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

Debate resumed.

7.20 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: As I said, Sir, the battle against the Communists is a battle of ideas, and yesterday the Member for Queenstown paid unwitting tribute to the efficacy of the democratic propaganda against Communist propaganda during the Malaysia battle. He said that the Government was pressing ahead with plans to have more radios and T.V. sets in the rural areas because the blank votes were higher in the rural areas. This is a correct appraisal of the situation. In the urban areas, thanks to fuller coverage by radio, newspapers and Rediffusion, the open argument between the democratic forces and the Communists reached the ears of the ordinary men who, having heard both sides of the case, rejected the Communist case in favour of the democratic case. In the rural areas, however, Communist propaganda was pressed through such outfits as the Country People's Association and the Rural Dwellers' Association. The democratic case did not reach the ears of the rural people as widely as the Communist case, or rather Communist rumours and falsehoods. So the Member for Queenstown knows that once T.V. and radio are introduced into the rural areas as well, we can not only begin to nail down every Communist falsehood and rumour but bring home to the rural people the simple truth, that the democratic system can give them a better life. Therefore, this violent dislike for television and radio by the Communists means that we have done the right thing in establishing these new mass media and it would certainly be one big nail in the Communist coffin.

The Barisan Sosialis may also be interested to know that towards the latter part of the year, a second television channel will be established, and next year a third channel and television, like other mass media, will be effective allies of democracy against the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist manipulators. Unable, therefore, to offer serious criticism of the achievements of the Government, the Barisan Sosialis leaders do not know what to do. All they can offer by way of improvement to the motion on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech is an amendment "to truthfully and honestly ascertain the views of the people on their constitutional future". This is, I think, one of the most astonishing cases of collective amnesia that I have come across, because many of us will remember that some eight months ago, on 1st September, the people of Singapore went to the polls to decide on their constitutional future. They had to decide whether they wanted merger with autonomy in education and labour, or complete merger, or merger on terms available to the Borneo territories. I distinctly remember the Barisan Sosialis running around telling the people that all these three alternatives were bad and that the people of Singapore should show their disapproval of these three alternatives by casting blank votes. We all know that the outcome was that over 70 per cent of the people voted for alternative A, that is, merger with autonomy, and only some 25 per cent east blank votes. We know that the result came as a shock to the Communists, and also to the Member for Hong Lim, who also had been running around for reasons of his own asking the people to cast blank votes. The fact that the Communists got only 25 per cent of the votes exploded the Communist myth which they got even many non-Communists to believe, that the Communists had unassailable influence over the masses of Singapore. This myth of the mass influence of the Communists was often used to neutralise the non-Communists with the threat that if they openly opposed the Communists, then they would be dealt with when the Communists won the next general election. So the fact that the Communists were able to influence only 25 per cent - and even that percentage must be shared with the Member for Hong Lim because he also campaigned for blank votes; so if we give him 5 per cent, then at best the Communists were able to influence only 20 per cent of the electorate to follow their line. And as a result of the explosion of this myth of Communist mass influence, today more and more people are prepared to stand up to the Communists. The power of Communist intimidation has been considerably weakened as a result of the exposure of this myth of Communist mass influence.

Even more disastrous for the Communists has been the impact of this defeat on the weaker of their Communist supporters. These weaker of their Communist supporters, these weaker comrades, had trailed after the Communists in the fond hope that they were on the winning side, that they were with a Party which had the majority of the masses behind it. But now the Party which could only mobilise 25 per cent of the electorate, and that by and large from the rural areas, could no longer hold the old fascination for the weaker followers of the Communist cause. So, therefore, one myth having been destroyed - the myth of Communist mass influence - it became necessary for the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis in the interest of its own survival to create yet another new myth to repair the damage and prevent demoralisation among their dwindling supporters. Therefore, the new myth is now being developed that the defeat that the Communists suffered at the referendum was illusory and that they, in fact, had the masses behind them. The myth, as propagated by the Barisan Sosialis, is that the referendum was dishonest and rigged. In fact, Sir, you will remember that hilarious moment yesterday when the Member for Queenstown drew attention to the results of the two Gallup polls conducted in Tanjong Pagar and Kreta Ayer by Barisan Sosialis and Communist supporters or dupes in the Nanyang University and the Singapore University. The referendum in which some 600,000 voters participated, he dismissed as unrepresentative. The results of that referendum, he dismissed as unrepresentative of public opinion. But the two Gallup polls conducted by pro-Communist students and dupes supervised by Communists and limited to a few thousand selected subjects in these two areas are now held forward seriously as evidence that these two Gallup polls proved that the Communists had a vast majority of the people behind them. Apparently in these two Gallup polls, well over 90 per cent of the people cast blank votes, implying therefore that the 25 per cent blank votes in the referendum was not truly representative of the people. Surely. Sir, the Member for Queenstown, who is a fully grown adult male, does not expect either this Assembly or the people to take what he says seriously. This business of a private Gallup poll being more reliable than a nationally organised referendum may go down well among the infants who formed the large proportion of the crowd at the Barisan Sosialis rally held a few weeks ago at the Badminton Hall. But surely, Sir, the Member for Queenstown must be on the verge of a mental breakdown if he expects adults to accept this thesis, that his own Gallup poll is more reliable than the nationally organised referendum.

Anyway, Sir, the Member for Thomson suggested that the referendum was rigged. If the Barisan Sosialis really believe this, then they could very well have taken the matter to Court, produced the evidence and set aside the referendum. But as far as I know, Sir, they have not done so. I know they made art attempt just before polling day to get the Supreme Court to restrain the Referendum Superintendent from exercising his powers, but the argument was so unconvincing that the Court rejected their plea. But, I think, Sir, there is one authority whose testimony about the honesty, the regularity of the referendum, no single member of the Barisan Sosialis can question. And that authority is none other than Mr Lim Ching Siong. On the night of the 1st of September after polling had closed, Mr Lim Ching Siong was asked by Pressmen to comment on the polling, and this is what he said, and I quote from the Sunday Times of September 2, 1962:

`Said Mr Lim: "We are sure the majority of the people have cast blank votes in protest against the dishonest referendum."'

Now, Sir, if Mr Lim Ching Siong had thought that the referendum had been rigged or in any way tampered with, he would not have said so categorically that he was certain that the majority of the people had cast blank votes. If the Barisan Sosialis leaders had thought that the balloting had been so rigged that it would have precluded the people from casting blank votes, the Communists would not have got their followers to camp outside Badminton Hall that night to celebrate a possible victory. If the Barisan Communists had thought that the referendum had been rigged, they would not have waited until the very early hours of the morning to watch the ballot papers being counted and the results announced; nor would they, if they had believed that the balloting had been rigged, have asked for a recount and then scooted off from the Badminton Hall immediately after the counting had begun.

