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

4.15 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, for the fourth successive year, it is my privilege to move the formal vote of thanks to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech to this Assembly*. The years since June 1959 have been eventful and fateful. There were moments in 1961 when the lesser spirits amongst us in this Chamber thought that the battle was lost, that all that we stood for - a democratic, non-Communist, socialist society - would be swept under the relentless onslaught of the Communists. Not wanting to be on the losing side, they made the necessary personal

*The motion reads as follows:

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.". adjustments. But there were many others, in this Chamber and outside, who never doubted the outcome of the struggle and who stood firm to see the country through to peace, security and prosperity in Malaysia.

There are less than five months to go before Malaysia. The moments of doubts are gone and anxiety has vanished as people bend their energies to planning and construction for the stable years ahead. I do not say that we have put all our troubles behind us. Indeed, it would be disastrous to ignore the underground organisation of the Communists, the constant battle for hearts and minds, the relentless process of attrition as wits and strategy are matched and encounters fought and won or lost temporarily, while the long-term battle goes on - a battle that can be decisively won only by a better life for the people in a more just and equal society.

But I think it is fair to say that even the most optimistic of Members on the other side of the House - or perhaps I should say on the other side of the nation - know that there is no hope of establishing a Communist Malaysia in the next decade. Their dreams can only come true if and when a Communist Indonesia were to emerge, and if and when a Communist Indonesia becomes a success. We hope that will never happen. Anyway, for the present, we must gird ourselves for the constant pressure and pin-pricks that they will exert over any issue that would excite any group of men that they could get together to bolster their cause. If they cannot get the people at large excited, they try to get the families of detainees excited by squatting outside my office. If they cannot get parents and students to stage boycotts, strikes and protests, they try to get young men involved in political rallies like the one they held on Sunday 24th last month. We were interested to know who attended that rally. But what was interesting was that the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis and a number of his committee members were surprised at the organised attendance of young school boys, who, unknown to them, had been separately organised to attend by people who ultimately control the people who control the Barisan Sosialis. We must never make the grave error of the last Government in believing that the neutralization of a few united front activists could mean the end of the Communist capacity to organise and agitate when the time comes for elections. This has been a temporary setback for them in what is a grim long-term struggle for power.

I would like to add this note of caution for them. It is our duty between now and the 4� months before Malaysia to ensure that nothing is done in Singapore contrary to the verdict of the people given on 1st September last year. Had they been wise and accepted that verdict, they might perhaps have not precipitated the decision taken at a meeting in Kuala Lumpur on 1st February.

I met a friend recently - a personal, and not a political friend - Mr James Puthucheary - in Kuala Lumpur. It was for old times' sake. He is one of their bright minds. He would not mind my telling this to Members on the other side of the House, particularly the Member for Thomson, that the most stupid thing they had done was to keep on fighting against Malaysia after the people had decided in the referendum that Singapore was for Malaysia.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Sham!

The Prime Minister: Let me tell the Member for Thomson what Mr James Puthucheary said, and he is a brighter mind ---

Mr Bani: He is not here to say it.

The Prime Minister: Mr James Puthucheary will be reading all this tomorrow in the newspapers. He was one of the brighter minds. He said that whatever the rights and wrongs of the referendum - and he found many things wrong with it - once the decision had been taken, that should be the end of the matter. I think it was a pity that he did not express this wisdom more cogently and effectively to the other leading members of the Barisan Sosialis earlier, particularly during the period just before the Brunei revolt.

Between now and 31st August, we have one paramount responsibility, that is, to ensure that the situation does not deteriorate, either in the efficacy of the organs of the State or in the overall calm and stability of the situation.

Meanwhile, we will forge ahead with our construction. We have some massive schemes. They should be all well on their way before the 31st August. Members already know from the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that Outram Road Gaol will be demolished soon. In fact, I am informed that demolition operations have already begun on part of the old gaol. A new modern gaol is being planned in Bedok and Changi. The whole site of 36 acres will be ready for building by the end of the year. On this hill of some 36 acres of hard land, some beautiful buildings for 50,000 people will be built.

Another massive project that has been started by the Land Office working with the Housing and Development Board is to re-claim 20,000 acres of land stretching from Bedok right up to Nicoll Highway, extending half a mile out to sea along the shore-line. Land is valuable in our little island. An increasing population makes it necessary not only that we build upwards but also that we re-claim all available land at present partly under water from prawn ponds to building lots. In the first phase of this project, some 50 acres will be ready in three months' time near the Fisheries school at Bedok 8� m.s. This is the beginning and will be an open park for the time being. Eventually, 20,000 acres, nearly three times the size of Kreta Ayer constituency, will be re-claimed, partly to be used by the Housing and Development Board for building and partly for sale to private builders - to pay for the cost of the reclamation of the whole.

All this increase in building, of course, means an accelerated demand for public utilities - water, electricity and gas. It is not only the increase in population but the increase in consumption of water and electricity per head of population because of more homes and also because of more standpipes and electricity supplies to the kampongs and the rural areas. It becomes urgently necessary for us to plan ahead for new sources of water and power to ensure that supply always exceeds demand.

Sir, let me give a brief illustration of the rate of increase. The Housing and Development Board was building at the rate of 12,300 units per annum last year, and 15,000 units per annum this year. In other words, one unit, every 45 minutes.

Meanwhile, private developers, reflecting the general prosperity over the last two years, are building multi-storied flats all over the City. The Planning Department under my charge have had to make some adjustments on density control to take into account the realities of urban development in Singapore. An estimated 6,000 units per annum are being put up at present by private developers. All this means an enormous increase of over 21,000 more homes per annum all making demands on the pub-lie utilities, water, electricity and gas.

We have been fortunate in avoiding water rationing so far, in spite of the prolonged drought, and in spite of the large number of standpipes that have been installed. There are at the moment 2,400 public standpipes, all giving free water. One-third of these were put up in the last two years - 600 of them. The standpipes alone account for more than 12 per cent of the average user of 72 million gallons a day. I am sorry, Sir, that in some places, through lack of education and a sense of civic responsibility, taps have been left to run throughout the whole night, at a time of prolonged drought. I would like to urge all householders who live near standpipes to take upon themselves the responsibility to help the community to see that standpipes are not running to waste during the night.

The reason why we have avoided water rationing was because of the ample stocks of water built up before the drought, about 70 per cent of our total capacity. Another reason was the increased output in Tebrau after extensions at the Tebrau works completed in the middle of last year, increasing the daily output from Tebrau from 30 to 45 million gallons per day. However, I must warn the House that if there is no break in the dry spell in the next week, we may have to introduce ration' ing in order to conserve stocks in preparation for the normal dry weather expected in June, July and August, as our stocks have gone down from 70 per cent to 54 per cent in the impounding reservoirs, the 16 per cent having been used to make up the daily shortage from Tebrau.

Sir, Members will already have known that we are planning an extension pipeline to take water from Scudai River at a cost of $16 million. This scheme will be completed in the course of 1964. The first phase has already started, and when operations commence towards the end of this year, 15 million gallons a day can be added to our water supplies. In the course of next year, when the whole works are completed, a total of 30 million additional gallons per day can be extracted.

Members may know that last year we invited a firm of water consultants approved by the World Bank to advise us. The World Bank will only give loans after advice of water consultants approved by them. A fee of nearly half-a-million dollars was paid for a thorough survey of our water needs. They have made certain recommendations thereon, one of which was that we should proceed with the Scudai project, whilst work commences on the main Johore River project. Johore River - first phase to be completed by the end of 1967 - will bring an additional 30 million gallons per day and, when completed in 1976, will bring 60 million gallons per day. This scheme is expected to cost a total of $70 million.

