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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [9th December, 1963] to Question [9th December, 1963],

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

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

Which Amendment was,

"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 Chia Thye Poh].

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." As I indicated yesterday, the debate can range over the whole of the Address as well as the amendment. The Member for Bras Basah had the Floor.

2.34 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has stated very accurately that our life is now interwoven with that of Malaysia, we cannot be effective, however successful we may be in the Malaysian scene, if we confine ourselves to Singapore. There must be an inter-flow of political ideas and politicians among the territories in Malaysia. Federation politicians have sought to spread their activities and their views in Singapore. It is only proper and indeed desirable that political ideas originating from Singapore should have its impact over the whole of Malaysia. The flow of political ideas and politicians from Singapore has not moved as smoothly and as quickly as some of us might have hoped. I think I can say for all the politicians in Singapore that their desire to have their views spread over a greater area has been impeded by unnatural forces. It is my hope that this Government will do all it can to convince the seat of authority in Kuala Lumpur that if democracy in this vast area of Malaysia is to survive and prosper, there must be a free flow of political ideas and politicians throughout this territory.

Everyone knows that democracy depends to a large extent on the existence of a free democratic trade union movement. In Singapore we are fortunate to have a free, virile, democratic and, above all, a patriotic trade union movement. This trade union movement of Singapore has shown and proved itself in the past few years that it can contain and conscribe political adventurers seeking to use the trade union movement for anti-national purposes. With this experience behind it, the trade union movement in Singapore is certainly in a position to assist trade union movements elsewhere in Malaysia in the fight against Communist elements posing as trade unionists.

All round the trade industrial front in Singapore, the democratic trade Union movement represented by the National Trade Union Congress has made significant progress. It has indeed been, as His Excellency said, a large-scale eradication of industrial discontent and unrest on the basis of industrial peace with justice. The Industrial Relations Ordinance was made law in 1959. In 1960 the Industrial Arbitration Court made its first impact. Nevertheless, experience over the years has shown that it has certain undesirable features which are needy of attention. The most glaring example is the constant violation by employers of section 77 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. A number of employers in Singapore still retain a colonial approach in industrial relations with their employees. They still think that labour should be docile and should not be organised. At the very first indication of attempts by workers to organise, these employers seek to destroy the workers' unity by wanton dismissal. The Industrial Relations Ordinance provides specifically for penalties for such conduct. But today, for one reason or another, no employer has yet been prosecuted under section 77 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It may be that the machinery for such prosecution is inadequate. It may be that the wording of section 77 makes it difficult for successful prosecution. But the Government should try to improve on the machinery of, or to amend, the Industrial Relations Ordinance to speedily mete out punishment to employers who flout the spirit of the Ordinance.

This matter is of the utmost importance and urgency. We in the trade union movement have been co-operating with the Government in its policy of industrial peace with justice. The justice that is reposed in the industrial system, this justice we hope to find through the Courts. If the trade union movement finds that it cannot obtain this justice through the institutions of law, then it cannot be blamed if it seeks justice elsewhere.

Over the past few years a number of employers appear to have escaped scot-free with their violation of the law. This violation has done no good to the employers themselves, to the trade union movement, and to society. I therefore call upon the Government to take urgent positive steps to rectify the situation which, if allowed to continue, will cause the very foundations of our democratic society to sink.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Member for Tampines described Mr Devan Nair and the N.T.U.C. as stooges of the P.A.P. Well, nobody could expect pro-Communist elements to make friendly remarks about those who have trounced them in the battle for the hearts and minds of the workers of Singapore. Workers do not support stooges, and this is the reason why the stooges of the Indonesian confrontationists daily continue to lose support from the workers of Singapore. Mr Devan Nair was once with the Communists, and he is not ashamed of the reason which led him to join them. But he is also not ashamed either of the reasons which led him to leave the Communist fold, for he discovered that far from fighting for the real interests of the workers the Communists were only interested in exploiting them for anti-national political purposes. There is an honourable and a dishonourable way of breaking with your friends. Mr Nair did not crack up in prison and come out after making penitential statements. Unlike certain other persons, he never squealed to the police against his friends. But what Mr Devan Nair did is public knowledge. He openly and publicly took a stand against the Communists who betray the cause of Malayan socialism by acting as fifth columnists for foreign powers. The workers of Singapore know that had it not been for Mr Devan Nair's determined stand against the Communists, they would now have been prisoners of the friends of the Indonesian confrontationists. The workers of Singapore also know that Mr Nair has contributed more to trade unionism than all the Woodhulls, Puthuchearys and Lim Shee Pings put together. The Communists and their friends cannot be expected to understand the democratic concept of trade unionism which is the basis of the N.T.U.C. They cannot understand why the N.T.U.C. supports the Government on all fundamental, political and ideological issues. We are functionally independent of the Government. They cannot understand why it is possible for the postmen of Singapore to give full support to democracy and to Malaysia. It is also possible for the Singapore workers to take strike action against the Government. The N.T.U.C. supported the strike by the Public Daily Rated Employees Union in 1961 against the Government. It also supported the nurses and the police clerks when they went on strike. Recently employees of the Postal and Telecommunications Department went on strike and we were fully behind them. But all these thousands of workers are beyond the reach of the Communists simply because they know that the Government respects the democratic concept of trade unionism on which they are based. The Member for Tampines is too ignorant of democracy to appreciate that if the P.A.P. were an anti-labour Government, then police clerks, for instance, would never have been able to go on strike. Does he believe, for instance, that in Communist countries police personnel would be allowed to go on strike? Does he even believe that his Indonesian friends would allow their police personnel to go on strike? However, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not my purpose to educate pro-Communists because they are beyond the reach of education. There is no more uneducable person than a Communist with a closed mind. We on this side of the House are more interested in educating the public of Singapore in the mechanics of democracy and in the fact that only in an open democratic society can the real freedom of the trade union movement be protected. I invite the Member for Tampines to look with unprejudiced eyes, if that is not beyond his capacity, at all our neighbouring territories, and I will give him a medal if he can show any country in South-East Asia which has labour legislation as advanced and as progressive as we have in Singapore. His real complaint is not that we have reactionary labour laws but that we do not love the Communists. We do not intend to betray the workers of Singapore by allowing them to be swallowed up by the fifth columnists of foreign powers. On that there will be no compromise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me warn the pro-Communist elements in the trade union movement that we in the N.T.U.C. are out to succeed. We will expose them whenever and wherever they turn up their ugly faces. I can promise them that we regard it, in the words of Mr Khrushchev, as "our historical responsibility to bury them." This is inevitable and the Member for Tampines and others like him should appreciate the fact that it is historically inevitable that in Malaysia the proponents of an open democratic society will triumph over the Communists and their anti-national allies. They will not win as long as we are on this field because we will meet intelligence with greater intelligence; vigour and dedication with greater vigour and dedication; determination with even greater determination. But it is time the Communists must realise that in dealing with us they are not dealing with reactionaries but with people who are dedicated to the ideal of a free, democratic non-Communist and socialist Malaysia.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, Indonesia's trade boycott has created an economic crisis of the first magnitude unprecedented in Singapore and it has overshadowed all our other problems. It is, therefore, on this issue, which surpasses all other issues, that is, on the consequence of Indonesia's economic confrontation, that I wish to take today's opportunity to draw the attention of the Government and of this Assembly. This is a problem to which the Government must give its full attention and seek a satisfactory solution.

