FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1963 OF THE STATE OF SINGAPORE (CMD. 16 OF 1963)

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.01 p.m.

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

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): I do.

The Chairman: The summary of these Estimates is at page 7 of the Paper. We are to deal with heads of expenditure in respect or Which amendments stand on the Order Paper. The first Head is Head D.l9 - Vehicles Registration.

Head D.19 -

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D.19 he reduced by $l0 in respect of subhead 2.*

• The same amendment also stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee.

According to Paper Cmd. 16 of 1963, Head D.19 is about the Multi-storey Car Park. The Government approved the project for this Multi-storey Car Park in 1961. In 1962, the Government asked the House to approve a Supplementary revote. In all these estimates, there was no such provision as this one. Why is it that the Government now intends to ask for $600,000 for this Multi-storey Car Park in such a great hurry?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we would like the Minister to tell us in this House whether or when this Multi-storey Car Park can be completed. At the same Time, When will the capital outlay be recouped?

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am worried about is that greater expenditure will have to be involved in order to ensure rapid progress. Sir, if a contract has already been made for the completion of this project by a certain date, then usually for every day's delay after the contractual date, the contractor has to pay a penalty of a certain sum. If that is the case, then naturally he will have to complete the contract as soon as possible in order to minimise his losses. Now here the Government is going to ask for more contractors to help and get itself involved in an expenditure of $600,000 more in order to achieve completion in February 1964. What is the magic about the date February 1964 that requires the Government to spend up to $600,000 more.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I can understand why the Members for Yio Chu Kang and Tanglin are hotted up over this item. I myself was pretty hopping mad and when I came back and I found this explanation given under Head D.19 - Multi-storey Car Park. I have since made inquiries in my Ministry and have discovered that actually the sum of $600,000 does not represent an increase to be asked for in this Assembly on account of our desire to have the car park completed in February 1964. The sum of $1 million was voted to be spent in 1962. However, only $400,000 was spent last year. Therefore, the sum of $600,000 as indicated in this estimate is actually a revote. Members will see that it is written down there quite clearly "Multi-storey Car Park -Revote - $600,000" which we are asking to be spent this year. There is no necessity - in fact, I would be the last person to come to this Assembly to ask for a sum of money of this size just to have the car park completed by that date.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, if this is a revote, it means that the original situation still holds good. According to the Four-Year Development Plan of the Government, this Multi-storey Car Park is just going to cost $2 million - a million to be spent in 1962. But because $400,000 was spent, therefore, $600,000 more will be required as a revote. But in the explanation given to us in this Paper, Sir, the construction of this car park is mentioned at a cost of $2.45 million. Where does the $0.45 million come from, if it is a revote? It just makes the matter more confusing. If it is $2 million, why can it not be mentioned as $2 million? Why should $2 million become $2.45 million and then we are led to believe that it was an increase on the original cost of the Multi-storey Car Park? According to the explanation given by the Deputy Prime Minister, it is still $2 million. Then what is the point of putting in $2.45 million? Somebody must be making some mistake somewhere?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, the mistake, if it arises, is not on my account. The Member for Cairnhill is quite correct when he pointed out that another $450,000 has `been mentioned as the cost of the Multi-storey Car Park. In fact, Members of the House will remember reading in the Press of the delay which was experienced in building the multi-storey car park owing to the extra depth of the piling which must le made and, in fact, we shall come later to this Assembly to ask for this additional sum of money to compensate for the extra amount of piling that will be needed. But at the moment, these estimates are asking simply for a sum of $600,000 as a revote, a sum of money which was not spent in 1962.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister admits that an extra $450,000 would be required. May I ask -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: For piling.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: For piling. As this is the place where money required for Government expenditure has to be brought up, and as he knows that $450,000 extra would be required for this Multi-storey Car Park project, would it not be proper that he should have asked for the full amount instead of doing it piecemeal - $600,000 - and then coming back for $450,000? I think that is a wrong way of budgeting.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, it is really a matter for the Public Works Department to work out increases that are required on the project. Only the sum of $600,000 which should have really been spent in 1962 is being asked to be revoted and the additional sum of $450,000 which is required for extra piling would probably have to come up for Assembly approval at some later stage.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Cairnhill has pointed out to the Deputy Prime Minister that from this estimate it is clear that the Government, when it put forward this estimate, did not find out how deep the piling has to be. That is why they have made this mistake in the estimate. Therefore, since the Minister has asked for another $600,000, according to him, this was a revote which was not spent in 1962.

But the Deputy Prime Minister has not answered my two questions which I raised just now. Firstly, when will this Multi-storey Car Park be completed, and how long will the Government take to recover the capital expenditure on this Multi-storey Car Park from the receipts from the car park?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The car park is expected to be completed sometime in 1964. Whether it is going to be done in February 1964 or not, I cannot guarantee because the progress of the work must necessarily be dependent on several factors.

With regard to the second question raised by the Member for Yio Chu Kang, it has been estimated that we would recover the cost of the Multi-storey Car Park by renting out the ground floor as shops and also by charging motorists the cost of parking, probably within a space of five years.

3.15 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): As I understand the Deputy Prime Minister, there was a vote for this Head of $1 million for the 1962 Estimates of Expenditure. Now, in the explanation to the Supplementary Estimates, it is put down as $2.45 million, so that, in effect, the Government have already spent $0.45 million more than they had expected to spend during that year. It would appear from the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that the $0.45 million has been incurred on account of the extra piling. If that is correct, then, I think, with due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, this House has not been given the proper information, and they should have come to this House then for $600,000 plus $0.45 million. Otherwise, it does not make sense.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: It is a matter of accounting the responsibility of which, of course, is not mine. But it is quite correct that we have discovered that the original cost of the multi-storey car park has now exceeded by $450,000. $2.45 million would, therefore, be the revised cost. Now, presumably when we spend the $2 million which had been voted for in the 1962 Estimates, the Assembly will be asked to approve another sum of $450,000.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to disagree. It is not a matter of accounting. It is a matter of P.A.P. style of misleading the Opposition. $450,000 has already been spent, as admitted by the Deputy Prime Minister. $0.45 million has already been spent On extra piling, and yet that extra cost is paid for out of a vote for the whole project. He says that the extra cost need not he brought to the attention of this House until the 1964 Estimates come up for discussion. That is a way of trying to mislead the Opposition.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: There is no intention to mislead the Opposition. I have placed the facts very clearly before the House. In fact, they can investigate the matter more closely in detail in the Estimates Committee if they so wish. But these are the facts and they are very simple to understand.

The Chairman: The matter could be referred to the Estimates Committee.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: All right, Sir.

The Chairman: Does the Member for Choa Chu Kang wish for a vote?

Mr Ong Chang Sam: No.

The Chairman: Is the Member withdrawing his amendment?

Mr Ong Chang Sam: May I say a few words before I withdraw my amendment?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): After hearing the explanation of the Deputy Prime Minister, the $0.45 million intended as a sum to build a skyscraper, like a multi-storey car park, has now gone down the drain. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $600,000 for Head D.19 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963.

Head D.20 -

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to he allocated for Head D20 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3.

It is the Government's intention to ask for $740,000 for rural development projects. According to the explanation given in the Estimates, they say that it is for the purpose of "raising the standard of living of rural dwellers and assisting them in the improvement of their production techniques". Among the schemes proposed by the Government are `the construction of three Veterinary Clinics and Extension Centres, and a Fertilizers and Mixtures Supply Service.

The P.A.P. have been in office for four years. It is the fourth year now. Over the past four years, we have never seen the Government doing anything to help improve `the agricultural techniques of the farmers, nor have they done anything to improve their standard of living. From these Supplementary Development Estimates, we can see that the Government in the past four years have not been looking after the livelihood of the rural people, especially the farmers and poultry-keepers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me point out to the Government that, in fact, this $740,000 should have been spent in 1961 but in that year the Government did not use this money. Let me quote Paper Cmd. 6 of 1963 - Financial Statements for the Year 1961 - page 191. The money voted to be used for Rural Development Projects in 1961 was $500,000. But by the end of 1961, the money spent in this field was $34,000 - not even $35,000. Therefore, in 1961, the Government had only spent 6 per cent of the sum voted, and the balance of about $460,000 has not been touched. In the 1962 Development Estimates, the Government asked for a vote of $470,000. How much of this sum has been spent? This House has not received any financial report on this. In 1963, the Government have also asked for a sum of $200,000 for rural development projects. The sums voted for the two years 1962 and 1963 total $670,000 for rural development projects. But up to now, we do not know how much the Government have spent from these votes. If the Government have spent 6 per cent of the 1961 vote, then we believe they could not have used more than ten per cent of the total votes for 1962 and 1963. Therefore, we can clearly see that from 1961 to 1963 the Government have spent less than $70,000 on rural development projects. That is my calculation. But the Assembly has approved $1.37 million for rural development projects, and we can therefore see clearly that during the past three years the Government have not spent $1 million to improve the standard of living of the rural people and to help the farmers to improve their production techniques. And today, the Government want the Assembly to approve $740,000 for this purpose. This only goes to show the false intention of the Government because this sum of money should have been spent during the past three years, but they have not done so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from these figures, we can clearly see that the P.A.P. Government have no intention of improving the livelihood of the rural people. They do not care about the living conditions of the farmers, the bankrupt rural economy, and the reduced prices of eggs. The Government are not concerned about all these matters. It is now 1963. In one year's Time, the P.A.P. will have to face the people's judgment. The people know - and the P.A.P. also know - that what the P.A.P. Government did in the past will be exposed. The coming year will also show that the P.A.P. Government will no longer receive the support of the rural people. That is why the P.A.P. Government have now come to the Assembly to ask for a vote of $740,000 for rural development projects for the construction of Veterinary Clinics and Extension Centres, and a Fertilisers and Mixtures Supply Service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before the P.A.P. took office, they proposed to the rural people their so-called P.A.P. Development Plan, in which they promised that they would establish co-operatives and all sorts of things to help the rural people, especially the farmers. But so far they have done nothing of this sort, and they still have no intention of doing anything. The P.A.P. have not done what they had promised to do. This is a fact both the P.A.P. and the people know very well.