A World Bank loan for the Scudai River, Johore River and the Jurong Reservoir for industrial water is being negotiated.

To sum up, I would like to quote the figures of daily consumption of water in 1959 as against 1963: 1959, 64 million gallons per day; 1963, 73 million gallons per day - an increase of some 15 per cent in the short space of 3� years. Members will realise, therefore, the urgent necessity of getting on with the waterworks to ensure that supply remains greater than demand.

So, too, with electricity. Plans have been completed and orders placed for a 22,500 kilowatt additional generating plant to be installed at St. James' Power Station comprising two 11,250 kilowatt gas turbines meant primarily to increase operation over the peak load periods and scheduled for production in December this year. This will take care of the interim increase in demand while the second power station at Pasir Panjang - Power Station "B" of 60,000 kilowatts - is being installed to be ready by the first half of 1965.

Sir, all in all, we can look back with some satisfaction on the progress that has been made in the past year. Despite all the obstacles placed by Communist united-front organisations on land clearance and squatter resettlement, we have been able to resettle on fair terms several thousands of squatters. Now all the major projects are under way.

By the end of this year the earthworks for Toa Payoh would be completed and 50 acres of building site will be available. The excess earth from Toa Payoh will be transported to Kallang Basin to reclaim another 50 acres for industrial sites.

In order to give Members some perspective of these figures, may I mention that on the 50 acres of land at Toa Payoh, an estimated 100,000 persons can be resettled and the Toa Payoh scheme, when completed, will be able to house 350,000 people in a properly laid out satellite town.

Members will also know that recently when operations to clear the roads started, the Member for Toa Payoh aided and abetted, or perhaps I should say, he, aiding and abetting some Communist-front operators in Toa Payoh, tried to sabotage the machines that were used in the operations. I think the Member for Toa Payoh realises now the gravity of the situation. If people are determined to embark on unlawful activities, then they must be prepared to take the consequences and it is no use complaining about bad diets and bad rations. All these things should have been carefully considered before one mounts an anti-the-people, anti-the-nation campaign. Once the battle has been joined, then they must expect it to go to its logical conclusion. One cannot, Sir, run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

Sir, the demolition of the Outram Road Prison has already begun and will be completed by the end of this year. This is a take-off for the main project of urban redevelopment which will begin with the help of a team of United Nations experts who have been invited to Singapore to advise on central city redevelopment.

Needless to say, all this would be impossible if the economic prosperity to pay for all this were not there. Members will have noted the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech that our reserves have gone up from $87 million in June 1959 to $335 million - an increase of $250 million, even after substantial capital outlays had been made from the Development Fund of $100 million per year or about $300 million in three years. In other words, the increase of funds available for development was somewhere in the region of $550 million.

There will always be ups and downs in our economic prosperity, Sir, but we have been able to put by sufficient reserves and are continuing to put by enough each year to see us through all our major projects: the Jurong industrial site (9,000 acres), the Toa Payoh scheme, and Central City redevelopment, and we shall build a new skyline for Singapore Harbour, in the words of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara "a new city of beauty and distinction, worthy of the industry and enterprise of our people, and in keeping with our position as the financial, industrial and commercial centre of South-East Asia".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.39 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, ---

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of clarification. I just want to clarify a certain point before the Member begins.

Sir, I did a bit of mental arithmetic just now and came to tae wrong answer. The area of Kreta Ayer is only 16 acres, and I am told 20,000 acres divided by 16 comes to 1,400 times [Laughter] Kreta Ayer. I beg your pardon.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad the Prime Minister has made the correction, because all his talk of grandiose schemes and new cities and skylines should be similarly corrected.

As expected, the policy speech this year has a very hollow ring. There is a great deal of padding put on, but this does not deceive the people that, in fact, all is empty inside. You will notice, Sic, that in the speech of the Prime Minister, he talks of nothing but the number of standpipes and the number of housing units - with a full list of the number of housing units, the number of standpipes and even the number of post offices with which the P.A.P. leaders hope to impress the people of Singapore with their ability, efficiency and good work as a government. And it does look as if the incorporation of the old City Council with the Government departments has its usefulness for the P.A.P. Government, otherwise the P.A.P. would not even have standpipes to crow about. But take away all these governmental and departmental summaries which we can find in all the yearly departmental reports, what is left of the policy speech? What is there which tells us of the real Government policy? In fact, Sir, the whole policy speech is merely a dreary repetition of what the P.A.P. propaganda machine has been mass-producing for many months past. It is only a re-hash of Government handouts to the Press which nowadays are issued after visits of the Prime Minister to the constituencies, in order to deceive the people that but for the Prime Minister's visits to the rural areas the people in those areas would not have got the improvements in the areas and it is the Prime Minister himself who is looking after all their interests. But take away, as I say, all the Departmental Reports, figures and statistics which impress no one: what do we find after four years of P.A.P. rule? (Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: This is supposed to be a policy speech but there is curiously no mention of how the Government intends to help people solve the most pressing and urgent problems of our society today and, with only four and a half months to go, after four years of office, there is no mention, for instance, of how the P.A.P. Government intends to help the people get rid of poverty, disease, ignorance and want. There is no mention of how the Government intends to help the people get rid of exploitation and oppression. There is no mention of how the Government intends to genuinely help to unify the workers and the trade union movement in order to further strengthen the bargaining power of the workers and the interests of the working class. There is no mention again of the basic struggles of the people - the anti-colonial and the anti-imperialist struggles - and the urgent necessity to get rid of colonialism and imperialism in all their shapes and forms. There is no mention of the struggle for a truly equal and just society - a socialist society which the Prime Minister boasted so much about in the first year of office. And there is no mention of the struggle for the genuine reunification of the Federation and Singapore into a truly independent, democratic and socialist Malaya, free of foreign troops and foreign control. For a Government that professed to fight for all these aims and objects when it was elected to office in 1959, it is simply amazing and unbelievable that there should be no mention of all these aims and objects after nearly four years of office, and what steps the Government proposes to take to achieve them. Instead we get a mass of words, words and words, all camouflage and P.A.P. propaganda with nothing to help us solve the basic problems of our society today.

An hon. Member: --- such as housing!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There is still this talk of their Four-Year Plan and even of departments bending their energies to carry out their development projects. But what has happened to the Common Market? Nothing, not a word is mentioned about the Common Market. And, in fact, how many of the unemployed masses have found employment, as a result of P.A.P. work after assuming power? Would the Government tell us the actual number of unemployed in the State of Singapore and the actual number who have got jobs following development projects? They may have millions and millions of dollars in the kitty, but how does that help the poor and the unemployed?

Then there is this frequent boasting of "P.A.P. dynamic effort" which says that they have broken the back of the housing shortage. True, there are more housing flats today than in 1959. Well, what is there to boast about? Is that not part or Government's duties and responsibilities? But more to the point is this: how many housing units are there that are mere "standing monuments"? In the words of the Prime Minister - "standing monuments" - due to the inefficiency of P.A.P. planning or rather due to the lack of P.A.P. planning. Anyone can build any number of housing flats as long as he has money to do so. Any contractor, any Housing Estate can do that; we do not need a Government to do that.

