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

2.43 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is nearly two and a half years since that evening in this House in July 1961 when the Communists broke off from the united front with the nationalist Left in the P.A.P. to form their own front organisations and to fight against and prevent Malaysia.

We meet today in the first business session of the new Assembly under very different circumstances. The change that has taken place is a basic mutation in the role and jurisdiction of this House. Many of the forms and rituals have remained. But some Members may have noted that the guns did not boom out in salute when His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara arrived in this Chamber to deliver His speech on the 29th of November. It did not, because the Central Government ruled it to be so. They are in control of the Army which includes the two Infantry Regiments of Singapore, and their practice is that no ceremonial salutes will be given to any Governor of Penang or Malacca or the Yang di-Pertuan Negara of Singapore. In a small way, it symbolises a shift in authority.

So too those Members who were with us in the last Assembly will have noted that the Committee of Supply on the Budget has been reduced from five to three days with their concurrence, as they did not, quite rightly, raise any objections. For the matters to be discussed no longer include a list ranging from Police, Prisons and Army to Civil Aviation, Meteorological Office, Posts and Telecommunications, Audit. These are all now in the jurisdiction of the Central Government. It means, in effect, that ultimate power is now vested in the Parliament of Malaysia, and any political movement or Party that wishes to re-order the state of our society will have to assume authority for all Malaysia.

I have, Sir, stated on many a previous occasion that there can be no Communist Singapore until there is first a Communist Malaya and that whoever wishes to make Singapore Communist must first capture power in Malaya. Sir, an analysis of the power situation which has existed since 1948 between Singapore and Malaya is now formally translated into the provisions of the Constitution of Malaysia. Now, there can constitutionally as well as practically be no Communist Singapore until there is first a Communist Government of Malaysia. I think that is a sobering reminder to Members of the Opposition of the magnitude of the obstacles that lie between them and their political ambitions.

Indeed it is a truth, which has to be faced by whichever political movement that wishes to win authority and the right to reshape the structure of our economy and our society, that we must first win the majority of the number of seats in Parliament, the Parliament of Malaysia, and command a loyalty of the administration and the obedience of the Army and the Police.

The fact that we have so many matters, including three-quarters of our revenue, still reserved for the State Government does not alter the fact that we are part of Malaysia and our influence in Malaysia will be determined not by the number of seats that Singapore has in Parliament but by the example that she can set for the rest of Malaysia, an example of the possibilities opening up vistas of progress and prosperity which can be more equally shared by all if similar policies were adopted at the centre.

Our influence over the deliberations of Parliament in the policies of the Central Government has yet to be felt. Much will depend on what happens in the elections in Malaya next year. Everybody concedes that the U.M.N.O. side of the Alliance can and will win a clear majority. But everybody is waiting to see what happens to the vote in the urban areas and in all the main towns in Malaya, for arising out of that vote, some vital decisions will have to be made both by U.M.N.O. leaders and by us in Singapore.

It is fairly obvious that if it were possible for the M.C.A. to hold the towns in Malaya, then the present structure of the Central Government and the policies it pursues can go on unchanged.

But if the towns decisively reject all M.C.A. candidates, then there must be a re-appraisal by U.M.N.O. leaders. They will then have to decide whether they come to terms with the leadership that can command the loyalty of the sophisticated urban population - Chinese, Indians, Eurasians and others - or govern without the partnership of the leadership of the towns. It is when this moment is reached sometime next year that the bits and pieces will fall into their proper places in the Malaysian scene. Thereafter, the facts of life in Malaysia will have to be faced by all of us.

It is a struggle for authority to remould our society now in the much bigger Malaysian arena, and the outcome of this struggle is final and conclusive.

The tragedy is that in quite a number of these towns in Malaya there is no coherent constructive alternative. Yet in spite of this, there could be a massive protest vote registered not so much for the Communist manipulated Parties like the Socialist Front, the Labour Party, Party Ra'kyat, but a vote against the present urban representatives and their records.

But meanwhile let us confine ourselves to the immediate issues in Singapore. In many ways the issues and the position of the Parties are much clearer to everyone. The line that divides the Government and the Opposition is between those who are for Malaysia and our survival in South-East Asia as a separate political entity, and the Barisan Sosialis, a front for the Communists who, for their own selfish ends, have tried to prevent Malaysia, and so prevent merger; and who even now after the creation of Malaysia, are still anti-Malaysia and against the nation.

Sir, there was a time in October, some six weeks ago, when it looked as though with the creation of Malaysia the Communists would accept its establishment and try to win within. But there are increasing signs that they have decided to continue their anti-Malaysia struggle, even though this means that they are more and more openly identified with outside forces, like the Communist Party in Indonesia, who are out to crush Malaysia. National service they have condemned, and in its place is their pious suggestion that we should beg to be allowed to live in peace, presumably by abandoning Sabah and Sarawak to their fate. This is the line of treachery and betrayal.

This is not a line likely to win them popular support. I think they are caught in the intricacies of their own international conspiracy. The line has been laid for them and they have to go on plugging it even if it means losing out in popular support within Malaysia. However, they will try to win support by their exploitation of Chinese educational issues, by the capture and control of trade unions, and manipulation of civic organisations both in the city and in the rural areas. In short, the battle continues on the same old issues over the same old battlefields.

Sir, the political complexion of this Assembly today reflects more accurately the respective strength of ground feeling and the respective support for competing ideologies. We represent the majority, who prefer the sometimes slower but less drastic progress towards a more equal but a more humane society. They represent the frustrations, hatreds and bitterness of a minority who are ideologically convinced that no government but a Communist one can provide a permanent solution to our economic and social evils. We who have known them for so long know that they are very far from giving up their struggle. Their top leaders never came out in Singapore to be expended. It was only the second rank leaders put in the first line of the open front struggle who have been sacrificed. And the battle will go on relentlessly. We must continue from time to time to spotlight them every now and again when they are up to mischief and to expose them. The Barisan must be shown to be still a Communist front exploiting the name and principles of the democratic system with the purpose of destroying them.

However, under our new Constitution, this Legislative Chamber will be more concerned with the constructive aspect of government - schools, hospitals, housing, community centres, roads, bridges, drains, parks, and, most important of all, factories. For only the industrial base which we are now forging can provide a better life for us all.

In the last ten years of this Chamber so much of the time of this House was preoccupied with the struggle for independence. It was inevitable that we should be preoccupied then with national freedom and the right to determine our own destiny. It was inevitable that in the Opposition years of 1955-59, I myself had taken up the time of this House on the problems of how we were to achieve freedom. But I had hoped that with the attainment of full internal self-government in June 1959 we would have begun to look into the constructive side of government - how to create a better society and provide higher living standards for all, how to create higher social values and civic responsibility. But that was not to be so. For the Communists, it was vital that progress should be minimal. For the more we progress the less likely an eventual Communist victory. And so the destructive debate went on about the Police, Prisons, defence bases and anti-colonialism.

I have no doubts that they will pursue these issues in Parliament in Kuala Lumpur. But we would be foolish to believe that because we are now independent, therefore the Communists will admit that there is a duty on the part of representatives of the people to construct and not to destroy. They cannot admit that any national construction is possible until all economic ties and military alliances with any Western bloc power have been destroyed. And now since colonialism is no longer there, they have to say that the fight must be against new colonialism, or "neo-colonialism" as they have chosen to call it.

Sir, the division between this side of the House and the Opposition is deep and abiding. They represent a minority, but a militant and tightly knit minority determined to bring the democratic state down and establish a Communist regime. Sir, we on this side of the House are privileged to have been chosen to represent the majority, the rest of the people who want Malaysia to live in peace and to progress unmolested. We are a Party dedicated to democratic socialism. But it is our duty to recognise that the only long-term basis on which national unity can be forged and stability ensured is for us to bind all those sectors of society who reject the soul-less creed of a Communist dictatorship as the only answer to our undoubtedly many social evils. And we are proud that in the process we have been able to convince large sectors of the community - from labourers to wealthy merchants and the professional and middle classes -that the long-term answer to the Communist challenge lies in an honest and effective administration, a government whose social and economic policies can bring about an appreciable and a visible equalisation of opportunity.

We would be breaking faith with the mass of the people who voted for us this time if we did not recognise that we represent, as the governing Party, a broad cross-section of the community. We must recognise further that their aspirations are to have a more equal society through the more difficult process of levelling up and not levelling down. In this city of pushful people, energetic and hard working, largely of immigrant stock, the desire is that there should be more opportunities for everyone to work harder and to do better and increase the size of the national cake as much as, if not more than, the desire to share the cake more equally.

However, we would be doing a disservice to the country if we misled the people into believing that just because this last time the Communists were defeated they would thereby remain an impotent force. There are already signs of their picking up the bits and pieces left of their organisation wrecked by the disastrous policies they have pursued. And we cannot expect them always to be so accommodating in the next round to continue making false and erroneous assumptions. But however skilful they are, they face this one crucial test: what is their attitude to the constructive side of nation building? In other words, however much they can play up anti-neocolonialism, can they really persuade the people that construction should be set aside, indefinitely until neo-colonialism has been destroyed?

Sir, I would like to enumerate the four principal targets of constructive effort in the next five years.

The first is industrialisation. A climate of confidence exists both in the stability of Malaysia and in the known policies of the Singapore Government. The only factor that could upset this climate of overwhelming confidence is if confrontation were to hot up into a military adventure. This is a factor beyond our control. We can only hope that the major world powers will always have their own interests to preserve to ensure that there is no accidental conflict.

But there is one important factor within our competence to ensure the success of industrialisation, and that is the supply of skilled efficient workers who are not embroiled in the Communist conspiracy of united front trade unions, who are organised into unions designed to further the interests of workers as such and not exploited for political purposes by united front organisations.

The second target is housing and the rebuilding of the old city. We plan to build 60,000 housing units in the next five years. We are confident that the target can be achieved in spite of the temporary setback of Indonesian confrontation. And there is every hope that when the 8.7 per cent gap in our national income is recovered in two years and our industries begin to flourish, we may well exceed this target of 60,000 housing units. But the amount by which we will exceed this target depends very largely on the growth of our industries.

Meanwhile, the first phase of the rebuilding of the central city has begun. Outram Road Gaol is being demolished to house eventually some 7,000 to 10,000 families. And if building by private developers, which is again dependent on our economic progress, keeps increasing at the rate it has done over the last three years, then it is not unlikely that in five years, one-quarter of the old city would have been rebuilt.

Our third target is education. It is already a near miracle that we can now afford to have all children in primary schools. Forward planning for construction of schools and the training of teachers will keep up with this ever-increasing demand. Our next target in education is to increase the secondary vocational schools so that children who are more suited to work with their hands and eyes than their minds will not fritter away their years between leaving primary school and getting their first job. And it is essential that we build up a whole army of technicians which a modern industrial society requires.

Sir, one special problem in education is how to check the nation from being undermined by Communist groups recruiting and training in some Chinese schools and in Nanyang University. In Nanyang University the Communists may confuse some people into believing that action meant to restrict their conspiracy is a violation of some sacred principle.

The Nanyang University Council has hitherto spurned every Government grant to help it raise its standards and put its organisation into shape, largely because the Communists have been able to manipulate some leaders of the Chinese merchant community who have pretensions to greatness, and perhaps to inherit the mantle of another Chinese patriot like the late Mr Tan Kah Kee.

In Nanyang University with their financial autonomy leaving them in an academic morass, a situation is developing which, if left unchecked within five years, will make it more a University of Yenan than of Nanyang with young pro-Communist graduates and student leaders manipulating the entire governing Council of Nanyang University. Professors and lecturers on year-to-year contracts renewable at will by the Council cannot have economic security, let alone academic freedom. Indeed, the problem of Nanyang can never be resolved until the political abuse the Communists make of it is exposed and stopped. Only a few days ago, the Communists manipulated the Nanyang University Students' Union which issued a statement declaring that the University Council should discontinue discussions with the Government on aid and reorganisation and refuse any financial aid unless given unconditionally and without supervision.

Sir, it is the duty of the Government to raise academic standards in Nanyang University and to give it as much assistance as it gives to the University of Singapore. But it is also the duty of the Government to see that none of this money is allowed to be expended on strengthening the intellectual cadre of the Communist Party of Malaya. And it is our duty to see that this does not take place, whether it is in Nanyang University or, for that matter, in the University of Singapore.

We must be satisfied that the authority and discipline of the academic staff and of a proper governing council of responsible people comprising the founders of Nanyang University from the various States of Malaya, the Senate, and the Government that provides the funds, is not manipulated and controlled by the Communists. And Members will agree that it is not the business of our Government to give money to help train more Communist cadres to destroy the democratic State. But we must deal with this problem as delicately as the sensitiveness of the problem requires. But in the end the truth will be established, that there is a state of affairs in which a small group of militant Chinese Communists from Chinese Middle Schools exploiting the egoism of some merchant millionaires with pretensions to fame and greatness have established their control over the University. When a professor can be asked to explain why certain students fail, then academic freedom has not just been destroyed. Near anarchy has set in.

Sir, the fourth target is the raising of social standards. By social standards I do not mean only an increase in our social and cultural amenities, however important they are - unemployment benefits, sickness benefits, scholarships and bursaries to secondary schools and universities, community centres, television, or the National Theatre. I wish to emphasise higher standards of public and social conduct. This can be brought about by a sustained process of education.