Sir, the Communists know that the referendum was fairly held. The only trouble is that they really believed their own myth, that their influence over the masses was unassailable. So when they got only a 25 per cent vote which was worse than even their most pessimistic prediction, they knew that the end had come. What angered them even more, I think, Sir, was that the Government had at the last moment decided to accede to the plea that they had made that the blank votes should be counted separately. I think they would have given their right arm that night for the Government to have decided to count the blank votes with the other votes because then they could have gone out and said, "Yes, you know. But the blank votes exceeded all other votes." But now, once having declared the blank votes separately, it was shown with mathematical accuracy that at their best, the Communists could only muster about 20 to 25 per cent of the electorate, and that from the rural areas where our propaganda had not been able to reach the rural masses. This fact, the realisation that they no longer had the support of the people, has pushed the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis into a new and dangerous course. They knew that they had lost the constitutional struggle in Singapore and that with the advent of Malaysia their chances of winning power constitutionally were gone for good. So they decided on violence. The only way they could halt merger and Malaysia was not by a constitutional struggle in Singapore, but by violence; and the battlefield of violence was first Brunei. Sir, I do not wish to go into details about the involvement of the Barisan Sosialis members and Communists in the armed revolt that took place in Brunei. There is a White Paper on the subject. I think there is a motion when Communist Barisan Sosialis connection with the violent revolt in Brunei would be spelt out. However, the fact to be noted is that the Singapore Communists knew that they could no longer rely on the people of Singapore to fight their anti-Malaysia and anti-merger battle and that the Singapore Communists had now to rely on Azahari and foreign volunteers to fight their anti-Malaysia battle for them. The Singapore Communists and the Barisan Sosialis hoped that the violent struggle in Brunei would then spread to Singapore, and that from Singapore they could provide fuel and support for the violence in Brunei and other parts of Malaysia. If the violence which started in Brunei could spread to Singapore, the Communists hoped that this would give them a chance of imposing, by force, what they could not get the people of Singapore to do by constitutional means, that is, to break up Malaysia. Fortunately, Sir, the Brunei revolt fizzled out, and so there was one last hope for the so-called anti-colonialists. Just as they went to see certain colonialists in the U.K. Commission to help to break up merger, to come to a deal. So this time, after the revolt in Brunei had fizzled out, they were banking on the fact that relations between Malaya and Indonesia would worsen so that the confrontation would pass from a passive to an active stage when they hoped foreign volunteers and armies would invade Malaysia and help to break up Malaysia.

It was when the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists not only openly supported violence but were also engaged in playing the treacherous role of supporting intervention by foreign volunteers that the Internal Security Council decided that the Communists now constituted not anti-colonialists but fifth columnists in our midst. These Communists were arrested not because they were our political opponents. We tolerated them for two years. We gave them every opportunity to say or do what they liked. So it was not because they were our political opponents but because they had become fifth columnists - to sell Singapore and Malaysia not only to racketeers, "bums and liars" like Mr Azahari, and like Osmena who says he is prepared to do a deal on Malaysia for something like $10 million. But worse than that. The Barisan Sosialis have become stooges of foreign powers and foreign groups like the Indonesian Communist Party. It is because the people know of this role that they are playing today - that the Barisan Sosialis are not anti-colonialists - that the detention of over 100 Barisan Sosialis supporters has not brought about a single reaction from the people. We know for a fact, Sir, that the Barisan Sosialis leaders on the day some of them were arrested, tried to get some of the unionists like those in the Singapore Bus Workers' Union to go on strike. But this time the people of Singapore had come to know the real role of the Barisan Sosialis - that they were treacherous fifth columnists. Therefore, when the Barisan Sosialis leaders were locked up, there was not a tear shed. That is why unlike before, in 1956-57 when the Communists were arrested, there was reaction because they managed to wangle into the real anti-colonial front and pose as anti-colonial martyrs. But today they stand condemned as traitors to our country and to our people. So however much they tried to mobilise support for the 100-odd people who had been detained, they could not get a single protest meeting. They held a protest meeting at the Badminton Hall where over 40 per cent of those who attended were school children. In fact, Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon made an observation - over 40 per cent were school children, the same kind of school children whom they used during the Malaysia debate as a cover to precipitate conflict between the police and school children in order to work up indignation. At that protest meeting the same school children were there, so much so that the Member for tipper Serangoon said, "Well, friends, at this meeting we can see very young people. It is only the old people who support the Government." What he meant was that they could fool only infants. And perhaps there will come a time, Sir, when at a mass meeting of the Barisan Sosialis we would see hundreds of perambulators, because they would have stopped deceiving school children of 15 and 16 years of age and would have to deceive children of 5 and 6 years.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: From the kindergartens.

Mr Rajaratnam: So that is the reason, Sir - not because they are our political opponents, since we were prepared to tolerate them - but because the moment they entered into a conspiracy with foreigners and racketeers to sell out Singapore, they had become the stooges of racketeers and foreigners. It was then that the I.S.C. felt that the time had come to call a halt to people who were using the democratic system to stage not a national revolution or even a Communist revolution but to sell out Singapore to foreign elements.

Sir, we had confirmation yesterday of the real role of the Barisan Sosialis - that they are no longer a national Party. We always said they were anti-national, but nobody believed it. But yesterday the Member for Queenstown came out with a startling statement. After nearly two years of saying that at least the Barisan Sosialis supports the concept of Malaysia, he yesterday argued that there was now no affinity between the Borneo territories, Singapore and Malaya. He said that the Borneo territories have nothing in common with Singapore and Malaya, but that they should instead forge a link with Indonesia. That fits in with another statement which they denied - a report made over a year ago in the Bintang Timur, a Communist paper, that Lim Ching Siong had said that he preferred a merger of Singapore with Indonesia to a merger of Singapore with the Federation. When the report was made known, some of their representatives here denied that such a statement was made. But now it fits, in again with a remark the Member for Thomson made in this Chamber. He said he opposed Malaysia unless Malaysia included Indonesia, which was, he said, the heartland of Malaysia. And the Member for Queenstown said further that Malaysia should exclude Singapore and Malaya, and the Borneo territories should be handed to Indonesia.

So, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have now been reduced to being traitors, of acting as stooges of foreign elements. Their only hope today is for a real open conflict, a violent conflict between Indonesia and Malaya. They have a vested interest today in a warfare between the peoples of the two countries.

Therefore, I would suggest that the 13 Barisan Sosialis Members have today ceased tot be representatives of the people of Singapore. They are not the representatives of those who elected them. They have become representatives of alien racketeers and of foreign Communist Parties.

Today the communist position is such that they can only save their political skins by the betrayal of their country and their people to foreign racketeers amid by pleading in this chamber the cause of alien Communists. Therefore, I say it is the Barisan Sosialis who are today real colonial stooges - stooges of new colonial masters. This is the shameful state to which the Singapore Communists have been reduced, and they have been so reduced because they have underestimated the strength and the intelligence of the people of Singapore.

Yesterday, the Member for Queenstown warned that blood would be shed if Malaysia was pushed through by 31st August. I would like to ask him: whose blood is going to be shed? If the blood that is going to be shed is that of the 14 Barisan Sosialis Members, well, that is their own business. But if they are planning to shed other people's blood, if they are planning to use school children, as they have done in the past, as cover tot protect themselves and get blood to flow, or use workers or other innocent victims, then let us tell them that the Government and the people are ready to ensure that if any blood flows, it will not be the blood of innocent people. Or, knowing full well the Barisan Sosialis tactics over Brunei, are they hoping for foreign volunteers to shed their blood for them, as the Brunei workers shed their blood to sustain the Barisan Sosialis? Obviously, what is quite clear is that the Barisan Sosialis are preparing to go down with a bang before 31st August. The threats of violence and bloodshed that have been uttered by Barisan Sosialis leaders from lime to time may be intended as a bluff to frighten the people, to show how tough they are. Well, if that is all that they are doing, we wish them good luck. But if they are contemplating, or their masters behind them are contemplating - one thing we are quite sure, the people who are manipulating them regard the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen as expendable material - to shed the blood of innocent people, then I warn them that they will not find this Government wanting in resolution and courage to deal with Communist violence and subversion.

7.52 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs expressed surprise and hurt that Members of the Opposition did not pay tribute or commend the P.A.P. Government for having done so much for the people of Singapore. May I ease his conscience by telling him that the P.A.P. Government have done so much and so well for the people of Singapore that when the general elections take place in 1964, they will be well and truly buried.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: That is what you think.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, they feel that they have done so much for the people of Singapore and yet they are worrying as to holding the by-election in Sembawang. Even after the visit by the Prime Minister, the by-election is still not in the books. It could be June, it could be July, it could even not be held at all. It is left to the P.A.P. Government - a Government, according to their own claim, that has done so much and so well for the people of Singapore!

Sir, the Prime Minister in his speech yesterday, in moving the motion that is now before the House, said this - and I quote page 34 [col. 169] of the first copy of the first half of Hansard. He said this:

'We must never make the grave error of the last Government in believing that the neutralisation of a few united front activists could mean the end of the Communist capacity to organise and agitate when the time comes for elections. This has been a temporary setback for them in what is a grim long-term struggle for power.'

Sir, talking of a grave error, I do not know what they mean. Perhaps it was a grave error for the previous Government to stand up to their responsibilities and declare that the action taken against the Communists was an action taken by the elected Government of Singapore, although the responsibility for internal security rested with the Chief Secretary who was a colonial official. We need not have to declare that it was our responsibility, but because we believed, and honestly believed, that the security of the people of Singapore demanded such an action on our part, we stood up and declared that it was on our own initiative that we put the Communists in gaol for the good of the people of Singapore. When we compare that - talking of a grave error now - the P.A.P. Government, under the Constitution: "Internal security is the responsibility of the Government," and yet, in the motion that is to come very soon, "No, no, net the Singapore Government, the Internal Security Council." Well, that could be a grave error. They are clever now; it is better for them to deny that they are responsible or that the responsibility rests with them. It was foolish for the Lim Yew Hock Government to say that they were fully responsible when they need not have to accept responsibility. So, on the one hand, you had a Government that need not have accepted the responsibility but accepted it, and, on the other hand, you have the P.A.P. Government that has to accept the responsibility, and denying it. It could be a grave error. Another grave error could be this. I think it was a grave error now, on reflection. It was a grave error that the previous Government did not arrest the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I would have done it if I had known that the Member for Tanjong Pagar consorted with the Plen in 1956 and 1957 - as confessed by him; a self-confessed collaborator with the Communists. If I had known, I would have taken him in. That was a grave error. That, I am prepared to admit, was a grave error. [Interruption] But next time, we will know how to correct the grave error.

Now here again, the Minister for Culture said, "Oh, in 1956 when the silly Lim Yew Hock Government took action against the Communists there was a reaction. But now, peace and tranquility." Let me explain. In 1956 when we put the Communists in, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, using his position as a Member of the Opposition, became so irresponsible that he fought the battle of the Communists.

At present, if you see the 14 men behind me, I am sure they themselves will admit that they cannot measure up to the stature of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who is now the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, who was then the Member for Tanjong Pagar, was prepared to fight the cause of the Communists in order to win the battle, and to sit there as the Prime Minister. That is what he did. That was why there was so much trouble, because there was someone with ability who was prepared to sell the interest of Singapore for the interest of his Party and himself. At present, if these people were as capable as the Prime Minister, I think he would have a more miserable time, but for the present I do not think they could be that capable. At that time, was it not true, Sir, when I arrested these people, up jumped the Member for Tanjong Pagar, "Motion of censure"? Now he arrested them, but there is no motion of censure. And yet we are supporting him. We say his action was right. All we say is that he should have done it earlier. What he did wrong was in not doing it earlier and he allowed the interest of the people of Singapore to be jeopardised, because he wanted to play the game of "confrontation" - that is the word used by the Indonesians too, "confrontation" - and zugzwang. He wanted to fiddle and play a zugzwang confrontation while Singapore burned.

The Prime Minister: That is why you are still safe here, you know that.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I will not touch on the next motion. Action has been taken and we are waiting to hear why action has been taken. He will have to explain away ---

The Prime Minister: I thought we told you.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that we have had a period of comparative peace until now?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: There is peace and tranquility. Peace and tranquility because the Opposition, apart from the Barisan Sosialis, are a really responsible Opposition. It does not believe in thumping their chests here, putting up motions of censure, calling the Government all sorts of names, and demanding all sorts of things. In due course, I shall be quoting all these things to the great Prime Minister who was then the great champion of the Communists in 1956 and 1957. I will touch on that later on, Sir, when he comes to the other motion.