An hon. Member: Ha!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But what do we build houses for? Why do we build houses? That is a very important question. Are we to build houses and flats just for the sake of building houses and fiats - a matter of art for art's sake? Do we build houses and flats without consideration as to whether or not the people can afford to stay in them? What has happened to the P.A.P. election pledge to build low-cost housing for the poor in Singapore? Does the P.A.P. Government not know that the majority of the people in Singapore are poor and cannot afford high-cost housing? Yes, the P.A.P. has built a number of low-cost housing units. But that is not enough, far from enough! There are too few of these low-cost housing flats. Most of the housing units built are beyond the reach of the ordinary worker and many people just cannot afford to stay in the Housing Board flats built by the Government, and especially so when these flats are built far away from the centres of communication and far away from schooling facilities for their children and from their places of work. As a result, though thousands of flats have been built, thousands also are unoccupied, in spite of all types of offers and inducements by the Government to get the people to live in them. To all intents and purposes, these empty housing units are mere "white elephants". Many of these flats go abegging and no one wants to stay in them.

Why should this be so when there are slums all over Singapore and when people have to live in insanitary attap huts and in the kampongs? Is it because the people want to live in attap huts and kampongs? The Prime Minister in the U.N.E.S.C.O. Opening in Singapore a couple of months back said, "Yes". He said the Malays prefer to live in wooden houses on stilts. He said this is due to psychological reasons: that the Malays are satisfied with kampong life and that they cannot adjust themselves to living in Housing Board flats. These are the reasons given by the Prime Minister of Singapore, in a country that is undeveloped and in a country where all the people are poor! For example, does the Prime Minister know that many, in fact, almost all the kampong folks, cannot afford to live in the Housing Board flats, and that they live in kampongs because economically they are bound to the kampongs and not because psychologically they like to stay in kampongs? Give them the money, give them the wherewithal, and the Prime Minister will see that the kampong folks are ready to live in the most beautiful and the best of houses; that they will be able to adjust themselves as well as anyone can.

An hon. Member: The Barisan can give the money.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And now we see so many housing units built by the P.A.P. which the people do not want to live in - just cannot afford to live in and do not care to live in, unless compelled to do so by other circumstances. Worse still, when through force of circumstances some people do apply for flats, they are denied them and offered instead only the most undesirable ones, like those in the very top of multi-storeyed flats.

Today the flats built by the P.A.P. are being used as police barracks, as admitted by the Ministers themselves. Is that why --- ?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: What is wrong with that?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: "What is wrong with that?", he asks. Is that why we have a Housing Board, to build flats with the taxpayers' money and turn them into barracks for the police and the troops? Troops used not to protect the people of Singapore and not to fight the external enemy --- ?

The Prime Minister: --- and the internal one too!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- but to oppress the people of the country? [Laughter] They are laughing. I suppose they think that they can take pride in this work: to use our taxpayers' money to build barracks for the police and the troops to oppress the people.

The Prime Minister: You want us to let you riot around with the people!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Is this something to be proud of, to crow about? Does the Prime Minister know of the hardships of the people who have been compelled to live in these housing flats which they can hardly afford? I do not need to touch on the water shortage ---

The Prime Minister: That is the trouble.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- that seems to be perpetually plaguing Singapore these days under P.A.P. rule. No one would believe, Sir, that there could be a water shortage in a country that is blessed with a plentiful supply of rainfall every year. [Laughter]

But it is happening here in Singapore and from the way the P.A.P. Ministers are laughing, we have to thank the P.A.P. for it!

The Prime Minister: You are lucky the general pressure is still good.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Of course, this is merely another instance of poverty in the midst of plenty under P.A.P. rule.

Then, Sir, there is this National Theatre which the P.A.P. is so eager to open officially that night work is introduced and overtime has to be paid. Of course, we understand the urgent necessity to hurry up the completion of the Theatre while the P.A.P. is still alive, while our Prime Minister is still sitting opposite, while he can still sip beer in this House.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. I did enquire from the Prime Minister whether beer was being sipped by him in this House. He said it was something which made him think clearly and speak clearly. I must accept the word of the Prime Minister that it was not beer.

The Prime Minister: On a point of elucidation, Sir,I may apply for a chemist's report for this Chamber tomorrow! [Laughter]

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But I do not think there is any reason for laughter and merriment in this House today. The whole of Singapore is mourning [Laughter] and only the Prime Minister and his other hirelings are smiling and laughing.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Point of order. The hon. Member has used the word "hirelings". I think it is out of order, being unparliamentary language. Will the Member withdraw it, Sir?

Mr Speaker: From the way the Minister for Finance has risen on the point of order and from the laughter that is arising from the Government benches, it seems to me as though that word has not offended. Therefore, I cannot in this context rule that word as being unparliamentary. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I was talking about the National Theatre, Sir, Of course, the P.A.P. hope to shine in the bright T.V. lights at the grand opening of the National Theatre. Extra money has to be spent, night work has to be pushed forward and pressure has to be put on the contractor and the workmen to finish the work on time - all to please P.A.P. Ministers.

Mr Speaker: Order. I take it the Member will be taking some time. This is the time to suspend. I will take this Chair again at five-thirty. Order, order.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Question again proposed.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House rose, I was speaking on the National Theatre. Now, of course, we have this new P.A.P. craze called television. Why is the P.A.P. so anxious to have television in Singapore? So anxious, Sir, that the Government is asking every family in Singapore to buy T.V. sets with all sorts of inducements.

Mr Rajaratnam: Have you got your set?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is well known that the P.A.P. wants desperately to have T.V. to serve the Ministers as a vehicle for their propaganda. They have learned from experience that the radio and television can play a very great part in shaping public opinion. Their shameless scare propaganda during the last week of the referendum campaign depended greatly on the radio and Rediffusion, assisted by the Press and police vans to carry the threats and intimidation of the Prime Minister about the los3 of citizenship, if the people cast blank votes, into the homes of the people in Singapore. That is why the rural areas which are not so well served with radios and Rediffusion returned a higher percentage of blank votes. This has been admitted as much by the Prime Minister.

Now the P.A.P. wants to build hundreds and hundreds of community centres in the rural areas and install in them radio and television sets, all with the hope of soaking the audience with P.A.P. propaganda, because television is a novelty and many people will go to community centres to watch television out of curiosity. The P.A.P. is so anxious for everyone to come under the influence of its propaganda that the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Culture had to write letters to coffee-shop owners - under instructions from the P.A.P. Ministers no doubt - to request them to install television sets in their premises.

The Straits Times, on 29th March, 1963, reported that the Singapore Government had launched a campaign to get T.V. sets installed in bars, restaurants and coffee-shops. Letters, signed by Mr W. S. Woon, Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Culture, had gone out to owners of those establishments. I have a cutting, Sir, of what it says. To each of them Mr Woon says ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I have indicated in the past that if an extract from a newspaper is to be read, the newspaper itself should be produced and not the mere cutting, and if the hon. Member can assure me that he can produce a copy of the Straits Times before the rising today, he can read the extract.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will produce that copy, Sir, a little later.

It reads:

`I am to request you to consider the installation of a television set in your business premises if you have not already done so.'

I ask, is this part of the duties of a civil servant to request coffee-shop owners to install T.V. sets?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Is it?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If it is not the duty of civil servants to do these things, what disciplinary action does the Government intend to take concerning such gross indiscipline by a civil servant? I am glad the Minister for Finance is listening to this, and I would like him to state what action he intends to take when he speaks on this debate.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of elucidation. Sir. Since the Member for Queenstown alleges that there has been a breach of discipline, could he please inform me which General Order or which Government Regulation the official has been guilty of breaching?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I think it is the business of the Government to inform us, and let the Minister answer that afterwards.

Mr Rajaratnam: You are asking.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: All I want to know is, what if they do not install T. V. sets in their premises? Is the Government going to suspend their coffee-shop and eating-house licences?

Mr Rajaratnam: No.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Is this not intimidation?

