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

Order read for resumption of adjourned debate on Amendment [8th April, 1963] to Question [8th April, 1963],

"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.'.".-(The Prime Minister).

Which amendment was,

`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".-(Dr Lee Siew Choh).

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

Mr Speaker: As I have indicated, the debate could range over the whole of the Address as well as the amendment. Inche Ahmad Jabri had the Floor.

3.43 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, to continue with my speech where I left off yesterday in connection with the motion in the name of the Prime Minister expressing our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I was speaking of the awakening on the part of the Government to expect co-operation and support of all political leaders and community leaders. However, from the practices employed by the Government, I can say that they still consider the Opposition Members as a group which cannot extend their co-operation in the interest of the people of Singapore. I say as a Member of this Assembly, as an elected representative of the people, that it is accepted in the Constitution of this State that each representative represents his respective constituency irrespective of whether the constituents voted for him or not. However, in the light of the tactics adopted by the Government, it does not even consider such representatives as elected representatives, let alone extend respect to them. For instance, I am unable to understand the concept of the P.A.P. democracy when, as the representative of the Southern Islands, I was not consulted on the occasion of the visit of the Head of State to the Southern Islands. I feel that it should have been proper on the part of the Government to have consulted me.

Later, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister will visit the rural constituencies throughout Singapore. I understand the Prime Minister has visited the Kampong Kembangan constituency where the representative is my colleague. I was informed that the `Member for Kampong Kembangan was only invited to participate just for name's sake only. I understand that the Prime Minister will be visiting my constituency - the Southern Islands - either on the 21st or the 28th. This came to my knowledge unofficially. Meetings were conducted by the heads of the Islands to prepare for the Prime Minister's visit. At these meetings, the question was asked why the Member for the Southern Islands was left out at the meetings to discuss the Prime Minister's visit. The Government's reply was that the object of the proposed visit is for the Prime Minister to know the extent of the difficulties encountered by the people in this constituency. The question which I have posed, Mr Speaker, is not motivated by sheer jealousy for fear of loss of my constituency, but it was motivated more by our attempt to achieve a democratic society. I think the time When we have different views on political ideologies was during election time. It is up to the people to make their choice according to the Constitution. In accordance with the practice of parliamentary democracy, the candidate who gets the most votes is elected. Surely the intention is not to carry on this ideological battle continuously. We should not engage in activities which will confuse the people. If we are sincere and are dedicated to the service of the people, we should not have any qualms or fear as to whether we may or may not be elected at the next election. That is the accepted practice of parliamentary democracy. We will have more responsibilities to shoulder in the next 4� months. If this practice based on party ideology is carried on, as expressed by the Member for Geylang Serai, there is bound to be that feeling of provincialism when Malaysia is achieved. This will lead to a state of affairs which no one wishes. As unanimously agreed, we should set an example to fulfil our duties to our people.

Mr Speaker, I further wish to touch upon the Communist activities as mentioned in the speech delivered by His Excellency. We must be ready to face any eventuality which may be posed by the Communist threat in future. It is appropriate that we should shoulder this responsibility. We cannot face this responsibility all by ourselves. When we realise the manoeuvres of our enemies arc to wreck our hopes, we should not' hesitate and be afraid to take positive steps which we are certain will bring prosperity and security to our State. As I have said in this House on a number of occasions, we have shown the dangers and yet the Government fights shy of taking action, or is passing the buck to the others to take action - I cannot say which. If the P.A.P. Government, which is non-Communist, is shy to declare openly that it is anti-Communist but sincerely believes that the Communists have no sympathy towards humanity and are constantly taking destructive action, I hope it will really behave like non-Communists. I hope it will not keep, in its midst pro-Communist elements who are still at large in Singapore. Mr Speaker, this matter will be mentioned again in the next motion. I do not intend now to make a lengthy speech.

Concerning the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown wherein he expresses his regrets, it seems to me that he is not satisfied with the decision taken by the people at the referendum held on 1st September last year. I realised that it is difficult to satisfy people like the Member for Queenstown who cannot accept the decision of the people. The call for honest general elections can be set aside so that we will not be bothered by that.

Regarding the future policy of the Government, I would like to mention the treatment given by the Government for equal opportunities. I think the Malays in Singapore are ready to live in harmony with the other communities, but the Government's hope to establish an egalitarian society will not be achieved. I respect the P.A.P. Government with its socialistic policies. But it has been stressed in the Constitution, as mentioned by the Member for Geylang Serai, that it should be the responsibility of any government to promote the interests of the Malays in all spheres. The object of including this clause in the Preamble is not because the Malays want to supersede the other races. It is but a request for the non-Malays to consider the special position of the indigenous people so that the Malays will not be treated like the Red Indians in America and the Maoris in New Zealand. What harm is there in the Government helping the Malays to lift up their standard of living irrespective of their political beliefs? I have to mention this, Mr Speaker, because this has been misrepresented as a result of different political beliefs. There are political Parties who are afraid to implement this clause in the Preamble. For instance, if there are non-Malay leaders, such leaders are not prepared to put forward a scheme for the Malays because the non-Malays will not support their political Parties in future. If there are Malays voicing the special position of the Malays, those Malays will be accused of indulging in communalism. Mr Speaker, the awakening of the Malays to survive and to live has been proved by their acceptance of the Constitution. If they are hard pressed and there is no change in their status-for instance, the provision of flats. The Malays are not accustomed to living in flats. If it is within the means of the Malays to live in flats, there is no doubt that they will be prepared to live in them. On the other hand, if he is a fisherman or a hawker earning $2 or $3 a day, surely he cannot afford to live in and pay a rental for a flat. The Housing and Development Board expect that rentals for flats must be paid promptly, otherwise the tenants will be evicted. This aspect must be considered.

We know the environments here are pleasant, but in the Southern Islands there is really a sorry state of affairs, to the extent that talented children, who are keen to further their studies and who have passed their examinations, cannot go to secondary school because their parents cannot afford to send them to secondary school in Singapore. In the circumstances, the parents have no alternative but to stop their children from attending secondary school in Singapore. I have on many occasions pressed the Government to build a secondary school in the Southern Islands for the benefit of the children there. Unfortunately, my request has not been considered by the Government. I do not know if it is because they consider the request as coming from a non-P.A.P. member. I have made arrangements for those children attending primary school to live on the mainland. I hear the officials of the Ministry are not very happy with my action because they consider it is a reflection on the Government. In all sincerity, Mr Speaker, I am prepared to assist these unfortunate children in any way I can to make available facilities for their further education. For instance, the school at Blakang Mati. In 1961 I raised this question. The Minister for Education himself, when asked when the school at Blakang Mati was going to be put up, replied that it would be in 1961. But it is not until 1963 that the school is put up. This is also to coincide with the forthcoming visit of the Prime Minister to the Southern Islands. Similarly, the jetty at Sekijang Pelepah. Because the Prime Minister will be visiting that island, work is now in hand to repair the jetty. The school at Sekijang Pelepah, which was built when the Member for Hong Lim was the then Minister for National Development, is being left haunted. These are all political manoeuvres and there is no sincere intention to bring facilities to the Southern Islands. We should not continue with these practices as political leaders; we should forget political affiliations when we fulfil our obligations towards the people. We should not allow the people to be made use of as political pawns.

On the question of .the Economic Development Board which is responsible for the economic development of Singapore, many sites have been prepared for industrial growth. One of the islands affected is Pulau Ayer Limau.

[Mr Deputy SPEAKER (Mr Mammen) in the Chair]

4.11 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): Mr Deputy Speaker, I learnt that from the newspapers and I immediately wrote to the Board about the plight of the people. Only when I wrote to the Board were they willing to communicate with me, and, of course, they were prepared to co-operate with me as an elected representative of the people. My assistance was sought on how to resettle the affected families because the island was going to be used as a harbour. In our endeavours to industrialise, I bad hoped that the Malays who have to be resettled on Pulau Semulut would also benefit. I had also hoped that this would pave the way for them to be in gainful employment. Hitherto, they are engaged in fishing. The setting up of factories in the vicinity will, it is hoped, mean more employment for the islanders. However, it appears that the islanders are still waiting for the setting up of factories and I feel guilty as though I have deceived them. When I got their consent to shift them from Pulau Semulut to Pulau Ayer Limau, I gave them an assurance that they would be considered for employment when the factories are set up. They are still waiting and there is not a single factory that has issued a notice to the islanders asking whether they are prepared to work in the factories. Very few people indeed have got employment. The Board has never recruited any hands from the islands. I fear that the affected places concern only the Malays - for instance, Pulau Semulut or Tanjong Kling - who will be resettled elsewhere. If there is an intention to get these people to live in flats, and if they are unemployed, how can we expect them to do so unless, of course, they are in steady employment?