Since 22nd September a crippling stroke has gripped this island's economy and its 1.8 million people. Since the days of Stamford Raffles people can only gauge the influence of Indonesian trade on Singapore's economy. Even under the Japanese occupation trade never ceased to flow between Singapore and Indonesia. Now for the first time for many centuries there is a complete severance of trade between these two territories. The blow to Singapore's economy is indeed devastating. Whether we like it or not, the Singapore cow has been too dependent on Indonesia's pastures. The great wealth of Indonesia has for centuries, ceaselessly, effortlessly and unconsciously flowed through to Singapore, which is one of the greatest ports of the world. But on the 22nd of September this wealth stopped to flow. Singapore has no other pastures to turn to and is now experiencing a slow economic death. The question in the minds of the people is, will the great entrepot of Singapore be doomed forever? What will Singapore's future fortunes be? Since the great depression of 1929 to 1932, Singapore has never suffered in peace time a greater blow to her economy. There never has been a greater number of unemployed people, and this figure is steadily increasing. Traffic on the Singapore River, which has been called the life-blood of Singapore's commerce and industry, has come to a standstill. Telok Ayer Street, the centre of high-level Indonesia trade, is almost deserted, except for unemployed stevedores and workers in dark blue Chinese uniforms squatting with silent faces cursing the Government, no money to drink even coffee and reminisce over the past. The merchants in the city are assessing their losses; their debts in Indonesia; their property confiscated; their future; their bank overdraft as 31st December approaches at a faster speed than usual. But, Sir, on these matters, they are unable to come to any definite conclusion. I do not wish to argue with the Government whether 8 per cent or 80 per cent of the business, or the people, or of the national income or the economy is affected; whether it is 8,000 people or 80,000 people who are unemployed as a result of Indonesian economic confrontation. This type of argument leads to no useful purpose.

I wish to give a broad picture I have formed of the outcome of Indonesia's economic confrontation and put forward certain more constructive measures for Government's consideration. In the paramount interest of Singapore and for the salvation of our economy from complete wreck, let us use this Assembly to find a solution. Telok Ayer Street and the streets around it are the heart of Singapore's trade and commerce, particularly with Indonesia. The raw materials and goods that flow in and out of the Singapore River is the blood which flows through the main artery, the Singapore River, which feeds most of Singapore's population. Telok Ayer Street and the streets bordering it, together with the Singapore River, are a barometer of Singapore's prosperity. Now the twakows and the motor boats which used to shuttle in and out of the Singapore River have been left idle for nearly three months. If the Indonesia/Singapore trade relation is not normalised soon, these twakows will sink into the Singapore River one after the other from sheer inability to maintain them. The hundreds of ships on the Indonesian run are scattered throughout the whole sea front. There has never been a greater conglomeration of ships in Singapore lying idle at any one time waiting for the tide and the barnacles to take its toll. If things do not improve, these ships would later be sold as scrap to meet the same fate as the Dutch ships which fled away from Indonesian confiscation and were anchored in Singapore several years ago. The Chinese tongkangs or sailing junks anchored at the mouth of the Kallang River are equally idle and as many in numbers.

Sir, nobody can deny that trade and commerce in Singapore has been drastically curtailed, fatally hit. Nearly all businesses in Singapore are affected directly or indirectly by the interruption of trade with Indonesia.