Mr Rajaratnam: No.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There is already an example in the case of the printing presses, and such requests from Government officials are nothing but pure intimidation of the poor people of Singapore.

Worse still, Sir, is that the Government, in its eagerness to push T.V. for P.A.P. propaganda, even went to lee extent of instructing civil servants to install T. V. sets in their homes, telling them that the Government would be ready to give them interest-free loans to buy T.V. sets and to deduct monthly repayments from their salaries. Let me ask, what business is it of the Government to ask coffee-shop owners and civil servants to buy T.V. sets? Is this an election pledge of the P.A.P.?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of elucidation, Sir. Will the Member for Queenstown please let me know on which date the alleged circular was issued? I am in charge of the Ministry which would issue such circulars and, so far as I know, nothing of this sort has ever come out of my Ministry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): Lies!

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary who has used the word "lies" knows that it is unparliamentary. He must now apologise to the House and withdraw the word.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: I apologise, Sir, and withdraw the word.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Minister for Finance knows that the P.A.P. Government likes setting up Commissions. Let them set up a Commission of Inquiry into this and they will know all the details. Let the Minister reply when he speaks. Let me ask, why should the P.A.P. Ministers go out of their way to promote the sale of T.V. sets? Do the Ministers and the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Mr W. S. Woon, get commissions from the T.V. firms and the foreign manufacturers for the sales promotion? Otherwise, what interest have the Ministers and government servants to act in the way they have?

Sir, the programme in T.V., to my knowledge, is all lousy.

Mr Rajaratnam: Is what?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And once the novelty has worn off, it is very unlikely that many would bother to pay too much attention to P.A.P. propaganda via T.V. To the P.A.P., of course, T.V. is going to be their life-line. Not being able to get a sizable audience in mass rallies, the P.A.P. hopes to be able to reach tens of thousands in their homes. The P.A.P. hopes to compel the people, willy-nilly, to listen to speeches and party propaganda from P.A.P. Ministers.

Let the P.A.P. not misuse public money for its own party propaganda. The P.A.P. has pledged to husband all available resources to help raise the living standards of the people and not to fritter away money for the promotion of private sectional interests and of their colonial masters.

At this point, sir, let me refer once again to the boast of the P.A.P. about the increase in revenue and accounts. May I refer you, Sir, to the Financial Statement for the year 1959? On page 44, in the last column, you will see that the surplus funds, market value on 31st December, 1959 amounted to $93,524,577.46. We will just call it $93 million. Let us turn to page 48 of the same Financial Statement for the year 1959. We see that the net value in Dollars of Development Fund Investments is equal to $46,124,666.90. Let us briefly call it $46 million. $93 million plus $46 million equal $139 million.

Now may I refer you to the 1960 Financial Statement, and draw your attention to the figure that is printed in page 45? Against Surplus Funds, on 31st December, 1960, the figure is $164,004,002.18. Let us call it $164 million. If you turn to page 49, the Development Fund Investments on 31st December, 1960 amounted to $85,148,387.36. Let us call it $85 million. If we add $164 million to $85 million, we get the figure of $249 million. We see, Sir, therefore, that from 1959 to 1960 the amount that was invested abroad has increased from $139 million to $249 million - a difference of $110 million. Let me now refer to the Financial Statement for the year 1961. On page 210, in the last column, you get the Surplus Funds on 31st December, 1961. The figure is $199,119,196.29. You see, Sir, these investments have - I do not think I need run through all of them - all been invested in Aberdeen Corporation, Australia, British Gas, Huddersfield Hull, etc, which are all foreign firms. The next figure to which I would like to draw your attention is on page 215, which tells us of the particulars of the Development Fund Investments on 31st December, 1961. The figure is $117,019,572.83. If we were to add the $199 million of the Surplus Funds to the $117 million of the Development Fund Investments, we get the figure of $316 million. Sir, all this money has been invested not in Singapore, but in some foreign lands to help other people and not the people of Singapore. That money has been used to help the colonial interests and not the people of Singapore. From 1959 to 1961. we see that the amount invested abroad has increased from $139 million to $249 million to $316 million. Every year it has been increasing, and yet the P.A.P. wants to boast that there is so much and so much and so much in the kitty. As I have already asked, Sir, what is the point of having so much in the kitty and not making use of the money for the welfare of the people of Singapore? There are millions and millions of dollars, as we know, in the United States and elsewhere, but what good is that money to us? I wish the Minister for Finance will explain all this to us. We are very dense in matters of finance, but probably the Minister will care to enlighten the people of Singapore as to why so much of our money has been invested abroad.

Let me now come to the hospital services. I would like to ask, what provisions have the Government made for the increasing number of patients who go to hospital for treatment? There are reports of shortages of all sorts of medicines and materials for the use of patients. Why should, I ask, there be shortages? Is it because we do not have enough money to look after the sick? I have just mentioned the hundreds of millions of dollars invested abroad. When the Government claims to have millions of dollars in the kitty, and when millions of dollars has to be spent on advertisements for the promotion of Malaysia and T.V., why should the hospitals run short of medicines and other materials needed to look after the sick? And why do outpatients in the Government Polyclinic in Queenstown have to pay 50 cents per patient? Patients get free treatment in other clinics Why should it be different in the case of the Government Polyclinic in Queenstown? Is it a change of policy, or is it pure discrimination?

Regarding education, the Government can never again claim that there is equal treatment for four streams of education in Singapore. We do not know how much connection there is between the mass arrests on 2nd February and the `Torch Campaign' to encourage parents and schoolchildren to pay serious attention to the study of their mother tongue and language. But the P.A.P. education policy has been shown to be discriminatory. For instance, the question of Nantah University has until today remained unsettled. The number of students joining the Malay, Chinese and primary school classes for 1963 has dropped very steeply in comparison with the number of students attending primary classes in the English stream. If we compare the number of primary students for the various streams in 1963 with that of previous years, there is a shocking contrast. This alone is enough to show how successful PA.P. policy has been in its discrimination against Malay, Chinese and Tamil education. Indeed, Sir, so scared is the P.A.P. of the people knowing the actual situation that the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Education has to clam up and not answer enquiries in several letters from me. I enquired for the figures of primary students in the various streams of education for 1963, as well as for the previous years, in my capacity as Member of the Legislative Assembly for Queenstown, but there was not even a letter of acknowledgement to all my letters. Let the Government take serious note of this discourtesy on the part of civil servants, and take appropriate disciplinary action against whoever is responsible. [Laughter] The Minister for Finance laughs, but let the P.A.P. remember its election pledge to run a courteous civil service in 1959. What has happened? Are civil servants to be discourteous to the people by not answering enquiries from the public and from Members of the Legislative Assembly?

Sir, I do not intend to touch at length on many of the other subjects. I shall lease most of the other subjects to my other colleagues. They are subjects like the pro-colonial policies of the P.A.P. which will be the subject of another motion standing in my name.