It was inevitable that with new forms of popular and representative government, hawkers, squatters and other social problems increase. But slowly as social standards and civic consciousness correspondingly increase, hawkers for instance begin to understand that they must stay out of the main traffic routes and that they must for their own sake maintain certain standards of cleanliness and hygiene. Litter, rubbish, flies and mosquitoes are not only the job of the Health Ministry and the workers in the Cleansing Department, but the social responsibility of all.

We are realists enough to know that in trying to achieve these four targets which I have sketched in broad outlines we must anticipate that the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist front organisations will become more and more skilful in their tactics to obstruct and prevent Singapore's success. In thwarting industrialisation, they can create unrest in labour unions and a sense of insecurity to prospective investors.

We know that they will also become more skilful in camouflaging their tactics of blocking the clearance of sites for housing, schools, clinics and other development plans.

Sir, the stage has been set for the next five years. We can and we will succeed. The Constitution and responsibilities of this Assembly have been changed, if anything, for the better. Whilst we as a State Assembly may not have so many matters to look after, we have enough of the constructive side to make our sittings useful occasions when progress can be reviewed and faults remedied. It would be useful at these sittings if criticism of our shortcomings either in policy or implementation were aired not only by the Opposition but also by our Back benchers. It can serve a useful purpose in bringing public attention to how things are done, how they can be done better, or why an apparent ineptitude has in fact a rational and valid explanation.

You may have noticed, Mr Speaker, Sir, that since our first sitting in October the Barisan Sosialis, through its Chairman, has issued a statement in which they clearly expressed their intention to downgrade the value of this Chamber. No doubt partly as a result of his unprofitable effort in the last Assembly, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, the former Member for Queenstown, has stated that what is more important is what they do outside and not inside the Legislative Assembly and Parliament. Obviously they have come to realise that people were not impressed with the marathon speeches and futile debates we had in the last Assembly, and quite rightly so. But I believe that this Chamber can serve a useful function to spotlight the hopes and aspirations of the people, to underline the duties of the Government, to point out where it can do more, and finally to bring about a greater understanding of our problems and to improve our effort to build a better Singapore.

We must never be afraid of departing from accepted and habitual practice either in this Chamber or outside. And it is for this reason that I invite our own Back benchers to criticise the Government in this Chamber for what they consider to be shortcomings, even though this may not be the practice elsewhere. For all of us in this Chamber must realise that the mental attitudes and responses of the mass of the people outside this Chamber are very different from those of the people who elect representatives to the House of Commons in Britain.

We have gathered valuable experience from our difficulties over the last ten years. To ensure that the democratic system prevails, we must not only ensure that there is an honest and effective Government that produces results. What is more important is that we must also ensure that it is able to keep in touch with the mass of the people, to produce those results in a form and manner the people generally consider desirable, and to prevent the Communists from distorting the success of the Government or subverting public loyalties by pressure and manipulation.

In the next five years, Members will see the growth in my office of a special department which will help to create and build up a whole series of grass-root organisations in every village, in every street, and in every major community. All those active in the interests of their fellow citizens can find rewarding work and recognition in Citizens' Consultative Committees. For in the end not only must we succeed in making Singapore a better place, but we must also succeed in building up an organisational structure within the country that can help strengthen the links between the people and their Government so that the best that can be done will be done in their interests. Only in this way can we ensure stability and progress towards a more enlightened and healthy society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

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

"We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government on the 29th November, 1963.".

3.23 p.m.

Mr Chia Thye Poh (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech starts with the opening remarks of "a new chapter in the history of our people". It is indeed a new chapter, not of so-called independence -because to the people of Singapore, the P.A.P. merger merely means a change of masters - but of Fascist repressions carried out by imperialist agents and stooges against political opponents and against anti-colonial stalwarts; of Fascist violations of the basic democratic rights and freedoms of the people, of Fascist brutal assaults by fully armed police on workers who carry out a peaceful strike in defence of their basic right of association; of arbitrary arrests and detentions without charge or trial; of fresh attempts by neo-colonialism to frustrate the hopes and aspirations of the people; and of fresh attempts by self-seeking politicians to mislead and deceive the people.

The new chapter did not start on 16th September. It started long before Malaysia Day. It had started when plans were being completed to impose neo-colonialist Malaysia on the people. British imperialism had resorted to open military suppression of the national uprising in Brunei on 8th December, 1962. Soon after, there followed arbitrary arrests and detention of those uncompromisingly opposed to Malaysia, first in Sarawak in December 1962 and then in Singapore in February 1963.

In Singapore, because of British backing, the P.A.P. stooges gave free rein to their Fascist tendencies. They proceeded step by step to violate all the basic democratic rights and freedoms of the people.

Detainees were given inhuman and barbaric treatment of prolonged solitary confinement. Even Assemblymen were arbitrarily arrested on unfounded charges and unceremoniously deprived of their basic human rights. So-called criminal charges were magnified and distorted out of all proportion to suit the evil designs of the P.A.P. When the P.A.P. began preparing for a snap general election, the Barisan was denied even its right as a political Party to hold open air rallies, and the funds of S.A.T.U. unions were frozen on the whimsical excuse that their union members had booed the Prime Minister at a mass rally!

But with the official proclamation of Malaysia, when sovereignty over Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah was handed over by the United Kingdom Government to the Federation Government, the stage was finally set for yet further repressive measures against political opponents and progressive organisations and individuals in Singapore.

I do not need to remind the House of what is still fresh in the minds of all in Singapore. The action to revoke the citizenship of Mr Tan Lark Sye; the arrest of Nanyang students, graduates and Barisan candidates; the sudden banning without warning of five rural and hawkers' organisations; the October arrests of trade union leaders and Barisan Assemblymen; the brutal assault on workers carrying out a peaceful protest strike in defence of their right to join unions of their own choice; the banning of seven large unions of the S.A.T.U. group; the Government's refusal to register S.A.T.U. after two years of de facto recognition by the Government locally and by other world organisations internationally; the breaking of the lawful strike at the Naval Base, etc. All this bears testimony to the Fascist, pro-colonialist and pro-imperialist nature of the P.A.P. Yes, this is a new chapter. It is a new chapter of P.A.P. Fascism and its active collaboration with the Federation Government in repression against effective opposition, under the protective cover of British imperialism and neo-colonialist Malaysia.

However, it is obvious to all that, though the P.A.P. dares to be intimidatory and overbearing to the people of Singapore, the P.A.P. is ever servile and subservient to its imperialist masters and their allies and agents in the Federation. The people will not easily forget the citizenship sell-out and the financial sell-out. More and more can they now see that it is because of selfish interests that the P.A.P. had gone out of its way to promote Malaysia. For its slavish labours, the P.A.P. was given full support by British imperialism in the unfair snap general elections, and today the P.A.P. is once again in office. The P.A.P. leadership must be well satisfied with the rewards for its service to neo-colonialism in South-East Asia.

But what of the people? The 1.8 million, nay, 10 million people if we include the Federation, Sarawak and Sabah, who now face extreme difficulties in the days ahead? There is economic confrontation but, according to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, the P.A.P. expects industrial success and prosperity in spite of the setback in the trading sector!

It is possible that there will be more industrial enterprise and we do not doubt that there will be foreign establishments that are ever ready to make use of the advantages of pioneer industries to further exploit the people in the country. But it does not necessarily follow from this that there will be industrial success and prosperity for the people. In fact, it is clear that with the present dependence on foreign investments, there will be no genuine prosperity for the vast majority of the people of Singapore.

What of those who depend on trade for their livelihood? For the thousands and thousands in Singapore who depend on trade for their livelihood - and Singapore lives by trade as admitted by the P.A.P. - the future will be bleak indeed, unless something radical and drastic be done to rectify the errors immediately.

The Budget statement makes no bones about confrontation being a severe blow and setting back the time-table two years. But the P.A.P. had promoted Malaysia and confrontation and brought the consequent hardships, and it would be to P.A.P. advantage to minimise the effects of confrontation of Singapore's economy. The Government, therefore, refers to sufficient reserves "to see us through to industrial success and prosperity"! Let us ask: how "sufficient" are the reserves? What happens when the reserves are finished? Where then is the so-called prosperity? The Prime Minister himself has warned the people of indefinite confrontation. Yet how the P.A.P. suggests to us that we can make up for the loss of trade and earnings within two years! How does the P.A.P. reconcile these two statements?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole speech is nothing but another piece of P.A.P. propaganda. It talks of social revolution and the hoped-for P.A.P. achievements in the fields of education, health, housing, welfare and rural development and labour (which I shall come to by and by). It gives a one-sided account of its efforts and, confrontation notwithstanding, tells the House that there will still be prosperity. But it also hastens to say that, since control over defence, security and foreign affairs, and overall financial and fiscal powers are in the hands of the Federation Government, therefore, the decision of our fate is in the Central Government. In other words, the P.A.P. says that it cannot be blamed if things go wrong in Singapore! And we all know that things are daily getting worse in Singapore.

To absolve itself from blame, the P.A.P. says that it is doing everything it can to bring prosperity to the people, and that because of its past efforts, there is prosperity now. If, however, the P.A.P.'s efforts fail to bring greater prosperity, and if this prosperity turns to misery and hardship, then it is not because of the P.A.P. State Government, but because of the Central Government! How clever of the P.A.P. to wash its hands of all blame! Any person with a little study can see through P.A.P.'s machinations, which aim at absolving itself from blame and passing the buck to the Federation!

This is typical of P.A.P. politics, always claiming credits for itself when there are credits, and always passing the blame on to others where there is blame! Hitherto all P.A.P. failures have been blamed on the Communist bogey. And for quite some time to come, the P.A.P. will still continue to blame the Communist bogey for all P.A.P. failures. But from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech it can be seen that there is already a shift in P.A.P. strategy. It is to pass the buck on to the Central Government for all P.A.P. failures in future, whenever the Communist bogey scapegoat cannot be very suitable. Thus if all the miseries and hardships that come with Malaysia and confrontation cannot be laid at the door of the Communist bogey and the Indonesians, then they will be laid at the door of the Federation Government! Clever P.A.P.!

Already the P.A.P. makes a list of its so-called past achievements. Expansion and development of the city that comes with natural growth, as it has during the last 100 years of British colonial rule, is put up as P.A.P. achievements to beguile the people, saying in fact that but for the P.A.P. there would not have been such expansion and development!

The rise of the national income over the years is similarly used by the P.A.P. as an index of P.A.P. success when, in fact, the rate of increase could well have been greater if there had been political stability in Singapore without the P.A.P.! Now the P.A.P. wants the people to believe that if this rising national income should decline as a result of the multiplyer effects of Malaysia and confrontation (as it undoubtedly will decline) then the blame is not the P.A.P.'s but the Central Government's!

Not unexpectedly while the P.A.P. tries to give a picture of growth and prosperity to sidetrack the people's attention from loss of trade, business and employment, it has completely forgotten to mention the supposed avowed objectives of the old P.A.P. - namely, the fight for a more equal and just society. The P.A.P. does not deny the fact that there are poverty, social injustices and inequality all over Singapore. The vast majority of the people in Singapore are very poor. Tens of thousands are out of job. Thirty to forty thousand young men and women leave school to look for work every year. What does the P.A.P. propose to do to help these unfortunate people? What plans has the P.A.P. to get rid of poverty, social injustice and inequality? On all these most important subjects, the P.A.P. is singularly silent!

The P.A.P. states that "the main objectives of economic and social policies were all mapped out four and a half years ago" when the P.A.P. first took office in 1959. At that time the P.A.P. proclaimed to the whole world its declared policy to fight for a more equal and just society, for a socialist society. If the objectives of today are the same as those mapped out in 1959, then what is the programme of the P.A.P. Government towards these objectives? There are words and words about growth and prosperity for foreign monopoly capitalists. But where is the prosperity for those who are abjectly poor in the midst of P.A.P. plenty? What programme is mapped out for the vast majority of oppressed and exploited workers in Singapore, so that they may get rid of social injustices, social inequality, oppression and exploitation? So that they may really enjoy a fair share of the fruits of their labour? So that they may enjoy their basic rights and freedoms? So that all may enjoy a socialist society with no exploitation of man by man?

On all this, there is not a single word! It is quite obvious that a socialist society is no longer the aim of the P.A.P. Its main task is now to look after the interests of the P.A.P. itself and the vested interests of a small section of people in Singapore, the Federation and, more important, in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. For these Western vested interests, Malaysia is the best hope in South-East Asia. After all, Malaysia is formed to allow the Western powers to maintain neo-colonialism in the region.

In the speech, the P.A.P. still continues its lying propaganda about Malaysia. But it is already becoming increasingly clear to all in Singapore that Malaysia gives us unequal citizenship, restricts our freedom of movement and does not give us national unity. In fact, the Malaysia arrangements for Singapore are intended to divide the people and not to unite them.

Neither has Malaysia given us independence. Control over Singapore is now merely exercised through Kuala Lumpur instead of direct from London. There is no doubt whatsoever where the ultimate control lies. No amount of window-dressing will cover up the fact that British imperialism still exercises subtle control over our country in the form of neo-colonialism.

We in the Barisan have always fought against colonialism and imperialism, and the P.A.P. attempts to deceive the people about having achieved independence (by reading a proclamation on 31st August) will not be able to prevent them from continuing the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle.

We in the Barisan have consistently fought for the basic rights and interests of the people. We fight for the oppressed and exploited, the underprivileged and downtrodden. We fight for the workers, farmers, fishermen, hawkers, taxi-drivers, intellectuals, national businessmen. We shall do our best to safeguard their interests, and we shall continue to struggle for justice, equality, democracy, peace and freedom for the people.