Another example is the case of Pulau Bukom. We are happy to see the industrial growth in that island because this will mean more employment. However, Sir, this growth is only in its preliminary stage. At Pulau Bukom, the Shell Company has asked its employees to vacate their houses and find alternative accommodation on the mainland of Singapore. This again affects the Malays because the number of Malays living in Pulau Bukom is great. I hope the Government will not sit tight and watch the Company taking such steps without first making available alternative accommodation for its employees. We do nut object to the Company enlarging its sectors, but it must ensure that its employees will not be put to hardship. Then again the question of employees being dismissed.

I do not intend to dwell at length on this matter, Mr Deputy Speaker, but what I really wish to convey is the position of the Malays. The position of the Malays has not received attention. Although it has been mentioned that the Government has provided free textbooks and free schooling, it is still found that the agents of Government or Government officials do not give consideration to the special position of the Malays. For instance, on the subject of circulars from Ministries regarding the provision of textbooks, some teachers have failed to notify the students of this facility for the reason that if they do so it means more work for them. Such circulars which the teachers receive from the Ministry are not relayed to the students. For instance, if certain forms issued by the Ministry are in the English language, the parents cannot understand these forms. So time is wasted in their translation. The excuse given by the teachers is that the applications submitted cannot be considered as they are too late. This is the method employed by the Ministry. I think it must be rectified. It is a slow process to build a just and equal society.

4.22 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Hansard Vol. 20, No. 1 is supposed to contain the Government's policy speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I challenge the Government to submit this speech to Parliamentary experts and seek their opinion as to whether this is the policy speech of the Government for 1963, a speech which is customary for the Head of State to deliver at the opening of a new Session of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly.

Sir, this speech is nothing but an election campaign speech spreading P.A.P. propaganda. It is a catalogue listing the P.A.P.'s self-styled achievements in the greatest detail possible.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Hear, hear!

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: It is not a policy speech. It does not give any idea of what policy the Government intend to follow this year. It gives no suggestion at all ---

Mr Ong Chang Sam: Bankrupt.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: --- of the legislation Government intend to introduce or amend, the social services Government intend to provide, Government's attitude and plans with regard to national employment, security, labour, trade union, and so on. In fact, it tells us nothing: absolutely nothing. Compare this with the policy speech delivered by the Head of State of the Federation of Malaya on 26th April last year. Sir, if you will look at Hansard Vol. IV, No. 1 of the Federation, at col. 27, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong says:

`As Members of both Houses of Parliament you are here today, as you have been in past years, to hear the important aspects of my Government's policy so that you may deliberate on these and through this gain acceptance in both Houses during this session.'

Later, he goes on to say:

`I propose rather to survey the broad lines of policy my Government intends to follow during this year. In doing so I believe that you will obtain a most valuable and useful picture of the thinking, planning and priority which my Government considers to be most beneficent and productive in the national interests and well-being of my country and my people.' That is exactly what everybody expects out of a policy speech. Do we find that in our Hansard Vol. 20, No. 1, Sir? Nothing of the sort. We are told nothing at all. And not only is the Opposition kept in the dark concerning new legislation and amendments until these are introduced, but when they are introduced, they are often introduced on Certificates of Urgency and rushed through. Sir, not satisfied with using public funds and Government machinery to promote P.A.P. propaganda, they now insult the esteemed office of the Head of State by turning him into a mouthpiece and publicity agent for the Party. They abuse the privilege and dignity of this Chamber by using it as a ground for election ---

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Point of order. Sir, I think it would be less embarrassing all round if the Lady for Mountbatten could confine herself to what has been published. I think no reference has ever been made to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. He fulfils a constitutional role and what he has read out has been published by the Government. I think it would be preferable if she makes no reference to him whatsoever.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So far the hon. Member for Mountbatten has not attacked the Yang di-Pertuan Negara personally.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Thank you, Sir. May I say that I have no intention at all whatsoever to attack the Yang di-Pertuan Negara? My attack is on the Government for drawing up that speech and making him deliver it.

Sir, one just has to read the speeches of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara - of course, it is a Government speech; and again I repeat it is not the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech - and one will see very clearly the reasons why the Alliance Government in the Federation is such a success compared with the failures of the P.A.P. Government in Singapore, which is only one mile away.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Ha, ha!

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: The Causeway is about one mile long, Sir.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The Head is in Kuala Lumpur.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: He is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of the whole of the Federation, Sir; of Johore as well, which is only one mile away from Singapore.

When reading the Hansard of the Federation, one cannot help but realise that the Alliance Government is humble, courteous and full of gratitude and consideration for others. Immediately after the formal salutary remarks, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong said, at col. 27:

`Speaking in a spirit of profound reverence and humility I should first offer on behalf of the whole nation our heart-felt thanks to Almighty God for the peace, happiness and progress which we have enjoyed in the past year. May we, under His protection and benevolence, continue to have these blessings, so that we may carry out our duties honourably and well, conscious always of our responsibilities both to God and to our fellowmen.'

Later, Sir, in col. 40, he said -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. After listening to the hon. Member for Mountbatten so far, I am wondering whether we are debating the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's speech or the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. She is quoting the Hansard of the Federation Parliament. Of course, she can quote the contents in passing, but if she is going too much into details, we will be debating the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's speech instead of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, I am just pointing out what is missing in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech-things which should have been in, and rather than give my own opinion, there is no better way than to quote examples of what should have been in it, from other speeches of Heads of State. As I said, in col. 40, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong gives credit to the civil servants. And he says:

`I would like to take this opportunity, which I am sure all Members of both Houses of Parliament will wish to share with me, to pay a warm tribute to their devotion to duty and to their service to the community during our years of independence.' Everyone, Sir, even the abstract God, receives thanks where thanks are deserved. The Federation Government even took the opportunity to record its gratitude to countries and organisations that extended to it hospitality and aid and to show its appreciation and the importance of the co-operation of the people. I have mentioned all this, Sir, to show that all these human relations are very, very important and if only our Government - the P.A.P. Government in Singapore - would practise little appreciation of human relations like that, and when they have a public opportunity like that, to thank publicly the people who have given aid, hospitality and the like; also the civil servants, who have given their services; the Government would get much better results and a better feeling internationally and locally.

An hon. Member: Election speech.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, I am not hoping that the United Nations or other governments and international bodies would give me their vote when I ask the Government to thank them.

Sir, even the Opposition is not discriminated against in the Federation. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong even mentioned them as part of the whole Parliament when he gave credit to the Parliament, and when he said that the people looked up to them as their leaders and their representatives be included everyone in the House. Even the Opposition was mentioned and their role was recognised and respected by the Head of State.

Now, compare it, Sir, with this, our Hansard, which the Government was very anxious that I should come to and leave the Federation Hansard. I shall leave the Federation Hansard for the time being and come to the Singapore one. Compare this with the egoistic, selfish and arrogant atmosphere of the P.A.P. policy speech which was delivered by the Head of State here. `The P.A.P. claims all the credit for all the achievements that they have catalogued in the so-called policy speech. No one else deserves any mention or credit, neither God nor man, not even the civil servants without whom no P.A.P. projects could have been implemented - none of them received any mention or thanks in the Speech. Neither the U.N. nor international organisations and governments who, as I have pointed out just now, are not going to give me any of their vote, and who have rendered aid, service arid hospitality, not even the electorate who have voted them to power have deserved any mention. To the P.A.P. - I think this is a well-known fact - the whole world is a P.A.P. world and no one, as I have said, neither God nor man matters. They live, they work, they strive - they work very hard, I give them that credit, Sir. After blaming them for not giving credit where credit is due, I give them the credit of working very hard. They work very hard, they strive very hard not for the people of the State of Singapore but for the P.A.P. and the P.A.P. alone. Development projects have been imp1emented with one eye on the next election and the other eye on their present seats in this Chamber. Consequently, no eyes are left for the welfare of the people.

For example, Sir, in the housing project, you will see in Hansard, Volume 13, No. 2, 1960, column 82, it was only after I had exposed to the public that the Government had only built 124 houses as against 6,734 built during the first year of the previous Government, that they started to wake up and started building. They were then complacent about public needs because they were over-confident of their power and their overwhelming victory in the last elections.