3.30 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Mr Ong Chang Sam: During the past four years the rural people have been very disappointed at what the P.A.P. have done for them. Everywhere you can see the people scolding the P.A.P. Government for not having improved their living conditions and helping them in their agricultural production. They blame the P.A.P. Government for having increased their assessments, taxes and all the other things. The P.A.P. Government cannot shirk their responsibility for this.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from this vote of $740,000 that is asked of this Assembly, we can see clearly that the P.A.P. have always been trying to seek ways and means to deceive the people, and to give them the impression that the P.A.P. are looking after them and are taking care of their livelihood by trying to give them veterinary services, fertilisers, supplies and things like that. But this sum of money, which was originally intended to be used for the people, has never been used to the fullest extent by the Government. Now the Government have come to this Assembly to ask for this vote in spite of the fact that there have been surpluses every year. These surpluses have been due to the fact that the Government have not been able to carry out its work. The Minister for Finance should resign since he is unable to use all the vote that has been approved. I am going to tell the P.A.P. Government that it is impossible now for them to cast a smokescreen to deceive the people of Singapore. The so-called development of the P.A.P. is nothing more than a paper tiger. It is something that is good to look at, but there is nothing in substance. Therefore, I want the Government to give us the full facts about these matters.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, now that the Government have come to this House to ask for a supplementary vote of $740,000 for rural development and other purposes, it shows that the P.A.P. have failed in their work in this respect. They have failed to look after the interest and livelihood of the people in the rural areas. Now that they are going to face their death, they are fabricating imaginary figures and plans in order to deceive the people of Singapore.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Tan Kia Gan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang seems to be out of his mind today. We come to the House to ask for a supplementary vote of $740,000 to meet the expenditure of construction of three veterinary clinics, a mobile unit to provide veterinary services to Pulau Ubin, Pulau Tekong and the Southern Islands, a fertilizers and mixtures supply service, extension schemes for agriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries, animal nutritional unit, a veterinary diagnostic laboratory, and primary production services to the rural community centres and other projects.

Sir, in this House on the 8th April, 1963, I spoke quite lengthily on the services that we have supplied to the farmers and fishermen of Singapore. It looks to me as if the Member for Choa Chu Kang is deliberately saying untruths in this Assembly just to blind the eyes of the people who are probably ignorant. I have mentioned in this House of the services that have been supplied to the farmers and the fishermen. What we are requesting today is money to implement more schemes to help the farmers and the fishermen of Singapore.

All the farmers in Singapore know that today if they need inoculations for their chickens and pigs, they can easily get them from either the extension centres that we have built or from the rural community centres which we have recently built.

Sir, as you know, these rural community centres are built not only to supply amenities to the rural folks but also to supply veterinary services to the farmers, the pig rearers, the poultry rearers, etc. We have introduced artificial insemination in Singapore for pigs. As I have said before in this House, Sir, Singapore is the first tropical country to introduce this service. Already numerous farmers who have pigs in their farms are getting the benefit of this service.

Sir, in 1959 when we came to office, there were two veterinary extension centres in existence. Since then, we have built three more of such extension centres - one in Changi, one in Yio Chu Kang and one in Tampines. The fourth one at Thomson Road is nearing completion. From these extension centres, we supply veterinary services to the people who live around these areas and certain of our services are even brought to the doorsteps of the farmers. When the Member for Choa Chu Kang says that the P.A.P. Government have not been doing anything for the farmers of Singapore, he must be talking through his hat.

Sir, this additional sum of $740,000 is for the purpose of providing more services to the rural folks. In the Development Estimates for 1963, there is a vote of $200,000 for rural development projects. This money is committed to the artificial insemination service, the anti-pest service, the provision of fisheries training and also one film unit, and the building of the fourth extension centre at Thomson Road. What we are asking the Assembly is a provision of $155,000 for three more veterinary extension centres to be built in Jurong, Mandai and later on one to be built in the Punggol area. We are planning ahead so that the benefits of all these services can be brought to farmers all over the island of Singapore, including Pulau Ubin, Pulau Tekong and the Southern Islands. We know that whilst it has been possible to improve the veterinary services on Singapore Island by the establishment of veterinary clinics and extension centres, it has not been possible to provide these services to the adjacent islands of Singapore, particularly Pulau Ubin, Pulau Tekong and the Southern Islands. It is therefore intended that such services should be extended to these islands, and we intend to build a mobile team to move from island to island and from one part of the island to another part of the same island where there are concentrations of farmers. In order to render these mobile services, a properly fitted boat which can carry up to ten persons with a reasonable speed will be required. To provide this mobile unit service, we require $40,000. On top of that, we intend to initiate a Scheme whereby we will produce sludge and chemical fertilizers and sell them at cost to farmers through all our veterinary extension centres and the rural community centres.

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order. May I remind the Minister that there are only six minutes left for this item?

Mr Tan Kia Gan: Sir, in other words, all these services that we intend to supply to the rural areas are solely meant for the benefit of the farmers and the fishermen of Singapore.

3.45 p.m.

The Member for Choa Chu Kang has deliberately closed a blind eye to all these services. But I am quite sure that some day someone will open his eyes for him. And when the time comes for his constituents to pass judgment on him, they will do him justice.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for National Development has admitted and neither has he denied what I have pointed out in this House. That is, the Government should have done all these things between 1961 and 1962; because in the past three years the Government was given more than $1 million for rural developments, but it did not fully make use of the money voted. The Minister himself has admitted this. From this admission, we can see that the Government has no sincerity in looking after the livelihood of the rural people. In fact, it is only concerned with the future elections that it has come out with this supplementary vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $740,000 for Head D.20 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963.

Head D. 25 -

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D.25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 35.

Mr Deputy Speaker, subhead 35 concerns markets and the construction thereof. According to the Government's explanation, it intends to put up markets in the Housing Board estates to the number of six, and the total expenditure is estimated at $1,350,000. We would like the Minister for Health and Law to explain to this House where these six markets are intended to be built. In the meantime, what is going to happen to the hawkers around the streets, and how are they going to apply for pitches in these markets? I would also like to know on what principle or basis is the allocation of hawkers' pitches to be made.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we have seen that the Government is doing its very best to support a certain hawkers' organisation. In fact, a Member of the hack benches and a Parliamentary Secretary are acting in the capacity of advisers to this hawkers' organisation. So what we are concerned about is this. On completion of these markets, is the Government going to hand over the work of allocation to this hawkers' organisation? We raise this question because in Singapore almost everybody knows that if you want to get anything done or apply for anything, you must get the rubber stamp of the P.A.P. before it can be done. So I would like the Minister for Health and Law to assure this House that the future allocation of hawker pitches in these markets will be made on a very fair basis without any party bias.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in modern town planning, public markets are recognised as essential social amenities and often the markets form the centre of the shopping area of the neighbourhood. In the planning of the various estates, the Housing and Development Board have been requested by the Ministry to include in their layout suitable sites for markets in relation to the size of the population itself and the needs of the people. In conformity with this planned development of essential amenities for the public, it is necessary that markets in the Board's housing estates should be provided. The responsibility for the provision of markets lies with the Ministry of Health, and the Housing and Development Board have been requested to provide in their planning the construction of such markets as part of their overall development plan. Experience has shown that the construction costs of markets by the Board as an integrated project result in development at a much lower cost, so that the market extensions can be phased suitably with the development of the Board's estates. Details of the markets proposed, the population served and the costs of construction which the Member for Choa Chu Kang has asked for will now be provided.

It is proposed, Sir, to build a market consisting of 198 stalls at 70 pitches at Geylang Serai, off Jalan Turi. This market is estimated to serve a resident population of 70,000. The cost of the building will be $375,000 and the cost of equipment will be $31,610. The second market will be built at Jalan Merpati, that is in the Macpherson Road (South) area. It is to be a market of 100 stalls. It is proposed that this market will serve a resident population of 17,000. The building cost is $180,000 and the cost of equipment is $31,600. The third market is to be a market of 150 stalls to be built in Beo Lane in the Bukit Ho Swee area. It will serve a resident population of 48,000. The building cost is estimated to be $225,000 and the cost of equipment, $71,990. The fourth market is a market of 100 stalls to be built in Tang-un Halt in the Queenstown neighbourhood (Four). It is expected that this market will serve a resident population of 32,000; the cost of construction will be $190,000 and the cost of equipment, $31,600. The fifth market is to be a 100-stall market, off Jalan Batu in Tanjong Rhu. It is expected to serve a population of 24,000 residents. The cost of the building will be $190,000 and the cost of equipment, $31,600. The sixth market is to be at Hoy Fatt Road. This is a 100-stall market in the Alexandra Hill Estate. It is expected to serve a population of 18,000; the cost of construction is $190,000; the cost of equipment is $31,600. It must be pointed out that the population figures are estimates of population growth in the area of redevelopment alone. In fact, experience has shown that these markets, when completed, can serve a much larger population.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, apart from markets in the Housing Board areas, hawker pitches are also being provided by the Housing and Development Board and up to date, the Board has provided 35 pitches in the Tanjong Rhu Estate, costing $25,000. In addition, the Board has built 35 pitches in the Alexandra Hill Estate, costing $11,000. The Board has already built half of the 312 hawker pitches in the Kallang Estate, costing $40,000. The Board will soon be constructing 88 new hawker pitches, costing $35,000 in the Bukit Ho Swee Estate.

The construction of hawker pitches in Housing and Development Board Estates has been designed as an extension of the enlightened approach to the control of hawkers. In a number of Housing and Development Board estates, hawker stalls began developing and there was a danger that these modern housing estates would be reduced to slums if such hawker development were allowed to go on unchecked. In order to meet the demands of the population for hawker facilities and at the same Time to exercise effective control and maintain the estates in a sanitary and aesthetic state, hawker pitches have been provided and are being developed in all recent development. The cost of such construction is borne entirely by the Board. The arrangement between the Board and the Markets and Hawkers Department is that 70 per cent of the fees are paid to the Housing and Development Board for recovery of costs and 30 per cent is retained by the Markets and Hawkers Department for maintenance and water charges. The licence fees are $10 or $15 per stall.