The P.A.P. always uses the Communist bogey to frighten and intimidate the people. And indeed because of its control of the State propaganda apparatus, it has to a certain extent succeeded. But however the P.A.P. may care to play on the theme of the Communist bogey, with the hope of isolating the Barisan and gaining support for itself, it cannot cover up the fact that "poverty in the midst of plenty and unemployment in the face of affluence" are urgent problems which have to be faced, tackled and resolved. Labelling the Barisan pro-Communist simply because we want to help solve these basic problems, cannot deceive the people for any length of time. P.A.P. lies might deceive some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time. But they cannot deceive all the people all the time. P.A.P. lies will all be exposed. Truth will out and truth will triumph.

Let me now come to some of the other pro-colonial policies of the P.A.P. I will leave the subject of confrontation and its effects on the economy of Singapore to be debated later when we come to the debate on the Budget statement on Wednesday. But before I go further, let me first remind the House that the financial arrangements under the Malaysia Agreement have literally robbed Singapore of a huge chunk of its revenue. We pay the Federation Government $117 million outright. In addition, we pay for developments of Federal departments in Singapore ($9.5 million) as well as the annually recurrent expenditure of Statecum-Federal departments ($15 million approximately).

If we add the $30 million so-called loan to the Borneo territories, then the sum given away by Singapore to the Federation comes to about $170 million! $170 million of our money given away! If this money were truly used for construction and development, at least we would be consoled by the fact that our money was put to good use. But it is clear that most of our money will not be spent on construction and development, but on the expansion of armed forces and for the suppression of the national liberation struggle in Borneo! This is not the way how our money should be spent. Expenditure on armed expansion will only benefit the big arms industries in the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. Our Party had repeatedly warned against this during the debate on the Malaysia Agreement! Now all can see that what the Barisan has all along said is 100 per cent correct. The P.A.P. must be condemned for having signed away all this money of the people of Singapore!

Now I come to the other pro-colonial policies of the P.A.P.

In our multi-national State, it is important that genuine equal treatment is given to the four streams of education. Unfortunately the past record of the P.A.P. has shown that it merely pays lip service to its so-called equal treatment of the four streams of education. In actual fact, the P.A.P. lays all emphasis on English education and neglects the rest. Clear evidence of this can be seen in the disproportionately large number of English schools built as against schools for other language streams; and in the large number of students in English, as against Malay and Indian and Chinese schools.

It is foolish of Government to try to put the blame for the great disparity between the number of students joining English schools and that joining Chinese schools, on the parents themselves and on so-called agitation and unrest in Chinese schools.

This naive P.A.P. explanation will not hide the evident P.A.P. discrimination against the Chinese language. Neither does the sacking of the inefficient ex-Minister absolve the P.A.P. as a whole from blame. Nor the report that the Prime Minister now suddenly believes in primary education first in the mother tongue.

That the P.A.P. Government has discriminated against Nanyang University is of course a well-known fact. $8.5 million annual aid is given to the University of Singapore but not a single cent of aid has so far been given to Nantah. Neither have Nantah degrees been recognised nor the graduates been given the same pay and job opportunities.

No amount of P.A.P. slogan-shouting can deceive the people of Singapore. The fact remains that there is no equal treatment for the four streams of education. It is clear that the P.A.P. education policy is to ultimately "anglicise" all language streams, under cover of so-called "integration".

As regards the national language, we hope that the proposed intensification of the teaching of the Malay language this time will not turn out to be yet another P.A.P. stunt.

What is worrying many people at the present moment is the question of university autonomy and academic freedom. The open and unashamed pressure put on the University of Singapore Council to compel the resignation of Dr Sreenivasan, ex-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Singapore, has opened the eyes of many people in Malaya. All can now see P.A.P. machinations.

Under the name of security of the State and anti-Communism, all sorts of repressive measures have already been taken against political opponents and "unfriendly" organisations. The same untenable excuses are now used by the P.A.P. to gain absolute control over the two universities in Singapore. The P.A.P. is bent on a rampage of witch-hunt and Macarthyism in Singapore.

It is not without reason that the University of Singapore students went on a one-day protest boycott of classes. We ask the Government to pause and ponder. We ask the P.A.P. not to further violate the democratic rights of the people. The seats of learning in Singapore should be granted their university autonomy and academic freedom, and the Government should take steps to ensure this respect for autonomy and academic freedom in the universities of our country.

P.A.P. victimisation and witch-hunt has also extended into all other education departments. Perhaps that is the reason why a Special Branch Officer has been transferred to the Education Ministry. Some teachers have already been informed that their services will soon be terminated. We warn the Government that such victimisation and reign of terror must be stopped. P.A.P. politics should not be introduced into schools under the guise of anti-Communism.

The P.A.P. still shouts autonomy in education. Have not all the recent events proved that what the Barisan has been saying all along is correct - that education autonomy is now totally bankrupt?

The manner in which the Government has handled the cholera epidemic is deplorable. Choked and unswept drains have caused a great increase in the population of flies and mosquitoes. Diseases like malaria, long unheard of in Singapore, are once again making their reappearance. The danger to health must have been obvious to all. Yet the P.A.P. has been so busy with its anti-Communism crusade that it does not see, or does not want to see, such dangers to the health of Singapore. The result is that a one-time clean Singapore is now turned into a cholera infected port. The number of cholera cases so far confirmed is 23 with two deaths. But the number of cases that are undiagnosed or unconfirmed must be much higher. Daily reports of new cases are still coming in.

The question is: why has the public health situation in Singapore been so neglected to such a serious extent? Why were there no proper, adequate and timely precautions and preparations made by the Government to inform the people of the serious danger of cholera and so protect them against this disease?

It cannot be said that the disease was isolated and well under control. No! The disease was rapidly spreading and cholera cases were found in widely separated districts all over the island. The danger of a quick spread of the disease must have been well understood. Yet no action was taken by the P.A.P. Government to quickly isolate, limit and control the disease. No advice was given to the people to get inoculations as quickly as possible. And the Government made no provisions to start mass inoculations for the people until the dangerous infection had spread far and wide. With such a dangerous infectious disease like cholera, the confirmed diagnosis of two cases is sufficient to warrant the description of the disease situation as epidemic. Yet the people were not informed of the seriousness of the situation until there were 10 confirmed cases.

Why this P.A.P. "don't-care-less" attitude? Before the general elections when only one single case of cholera appeared in Potong Pasir following the epidemic in Malacca, the Government quickly got down to the job of mass inoculations. Of course, this was meant to show how efficient a government the P.A.P. was. The P.A.P. had hoped to buy votes. This time, after the elections the Government has acted with indifference to the public health situation of Singapore. Almost as if it does not matter! Why such indifference this time? Is it not because the elections are over and the P.A.P. has already formed the Government?

The P.A.P. must be condemned for its criminal negligence in the handling of the cholera epidemic. If earlier and more energetic action had been taken by the Government, there might not have been so many cholera cases today, and the two deaths might have been prevented. For the Minister to go round the clinics watching inoculations after the damage has been done will not redeem the P.A.P. in the eyes of the people for its gross negligence.

The P.A.P. has always boasted of its flats and housing and P.A.P. Ministers have received medals and praise from the P.A.P. Government for so-called P.A.P. achievements. It is a matter of the P.A.P. praising the P.A.P. What are the facts? Out of the thousands of housing units built, how many of them are low-cost housing units that the poor people can afford? It is a fact that thousands of flats have been built by the Housing Board. But it is also a fact that thousands have remained vacant and unoccupied for months and months, in spite of special inducements to would-be tenants.

The Housing Board has been provided with funds by the Government to build low-cost housing for the poor, not to build expensive and high-cost housing that the poor cannot afford to rent. We do not want to see building for the sake of building. Any person provided with the funds could build housing flats. Neither do we want to see housing flats built with the people's money to be used as police barracks and military barracks, as has been done by the P.A.P. Let the P.A.P. really build low-cost housing units in future so that the poor can really afford to stay in them, or at least lower the present high rentals in the housing flats already built.

The P.A.P. plans to sell what it describes as low-cost housing flats. It sounds attractive. But the poor who already live from hand to mouth will not be able to afford to buy any of these housing flats.

Water rationing is fast becoming a feature of P.A.P. misrule. The great inconvenience to the people might still be somewhat excused because the prolonged drought at one time was not within the control of human endeavour. But today's water shortage has come about largely as a result of P.A.P. incompetence. The P.A.P. must be fully responsible for its failure to pursue vigorously the Johore River project in the last few years. And now as a result of P.A.P. incompetence the people of Singapore not only suffer from the inconvenience of water rationing, but also from the grave dangers of a cholera epidemic.

Let the P.A.P. pursue the Johore River project with the utmost despatch. Singapore has the funds. Let the P.A.P. use the millions we have in the kitty. There is no necessity to borrow from the World Bank. The P.A.P. has already mortgaged all the property of the Public Utilities Board - property belonging to the people of Singapore - to the World Bank on most humiliating terms. The P.A.P. should not repeat the same humiliating mistake. If we can afford to give loans to the Borneo territories, free of interest, then we certainly can afford to implement the Johore River project on our own steam.

The P.A.P.'s plan to expand the network of community centres as well as the Work Brigade is of course dictated by P.A.P. tactics and strategy to protect P.A.P. interests. We all know how the community centres were used to spread P.A.P. lies during the unfair snap general elections. And many have seen the manner in which the Work Brigade boys were used by the P.A.P. to tear down election posters of the Barisan and to intimidate and assault Barisan election workers. Many Barisan workers still bear the marks of brutal assault from these P.A.P. strong-arm boys. Doubling and trebling the present strength of 2,000 in the Work Brigade will only mean more strong-arm squads for the P.A.P. at State expense.

We must warn against such Fascist machinations of the P.A.P. The Work Brigade should be used to help in national Construction, and not to build a P.A.P. empire.

The P.A.P. still unashamedly proclaims its policy of so-called industrial peace with justice. The workers in Singapore have already seen how this P.A.P. policy is put into practice. It means complete suppression of the workers' basic rights and freedom. The freezing of funds of the workers, the banning of their unions, the breaking of their lawful strikes, the arbitrary arrest of their trade union leaders - this is what the P.A.P. labour policy means to the workers. All those who do not support the P.A.P. and all those who refuse to come under its control are labelled Communist and pro-Communist. Threats and intimidation are used, in addition to subtle deception and promises, to coerce workers into accepting control from the P.A.P. The Government breaking of the Naval Base strike alone shows how pro-employer and pro-imperialist the P.A.P. is. The P.A.P. Government uses the power of the State to impose its so-called industrial peace on the workers with justice for the employers and its imperial masters, with oppression and injustice for the workers. That is the meaning of the P.A.P. slogan, and more and more workers are daily awakening to this P.A.P. deception.

We say to the P.A.P.: if the slogan of industrial peace with justice is to be meaningful, then let there be justice to the workers. In which case the Government must immediately stop playing politics, stop unlawful and splitting activities of pro-P.A.P. yellow unions, and restore and respect the basic right and freedom of workers to form unions of their own choice. Only then can there be true industrial peace with justice in Singapore.

I have touched but briefly on a few of the sins of P.A.P. commissions and omissions. The P.A.P. had boasted of its Four-Year Plan, but many of its development plans have been completely forgotten. For example, the Singapore River improvement project and developments in the hospitals, etc. are now set aside. Only a small fraction of the funds provided has been spent on rural development, and so on. The large surpluses year after year of P.A.P. office have come about very largely as a result of P.A.P. inefficiency and under-expenditure on development projects all round. No amount of P.A.P. propaganda to the contrary will be able to hide these facts.

Today the P.A.P. is still shouting out its successes. Meanwhile the unemployment problem, already acute as it is, is fast becoming more and more acute with each passing day. How does the P.A.P. intend to resolve this grave crisis in the economy of Singapore?

For selfish reasons the P.A.P. has helped to impose Malaysia on the people, bringing with it Indonesian confrontation and great hardships for the people of Singapore and South-East Asia. The newspapers headline Indonesia as "Hungerland". But on the Malaysia side, Singapore bears the brunt of Indonesian confrontation. Out of a loss of $1,325 million worth of trade for the whole of Malaya in 1962, Singapore's share of the loss amounted to $1,100 million, i.e. more than 80 per cent of the total loss. Singapore therefore has a special vested interest in the ending of Indonesian confrontation. The living of the vast majority of the people of Singapore depends on it. Hence the need and urgency of our amendment.

It may be argued that the amendment is in the field of foreign affairs which is under the control of the Central Government and that the Singapore Government has no jurisdiction over such matters. The speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara states that [col. 117 of Hansard, 29th November, 19631:

`It is policy settled by a Government which commands a majority of the Members of Parliament in Kuala Lumpur that will decide our fate...'.

It may also be argued that Singapore has only 15 Members in a Parliament of 159, and that therefore the influence of these 15 M.P.s is totally inadequate for changing the policy of the Central Government.

All this is true. We had pointed out all this long ago during the merger debate, and this is one of the reasons why we opposed the P.A.P. merger arrangements, which have already put the neck of Singapore into the noose held by the Federation Government. We must not forget this. We must not forget also that it was the P.A.P. that had actively promoted the formation of Malaysia. And it was the P.A.P. that had insisted, in spite of the glaring injustice and inequality of second-class citizenship and disproportional representation, that its merger terms were fair and reasonable. Morever, for the past two years the P.A.P. has shouted that Malaysia will bring stability, peace and prosperity to the people of Singapore.

For all these reasons the P.A.P. must bear its full share of responsibility for the economic crisis in Singapore today. The P.A.P. itself has brought about the present sufferings and hardships for the people. It is now the P.A.P.'s bounden duty to help remove the root cause of all such sufferings and hardships.