Sir, now that they have to fight for their survival because of the splits in their Party, they are pushing ahead, building houses in order to catch votes, ignoring the vital social consequences of their planning. For example, Sir, may I ask the Government whether they have taken the trouh1e to find out - for instance in the case of a squatter who has been forced by fire, or some inevitable factor like slum clearance, to seek a Housing Board flat - this squatter with a househo1d of twenty persons, who used to pay $2 or $3 assessment probably, when he moves into a fiat, let us say, if he takes a one-room flat and pays about $25; only four or five persons can stay in that flat? Therefore, he has to rent about four or five flats for his entire household, bringing his expenditure on rent to about $100 a month. Have the Government taken the trouble to find out whether this extra expenditure - such a great difference, Sir, $100 as compared to the previous $2 or $3 - whether this extra expenditure incurred in paying rent and public utilities has caused increased crime and delinquency? Whether people have to go out and steal to make enough money to feed their family? Or whether the need for extra money and the opportunities made available by the new housing provision have led to the economic independence of the women? The necessity to work and the opportunities available might have made the women go out and work. Therefore, it is a good thing and Government should encourage this. Has Government taken the trouble to see the social consequences of its housing project? How and to what extent the modern provision of housing affects and disturbs the patterns of family and community life? Whether modern housing patterns promote racial harmony? Or do they have the opposite effect of causing friction among people of different races, beliefs, customs and creeds? And what role Government can play to help minimise if not eradicate entirely these frictions?

You have heard the Member for Geylang Serai mention, Sir, that if blocks of flats are offered to Malays, he feels that they would accept blocks of flats. Well, it is up to the Government to find out whether it is good in the long run to segregate them for temporary peace, or whether it is better for the Government to try and promote tolerance among them. All this is very, very important. I am asking the Government to say whether all this has been thrashed out, debated, and the opinions of experts and those interested and the families themselves sought; whether a survey or a research has been made to find out the true situation, to avoid racial friction and, what is more important, to promote racial tolerance; to discover whether the breaking up of large households into small family units have improved family ties among members of the families and the different families in the household. This is as important as racial harmony - this family harmony - because where there is not this harmony in the family, it is a breeding ground for juvenile delinquency. Do the Government know to what extent modern sanitation and health and other facilities have benefited the people?

Sir, you will agree with me that misuse of those facilities can in time - probably 20 years, 15 years, 10 years - turn that housing estate into a slum. Has Government tried to find out whether people from the slums who come to a housing estate are living up to the standard expected in a housing estate, or are they bringing slum standards into the housing estate and endangering or threatening to turn the whole of Singapore into slums - the more housing estates, the more slums? This is not just imagination, Sir; it could happen and to prevent this happening, we must find out -

An hon. Member: Do not build houses!

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Oh, no, Sir. By no means, the solution is not in "Do not build houses," Sir. If you get indigestion, do you starve yourself to death? No, that is not the remedy. If you have indigestion, you find some remedy which will get rid of your indigestion. You do not starve yourself to death. You do not say, do not build houses because they are going to turn them into slums. You have to prevent them from becoming slums.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: How?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Well, it is up to the Government. Sir, when we form the Government, I shall tell the P.A.P. how? And if they are interested, Sir, they can find out how even before we form the next government.

Now, this is how! I hope they will take note of this, and they will give some assistance. Two women organisations in Singapore, the P.P.S.E.A.W.A. and the Wanita Singapura are jointly making a study and survey in their own limited way - I admit it is a very limited way - to find out the real state of affairs in these mutters and to see how women organisations in Singapore can step in and help to minimise any adverse consequences that may be revealed by the survey. If the Government is sincere in its efforts to raise the standard of living in Singapore, they would take interest in finding the answers to these questions and assist in the said survey, although it is headed by a Member of the Opposition.

As the P.A.P. Government is inclined to belittle and mock all efforts except their own, I would like to quote a little paragraph from page 35 of the Report of the E.C.A.F.E. Seminar held in Singapore last December. Talking about voluntary organisations, women organisations and youth organisations, it says:

`It is only too easy to underestimate their value in relation to the size of the problem with which they are concerned, but the fact that they are concerned and that within their limitations they are tackling the problem, are of great significance.'

That is the Report of the United Nations, so I hope the Government will not belittle it too much. If they think that the effect of the survey is too small, they can come and help make it more effective.

Sir, the Member for Geylang Serai mentioned the housing development in Kampong Amber. I would like to add this. No doubt compensation is paid to the squatters, but it is not sufficient to find them a new home. It may not be advisable, and I am not here trying to suggest that the Government stop the development - No! It may not be advisable to hinder private efforts in development, because such efforts do help to ease unemployment and the housing problem. But the poor victims of such development must not be allowed to suffer. The Government must help them to get new homes; they deserve this after giving up their own homes in order that Singapore might be developed.

Now, where labour is concerned, Sir, in column 20 of the same Hansard, that is, Volume 20, No. 1, the Government said they hoped to "build it modern industrial city out of Singapore". May I remind them, Sir, that the success of their industrialisation projects depends on labour conditions in Singapore? If the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis continue to interfere in trade unions and compete in encouraging strikes in order to get the support of the trade unions, then no amount of effort to industrialise Singapore will succeed. In the end, who will suffer? Not the P.A.P., not the Barisan, not even the capitalists because the capitalists have elsewhere to invest their money besides Singapore. It is the worker who will lose his job if this goes on. Trade unions must be left alone and not be coerced and intimidated by the P.A.P. or the Barisan into supporting them. Psuedo advocates of unity and freedom for trade unions are now themselves causing a serious split in the trade union movement. Everybody knows, Sir, today there is a clear demarcation within the trade union movement - one side is the pro-P.A.P. trade unions, the other side is the pro-Barisan trade unions. Whenever you talk about a strike, they ask which, P.A.P. or Barisan trade union? They even call them "P.A.P." or "Barisan" trade unions. I am sure you will find this very common in the streets and shops when you ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What about the S.P.A?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, I think we can proudly say that we have not interfered with and we have not used labourers to win an election.

An hon. Member: Women.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Not even women. When I say "used", Sir, I mean used to their disadvantage - exploited them. Of course, all our campaigns are carried out by men and women, not cats and dogs surely. What I mean is, we never exploit them like the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis exploit workers, causing them to lose their jobs, and who cares? "They can lose their jobs; all the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis want is their support." I warn them, Sir, they will not get their support when the workers lose their jobs.

I leave it to the world to judge whether the P.A.P. and the Barisan are true trade unionists or political adventurers, whether they are the great statesmen that they claim to be, or whether they are just power-mad politicians stabbing their own ex-comrades in the back in their struggle for power, as each has accused the other of doing. I am not accusing them, Sir; I have heard them accusing one another, and I leave the world to judge which they are. It would be relevant here, Sir, for me to quote what the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation said in his speech to the Grand Alliance. He said. "A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation." Whether the P.A.P. and the Barisan think of the next generation or the next election is for the world to judge.

Now, where finance is concerned, it is obvious to anyone reading column 7 of Hansard, Volume 20, No. 1, that the P.A.P. Finance Minister is a magician who just has to wave his magic wand, and hey presto! the money in the Treasury begets more money. But what is not so obvious, Sir, is that the magic wand is nothing but P.A.P. inactivity for almost two years. No less than the Hon, the Deputy Prime Minister himself admits that in Hansard. Volume 13, No. 6. Our Deputy Prime Minister said on the 9th of August, 1960, in column 460:-

"The slowness - admittedly the Government was slow in getting housing development to start - was due to the depletion of technical staff and the haywire changes in building plans. A total of 79 monthly-rated staff left the service of the S.I.T. They were dismissed, or they resigned, or they retired. And of these 79, 22 were senior officers, five being heads of departments and five were heads of sections."

Our Deputy Prime Minister admitted the inactivity in housing development and he also accepted the responsibility in column 461 for the fact that "our housing development programme has not got off to a fine start". True, that was years ago! But there were two years of inactivity, and the money reserved for that development has accumulated and that has formed the magic wand that has made money beget money.

However, Sir, I must give credit to the Minister for Finance. I am prepared to respect his claim for credit for having brought the Treasury to this wealthy state. We all know he is a brilliant Finance Minister and I give him credit. Although I did say that the money has accumulated through two years of inactivity, I do give him credit for bringing Singapore into such a wealthy state as they claim it is now. Singapore is now wealthy enough to make, according to this Hansard, Volume 20, No. 1, contributions in loans and other assistance to help develop the Borneo territories. Do you not think, Sir, that it is only fair and just that the Government should restore in full the money which has been "illegally" - Sir, I say "illegally" because not even a month's notice had been given - illegally taken from the pay of civil servants who have given the best years of their lives in loyally serving the State of Singapore? Now, let me make this very clear. I do not want what I have said twisted to mean my objection to the Government giving help to the Borneo territories. It is nothing of the sort. What I am saying is this, I am appealing to the Government, to borrow a phrase of the Prime Minister of the Federation when he addressed the Grand Alliance recently - this is what he said - I am appealing to them to "see the elephant in front of their eyes before looking for the needle across the seas." Remedy this great injustice that they have done to civil servants before attempting to extend a helping hand to others across the seas. It is a very good gesture to extend a helping hand: I am all for it. I say let us remedy this home injustice first.