The policy of providing suitable alternative sites for hawkers has been followed in the case of other hawker areas. Those are areas other than the Housing Board areas, where it has been necessary to move hawkers to deal with development or redevelopment, traffic obstruction or hazards, interference with public cleansing and other health activities. This policy has been satisfactory and, in a number of cases where such resettlement has been necessary, there has been good co-operation on the whole from the hawkers. Such resettled areas include East Coast Road, the big bottleneck at the junction of Joo Chiat Road and the Changi Market, the hawker congestion outside Killiney Road Market and the vicinity of the Lido Theatre in Orchard Road.

All hawker policy matters are carefully discussed by the Hawkers Advisory Committee and all aspects of the problem are carefully examined before any action is decided upon. Individual appeals are also considered by this Committee. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the Hawkers' Advisory Committee there are important Government officials; the police is represented on that Committee, also the Health Department. We have also somebody from the Social Science Department of the University who serves as a representative and all hawkers' problems are carefully examined by that Committee.

As to the allocation of stalls, I can assure the Member for Choa Chu Kang that it is done properly and in a very fair manner. These pitches are built to replace the existing shacks and everyone who is in occupation of an existing shack is registered and he is provided with a new pitch. Allocation is done by ballot. Everyone has an opportunity of drawing in the ballot.

As to the charge that is being made by the Member for Choa Chu Kang that preference is shown to certain hawkers' unions, I can assure him that no hawkers' union is represented in this Hawkers' Advisory Committee. I can assure him also that balloting is done in a fair and proper manner.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Would the Minister kindly inform us what sort of equipment he envisages in the markets, and would he also tell us what the actual composition of this Hawkers' Advisory Committee is?

Mr Byrne: It is all that goes with the markets, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir

Dr Lee Siew Choh: What?

Mr Byrne: In the market you must have stalls ---

An hon. Member: What would you use in the stalls? - [Laughter].

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Byrne: Well, you must have, say, tables and all the paraphernalia that go with `a market. Now, what is your second question?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The composition of this Hawkers' Advisory Committee.

4 p.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Chairman of the Hawkers' Advisory Committee is the Deputy Director of Medical Services (Health). He is a medical doctor, Sir. There is a representative of the police, he represents traffic problems on that Committee. There is a member of the Social Science Department of the University on that Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary is a member of that Committee, and so is the Member for Aljunied. There is no hawker representation on that Committee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: How many are P.A.P.?

An hon. Member: All.

The Chairman: Order. Any other Member wishes to speak? Does the hon. Member wish to take a vote on it?

Mr Ong Chang Sam indicated assent.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $579,980 for Head D.25 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963.

Head D.49 -

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D.49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, subhead 4 deals with extension and development of radio, information and publicity services of the Ministry of Culture. According to the Government explanation, because Malaysia will be established on 3 1st of August, therefore it is necessary to extend short-wave radio transmission to the three Borneo territories. Therefore, the Government has asked this House to approve this vote of $1,350,000 for this purpose. The so-called Ministry of Culture is, in fact, the propaganda machinery of the P.A.P. Radio Singapore is, in fact, the voice of the P.A.P. From the past series of incidents, the people of Singapore have come to know that Radio Singapore is the main propaganda machinery of the P.A.P. Government, because the P.A.P. is already bankrupt in the eyes of the people and it has no possibility of convening rallies, street conferences and other meetings of the people. That is why the only propaganda machinery available to it is to make use of the money of the people for its own political propaganda, that is, through Radio Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, at present the facilities of Radio Singapore are more than sufficient and there is no necessity to expand them further by spending $1.35 million.

4.05 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Ong Chang Sam: We can know that the P.A.P. not only wants to carry out party propaganda throughout Malaya and Singapore, but also it wants to extend its propaganda to the three Borneo territories because it hopes to set up branches there. But so far it has not been successful. No members have been forthcoming. Because the P.A.P. is unable to set up branches in the Borneo territories, it has now come to think of this method of extending radio services. It has now come to this House to ask for a vote of $1.35 million to extend short-wave radio transmission to the component parts of Malaysia. According to the Government's explanation, it is scheduled to spend $550,000 in 1962 on the National Art Gallery, but so far we have not seen whether work has started on it. The Minister for Culture has never mentioned about it at all, because he knows that the National Art Gallery cannot do anything in the field of political propaganda for the P.A.P. That is why although the vote on the National Art Gallery was already there in the 1962 Development Estimates, the P.A.P. did not carry out the project because it found it was of no political use to it. Mr Speaker, in col. 2288 of Hansard, Vol. 15 No. 24 dated 15th December, 1961, when the Member for Farrer Park asked the Minister for Culture about the building plan of the National Art Gallery, the Minister for Culture pointed out to the House that the plan would be implemented in 1962. But he had not carried out what he had promised in this Assembly. But now he has transferred this $550,000 for the purposes of extending the short-wave radio transmission service. Mr Speaker, this sum of $1.35 million is not small. It is collected from the people in the form of taxes and it amounts to one-quarter of the assessment revenues for 1963. Since the P.A.P. came into office, it has introduced various taxes, one of which is assessment tax. The present Government, in order to extend the services of Radio Singapore, intends now to use a further $1.35 million which is one-quarter of the property tax for this year, 1963. But we would like to ask this. After the extension of this radio service, what can the people get? Can their living conditions be improved? Can sanitary conditions be improved? Will there be more schools? Why does the Government not want to use this big sum of money to help the people improve their standard of living?

A little while ago the Minister for National Development boasted about helping the rural people to improve their livelihood and standard of living. Granted that the money to be spent is only about $740,000. But $1.35 million is proposed to be spent just for the extension of radio services, which sum is derived from various forms of taxes paid by the people, such as property tax.

Mr Speaker, this House has a duty to prevent the P.A.P. from squandering away public money and the wealth of this country in schemes like this extension of radio service. Through Radio Singapore, the P.A.P has also threatened the people. For instance, on May Day after every interval of a few minutes, Radio Singapore made an announcement threatening workers repeatedly not to attend the May Day celebration of the S.A.T.U. for fear of violence. On the other hand, the P.A.P., through Radio Singapore, urged the workers to attend the N.T.U.C. May Day rally. All this proves that the P.A.P. is abusing State machinery to achieve its political ends by political propaganda. That is why we cannot allow the P.A.P. to squander away any more money belonging to the people.

Today it comes to this House asking for a vote of $1 .35 million for the extension of radio services. I suggest that this vote should be withdrawn, and that this sum of money could be put to better use for the benefit of the people.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be moving my amendment No. (2)* if I find that the answers of the Minister for Culture are not satisfactory.

• Amendment (2) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head D.49 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 4.

4.15 p.m.

The Chairman: The Member does not choose to speak now?

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Can I speak now, Sir?

The Chairman: Certainly.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: I would like to ask the Minister for Culture a few questions: firstly, whether this expenditure is really necessary; secondly, whether it is so urgent that it must be spent before the Federation of Malaysia is established; thirdly, if it should be spent after the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia, would the expenditure not be shared between the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore?

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I will answer the first two questions raised by the Member for Tanglin. His first question is: is it necessary to expand radio services before Malaysia is established? The point about the time factor - whether it should be spent before Malaysia is established or not - is irrelevant because radio services have to be expanded to cover the Borneo territories as well through the short-wave band for the simple reason that practically all the radio services in the five territories are operating on a short-wave band, including the Borneo territories where they are establishing a more powerful short-wave band. We ourselves therefore have to follow suit, regardless of what happens after Malaysia.

One other reason is that, as the Member for Tanglin knows, we have a commercial service. Once every other commercial service goes on short wave and we stick to medium wave, then perhaps we shall have to ask for more than the $1.3 million that we are asking for today. We have to go on short wave, if for no other reason than to establish a commercial service.

Apart from that, it follows on what the Member for Yio Chu Kang has been ranting against. We are quite gratified, Sir, that the Communists and their puppets here have developed a phobia about our radio propaganda. We are not afraid of propaganda. They are afraid of propaganda. The Member for Queenstown has every reason to be afraid of a further extension of our radio services to cover the Borneo territories as well, because if performance within our limits on medium wave in Singapore has cost him dearly, then I am quite sure that if our performance over radio forums could be heard throughout the Borneo territories, many of his Communist supporters in the Borneo territories would certainly have cause to doubt whether the Barisan Sosialis, which has always put itself forward as the spearhead of the Communist movement in Malaysia, is a dependable ally. Today they are a broken wing if we are to pay any credence to their own propaganda in the Barisan newspapers. Today they are relying on guerilla warfare in the Borneo territories to save them from the predicament they are in. We are quite open about it. It is the duty of a democratic society to use the propaganda machinery. It has always been here. It is nothing new. We have never established it. When the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Yio Chu Kang were on this side of the House, they had no occasion to raise questions about the money spent - whether it was worth while spending money on radio. In fact, they were anxious that our radio should be strengthened. But today, now that they are no longer on this side and no longer fighting the cause of democracy but obviously fighting the cause of the Communists and alien confrontationists, they know that the radio can be used effectively to stifle them and to conscribe them, as we had shown them in the referendum. That is why, Sir, they are terrified of any extension to the radio services because it would be one more blow against their propaganda and one more means to expose Communist falsehoods, Communist strategy and Communist propaganda. The Member for Yio Chu Kang, though, he made wild allegations ---

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Rajaratnam: Choa Chu Kang, Sir.

The Chairman: Order. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has been referred to as the Member for Yio Chu Kang by not only the Minister for Culture, but also by the Deputy Prime Minister. I was wondering whether there is any hint that there will be another constituency called the Constituency of Yio Chu Kang.

Mr Rajaratnam: No, Sir. It is purely in anticipation of the political future of the Member for Choa Chu Kang, because we are never quite sure where he is at any one moment. It is possible, Sir, that he will have to find new pastures, probably in Yio Chu Kang or perhaps some other quarters.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Woodbridge!

Mr Rajaratnam: I am sorry, Sir,I should refer correctly to his present constituency, which is Choa Chu Kang.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Yio Chu Kang is the Tanjong Rambutan of Singapore.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang has been saying that the radio has been used for P.A.P. propaganda.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: It is true.