Sir, after the referendum, the Assembly went to sleep in September. Why did we go to sleep? Because the P.A.P. knew that they had nothing sensational to offer in a policy speech. Therefore, they said, "Let us wait until we can conclude an agreement with the Federation to join Malaysia, then we can reconvene the Assembly." If they had succeeded in concluding the agreement, their policy speech would have been a very stirring one, "We got this; we got that; we got everything for the people of Singapore." And why it took such a long time for them to succeed, for them to conclude that agreement? it was not because there was a deliberate delay on the part of, shall we say, the other party, but it was due to the cleverness of the Prime Minister, who is sometimes far, far too clever. He thought that it was a wonderful thing to negotiate in the Press. He told the Press first, "This is what I want to do. This is our stand," and lie left the Federation alone. It was because of that that hurt their feelings. You cannot negotiate important matters of that kind in the Press. Next time they should do it on television! No, Sir, because they did it, that caused the delay. That caused the other party to stand up and say, "If that is the way that man is going to do it, let us tell him a few home truths." And that is too bad. If he had not shown his cleverness but kept quiet and not talked as much as he wanted, thumped the table as much as he wanted in the Conference Room, things would have been solved by now. As it is, they have not solved it. Tomorrow he is going again tot talk and I wish him luck. But I bet they would have delayed the reconvening of this Assembly had it not been for the fact that His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has to visit Cambodia and go on his pilgrimage to Mecca. They were caught. Therefore they produced a policy speech. It is no policy speech at all. I can sympathise with the Government, and generally we extend sympathies to people who are going to die, or to people who are already dead and, to that extent, I extend our sympathies to the Government.

Sir, let me come to the speech of the Minister for Culture. He was saying how clever the P.A.P. was: beat the Communists in every round, at every count, the opening encounter; they won, yes, they won. They won because they are mare adept in the art of double-talk. Definitely double-talk, Sir! To take a very simple illustration. According to the Referendum Ordinance, blank votes should be counted together with votes for A. That was the law. But because they found out that, "Oh, blank votes, tidak apa, lah. Let us have some fun with the Barisan. Count separately." If they had meant to count separately, why did they resist an amendment from me and from the Barisan that blank votes should be declared separately? They dared not. Because they were not so sure. Because if blank votes were to be declared separately, it would turn the tables on them. But because they found that blank votes meant nothing to them, and they could use that to twist the tail of the Barisan, they said, "Count blank votes!" And they called a special sitting of this Assembly just to ridicule the Barisan. "Oh, you can have the blank votes in any way you want - B, C, or whatever you like. All the blank votes. Never mind, "whereas the law says blank votes mean A. In this double-talk, they are more adept, they are cleverer. The Barisan are poor innocents and do not come up to the standard of the Prime Minister. Sir, I would have exposed this - I cannot use the word "trickery" - double-talk had it not been that the cause was a sacred cause, Malaysia ---

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Tun Lim Yew Hock - and to beat the Communists, we would never lend ourselves to defend them and to break Malaysia. Because it was Malaysia, we kept quiet, and let them win the day. If they won the day at the expense of their poor ex-comrades, it is no loss to us. In fact, all I can say is, "Next time if they try to he too clever and say that ---"

Dr Toh Chin Chye: They found a hatchet man.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: A hatchet man is usually a very short man, Sir, not a man of stature. Maybe there is a hatchet man there.

Sir, that is why they said, "Oh, this confrontation!" They are sure to win, because they are more clever. In fact, when the P.A.P. came in, what did they say? "Ban rock and roll!" But now they are indulging in a new dance - the twist. And they twist so cleverly that the twist is a first-class dance with the P.A.P. Government. Every time they twist. They know how to twist all the words they use. First-class double-talk! These poor ex-comrades of the P.A.P., left behind, do not know how to twist the P.A.P., whereas the P.A.P. keep on twisting their tail, and there is no response. It is not for me to try and save them from any dilemma that they are now in. But what I want to say to the P.A.P. is this, "Do not crow. The fact that you are able to get this quiet, this peace, was because men of responsibility side with you." If we had wanted to play politics in the way that they have been playing when they were here, there would have been merry hell. But that is not our way of looking after the interests of the country. We will support them on their motion. Sorry, Sir, I should not anticipate the debate on the next motion. We have said we are with them so long as they do the right thing. But at any time when they do the wrong thing, we will chop them. In fact, in this Assembly, after Sembawang, it will be the Alliance who will declare the funeral day of the P.A.P. and not the Barisan Sosialis who, now that all their ghost-writers have been taken away, do not know how to reply to all the twists and double-twists rind treble-twists of the P.A.P. Ministers.

Before I forget, there is a wonderful twist here. Sir, you remember that when the P.A.P. came to power, they created Parliamentary Secretaries and Political Secretaries, and the question was asked, "What is a Parliamentary Secretary? What is a Political Secretary?" And the Prime Minister, in Hansard, Volume 11, No. 9, dated 2nd September, 1959, column 536, said:

`The Parliamentary Secretary, as the term designates, carries the burden of the Minister's parliamentary duties, and to the extent that the Minister designates or delegates, he carries the burden of the Minister's ministerial duties.'

That means he is a junior Minister in the Government. Sir, the Acting Minister for Labour stood up yesterday and said how good their policy is, how well they look after labour, and how much they allow trade unions to run on proper lines. I have said in this Assembly that a Parliamentary Secretary can never be a Secretary-General of any trade union, and what is worse is that a Parliamentary Secretary is the Secretary-General of a union of Government employees. And yet they talk of yellow unions, and all sorts of things. I do not know what to call it. I warned them. I told them that it could not be done. I did tell the Parliamentary Secretary concerned to declare his loyalty. He is either with the Government or with the workers. He cannot have dual loyalty. It has now happened. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture said, "The Minister for Finance is all wrong. The A U.P.E. will go on strike." The Minister for Finance said, "The Union is all rotten. It is bad. It should wait till 31st August before it presses on with its claim." There was so much argument that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture had a ballot taken and his union is going on strike. And that is not too bad. But what came out in this morning's Malayan Times at page 5, takes the cake. "Kandasamy Accuses P.A.P. Government". Sir, Kandasamy is accusing himself! "The Amalgamated Union of Public Employees yesterday accused the People's Action Party Government of cowardice, and Radio Singapore of slanting the news." Radio Singapore, Sir? Under his Ministry? He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. The control of Radio Singapore is under his Ministry. Radio Singapore distorts the news! I do not know. Well, maybe Kandasamy, the Secretary-General, accuses Kandasamy, the Parliamentary Secretary. This is what I mean by P.A.P. first-class twist and turn. They know how to twist. This is what he said. Fancy the Parliamentary Secretary saying that! This is terrible, Sir, if what he said is right. I hope somebody in the Malayan Tunes is not going to be put in under the P.P.S.O. This is what he said:

`Apparently the Government has only the nerve and courage to fight and threaten the young girls of the midwifery service who are prepared to fight for their rights. They have no guts [I do not know whether it is parliamentary, but it is all right; it is in the newspapers] to tackle the postal and telecommunication workers.'