The money is theirs by right, Sir. It was taken away from them because of the Government's miscalculation and lack of foresight. Had they the foresight to see the state of affairs we would be in today, probably the civil servants' pay would not have been cut. The money is still in the Treasury, and it has helped to beget more money. It should be returned to them in full now.

No logical reason, Sir, can be given for returning only part of that money. I hear someone say in jest, "... with interest". That reminds me, the money has helped Government to gain interest on it, and the civil servants have never asked for interest. They have just asked for the money that has been taken from them. They are not asking for interest; they are pretty generous.

Sir, could I end up with this? I say to the P.A.P. Government: restore the pay cut in full and they will get more goodwill and co-operation from the civil servants than all the dinners at Sri Tamasek. Thank you, Sir.

4.48 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, regarding the policy of the Government as expressed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara recently, I am glad to draw attention to that part of the speech wherein he says Singapore has weathered the storm and that all is now calm and tranquil. But we must always be vigilant because there are still some elements in our midst who are actively trying to disrupt national security and sabotage our plans for Malaysia.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am surprised that these anti-national elements are still against the establishment of Malaysia. Has the referendum not been held and has it not given a definite answer that the people of Singapore from all walks of life have decided how their future should be established?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I must say in this Assembly, let this be a warning to all those anti-nationalist elements who wish to disrupt the unity of the Malaysian territories, because Malaysia is not for the Malays only, but also for the Chinese and for the peoples in the territories of Borneo and from various races. Malaysia is non-communal, as has been said by the Barisan Sosialis. If the Barisan Sosialis try to flare up the flame - and they are trying very hard to do this - then I say it is possible this will mean loss of life and will result in bloodshed. There have been enough examples of this in the past.

There are people in Malaysia who adhere to foreign ideologies and who would stand by Djakarta. We are firm in our stand. Although the people who are the leaders of our neighbouring country, Indonesia, are people of our own kind and they are against Malaysia, nevertheless we pay no heed to them at all and we will proceed with Malaysia. So the Barisan Sosialis should be aware of this and consider the matter very, very carefully, because to be against Malaysia is to be against a nationalist movement among people who have the same outlook. So, if there are still those elements within our midst who adhere to foreign ideologies - it is possible that they in their dislike for Commonwealth troops would prefer foreign troops - they should not dream that we will give them an opportunity to bring in foreign troops, who are tinted red, to look after the welfare of these territories. I myself. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, will defend my homeland no matter what happens. I hope this warning will be received well by those parties concerned and they should not bring about communalism in an effort to bring about peace and harmony.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we know the Assembly would not like the British and Commonwealth troops to be in Malaysia, but this is only a matter of political rnanoeuvres. We make use of them for our

Mr Deputy Speaker: As it is 5.00 p.m. I suspend this sitting until half-past five. Order, order.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Question again proposed.

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, continuing what I have said just now in the Assembly regarding the attitude of U.M.N.O. especially towards those political Parties which are anti-national, we know why the Barisan Sosialis are much inclined to make Singapore a fort for opposing Malaysia. I am altogether surprised that the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis were not connected with an incident recently when a member of one of the labour unions I represent had his nose broken by one of the favourites of the Barisan Sosialis. One of their leaders asked a seaman, "Are you Lee Kuan Yew's man or Tunku Abdul Rahman's? I asked that person, "Did he ask whether you are Lim Ching Siong's man?" The reply was, "No." Mr Speaker, that means that the Barisan Sosialis do have an ulterior motive as stated by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in his speech.

Further, Mr Speaker, I have made investigations into the labour movement before and after the formation of the Barisan Sosialis who can be said to have control of the leadership of S.A.T.U. The investigations were in connection with the workers in Shaw Brothers. As a leader of the people, as one who has the interest of the trade unions at heart, I have found that all the statements published in the papers used the name of the persons without their knowledge. I asked one man. "During the election, whom did you vote for?" The answer was, "I voted for the P.A.P." I asked him, "Why have you changed your attitude now?" The reply was that because of the formation of Malaysia he was forced to vote for the P.A.P. and also because the statements given to the Press were without the knowledge of the persons concerned. It is certain that such things are not carried out in a democratic country; and the Barisan Sosialis have used all these methods for their own interests.

I asked the members present at that meeting, "Are you or are you not aware that you are all members of the unions under the administration of S.A.T.U.? Do you know that the money you pay is used against the P.A.P. Government, the present Government? You are paying money out of your wages and allowances to the Central Control of S.A.T.U. for the purchase of paper for making banners, and for anti-Malaysia purposes? You may not be aware that you are being used to stab the people who have tried to help you in your fight now."

Mr Speaker, what has been said in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech is true. There are people and political Parties who try to misinterpret our motive today.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Queenstown has spoken in this Assembly.

5.37 p.m.

[Mr Deputy SPEAKER in the Chair]

Inche Mohd. Ali: He has said that he does not like the formation of Malaysia. I wish to know - and this question can be answered by his friends - have they tasted whether the formation of Malaysia is good or bad? If they want to know whether it is good or bad, then let it be formed. With its formation, I believe the fate of the Central Control of the Barisan Sosialis today will be certain.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not look upon them as henchmen of the countries I have mentioned just now, but if they want to go against our wishes, then they can say that Malaysia is bitter, because in the future we know that the responsibility for defence would be changed. Now the defence of the people of Singapore and the defence of the people of the Federation are different.

Let us try not to do anything which will give a bad impression of our good intention. I know well the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis Members. I would like to explain in this Assembly. When I was about to have discussions with the Singapore Maritime Employees' Federation at a meeting, I recognised who the Barisan Sosialis members were. They were arrogant. They ignored us. They did not want to speak to us. Are these the people who are in control? I am surprised why they have such an attitude. But we went with open hearts in order to discuss matters which concerned the workers. But they showed their true colours. They were angry and they did not care for us. They wanted to discuss between themselves and the employees only. And this is their attitude, which I know. It has been an example to me and I must be careful about what I do when I meet such people. I hope we have noted the true character of the Central Control of the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Deputy Speaker. I fully agree with the findings of the Prime Minister on the wishes of the Member for Anson in order to inquire into the position of the labourers, whether they want to know who will sit in the labour unions, people who wish to bring in foreigners, or people who are working against this ideal. It is time that this matter be settled

Mr Deputy Speaker. I am rather concerned now about the working of the S.A.T.U. group. As we know, the S.A.T.U. group, as published in the Working Paper, have not been registered, and since they have not been registered, why have the Government given them the opportunity to exist? I am surprised. It is not that I want to defend the P.A.P. Government at this time. With regard to the accusation thrown against the P.A.P. Government, namely, that democracy does not exist in this country, it is clear that the body which has not been registered is, according to the law, wrong. The law says it is wrong, but it is allowed to carry on. Does that mean that democracy is non-existent? I therefore hope that the group that has been twisting all the statements should be careful. I say this because there will be a time in the future when I believe a change will take place in the labour movement; because the workers today, whether Chinese or Malays, are still influenced by a number of people who can speak, and who speak so that they can influence these people. But the time has conic, I believe, when especially the Malays will rise - I am not bringing up the question of communalism - but they are aware that they have a duty :o participate in the controlling body of the labour movement both in Singapore and throughout the Federation. We cannot allow this opportunity to pass to a number of adventurers who try to make use of us for purposes of election or to grab power. There is current today a new sense of awareness and we bear it in our bodies. It is not that we do not believe in centralised control of trade unions, but we do not want them to use this opportunity for bettering their own position or for any other motives. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is as far as I can say here which can be of guidance to the people concerned.

Coming back to the question of housing, I feel proud and satisfied with the ability of the Government to increase the number of houses in the course of its administration of the country. I am not able to state, but I hope the Government will be able to clarify when the Malay Settlement will be divided and allocated to the people who are entitled.

In addition, I appeal to the Government to consider the position of the people who under the present policy of Government cannot get aid from the. Social Welfare Department. Until today the people of Singapore who do not have families do not get aid from the said Department because they do not have dependants. But we should remember that they are the people of Singapore just the same, and are entitled to receive aid when they are unemployed.

Further, I appeal to the Government and to the respective Ministries to review the position regarding the traders and hawkers, especially roadside operators alt night markets. Within the Kembangan area, Jalan Eunos, the road is very small, and on every Friday night when there are night markets all traffic along that road cannot go through safely, and it is very dangerous. I hope the authorities concerned will take this as an example so that all night markets are allotted fixed and proper places where there is not much traffic in order to avoid accidents and danger.

There are also cases which I have brought to the Ministry concerned, namely, that hawkers' unions demand coffee money from hawkers who cannot afford to pay it. Because of this, the opportunity for those people to hawk is nil. I believe this matter is within the knowledge of the respective authorities, and I hope they are able to help all parties concerned.