Mr Rajaratnam: For him, the P.A.P. is synonymous with democracy. We have never made any propaganda for the Party. We have always made propaganda on behalf of the democratic cause against the Communists. I challenge him at any moment to show any one occasion where the radio has been used for party propaganda. It is a tribute to us that he equates the P.A.P. to the democratic cause in general. We have always challenged, accused, and exposed the Communists but never have we ever gone and put across on any occasion purely party propaganda. We are able to deal with them in this field when we have occasion to meet them outside the radio studios. But over the radio, our main cause has been to espouse democracy in our fight against the Communists. They know very well, Sir, that the referendum proved that for the first Time. That is one of the reasons why we are expanding our radio services. The Communists believe in pro, paganda, but it is quite a different type of propaganda when they send school children carrying Ovaltine or Milo or milk bottles and going around whispering to farmers that the Government are doing this and doing that. They know that the blank votes in the referendum were least in the city areas where there is adequate radio coverage, but in the rural areas where there is not adequate radio propaganda coverage, the blank votes were high. Since the referendum, it has been our policy to extend the publicity services, including radio and television, in the rural areas which are their last stronghold. They know today that that stronghold is being taken away from them. Therefore, there is every reason for them to come out now and say that the $1.35 million that is being spent on the extension of radio services is a waste of money and why can we not build houses and clinics. We are building houses. In fact, Sir, the damage done by the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists by trying to sabotage the economy of the country and by misleading workers to artificial strikes has cost the country far more than the $1,300,000 that we are going to spend on radio. This $1.35 million will ensure that the capacity to damage the economy of the country by the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis is more effectively reduced. The result will be that this $1.35 million will ensure that the economy of the country will prosper and that our country will develop far quicker, because we can expose all their machinations. Secondly, by extending the services to the Borneo territories, we hope that we will he able to conscribe their Communist friends in the Borneo territories as effectively as we have done to the Communists in Singapore.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered my third and most important question: if this expenditure were to take place after 31st August, 1963, would the expenditure then he shared with the Central Government?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I shall answer that question because this point is among the Radio and Broadcasting matters still to be discussed with the Central Government.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to that is very important, and I am glad that the Minister is not able to give it, because after Malaysia I understand that the policy as regards programmes and so on will have to be subject to the approval of the Central Government and that the misuse of propaganda media by the local Government for party purposes could very well be checked, whereas today such propaganda cannot be checked.

Now, Sir, if the expenditure will be shared by the Central Government after 31st August, 1963, then to save Singapore unnecessary expenditure, I think this item could be postponed till after 31st August. The inordinate hurry being shown by the Ministry of Culture to have two very expensive items before the House for approval shows its eagerness to have radio and television propaganda before 31st August.

Sir, we all know how important it was for the Japanese during the Japanese occupation not to allow local people to be able to time in to short-wave broadcasts. We were only allowed to time in on the medium-wave band. It is recognised all over the world by both power blocs that radio propaganda is so important that even without sending forces across the seas, they can capture the territories they want by subversion in that way.

Sir, when I was in Jesselton and in Kuching, there was fear expressed by the people there regarding the poison in Singapore. This was due to a statement by the P.A.P., who said that the Barisan were open-front Communists. They said, "They say so. If there are open-front Communists, what about those who are not open-front Communists?" The Finance Minister in his financial statement has referred to the last ten years as being years of strife. Sir, that period coincides with the period of the establishment of the P.A.P. in Singapore. If propaganda is broadcast on short wave to our neighbours who are going to be partners in Malaysia and they are already scared of the poison from Singapore, the earlier installation of all this machinery will simply mean the chance of more propaganda for the P.A.P. throughout Malaysia disturbing the climate in other territories.

4.30 p.m.

Of course, Sir, the P.A.P. may say that they have changed, but we have not yet seen the change to be more than a bit above the surface. We are not convinced of that yet. Already we see a strike in Singapore today affecting the nurses and the welfare of the sick people in the hospitals.

Sir, if the Ministry of Culture is really anxious to preserve the good climate in Borneo and Sarawak, they could very well refrain from trying to extend the scope of their propaganda machinery till after 31st August, when people can say there will be fair play for all. At this particular Time President Soekarno and the Tunku have decided that there should be a policy of co-operation and not one of confrontation. The P.A.P. have said they believe definitely in open confrontation. I can foresee, in these radio programmes over the short-wave broadcasts, there can be such statements as to invite open confrontation from other territories, thereby spoiling the atmosphere not of Singapore but of Malaysia. If the P.A.P. Government is really interested in more co-operation instead of more confrontation in Malaysia, they could refrain from spending this sum till after 31st August, 1963.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the three Ministers of the Government referring to me as the Member for Yio Chu Kang. I think this is because they will be going to Woodbridge Hospital in Yio Chu Kang one day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture made a reply to me. His reply clearly shows that it is when the P.A.P. is unable to explain its abuse of the Government machinery that it will bring out the weapon of the so-called united front of the Communists. All this so-called united front of Communists is a claim made by the P.A.P. in order to shirk its responsibility and to deceive the people. It is claimed by the P.A.P. that the Barisan Sosialis has infiltrated into the unions and led strikes, and so it is necessary for the Government to expand the services of broadcasting in order to pin down the Barisan's infiltration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few days we have seen that if the argument of the Minister for Culture can stand, then it means that the Communists have already infiltrated into the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen employees of the Ministry of Home Affairs on strike. The pickets perform their duties outside the C.I.D., on the doorsteps of the Special Branch, outside the Central Police Station and even outside the Ministry of Home Affairs itself. On all these buildings we can see banners and strike placards. The slogan is that the strikers condemn the Government for using the Police against the legitimate strikers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are even a lot of cartoons on display, and one of the cartoons says, "Small men, small pay. Understand?"

The Chairman: Personally, I do not understand how all this has got to do with the motion before the House.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am mentioning all these in order to reply to the allegation of the Minister for Culture that the Barisan has led strikes and infiltrated into the unions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the leader of the strikes is actually the Secretary of the A.U.P.E. who is the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. Does the Minister for Culture mean that Mr Kandasamy is also a member of the united front of the Communists?

Mr Speaker, Sir, all this talk of Communists has been made in order to enable P.A.P. to shirk its responsibility and all this talk is very unconvincing in the eyes of the people. In fact, the Government intends to make use of the radio to achieve its political propaganda and it is actually impractical. They are unable to do this because the future general election will show where they stand. As a matter of fact, the naive arguments of the Minister for Culture over Radio Singapore will not be able to deceive the people. If he thinks so, I say it is a mistaken conception. We all know that the Voice of America has a very great voice. Its transmission is very strong, but the strength of the U.S.A. imperialists is decreasing from Time to Time. All that we are concerned now is that the Government should not be allowed to abuse public funds on an insignificant and unnecessary expansion. So if the Government wants to show the world that it is interested in the welfare of the people, then it must make use of this money that is being asked for, for the improvement of the livelihood of the people and not for the expansion of this short-wave service.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, the Member for Tanglin takes objection, as far as I can gather, to the extension of the short-wave service on two grounds. First, be seems to be under a misapprehension that Radio Singapore is for party propaganda. He has been saying that for the last three years. There must have been many instances over the past three years. I have asked him Time and again if he could quote any instance where party propaganda, as distinct from government propaganda, has gone across the air.

Secondly, he says he went to Jesselton and saw some people - I do not know which people he saw - who said that they are afraid of the poison that is going to be spread from Singapore to the Borneo territories. Obviously, Sir, this "poison" is meat to many people in Jesselton, because we have had from the Political Study Centre-which has also in the past been accused of being a P.A.P. propaganda outfit - enquiries from certain people who came from the Borneo territories and the Federation to attend our Political Study Centre, who were so impressed by what was going on that they have officially requested us twice to send our lecturers and speakers to go and conduct similar political study classes in the Borneo territories. In fact, we have another request and we have been so successful that they have asked us to go across and tell their civil servants of the political background to the big struggle that is going on in this area. I cannot therefore see that what the P.A.P. says over the radio or at the Political Study Centre could possibly be called poison by people who matter. I do not know who were the people whom the Member for Tanglin met in Jesselton. Obviously, they could not be people who mattered. Secondly ---

Mr David Marshall: All people matter. Ha, ha, ha!

Mr Rajaratnam: Obviously, Sir, these people whom he saw ---

An hon. Member: Nobody knows ---

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, the Member for Anson occasionally breaks out into interjections. Obviously he does not quite understand what I am saying. I am saying that the Member for Tanglin saw some people, and as it was a short visit he could have seen only two or three people. It is quite possible that those people do not matter in terms of what the people of Borneo or Jesselton want.

Secondly, Sir, if what goes over Radio Singapore can be considered as poison, the radio stations in these three territories would not have asked for an exchange of programmes, especially many of the programmes in regard to political matters. Therefore, Sir, what we are trying to do by establishing a short-wave service is to ensure that instead of recording programmes on tape and sending them there weeks late, with the establishment of a short-wave service people in the Borneo territories can listen in to the same radio programmes and enjoy the same radio diet as the people of Singapore.

As regards his other point, whether this expansion could not be held back until after Malaysia, it is our duty not to halt everything, even necessary extensions, just because of Malaysia. We have to go on with the normal extension of our service, not only for radio but also other services. Nor can we say that we should stop building a few more post offices because we should wait till after Malaysia for the Central Government to decide whether to build those post offices or extend the airport. It is our duty to carry on doing what is necessary, regardless of what happens after Malaysia. That is the basis on which we plan to extend this short-wave service because it is necessary and not because we want to spread poison. It is ridiculous to say that, because far from receiving poison the people of Borneo want to listen in to many of the Singapore programmes, such as some of the radio forums. The Member for Queenstown has excited considerable interest in the Borneo territories and many of them regretted that they were not privileged to listen in to the fiasco that the Member for Queenstown is supposed to have experienced at a recent radio forum.