We in the Legislative Assembly have had an enforced long vacation and, but for the popular pressure - in spite of what the Prime Minister has said - for the recall of the Legislative Assembly, the P.A.P. would have given us a longer enforced vacation. An air of uncertainty is ever present, and it is more so today than yesterday, because repression has come, and there may be more repressions to come. The P.A.P. says that there will not be an air of excitement and uncertainty, but on the contrary I say that the air is full of uncertainty, and that this uncertainty increases with the daily development of the international situation. It is so uncertain, in fact, that millions of dollars have gone to Hongkong already. This has been reported in Newsweek and in the Straits' Times. How can such uncertainty give rise to any confidence in the people, as is mentioned in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech? In column 4 of Hansard dated 27th March, 1963, it says, "All is calm and tranquil." Obviously then, Sir, there was no justification for the recent mass arrests. That the P.A.P. had to resort to arrests clearly shows that the P.A.P. cannot compete with the Barisan Sosialis for the support of the people. The P.A.P. has failed in the open argument, and has not, as is alleged in column 5, won the open argument. If there was seven months of peace and tranquility, as is mentioned in column 5, and yet there were arrests two months ago, then it clearly exposes the deceit and Fascist nature of the P.A.P. The sham referendum on 1st September, 1962, merely exposed the deceit of the P.A.P. yet further. The colonialists and their PAP, stooges have made use of the false result of the sham referendum to deceive the world about the true situation in Singapore. And similarly has the Internal Security Council made use of this false result as an excuse and pretext for repressive action against uncompromising anti-colonialists and anti-imperialists, and against all prominent leaders who oppose Malaysia and the P.A.P. The Prime Minister talks of the verdict of the people. But let us see how the verdict was obtained.

You will remember, Sir, the referendum was carried out merely as a facade of democracy and of allowing the people a choice of alternatives offered to them. But you will remember also. Sir, that the people were not allowed to say no, and they must choose one of the three alternatives. And voting being compulsory, the people had no way out, no means of abstention. Tearing up of the paper would have meant imprisonment, and putting in a blank paper would also have meant the blank paper being considered as a vote for the Government. Of course, all this was because the P.A.P.'s intention was to coerce the people into choosing the P.A.P. proposals and never to give a chance to those people who opposed the P.A.P. merger proposals. You will remember also, Sir, that we in the Opposition had called on the people to cast blank votes in protest, and as the campaign proceeded, it became obvious from the huge attendances at Opposition parties referendum rallies and the empty attendances at the Government Party rallies that the vast majority of the people would cast blank votes in protest against the undemocratic and dishonest referendum. Then the P.A.P. Government, knowing that they would fail and would morally lose at least, came out with a new gimmick. They stated that blank votes would not necessarily mean Government votes, but could mean the loss of citizenship for more than half of the people of Singapore. Big headlines, Sir, screamed "Blank votes mean loss of citizenship". The Prime Minister made a speech in Fullerton Square and it was broadcast and re-broadcast over Radio P.A.P. and Rediffusion four or five times. Moreover, rumours were started by the P.A.P. that the vote was not secret because of the number on the back of the ballot paper, and discovery of those who cast blank votes would mean loss of citizenship rights, like loss of jobs, 1icences, passports, housing and schooling facilities, welfare aid and other such like dire consequences. Finally, to cap it all, on Polling Day voters were directed by supervisors of polling stations specifically to put a cross against one of the three alternatives. The voters were told that they must cast votes with a cross and not cast blank votes.

Under the circumstances, Sir, the result of the referendum was a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, despite all this, 25 per cent came out courageously in the face of Government intimidation and cast blank votes. Later many who had been coerced into putting in votes for Alternative A came to tell us of the split voting in families. Parents had to vote Alternative A and sons and daughters voted blank. Husbands had voted A and wives had voted blank. This was to insure against the Government really carrying out its threats. Thus, if one was deprived of citizenship rights as a result of casting a blank vote, the other member of the family would be able to say that he or she had voted for A and so would still be able to claim facilities that could only be claimed by citizens. The result of 70 per cent for Alternative A, therefore, did not truly reflect the will of the people of Singapore. They voted for A not because they wanted A, but because they feared B. And thus the P.A.P. Government achieved its purpose through the undemocratic and dishonest referendum.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am a bit puzzled about this expression, "undemocratic and dishonest referendum". The hon. Member does know, of course, that the referendum was held under the provisions of the Referendum Ordinance, and if this expression "undemocratic and dishonest referendum" has reference to that referendum, in other words, has reference to the referendum as provided for by that Ordinance, and the hon. Member is alleging that the Ordinance laid down something which was undemocratic and dishonest, then he is casting a reflection on the Assembly, and is completely out of order. I ask him to be very careful about using the expression in the course of his speech.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I have no intention, Sir, of casting any aspersions on the House, but it is quite clear that to many of the people outside, their opinion of the referendum is just what I have said, and I am merely reflecting the opinion and views of the vast majority of the people in Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Order. In that case, if the hon. Member is a guardian, as he ought to be, of the privileges of this House, he should report members of the public for casting reflection on this House. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, Sir, to prove that the result of the referendum was false, let me inform the House of two referendum surveys carried out by Nanyang University students and the University of Singapore Socialist Club students. Two referendum surveys were carried out - one was in Tanjong Pagar. We had referred to that earlier. In the referendum survey of Tanjong Pagar, one straight question was posed to the people. They were asked whether they would accept or reject the Government White Paper merger proposals. All they were asked to do was to say yes or no. And the result came back, 90 per cent no, 6 per cent yes, and a 2 per cent here and a 2 per cent there. That was in the case of Tanjong Pagar, the constituency of the Prime Minister himself. But I do not think this House has a record of the results of the other survey referendum that was carried out in the constituency of Kreta Ayer, the constituency of the Finance Minister. In that referendum survey the questions posed were exactly as those posed by the Government on Referendum Day. That is to say, three questions were posed to them - A, B and C. And this is the result of that survey carried out just before the referendum in 1962. Those who voted for Alternative A, that is, the White Paper proposals, 106 votes, and it works out to 1.26 per cent. Alternative B, 93 votes, 1.10 per cent. Alternative C, 16 votes, and it works out to 0.19 per cent. The blanks 8,186 votes, and that works out to 97.13 per cent. Spoilt votes, 27, and it works out to 0.32 per cent. The total number of votes was 8,428. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: From this, Sir, you will see that the referendum that was actually carried out on the 1st of September, 1962, never did reflect the will and desire of the people freely expressed as stipulated in the United Nations Resolutions 1514 and 1541, for the ascertaining of the wishes of the people on their constitutional future. The majority opinion of the people in Singapore has never been truly ascertained in the sham referendum, and we urge the Government to ascertain honestly the views of the people of Singapore on their constitutional future in accordance with the United Nations Resolutions 1514 and 1541.

Sir, in spite of the various efforts of the colonial power to form pro-Malaysia parties in the Borneo territories and now even a pro-Malaysia Grand Alliance, it is clear that the majority of the people do not want Malaysia. In Sarawak, the Sarawak United People's Party is still solidly against Malaysia in spite of the arrests and the attempts to brand the Party as a Communist-front organisation. In Brunei, the intensity of opposition to Malaysia has already resulted in open revolt and guerilla warfare. Only in Sabah can they claim some support for Malaysia, and this is more apparent than real. The people in Sabah have been intimidated by communal fears into voicing their support for Malaysia following the Philippines' claim to Sabah and the uprising in Brunei. Even in the Federation itself, Sir, there is today a united opposition to Malaysia, comprising all political Parties in the Opposition. I mention all this only in passing to show that, in truth and in fact, the majority of the people oppose Malaysia not only in the Borneo territories, but also in Malaya itself. The powers-that-be can easily ascertain the views of the people. The Borneo territories have asked for a plebiscite, and neutral bodies, like Malayan student bodies in the United Kingdom, have similarly asked for a plebiscite, to truthfully ascertain the views of the people.