It may also be argued that the Barisan Sosialis M.P.s themselves could move a motion to so persuade the Central Government to change its policy and start negotiating with the Indonesian Government to resolve all existing differences to our mutual benefit and so bring peace and prosperity to South-East Asia.

But we tell the P.A.P.: it is the P.A.P.'s responsibility to rectify its own mistakes and it might yet redeem itself in the eyes of the people. In normal times it would already have been the duty and responsibility of the Singapore Government to approach the Central Government on matters of State and national interest on behalf of the people of Singapore. These are not normal times. Now the vital interests of the people of Singapore are at stake. Therefore, it becomes the double duty and responsibility of the Singapore Government to raise matters with the Central Government, either on a Government-to-Government level, or even as part of the people's representatives from Singapore in the Central Parliament.

Confrontation is a serious affair. It has affected not just 8.7 per cent of our economy, and not just 8,200 people as the P.A.P. would like us to believe. The trade loss is at least 16-20 per cent of the total trade of Singapore. The number of people who have lost their jobs and livelihood directly as a result of confrontation must be between 20,000 and 30,000. The number of people indirectly affected as a result of the multiplyer effects must certainly include almost every person in Singapore.

We must remember too that it is Malaysia that has given rise to Indonesian confrontation. There is already sufficient international tension as a result of rupture of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Indonesia on the one side and Malaysia on the other. Jingoism and the burning of effigies of leaders of neighbouring countries in order to arouse the so-called patriotic sentiments of the people, will only further increase this international tension. If we openly make preparations for war, first by man-power registration and later by mobilisation and conscription, it will only further aggravate the situation. It might even lead to explosive incidents which may well precipitate our country into a hot war. This is a thing which we must avoid under all circumstances.

We must remain ever vigilant against foreign imperialist machinations that try to involve the people in the region into fighting against each other. The neo-colonialists and imperialists want to divide our unity and oar strength so that they may continue their policy of divide and rule. If the people go to war, they would merely fall into the imperialist trap. Moreover, the people will not benefit from war, as what follows can only be sufferings and hardships for all. Those who will benefit are the foreign arms industries and the imperialists who want to oppress and exploit us. It is not war but peace that the people want in South-East Asia. And it is peace that we must help to safeguard and defend.

President Macapagal is reported to have said in New York on 6th December, 1963, that "For the present, while Indonesia is willing to meet anew with Malaysia and the Philippines, Malaysia is reluctant to do so". Such reluctance to negotiate can only be due to the unwanted influence and interference of foreigners and colonialists in the affairs of state in the Federation Government. We must get rid of this foreign interference.

Curiously even Mr Arthur Bottomley, an admirer of the P.A.P., also accepts the principle that it is a good thing to get the three countries together in order "to call a halt to the trouble". This was reported in the Straits Times of 7th December, 1963.

Therefore, we must do our best to persuade the Federation Government to go to the conference table and negotiate with the Philippines and Indonesia.

The interests of the people demand that we prevent the present friction from developing further into open conflict and war with Indonesia. Only peace will bring happiness and prosperity to the people. So let all of us in Singapore make our full contribution to the defence of peace in the region.

We are elected representatives of Singapore, and our primary duties and responsibilities are to the people of Singapore. But we also have our duty and responsibility to the people of the Federation, the Borneo territories and of the whole of South-East Asia. We hope that all Members of the House will put the interests of the people above party politics and everything else, fully support our amendment, and urge the Government to take immediate steps to persuade the Central Government to get rid of foreign interference, go to the conference table, negotiate with the Indonesian Government, and resolve all existing differences amicably to our mutual benefit, and so help to bring stability, peace and prosperity in South-East Asia.

Sir, I beg to move,

`at end, to add -

"; but this Assembly regrets that the Government in helping to impose Malaysia on the people has caused great difficulties and hardships to them in Singapore and urges the Government to take immediate steps to persuade the Central Government to get rid of foreign interference, negotiate with the Indonesian Government, and resolve all existing differences to our mutual benefit, and so help to bring stability, peace and prosperity to South-East Asia".'

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

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

"We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government on the 29th November, 1963".'.

Since which an amendment has been proposed, at the end to add-

"; but this Assembly regrets that the Government in helping to impose Malaysia on the people has caused great difficulties and hardships to them in Singapore and urges the Government to take immediate steps to persuade the Central Government to get rid of foreign interference, negotiate with the Indonesian Government, and resolve all existing differences to our mutual benefit, and so help to bring stability, peace and prosperity to South-East Asia".

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." In my view there is no clear dividing line between the contents of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and the proposed amendment. I, therefore, propose to allow the debate to range over both the contents of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and also the proposed amendment. The debate will, therefore, proceed on those lines. This will mean that all Members will have the opportunity of speaking once, except the Prime Minister who will be given an opportunity to reply to the debate on the amendment.

Any Member who wishes to speak?

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment moved by the Barisan Sosialis means that they are crying, "Catch the thief", when they themselves are thieves, as a Chinese story goes. They themselves have caused this situation of confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia. Now they want to shift the blame on to the shoulders of others. They are blaming others as the culprits in order to clear their own names. Their action is really very wonderful and fantastic.

We should review what has taken place in the past few years. It is now the time for stock-taking. Let us now review our achievements in the past few years we have been in office. Singapore is a paradise in South-East Asia. Our people, irrespective of race and class, are enjoying a livelihood and standard of living much better than that of any other country in South-East Asia. Had it not been for the agitation and instigation of the Barisan Sosialis which has brought about confrontation against Malaysia, our Malaysia and Singapore especially would have achieved unprecedented prosperity and happiness. But because of the stupidity and stubbornness of the Barisan Sosialis in persisting in their line of confrontation, we have now amongst us thousands of poor labourers who have to pay the price of the Barisan misdeeds.

Let us ask, which country in South-East Asia is enjoying the same high standard of living which we are enjoying? Which country in this part of the world has been enjoying the same standard of living, or whose people are better clothed, better fed and have better enjoyment? Just look around those countries, such as Indonesia. The people there are in deep water and in great difficulties. They cannot enjoy what we are now enjoying. They have even difficulty in filling their stomachs. They are now even eating roots, the bark of trees and fruits to fill their stomachs. Perhaps they could explain their way and say, as the Indonesian leaders have said, that the spirit of revolution can resolve all this, and that the people should put the revolutionary spirit first before the satisfaction of their hunger. But in asking their people to tighten their belts, these so-called leaders are driving their people to starvation. It is fortunate that we have no such leadership in our State. Otherwise we would be suffering the same kind of misfortune as they are now suffering. In which country are the people enjoying the same standard of living as we are enjoying here? Our currency is the strongest and most stable in South-East Asia. For example, if the $500 allowance given to the Barisan Members is put into a bank. they can still buy $500 worth of goods when they draw it out next month.

Let us see the situation in Indonesia today. It is unimaginable. Even the Japanese banana notes or coconut notes are worth more than the Indonesian currency nowadays. If a Nanyang University lecturer in Mathematics were to calculate the Indonesian currency, he would have to calculate it in five or six digits, as the Indonesian children are learning in their schools. Under such tuition perhaps the Barisan Members could have better enlightenment. For instance, in 1960 Mr Chan Sun Wing followed the Prime Minister to Indonesia on a friendly visit, and he carried two bags full of Indonesian currency in order to buy goods. He was looking for goods everywhere, and he had to carry such a bundle of Indonesian notes with him. This is the situation with regard to the Indonesian currency and economy. Inflation is rampant and there are economic difficulties.

Here in Singapore we have schools. We have a place in school for every child, to whatever school the child wants to go, whether it is Tamil, Malay or English. The children of Singapore can go to any school in any part of Singapore, in the South Bridge Road area or in the North Bridge Road area or in Queenstown. Here we have free primary education. Students who are poor but diligent can get bursaries and scholarships. I believe that among the Nanyang University friends of the Barisan there are many students who have Government scholarships and bursaries to go for higher studies. They can make use of Government scholarships to continue their studies in secondary schools and the universities. Let me ask, in which country in South-East Asia are such facilities afforded to the people?

Here among us we also have cheap housing. The Government is giving subsidies for the people to have their accommodation. The people can choose to live in the North Bridge Road area or the South Bridge Road area or anywhere in Singapore. They can also choose to have one-room, two-room or three-room flats. They have this right to make a choice. It is not any country in South-East Asia which has this kind of facilities, even in the whole world there are very few countries which can afford these facilities to the people. If the people fall sick, there are doctors to prescribe for them and they do not have to pay a single cent for this service. The Government is providing clinics which are right at your doorstep and poor children can get a free milk supply. Let me ask, how many countries in the whole world can afford these medical services and other free facilities to the people?

Our workers are enjoying a standard of wages and living far better than anywhere in South-East Asia.

In our Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech it is also disclosed that the number of vehicles registered this year has increased by 45 per cent more than that of last year. Now, this figure can very aptly be taken to show the raising of the living standard of the workers. We have progressive labour legislation which will protect the workers' interests, and the Industrial Relations ordinance provides for good relationships between the employer and the employee. Very few countries in South-East Asia can have such enlightened legislation for the benefit of the workers.

All people, irrespective of their situation, can get aid from the Government. Every year we are spending millions of dollars on public assistance, such as fire relief funds, unemployment assistance and other schemes of aid. Ours is a socialist welfare state policy. The rich are sharing their wealth with the poor, and this is only just and reasonable. Our society is marching towards this type of socialist society. Who can say that we do not have socialist legislation? These opportunities of employment and the provision of the facilities I have stated above are for all the people to enjoy irrespective of whether they are against or for the P.A.P. - even among Members of the Barisan who are enjoying our low-cost housing facilities. We are so used to seeing these favourable conditions and facilities that we sometimes forget about the value of these facilities. It is just as what we say, being amongst the flowers for so long, one forgets their fragrance. In fact, we tend to think that we get these things as our natural right, which other countries can never dream to have. We should thank our Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech which affords us an opportunity to remind all our people that we are living in a very healthy and fortunate country.

After the establishment of Malaysia as the New York of Malaysia, we can expect that we can further raise the standard of living of our people. We have all the factors and conditions to fulfil this. We have further reason to believe that we can even bring about more wealth and enjoyment to the people. We have a very good and efficient administration, communication, fiscal and trade systems. After Malaysia, our goods will have a larger market and will also be protected by tariff legislation. We will also have rich material resources. All this will bring about a better future for us. These are the main factors that will bring this about. We are now on the road to prosperity, happiness and a better future.

But we are now facing Indonesian confrontation which has caused thousands of people to be out of job and a depression in our trade. Who has caused all this? Who has disturbed the beautiful dream of our people? To go to the root of the matter, we can say that the confrontation policy by Indonesia today is caused by the Barisan Sosialis. They are the culprits. The Barisan Members should know that the unemployment of thousands of our workers today and the depression in our trade are, to a certain extent, caused by them. They should be responsible for all these consequences because they have tried their best to oppose Malaysia and do all things possible to destroy our democratic system and affluent society. When we want to lay hands on any culprit, we should lay it on the Barisan Members. It is they who have caused us these difficulties - the unemployment of thousands of our workers and depression in our trade. They are the arch-culprits who have caused this trouble arising from the Indonesian confrontation policy. We can see very well that at the beginning of this two-year struggle for Malaysia, Indonesia had not opposed Malaysia. Even Dr Subandrio in December 1962 said in New York that Indonesia was not against Malaysia, if it was the wish of the people. On the other hand, Indonesia would give Malaysia her blessing. At that time the Barisan's opposition to Malaysia throughout Malaysia had not the support of the people and the referendum held in September had also dealt the Barisan a deadly crushing blow. Later they changed their strategy and secured the support of the Indonesian leaders, especially the P.K.I., to provide them with spiritual and moral support in their opposition to Malaysia. The P.K.I. passed a resolution last year condemning Malaysia. At that time the Barisan were very elated. The resolution passed by the P.K.I. gave them a stimulant to continue their activities against Malaysia. They took heart from that resolution and persisted in their opposition to Malaysia. Now we cannot deny that the Indonesian confrontation against Malaysia has been instigated and encouraged by the Barisan Sosialis. Even the Barisan themselves last year admitted this. We could use their own documents and publications to prove this point. In the issue of the Chinese organ of the Barisan Sosialis of the 1st of December, on the second page, there was published an article the subject of which was "The Cause of Malayan Socialist Front in the Present Situation"; of course, this includes the Singapore Barisan. The first part of the article says --- [Interruption]. How can you say that I am talking at random? This is from your own article, published by your own Party. It is from your own Party organ printed in black and white. How can you say that I am quoting at random? Now let me quote:

"First it must be pointed out that the Barisan was the first who opposed the Malaysia Plan in 1961. At that time, Indonesia did not express their opposition to the Malaysia Plan. The P.K.I. elements and other people started to oppose the Malaysia Plan only after we had done so ---"

[Interruption] Now, this is what you say in your own article. I am not arguing who is leading whom. Please listen to the end.

"At that time, Indonesia did not express their opposition to the Malaysia Plan. The P.K.I. elements and other people started to oppose the Malaysia Plan only after we had done so. Therefore, if there was anybody following anybody's line, then it must be they who follow our line and not we who follow their line. We challenge anybody to rebut this fact." ---

[Interruption] This is what you yourselves have said, or your friends have said. Now, this is making your own confession without being asked to do so. Only this will go to prove that had it not been for the Barisan's instigation and encouragement and trouble making, Indonesia would not have started a confrontation for no reason at all.