There is a reference to T.V. in the latest issue of the Barisan from which I shall quote some relevant extracts when we conic to deal with T.V. I think they were more interested in the report of the performance of the Member for Queenstown during this radio forum. And now with this short-wave service, they will have direct experience of what the Member for Queenstown and his ghost-writers are capable of.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture should really he called the Minister for Propaganda. He is a trained journalist and he knows how to obscure the main points by adding so many other points until people get confused.

Sir, we give credit to the P.A.P. for knowing when to slow down and when to expedite matters. The Sembawang by-election has been slowed down for many months, because they want to build up a new image of the P.A.P. That is why the Prime Minister is going all over Singapore. The whole of Malaya knows it.

An hon. Member: Why don't you go around? [Laughter]

4.45 p.m.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: I am asking something very simple. Is Singapore not going to benefit by sharing the expenditure on this item with the Federation by postponing it for just a few months? Surely it is reasonable for the Minister for Culture to agree, and I would be glad to withdraw my amendment.

Now, Sir, regarding the question of the Minister for Culture. Firstly, he says that I merely met a few "nobodies" in the Borneo territories and formed a quick impression therefrom. Sir, I met responsible leaders of the political Parties in North Borneo, and they explained to me the reason why they insisted on controlling immigration in their territory. That is because they were scared, particularly about the poison in Singapore.

The other thing is this, Sir. He asked me for proof as to how the present broadcasting system can be regarded as P.A.P.-controlled propaganda.

An hon. Member: Party propaganda.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, before the P.A.P. came to power, was the Broadcasting Department not fairly independent when it came to the broadcasting of news and the selection of news? As soon as they came to power, `the Control Room was shifted to the Ministry of Culture. Now that is an indication of closer control.

Secondly, Sir, and this is very specific. Once somebody in the Broadcasting Department rang me up and said, "I am sorry, we can only give you little space," and he read out to me what he was going to report of my speech in the Assembly. [Laughter] I am not a liar. I claim anybody to charge me as a liar, Sir. Sometimes the Government benches like to laugh derisively.

Mr Byrne: Because you put us in good humour.

The Chairman: Please continue, Dr Thio.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: I expected that at least the small bit that he read out would be reported in the broadcast of the proceedings of the Assembly. Sir, what he read out to me was brief enough: it was cut down further.

The Prime Minister: Possibly the Broadcasting Editor thought otherwise.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Well, those are just two things that indicate that ever since the P.A.P. came to power, there has been greater thought control through the radio and through the Press. We know it and we know very well that there are two versions of many Singapore papers. The papers that are read in Kuala Lumpur give one impression; the papers that are read in Singapore give another impression. Anyway, Sir, I was just asking for something very simple: whether in the interests of the economy of Singapore to save some money this item could not be postponed until after 31st August, and I suppose the answer will be "No".

The Chairman: Anything further? No? Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Rajaratnam: I think his last statement is correct, Sir. The answer would be "No". As I have indicated, these things should be judged on their merits. It has nothing to do with Malaysia. Regardless of Malaysia or not, it cannot be postponed until after 31st August. But I ask one question of him. Can he give evidence of party propaganda - I think those were the words he used - over Radio Singapore? And he said "Yes". The evidence was this: that the News Room under the Labour Front Government - then they metamorphosed into the S.P.A., and I think now they call themselves the Grand Alliance. But his claim is that before, under their regime, the News Room was elsewhere, and that with the present Government the News Room is in the City Hall. The News Room has always been in City Hall, so I do not see how that constitutes party propaganda over Radio Singapore.

As regards his speech. I cannot recollect it. Normally we never interfere with the news presentation and he can challenge it. He can ask of any News Editor. The only thing we are interested in is, how should the news be relayed? Normally what the News Editor does is he has got only two, three or four minutes. He uses his judgment and cuts out the least impressive of the speeches. It may be that when he first read out the report of the Member's speech unedited, which as he said came to a few paragraphs, and it was discovered that the Time limit at his disposal was only two or three minutes, he went through it with a red pencil and decided to delete it. It is a normal process which goes on in every newspaper office. So that does not constitute proof that'd there is P.A.P. propaganda.

Sir, these are the two points I wish to make, because the Member and other Members have been saying that we broadcast party propaganda. We always challenge them. Please produce instances. If there were any instances during the past three years, there must obviously have been a great deal of party propaganda going across. They should have noted it down - "Such and such a date, this particular item or party propaganda was put across. Please, can you explain?" Then we will be prepared to explain. But to make a general statement that there is party propaganda, as distinct from government propaganda. What hurts them most is this. This Government has achieved a great deal, unlike the previous Government, and therefore has a lot to boast of. Therefore, the more we boast, the more it hurts them. That is the crux of `their complaint that there is P.A.P. propaganda. What he means is that by contrast we build houses; we show them over T.V. If they had T.V., they would have nothing to show. If you want to boast about something, you should boast about something which is convincing. Now we have achieved so much of which we are proud and we are justified in putting it over the radio. We have built houses, we have built schools, we have built roads; we show them. When Members like the Member for Tanglin look at all this, it irritates them. It annoys the Member because it is the truth. Therefore, he decides being a "moral rearmamenter" to say that all this is propaganda. The houses could not exist, the schools could not exist; therefore this is party propaganda.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will pardon me, I have to bring up an illustration that I think should be brought up under television. This is to answer his point that the P.A.P. never use their machinery for P.A.P. propaganda.

Sir, on the referendum, they made a film to show that it was victory for the people; but the film was so made that it gave the impression `that it was a victory for the People's Action Party.

An hon. Member: They were there, but your chaps were asleep.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: They asked us in the national interest to put aside party considerations; we did. We told the people to vote for certain issues regardless of party considerations. It was not a vote for or against the P.A.P.

Now, usually, Sir, my temper seldom rises. [Loud laughter]

The Chairman: Order.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Now, Sir, I was there right through the counting ---

Mr Byrne: The what?

Dr Thio Chan Bee: --- the counting of the ballot ---

The Chairman: Order.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: We were told that there must be no display of banners of any Party. The moment the P.A.P. knew that the result was going to be in favour of the referendum ---

An hon. Member: What time was that?

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Well, a crowd of people began to gather outside the Hall with P.A.P. banners. Sir, when the Supervisor of Elections announced the result of the referendum, he made a mistake. He announced it to the crowd outside and not to us inside the Hall. Now, to show that the masses were so powerful that they were eager to please the masses, they announced the result to the public rather than to the polling agents who were inside the Hall, until I pointed this out. I saw this particular scene on television. The closing scene showed people waving flags. Whose flags, Sir? The People's Action Party flags! So it was a victory for the P.A.P.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, it occurs to me that the Member for Tanglin has great difficulty in producing evidence to substantiate his claim that there is party propaganda.

First, Sir, this was after the referendum was over. The Supervisor of the Referendum was announcing the result. There has been a tradition that such announcements are made publicly over the loudspeaker to the people, because they voted for it.

Similarly, we went through the same process after the referendum. Surely if the Member for Tanglin - I do not know if he was there, I did not see him after the result - he could have hobnobbed with the masses and listened together with them, and rejoiced over the result together with them. It has been the custom always for the Supervisor of Elections to make the announcement publicly, and not whisper it privately to a few friends.

Then, regarding some films over T.V. There was no T.V. then. T.V. started on 15th February. I do not know whether he is mentioning some other instance.

As regards the display of flags, we made a film, and there were occasions during the referendum struggle when there were rallies for the Tunku. We took a lot of pictures - some where the S.P.A. brought banners.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: They were not shown.

Mr Rajaratnam: They were shown, and if the Member wants, we are prepared to show him. We have sixteen Berita Singapura, each lasting about ten to fifteen minutes. There were pictures with lots of S.P.A. banners. In fact, there was a slight confusion between S.P.A. and A.U.P.E. banners. If he wants to, he can come and see them. There was nothing to prevent the S.P.A. on the day the referendum results were declared to come out with their flags and banners and mingle with the P.A.P. banners. The Barisan were there; they brought banners, but they had to leave hastily before the results were announced. So they now have the opportunity of being filmed.

I therefore submit, Sir, that the Member for Tanglin has not yet produced tangible evidence of party propaganda as against government propaganda.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: The Minister for Culture has not denied that there is such a television film and that it was shown over the television programme. I can bring witnesses of people who were present when we saw that film. We were surprised.

The Chairman: Does the Member for Choa Chu Kang desire a vote?

Mr Ong Chang Sam indicated assent.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: Is the Member for Tanglin speaking more on his amendment*?

• The amendment reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head D.49 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 4.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: No, Sir.

The Chairman: Dr Thio will then move simpliciter.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: I move simpliciter.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: It is time to suspend.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: I will take this Chair again at five-thirty.

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]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

5.31 p.m.

The Chairman: Head D.49 - Ministry of Culture. Amendment (3), Mr Ong Chang Sam.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D.49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 10.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this item is related to television. Here the Government is asking for a vote of $4,460,900 for providing furniture and equipment. According to the explanation given here, the T.V. Pilot Service was inaugurated on 15th February, 1963 and the Regular Service came into being on 2nd April, 1963.

Here we can see clearly that this House has approved two votes for this expenditure. In 1962, this House already approved $3 million for T.V. expenses. On 18th June, 1962 the Government also asked this House to approve $787,030 as shown in Command Paper No. 11 of 1962. Therefore, the two votes passed previously should be enough for the Government to use on T.V. services. Fundamentally speaking, the emphasis should be on educating the people. The television services should not be used to mislead the people or as a means of propaganda for the ruling Party.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the 15th o February when the T.V. Pilot Service was inaugurated in Singapore, the Government have installed quite a number of television sets in the community centres. At the last sitting of this House, the Minister in his reply said that the Government had installed 78 T.V. sets in these community centres. At the same time, he said that the Government would install the same number of T.V. sets from then on in other community centres. But can these T.V. sets bring any benefit to the people? We have to examine this question closely. It is now four months since the setting up of television in Singapore. During these four months, many guardians of households have advanced their views on the T.V. services and they have pointed out the errors of the Government, saying that the Government have been using T.V. for their propaganda purposes for their own Party.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the T.V. programmes are normally on in the evening from 7 p.m. to about 11 p.m. This period is very important to certain people, especially to the students. As a result of the introduction of T.V., many students waste their valuable Time watching T.V. programmes and do not concentrate on their school lessons. This is especially so in the community centres where many afternoon session students do not go home after school. They just loiter around the community centres waiting to see T.V. programmes. Quite a good number of parents have complained about this to us. They say that because the Government have installed T.V. sets in many community centres their children have not been returning home in Time and that they have been neglecting their school lessons.