Singapore is the factory of Indonesia's raw materials and the warehouse of Indonesia's imports. Singapore's imports to and exports from the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, Germany and other countries, in the overwhelming bulk, are only an extension of trade with Indonesia. If Indonesia does not ship her raw materials to Singapore to be processed and re-exported to the markets of the world from here, the value of exports to other foreign countries compiled by the Statistics Department would be correspondingly reduced. If Indonesia does not buy a substantial bulk of imports of textiles, food and other consumer goods from Singapore, the volume of imports of these commodities from the country of origin into Singapore would also be correspondingly reduced. The value of Indonesian trade cannot therefore be measured in terms of figures compiled by the Department of Statistics, because, Sir, Indonesian trade is unique. It is different from trade with Japan, the United States or the United Kingdom or any other foreign countries. Trade with these countries does not create employment in Singapore. If Japan refuses to sell us her radios and transistors, Singapore can buy them from other countries without making any difference to Singapore's national income or the level of employment. If any country refuses to buy rubber from Singapore, it can be sold to other countries. Trade with other countries creates little employment in Singapore. Trade with Indonesia is, however, completely different. Indonesia not merely sends her raw materials to Singapore for re-exporting abroad, they are sent here for processing, grading, packing and in some cases manufactured into new products before re-export. Singapore is Indonesia's factory and Indonesia's warehouse. It is due to this fact that Indonesian trade has created so many jobs and such a huge volume of employment. It is not only the quantity but also the quality of Indonesian trade that requires our attention. In full recognition of the value of Indonesian trade towards maintaining Singapore's economy, Singapore cannot help but maintain friendly relationships with Indonesia. This is different from advocating merger with Indonesia. Singapore cannot afford enmity with all her neighbours, particularly with Indonesia. Indonesia is Singapore's number one exporter and importer. But, Sir, it is the multiplier effect of Indonesian trade that can either make Singapore prosperous or can destroy Singapore. One dollar of Indonesian trade creates far more employment than many tens of dollars of trade with other countries. One ton of Indonesian rubber imported can create jobs for tens of people in Singapore. Indonesian raw materials require so much processing, grading and repacking before being re-exported, and it is this which creates the jobs. Due to Singapore's competitive market, a stable currency, good banking and shipping facilities, foreign countries for centuries have preferred to buy Indonesian raw materials from Singapore at a slightly higher premium. It is difficult to assess the effect of severance of Indonesian trade on our national income. After taking into consideration the multiplier effect, and based on the figures compiled by the Statistics Department which are far below the real volume of Indonesian trade, it is safe to assume that Singapore's national income would drop by more than 50 per cent if economic confrontation were to continue for a year and if Government did not increase its public spending ---

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Fifty?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: 50. Statistics compiled by Government are based on official Customs declarations. In the case of trade with foreign countries when there are normal foreign exchange conditions, the value of imports and exports in Customs declaration forms is fairly accurate. With Indonesia, however, the situation is different. Due to Indonesia's foreign exchange controls and the imposition of quotas on imports, the value of imports and exports declared to the Singapore Customs authorities is far below the real value. In addition, a substantial bulk of the trade with Indonesia never passes through the Customs. This odd situation has arisen because of the great difference between the official rate of exchange of the rupiah and its black market rate. Indonesian merchants exporting raw materials to Singapore, or for that matter any other foreign country, have to remit back to Indonesia the proceeds of the sale through the official rate of exchange. If they remit the full value back through the official exchange, they will lose heavily and no trade will follow. Indonesian exporters, therefore, must seek to reduce the value of their exports declared to the Indonesian authorities so that only the value declared has to be remitted back through the official exchange, and the balance of the proceeds could be sent back to Indonesia through the black market yielding many more rupiahs.

In the case of imports, Indonesian merchants are required to obtain import quotas which are rather difficult to get. To enable import quotas, therefore, to go a longer way than the amount stated, Indonesian importers have to underestimate the value of their imports. This will also save them from the high import taxes. This under-estimation of import and export values on the part of Indonesian merchants is reflected in Singapore Customs declaration forms. Since Singapore is a free port the Singapore Customs are not particular about the value or the quantity of goods declared. In addition, the goods bought and sold via tongkangs by visitors from Indonesia, the 1,000 runners who ply piece goods and luxury or semi-luxury goods between Singapore and Indonesia are seldom declared. It is therefore wrong to depend too much on statistics compiled from Customs forms as far as Indonesian trade is concerned. We should not be like ostriches, but must be prepared to face the consequence of economic confrontation boldly and to recognise that the Indonesian trade has been the cradle of Singapore's past prosperity. Singapore is now experiencing this economic blackout. It is no use comforting ourselves that Indonesia is suffering more than we do. Even if it were true, it is not going to help us. It offers us no consolation. Indonesia is basically an agrarian economy in which plenty of natural resources, trade and currency play a little part. Singapore with no land mass and hardly any natural resources depends solely on her entrepot trade. Cuba can stand the United States' economic confrontation, but Singapore, only a tiny island, cannot withstand Indonesia's economic confrontation.

The situation is really very serious. The merchants who were promised a second New York and the laying of golden goose eggs in Singapore are now feeling frustrated and bitter. Many of them have lost heavily in the past two and a half months. Some firms have closed down and many more will close down on the 31st of December or near the Chinese New Year. Staff will be retrenched. These merchants cannot collect back their trading debts from businessmen in Indonesia. On the other hand, the banks here will soon be pressing them for the payment of their overdrafts. Many of them have had stocks, shops, ships, factories and properties in Indonesia confiscated or soon to be confiscated by the Indonesian authorities. Nearly 400 rubber mills and rubber smoking houses have been confiscated or will be confiscated. Thousands of millions of dollars of wealth will be gone. These merchants after years of hard work face economic damnation. And the promise of future wealth in Jurong does not appeal to them because it cannot solve their immediate problems. As traders they are not experienced in industry. Many of them now do not want to invest their capital in any industry. They have little confidence that it is possible to industrialise Singapore unless Indonesian economic confrontation is settled.

I am doubtful, Sir, whether the Government realises the gravity of the situation because the Government is repeating over and over again that the loss is only 8 per cent. There are few trades and occupations in Singapore not affected by Indonesia's economic boycott. It all depends on how long this confrontation lasts. In the last analysis, everybody will be affected. If confrontation lasts for a longer period even certain categories of Government employees will be affected because the Government will have no money to pay their salaries. Singapore being reduced to a mere skeleton of its prosperous past would not require so many civil servants. Singapore will not be the New York of Malaysia. Singapore would then become the expendable appendix of Malaysia. It is safe to say that six months after Indonesia's economic confrontation, 80 per cent of the people and 80 per cent of all trades, businesses and occupations will be affected. The effects of Indonesian economic boycott would surge forward like waves. Those who received instant effects were those on the 22nd of September - the twakow owners and the workers, the shipowners and the sailors, fishing boats fishing in Indonesian waters ---

An hon. Member: Radio Jakarta.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: --- lorry owners, drivers and attendants and nearly a thousand runners who carry piece goods and luxury goods, the tongkangs carrying charcoal, firewood and timber logs, the thousands and thousands of waterfront workers and sundry labourers. These people were immediately affected on the 22nd of September. The next batch affected are factory owners and the workers and traders with Indonesia. For the factory owners, the supply of all raw materials has stopped. Depending on how much stock is left the factories and the warehouses are now stopping work one after the other. For the traders, business stopped on the 22nd of September, 1963. It is only a matter of time that one after the other will close down and the staff retrenched. Indonesia's economic confrontation has hit Singapore's economy like a ton of bricks. The whole economy is now being paralysed. Promises of a prosperous Jurong will not help to remedy the situation. More positive action is required to neutralise the catastrophe.