In the article it is stated "Malayan Socialist Front" but we know that Singapore's Barisan Sosialis and the Malayan Socialist Front are birds of the same feather. They themselves have admitted that the Indonesian confrontation against Malaysia is following their line. Even the Barisan Sosialis and the Socialist Front in Malaya have admitted this. Now, who can say no? The reasons for Indonesian confrontation against Malaysia are partly due to her own internal economic difficulties. This can serve as a red herring to divert the attention of the people as well as foreign countries to her internal difficulties and economic disaster. On the other hand, it is because the big shots in Indonesia have also taken cognisance of the fact that the Barisan's subversive activities in Singapore will provide them with a golden opportunity to divide our people and swallow up North Borneo through the Barisan here. But the people in Indonesia have forgotten that the people of Malaysia in this crisis have all united together to deliver a crushing blow to the Barisan. Indonesia wants to make use of this opportunity to swallow up the Borneo territories. This is her true intention.

As for the pretext that Malaysia is a threat to the security of Indonesia - it is all humbug. The so-called military base, neo-colonialism, and the rest, are all pretexts used by these people, including the Barisan Sosialis. Yet the Barisan are supporting them on this specious pretext. Can they not see that Malaysia, without any airplanes or warships, cannot be a threat to the security of Indonesia, a country which has so much armoury and such a great army? We can see that when the Yang di-Pertuan Agong visited Singapore, he came in a very small light out-moded military plane. We do not even have an air force but Indonesia has a large fleet of jet planes. The Indonesian President, Dr Soekarno, has his own special jet plane to fly him about. And Indonesia has warships, arms and submarines, supplied by Russia as well as America. But we do not have these. So how can we be a threat to others?

The military base in Malaysia has been in existence even before the Indonesian revolution and independence. Why did they then not object to it? Why should they wait till after Malaysia has been established to protest against the existence of this base?

In their amendment the Barisan Sosialis urges the Government to persuade the Central Government to get rid of foreign interference and to ask for the abolition of the British military base. But if we abolish the base today, tomorrow it will be an Indonesian colony, and our livelihood and living standard will be worse than that under the Japanese regime, not to talk of the thousands of Naval Base workers who will be out of job.

We can recollect that Indonesia first opposed Malaysia after December 1962 when Azahari's rebellion in Brunei took place. During that period Indonesia had been encouraging a rebellion. Before the Brunei rebellion the rebel leader Azahari had flown into Singapore to have talks with Barisan leaders, including Lim Ching Siong. After the rebellion in Brunei the Barisan Sosialis came out to give full support to the rebellion and to the self-styled revolutionist hiding in a hotel in Manila, and they termed him a hero of the liberation of Brunei. Yet they failed disastrously.

Brunei is an oil producing country, a rich country, and the people do not have taxes like income tax, cigarette tax, oil tax, and other taxes. What reason do they have to rebel against authority? And now Azahari has fled to Indonesia to become a stooge of Dr Subandrio and to be used as an exhibit at mass rallies.

This a very clear example of their collaboration and collusion with a foreign enemy to destroy our country. I recall that at the Afro-Asian Conference at Moshi last year the Indonesian delegates tried to bar our delegates from entering the conference room. Yet they were very concerned about the Barisan delegate. Mr Lim Shee Ping, because Mr Lim Shee Ping was detained during his journey and could not attend the conference. They were very worried and concerned. They asked us, "Why is it that a partner of yours has not turned up?" In fact, at that time we did not know that Mr Lim Shee Ping had been detained. When the Indonesian delegates knew that Mr Lim Shee Ping could not attend the conference, they mobilised all their efforts to lobby all the delegates to prevent us from participating in the conference. And at the sub-committee meeting the anti-Malaysian forces were able to gain an overwhelming control over the meeting.

From this we can see that before the conference the fanatics against Malaysia must have established contact through correspondence and they must have tried to make use of the Barisan delegate to be the main mouthpiece at the Afro-Asian Conference against Malaysia. Because Mr Lim Shee Ping could not turn up, they had no alternative but to use two so-called delegates from Indonesia to represent the Barisan delegates. This is another example of the Barisan's collusion with the foreign enemy.

Our present difficult economic situation was brought about by them, and yet they have the cheek to put in an amendment blaming us for causing difficulties to the people as a result of Malaysia. Without the Barisan Sosialis, we the people of Malaysia will be the happiest people in South-East Asia, but because of them we have a lot of difficulties and hardships and so much disturbance.

I know that in their amendment the Barisan Sosialis also mention the false imposition of Malaysia on the people. What do they mean by imposition? We do not have to talk about Sabah and Sarawak. Let us talk about Singapore. Within a year there have been two occasions for the people to vote on the question whether they like Malaysia or not. That was on the 1st September, 1962. On that day more than 70 per cent of the people voted for Malaysia and rejected their blank vote suggestion. Although the voting was compulsory, there were three choices, and they freely accepted Malaysia. Are not the people's eyes very clear? The second occasion was in September this year - the general elections. We put forward Malaysia as one of our Party platforms and as a result of that we won a great

Column: l79

majority. Whether it was a snap election or not, they had nine days to campaign. And in all this time they had consistently and persistently carried out their anti-Malaysia campaign for two and a half years. Yet they were defeated. Now in those general elections, the Barisan Sosialis put forward anti-Malaysia as their election platform. What was the outcome? They had only 13 seats, an unlucky number. And today among them one has disappeared, their Party leader, Dr Lee Siew Choh. And their three other Members have also disappeared from this House. Where are they now?

Mr Speaker: Order. It is five o'clock. I propose to suspend this sitting. I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m.

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: The Minister for Labour had the Floor.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, before the break, I was saying that the Barisan Sosialis in the recent general elections used anti-Malaysia policy as one of their platforms. As a result, they have secured only thirteen Assembly seats - the unlucky number of thirteen! Today, we have seen even the Member for Bukit Merah is not here. Perhaps there is another crisis in the Barisan.

What I want to say is that the recent general elections were conducted in a most free and democratic way. Those who are for Malaysia voted for our candidates; those who are against Malaysia voted for Barisan candidates. How can you say that anybody has imposed Malaysia on the people? If the logic of the Barisan were correct that Malaysia had been imposed on the people, then we the Members of this House would also be an imposition on the people, including the Barisan Members. Whether they have made their Assembly seats a kind of imposition on the people is another matter. If they admit it, then their seats are a kind of imposition on the people, and they should vacate them. But I will say that the people voted for Malaysia by a free and democratic process.

The Member for Jurong mentioned the question of the four streams of education. On the question of Chinese education, the Barisan slogans are usually like this, that we want to destroy Chinese education. Now, what do they know about the destruction of Chinese education? What do they mean? Take, for instance, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia. What about the attitude of the Government in these countries against Chinese schools? Now, this is a real example of attempts to destroy Chinese education. But, here in Singapore, is the P.A.P. Government trying to destroy Chinese education? On what grounds do they raise these groundless accusations?

You, Members of the Barisan, are or educated purely in Chinese. Now, please think of the time when you were educated in Chinese schools. What was the situation then, and what is the situation today? Would you please compare the two situations? If the Barisan Members have a conscience, they should admit that Chinese education nowadays is very much better than it was before. Nowadays it is not necessary to mention the time when they were educated in Chinese schools.

I will just give an example in my case. My parents had to save money to send me and people of my generation to primary schools. But nowadays, just look at the present Chinese primary schools. The children do not have to pay for anything. If it was not for the confrontation policy of Indonesia, we would have achieved free secondary education. Those children whose families are poor can be provided with free textbooks by the Government. Now, please consider this. Do you think this is the way to destroy Chinese education? I would say that this is a concrete example to show that Chinese education nowadays is enjoying much better facilities than before.

In the past, if you wanted to join a school, you would have to ask people to recommend you, to persuade perhaps the principals or teachers in certain schools to let you have a place in school. But just look around now. Now, the children do not have to do such things. They have no fear of not getting a place in school. Any child wishing to join any school, whether a Tamil, or a Malay, or an English or a Chinese school, would be given a place in a school nearest to his or her home. This is a second point to show how much better Chinese education is treated nowadays than it was in the past.

Another point is, in the past, teachers in Chinese schools would have to try to make blandishments to those on top who had control of the schools in order to retain their position. On top of this, their salaries were not stable, or rather, in the primary schools the salaries were determined by the principals who could impose their will. Sometimes teachers did not get their salaries at all.

I can recall an example of my old friend, Mr Leong Keng Seng of the Barisan Sosialis, when he was principal for the first time in 1955. At that time we were still friends. When he received his salary he used to ask me to go for a drive with him to have dinner together. But sometimes when it was time for him to give me a treat, he did not do so. For what reason? It was because he had not received the salary due to him at the right time, so he had no money to give me a treat, because the primary school in which he was teaching would have to wait for the school fees to be paid by the pupils before the school could issue salaries to the teachers. In the rural areas, in the kampongs, if the pupils of a school could not afford to pay their school fees, then the school would have to delay the payment of salaries to the teachers, and the teachers would have to tighten their belts! But now the situation is entirely different. Now, the payment of salaries to the teachers does not depend on the school fees paid by the pupils, because the whole burden is on the Government. The teachers also have definite salary scales, annual increments and other benefits. They get their salary on time regularly, and they are well treated. Those teachers who have taught for more than ten years can get quarters or buy cars for themselves. Our old friend, Mr Leong Keng Seng, after having been a school principal for a few years, would at least have enough money to buy a car ---

Mr Koo Young (Thomson): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I do not know why the Minister for Labour has to mention Mr Leong Keng Seng. Has he anything to do with the subject under consideration? Perhaps you are aware that it is not quite proper for the Minister to mention anybody in his absence, when that person who is being criticised has no opportunity to reply. The Minister should have made his remarks in his presence.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: When I know what is the point of order, I will continue with my speech in Mandarin.

Mr Speaker: I do not think the Minister for Labour has been attacking the particular gentleman. He was merely relating an anecdote. If he was personally reflecting on the conduct of that gentleman, I would have stopped him. I do not think he was doing that. He was merely relating an anecdote. Please proceed.

5.45 p.m.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): I still have good feelings towards Mr Leong Keng Seng. I have no intention at all to attack him but the Barisan Sosialis keep on harping that they are champions of Chinese education. That is why I mentioned certain facts and episodes to rebut what they have said. That is why I mentioned my old friend, Mr Leong Keng Seng. I did not say that he was corrupted or that he had misused the money, but I only mentioned that he could have used his salary to buy a car. I am only reflecting by comparison that our Government is really very generous in its treatment of Chinese education.

Let me now continue with Chinese education in Singapore. Teachers engaged in Chinese education are actually the most highly paid Chinese teachers in the whole world. Can you pick out any country where teachers of Chinese are paid more than those in Singapore? Let us take, for instance, the Chinese mainland or Hong Kong where there is also Chinese education. Do the teachers there get salaries as high as those we are paying here? Take also, for instance, Taiwan, where Chinese education is in existence. Are the teachers in Chinese schools there being paid more than those here? The Chinese primary school teachers here compared with their counterparts in other parts of the world are very much better treated and paid. From where do they get their salaries? Of course, they get them from the Government. Can you say that this is bad treatment of Chinese education?

Another point is that in the past, Chinese school teachers who were relatives of the principals were employed as teachers in those principals' schools, irrespective of their past experience or academic or professional qualifications. As a result, they had wronged not only themselves but also the pupils under their care and the schools became school shops or commercial institutes. But now, let us look at Chinese education in Singapore. Chinese education in our Chinese schools is very much better. All the teachers are being trained, and we can also say that this is the only place in South-East Asia where Chinese school teachers are given training facilities. We should be proud of this fact. Therefore, through this teachers' training scheme the teaching standards in Chinese schools can be raised and Chinese education can continue to develop and flourished. Would you term this as destruction of Chinese education?

Another point is that the Barisan Members repeatedly say that they are champions of Nantah (Nanyang University). Does Nantah belong to you alone? It is not possible. Everyone in Singapore has a share in Nantah. Nantah cannot be monopolised by this minority group. Their attitudes and their ways cannot justify themselves in the eyes of the people in Singapore. These people have been shouting about Chinese education in Nanyang University and yet they have never abided by the Nanyang University Ordinance. In October we held a Nanyang University consultative meeting on the question of the resignation of Mr Tan Lark Sye. Suddenly a person called Poh Seng See went to the meeting claiming himself to be a member of the Council of Nantah, ignoring the fact that any representative sent out by the Council should be a member of the proper body of Nantah. To qualify as a member of Nantah University, one condition has to be satisfied. According to the Nanyang University Ordinance, anybody who has contributed $1,000 to the University can become a member of Nanyang University. Has the Member for Jurong contributed $1,000? Is he a member of the Nanyang University? How is it that they could show off themselves as members of the Nanyang University Council to attend the Council meeting? The Nanyang University Ordinance also provides that the Chairman of the Nanyang University Students' Union should be the Vice-Chancellor of the University, but this was not so. According to the Ordinance, the Constitution of the Students' Union also provides that the financial statement of the Students' Union should be approved by the University Council. But this has never been done. Have they complied with the Nanyang University Ordinance? They have never done so. They have monopolised Nanyang University as if it belonged to them for the training of their personal cadres to create political disturbances and strikes. In October, these people boycotted their classes and went out to the Padang to lie in the sun. What is this? And when they were asked to disperse, they refused to do so. This is really incomprehensible. Even during the holidays, they refused to leave the University. What is all this? They said that they wanted to stay in the University campus in order to carry out University Week projects. This is ridiculous. I note that on 28th November, the Students' Union submitted a plan on University Week to the University Senate, but the Council of Deans did not approve it because according to it, the University Council would have to spend $20,000. So the Council did not approve the plan, and since the money was not forthcoming, how could they carry out University Week projects? University Week was not held for the first time this year. In the past, there were several occasions when University Week projects were carried out when they did not stay in the University campus. On past occasions, they took part in University Week only after the University had reopened when they went to meet in the Auditorium. Why should they now want to stay in the University campus this time?