That is what Kandasamy said. Now, I do not know whether Kandasamy will get the sack or whether he will sack the Government. I do not know. Maybe this is P.A.P. style which I find very difficult to understand. And then he accuses Radio Singapore of distorting news. He says that Radio Singapore tells all sorts of things:

`Touching on Radio Singapore, Mr Kandasamy, who is also Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, whose portfolio includes Radio Singapore, said, "Radio Singapore has been announcing that only the unresolved claims would be directed to arbitration, thus giving the impression that the other claims are settled. If Radio Singapore would care to compare the Gazette notification [I would say if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture would care to compare the Gazette notification] and the strike notice, it would be very obvious that all claims, with the exception of the claims for the midwives, were directed to arbitration."'

Sir, this is just putting the Government in a ridiculous position. A Parliamentary Secretary, in the words of the Prime Minister, shares in the ministerial responsibility of the Minister, and he shares in the responsibility of controlling Radio Singapore. And now he says that Radio Singapore is distorting his own news! Well, I would ask the Government to solve it the P.A.P. style. They can only solve it in the P.A.P. style! I do not know how to solve it myself.

There are a few things here I would like to touch on. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech contains this little passage at column 5, "Because of the careful budgeting and the economy measures taken in 1959-60 --- ". What are the economy measures? An arbitrary slashing of salaries imposed on the civil servants! And they were told that if they started squealing they should go down on their bended knees and thank the gods that nothing worse had happened to them. At that time, there were 43 of them. Therefore, they put out their chests and said, "You had better take it, brothers, or you get worse." So they took it. Then when three of their numbers went over, and another 14 went over, they felt that something was wrong; so they restored the allowances of the civil servants but then they restored them only for a certain period. So there is a period between the time when the cut was imposed and the restoration - that little bit. Is the Government going to wait until election time and say, "Okay, civil servants! I give you back this salary cut of yours. You know that the P.A.P. is a very good Government. Vote, lah."? Do not do that. If the salary cuts had been restored because they were wrongly imposed, then come out into the open and say, "We did it. We thought that we were facing a deficit. But now we find that we have a surplus. Okay, we will repay it to you because that is rightly your money." It is most immoral to try and say that they have got a very good balance when they took that money arbitrarily from the civil servants!

May I talk on housing? The Government are very fond of showing off. Look at what the Housing Board have done. We have done so much now. My questions have elicited, Sir, that insofar as housing is concerned, 3,098 units were vacant on 31st March this year. That is not such a big figure, but if we are to consider it in terms of money lost to the Housing Board - the amount I worked out is $165,510 a month - that is the revenue lost to the Housing Board, because these Units are vacant. That I am sure the Finance Minister would not and should not tolerate. Houses are built to be occupied. This is a waste of $165,510 a month. I did ask how many units were vacant for a year and more, how many were vacant for six months to a year, and from three months to six months. And the amount worked out - even on a very conservative estimate - is that they lost half a million dollars in rents last year, because the houses were unoccupied. Therefore, in order to get people to occupy those houses, what did they do? Yes, the Crawford Street reverted property suddenly occurred to them. Wonderful! If we could tell the residents of Crawford Street, "This is reverted property. We want to rebuild this area. Come on, go to the Housing Board houses." "Sixty dollars?" "Never mind, you pay. These are wonderful flats." The tenants there appealed to the Government that they could not afford a rent of $60 nor could they afford the rent of $40. But they were prepared to move. From the figures I got from the Minister for National Development, the Government, it would seem, are forcing people to take up Housing Board flats because they are empty, and because they are losing revenue. That is why they have told these people they are going to build. Why are they going to build? Where are they going to get the money to have a big housing estate around Crawford Street? You cannot do that. They have less than year before they are buried. What are they trying to do? They are trying to force people to go into Housing Board flats.

Another point is this. In Henderson Road, that is Tiong Bahru Road, the previous much-maligned S.I.T. built houses prewar and rented those houses at $7.00 a month. After the war, I think the rent has been increased to $11.00. The Government says to the occupiers of these houses - a few hundred of them - that the maintenance cost is very high and "You had better go; we have a lot of houses for you." They are forcing them to give up cheap houses to take up Housing Board houses that have been vacant for nearly a year in order to cover up their over-zealousness in housing, although there is less demand for it. The supply is more than the demand now. On the ground that the Trust flats in Tiong Bahru require a lot of maintenance and are most uneconomical, the Housing Board offer them new flats but at higher rent. But the tenants say, "If it is uneconomical, we will bear the cost of the maintenance." I do not know how they are going on with this. This is the kind of housing they have. In their desire to prove that they are doing something, they put up more houses than required. And half-a-million dollars has gone down the drain, Mr Finance Minister.

There is the other point. The Prime Minister's visits to the rural areas. At the bottom of column 11:

`The Prime Minister's visits to the rural constituencies have helped get closer co-ordination between Government planners and the rural people...'.

This is what the Government says. What the people know is this. Before the prime Minister goes on his visits, the names of a good number of people who are of some influence there will be taken to the Prime Minister's Office, and invitations will be sent out, and they will be invited to Sri Tamasek. There will be a very friendly discussion. They will come back to the rural areas and try to get the people to appreciate the importance of the Prime Minister's visit. And they will say, "Oh, you know, on Sunday the great Prime Minister is coming. I think we should do something about it. I think we should give $30.00." So the poor shopkeeper says, "What am I to do? If I say no, mati, my licence might be stopped. If I say yes, why should I waste $30.00?" Take the line of least resistance, give $30.00. So, big fireworks, crackers and what-not to welcome the Prime Minister. It looks well on Television and in photographs. It could have got the Barisan people all stumped. But what happened as soon as the Prime Minister stepped down? People were cursing. There were loud curses. "Never saw such a man; never came to us. And now come to us to offer what? Sweets, with poison inside?" "You want a community centre? O.K., it will be there. What do you want, a school? It will be there; I will even come and build it. Do not worry." And they have to accuse us of corruption. That is worse, Sir. That is nothing but political corruption. They lay plans for the next general election that is going to come next year. That kind of making use of the public money to go round and get the people to say how good the great Prime Minister is. The great Prime Minister was never good before because he never saw them; and now he goes round. He even went to Sembawang, the scene of the by-election to come. He shed tears. "Ahmad Ibrahim was a brave man with guts." I feel like shedding tears and saying, "Thank God, poor Ahmad, you had died. If you had remained, you would have died of shock at the way the P.A.P. is now doing." Anyway, a good man always gets gathered unto the Father much earlier. It could be that he was taken back to heaven ---

