was demonstrably clear to anybody who wanted to use bicycle chains, the axe or the iron rod that it would be unprofitable to do so, it turned out in the event that nobody used these weapons at all. And so we not only did good to society, but we also did good to the wrongdoer by protecting him by his own logic and commonsense from putting himself into an untenably vulnerable position.

The Member for Queenstown has been known for his qualities to charge, often blindly, and as the Member for Anson has said, it is a losing battle. It is not only losing, but it is lost. It was lost last year in July-that night in July when they tried to capture. It failed. It set off a chain of events that brought about the White Paper, merger, Malaysia, Malaysia Week and a whole chain of inevitable consequences that will culminate in the final expurgation of all the evil forces in our society. The Member for Queenstown can only read this morning's paper. The gentleman who wrote Mr Lim Ching Siong a letter through him as the postbox. Mr Wen Lin Chen, from Sarawak. "Leading officials," said he, "of the S.U.P.P. constitutional organisation." He was on his way back on voluntary repatriation to China and he was arrested as a member of the vanishing Communist organisation. And so the process will go on. But behind the process there must always be the ultimate deterrent. Nobody wants to use any troops. Everybody wants the law to be observed. But everybody knows that if you are not in a position to enforce the law, nobody will enforce it. If everybody understands that not only will the law be enforced, but it will be enforced swiftly and effectively, then it may well be that everybody will conform to and obey the rules of the game.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Chairman. Sir, the words of the Prime Minister have revealed the intention, as he has said, of his political Party. It can be seen in his words, in spite of his suave delivery, what is P.A.P. intent in the very Bill itself.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What Bill?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: In the Referendum Bill itself.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: We are on Supplementary Estimates.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is only an aside, Sir. He was talking about parangs and bicycle chains -

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We know, Sir, nowadays there are agents provocateurs who have been recruited by the Government and sent to various organisations. These people are weeded out one by one whenever they are discovered. The parangs and bicycle chains belong to the gangsters recruited by the P.A.P. This is the truth, Sir, and a lot of people know about it. He was telling us that if it was a case of troops being used, it was only because a minority wanted to break the law.

No minority. Sir, can break the law against the majority, and if this Govern ment had the support of the majority of the people in Singapore, the P.A.P. would not be in such a bad plight today. Let me just give the Prime Minister a last reminder. He talked about a losing battle. Sir, whether a battle is won or lost depends on the people and, to quote the Prime Minister himself on an occasion many years ago, the verdict of the people will be the final arbiter and the verdict of the people is a terrible thing to those who do not keep faith with the people. That is for you. [Laughter]

The Chairman: Order. I hope the Member for Queenstown is not trying to intimidate the Chair. He is trying to intimidate the Prime Minister. I do not know whether the Prime Minister has been intimidated.

The Prime Minister: Sir, part of my duty is to suffer intimidation at the hands of my political opponents from time to time. I bear up as well as I can. 1 can assure the Member for Queenstown that there will be no troops used as long as the rules are observed. The Societies Ordinance, the Trade Unions Ordinance, the Minor Offences Ordinance, they are all in the law. There are people who can interpret the law to them. But if the rules are cast aside and the stones and the iron bars and the buses are turned over, then peace-loving though we may be, the overriding interest of peace, security and well-being of the people will require the use of force to suppress force.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $1,040,725 for Head 51 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962.

Question, "That the sum of $2,010,965 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962 contained in Paper Cmd. 11 of 1962", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution.

Resolution reported -

"That the sum of $2,010,965 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962 contained in Paper Cmd. 11 of 1962.".

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I beg to move that the Assembly doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution accordingly agreed to.