Further, on behalf of the Opposition group, I am satisfied with the Government once again in that they have fulfilled 100 per cent of the appeals that come from my constituency, and although I am responsible to my constituency I appeal to the Government particularly not to forget other constituencies, although those constituencies represent Parties that the Government do not like especially in Kampong Ayer Gemuroh and Padang Terbakar where all essential requirements are very little. I hope the Government can look into this matter so that the residents in that area can be said to have their own father and will get full attention. That is more or less all that I can say in this Assembly.

I also thank the Government for taking a great interest in matters which I have brought to its notice, including the appeals of the people of Kampong Amber, where the Ministry of National Development has already carried out its work satisfactorily.

However, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have one matter with which I am not satisfied. That is the question of building drains in Kampong Kembangan. I find there are about 200 houses or families who will be the victims. I hope the Government will try to carry out other plans to deepen the existing drains so that the occupants of the houses who have taken the trouble to build these houses are not inconvenienced and that their houses will not be demolished, because that would become a big problem both to me and to the Government.

5.53 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are one or two points which I wish to bring to the attention of the House. The Prime Minister in his speech said that private enterprise, so far as building in Singapore was concerned, was estimated by the Government to contribute at least 6,000 units per annum during the course of the ensuing year. And I wish to bring to the notice of the House a problem which intensive private development is bringing about in Singapore, and, unless it is checked, will lead to great difficulties in the future. Private development now confines itself to building multi-storey flats to a very large extent and selling each of these flats to people in the middle income groups. Now, it raises a problem of management of these houses, a problem of ownership in the future, and the problem of maintenance and upkeep of these flats and of the block in which the flats are situated. The Housing Board builds these flats and lets them out to private individuals. But while they are let out, the Housing Board sees to it that the passages and stairways are properly maintained, lighted and looked after. So far as these private flats are concerned, they arc now being sold by the hundreds to the middle income group people. The private developer is a private limited company. The point I wish to stress, Mr Deputy Speaker, is this: that these are all private limited companies, and in the conveyances which they give to the purchasers of these flats, these companies give certain covenants, certain undertakings to the purchasers of these flats, such as that they would maintain the stairways, see that they are lighted, that they are repaired and so on and so forth, which makes it possible for the flat-dwellers to enjoy living in those flats. Now it has already come to our notice that some of these private limited companies which started, say, five or six years previous to today have wound themselves up. They have wound themselves up and disappeared from the scene and have ceased to be legal entities. `The net result now is that some of the people who bought the houses from them do not have anybody against whom they can proceed in case the covenants they have undertaken to carry out are not implemented. But if it is a private person, you can either go against him or against his estate. But if it is a private limited company and once it goes into liquidation, it ceases to exist, and there is nobody against whom you can proceed. I bring this problem to the attention of Government who are now taking a liberal view with regard to houses which are owner-occupied. I think one of the results of that attitude is going to be an even more intensive development of flats by private companies with a view to idling them to the middle income groups. My own view, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that these private limited companies which go in for housing development should be treated in a different category, and separate legislation should be brought about whereby they could be kept under proper control, so that these middle income group purchasers, in five or ten years' time, will not be left high and dry with their stairways rotting, their roofs leaking, and all the covenants not being able to be implemented. That is the first point I thought I should bring to the notice of Government.

The next point, Mr Deputy Speaker, on which I wish to address the House is the question of the water supply of Singapore, on which the Prime Minister spoke. The Prime Minister has indicated in his speech that during the last three years there has been an increase of 9 million gallons in the consumption of water, so that the yearly increase at the moment is 3 million gallons.

The Prime Minister has given figures that the consumption of water today is 73 million gallons per day. He has also indicated that so far as Tebrau is concerned, he can get a maximum intake into Singapore of 45 million gallons per day, and that the rest of the water supply for every day conies from the impounding reservoirs. He has also indicated that in the impounding reservoirs there is only 54 per cent of the maximum supply. The position, to my mind, is a very serious one, particularly as the Government is pressing on with the building of flats. The more flats that are built, the more water will be consumed. And if the Government builds another 12,000 houses, as they say they will, then the consumption will most assuredly rise beyond 3 million gallons next year. If the scheme in Jurong materialises in the way the Minister for Finance hopes that it will, and if the steel mill in Jurong goes up, in the way we hope it will, the steel mill alone will account for one million gallons per day.

The Government has suggested that it wil1 build some sort of a natural reservoir in Jurong. How far that project has progressed Government has not informed us, although schemes are afoot, it seems. Whether the reservoir will be in readiness to receive the steel mill is another matter. All in all, Mr Deputy Speaker, the position with regard to the water supply is a very grave one, and I regret that the Government does not seem to be unduly worried about the position, because it seems to be taking its time over augmenting our water supply. It has started a scheme at Scudai, and it says that under the Scudai scheme it hopes to get in about 15 million gallons per day. It says that that river will be brought into operation, so far as our water supply is concerned, towards the end of next year.

Now, the position with regard to Scudai and Tebrau is this: these two rivers are tidal rivers and they are subject to a dry weather flow and a wet weather flow. When the Prime Minister says he can get a maximum of 45 million gallons per day, I think what he really means to tell the House is that from the river at its wettest, he will get 45 million gallons per day. But when Tebrau is at its driest, he cannot get more than 10 million gallons per day. Similarly Scudai is also subject to a dry and wet weather flow, and when it is at its driest, he cannot get from it more than 5 million gallons per day. Assume a very dry season, such as we might run into in the course of the next few months, the result will be that even with Tebrau and Scudai working to its full dry weather capacity, we could have a water shortage in Singapore, and we will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I regret very much that the Government is not pressing on as fast as it can with the Johore River scheme, and I regret that the first intake from the Johore River, according to the Prime Minister, will not be until the year 1967, which is 4 years away. Unless and until we can get to Johore as quickly as possible, we shall always be faced with the danger of a water shortage in Singapore, Nobody likes to predict ill, but, unless we get to the Johore River as quickly as possible, we will always be faced with the danger of a shortage of water supply during the dry season in Singapore. The dry season in Singapore also coincides with the dry season in the south of Johore where these two rivers are situate.

The last point I wish to raise, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a matter raised by the leader of the Barisan, the Member for Queenstown. Sir, he has indicated to the House how strongly he and his Party support the parliamentary system which we have adopted in Singapore. One of the basic things on which parliamentary democracy rests is that we must accept the verdict of the majority. Let us fight as hard as we can until that verdict is delivered, but once the verdict has been delivered, then, however hard we might have objected, how' ever hard we have fought against it, I think we must accept the verdict.

On the question of the referendum, on the question of Malay sin, the Barisan were entitled to fight as hard as they could, and they fought very hard indeed. They have lost the battle, they have last the fight. And I do ask the Member for Queenstown and his followers in this House - that the verdict having been delivered by the people of Singapore after a hard contest, as good parliamentarians, they should now accept the verdict, and not lead Singapore to bloodshed.

6.08 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the policy speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, both the Government Party and the Opposition Parties have expressed their views, if they say that there is no democracy in Singapore, no freedom of speech, then they are blind or they are out of their minds. Let us examine the arguments put forth by the Opposition Parties. Of course, they come from the various different Parties, but all of them have a lot of grouses, hut when we ask them to do something, they cannot do it. Therefore, they are forced to make use of this Assembly as a forum to voice their grouses. The contents of their speeches are nothing more than abuses or boasting. We have a strange phenomenon today among the Opposition Parties - there is one common feature. In all their speeches they have not been able to deny that the P.A.P. have done something for the people and they have not been able to deny that we, the P.A.P., have done a lot for the people. This is worthy of our attention. Why do they not say the P.A.P. is incompetent? Why do they not accuse the Government of not building bridges, roads, schools and hospitals for the people? Why can they not, on behalf of the people, put forward constructive schemes to better the lot of the people? Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, we know that the Members in the Opposition Parties have all along professed to be the representatives of the people but they have not suggested any constructive schemes to improve the lot of the people. There are some neighbouring countries which claim to be progressive, that they are trying to raise the standard of living of the people by providing them with food and clothing. Now, when we compare Singapore with these countries, we can see that the standard of living of the people here is far, far higher than it is there. Opposition Party Members have seen the achievements of the P.A.P. That is why they have not been able to criticise the work of the Government. They know full well that all the schemes carried out by the Government are aimed at trying to improve the living standard of the people. The building of bridges and repairing of roads will go towards improving their living standard. The Members in the Opposition are blind to all these facts. What the Government has been doing is to bring a better life to the people. If the Government builds another outpatient clinic, this will benefit the people not only in the urban area but also in the rural area. People who are ill can get treatment from this clinic, and they will save a lot of time and energy.

Now with more police stations the crime situation has improved.