The Barisan Members sitting in this House today should thank the Nanyang University students for having done their best to canvass for them. Day in and day out, lorry-loads of students went round to do propaganda work everywhere. Is this a kind of academic exercise? It is not. And they also went round to collect money for the Barisan Sosialis. Is this also a kind of academic activity? They think that they only can criticise other people, but when they are criticised by others they say that other people are obstructing their academic freedom and destroying Chinese education. These are all outmoded slogans. Is election campaigning a kind of academic activity? Is staying in the University campus also a kind of academic activity? We know that the real purpose of their remaining in the University campus is to obstruct the efforts of the Government and the representatives of the University Council to reach an agreement. On the 4th of December in the Nanyang Siang Pau, there was a statement made by the Chairman of the Students' Union that the purpose of the graduates remaining in the campus was to make full use of the vacation so as to carry out preparatory work for the University Week projects? What did they mean by that? In actual fact, it was not really necessary for them to remain in the University campus.

In his speech, the Member for Jurong said that the Government has suppressed the University and the workers in the Naval Base. What actually happened is that there was one Communist worker who assaulted another worker whose name was Latiff. This particular worker, Latiff did not obey the directives of the union in calling out an illegal strike. He resisted the attempt, and as a result, he was assaulted brutally. Now, who was brutal? Who made the assault? It is the Communists in the union who had carried out the assault against an innocent worker.

The Member for Jurong urged us to check our horse on the precipice. I will say that it is they who should pull up their horse before they plunge into the ravine. Their friend, Mr Lim Shee Ping, has now turned over a new leaf. And it is their turn to turn over a new leaf in their lives. What have they to struggle for? They will not be able to achieve their aims. Theirs is an authoritarian regime. They can only create trouble and bloodshed. I believe they will not achieve anything during our life-time. Therefore, it is they who should pull up their horse before they go any further. What they are doing have no useful purpose for mankind.

My other friend, the Member for Nee Soon, has disappeared for some time. What is the use of hiding somewhere? Where can he hide? For how long can he hide? There is no way out for him. Therefore, my advice to them is that they should pull up their horse before they go any further. They should not persist in their anti-Malaysia struggle to their own destruction. They can turn back. It will be good for them if they can turn back. It will be good for the people of Singapore, and for the people in Malaysia as a whole, if they can turn back.

Mr Poh Ber Liak (Tampines): (In Mandarin): In these proceedings today, many Members of the Opposition as well as the Government have added their views on the motion. When the Assembly resumed its sitting at 2.30 p.m. this afternoon, some Members spoke on the motion moved by the Prime Minister. I personally feel that, apart from attacking the Communists and the pro-Communists, the Government Benches do not seem to have anything to talk about. Just to attack the Communists is not a wise approach. Ngoh Dinh Diem of South Vietnam also treated the monks as Communists. And so has our friend, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who brands any progressive opponent as a Communist. He will call every opponent of his a Communist.

The question of a majority, or minority, as touched upon by the Prime Minister, interests me in this way. Although we are a minority in this House, outside this House the broad masses of the people are in sympathy with us. The last general election was conducted in a most undemocratic manner and it was won by the P.A.P. in that manner. Our leaders were arrested. Many legitimate associations and unions were banned before the general election. Yet in spite of these undemocratic conditions, there were some 300,000 voters who supported us.

On the question of Nanyang University. The policy of the P.A.P. to think that businessmen in Singapore are unable to run any university is a great insult to the intelligence of businessmen in Singapore. They claim themselves to be experts in university education. But they have not done anything to help Nanyang University. So far Nanyang University has not received a single cent from them. Can the P.A.P. give aid and academic freedom to Nanyang University unconditionally? They say that the University is being run by the Communists. There is no autonomy in Nanyang University. Now all the facts have come to prove the mistakes of the Prime Minister in making this allegation. The Nanyang University Students' Union has all along been supported by the people of Singapore and Malaysia for their work, and to say that their activities during University Week are Communist activities is absurd. In every University Week organised by the Nanyang University Students' Union, a lot of spectators and members of the public attend the exhibition and take part in the activities. There are spectators from various States all over the Federation of Malaya. Year in and year out the people have been shown the useful work of University Week. Some money is spent on the activities in which the Nanyang students are engaged. To say such activities are Communist activities is an insult to the people who take part in them and who support them.

The P.A.P. in giving aid to Nanyang University wants to have the condition that interference is permitted - in other words, they want to give you aid with certain strings. They say that businessmen in Singapore are unable to run the University. That means that only P.A.P. men are able to run it. If they are not P.A.P., then not a single cent will be given. That is not quite correct. Insofar as aid is to be given to Nanyang University, the P.A.P. has not done anything concrete to help. Even on the question of bursaries - in spite of what the Government has said and its promise to help the poor students, what has the Government actually done? What is the amount of money given to the poor students? A sum of some $600,000 has been allocated for the purpose of bursaries. Actually only half the amount has been spent, and the other half is still dangling in the air. Why? We do not understand why. The list of recipients has not been published this year and we do not know the total amount of bursaries granted to the students this year. Now, what is actually the game they are playing? We do not understand why two students have their bursaries recalled. Can all this show that the Government is really interested in Nanyang University? The Central Government tried to suppress Nanyang University by arresting some Nanyang students on the 8th of October. All these facts, and the action of the Central Government in arresting and assaulting the under-graduates, show that the Central Government is unreasonable and barbaric towards Nanyang University. Is the Singapore Government collaborating in these actions of the Central Government?

The Minister for Labour talked about the Barisan Sosialis Members in this House. From his speech we can go one step further and know what kind of a political Party the P.A.P. is; what kind of democracy they are talking about. What is the true meaning of democracy they are talking about? They are trying to brag about their victory and the so-called support of the people. If they are really getting the support of the people, why should they be so apprehensive of the true meaning of democracy? Of our struggle through constitutional means? Why should they be so afraid of our legitimate political activities by constitutional means? Is the P.A.P. today really interested in struggling with the Barisan Sosialis by constitutional means? Or is it more interested in getting the support of the Central Government in using Fascist measures against the Barisan Sosialis? We have heard from the horse's mouth, namely, the Minister for Labour's, the true meaning of democracy in their dictionary. We ask them one question. Are we safe as Members of the Legislative Assembly? Do we have personal security as Members of the Legislative Assembly?

Concerning the severance of trade between Singapore and Indonesia, the Minister concerned says that it is because of the Barisan Sosialis that such a situation has arisen and all the blame must be shouldered by the Barisan Sosialis. I am not clear whether he and the Minister for Education have read the booklet published by the Ministry of Culture on A Year of Achievement, printing the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. I make a quotation for the purpose of record. I quote the reasons given by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the confrontation. Let them listen to this. Members will note that the confrontation put up by Indonesia against Malaysia has caused regret among the people. Let us read the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech made on the 29th of November in this House in which he gave the reasons for the confrontation. Have the Ministers read this? If not, let me read it [col. 117]:

`... whether "confrontation" at present confined to a trade boycott of Singapore and Penang, and military pressure along the borders of Sarawak is contained and held, and slowly resolved, depends upon the policy settled by the Central Government, not that of any member State Government.'

Now, if the control is in the hands of the Central Government, then how can the Minister for Labour blame the Barisan Sosialis for all this confrontation and its consequences? Let the Ministers and Members opposite read His Excellency's speech!

What causes us amazement is that the Ministers and important people opposite do not understand the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

In addition to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, I would like to say something more to supplement my argument. I would like to ask, is Indonesia not an independent country? Would it have to follow Barisan's directions to carry out its confrontation policy? Does Indonesia have to take directions from the Barisan? Even a child will understand this. But these people opposite do not even know this simplest Common sense question: How can this independent sovereign country (Indonesia) take instructions from a political Party in a non-independent foreign State? It is most ridiculous to believe this. Indonesia is an independent sovereign country and it has its own power and discretion to decide its own policies. Confrontation is a policy exercised by Indonesia in such a way. The Barisan Sosialis, as a political Party, also have a right to express their own thoughts and political ideas. They propose that this crisis arising from confrontation should be resolved by peaceful consultations between the Central Government of Malaysia and Indonesia. But up to now, the P.A.P. oligarchy have not tried to do so. Has the Central Government adopted this peaceful means or is it stepping up the supply of armaments to launch a hot war to deal with confrontation? There are two alternatives: one is by peaceful means; the other is by force. Today, the confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia is caused by reactionary elements in Britain as well as in Malaysia. The P.A.P. does not only want to curb the evil consequences but it is also giving support to these activities. This only goes to show that the P.A.P. is a stooge in this neo-colonialism.

The Minister for Labour bragged about academic freedom and educational equality. I will only give an example to rebut his statement. At the ninth milestone, Tampines, there is a school which has been in existence for 40 years. What has happened to this school now? The land has been confiscated to make way for an airport; the teachers are jobless and the students have been absorbed into English schools. Is this an example of equal treatment for the four streams of education? Now let us look at the treatment received by the University of Singapore and Nanyang University. The University of Singapore has received many millions of dollars as aid, whereas Nanyang University has not received a single cent from the Government. Is this equality of treatment?

The Minister also talks about prosperity in Singapore. I want to tell him that this is only a superficial phenomenon. In spite of many foreigners coming to Singapore, in spite of some people and the Ministers owning houses and cars, the number of unemployed people is increasing day by day. In every corner of Singapore we can see beggars begging for money. Is this a sign of prosperity? We can also see people committing suicide by jumping from high multi-storeyed buildings. Hawkers, whether they are on the thoroughfares or in the backlanes, are everywhere to be found. This is because they cannot find any other jobs. They are therefore compelled to hawk. We admit that Singapore is placed in a very advantageous geographical position. If we can make use of this geographical position and put our port to good use, we will be able to solve our problems of livelihood and the people of Singapore will then be able to enjoy the same comforts as are enjoyed by the Ministers. But what are the facts today? They talk about the free education enjoyed by the children here as an example to prove that we are heading for prosperity. But free primary education is paid for by the people. The P.A.P. also talk about the achievements of the Housing and Development Board and the raising of the people's standard of living. Many people living in Selegie House have to pay $96.50 a month for a three-room flat, excluding water and light! If they are earning only $100 to $200 a month, how can they afford to pay such a high rental? Although such people are living in Housing and Development Board flats, they have to starve themselves and lead a miserable life because they cannot build attap houses in other places. The Government is the biggest landlord acting through the Housing and Development Board. The Government has fattened itself on the revenue derived from the Housing and Development Board rentals. We can clearly see that. The Mountbatten area was originally a rich people's area, and the votes that we got from this area were cast by people living in Housing and Development Board fiats. This shows that they are dissatisfied with the present Government.

The Minister talked about better treatment for the workers, but there are many workers who are laid off by the management and who are compelled to take up jobs at very low pay - from $2 to $3 a day. He also talked about the increasing number of motor-cycles to show that we have prosperity in Singapore. Such promises cannot hold water. In fact, most of those who ride on motor-cycles are the poor workers who have to ply their trade. They are not like the Ministers who have cars. The Minister also talked about public assistance and relief to fire victims. When we visited the fire victims, they told us that their future was very bleak. Their monthly income was only $100 to $200. They wondered whether they could afford to stay in a Housing Board flat. Now that their houses had been devastated by fire and all their personal belongings lost, they have to pay higher rentals if they want to stay in Housing Board flats. They have gone through misfortune and now the Government want to impose high rents on them. In fact, the Government want to clear the fire site in order to build other Housing Board flats so that they can earn income from rentals.

The Minister also talked about Singapore being the New York of Malaysia, but unemployed workers are becoming more numerous and this is what they call the New York of Malaysia!

The P.A.P. helped the British Government and the Federation Government to impose Malaysia on the people of Singapore, thus bringing about misfortune to the people of Singapore. The Minister also talked about Malaysia being unable to encircle Indonesia. It does not concern us whether the present attitude of Indonesia is correct or not. Whether a small country can surround a big country is another matter, but the past two World Wars have shown that it is the small countries which surrounded the big countries. Japan, being a small country, was able to surround a big country such as China, and this is a very good example to show that a small country is capable of aggression against a big country.

The Minister also talked about the Afro-Asian Conference in Moshi. The Ministers of the P.A.P. did not condemn the brutal act committed by the Central Government in arresting one of our representatives. This only shows that the P.A.P. delegates were not supported by the delegates in the Afro-Asian Conference at Moshi.

Regarding the strike at the Naval Base, it is the P.A.P. who broke it up and caused misery to the workers there. What is the attitude of the P.A.P.? Do they want to oppose the Central Government, or do they want to support it in regard to the strike at the Naval Base? The workers staged a strike at the Naval Base in order to raise their living standard, but their strike was sabotaged. Do the P.A.P. agree to the action taken by the Central Government or do they support the workers?