Mr Speaker, we should remember that in the rural areas every family makes full use of its labour force. Some of these students have to help in the farm or look after the poultry after school. But as a result of the Government's installation of T.V. sets in community centres in the rural areas, these students do not return home in Time to help in this sort of work. Thus, the family as well as the students themselves suffer a great loss. We can therefore say that the period for T.V. programmes is already long enough, and yet the Government are trying to introduce another channel, a second T.V. channel.

Mr Speaker, I believe that the Government will be receiving complaints and they will have to think twice about this to ensure that the students pay attention to their lessons. Instead of this, the Government are trying to extend T.V. services. What is the Government's intention? I think the Government intend to extend their T.V. programmes to the rural areas in order to propagandise their rallies and meetings with a view to the next general election. But whatever they do, we know that the people will not be attracted to these rallies. That is why the Government intend to attract and induce the people to come to their rallies and talks by means of T.V. programmes. The Conservative Party in England also used this means and I believe that the P.A.P. Government are also trying to emulate this tactic for their political publicity.

Mr Speaker, the Government are wrong in wanting such a great sum of money for T.V. extension. They should not be doing this. The vote asks for $4.46 million plus $3 million voted in 1962 plus $780,000 voted for 1961. Altogether the Government will have $8 million for T.V. purposes. Now this total sum of $8 million is the same amount as the house assessment rates in the rural areas for 1961. Mr Speaker, let us see Paper Command 6 of 1963, page 81. Under the heading of Rural Administration, the sum is about $8.5 million for house assessment rates. The Government are asking $8.2 million for T.V. Why can the Government not use this sum to build more creches and other social amenities in the more crowded areas to give more benefit to the working population? The Government have not been looking after the livelihood of people in the low income groups. They are only interested in their political future.

Mr Speaker, the way in which the Government are squandering the money will not be forgotten by the people in the next elections. The Prime Minister's trips and his speeches here and there and certain American films of low taste are televised.

5.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the P.A.P. came to power, the Minister for Labour inspected various community centres and ordered that all American publications should be confiscated because, according to him, these publications gave American imperialist propaganda and should not be allowed in the community centres. But in the T.V. programmes of today the Government is exhibiting a lot of American films and other undesirable films. This goes to show that T.V. Singapura is unable to provide its own programmes. On the contrary, it wants to extend the time of T.V. shows and thus it will have to borrow from elsewhere. That is why quite a great deal of American films have been used in Singapore T.V. programmes. This is very dangerous to the people of Singapore. This practice is exactly opposite to what the Minister for Labour has said in the past.

Mr Speaker, a little while ago when discussing the question of Radio Singapore. I said that the Government should spend more time on social welfare and not on their struggle for their own future political life. Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the sum of almost $4� million is a very big sum to spend on extension of television services at this Time. From those who have been watching television programmes there have been complaints that the Government, instead of spending more money on quality films, are giving very, very old films, and educationally the films especially for the children arc not quite suitable. I saw a few of the films on television and I must say that young children with their imitative faculties highly developed would be able to follow the creatures in the cartoons resorting to the use of axes to break down doors anti so on and to chase one another with very dangerous instruments.

Of course, we know very well that the main purpose of television at this time is propaganda on behalf of the P.A.P. We know very well that in the case of the P.A.P., the Government and the P.A.P. are almost identical, because when the Prime Minister goes on his rounds visiting the people, he is greeted as the Prime Minister, but when he talks he attacks other Parties, making him appear as a Party leader rather than the national leader. So, how are people to know that the Prime Minister appearing in television is the Prime Minister or the Party leader, because he acts as if he is both at one and the same Time, and the Minister for Culture himself has indirectly admitted only a few months ago that the main purpose of television is to reduce the influence of the Barisan in the rural areas.

Mr Rajaratnam: The Communists.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, by implication, that means it is really to put up the stock of the P.A.P. in the rural areas.

Mr Rajaratnam: That is right.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: If that is the main purpose of the sense of this item, I think it is not proper for the Party in power a: this Time, with the general elections probably not far away ---

An hon. Member: Round the corner.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: --- to spend large sums of money to bolster up the party prospects in the coming general elections; that is, using public funds, I think, Sir, for wrong purposes.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Chu Chu Kang ---

The Chairman: C-H-O-A Chu Kang. [Laughter]

Mr Rajaratnam: --- spent a great deal of Time arguing that we should not have spent more money on television but that we should have no television at all .Sir, he pointed out the evils of television. Young people instead of going home, go to the community centres: farmers' children instead of staying at home go to the community centres. But, the Member for Choa Chu Kang knows that even in Communist China long treatises are written to say that the advent of television is to keep up with the Times, so the people should have the advantage of the latest of scientific devices, which is television. So, to that extent, the Barisan Sosialis is not only a pro-Communist group but it is outdated. It does not keep in touch with the latest advance in Communism, because in Moscow and in Peking, television is regarded as an essential part of the people's life. Therefore, for the Barisan Sosialis now to claim that television is no good - and that is what a great deal of the argument was about, because some parents are complaining that their children are not staying in their homes and are spending their time in the community centres, I can tell him that if he tries to say that the Barisan Sosialis would like the Government to dismantle all T.V. sets in all community centres, I shall be prepared to take Members of the Barisan Sosialis to any community centre to get them to get up and say that we are going to take away the community T.V. sets, and I am quite sure, Sir, what the answer of the people would be. The Barisan Sosialis would probably have to go to Jakarta to seek refuge. Sir, this is quite simple. Just like radio, T.V. is one more weapon to expose the falsehoods of the Communists. They keep on saying - they have been saying for the last two years - that the P.A.P. is exploiting the people and has done nothing for the people, has not done anything to improve the welfare of the people. But what is happening since T.V. came? The people arc seeing houses. They see them visually and the lie of the Communist propaganda that a non-Communist Government cannot do things for them has been exposed. They say there arc no clinics. We show clinics being opened. They say there are no schools. We show schools being opened. People see that in community centres in the rural areas for the first Time on TV. People are beginning to realise - visual evidence, concrete evidence - that unlike what the Communists claim, that only under a Communist society can life be better for the people, they now say, yes, in a democratic society it is possible to create a better life for the people, and that is the main motivation. Because, Sir, when the project for television was started while hon. Members were still in the Government, they were quite excited about the prospects of television. But since they left suddenly, television has become a bad thing, a dangerous weapon to deceive the people. Why is it when the television project was mooted when they were still in the government, they were most enthusiastic about television? They saw in it a weapon to educate the people, to teach them. That is what we are doing now, teaching the people what is happening in Singapore. For the first Time, they are beginning to see things which were not possible to convey purely over the radio. So, Sir, I hope it will be made public that the Barisan Sosialis have now come to a stag e where they will deny T.V. to the ordinary people in the community centres who cannot afford T.V., that they are now demanding that the Government should withdraw television sets because it is a waste of Time and it is not fit for ordinary people.

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): On a point of elucidation.

The Chairman: Will the Minister give way.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Sir, as far as I understand my colleague, the Member for Choa Chu Kang, he has said that the contents of television are no good. It is not television itself.

The Chairman: Order. If the Member for Choa Chu Kang had been misrepresented, I am sure he would have got up to say how he had been misrepresented. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Rajaratnam: I have got my notes here saying that farmers are complaining that their children, instead of helping them in their houses at night, are spending Time in the community centres watching television. Obviously, therefore, the Barisan line is that children of farmers are not to see television. I hope this is a line that the Barisan is taking, that they have come to a point where they have now to argue that television is all right for doctors who can afford television. Their children can see television, but as regards children of farmers, the Government is wasting money providing a television service in community centres.

Sir, again he says that the television programmes fall far short of expectations. We have only been four months on television. People are trying hard. We are short of money and some of the programmes are not up to standard. But it is not quite true to say, as the Barisan Sosialis has just claimed, that we show only American films. It is true we show American films, but we also show Chinese films, Indians films, Indonesian films, Malay films, Malay programmes. It is difficult to get Malay films, so we spent more money putting forward live programmes which cost six or seven Times as much, even sometimes ten Times as much as getting feature films on hire - old films - but again I have said that we hope that as our people become more experienced, they will be able to produce better programmes.

May I quote, Sir, that even the Barisan Sosialis, after making all this denunciation of television, find it convenient from Time to Time to refer to television? Recently, we had a T.V. forum. The leader of the Barisan Sosialis came to the forum. If he thought it was an instrument of reaction, a waste of Time, a waste of public money, why did he come up to the television forum? And the latest issue of the Barisan referred with great pride to what happened at the T.V. forum. They used the programme as an argument in their favour - "It has been noted that three M.P.s in the T.V. forum have similarly suggested that Malaysia had been rushed." So, Sir, when television suits their ends, it is good television; but if it does not, then let us deprive the people of television. That is the approach. We are quite frank about our use of television. We use television, we use the radio, we use all means of propaganda to defeat and expose the Communists; and this is a powerful weapon. As I have said before, Sir, we will continue to use it to conscribe and defeat the Communists as we have done in the past.

6.00 p.m.