As the elected Government, we have many problems to solve. If you do not talk about bringing electricity and water to the people, you have to solve the problem of employment for the people.

In 1961 the Government started carrying out the Four-Year Development Plan. When these projects are completed, in conjunction with the other small-scale industrial projects, they will bring more employment opportunities to the people. They know that we the P.A.P. have done a lot. They cannot deny all these facts. They cannot convince the people that we have not done anything for them. They are only capable of boasting. With sweet words and sweet slogans they are trying to deceive the people. They say that we are not anti-colonialists and imperialists. They are able to make speeches of this nature. They also blame the Government for the shortage of water. Can we turn the anti-colonialist slogan into something that we can eat? Can we live on slogans alone?

There is one paragraph in the speech of the Member for Queenstown yesterday which merits our attention. He said the open rebellion in Brunei will lead to guerilla warfare. Now, if we study closely his speech, we will know that he has shown his true colours. Although they have been quiet after the referendum, today they are trying to ape the cocks in Bali Island, to recover their past glory. Only people with foresight can conceive the idea of Malaysia. Only people who have the interests of the people at heart will appreciate the importance of national unity.

The Member for Queenstown has warned the people that a constitutional struggle is possible only if there are avenues for a constitutional struggle, otherwise the people will resort to other means. The people will clearly understand what he is talking about. Does he want the people to shed blood in the so-called revolutionary war? I think the Member for Queenstown should accept the advice given by our Prime Minister.

Today the situation in Singapore is stable. You are in a very desperate position now. People have not supported you, if you are trying to become the stooges of foreign powers, then one day you will regret what you are doing now.

The territories which are going to form Malaysia have common features, that is, they are of a common ethnic group, having the same racial groups. The establishment of Malaysia will mean the death of colonialism. People in the five territories realise that it is only when they are united that they can survive and form a strong nation.

The Member for Thomson has accused us of doing all sorts of wrong things, but we are only leading our country towards a prosperous society.

6.18 p.m.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): Mr Deputy Speaker, we seem to have forgotten that this is a motion of thanks to H.E. the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I for one find no difficulty at all in saying thank you to him for his courtesy in coming here, in saying "thank you" to him for the manner - the dignified manner - in which he discharged a most difficult duty. In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I listened to him, my admiration grew for the iron discipline and the dedication to duty which permitted him to read through reams of praise for pigs and the P.A.P.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr David Marshall (Anson): As a policy document, Sir, the speech which was prepared for him to read - the last speech the P.A.P. will ever prepare - was the crowing of a cock on a dunghill. The dishonesty of that policy speech lies not only in its drooling self-praise, hut is particularly noticeable for the remarkable omission to explain the major inroad into the rule of law in the arrest of 133 persons during a period which, according to the policy statement of the P.A.P., was characterised by "peace and tranquility". That is their phrase.

Mr Speaker, the arrests were under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, a measure passed to meet emergency situations endangering the security of the State. I am not interested in scoring a debating point. I know it might be amusing to go back to Hansard in the days when the Government were in the Opposition and to quote their many statements about the P.P.S.O. and what a dreadful measure it was that I had introduced. Nor is it necessary to go back to the days when in 1959 the Government extended the life of the P.P.S.O. by five years - this Government, the P.A.P. Government, together with the gentlemen and the ladies on the Barisan Sosialis side, and a little to their left where the leader is missing.

It is ironic, Sir, that these people who supported the extension and - never mind the extension, it may have been necessary and probably was - who supported the removal of the protection of the Judges from it, now complain of suffering under it. If they had had the respect for human beings that was embodied in that Ordinance, they would not have been screaming today about the abuse, as in fact it is an abuse, of these provisions.

Today, Sir, you have been told blatantly that the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, which was intended for emergency situations, is being used in a period of peace and tranquility. What is the excuse for this action? There is an indirect reference in the policy statement to the "decision of the Internal Security Council to remove persons active in a Communist united front conspiracy."

Mr Speaker, that is a cowardly phrase. Constitutionally it is the duty of this Government to govern in Singapore and decisions under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance are decisions of the Government. It is true that under our Constitution the Internal Security Council has power to issue orders to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. That power was not exercised, Mr Speaker. There was no order from the Internal Security Council. The order came from this Government, and it is cowardly to seek to hide behind the skirt of the Internal Security Council. You will no doubt remember how I foresaw just this type of manoeuvre when I fought the provisions of the Internal Security Council in the Constitution many years ago.

I have read the statement issued by the Internal Security Council, and the most interesting part of it is that nowhere is there any direct indication or allegation of a threat of imminent violence; nowhere in that document, and, consequently, Mr Speaker, no right to exercise emergency powers for an emergency situation.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, there is a motion; the next motion will deal with this particular subject. I wonder if it would not be in order for the Member for Anson then to deal with this matter rather than on a broad motion on a general statement of policy of the Government?

Mr Speaker: I was listening to the Member for Anson very carefully. I think he is just mentioning this in passing at the moment, but if he is going into details, I would suggest that the proper time would be when the Prime Minister moves his motion.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am obliged that this issue has been raised. Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. I do not enjoy finding myself between the cross-fire of abuse hurled between the P.A.P. and the Barisan. I have studied the motion succeeding this and it is not to my liking. It seeks to make heroes of persons many of whom have been a clot on the Constitution. I submit that there is matter in the policy statement and there is omission in the policy statement sufficient to justify me to raise these issues without seeking to adumbrate them in detail. I shall not trouble you with a marathon speech, but it is my intention - and I would not like to camouflage it - to deal both with the inadequacy of the reasons for this massive misuse of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and for the dreadful conditions to which these persons, whatever their political views may be, have been subjected. They are parts of the general policy of the Government and I can assure you I will not weary you with detail. So, might I have your permission, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: I have indicated that the hon. Member is perfectly in order if he touches on this matter in a broad aspect but he should try and avoid details; details can always be discussed in the next motion.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged, Sir. Mr Speaker, there is a phrase in this policy speech which gloatingly speaks of merger and Malaysia as being the magic dissolvent of the Communist threat. I wish that were true. But I say it is but an act of cowardice of trying to pass the buck. There will be no solution to the issue of attracting the loyalty of a vast segment of the population in Singapore to the traditions of democracy and to a sense of unity within ourselves and within Malaysia except with the people of Singapore. If we, the people of Singapore, do not find the solution, Kuala Lumpur will not be a great help. Sure they can arrest; so can this Government, as it has proved, arresting people and calling them subversives. Mr Speaker, there are times when it is necessary to take sharp measures for one's health, but there are times, as one does in a case of surgery, when sharp measures can kill the patient, not cure him. It is easy to call people subversives, to damn them as Communists. Mr Speaker, I know myself that I am as Communist as the Pope, but that has not prevented the Government and, its stooges, it has not prevented malice, from seeking to paint me red. I speak from experience. We have heard the Government seek to connect the ghastly tragedy of that criminal folly in Brunei as an excuse.

An hon. Member: You supported them.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, you see, I am glad you are elsewhere engaged. Their falsehoods, their dishonesty - oh, but why talk of it, we are accustomed to it every day. The Workers Party issued a statement soon after the Brunei revolt condemning it in no uncertain terms, and it was published for a change; but two of the Workers Party members, who are no friends of mine - at least not politically - find themselves amongst the detainees. They were not at any time publicly or otherwise associated in supporting the Brunei Revolt. Mr Speaker, the tragedy of Singapore is that we have inherited the results of the omissions of the Imperial Government in the field of education, seeking not to have income tax so that the over-worked expatriate may have enough profits and his directors at home may have enough cream. We had no education policy other than the policy of having a few English-speaking clerks for the commercial machine, and a few Malay peons; and therefore the vast Chinese community had to fall upon its own resources through charity, to give education to its own youth. A youth that has been brought up to Chinese language naturally seeks and is inclined towards mainland China for its cultural patterns and for its thinking. At no time have we in Singapore really made an effort to give this youth hope and a meaning in the future. They are in a spiritual vacuum, Mr Speaker, and though it is regrettable, it is by no means difficult to understand. In that vacuum are to be found echoes of the ways of thought which are now current in mainland China and we find what I have termed "Peking Parrots", net Communists as such, not understanding what they are doing, not understanding the realities of the situation in their own territory, but "Peking Parrots" echoing weakly, without understanding, a line of thought which happens to be the vogue in mainland China at any material time, not with any malice aforethought, Sir, on the part of the vast majority, but because they have nothing else. Mr Speaker, far from being lost to us, I say with respect that we can fill that vacuum with the values of the ideals of democracy, with a sense of belonging to Malaysia, a sense of unity with the different races. We must act with patience and human wisdom, respect for human failings, recognition that it is through patience and perseverance that one can win through, not by abusing and maligning them perpetually. The Prime Minister in his hysterical efforts to save his Party from doom, which is its due, has divided Singapore into two - the subversives and "the rest". And that is the evil which they now make it necessary for us to inherit. An evil perpetrated for no other purpose than the survival of a political Party.