In column six of the Hansard of 27th March, 1963, Sir, it says that the Afro-Asian nations have now understood what Malaysia is all about. I can assure you, Sir, since my recent trip to London, all or most of the Afro-Asian nations know the true nature of Malaysia. Previously colonial and P.A.P. and Federation propaganda has been telling the world that there is very little opposition to Malaysia, that the majority of the people are for Malaysia. When I showed them pictures of rallies that had supported us, they were simply shocked. I showed them the pictures of the battle of rallies where the P.A.P.-dominated unions had a rally in the Happy World stadium and where our unions had a rally in the Jalan Besar Stadium. They just could not believe it.

An hon. Member: Have another one!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Now that he says it, let the Government give permission to us early and not delay us when we ask for it.

Let me read to you, Sir, the resolution of the Afro-Asian nations in Moshi, Tanganyika, the place where the P.A.P. tried to gate-crash uninvited into the Conference. And the resolution, although watered down to a certain extent, still says very interesting things, and I read it out here for the record. This resolution is on North Kalimantan. It says:

`The 3rd Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Conference meeting in Tanganyika Town of Moshi from February 4th to 11th, 1963, fervently greets the delegates of fighting North Kalimantan people and expresses full support for the just struggle of the North Kalimantan people against the neo-colonialists. This Conference appeals to Afro-Asian governments and peoples in general to render their full support to the struggle of the people of North Kalimantan against any federation which is now being intensively imposed by the imperialists in co-operation with their agents and to recognise the newly proclaimed full independence of the people of North Kalimantan.'

One more paragraph, Sir:

`We appeal to and urge all freedom-loving peoples of the world to take definite measures to oppose the reactionary actions of the British Government in sending armed troops to fight and repress the struggle for full independence of the people of North Kalimantan.'

That, Sir, is one of the resolutions in Moshi, where the P.A.P. tried, so unsuccessfully, to gate-crash into.

An hon. Member: Why point -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I think the Minister can have plenty of time to reply. He need not be so anxious and so eager.

Sir, Malaysia, as admitted by the P.A.P. in the speech here, has already given rise to the confrontation policy of our great neighbour, Indonesia, and instead of peace and stability, there is already repression, strife, and threats to peace in South-East Asia. Malaysia is a British plot to prolong colonial domination in South-East Asia. Malaysia is only the political aspect of the British Military Far East Unified Command, which covers exactly the same five territories. It is, in fact, an extension of the working room of SEATO, and consequently Malaysia is opposed by Indonesia and the other Afro-Asian nations. The only way to restore friendly relations with Indonesia, and also the Philippines, and to maintain peace and security in South-East Asia is to scrap Malaysia, abandon Malaysia.

Of course, we know that this is not within the power of the P.A.P. Government. The P.A.P. leaders have only found this Malaysian Plan attractive because of selfish and personal reasons. The role of the P.A.P. Ministers all along has been the role of stooges and flunkeys.

Sir, in column 6, it says in the last paragraph:

`... our destiny is irrevocably interwoven with that of Malaysia.'

Sir, let me say this: the destiny of Singapore is not irrevocably interwoven with that of Malaysia. But for the fact of being ruled by the same colonial power, the Borneo territories have nothing in common with Malaya, that is, the Federation and Singapore. The Borneo territories are separated from Malaya by 300 miles of sea. The eastern part of Sabah is more than 1,000 miles from Malaya. Apart from British colonial rule, therefore, the Borneo territories have little in common with Malaya. Their natural links-if we must talk of links-are more with Indonesia. And as for the people of Singapore, our demand, ever since 1948, when Britain separated us from the rest of Malaya, has been for re-unification. But unfortunately the present White Paper merger proposals and Malaysia do not give us a brotherly reunion. They are meant to accentuate differences, and may even create new ones, amongst us and amongst the various communal components of our country. They are meant to delay still further the re-unification of Singapore and the Federation into a genuine Malayan nation.

Already colonial repression has taken place as a result of the Malaysian Plan. Surely this is not what the people had elected the P.A.P. in 1959 for. The P.A.P. leaders should forget their own vested interests. Those words, Sir, are in column 6:

`We have a vested interest in Malaysia...'.

I ask the P.A.P. leaders to forget their own personal vested interests and really endeavour to help the people to fight the basic problems facing Singapore today, the problems of poverty, disease, ignorance, and want.

The P.A.P. must admit that in spite of all their opening of new industrial enterprises every other week they have not done anything to relieve the unemployment problem in Singapore. I do not have to repeat again the arguments which completely expose the false propaganda claim of "prosperity through Malaysia", "Independence through Malaysia".

Mr Ong Kee Hui, Chairman of the Sarawak United People's Party, and one-time member of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee, and a one-time active supporter of Malaysia, today calls the slogan of "Independence through Malaysia" a myth. Many who have been misled by colonial propaganda, and today support Malaysia, will also one day wake up as Mr Ong Kee Hui has woken up. They will then see through the falsity of P.A.P. propaganda and curse the P.A.P. for it.

Today, as a result of party interests having been involved, the P.A.P. leaders already realise that they have sold Singapore to the Federation lock, stock and barrel.

Overall Federation financial control will limit and restrict Singapore's development, both of new enterprises and of expanding recurrent expenditures of the Government. The Prime Minister has admitted as much. There is no promise of a Common Market, but there is already a call for extra burdens by the powers that be in the Federation. This call can only mean ultimate extra burdens also for the people of Singapore. As more and more expenditure is used on the armed forces, this extra burden will become more and more extra. And so will the difficulties of the people of Singapore become more and more acute. Both rich and poor will have to bear this extra burden.

In the matter of propaganda, the transfer of television from the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Ministry of Culture does not in any way prevent the overall Federation control over the radio in Singapore. The people of Singapore will not be able to have a voice of their own.

In column 20, Sir, the Government says that "no more great issues divide the people". This is not true-completely not true. A great issue divides the people. There is no greater issue that divides the people today than the issue of Malaysia. Malaysia divides not only Members in this House but also the people in the factories and in the workshops, in Government offices and business-houses, in coffee-shops and eating-houses, in flats and in the streets, in town and in the country. [Interruption] Malaysia divides the people not only in Singapore but also in all the other territories that go to form the proposed Malaysia. It divides the people in the whole of South-East Asia - 140 million of them. With such a division - [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. I have been listening to unseemly noises coming from the Front Bench of the Government side. I would suggest that the Ministers give the Member for Queenstown an opportunity of saying what he wishes to say without interruption.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Thank you, Sir,I was saying, with such a division of the people, national unity is not possible. Moreover, the sense of oneness disappears when barriers are erected between the various territories to limit freedom of travel and to prevent so-called Malaysian citizens from participating fully in the political life of the nation as a whole. Instead, there is today mutual suspicion, mutual fear and even hatred. Should Britain so unwisely still impose Malaysia on the people against their will it can only last so long as there are British bayonets and jets around. But this will mean a heavy price in blood and material for all concerned. I ask the P.A.P. Ministers, "Is this necessary: is this wise?". The failure of the Federation of Central Africa clearly shows us that without the support of the majority of the people, Malaysia cannot succeed: it must fail.