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is why he had lived so long.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Because he had joined the wrong Party! And God said it was better for him to come up before the smash that was coming. That the people who slept with the Communists will now turn out to arrest Communists. That is the shame that Ahmad Ibrahim would have suffered if he had not died. And it was because of them that maybe the Prime Minister cried. And I could cry if I really wanted to feel sorry for Ahmad Ibrahim.

An hon. Member: Crocodile tears!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: So he described the Prime Minister's tears as crocodile tears.

An hon. Member: Your tears.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I have no tears, but the Prime Minister had. I could have cried but I did not. And the Prime Minister says in column 19:

`The implementation of these arrangements after 31st August will require a great deal of tact and patience.'

A great deal of tact and patience.

`We are confident that with understanding and brotherly give-and-take, temporary dislocations can be kept to a minimum.'

Would you call it tact, Sir, if what I read in a newspaper published in Kuala Lumpur is correct? Here you have a great Prime Minister going to declare the Jurong Wharf open. That is grand - all pomp and grandeur. Was there tact when he said that he invited the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya to come to witness this opening but he declined? He preferred to go to the races. Would you call it tact - the P.A.P. style of tact? And yet as far as I know no invitation had ever been issued. That is tact, that is the wonderful P.A.P. style of tact. Let us have less of that and it would be better for the relationship between Singapore and the Federation. That is not the kind of tact we want. That does not help in the relationship.

Sir, I am sorry if I take time because I am trying to cut down on this. Column 6:

`Honourable Members of the House must have known of the deep regret the people felt over the differences that have arisen between the Federation of Malaya and the Republic of Indonesia.'

And further down:

`So whatever minor differences may arise from time to time between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur over chickens and eggs, or pigs and paints, we stand solidly with them on all the vital questions that affect Malaysia,...'.

I support that. But against that, what did the Prime Minister do? You know, in one of his tours in the rural constituencies he said, "Our policy with Indonesia is the right policy. The Federation policy is the wrong policy." So much so that there has been talk in town. Is it because Lee & Lee are the legal advisers to the Indonesian Government that their policy is the right policy? And yet here they say that in everything they support Malaya. That again is P.A.P. culture, P.A.P. twist, P.A.P. double-talk. Let them mean what they say. We will always support them in what they mean - what they say, or to mean what they want to mean to say.

I will come to the Communist one later. I do not think I should worry about the Communist one. I support this one. Column 8:

`The Borneo territories need capital for development. The Central Government has promised to do its utmost to provide the necessary finance. Singapore must be prepared to make its contribution in loans and other assistance to help the Central Government in helping development of the Borneo territories.'

I strongly support this. And it would be a wonderful gesture on the part of the Singapore Government if we could have one road in each territory and name it "Singapore Road". That would forever be a reminder to the peoples in Sarawak, Borneo and Brunei that we in Singapore share with them their hopes, their aspirations and will do what we can to help them in their development.

Now, all this talk about the Internal Security Council saying such a thing as at column 4:

`But we must always be vigilant. There are still some in our midst actively trying to disrupt national security and sabotage our plans for Malaysia.'

Who is to be vigilant, the P.A.P. Government or the I.S.C.? I agree we all must he vigilant. We call on the Prime Minister to be more vigilant. If he has not yet disclosed who the Plen is, where he lives, tell it to his Special Branch. If a Prime Minister can do that kind of a thing, who knows who the Plen is, and where he is, and hides it; and yet the law says, if I know where a Communist lives and know that he is wanted, and if I do not go and tell the police, I will go to gaol. But the Prime Minister is above the law, especially a P.A.P. Prime Minister. He is well above the law. If he wants the public to co-operate and work, and be more vigilant so that the Communists are totally wiped out, let him show an example. Do not turn round in his Battle for Merger, "I talked with the Plen in the Legislative Assembly." If I had known in 1956 and 1957 that the Member for Tanjong Pagar could have been keeping company with Lim Ching Siong.

Sir, I would not like to take up too much time on this. I have tried to get across the views of my Party on the Negara's speech. What we are all waiting for and what the Barisan people are waiting for is the next motion to get cracking, and then let us see what kind of stuff the P.A.P. Ministers are made of.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting. I will take this Chair again at half-past nine.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.29 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of debate on motion moved by the Prime Minister and on the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown.

Mr Speaker: We will get on with the debate on item No. 3 of the Order Paper, the debate to range over not only the main motion hut also over the amendment. Dr Goh.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to confine myself only to certain remarks made by the Member for Queenstown in his speech on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. I am concerned with that portion of his speech dealing with Malaysia.

Sir, the Barisan Sosialis, as the leading Communist front organisation in Singapore, has "fought" Malaysia, though the campaign conducted has not been as skilful as it should have been. They have lost the open confrontation which culminated in the referendum last September. The Member for Queenstown is now trying to pretend that they did not really lose the referendum. He said yesterday that if only Members of this Assembly would accept the result of the Nanyang students' so-called academic research project carried out in Tanjong Pagar and Kreta Ayer, then we would be persuaded that the people of Singapore were indeed against merger and Malaysia. But, Sir, I am not going to waste the time of the House in rebutting arguments as feeble, as foolish and as futile as the Member for Queenstown has advanced on this issue.

I come to the main substance of his argument, and it consists of this. He said that for the immediate future, the constitutional development in Singapore would consist of the immediate and unconditional release of the Communist agents and sympathisers who were detained by the Internal Security Council last February. Then after the release of these persons, the general elections should be held. The elected Government which he actually hoped would be the Barisan Sosialis Government would then re-open with the British Government the whole subject of the constitutional future of Singapore, and Malaysia presumably would then be abandoned.