Mr Speaker, we have failed, and I will say this for the P.A.P. - I will not say for all of them, but I will say for some of them - that there are and there have been efforts on their part - as there have been efforts on the part of others - sincere efforts to seek to bring an understanding of the democratic process, of the values and virtues of democracy, of the unity of the people of Singapore to the Chinese youth and the Chinese industrial workers. And it is true we have failed, but it has only been a short period that we have sought to bridge this gulf that divides us culturally and educationally. However often we fail, even more often must we try, because if we are to admit failure, like the Prime Minister, and divide Singapore into two unequal parts, that will be the end not only of those who are not of our way of thinking but it will also be the end of us - the people of Singapore. The conduct of this Government has not been helpful in attracting the loyalty and respect of this segment of our population to the democratic process. I say, Mr Speaker, that it is bad policy to keep attacking our Chinese youth and industrial workers as Communists. Not only is it bad policy but it is also not true. These are our fellow citizens and I am not prepared to condemn them and to slough them off and to cleave to the new peoples of Malaysia, throwing away these fellow citizens who form the major part of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, it is astonishing too that the policy statement has not seen fit to contain at least some indication of the tragedy of the conditions of detention which have been imposed on these people, conditions which have been made public, and which I repeat, Sir, are far worse than anything perpetrated by the Imperial Government or by any previous Government. I do not intend to seek to shock you tonight. I received with a sense of hope yesterday the assurance from the Prime Minister that he would allow a delegate of the International Red Cross to investigate conditions. I know what that means, that by the time the delegate gets here or gets the invitation, conditions will have improved to an extent which will make it bearable for the detainees; and that is good enough for me. I do not seek to blacken faces that are already black or to show you hearts that you know are filth. I merely seek to assist, so far as it is possible for one human being, persons who, however much I may disagree with some of them in their political views, however strongly I resent the obstructive conduct of which they have been guilty, should be treated as human beings. We all err, Mr Speaker - that is not just a phrase. But to err does not make us animals, and not even animals should be subjected to the conditions which the P.A.P. have imposed, I am quite sure their boars of which the speech talks are better looked after than the detainees ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Their what?

Mr David Marshall: Boars, b-o-a-r-s. You will find it in His Excellency's - well, if the P.A.P. want me to refer to them in terms of one syllable, Mr Speaker, it is curious the emphasis which the P.A.P. have laid in this last major policy speech on pigs. You know, Mr Speaker, there is a maxim that water finds its own level, and I would suggest that the P.A.P. seem to have achieved theirs. I am delighted that they recognise their affinity with boars.

Mr Speaker, finally I would suggest that you, not you - Mr Speaker; I will impute nothing personal - but I find it the height of impertinence that the policy speech of this Government should refer to the integrity of political leaders. What does it know of integrity, Mr Speaker? What does this Government which has perpetrated the Referendum Ordinance know about political integrity?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Anson is becoming out of order by casting reflections on a decision of this House. This House has passed the Referendum Ordinance and he insinuates that the referendum is a fraud. He cannot do that. It has been decided by this House that the Referendum Ordinance should pass into law and it has passed into law.

Mr David Marshall: May I say infamous law, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Order. There again, "infamous" also casts a reflection on a decision of this House. Perhaps the hon. Member will just say the Referendum Ordinance.

Mr David Marshall: I did refer to the Referendum Ordinance, Sir. Passing on to the falsehoods that have been perpetrated in your presence in this House by Government Ministers in answering questions as to the conditions of detainees, Mr Speaker, these people have the impudence to talk of integrity! I say to you that it will take generations for Singapore to recover from the traditions of political dishonesty which the P.A.P. has displayed. Mr Speaker, much that I find repugnant in this policy statement, I find that nevertheless I am in no position to vote against it, because I am certainly not going to vote for the amendment. I, Mr Speaker, have no regret that the Government did not keep its promises. I never believed that it would. I can understand the Barisan Sosialis regretting and the Member for Hong Lim and his colleague regretting. They belong to the group. Maybe they were taken in. I was not taken in, Mr Speaker, Sir, I knew they would welsh and they have welshed. How can I regret what I anticipated?

Mr Speaker, there will be no question of my voting for the amendment. As for voting against the motion itself, Mr Speaker, I mention this only in passing, since some Members seem to be unaware that it is an act constitutionally of discourtesy even to seek a division on the motion of thanks, that an attempt to defeat it should be made on any amendment before the House which may be acceptable to Opposition Members, but once those amendments have been defeated and the main motion is before the House, whatever one might think of the speech, let us remember that the motion is a motion of thanks to His Excellency and nobody should refrain from that gesture of thanks.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim there have obviously a premonition that there is going to be a carcass soon and therefore they are both bidding for the same carcass, that is the carcass of the Barisan Sosialis. You will recollect, Sir, that yesterday, the Member for Hong Lim in his speech quite rightly avoided making any judgment on the achievements of the P.A.P. insofar as they were referred to them in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. He confined himself quite wisely to making an election speech in which he appealed to all groups, as the Member for Anson has done today, because this is the first time I have seen the Member for An-son in this Chamber disavowing the Barisan Sosialis for whom he has acted as adviser and back-room boy until now. But now he knows that the Barisan Sosialis is going down and that new masters are coming up and the Member for Anson has quite wisely made certain obeisance to the Federation Government. This comes from a person, Sir, who has in his lifetime lost three political parties which have been stolen from under his nose.

Mr David Marshall: Three?

Mr Rajaratnam: Three.

An hon. Member: Four! [Interruption]

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, I remember the first occasion was the Progressive Party from which, I think, he was either ejected or he retreated - I do not know which. Then you will remember the occasion when he was in the Labour Party but prior to that there was talk of his forming a Socialist Party, and it eventually ended up as the Labour Front. Then he had the Workers' Party and we in this Chamber advised him that his Workers' Party was being divided. He refused to accept our warning that if he was not careful the carpet was going to be pulled away from under his feet. But now he has decided the best way to play this game is to make a bid for the remnants of the Barisan Sosialis if and when it comes a cropper. In fact, the Barisan Sosialis is quite well aware that if not the Member for Anson at least the Member for Hong Lim is making a bid to inherit the revolution and in fact in the recent issue of the Plebeian of 21st March, 1963, the Member for Queenstown in an article entitled "Socialism will be Victorious" said this:

`As for the leader of a certain political party, Dr Lee said, like what Lee Kuan Yew said, this person was waiting for the arrests of all Left-wing leaders so that he could come out and pose as the Left-wing leader.

Dr Lee said, "If the person [that is the Member for Hong Lim] is really anti-colonial, we will sincerely welcome him to our ranks."'

The Member for Hong Lim is quite bright; he knows that if he joins their ranks he is also finished. Therefore, Dr Lee said:

`But we will not tolerate him if his Party organ smeared and jeered at our comrades who are now under detention. We will attack all opportunists and support all anti-colonialists.'

So, the Member for Anson, like the Member for Hong Lim too, is expounding the cause of the detainees. He has been engaged, I think, in a duel with my Political Secretary over the conditions of detainees, because if they stand up for the issue of detainees now, then they hope that when the Barisan Sosialis comes a cropper they will inherit the revolution. We can tell the Member for Anson that he who has not been able to look after two small political Parties will not be able to inherit the revolution from the Communists. So I would suggest to him that he should rather play the role of an observer and an independent socialist, as I hope he would be.

Sir, I think neither the Member for Anson nor the Member for Hong Lim does really matter when the big battle starts, because I think the real force here is the Barisan Sosialis. Listening to the Barisan Sosialis amateur revolutionaries, I could not help noticing that they were this time like bewildered sheep bleating for their lost shepherds. At least on previous occasions when they had their battery of ghost-writers, they had scripts which at least made them sound like militant and confident cheep.

The Member for Queenstown, in particular, gave a creditable performance of a leader who was leading his Party towards recognizable goals-that is in those days-even though the more perceptive among us knew that he was being remotely controlled. This time, I must however congratulate the Member for Queenstown for making a speech that sounded for the most part like the Member for Queenstown. Though the broad lines of policy have been laid down for him by others, I could not help feeling that interpretation of the lines was his own; it has all the hallmarks of authenticity; it was confused, illogical, groping and, of course, hilarious. For the most part, the speeches of the Barisan Sosialis Members consisted of repetitions of what they had said in this Chamber and outside for the last two years. We had, Sir, the same old arguments about phoney merger, about genuine reunification, about Malaysia being a British plot and about the dishonest referendum. I would have thought that after his hazardous and expensive trip to London and after having sat at the feet of Mr John Eber, the Member for Queenstown would have come out with something fresh, startling and original. But all that we had from the lost sheep of the Barisan Sosialis was that they confined themselves to re-opening an issue that had already been decided on by this Assembly and by the electorate.