There is great talk of Communism in the Prime Minister's speech. It is a talk which the P.A.P. has always been interested in. I think I might as well leave this subject to the motion for the mass arrests when the question of Communism will be fully discussed. But I say, with all the ominous danger signals before us, let the P.A.P. not drift still further away from the straight and narrow path of service to the people. The national interests of the people must come before Party and personal interests and before foreign vested interests. The people of Singapore have no vested interests in Malaysia. It is the British Imperial Chief-of-Stall and the Forces he represents that have vested interests in Malaysia. General Hull publicly stated that Britain is 500 per cent behind Malaysia. This alone shows whose vested interests are involved in Malaysia - definitely not the vested interests of the people of Singapore. The vested interests of the people of Singapore lie in the reunification, as I have said, of the Federation and Singapore into a genuinely democratic, independent Malaya, free of foreign troops and free of foreign control. All of us in Malaya, that is, in Singapore and the Federation, irrespective of race, colour or creed, are members of one family. Therefore, before finally committing the fate and destiny of 1.7 million people to the British-sponsored Malaysian Plan, let the P.A.P. first pause and genuinely and honestly ascertain the views of the people on their constitutional future. Better still, let the House demand that the United Kingdom Government abandon the Malaysian Plan and proposed transfer of sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation as part of that Plan. Let all political detainees be forthwith and unconditionally released and let this be followed by general elections fairly conducted and supervised not by the P.A.P. ---

An hon. Member: But by the Barisan.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- but by the United Nations and then let fresh constitutional talks be held between the United Kingdom Government and the newly elected representatives of the people of Singapore. All eyes of the world are focussed on South-East Asia today. Even the Secretary-General, U Thant, is concerned over developing events in this part of the world as a result of the Malaysian Plan. The world is also concerned over the repressive measures carried Out by the colonial powers and their agents and stooges. Already there are hints of further repressive action. But let me say this: the people of Singapore can struggle constitutionally only so long as there are means still left for constitutional struggle, but it does look as if the P.A.P. is trying its level best to close all doors to constitutional struggle. If the last door to constitutional struggle is closed to the people, then there can remain but one final answer. Let the British and the P.A.P. rein in their horses on the brink of the precipice and turn back before it is too late.

Sir, I move the amendment* standing in my name:

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Chan Sun Wing.

`at end to add-

"but this Assembly regrets that the Government has failed to implement its election pledges and urges the Government to truthfully and honestly ascertain the views of the people on their constitutional future".'.

Mr Speaker: The Original Question was:

`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".'

Since which an amendment has been moved:

`at end to add -

"but this Assembly regrets that the Government has failed to implement its election pledges and urges the Government to truthfully and honestly ascertain the views of the people on their constitutional future".'.

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

I think, subject to what hon. Members have to say, there is no clear dividing line between the contents of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and the suggested amendment, and therefore I propose to allow speeches to range over the speech as well as this amendment, the effect of which, of course, would be that Members would have the opportunity of making one speech, and the Prime Minister, of course, will have the opportunity of replying to comments on the amendment when he replies to the whole debate. No dissenting voice? If there is no dissenting voice, the debate will then proceed on those lines. Any hon. Member wishing to speak?

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, we Members of this Assembly, over the past six months, have not had a chance to debate like players playing in a badminton or a golf game. Similarly, it is with my case, because of lack of practice it is possible that I am a bit rusty today. However, in my opinion, to quote from the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, the most important thing which we are faced with at the present moment is not the question of how many houses and how many stand-pipes have been put up or roads built, but the most vital thing is the problem of Malaysia. If it was important last year, it is even more important this year because at the latest, by the 31st August, Malaysia will be formed. However much, however bitter, the opposition by political Parties in this country, particularly from the Barisan Sosialis and its colleagues in the united front Communist organisations. I am confident that Malaysia will positively be formed. At the same time, a feeling of regret has emerged, not only from my Party but from all the people of Singapore, after hearing speeches from the Government over the past few months which have created a feeling of provincialism towards Singapore. Such speeches. I think, should not have been uttered by the Government, because if we are really keen to see Malaysia come into being at this moment, we should avoid such sentiments of provincialism because it Will create an unhealthy atmosphere and may lead to a chaotic state in Singapore. I do not know the reasons why the Prime Minister has uttered such a note, but I am sure he must have reasonable grounds for doing so. On my part, however, I feel that questions of eggs, ducks and poultry and so on do not affect Singapore alone, because in the future Malaysia, what happens in Singapore will be the responsibility of not only the Singapore Government but also the future Malaysian Government. If the people of Singapore face hardships, or the people of Brunei or North Borneo face similar hardships, that problem will not only be borne by the respective Governments but will also be the common responsibility of the Central Government. And we should assist every citizen in that particular territory to overcome his difficulties.

In addition, the speeches made by the Prime Minister which I have read in the newspapers, to the effect that because the stand of the Government of Singapore is correct, therefore there is no dispute between the Government of Singapore and the Republic of Indonesia, bring no good at all except to widen the gap between the position of Singapore vis-a-vis the Federation Government. I go to the Federation frequently and I mix not only with their leaders but also with the people of the Federation. The people there doubt the stand of the Government of Singapore. I would like to advise the Singapore Government, when making speeches relating to Malaysia or to any aspect of the administration of the Singapore Government not to make speeches which will lead to a feeling of dissatisfaction not only from the people of Singapore but also from the people of the territories which will comprise Malaysia.

Mr Speaker, in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech I was pleased to hear that the financial position of the Government today is healthy to the extent that it has a surplus of millions of dollars, which is all for the good of the State. Therefore, I wish to appeal to the Government, just as I had made a similar appeal last year, to reconsider the question of the arbitrary cuts in C.O.L.A. of Government servants which was carried out in 1959. Although the Government has made a partial restoration in the allowances, in my opinion, there should be a full restoration. If the P.A.P. and its leaders, especially the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture who is also the leader of the trade unions, are brave enough to fight for increased wages and better conditions of work for workers, then it follows that it is the responsibility of the Government to look after its own public servants. I appeal because, in the speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara mention is made of the financial position of the Government of Singapore which is in a healthy state.

Further, Mr Speaker, concerning education, I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the subject of textbooks. Each year at the beginning of the school session parents are unhappy because, firstly, they find it difficult to buy textbooks for their children; but the most important is the change of the textbooks. If a pupil this year is in Form 3, the books which he uses this year cannot be used the following year in the same form. New books will be used. This not only applies to one school but to all schools throughout Singapore. Therefore, it means that every year textbooks are changed. If in Form 3 a white-cover book is used, for instance, next year Form 3 will use a book with a black cover. This is cause for concern to parents from the financial point of view, especially those with a large number of dependants to support.

Another point, Mr Speaker, concerns housing. Although Government has erected thousands of houses and such houses are beautiful, there exists a more important and urgent problem which Government should give attention to and that is the lands belonging to landowners in Singapore for building houses for sale. The position in Singapore is that landowners prefer to build multi-storeyed flats, and they will make huge profits out of such flats, so that the result is that the squatters will have to be evicted and these squatters face difficulties and they have no place to put up their grievance. This has happened in Kampong Amber where a landowner is about to build flats and the squatters there have to be evicted and they have no alternative accommodation. I hope the Government will have them all assistance by whatever means. If I might be permitted to put a suggestion to the Government, I suggest that the Government set up a Re-housing Board just as they have set up a Rent Conciliation Board, where such matters can be thrashed out and that board can become the third party.

Another important matter, Mr Speaker. Just now I was dwelling on general matters and not on specific matters. Now I would like to deal with the position of the Malays in Singapore and I hope the Government will give serious consideration to my speech. Mr Speaker, Singapore has been administered according to the Constitution which we approved in 1958 where there is enunciated the special position of the Malays in Singapore. Although it is contained in the Preamble that it shall be the responsibility of the Government of Singapore to care for the interests of the Malays in all spheres and to assist them in their language, economy and culture - Mr Speaker, Sir, four years have elapsed since the P.A.P. came to power in Singapore - but in my opinion, what has been enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution has not been fully implemented by the Government and has been the cause of dissatisfaction to the Malays in Singapore.