Sir, that is his idea of democratic, constitutional progress in Singapore. Needless to say, that is not our idea of democratic, constitutional progress in Singapore. The subject of detainees will be debated in a subsequent motion and I shall say no more about this. But I think it is fair for me to remind him of certain words which I said to him more than a year and a half ago, when I warned him of the consequences of willingly supporting the Communist cause. It is no use for the Member for Queenstown to pretend that there are no Communists in Singapore or that, in his own words, "the whole thing is a myth and a bogey". We are entitled to assume, in view of his age and his apparently sober and sane demeanour, that he is capable of rational judgment on the basis of facts which are known and acknowledged by everyone. If, on the face of all this, he continues his fairy tale that he does not know that his Party was and still is the major open-front political instrument for the Malayan Communist Party, then we must draw the inevitable conclusion that of his own free will and choice he supports their cause.

Now, as I have said, the next stage of Singapore's political development, as he envisages it, is the unconditional and immediate release of the Communist agents and sympathisers, and this is to be followed by the general elections and the re-opening of the whole issue of merger and Malaysia.

Sir, he knows, and any sane man in Singapore must know, that this is not going to happen - merger and Malaysia will proceed as scheduled, namely, on the 31st of August this year. The newly independent State of the Federation of Malaysia will be proclaimed.

Now, what will then happen? In the words of the Member for Queenstown - and here I quote from page 52 [col. 196] of yesterday's Hansard:

`Should Britain so unwisely still impose Malaysia on the people against their will it can only last so long as there are British bayonets and jets around.'

Now, Sir, let us ponder on the meaning and significance of these words. There are two points which come to the mind. The first is that Malaysia is to be imposed by force upon the people. We already know that this is completely untrue. In Singapore a referendum has been held and the judgment of the people is clear beyond doubt. Elsewhere the Parties in support of Malaysia have won a great majority of seats contested in local elections and the constituted governments of all the territories which constitute Malaysia are committed to bring about the establishment of Malaysia on schedule. Therefore, to say that Malaysia will have to be imposed against the will of the people is literally untrue. But there is a most sinister significance of these words which I shall explain later.

The second point is that this possible imposition of Malaysia can only be carried out by British force of arms. If I understand the meaning of words, what the Member for Queenstown is saying is that there would be violent opposition to Malaysia and violence of such a nature that it has to be restrained by the use of military power. And this is the only possible construction that one can put on his words, for just in the succeeding sentence after the one that I quoted, he said:

"But this will mean a heavy price in blood...".

Sir, the Member for Queenstown is the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis. We have the Chairman of a major political Party in Singapore saying quite bluntly and in so many words that bloodshed will follow upon the establishment of Malaysia. These are serious words. They are not words uttered by students or intellectuals or ordinary men in the course of a carefree conversation. They are not words uttered in the heat of discussion. They are not words spoken under the influence of alcohol. They are words openly and solemnly uttered in the course of an important debate in the Legislative Assembly on matters of national policy. We are therefore entitled to draw the inevitable inference.

Indeed, as we read further on in page 52 [col. 198] of Hansard we find in the penultimate sentence the Member for Queenstown saying:

`If the last door to constitutional struggle is closed to the people, then there can remain but one final answer.'

Now, Sir, the last door to the constitutional struggle - Malaysia - has been closed. There is no way by which the Barisan Sosialis, or any other Communist front organisation, can stop the formation of Malaysia by constitutional methods. Therefore, in the words of the Member for Queenstown, there can remain but one answer, the final answer. What answer, Mr Speaker? The only final answer in this context is quite clear, namely, the unconstitutional methods of violence and bloodshed.

Sir, the threat is unmistakable. He is saying in effect, "Stop Malaysia now or else he prepared for violence and bloodshed," and these are words spoken in a solemn policy statement in the Singapore Legislative Assembly by the Chairman of a major political Party. We are therefore entitled to take his words at their face value.

It is a curious feature that in the newspaper reports of his speech this morning very little prominence was given to this part of his speech in the English language newspapers. Perhaps the English language newspapers may not he aware of the full implications of this statement. But the Chinese language newspapers did not miss the point and published this part of his speech practically verbatim. There was even a minor headline attached to the report. And so we can take it that the strong and tough men behind the Barisan Sosialis, the shop stewards and the tough characters in the pro-Barisan unions, will read this speech in the Chinese papers and will draw their conclusions, and that conclusion is that if Malaysia proceeds, then the Barisan Socialis and all the other open front Communist, as well as underground Communist, organisations will resort to violence. Now, Sir, if this interpretation is incorrect, let the other Members of the Barisan Sosialis in this Chamber say so unequivocably, let them denounce the Chairman for his criminal stupidity in threatening violence. It is no use for them to say that what the Member for Queenstown is saying is that there might be a risk of a spontaneous outburst of violence. Outbursts of violence in Singapore, as we all know through bitter experience, have never been spontaneous. Violence is calculated and organised and prearranged. In this instance, it is very clear, on the admission of the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis himself, where the centre of organised violence will be.

Sir, let me tell the Member for Queenstown - unfortunately he is not here but perhaps his colleagues will pass on the message intended for him - the great import of his words. If he resorts to violence, he must expect the constituted Government of Malaysia to resort to adequate counter measures to contain such violence and to apprehend the criminals responsible for such violence and bring them to justice.

So long as the Barisan Sosialis and other Communist front organisations are content to use non-violent methods of subversion, then the worst penalty that they can expect will be a period of detention until such time as they are persuaded of the follies of their ways. But when there is a resort to violence, punishment is not merely detention in gaol either in Singapore or the Federation, punishment is death by hanging. Not only the immediate perpetrators of violence will suffer this fate, but those who are responsible for inciting and organising them will also have to pay this ultimate price.

Sir, it is not for the Member for Queenstown to say that death by hanging meted out te perpetrators of violence constitutes Fascist or undemocratic methods. Armed revolt against any constituted government amounts to treasonable action, and in any democratic government the penalty for such a crime of treason is death.