The Minister also talked about Mr Lim Shee Ping. We do not know the real position of Mr Lim Shee Ping because he is not here. Now, if the statement allegedly made by him is false, then the Central Government is very mean in falsifying his statement. This is a very low tactic, using the threat of life imprisonment to force detainees to give up their political convictions and to prevent them from carrying out their legal and constitutional struggle by banning them from carrying out their political activities. In the case of the Member for Toa Payoh, it is the same case of the Central Government trying to suppress their political opponents. Now, what is the P.A.P. attitude on this question? They do not side with the people but instead they side with the reactionary Central Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to talk about the labour policy mentioned in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. I am of the opinion that this labour policy is detrimental to the interests of the workers. If the P.A.P. oligarchy are genuinely interested in looking after the interests of the workers, then they should alter their labour policy. The labour policy clearly reveals the P.A.P.'s reactionary anti-worker stand. They have not changed this stand. All these facts prove that they want to sacrifice the interests of the workers in order to appease the foreign investors and their insatiable demands for profits. The labour policy for the next five years will not see any changes. They will be anti-worker, more reactionary and more detrimental to the interests of the workers in the years to come.

From what is stated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, we can see this. I would like to touch on several points. One point is that the P.A.P. want to strengthen their hand to exercise their control of the workers by introducing new trade union legislation into the House. On the so-called educating the workers and the training of trade union leaders, we are of the opinion that the P.A.P. will make use of the N.T.U.C., which is a stooge of the P.A.P., and make use of the Adult Education Board under the control of Mr Devan Nair to deceive and to manipulate the working masses. In implementing their so-called four streams of education for the workers, it will mean that the workers will be forced to be indoctrinated by their so-called education. If the workers do not want to be trained in their way, then the workers will not be able to get any jobs in the foreign-controlled firms. What will be the result of the so-called training of the workers? They will only be trained to become stooges, riding over the heads of the working masses. The sole point is that the P.A.P. will set up a so-called committee composed of representatives from the Government, employees and the employers. Now, let us examine this proposal. The P.A.P. in its nature is thoroughly anti-worker, and these three propositions will further increase its reactionary power and authority to prevent workers from supporting the popular trade unions and their trade union leaders -for instance, to prevent the existence of the popular Commercial and Factory Workers' Union. It raises the myth of the Communist bogey to carry out its tactics, and even the Labour Ministry cannot deny that the union which I mentioned earlier has thousands of members. Now, that is the first intention of the P.A.P.

Another thing is that the P.A.P. want to carry out their so-called measures to prevent the workers from being indoctrinated and influenced by the Communists. Anyone who is not satisfied with the present P.A.P. political policy or is not satisfied with his living conditions will be dubbed as a Communist by the P.A.P. Now the P.A.P. want to introduce a new trade union law the main purpose of which is for the reason which I have just pointed out.

Another thing that the P.A.P. say is that the Government is trying to improve the relationship between employer and employee and to improve the economy, but from our point of view the present economic situation is the result of a colonial economic system inherited by the P.A.P. If such an economic situation is not changed, there will be no improvement in the living conditions of the workers. The P.A.P. Government economic policy is to encourage foreign capitalists to exploit our workers further and not to encourage our national capitalists to develop our industries. Instead, the P.A.P. is encouraging foreign monopolists to compete with our national capitalists and investors. Furthermore, the P.A.P. is going to introduce a new Trade Union Ordinance to prevent the workers from staging strikes. To sum up, the purpose of the P.A.P. in doing this is to treat the workers of Singapore as serfs in the feudal system in order to enable the capitalists and other exploiters to scrape their profits from the workers.

Now, these are the three main reasons for the Government's policy. This sugar-coating of the Government policy will further encourage foreign capitalists to exploit our workers in all ways. Singapore is very unfortunate in this kind of situation and yet the P.A.P. are looking for the worst to happen. They are not keen to seek a better future for the workers.

To sum up, we can describe the P.A.P. as being biased. The introduction of their legislation concerning the Trade Unions Ordinance is out of political motivation and not with the object of looking after the interests of the workers. The main purpose of the legislation will be to control and suppress these large trade unions supported by the progressive workers in order to put them under the control of such puppet trade unions as those under Devan Nair. This is a repetition of their past evil deeds and it has also now reached a new stage in their scheme of repression. They are not contented with arresting trade union leaders. They have gone further and banned seven trade unions. They even intend to go a step further and destroy all other unions which are really fighting for the interest of the workers.

The Government's refusal to allow the workers to organise themselves into unions to improve their working conditions is a direct interference with the rights of the workers. Why is it that the P.A.P. is so very interested in introducing new legislation of such a nature as to exercise stricter control over trade unions? This is a question that is worth our careful consideration. This shows that the Ministers of the P.A.P. are very afraid of the people being aware of their basic rights. This also goes to show that the P.A.P. Ministers are trying their very best to foster their own unions against the interests of the workers in general. The objective conditions are not in favour of the P.A.P. and their stooges in the trade union field.

The P.A.P.-controlled unions cannot stand where true unions exist, because such true unions are fighting for the interests of the workers and are getting the support of the workers in general; whereas the P.A.P.-controlled unions will not get such support, and so the P.A.P. will have to resort to governmental interference with the true unions of the workers in order to foster their P.A.P.-dominated unions. Such P.A.P.-dominated unions as the N.T.U.C. can never find their existence in true trade unionism, because the P.A.P.-controlled unions such as the N.T.U.C. exist only for the interest of the P.A.P. and the foreign capitalists. They exist only for the interest of a few leaders who work for their selfish interests, but against the interests of the workers in general. They will sell away the interests of the workers for their own sake. They are anti-labour, they are anti-worker; and that is why they are being discarded by the workers in general. Such a situation is inevitable, because true trade unionism will have the support of all the working class and will flourish.

Seven big unions in Singapore have been banned. The anti-worker elements, the traitors of the workers, try to take over control of the membership of the banned unions by absorbing it into the N.T.U.C., but their hopes have been shattered to pieces, because the majority of the members of the defunct unions do not allow themselves to fall into their trap. They have made a wise choice by joining unions which can truly represent their interests. That is why the P.A.P. is now trying its very best to take action against these unions which have absorbed and which are absorbing the members from the banned unions, for instance, the Commercial and Factory Workers Union.

The P.A.P. is now contemplating the introduction of a new Labour Ordinance to enable the P.A.P. Ministers to cancel the registration of those unions which truly represent the interests of the workers. The introduction of the proposed Bill on labour has a lot of political motivation in it, and this motivation aims at depriving the workers of their basic rights. It has this undesirable element of taking away the right of the workers to ask for betterment of their working conditions. It also has the undesirable factor of trying to prevent the workers from leading a decent life by their strength and unity. That is why the workers in general are very dissatisfied with the P.A.P. nowadays. Whether you are a colonialist or a reactionary element of the Federation of Malaya, or whether you are a P.A.P. divisionist, you all aim at high pressure to be exerted over the workers. You are all trying to resort to very undemocratic means and unreasonable tactics against the workers. To achieve all this you make use of this popular education campaign to try and monopolise the trade union world. But in spite of all that they are doing, they will not succeed in getting control of the true trade unions, because their motivation is undesirable in the first instance. An idea of this undesirable motivation can be seen from a speech broadcast over Radio Singapore by Dr Goh Keng Swee. In this speech Dr Goh believes that only his kind of trade unionism will be able to promote industrialisation, whereas the trade unionism that is in favour of the workers, such as the trade unionism encouraged and accepted by the seven banned unions, according to Dr Goh, is not conducive to industrialisation in Singapore. Yet in spite of what he says, these unions that are truly representative of the workers' interests have popular support from the working class, because they seek to improve the lot of the workers in general. The broad masses of the working class cannot compare their wages to the salaries of the Ministers. The workers are living in misery, unlike the Ministers who live in big houses. So to improve their lot to get a decent living they have to take certain actions to claim for better working conditions. Our workers in Singapore are not, as is said by our Ministers, enjoying a very high standard of living. If you go round Singapore and see for yourselves, you will realise what misery our Singapore workers are in. In his speech over the Radio, Dr Goh Keng Swee says that some foreign investors are hesitant in coming forward to Singapore to invest because they are afraid of the industrial unrest in Singapore. Today, the P.A.P. has taken a lot of capital away from Singapore to the North Borneo and Sarawak territories. Yet they have the cheek to turn round and say that it is because foreign capitalists are hesitant in coming forward to Singapore that Singapore has not been able to get sufficient capital for industrialisation purposes. I do not know what these economic experts will do to protect our local capitalists against foreign competition. In fact, our so-called economic experts are more interested in protecting the foreign capitalists and investors in Singapore than our own local small capitalists. It is therefore very clear that the P.A.P. in trying to educate the working class perhaps aims at depriving the workers of their right to strike and to ask for better working conditions. In other words, they are trying to deceive the workers into believing that by keeping quiet they will be able to have a better lot in future, that it is not necessary for the workers to go on strike to get better terms of service. This perhaps is the aim of the so-called education policy of the P.A.P. This measure and the steps contemplated by the P.A.P. now will in the next five years bring the workers into greater misery and go a step further to fatten the pockets of the foreign investors. We can say that but for these measures and proposed policies the Singapore workers will be able to lead a decent life, but because the P.A.P. is trying to appease the foreign capitalists, the lot of the workers in Singapore will not be improved; in fact it will deteriorate as more money is being taken away by the foreign capitalists and more and more workers will have to work under worse working conditions with less wages.

What is the policy of the P.A.P. in regard to foreign capitalists and investors in Singapore? They are more interested in protecting their vested interests. They do not care so much for the workers in Singapore. Neither do they care very much for the local capitalists and national capitalists. What they are interested in now is to get as many foreign capitalists and investors into Singapore as possible. They think that by so doing they will be able to bring about prosperity in our country. But I will now tell them that the prosperity that they are going to bring about will not be enjoyed by the workers in general but will be monopolised by the foreign capitalists and investors. It is fantastic for the P.A.P. to think that they are able to educate the workers of Singapore into obedient servants. Their so-called trade union leaders are actually aristocratic people. Their talk of collective bargaining, administrative training and improvement of trade unionism is all a bluff. They are trying to deceive the workers into believing that by working obediently for their capitalist and foreign masters, the workers will have a better life in future. The anti-worker elements such as Mr Devan Nair are trying to ride over the heads of the workers. They are not able to protect the interests of the workers in general.

They are actually working for the interests of the ruling class and for their own selfish ends. What are they trying to do now? By way of educating the workers, they are trying to inculcate ideas into the workers, that by keeping quiet they will have their lot improved. The true colours of these anti-labour elements have been seen clearly by the workers in general. Who have assaulted the workers on strike? Who have sold away the interests of the workers? Who have taken the leaders of the workers to prison? And who are actually enjoying life now? The broad mass of the working class knows too well such things. The so-called educating-the-worker policy and the new legislation to be introduced in the labour field, are all the steps taken in order to safeguard the interests of the foreign investors and foreign capitalists. The P.A.P. leaders are trying to extract the sweat and labour of the workers of Singapore to please their foreign friends and capitalists. In fact, the high standard of living our Ministers are enjoying now has been the result of exploitation of the workers. The people in general are living in great misery. Their standard of living is lowering and their lot will become worse and worse. The so-called prosperity, as claimed by the P.A.P., in Malaysia is only a myth. Malaysia, as imposed by the reactionary elements and the P.A.P., has not brought happiness to the people. Instead it has brought misery. The working class has to tighten their belts. This is what the P.A.P. call a prosperous Malaysia - asking the people to tighten their belts. How can the PAP, convince the workers by their radio broadcast? How can they make empty promises to the workers by painting a very glowing picture of the future? By trying to push forward their education campaign? They will only want to deceive the people. The workers themselves realise that. In order to change their lot, they must encourage the local capitalists to promote industries and commerce. All these were mentioned by Dr Goh Keng Swee during the 1959 election. But today, what they safeguard are not the interests of the local capitalists and the interests of the workers. They are not interested in protecting on promoting local industries. What they are more concerned with is to induce foreign investors to come here. They say that without foreign investments we will have to suffer. This is their logic.

The Minister for Labour says if we do not have military bases we will be attacked by other people. No self-respecting people will allow their own country to be the military bases of a foreign power. Talking about military bases, although the expenditure on the military bases is not paid by Singapore and the Federation, but the military bases we have here are intended to safeguard and protect the mining and rubber industries in Malaya, which suck the blood of our fellow-citizens, and they belong to the foreigners. He says without these military bases 60 per cent of the tin mines and 90 per cent of the rubber industries will be nationalised by our country through peaceful negotiations between the two Governments. The British military bases, although the money spent on them does not come from our country and our people, help to maintain foreign capitalists and their interests in this area. The British will not be a stupid robber. They are too clever for that. The Minister for Labour and the Prime Minister have been saying that the military bases support a lot of people here. The salaries paid to the workers in the military bases come from the rich rubber estates, from the revenue of our port and from the benefits of our foreign trade. Is this not a classic example of the British sucking the blood of our people? The salaries received by the workers in the military bases do not come from the British people. Although to some extent the troops here have fed some of our workers, all peace-loving people throughout the world and the people in our country have in turn supported the British troops. The Minister for Labour can for some time deceive the people through his radio, television and Press talks, but outside this Chamber his propaganda will not stand the lest of time. How can they say that the British imperialist bases in this area support the people in this area? This plausible argument put forward by the Minister will not deceive the people any longer and it is not without reason that they put forward this argument. It is put forward to deceive certain sections of the people who are ignorant of whether who are supporting whom, whether the British bases support our people or we, the people, support the British bases here. They say that to abolish the military bases here will bring unemployment to our workers here. In fact, with our rich natural resources, we can very well support the workers who are at present working in the military bases. Once the British foreign bases no more exist here, the workers working in the bases will be looked after by our nation and will receive their proper due. Only the reactionary elements and the Ministers will dare to say that without military bases our workers will be jobless because we have our national wealth to support these workers. The P.A.P. Government will not look after the unemployed people. We strongly condemn the maintenance of foreign bases and we condemn the British/Malayan Defence Agreement from the standpoint of safeguarding the workers. We expose the specious arguments put forward by the P.A.P. Ministers. Once they know the true picture, the workers will not be misled or deceived by the argument that without military bases our workers cannot get any jobs.