I would like to debate the subject one point at a time. First, on the subject of Malay settlements. In addition to the settlement at Jalan Eunos, there are other areas which have been gazetted, including Kaki Bukit, Sembawang, Pasir Panjang, Ayer Gemuroh and Jurong. In these areas which have been gazetted as Malay settlements, only one area, that is the Kaki Bukit area, has been fully developed and building lots allocated to Malays. However, in the case of Pasir Panjang, Ayer Gemuroh and Sembawang, nothing has been done and I know that many have submitted their applications, but it is unfortunate that Government have made no attempt to develop the land and allocate building lots to applicants on the waiting list. The Prime Minister has said that the Malays prefer to live in houses with compounds where they can rear poultry. He has further stated that in areas which are near the City area, land cannot be made available, but land can be made available in the rural areas. But I know the areas I have mentioned, such as Ayer Gemuroh, Pasir Panjang and Sembawang. Although they are a great distance from the city, many Malay applicants have submitted their applications but Government has no immediate programme to allocate building sites. Also on the subject of housing, this has been touched upon by the Prime Minister who says that the Malays have no liking to live in fiats and they prefer to live in kampongs. The Malays like to live in flats in Singapore if we observe the housing estates built in Queenstown and Mountbatten Road. I see that many Malays are occupying these flats. They are military and police personnel; so that, to me, I think the Malays have no objection to living in flats. But there is one major obstacle. The Malays are of Islamic faith. If they live in fiats, they have to mix freely with non-Muslims like Chinese or Indians. If the Government can give an assurance that out of ten blocks of fiats, one or two can be set aside specially for the Malays, I am confident that the Malays will live in them; the idea being that the occupants of a complete block of flats will be of Muslim religion.

The third point concerning special rights is education. I congratulate the Government on having built two Malay secondary schools, one at Aljunied Road and the other at Mountbatten Road. It is a long-term programme of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is aware. But these secondary schools pose a big problem.

There is the problem of textbooks. Parents are not only unable to afford textbooks, but there is also the problem of making available to them Malay textbooks. This difficulty is also being experienced by schools in the Federation. I hope the Government, with the formation of Malaysia, will co-operate with the Education Ministry, Federation of Malaya, so that the standard of textbooks used in Malay secondary schools will be of the same standard as that used in the Federation of Malaya.

The fourth point concerns language. Here also it is a matter of regret. One of my colleagues has already raised this problem. That is to say, although the Government have declared publicly that Malay has become the national language and one of the official languages in Singapore, the Government have not taken positive steps whereby Malay can ultimately be the national and the sole official language. For instance, in the Federation of Malaya, annual monthly language campaigns are being conducted for the purpose of promoting Malay especially to non-Malays, but here in Singapore no such campaigns have been planned.

The fifth point concerns assistance to Sekolah Rakyat. This has been in force from the previous Government, which had rendered help to Sekolah Rakyat (people's schools). The rules then were slightly relaxed. The requirements insisted upon by the Education Ministry now are rather rigid. For instance, the provision of sanitary and health conditions. The school building must conform to certain standards. There have been many grouses from the management of these schools because, before Government could give assistance to them, strict conditions were imposed to the extent that the money given to such schools could not be used for the purpose of defraying the salaries of the teachers. When the accounts of the schools are submitted to the Education Ministry, it is required that the auditors must be qualified auditors. We know that qualified auditors charge a minimum of $100 for fees.

Another point concerning the special privileges of the Malays is aid in the economic field. Mr Speaker, everyone who reads the Utusan Melayu and the Straits Times during the past week must have noticed that there has been heated debate between the Utusan Melayu and the Straits Times as to how to help the economy of Malays in the Federation as well as in Singapore. Even more so the Malays in Singapore because it is enshrined in the Constitution of Singapore that the Government should help the Malays in the economic field. For four years the P.A.P. Government have assumed office, but the question of aid to the Malays in the economic field has not been given proper attention, except that free education has been given to the Malays from primary to university level, and of course the distribution of goats to the people in the Southern Islands. I hear that on one island only male goats have been distributed. There is not a single she-goat. Mr Speaker, the question of Malay economy is important. My suggestion is not aimed at producing more Malay directors of this or that company, but with a view to assisting, to uplifting the economy of the Malays. The Government can raise the economic status of the Malays and one way of doing this is for the Government, if possible, to train Malays in factories which are being built on the Jurong Industrial site. I hope the Government will use their good offices to persuade the factory directors to take in more Malays so that they can be trained to hold top posts in these establishments.

Another way by which Government can help the Malays is to build small factories where Government can provide capital on a 50-50 basis. Let us not think that the Malays in Singapore cannot provide the capital needed. On the whole, the earnings of the Malays in Singapore are favourable compared with those of the Malays in the Federation, if we observe ten houses occupied by Malays in the Federation, we see that only two have radios, whereas in Singapore, out of ten houses occupied by Malays, ten of them have radios: and now television too, so that the income of the Malays in Singapore, in fact, is more than that of the income of the Malays in the Federation. If the Government can build small-scale factories where Government will provide the capital on a 50-50 basis, I think we can encourage the Malays to participate in business.

Another method whereby we can promote Malay economy is - I refer this to the Minister for Finance - to set up investment firms. In the Federation this has been done and it has the support of the Government. The directors comprise two Government servants and two or three others nominated by the Government from among the Malays. In Singapore the Malays cannot use such benefits because we are not citizens of the Federation of Malaya. If the Government can set up such firms, I think this will certainly go a long way to assist the Malays in Singapore. Certainly the Government will tell us - will tell me because I put up this proposal - that the P.A.P. is a socialist Government and according to the principle of socialism, it cannot engage itself in a capitalist system. Mr Speaker, I think it is true. But if I may speak on facts, the P.A.P. claims itself to be socialist. But the policies that have been implemented are not socialist; they are a mixture of socialism and capitalism. The P.A.P. is fraternising with capitalists from abroad in order to persuade them to invest their capital here. From the long-term point of view, the efforts that have been undertaken by the P.A.P. Government to promote and to raise the standard of living of the Malays in Singapore, especially in respect of education, are good but we can see the fruits, say, in the next 10, 15 or 30 years. At this crucial moment, what do the P.A.P. Government intend to do to promote the Malays economically? Let the Government not think that because they claim they are a Socialist Government, they cannot engage in capitalist activities. If the Government are not willing to give serious consideration to this problem, I am afraid there will arise a feeling of dissatisfaction among the Malays in Singapore, which will in turn create problems which we cannot overcome. I would like to advise the Government - after they have been in power for four years, because I know that the P.A.P. are also awaiting the formation of Malaysia - to adopt the suggestions I have put forward.

Concerning my own constituency, Geylang Serai, originally there were many objections to the Geylang Serai Project because the inhabitants were not aware of the true object of the Government. However, those people who supported the Project did so on certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the hawkers who have been plying their trade will now be assured of a pitch after the Geylang Serai Project materialises. Secondly, evicted families from Geylang Serai must be given accommodation in the flats to be built. This also has been promised by the Government. Thirdly - and this is most important - when evicted persons have been allocated flats or shophouses, I hope the Government will give an opportunity of ranting the unallocated flats or shophouses to the Malays. As I explained earlier, the area has been predominantly a Malay area for decades, and, therefore, I hope the unallocated stalls or flats will be allocated to Malays.

In a nutshell, if you, Mr Speaker, have been following the position of the Malays in Singapore from the point of view of the Singapore Constitution, I regret to say that the Government have not carried out their responsibilities towards the Malays in Singapore as is required of them in the Singapore Constitution. However, on my own part, I wish to say that, on the question of education, I congratulate the Government for carrying out their responsibilities towards the Malays as they have promised - the only one.