Sir, with reference to the Member for Tanglin, I am not quite sure what he said. After regretting that we have spent $4 million, he went on to say that we should spend more money on quality films. If, on the one hand, he believes that television should be improved by using better films, I quite agree with him. We hope there will come a Time when with the introduction of commercial television there will be enough money for us to buy newer and better films and produce our own films. But this is a normal part of our expansion of television service. As you know, the television service originally started off as a one and a half hour service. Since then, far from what the Barisan Sosialis have to say. I have lots of letters from people saying that they want more Time. They say that three hours are not enough. The Chinese want more programmes; the Indians want more programmes; the Malays want more programmes and the English-educated want more time. Therefore, the expansion which has been foreseen is now taking place, far sooner than we expected. So this money is to ensure that expansion takes place as rapidly as possible; and I am quite sure the Member for Tanglin did not really mean what time said when he said that cartoons had a bad effect on children. I am quite sure in his school he must have provided Grimms' Fairy Tales to school boys. There are more horrors in a Grimms' fairy tale than in one of our modern cartoons, because modern children are bright enough to be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and I am quite sure that none of the cartoons really have an adverse influence on children.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I want to waste too much Time because there is a very important motion coming after this. But realising. Sir, that it is no use arguing too much and too long with the Government side when they are determined to run the thing through, I want to say this. If the Government had spent with as much sense of urgency the huge sums of money to avoid the water shortage, there would have been no water shortage, but when it comes to election propaganda, money is available and it must be spent quickly.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a while ago, I pointed out to the House that the present T.V. service is more than sufficient and that there is no necessity for further expansion of the T.V. service, but the Minister for Culture said that we are opposing all the T.V. services.

As I have pointed out, another point is that the Government make use of T.V. for political purposes. On 28th June, 1962, when this House was debating the First Supplementary Development Estimates, I asked the Acting Minister for Culture, that is the present Minister fur Finance, to assure this House that the T.V. service should not be used by the P.A.P. as a sort of political propaganda. I also pointed out on that occasion that the Acting Minister for Culture should give us such an assurance, but he did not and dared not give such an assurance. Therefore, this clearly shows that the P.A.P. are only interested in their political propaganda and not in educating and informing the people but only in their political future. The Government feel that the present T.V. service is not sufficient, and therefore they have asked for another $4 million approximately to expand it. This will be a great loss to the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said just now that when I was in the P.A.P. I said that T.V. was a good thing and that it should be started. This is wrong. When we left the P.A.P., the Prime Minister saw me and the Member for Upper Serangoon and we talked for more than three hours in his office. At that Time, the Prime Minister said that all the measures and policies can be put to the people through TV. The Prime Minister then requested us to give very careful consideration to this problem. However, we told him that propaganda through T.V. could not deceive the people, that it would only increase the misery and hardship of the people and that therefore this would be a waste of public funds. If the Prime Minister were here, I hope he would rise up and confirm this if he has the courage to do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as responsible representatives of the people, we have a duty to keep a check on the actions of the Government, so that money derived from the people will be spent for the benefit of the people and not for the benefit of the Government.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not really intend to get involved in this debate, but since my name has been used in vain, I think I should say a few words of clarification. The Member for Choa Chu Kang said that he asked for a guarantee which I dared not give. The guarantee he asked for was mat T.V. should not be used for party propaganda. Sir, it is just like asking a man to guarantee not to beat his wife with a big stick. It is obviously an irrelevant and loaded sort of guarantee and I treated it with the contempt that it deserved. My colleague, the Minister for Culture, has repeatedly said that if the Barisan Sosialis or the Member for Tanglin has any concrete example that any particular programme is being used for P.A.P. party propaganda, please let us know.

Mr David Marshall: Will you appoint a Commission?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I am really surprised to learn that the Party appointed the Commission. I thought it was the Government that appointed the Commission. And as my colleague, the Minister for Culture, said, the Government make no apology for using the instruments oil all the media of publicity to put forward their policies to the electorate. It is his duty. And if we do it effectively to the discomfiture of Members of the Opposition, well, it is too bad for them.

Mr Rajaratnam: I think it is necessary to make it clear once and for all that so far in all these discussions we admit that we use the radio and television to publicise and put forward Government propaganda and Government views, but never party interests. We have challenged them time and time again to produce arty single bit of evidence where T.V. or radio has been used for purely party propaganda. We have our own newspaper as far as our Party is concerned. They have beaten about the bush, but nobody has yet produced a single bit of evidence.

I think the Member for Choa Chu Kang really gave the game away. He said that he talked to the Prime Minister during the break, not before the break. Long before that, the Government had decided to launch into T.V. and there was no dissenting voice then. It was during the break that he went to see the Prime Minister to say that propaganda should not be used to deceive the people. That is the Barisan Sosialis type of propaganda. Our propaganda is used to expose those people who deceive the people as well as to educate the people and that is the crux of the problem. What really annoys them is that their deception is Time and Time again exposed over television and the radio to their great discomfiture and also to their gradually declining prestige among the people.

The Chairman: I take it that the Member wishes for a vote?

Mr Ong Chang Sam: Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: Does the Member for Tanglin wish to move his amendment simpliciter*?

• The amendment reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head D.49 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of item (2) of subhead 10.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: No.

The sum of $5,810,900 for Head D.49 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963.

Head D.51

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head D.51 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 6.

6.12 p.m.

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

Mr Ong Chang Sam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Head D.51 is Defence Services. In our present Constitution, defence services and foreign affairs are the responsibilities of the United Kingdom and therefore we, the people of Singapore, should not shoulder these responsibilities. The Members of this House are elected according to this Constitution. Before our present position alters, we should not incur any expenditure to expand this Regiment.

Last year on 28th June, we had a very heated debate in this House on the question of the establishment of the Second Battalion, Singapore Infantry Regiment. On that occasion, the Government asked for $2 million for the establishment of the Second Battalion, Singapore Infantry Regiment, and that Development Estimate was approved in spite of our strong opposition. Today, the Government are asking for $3.8 million for the same purpose. If the Government are going to use this sum of money on other development projects, then we welcome it. But the Government are now going to use this sum of money for the establishment of the Second Battalion, Singapore Infantry Regiment.

6.15 p.m.

Ever since the P.A.P. came to power, among all the pledges they made during the election, they had not pointed out that they were going to use this sum of money on the establishment of this Second Battalion. At that Time, they promised the people that they wanted to use all the resources to improve the living standards of the people. However, not only do the Government now not intend to carry out their pledges, but, on the contrary, they are going to do all sorts of things which they did not promise the people during the elections. The request for provision for this Second Battalion is a very clear example of the Government's intention. The Labour Ministry has published two publications. The first one calls on the people to join the Police Force; the second calls on the people to join the Singapore Infantry Regiment. It looks as if the P.A.P.'s industrialisation scheme has now been turned into a scheme for expansion of the Armed Forces. The Labour Exchange of the Labour Ministry have not told the people what employment they have given them. Instead they have asked them to join the Police and the Armed Forces. Singapore is a small island with only 1.6 million population. Is it really necessary that we should expand the Armed Forces? At present the U.K. Government has stationed a lot of troops in all parts of Singapore. The Prime Minister last Friday, when replying to the Member for Upper Serangoon, also pointed out that the British Government has occupied 13,000 acres of land for their Armed Forces. Apart from the British forces, there are also Federation troops in Singapore. Last Friday, the Minister for National Development, when replying to the Member for Changi, pointed out that there were 1,380 units of houses which are occupied by the Federation troops. Therefore, in addition to the British troops in Singapore, we also have Federation troops stationed in Singapore.

Apart from these troops, we also have local troops - the First Battalion, Singapore Infantry Regiment, established on 11th March, 1957, by the then Labour Front Government, which was an anti-people, anti-worker, reactionary Government. The purpose of forming this Regiment was to fight against the people in Singapore. But the P.A.P., which professes to be an anti-colonial Government, not only does not disband the First Battalion, but, on the contrary, is doing all it can to establish another Battalion.

This is a very good political lesson to the people of Singapore. We have seen that the P.A.P. has no intention whatsoever to improve the people's living standards. They are now building their political future on the strength of the Armed Forces so as to maintain themselves in power. Can we say that the Loops at present in Singapore are not sufficient? In fact, Singapore has become a police State and a military State. Hence we can find the reason for the establishment of this Second Battalion by the Government. In The past they relied on the people's strength, but now they have forsaken the people and lost the support of the people. Their very survival now depends on the Police and troops. The Government have also anticipated that the people will resent them, because they have suffered enough, and the resentment and dissatisfaction of the people have also increased day by day. Therefore, the Government, in order to suppress the discontent of the people and to shore up the British position in this area, have found it necessary to establish this Second Battalion.

We the people of Singapore should not incur this extra expenditure. If this amount of money came from their own pockets, we still want to object. However, this big sum of money has to be paid by the people, and that is all the more reason why we should object to this request. This sum of money is not used to protect the people but to maintain troops who will be used to suppress the people. I do not know whether, apart from expanding this Battalion, the Government have the intention to set up a Third Battalion. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must not allow the Government to increase the troops to suppress the people. The revenues collected from the people should be spent on their welfare. Now, the Government is asking for $3.8 million, which is equivalent to the revenue collected from radio licences and vehicle driving licences.

Just now, the Member for Tanglin pointed out to this House that when the people asked for money to be used on development which is beneficial to the people, the Government replied that it had no money. But now the Government are asking for a big sum of money to support British imperialism and colonialism, and they are willing to be the running dogs of British imperialism. They are willing to see the people suffer, and to see that there are no opponents. The establishment of the Second Battalion only shows that the people will have more misery and hardships in the future and that they will be suppressed by this military unit. We, the people of Singapore, must be united to condemn the Government for this irresponsible action in establishing the Second Battalion, Singapore Infantry Regiment. If the Government are sincere in caring for the people, then we ask them to make use of this sum of money on social relief, because this sum of money will double the amount at present available for public assistance and other social welfare purposes. If the Government are going to set up this Second Battalion by hook or by crook, then the P.A.P. will not be able to avoid their responsibility in the future and the consequences arising from this action.

6.30 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, first of all, I would like to ask the Member for Choa Chu Kang whether he thinks that the defence of a country and its internal security should be handed to a colonial ruler. Perhaps he did not have the time.

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): If the Member for Choa Chu Kang wants to reply, he will reply.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, from what the Member for Choa Chu Kang has criticised about this vote, we can only come to one conclusion. That is, he is of the opinion that Singapore's defence and internal security should be the responsibility of the British colonialists, and not that of the people through their own Armed Forces. Because, according to him, there are many British troops in Singapore, therefore, there is no necessity to expand this Battalion of the Infantry Regiment, and there is no necessity for such a large sum of money to be spent on it. His argument is that we should leave our defence and internal security in the hands of the British troops. He is in fact speaking like a colonialist.