Those anti-worker classes on the question of solving the unemployment problem of the workers are helpless. The only thing they can do is to destroy the workers' organisation, disrupt peaceful living and interfere with the legitimate right of the workers. These people are helping the British masters to carry out suppression and exploitation. In the coming days if their policy fails and if the lot of the workers is not improved, then they will be discarded by the workers. What I have said above is on the intended trade union legislation and the specious education of the workers.

Now I want to talk about the Labour Advisory Council. As long ago as the beginning of this year the P.A.P.'s Minister for Finance mentioned it during his radio broadcast. In the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara this session, there is only a short passage about it. The speech broadcast by the Minister for Finance was more clear about this. In order not to let this point pass away, I find it necessary to repeat what the Minister for Finance, Dr Goh Keng Swee, said on it during his broadcast. He said his view and impression of the trade unions supported by the workers was that they supported only the interest of certain sections of the people. They were interested in asking for better living conditions and better wages only for a section of the workers in these trade unions. That is why Dr Goh suggested the setting up of a Labour Advisory Council.

Of course, as an organisation a trade union must look after the interests of its members. It goes without saying and it is justified. And as a national organisation, of course, it will also look after the members who belong to it. How can you ask the organisation not to seek to improve the lot and the working conditions of the members belonging to it? Of course, people like the P.A.P. Ministers are not satisfied, although they are using their positions in the State to protect their interest. They are not contented with this. They also want to make use of the trade union organisation to protect their own interest. As to how to protect foreign capitalists, Dr Goh Keng Swee suggested setting up a Labour Advisory Council so that the workers can be recruited over to their side and not to raise demands for better working conditions. Dr Goh was not in agreement that the claims by the workers were for better working conditions and better living standards. He said his view was that the unions making demands on behalf of the workers should be concerned with the claims to benefit foreign capitalists instead. You can see clearly what has been mentioned in the policy speech, that the Labour Advisory Council, consisting of Labour Ministry officials, management representatives and trade union representatives, is not really directed towards nor can it achieve the aim of improving the lot of the workers. Instead they want to freeze all improvement of working conditions.

Today an important question is: "What kind of people are trade union representatives?" Trade unions which are truly supported by the workers they construe to be Communist controlled. Only those under the control of P.A.P. they construe to be true trade unions. And those anti-worker trade unions controlled by anti-worker personnel as Devan Nair who serve only the interests of foreign capitalists they construe to be true trade unions. We doubt very much whether people like Devan Nair can truly represent the interest of the workers.

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this Chamber two years ago we heard the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis repeating the same old record and yet now the newly elected Member is doing the same thing, criticising all this P.A.P. labour ---

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Tampines has been mentioning Mr Devan Nair several times in the same context. Would he just go on to the main debate before the House? He has mentioned Devan Nair several times.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I doubt very much whether the Member for Changi has read the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I doubt very much whether he has read about the Labour Advisory Council mentioned in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. If he has not done so, how could he form any opinion about it? How could he say that this has nothing to do with our debate on labour policy? Does he not know that there is mention made of the Labour Advisory Council in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech?

Just now I was analysing the composition of the tripartite representatives in the Labour Advisory Council. With reference to the first part of the tripartite representatives, I have expressed my doubts about it when I talked about the labour policy. I have doubts as to the acceptability of this representation by the workers. To the P.A.P., it is those trade unions which support the P.A.P. that can be considered as genuine and legitimate trade unions. To the P.A.P., those trade unions registered under the Trade Unions Ordinance, as provided for by the Registrar of Trade Unions, can truly represent the workers. And today the Ministry of Labour has proposed to set up a Labour Advisory Council! Therefore, I have grave doubts as to the intention of having them as one of the three representatives in the Council - whether the so-called representatives would be recruited from the discredited unions who are stooges of the P.A.P. Perhaps a member from the trade unions fostered by the P.A.P. - which are stooges of the P.A.P. - will be nominated as one of the representatives in this Council. The P.A.P. have not only arrested a few people, but they have also arrested many of the trade union leaders.

I will now analyse further the composition of the Labour Advisory Council with reference to the Ministry of Labour officials. In spite of the P.A.P.'s propaganda and what they have been saying, namely, that the officials of the Labour Ministry are to look after the interests of the workers, the question whether these Labour Ministry officials represented on the Labour Advisory Council can truly speak on behalf of the workers raises a grave doubt. I have doubts whether the Labour Ministry officials to he represented on the Labour Advisory Council which is going to be set up can look after the interests of the workers. If they can do so, they should have concrete evidence to prove it. What have they done up till now about looking after the interests of the workers?

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah): On a point of order. The Member should come to the point. He can indicate it in his speech in his words. But he should not beat about the bush and come back to the same point.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): I am now talking about the tripartite representatives on the Labour Advisory Council. I have been talking about the representatives from the Labour Ministry. This point is contained in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, and I have been confining my speech to this matter. I am of the opinion that the officials of the Labour Ministry cannot speak on behalf of the workers in these coming days or years. I have concrete facts to substantiate my doubts. For instance, in the past, during a strike at Lorong 3, Geylang, the strikers were beaten up by the police and troops were sent down from the Central Government. But the Labour Ministry officials were indifferent to this. What was their attitude then? What has been the attitude of the Labour Ministry officials on such questions as this? Can they look after the interests of the workers when they sit in the Labour Advisory Council? The general mass of the people have grave doubts about this.

Now I will touch on the third category of the tripartite representatives in the Labour Advisory Council, namely the management representatives. We say that there are two categories of representatives; one representing the foreign capitalists and the other representing our national employers. If the national employers can look after the interests of the workers, it would be something very wonderful. But the Minister for Finance has said that the P.A.P. intend to get foreign capitalists to invest here. In addition to the doubt as to the intention of the national capitalists and their ability to look after the interests of the workers, we have further doubts as to the good intentions of the foreign capitalists. Of course, there should be true representatives of workers in the Council before there can be any genuine representation of the workers. If there is no genuine workers' representation on the Council, we have grave doubts as to the intention of the representation of the employers on the Council, and the value of the Labour Advisory Council. This policy of brutality and barbarism against the workers does not meet with the needs of the whole economic requirements of local conditions. Yet the P.A.P. is not satisfied with it. It goes further. It is dealing with the Labour Ministry. From the fact that the Labour Research Unit could not bring any benefit to the workers, we can imagine that the Labour Advisory Council will be the same as the past Labour Research Unit ---

The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Rubbish!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): The setting up of the Labour Advisory Council is proof of the P.A.P. Government's appeasement towards foreign capitalists. Of course, the foreign capitalists will thank the P.A.P. for their so-called labour policy. They are trying to make use of this Labour Advisory Council to tie the hands of the workers who want to fight for their interests and raise their wages. It is indeed a great misfortune to the workers if this Labour Advisory Council is set up according to the P.A.P.'s plan. As long as some of the trade unions are manipulated by the P.A.P., there will be no industrial peace. In the days to come the P.A.P. will inevitably link up with the Central Government to carry out their anti-worker measures and to brutally and savagely suppress the workers in Singapore.

We have noted that in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech it is very obvious that not only does the P.A.P. Government ignore the true trade unions, but it also goes out of its way to get the co-operation of the management and employers to suppress the workers. And those true leaders of the workers are branded by the P.A.P. as Communists in an attempt to suppress their trade unions. They are also trying to make use of their P.A.P.-controlled unions to foster their own interests.

The labour policy contained in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech will not bring benefit to the workers. Neither will it bring any prosperity. The P.A.P. and the reactionary Government in the Federation must realise that however brutal and savage their suppression, the workers will not submit to them. And their ---

The Minister for Health (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): On a point of order. The Member for Tampines is reading his statement.

Mr Speaker: Most of the Members today have been reading from their statements. So for that reason I have not stopped this particular Member. But everyone has been doing it and that is probably why everyone is so long-winded. And for that reason, I have not chosen to stop this particular Member. Since we have only about 15 minutes more, I think we had better press on as fast as we can. Please proceed.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we are very honest about the procedures in this Chamber and that is why we have to prepare ourselves before the sitting. In order to enable Members of this House to know our ideas better, we have to read from our prepared speeches. Well, so much for this idle talk. Let us go back to the topic under discussion.

The main question that I am raising now is on labour autonomy. To what extent is labour autonomy granted to the people of Singapore in substance, or does labour autonomy only exist in its titular value - just in name? We urge the P.A.P. Government to keep its promise in maintaining labour autonomy in Singapore and in meeting the Opposition in open argument rather than in resorting to the high-pressure tactics of the Central Government. We urge the P.A.P. Government to resist the high-pressure tactics of the Central Government because such tactics are against the declared policy of the Government in fighting in the open argument. It is inconsistent with the open argument policy of the P.A.P. We want the P.A.P. to declare whether it still supports the open argument or whether it has gone over to support the Central Government for its high-pressure and high-handed tactics. We also want the P.A.P. to defend the labour autonomy which it has been boasting about so much. As a matter of fact, the livelihood of the workers in Singapore has been grossly interfered with, and unnecessarily too, by the Central Government. And that was precisely the fear that we had before the formation of Malaysia. Without political protection, there can be no existence of any labour autonomy. If you have no political safeguards, you cannot talk of labour autonomy. If the P.A.P. still persist in believing that there can be labour autonomy without political safeguards, then how are they going to explain away the fact that the workers have been interfered with by the Federation police? Why should the Federation send troops and police to assault the workers in Singapore? The Prime Minister has said time and again that he does not endorse the action of the police against the workers. But only recently the Federation Government has taken police and military action against the workers on strike. Now, what is the attitude of the P.A.P. to this matter? Are the P.A.P. really interested in safeguarding the interests of the workers? Or are they going back on the word of the Prime Minister? He has said - and he is known to have said - that he does not endorse police and military action against the workers, but that they must be dealt with by peaceful means. There has been no riot occasioned by any strike of the workers and there has been no necessity for the Federation police to come down to Singapore to interfere with the strikes.

The people in Singapore have seen for themselves that well-trained police personnel have been used by the Central Government against the workers on strike in Singapore. In any constitution, there should be no provision to-deprive the right of the workers to strike. Even the Government itself recognises the right of the workers to strike. So before such a right is declared illegal, the workers themselves can take part in a legitimate strike and there should be no police or government interference. The strike is a weapon by which the workers can seek to improve their working conditions.

That is my view of the labour policy of the P.A.P., Mr Speaker, Sir.

7.54 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, I thought we had already got rid of the filibuster, Dr Lee Siew Choh, but we have got so many filibusters here today. Mr Speaker, I would like to crave the same indulgence that you have given to the Opposition Member.

I would like to rebut a few points. The Member for Tampines has said that Mr Devan Nair and the N.T.U.C. are stooges of the P.A.P. Government. I wish the Member for Tampines will answer this question: are Bani, Woodhull and S.A.T.U. not stooges of the Barisan Sosialis? Probably the Member for Tampines was still very young when Mr Devan Nair was a trade unionist. I think he was still then sucking his mother's milk.

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the Member for Bras Basah not use unparliamentary language?

Mr Ho See Beng: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I would like to withdraw that remark. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. Please proceed.

Mr Ho See Beng: Let me say that the Member was then sucking his thumb. Everyone in Singapore knows that Mr Devan Nair was once with the Communists, and if he had squealed, many Communists who have infiltrated into the Barisan Sosialis would have gone to gaol. But he had not done so. The so-called trade union heroes - Mr Woodhull, Mr James Puthucheary, and Mr Lim Shee Ping - squealed while they were in gaol for a short while, and they were released just a few days ago. From this the people of Singapore can know the characters of these men.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I assure you that I am not going to filibuster and I would therefore like to come back to the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. Mr Speaker, I associate myself with the Prime Minister in voicing our thanks to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his stirring speech in opening the First Session of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore. This little island of ours has entered a new phase in its history. The cobwebs of colonialism and imperialism have been finally swept away by the confederation of Malaysia. We are now fully in the mainstream of a Malaysian life. Our hopes, our aspirations and our achievements must therefore be sought and examined within the context of a wider flow.

In this revolutionary change in our lives, it is heartening to hear His Excellency speak so confidently of our future and to note the general optimism throughout his review of the past and the projections from this past into the future. I have no criticisms at all of His Excellency's speech in his wide sweep of our history and of our future. However, there are certain parts, largely matters of detail, to which I wish to draw the Government's attention. I could, of course, have done this through the Party's channel or through private memoranda to the Cabinet. But then if all of us of the ruling Party did this, this Assembly would indeed become a very poor place, and the public would be denied the opportunity of witnessing their representatives in action. I am referring, of course, to the poor Opposition Party in this House. As we all know, those of us who cherish democracy appreciate an effective and intelligent Opposition. Mr Speaker, Sir, it does appear to me that such a desirable state of affairs is not at the moment present with us. As the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has stated very accurately, our life is now interwoven with that of Malaysia, and if we confine ourselves to Singapore we cannot be effective, however successful we may be in the Malaysian scene.

Mr Speaker: Moment of interruption. Debate to be resumed, what day?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Tomorrow. Mr Speaker.