Sir, we have to accept also that with such momentous words being uttered, the policy statement of the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis has been cleared and has been accepted by all his colleagues in the Party leadership. Therefore, both they and he will be jointly and severally responsible for the consequences of such a policy. I make this observation, Mr Speaker, Sir, because there are moments when I tell that the Barisan Sosialis open front leadership, as distinct from the real and effective underground direction, consists of eccentric lunatics or ill-tempered maladjusted social misfits, or just downright imbeciles and idiots. Sometimes I gather the impression that they behave like Little children playing with sand castles on the beaches, not knowing what they do, why they are doing it, nor the serious consequences that could follow from their action. It is because I get the impression that they sometimes do not understand the grave implications of their actions that on various occasions I bring upon myself, at grave risk of being misunderstood, the duty of pointing out to them the dire consequences that must follow upon their proposed line of action.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, the referendum held last year is now seven months old. It is accepted in the minds of the people that Malaysia will be established on 31st August, in spite of the Barisan Sosialis conspiracy to abort Malaysia with the assistance of foreign opposition. Therefore, when the Member for Queenstown keeps on talking of Malaysia as an imperialist and neo-colonialist plot, and that the Borneo territories have no affinity with Malaya and should be returned to Indonesia, he betrays the mental groove into which the Barisan Sosialis has fallen. It is a tragedy for Members of the Barisan Sosialis when their leaders cannot reorientate their political thinking and persist in playing a worn-out record of Malaysia being a camouflage for British colonialism.

The prediction of the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis that there will be bloodshed when Malaysia is established will no doubt be duly noted by those who are responsible for the safety and security of this country. It is said that "prevention is better than cure", and I have no doubt that prophylactic measures will be taken to prevent such bloodshed occurring.

The Member for Queenstown talks of poverty, disease, ignorance and want. There is no one in Singapore who is so poor that he cannot have his daily meals of rice. The per capita income of Singapore is $1,300, which is the highest in the Far East. There is no epidemic which afflicts the people: the standards of our public health and hospital care have made Singapore one of the healthiest places to live in. There is free primary education for children of all races and we are already expending 23 per cent of our budget on education. If there are poverty, disease, ignorance and want, they exist only amongst the Barisan Sosialis. But here I must make a clear definition. I cannot say that the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis are materially poor. Their poverty is a mental poverty caused by their inability to free themselves from Communist cliches, and their blindness to the real political situation which faces us today. The poverty of their political thinking and ignorance of the real needs of the people have brought upon them a disease in which everything they see is only of one colour.

After merger and Malaysia have been established, the anti-colonial cry will only be an echo of the past.

We are entering into a new phase in which is required leadership with positive ideas and plans, which will advance not only the material welfare of the people of Singapore but also the development of Malaysia. A country which has previously been subject to colonialism inevitably throw up a type of militant leadership which is uncompromising in its tight against foreign domination. With Malaysia this phase of the battle is past and gone. A re-adjustment of political thought becomes necessary. The old anti-colonialism war cries will not cause manna to fall from heaven or turn stones into bread. Nor will cries of "Bersatu" create more jobs. Only by careful planning and by the sweat of our brows can we hope to maintain the high living standards that we enjoy in Singapore and generally in Malaysia.

The climate of Singapore is now one of construction. Energy and time previously frittered away in political excitement have been devoted to intense work and construction. The fruits of these labours have been detailed in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. The intense building activity of the Housing and Development Board, the Public Works Department and private builders is changing the skyline of Singapore.

Jurong, once upon a time an evil-smelling marsh, has been converted into an industrial estate. Land is being reclaimed in the East lagoon and new wharves will be built. Television Singapura though barely two months old has been a whacking success and will no doubt in time to come make an impact upon the pattern of living in Singapore. These are indeed achievements of which we can be proud but they have been made possible by the technical skill and ability of Singapore's workers.

As the number of students who leave secondary and primary schools increases year by year, the pressure of jobseekers must cause concern among all these who have the welfare of our society at heart. The problem is being tackled in two directions. The first step is to stimulate capital investment in industrial enterprises so that new factories will be built and ancillary services expanded. In order to achieve this object, not only a climate of confidence in the political future of Singapore must be created but also there must be industrial peace. With the participation of Singapore in Malaysia, the unsureness of our political future will disappear.

The Economic Development Board has been the spearhead in our industrialisation programme, but if industrialisation is to succeed it is essential that there must be available in Singapore a reservoir for skilled technical manpower. For this reason, emphasis has been placed on the development of technical education. The Polytechnic is now in its fifth year and the time has now come to develop it into an institute of advanced technology. Steps are being taken to remove the Craft Courses out of the Polytechnic to Balestier and they will form the nucleus for a future vocational institute. The scope for undergraduate courses at technician and professional level will be expanded in the Polytechnic and past-graduate work will be introduced. The graduates which the Polytechnic have produced have shown their worth, particularly to employers in industry. It is now time to carry the development of the Polytechnic one stage further. We intend later in the year or next year to introduce a Bill which will enable the Polytechnic to confer degrees upon those who hold professional diplomas.

While we are confident of maintaining the present pace of construction, we must be equally vigilant that the prosperity of Singapore now enjoyed is not destroyed at one fell stroke by an unpredictable slump in trade or a fall in the price of rubber. The reserves that have been accumulated, and to which considerable reference has been made by the Opposition during this debate, are a useful asset for the wintry days should there be a short-fall in revenue and development funds which are hard to come by. I am quite sure Members of the House will agree that we ought never to live like Micawber - �10 income, �11 expenditure.

Finally, Mr Speaker, may I add that it is not because of impiety that we have failed to thank God in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, as the Lady from Mountbatten would have us do. I am sure God will be more pleased if we spend less time thanking him in political speeches and more time rolling up our sleeves and getting down to work.

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister in reply.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, just formally to close the debate on the Motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. Over the last two days I think the Assembly itself has reflected a new mood and Members find it difficult to get exuberant or really angry over anything. A certain finality prevails over everything and I think it is to the good that everybody in this country, including Members on the Opposition Benches, understands that there is a finality in the state of things in Singapore and in Malaysia.

As to the way we have discharged our duties in Singapore, I leave it to concrete evidence - and literally concrete, bricks, stones, cement, girders - to bear testimony to some of the work we have done over the last 3� years and will continue to do between now and 31st August. After 31st August, Mr Speaker, Sir, a new phase opens and perhaps when that time comes we will chart briefly, again before you, what we think lies ahead. But I think, like all good thrillers, one must never anticipate. We have enough to keep everybody happy and contented between now and 31st August. I hope Members on the other side will take my words to heart that the 1st September really settled a lot of things and that it will be utter folly to go on - as the Member for Queenstown yesterday went on - fighting that verdict. For him to suggest that North Borneo, which does not belong to him but belongs to the people of Malaysia, should be given away to some foreign power. I think that is the sign of reckless foolhardiness which is bound to end up with a great deal more unhappiness all round. All I can say is that, every time after the event, like Cassandra, more in sorrow than in anger, we have pleaded, albeit in vain.

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

An hon. Member: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 15: Noes, 30; Abstention, 1: Absent, 4.

Ayes Noes

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved.

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

'We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present Session of this Assembly.'