Sir, it is estimated that more than 30,000 people are already unemployed as a result of Indonesia's economic confrontation. The figure is increasing day by day. Many shops and firms will close down on the 31st of December. By Chinese New Year it will increase at an even faster rate. When this is added to the big pool of people already unemployed and the large number of students who are graduating from the secondary schools and the universities to find jobs, Singapore faces the biggest number of unemployed people in her history. It is far more difficult to estimate the number of people who will be indirectly affected by the Indonesian trade boycott. The biggest number of people unemployed in any trade as a result of confrontation comes from the rubber industry. The import of low-grade rubber from Indonesia gives jobs to nearly 10,000 workers directly engaged in processing, grading and packing, and indirect employment to many tens of thousands of people. Some rubber mills have closed down. Others are now working on the average of two days a week and when old stocks are finished, all will close down. Many allied firms, shops, closely dependent on the rubber industry will also have to close down.

It is estimated that nearly 4,000 workers, mostly female workers, who were engaged before confrontation in the grading of coffee beans imported from Indonesia, have lost their jobs.

Nearly 1,000 workers in the sago factories will become jobless very soon. Some sago factories have closed down. Those with more stocks can survive for a few more weeks.

More than 20 firms and nearly 2,000 workers in the rattan industry engaged in skin peeling and rattan curing are affected. When the rattan stocks are depleted, most of the workers will be thrown out of their jobs also. The Government has prohibited the export of raw rattan, but this is now circumvented by the import of low-quality Indonesian rattan via Hong Kong. Nearly 1,000 workers engaged in the gum and the damar grading industries have lost their jobs. Also more than 500 workers are thrown out of their employment in nutmeg grading.

The charcoal trade is also severely hit. It is estimated that there are nearly 500 shops dealing in charcoal and firewood, with an average of three shop assistants each, and more than 1,000 workers engaged in the unloading of charcoal and firewood. There is estimated another 1,000 people engaged in tongkangs, transporting the charcoal and firewood from the Indonesian islands to Singapore. Although at present there are small sampans carrying charcoal and firewood coming to Singapore for the exchange of food, the quantities are negligible. The import of timber logs from Indonesia for Singapore sawmills is also a major trade. It has now completely stopped. Singapore also imports copra, copra cakes, pepper, tea, shells, chillies, beans and other raw materials from Indonesia which give work to thousands of workers. All this has now stopped.

It is not only the importing firms and the factories or warehouses associated with Indonesian produce that are badly affected. The firms that export goods to Indonesia are also equally affected. Not only is there a loss in trade, but trade debts running into hundreds of millions of dollars cannot be recovered. Singapore supplies Indonesia, particularly the Rhio Islands, Celebes, Sumatra and Borneo with foodstuffs, textiles, hardware and building materials, bicycles, second-hand cars and spare parts and all types of consumer goods. The main bulk of textiles imported to Singapore are re-exported to Indonesia. In addition, there are thousands of people employed in the garment industry situated in little shophouses making shirts, pyjamas, children's and ladies' wear, with Indonesia as their main market. It is difficult to estimate the number of workers engaged in the garment industry, in the making of embroidery, shoes, slippers, all types of piece goods with only Indonesia as the main market. The number of workers could run into tens of thousands. A large part of the work is sub-contracted to housewives and girls in their own homes. Most of the shops around New Market Street, Beach Road and Rochore Road, China Street areas, selling foodstuffs and vegetables to the Rhio Islands and Sumatra border regions have been badly affected. It is believed that a shopkeeper in Rochore Road committed suicide as a result of Indonesian economic confrontation. Unable to recover his debts from merchants in Indonesia and pressed by the creditors here, he chose suicide as an escape.

The textile merchants in Circular Road, North Bridge Road, South Bridge Road and High Street are also badly affected. Indonesia is Singapore's biggest exporter of textiles. It has been the dumping ground for textiles, garment goods, shop-soiled goods and patterns not easily sold elsewhere. Textiles at present meant for Indonesian markets cannot be sold in any other place. Attempts to send them to Indonesia via Bangkok and Hongkong have not been successful. The Indonesian authorities have taken preventive measures against such moves. Many of the shops selling piece goods, medical products, watches, radios, pens, jewellery and all types of luxury or semi-luxury goods have Indonesia as the main market. There are nearly 1,000 runners in Singapore who make a comfortable living by bringing these goods in person into Indonesia. Because Indonesia has a high import tax on this type of goods - and these are valuable goods - each ship or tongkang take a few runners attached to them whose main occupation is to buy these goods in Singapore and personally bring them over to Indonesia. These goods are seldom declared to the Customs. Now all these runners have lost their means of livelihood. Many of the shops selling piece goods and medical shops are badly affected. In turn, general importers of such goods from Hong Kong, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom will be affected soon and the vicious circle will go on. Many of the factories in Singapore dependent on Indonesia as their main market, for instance, aerated water, biscuit and flour factories, and so on, will be affected. As production goes down, the owners and the workers in these factories will suffer.