Mr Deputy Speaker, no nationalist with any self- respect, will allow his own county and its defence to be in the hands of a colonial government. The Singapore Government has been elected by the people themselves. The Battalion that we have established comprise the citizens themselves. The aim of this infantry Regiment is to shoulder the responsibility of internal security in our own State. It is necessary for us to expand this Infantry Regiment, because after the 31st of August, 1963, Singapore will have achieved independence through merger and Malaysia, thereby becoming a part of an independent nation. As I have already pointed out, no nation with any self-respect will ever allow its internal security and defence to be in the hands of any foreign country. So it is necessary for us at the present juncture to expedite the expansion of the Infantry Regiment, so that by the 31st of August, we will have our own troops to shoulder the responsibility of defence. As a matter of fact, the question of whether there is a necessity for this Battalion arose last year when we were debating the Supplementary Estimates on the Second Battalion. But for the fact that the Member for Choa Chu Kang has seen fit to raise the question again, there is, in fact, no need to repeat the arguments in reply to the criticism raised at that Time and repeated now by the Member for Choa Chu Kang.

I agree that the Labour Ministry has published two booklets calling upon the people of Singapore to join the army and the police. What is wrong with that? Any independent nation should have its own Police Force and Armed Forces. Is the Member for Choa Chu Kang suggesting that the Police Force of Singapore should be manned by foreigners? Does he also mean that the Armed Forces of Singapore should be manned by foreigners as well, entirely in the hands of a foreign nation? Does he also go a step further to mean that we should leave the protection of the lives and properties of our people in the hands of a foreign nation?

He has also said that the intention of the Second Battalion is to suppress the "people". I would like to ask him for a definition of "people". According to what I understand, the word "people", in the dictionary of the Barisan Sosialis, refers to the Communists and those elements which are in collusion with foreign Communist forces. So in the eyes of these "people", the Armed Forces and the Police would be used to suppress the people as indicated in their own definition. The Member for Choa Chu Kang says that the amount we are asking for should be utilised in building more houses and increasing public assistance. But I would like to tell him this. If the pro-Communist elements do less to instigate political strikes, thereby resulting in the loss of employment for thousands of people and cause untold misery and suffering to their families, then there will be no need to increase the amount of public assistance.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is our contention that our State should have no bases for foreign forces, and foreign control in a united Malaya. The Minister for Home Affairs does not in his speech deny what I have alleged in my speech. It is obvious that we can see that the First Battalion and the Second Battalion have their Commandants appointed, not by the Minister for Home Affairs, but by somebody else. Are they appointed by the Prime Minister? In fact, all these officials and Commandants are not in the hands of the Minister for Home Affairs. Can you tell us in whose hands and in whose control are these people? If the Government thinks that the people of Singapore are in the Armed Forces, then these Armed Forces are forces of Singapore people. Who are actually controlling these Armed Forces and in whose interests are these Armed Forces intended? It is obvious that the present Armed Forces are not actually in the hands of the people themselves. They are being controlled by the British colonialists and the British rulers. In fact, the Minister for Home Affairs is, on the face of it, a Minister who appears to have some powers within himself, but in actual fact, the appointments of the Commandants and other Army Officers are not within his powers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the Members of Parliament of the Labour Party of Britain came to Singapore on 17th April and he told the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs in the presence of representatives of the Press that if a nation still has its economy and Armed Forces in the hands of a foreign country, then that nation is still a neo-colonial country. In Singapore and Malaya today, can we ask, is there true independence? Even in the event of so-called Malaysia, Singapore will still remain in the hands of the British rulers. The British/ Malayan Treaty will still remain in force to protect the interests of the British colonialists.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in the debate on Radio Singapore, the Minister for Culture talked about Communists; so did the Minister for Home Affairs. It was said that because the Barisan Sosialis instigate political strikes, it is necessary to establish the Second Battalion. From the words of the Minister for Home Affairs, we can see clearly that the Government has established the Second Battalion in order to suppress legitimate strikes and the working class. In the struggle of the workers, strikes are forced on the workers themselves. There is no question of Communists or no Communists. If it is a matter of Communists inciting political strikes, then how are you going to explain the strikes that are happening within the Ministry of Home Affairs itself? Can we ask the Minister for Home Affairs what happens to the strike that concerns the Special Branch and the Police Force? Have all these strikes been instigated by the Communists? It is clear that the working class, in order to improve and raise its living standard, will have to resort to the final weapon of strike. But the Government has classified strikes as "political" and "non-political".

6.45 p.m.

Strikes that are organised by unions belonging to the Government are non-political, whereas strikes organised by unions that are not affiliated to the Government Party are political. But in the eyes of the working people, it is clear what intention the Government have in the establishment of the Second Battalion. In fact, the Minister for Home Affairs himself has already indicated the real intention for the establishment of the Second Battalion. So this Committee should refuse to approve this vote that is being asked for for the Second Battalion.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, let me explain the intention of establishing the Second Battalion. The purpose is to suppress those traitors who try to sell our country to foreigners and not to suppress the people. We can therefore understand why the Barisan Sosialis and the people who toe their line are worried about this, because they are serving the interest of certain foreign powers. Their purpose is to sell out our national interest and the interest of the people to these foreign powers. They would like to see Singapore and Malaya controlled by foreign powers. That is why they are worried and are averse to the idea of setting up a Second Battalion. But the genuine nationalists and those who are law abiding and loyal to Singapore do not have to worry about the expansion of the police or the armed services. They do not have to worry about the consequences of this expansion. They can sleep well without any worries, but to those pro-Communist elements and those who try to sell out the interest of the people of Singapore to the Indonesian Communists, it is, of course, a cause for concern. The process of suppressing those people who try to sell out their countries and the interest of their people has been carried out periodically in many neutral Afro-Asian countries, for instance, in the United Arab Republic, Cambodia and India. They have suppressed those traitors among them who want to sell out their countries. I would like to tell these people who want to try to sell out our national interest that we will use all the forces available in Singapore to deal with them.

To such people like the Member for Choa Chu Kang, whether a country is truly independent depends on whether it is in the Communist bloc. Only those countries in the Communist bloc are independent and those outside the Communist bloc are not independent countries. Therefore, to argue with these people on whether Malaya is truly independent is only a waste of Time because we will be playing a harp to a cow - it will not be able to understand. Malaysia, when established on 31st August, would be an independent nation. This the Member for Choa Chu Kang cannot understand. Unless and until Malaysia joins the Communist bloc, according to the Member, it will not be an independent country. But I would like to ask him one question: Is Hungary truly an independent country?

Mr Tee Kim Leng (Pasir Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am rather surprised that the Minister for Home Affairs a little while ago said that he was playing a harp to a cow. In actual fact, he is not clear himself. His mind is not clear when he clearly states that the independence of a country depends on the fact that in the country there are no foreign military bases, and in the field of economy it is not controlled by foreign powers.

Now, to become a so-called independent Malaysia, the establishment of the so-called additional Battalion in a so-called independent Malaysia, according to our view, the intention is to use the manpower of Singapore to be colonial puppets, because we know that if the Minister for Home Affairs can recognise that an independent country is one that does not have military bases for foreign powers, then we can say that the expansion of a further Battalion is necessary, but we would like to point out that the purpose of this is to suppress the people of Singapore.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot agree with what the Member has said. I cannot understand what his definition of "an independent country" is. He says that an independent country should be one that is without a foreign military base in it. In my opinion, whether a country, is independent depends on whether the military base is there by consent of the country concerned.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Chairman. We seem to have strayed radically beyond the amendment before the House, Sir. The discussion is not on the definition of "independence'. It is not a question of external security or external defence at all. The issue is merely the formation of a Second Battalion and I do say with respect ---

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): The point of order being?

Mr David Marshall: The point of order is that the statements now being made by the speaker are totally irrelevant to the issue and the amendment.

The Chairman: I do not think it is a point of order, but I was trying to make my stand clear, that since Head D.51 is on Defence Services, the Opposition and the Government Benches have gone to some lengths to define what is "independence" and what is the purpose of defence, and so far they are within the limit of the defence services. Mr Ong Pang Boon.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: (In Mandarin): Whether a country is independent depends on whether it has the right and power to decide if there should be any foreign military base or troops in it. If an independent country is of the opinion that its own resources and financial means are insufficient to protect itself and needs the help of foreign forces to help it, then it is entirely within its power to invite foreign assistance. If the country has the right to make such a decision, then it is independent, because the decision rests with it and the presence of foreign troops is as a result of the decision of the country concerned. Just now I have asked the Member for Choa Chu Kang whether Hungary is an independent country. I would also ask the Member for Pasir Panjang whether Hungary, Rumania and Eastern Germany are independent countries, because in these countries, foreign troops and bases are there not by treaties but as a matter of rights.

7.00 p.m.

Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D.51 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 6."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 12; Noes, 31; Absent, 7. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Fung Yin Ching Haji Jumat Miss Buang bin Leong Keng Seng Omar Junid Lin You Eng Bryne, K. M. Low Por Tuch Chan Chee Seng Ng Teng Kian Chan Choy Siong, Ong chang Sam Madam Sheng Nam chin Chor Yeok eng Tan Cheng Tong Goh Chew Chua Tee Kim leng Goh Keng Swee Teo Hock Guan Lee Khoon Choy Wong Soon Fong Lee Kuan Yew Lee Teck Him Absent. Lim Cheng Lock Lim Yew Hock Ahmand Jabri bin Lingam, S. V. Mohammad Akib Mammen, John Chan sun wing Marshall, David Hoe Puay Choo, Mohd. Ali bin Madam Alwi Kandasamy, G. Mohd. Ariff bin Koh, C. H. Suradi Lee Siew Choh M. Ismail Rahim Ong Eng Guan Ong Pang Boon Raja, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamym, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Tan Kia Gan Thio Chan Bee Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamed Al-Haj Yong Nyuk Lin

Question on the amendment accordingly negatived.

The sum of $3,885,460 for Head D.51 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963.

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Now we are on Head D.56 - Prisons. Mr Ong Chang Sam.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir ---

The Chairman: Order. An application to move a business motion. I suspend the sitting.

Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

7.03 p.m.