Yesterday, Sir, we heard angry complaints from the Barisan Sosialis that free speech was dead because this session of the Assembly was not long enough. But would this complaint carry much conviction with the people when an Assembly Session is used to re-discuss issues which have already been decided upon and repeat arguments which we have heard over and over again in this Assembly? However, before I go on to the amendment by the Barisan Sosialis Members, I would like to deal with some of the astonishing comments made by the parlour revolutionaries on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. Both the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Thomson dismissed as of no great consequence references to the number of houses, standpipes, roads, factories, schools, community centres and things of that kind which constitute concrete achievements. The Member for Queenstown found all these tangible achievements irritating. Because he could not deny the existence of schools, flats, standpipes, he was reduced to making a very remarkable observation. He said, "Take away the houses, the standpipes, the community centres and all that, and what have you got?" And he gave the answer, "You have got nothing." Of course, Sir, any school boy who has done any elementary mathematics can tell you that if you take away everything, then there will be nothing. But the same school boy could have pointed out to the Member for Queenstown that in fact you cannot take away houses, roads, schools, clinics and stand-pipes that have been built however much the Barisan Sosialis might try to wish them away.

I can understand the irritation of the Member for Queenstown over such things as houses and clinics. I understand that his constituency is one of those areas where buildings and clinics are shooting up even as he tries to convince the people in that area that they are being oppressed by the P.A.P., that they are ill-fed, ill-housed and neglected and that only after the revolution, can people get more schools, houses and the good things of life.

Similarly, the Member for Thomson dismissed all these concrete achievements as of no great consequence. In building schools, community centres, houses and the like, he said, the Government was only carrying out its obligations. But that is the point. Sir,If we are carrying out our obligations, then instead of denouncing the Government, the Barisan Sosialis should commend us and exhort us to build more houses, more schools, more roads, more clinics and, more factories. They should come forward with concrete and constructive suggestions on how the livelihood of the people can be improved still further. Instead, as we all know, the Barisan Sosialis tactics have been to hinder development projects as in the case of Toa Payoh and create an atmosphere of tension and crisis to ensure that no economic development takes place.

You will have noticed, Sir, how irritated the Members for Queenstown and Thomson were by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's references to the atmosphere of calm and tranquility now prevailing in Singapore. This irritates the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist puppet masters for two reasons. The first is that this air of calm and tranquility should prevail after the recent arrest of Communists is a social embarrassment to them. The fact that the disappearance of prominent Communists, Communist-front men, should have been received so calmly by the people, and even with relief by the people, is a mortal blow to the Communist propaganda that they enjoyed the esteem, support and loyalty of the masses. So too in the case of houses, schools, roads and the like, the Barisan Sosialis have to deny the fact that there is calm and tranquility in Singapore.

The second reason why they find references to calm and tranquility so irritating is that, so long as there is calm and tranquility, the pace of economic development, investments in business, industry and construction work generally would be accelerated, thus exposing the Communist argument that only after a Communist revolution can people's problems of livelihood be solved. They know that this thesis is false. They know that in a democratic socialist Singapore we are able to steadily improve the welfare of the people without imposing hardships, the terror and the intolerable burdens which are the inevitable preludes of Communist forms of reconstruction. Every house, every school, every standpipe, every factory and every road built under a non-Communist, socialist Government is one more nail to the Barisan Sosialis lie that only a Communist revolution can make life better for the people. The thesis that only a Communist regime can solve the livelihood problems of the people is obviously refuted by the steady and concrete achievements. Therefore, every time they see a flat, a standpipe, a road, they have now to wish them away. They cannot deny these achievements and, in fact, they made no effort to deny the existence of these achievements. All that the Barisan Members did was to claim, as the Member for Queenstown said, that if you disregard all these achievements, then there are no achievements worth talking about.

Sir, from time to time, we, on this side of the House, have given free advice to Barisan Sosialis members. I know, they have stubbornly refused to heed such advice, presumably because they were free, but had they listened to our advice, they would not be in this sorry plight that they are today. Sir, I propose to give them another bit of advice which may possibly be the last bit of advice we will be able to give them. Anyway, Sir, having regard to the present state of neurosis and anxiety, this advice may well be disregarded. Nevertheless, the advice is this: do not underestimate the intelligence of the people of Singapore. They are not duffers and morons as the Barisan Sosialis discovered during the referendum. The people will judge the Government and forms of government not by oratory, not by promises of a pie in the sky, not by abstract talks of freedom, revolution, anti-colonialism, democracy and other verbal mishmash, but by what the Government does to make the day to day life of the people better. The Member for Queenstown and the Member for Thomson, fairly well-fed, well-housed, possessed of steady incomes, may think that things like houses, schools, stand-pipes, roads, factories, and so on, are trivial matters compared with the vague abstractions about anti-colonialism, genuine unification of Malaysia with Indonesia, with the revolutionary struggle and so on. But I think, Sir, the people of Singapore have reached sufficient political maturity to be able to distinguish between gentlemen who keep talking on and on about revolution and Utopia at some undefined future and those who, while not promising a workers' paradise or a Utopia in some future period, produce houses, schools, standpipes and so on, now.

The Barisan Sosialis and their Communist mentors may not think very much about our housing achievements, but I can tell them - and they must have read - that international experts on housing who have visited Singapore have been impressed by what has been achieved so far and these experts, unlike the Barisan Sosialis, not only know more about these matters, but they have no political axe to grind one way or the other.

In fact, Sir, the Member for Queens-town, not knowing how to minimise or refute the facts as laid out in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and not knowing how to attack us, went even so far as to blame the Government for the water shortage. In fact, his argument is even more hilarious. He argued that since a lot of rain fell on the tropical isle of Singapore he could not understand why there should be any water shortage - the implication presumably being that the wicked P.A.P. Government had somehow hoarded all this excess water and deliberately created a water shortage.

Sir, another noticeable source of irritation to the Barisan Sosialis was television. The Member for Queenstown was more than usually distraught every time he referred to television which for want of some stronger term he described as a new craze. I think that in describing television as a new craze he is not showing the progressive outlook expected of good revolutionaries, because even in Communist countries including Moscow and Peking, television is described as the hallmark of an advanced society and as a useful mass media for increasing the cultural and intellectual level of the people. Therefore, by establishing television as in Moscow and in Peking, not to mention Jakarta, Singapore too is in the vanguard of progress, and I am a little surprised that the Barisan Sosialis who are so anxious to see Singapore in the vanguard of progress should manifest such hostility towards television. It is not that the Barisan Sosialis did not know that the Government had planned to introduce television. In fact some of the Barisan Sosialis Members while still in the Government had looked forward to the introduction of television with great eagerness. Now that television has been introduced, I would have thought they would have congratulated the Government for having realised their dearest wish a little bit ahead of schedule. However, I know why the Barisan Sosialis are a little bit anxious about television. It is one more mass medium - and a very powerful medium - with which to combat and circumscribe the Communists in the open encounter.

We in the Government realise that there is nothing the Communists dread more than the open encounter, the open argument. During the past two years the argument, particularly over Malaysia and merger, was carried out with the Communists in the newspapers and radio. Members will remember how we invited the Communists and their front men to radio forums which at first they accepted with alacrity believing that here at last was a chance to put forward their case to hundreds of thousands of people. But the first encounter in which the Member for Queenstown participated proved to be such a disaster for the Communist cause that subsequent invitations to such forums were very reluctantly accepted and then finally, consistently rejected. With television, the Member for Queenstown knows full well not only will he be heard but seen as well. And to this extent, he knows that he will inflict twice and probably thrice as much damage to his cause as he was able to inflict by his radio appearance. That is why I thought he looked a little bit disconcerted yesterday when the Prime Minister extended an invitation for him to participate in a television forum. I advise the Member for Queens-town that he can do no better service to the cause of non-Communist socialist democracy than by appearing in a television forum and pleading the cause of the pro-Communist Barisan.

Let me state here that the battle against Communism and anti-national forces is as much one of restraining their propensity to resort to violence as it is a battle of ideas. In the battle of ideas, mass media like radio, television are vital, and the Government intends to use them as effectively as possible to safeguard the democratic system as well as the security of Malaysia. The Barisan Sosialis and their Communist mentors know that we can use this mass media to counter their propaganda effectively in this battle with the Communists. Recently, the battle over merger and Malaysia was largely a propaganda battle, sustained and relentless, but in the end, we showed that the non-Communist socialists can win this propagandas battle ---

Mr Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House wishes to move a business motion.