Another important sector in our economy badly hit is water and land transport and the waterfront workers. Several thousands of twakow and tongkang workers have been unemployed since 22nd September. The waterfront workers, the Harbour Board workers, the lorry-owners, drivers, attendants, many tens of thousands of labourers who depend on loading and unloading goods sent to and from Indonesia in twakows, motor boats, tongkangs, ships, warehouses, factories and firms are now unemployed or under-employed. Many fishing firms have closed down and many more will be closing down. The fishing boats are left to rot. Those engaged in fishing and the thousands of seamen in the hundreds of coasters on the Indonesian run are jobless. Most of the ships are now at anchor, and millions of dollars will be lost later due to barnacles. Some of the ships are sent to other Malaysian ports, to run at a heavy loss because it is considered more economical to keep them moving at a loss than to lose them because of barnacles and later sold as scrap.

It is very hard to assess the total loss that Singapore has suffered after only 2½ months of economic confrontation. The Federation, except for Penang which has suffered an insignificant loss, has benefited economically as a result of Indonesia's trade boycott, because the prices of tin, rubber, copra, timber and other primary produce have gone up mainly as a result of stoppage of such goods to the world markets.

It is important for us to remember that the longer the Indonesian economic confrontation lasts, the harder it will be later for us to repair the damage and to recoup Singapore's entrepot trade. Once Indonesian exporters get used to exporting their raw materials to the world markets and start importing consumer goods from the producing countries, even if Singapore later were to reestablish friendly relations with Indonesia again, it would be impossible to revive the old trade ties. Singapore will lose Indonesian trade almost completely except for bulky goods like timber and raw sago, and it will become a dead city with no prospect of industrialisation forever. Singapore's industrialisation can only be carried out if the Indonesian market, or part of it, is secure to Singapore's manufacturers. To whom will the products of the new industries be sold? The 1.8 million people of Singapore will be greatly affected by the Indonesian trade boycott and their purchasing power will be much reduced. The Federation of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak with their eight million people are debarred to Singapore manufacturers because of the customs barrier. Now the Indonesian market has been denied us. The flour mills, the steel mill, the shipbuilding industry and all those new industries started in Jurong will find it difficult to get a sufficiently big market to warrant economical operation. The manufacturers of other new industries which have not started building on their factory sites will now think twice before they put in their capital. They will adopt a policy of wait and see. Industrialisation in Singapore cannot be a reality unless goods manufactured in Singapore can find their way into the Malaysian market and Indonesia. Industrialisation can only be a pipe-dream. Those businessmen who have lost heavily as a result of the Indonesian economic confrontation have not been keen on Government's offer of participation in the Jurong industries. Unless there is a sufficiently wide market for manufactured goods, they are going to lose more money down the drain. What they want the Government to do is to take more positive and immediate measures. They are not touched by the profuse of great wealth in Jurong. Until they can solve their problems today, they are not interested in the future. Most of them have lost heavily in debts advanced to traders in Indonesia. The 31st of December is approaching and the banks will soon be pressing them to pay their overdrafts. The losses suffered from the Indonesian trade boycott cannot be estimated. It is believed that thousands of millions of dollars have been lost. Properties, shops, ships, houses, shares in businesses, estates, nearly 400 mills and rubber smoking houses in Indonesia belonging to Malaysian citizens mainly from Singapore will be or have been confiscated. The trading debt loss alone amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. All the ships, fishing boats, lorries, twakows, factories and warehouses, etc. in Singapore geared to Indonesian trade are now left idle and much money will be lost. The loss in trade and employment and general dislocation in the economy can never be measured. Yet the Government has virtually done very little. Its so-called economic defence measures are nothing but eyewash.

Singapore is facing the greatest challenge to its existence as one of the great cities of the world. Whether Singapore continues on with its old prosperity or becomes paralysed will be determined in the coming momentous months. The present economic blackout calls for the boldest of action. Yet the Singapore Government have not lived up to our expectations. On their own without Government's effort, the businessmen and the workers cannot do much. The workers are really suffering and can only wait and wait. Not many of the businessmen can afford to pay one-third of the wage bill which Government requires them to pay. Businessmen who have tried to break the embargo by trading with Indonesia via Hong Kong and Bangkok have not been successful. As soon as the Indonesian authorities smelt this, they placed an embargo on the export of basic raw materials like rubber, pepper, coffee, copra, etc. to Hong Kong. Only bulky goods like copra-cakes, teak, shells and sago which are uneconomical to ship back to Singapore can be exported to Hong Kong.

At present the only trade which outwardly does not seem to be affected is the building industry. But most of the houses and flats being built now were planned and started before September 1963. There is a time lag in the construction industry. House-builders are now finding difficulty in selling their houses and flats because of the lower purchasing power in the community. This will affect the future plans of private developers as the effects of Indonesian confrontation on the construction industry will be felt later - possibly in a year's time.

The situation, Sir, is very grim. Robberies and thefts are on the increase. And as the 31st of December approaches, which is zero hour to many businessmen, the atmosphere gets more tense. There is a flight of capital to other countries, particularly to Hong Kong. After Indonesia announced the confiscation of assets belonging to Malaysian citizens, Indonesian nationals of Chinese origin who have assets in Singapore are afraid that their assets here will be confiscated as a reciprocal measure. The Government should give a categorical assurance that all assets belonging to Indonesian nationals in Singapore will not be confiscated. If this assurance is not given, the flight of capital will further aggravate the difficulties faced in the economy. People still remember the fate of the Bank Negara Indonesia. I understand that depositors in that bank were not able to draw out their deposits. Businessmen are also worried about the future of the Bank of China. Every effort should be made to help the deteriorating economy. The Government should repeat their assurance given just before the formation of Malaysia that the Bank of China will carry on. So much trade, commerce and industry in Singapore depends on the Bank of China, and uncertainty about its future will heighten the present economic crisis.

Sir, as the stock market in Wall Street affects the whole capitalist world, so the stoppage of trade and commerce between Indonesia and Singapore affects the whole of Singapore. It creates ever-widening repercussions like whirlpools. Hawkers, barbers, taxis, trishas, coffee-shops, hotels, salesmen, all shops, the professions, dressmakers and garment-makers, lightermen, lorry-owners and attendants, Harbour Board and waterfront workers are only some of the categories that are affected. If the economic confrontation were to persist until June next year, I am afraid that many white-collar workers would also be retrenched. The Government must not adopt a wait-and-see policy, hoping for the best. Positive measures for immediate action and result must be taken. The Jurong scheme will not help the present crisis. When the United States tried to strangle Cuba's economy, Cuba's allies came to her aid. The Singapore State Government should come out openly and ask the Central Malaysian Government to help by channelling some of the primary produce from the Federation, Sabah and Sarawak into Singapore as a substitute for those raw materials which Indonesia has not been shipping to Singapore since 22nd September, 1963. Sir, it is a fair and reasonable request because if Singapore had not joined Malaysia, Indonesia would not have adopted economic confrontation which is primarily aimed against Singapore. The rest of Malaysia is now enjoying unprecedented prosperity as a result of Indonesia's economic confrontation. The prices of tin, rubber, copra, pepper, coffee, rattan and all other produce of the soil have gone up considerably after 22nd September. It is widely believed that were it not for Indonesia's trade boycott, the price of rubber would have fallen below 60 cents. Singapore is now part of Malaysia with a similar obligation as the rest of Malaysia to defend Malaysia. When Cuba faced the same economic confrontation recently from the United States. Cuba's allies came to her rescue. Singapore has every right to expect economic assistance from the rest of Malaysia. After all, the Singapore Government has generously offered or given $150 million as aid to Sabah and Sarawak for their development.

Sir, I therefore put forward the following proposals for Government's consideration:

(i) to request the Central Government to enter into negotiations with the Indonesian Government as early as possible with a view to the resumption of diplomatic relations and the calling off of Indonesia's economic confrontation policy;

(ii) to ask the Central Government to channel some of the primary produce of other Malaysian territories into Singapore as a substitute for Indonesian raw materials the import of which has been totally stopped;

(iii) to request the Central Government to waive, for a definite period of time, import duties on Singapore's manufactured goods into other Malaysian territories;

(iv) to reduce as many types of taxes and licence fees wherever practicable so as to increase spending power which has been curtailed considerably by the trade boycott; to exempt or reduce licence fees and taxes on trades and occupations directly hit by the Indonesian economic boycott;

(b) to convene a conference of all banks immediately and call upon them to exercise a more flexible policy towards traders and businessmen when calling back bank overdrafts on 31st December;

(vi) to repeat the same categorical assurance Government had given before the formation of Malaysia on the future of the Bank of China;

(vii) to assure Indonesian citizens that their assets in Singapore will not be confiscated;

(viii) to appoint a high-powered Committee to utilise immediately part of the State's $400 million revenue surplus for labour intensive projects like roads, drainage and other rural projects;

(ix) to give and expedite public assistance to all those workers whether inside or outside factories, whether directly or indirectly affected by the Indonesian boycott;

(x) to allow S.I.T. dwellers who have lost their jobs as a result of the Indonesian economic boycott, special rent concessions as long as they are unemployed;

(xi) to negotiate with the Sabah and Sarawak State Governments to absorb half of Singapore's unemployed workmen on a three years' visa in the first instance to go to these territories to help in the development of the country. At present, Sabah only wants to recruit skilled technical personnel which Singapore finds itself short of.

Sir, these are my humble suggestions. I hope the Government will consider these proposals and not consider them with indifference or even with hostility because they come from the Opposition. These proposals are made in the best interest of the country.

3.32 p.m.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Kim San): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure the hon. Member for Hong Lim that the Government understood the gravity of the results arising from Indonesian confrontation, a confrontation for which he and the Barisan Sosialis are partly responsible, because they gave the Indonesians the idea that within Malaysia itself there is a strong body of people who are against it? We understand the gravity of the situation. Steps are being taken to alleviate it. Some of the steps have been enumerated by the Minister for Finance in his speech. Some of the steps have been enumerated by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

However, Sir, listening to the speeches of the Barisan Members, one cannot help but conclude that they are little children afraid to grow up and face reality. Malaysia is a fact and yet these people are hoping against hope that they can continue with their subversive machinations to break this new nation which has come into being because the majority of the people have decided that it is a good thing to come together and be an independent nation. Independence brings with it certain responsibilities and problems, and it is up to us as grownups to face them squarely and try to solve them so that no matter what the enemy does, we will fight them. However, the Barisan Sosialis do not like independence. Just like little children, they like to hide behind their mother's skirts whenever a big bully comes along. I feel that they still want to be a colony under British protection. In fact, at one time they seriously thought that there was a distinct possibility that they could form the government under the British and now they are willing to crawl on their hands and knees to Indonesia to seek their indulgence in order to safeguard our economic welfare. Is this the attitude of an independent mind? I say no. Having been stooges of a foreign ideology for so long, they are unable to stand on their own feet and would not like others to stand on their own feet too. So at the slightest sign of danger they want to go on their bended knees to their aggressor and say, "Please do not do what you are doing to us because it hurts." They say they fight for the poor. I say they do nothing of the kind because they have always been trying to obstruct our development schemes, schemes which will improve the conditions of the people. Instead they prefer to leave the people in squalor, to mislead or intimidate them to continue to live under unhygienic conditions rather than see them in well planned sanitary quarters. For example, in Toa Payoh the Government had a special resettlement scheme for those who lived in the area. As a special scheme, 196 terrace houses were built at a cost of about $5,000 each. Each of these was to be given in exchange for one of those badly built huts which the squatters owned and which had to be demolished in order to prepare the site for the Toa Payoh satellite town. Now, anyone in his senses would say that this is a good deal. Yet the Barisan Sosialis intimidated the people of Toa Payoh and prevented them from accepting the generous offer. Fortunately common sense prevailed in the end and ultimately the settlers took advantage of the offer and moved out of their huts into the new houses which the Government built for them and which they now own.

The Member for Jurong mentioned that the people are not allowed to build attap huts. I am glad that he has no influence in the policy of the Government, otherwise Singapore, which is now very short of land, will soon be filled with attap huts which are not only insanitary and a hazard to health, but also a fire threat and a danger to lives. The many fires which have recently occurred are proof of this. Thousands of people have lost all their meagre belongings and it has indeed been fortunate that no lives have been lost in these tragic fires. With the very rapid increase in population and with the increasing demand for modern accommodation with facilities like water, electricity, better roads, modern sanitation, and the like, it is no longer possible for a city like Singapore to develop on the basis of building only two- and three-storey buildings, much less to continue to build attap huts. Some of these attap huts will remain and may even continue to be constructed in the rural areas. But soon with the pressure of population they too will have to give way to better building. This, may I remind our young Barisan Sosialis who refuse to grow up, is the price of progress. May I also remind them that like the human spirit's desire to be free, the force of progress in democratic countries is an inexorable one and no ideology or stubborn opposition can stand in its way. Our people can see for themselves whether or not the Government is trying hard to improve their standard of living: to build a better, a more just and equal society for them and their children. Our people will be able to realise what is progress, and in the end common sense will prevail. Whatever may be the efforts of the Barisan Sosialis to obstruct the Government, these are bound to fail because they do not have the support of the majority of our people. Their wanton claim that they represent the masses sounds very hollow indeed in this Chamber, especially after the referendum and the recent general elections. The Barisan Sosialis must be bereft of ideas for they have taken the S.P.A. line in saying that thousands of flats built by the Housing Board are vacant, that the flats are not really low-cost, that the rents are too high, and that the Housing Board is making money like a landlord. In the same breath they also say that truth will out. Indeed truth is out, for otherwise they will be on this side of the House instead of breathing the rarefied air in opposition and in diminishing numbers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the real part of this success story in public housing is that no longer is there a waiting list of 13,000 families clamouring for a few flats that become available now and again, and rejoicing as if they had struck a lottery when one is allocated to them. Far be it. All those who needed flats had been given one and more are being encouraged by the difference they can see between the spick and span condition of the modern Housing Board flats and the abject over-crowded conditions in the more dilapidated parts of the city. To appreciate that, for the same amount of money they can get a much better bargain. As a result, thousands of people have moved into our flats and are continuing to do so.

The results of the last elections are a conclusive endorsement by the people who count. In every electoral ward where there has been housing development, the people returned a P.A.P. candidate by an overwhelming majority. Of course, the Barisan Sosialis got some votes. This is democracy, and there is a freedom of choice for everyone. This is a repetition of the lies of the Barisan Sosialis that the Housing Board flats are not built for the people.

I would like to explain that every month more than 1,000 housing units are completed and become available for allocation. It is unavoidable that for a period of time some of these units have remained unoccupied. This period of vacancy will be extended as and when our people become more particular in the choice of their homes when they know that they can get one without much difficulty. It is an indication of success that we have been able to attain a stage when our people can not only get low-cost housing but can also afford to have some choice. In fact, at the moment, whenever allocations are made, 30 per cent of the people reject them for the simple reason that they know that we are building very fast and very soon we will be able to build and give them a house in a locality that they want. Or perhaps the Barisan Sosialis want us to go back to the old S.I.T. days when, having built only a few flats, there would not be any vacancy and no one in his right mind would dare refuse an allocation however unsuitable it might be.

The Housing Board flats are low-cost flats and it is acknowledged by experts from all over the world that our building costs are the lowest. It is also a fact that nowhere in South-East Asia has there been any effort of this kind by any government to house 25 per cent of its population in low-cost flats at the rate that we are now charging. Far from being a landlord and making money out of the rentals of the flats, I would like to state that the Housing Board's accounts show an annual deficit. I challenge the Member for Jurong if he can point out to me anywhere else in the world where fiats of a similar standard that are built by the Housing Board can be built or are being built at a lower cost than we are building. And I challenge him to show me any place in the world or any government which has been able to house or rehouse 1,000 families in a short space of two months as we did in Toa Payoh. Now, if that is not success in housing policy, I do not know what is.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the last four and a half years of the P.A.P. Government has been a period of construction, and we can look back with pride and with some satisfaction on our achievements. There are enough houses for people who really need them. No child need go without education. Communications and roads have been improved both in the urban and rural areas. Services in the form of street lights, electricity and water, have been brought to the people in the rural areas. Farmers have been provided with veterinary services and every effort is being made to ensure a free flow of their products between Singapore and Malaya in order to maintain stability in the marketing of their products. Preparations for industrialisation are being made and many factories have been opened in Jurong, Tanglin Halt, Bendemeer, and Kampong Ampat Estate, so that more jobs may be made available to our growing and increasing population.

We inherited a State Treasury which was almost depleted of reserves and on the verge of bankruptcy, and in spite of the tremendous development projects we still have a surplus of $400 million. It is by careful husbanding of resources, pruning of unnecessary expenses and increase in efficiency that we are able to do so. All in all, the last five years have been spent in laying the foundation upon which we can build a brighter and a more prosperous and equal society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, looking around the House today one can see that the people of Singapore endorse our policy because they have returned us to this House again with a greater majority. In case there are those who fear that we might be dictatorial and bulldoze our way through, I would like to reiterate that the P.A.P. upholds the principle of democracy and will never, never abuse the trust which the people have placed in us. However, Sir, as the Prime Minister has said, with the establishment of Malaysia, the focus of attention is now shifted over to Kuala Lumpur. The major political issues have to be fought out there. But this House still is in charge of the well-being of a State of one and three-quarter million of very skilful, industrious, sophisticated and discerning people, a State which, because of its geographical position, is the cross-roads of the East and West and is the natural show-window of Malaysia. Therefore, Sir, it is the duty of the Government and the duty of every citizen of this State to be prepared to play our part in making this State a show-window which Malaysia can be proud of. It is fortunate, therefore, that with the experience gained during the last five years, the P.A.P. Government and the civil service are in a better position to expand and build upon a foundation that has been so well and truly laid. We have, on the Government bench, leaders who understand every twist and turn of the pro-Communist disruptive elements. We have an efficient civil service within which there is a hard core of young men with professional qualifications whose theoretical training has now been strengthened by practical experience.

With your permission, Sir, I would like to go briefly over what the departments which are under my Ministry have done, are doing and will be doing. The Government has devoted considerable effort to assist the farmers and fishermen to increase agricultural production and reduce production costs. Our emphasis has been on introducing and teaching the farmers and fishermen modern scientific techniques and on the provision of more efficient primary production services. A number of veterinary centres have been built in the rural areas to bring primary production services within easy reach of the farmers. The Government plans to establish more centres as and when they are needed.

The Film Unit of the Primary Production Department has produced several films on agriculture, animal husbandry, fishery subjects, and these films illustrating better farming techniques have been shown to farmers and fishermen at their villages. Talks and lectures on various aspects of agriculture are being given. Illustrated booklets and pamphlets on farming are also produced and distributed to farmers by the Primary Production Department.

Animal husbandry experimental stations have been set up to provide improved breeds of pigs and day-old chicks for distribution to farmers at very low prices. The production of piglings and day-old chicks will be increased in future to meet the growing demand of our farmers for a better breed.

Agricultural insecticides, fertiliser mixtures and common veterinary drugs are easily and cheaply made available to farmers at the rural community centres. A mobile unit has been set up to provide these and similar services to the farmers and fishermen residing in the adjacent islands of Singapore, especially Pulau Tekong, Pulau Ubin and the Southern Islands. To provide further extension services, a primary production investigation and demonstration centre is being established to produce improved seeds for vegetables, bark grafted fruit trees and better fertilisers, as well as to demonstrate to them modern farming techniques and the growing of new crops. This will eventually be of considerable assistance to our farming population.

A veterinary diagnostic laboratory will be set up to investigate the livestock disease problem in Singapore and to devise effective curative and preventive measures to counter these diseases. An animal nutritional investigation centre will he established to investigate into the nutritive value of locally available animal feed stuffs and to ensure that feed stuffs sold on the market are of good quality and are of a high standard. Plans for a modern slaughter-house and provision for an efficient veterinary health service to encourage the meat canning and meat packing industry are being drawn up and eventually will be of a sufficiently high standard as to be readily exported to overseas countries. This means that there will be a bigger market for our farmers who rear pigs and poultry.

3.50 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Fong Kim Heng) in the Chair]

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Kim San): After a slow start, the Public Works Department is now in a position to take on a considerably heavier volume of work than it has been able to achieve in the last four years. It is the intention of the Government that the P.W.D. should spend more money on roads and bridges over the next few years. The P.W.D. has carried out a number of major projects this year. An important link road has been completed, namely, the Serangoon Garden Estate link road which will now enable easier and quicker access to and from the city. Other major improvements in progress involve the widening and realignment of existing trunk roads, such as Ayer Rajah, Clementi, Jurong, Changi, past Coast and Yio Chu Kang Roads.

Progress in the construction of the outer ring road system, involving the widening and conversion of Alexandra Road, Farrer, Adam, Lornie, Braddell, Bartley and Paya Lebar Roads into a dual-carriage way has been possible this year because there was not the usual delay in land acquisition and clearance. The settlers living in these areas co-operated with the Government and would not lend their ears to the efforts of the pro-Communist elements who were instigating them to stay as long as possible on the site in order to delay the construction programme.

Three new roads have also been completed to serve the light industrial areas of Queenstown, namely, Queensway, Commonwealth Avenue and Jalan Bukit Merah. The new West Coast Road and Boon Lay Road which are to serve the new Jurong industrial town are also on the way to completion. Other new roads being constructed are the Dunman Road extension and Jalan Delta. A total of 18 private streets, involving an approximate length of 3.11 miles were made up in l963, while another 12 streets totalling two miles are still under construction. These street works are carried out either under the Municipal Ordinance or the Local Government Ordinance and the costs are recoverable from owners of houses fronting them.

Construction of new round-abouts to ease congestion at important traffic junctions is continuing at Jambatan Merah, Braddell Road, Serangoon Garden link road junction and Geylang, Guillemard, and Tanjong Katong Road junction. Along Bukit Timah, new traffic bridges and foot bridges have been built across the canal thereby allowing for a one-way traffic system along Bukit Timah Road and Dunearn Road in order to facilitate the free flow of traffic along this highway to the mainland.

Four other important highway bridges are being planned. These are at Sungei Kallang, Sungei Pandan, Dunman Road and Clementi Road, and work will commence next year. Construction work on a number of important road bridges is continuing. Four of these, namely, Beach Road Bridge, Clemenceau Avenue Bridge, Edinburgh Bridge and Lim Ah Woo Bridge were completed this year, and six others are still progressing and nearing completion.

To relieve the traffic congestion at rush hours along Fullerton Road/Collyer Quay thoroughfare, an overhead pedestrian bridge across Collyer Quay near Change Alley and also an under-path on the esplanade side of Anderson Bridge are being constructed so that through and uninterrupted traffic will be possible. This pedestrian overhead bridge and underpath will be completed next year.

A lot of money has been spent by the Government on flood alleviation and drainage schemes to reduce the consequences and loss suffered through flood. Four schemes were completed this year, at Bedok, Chong Pang Village, Mandai and Bartley Road. Important canals are being built with concrete lines to improve the flow of water and to facilitate cleansing and maintenance. Work on the Ulu Pandan scheme is progressing but it has not been possible to implement the final phase of the Geylang scheme which is to reduce flooding in the area north of Geylang Serai because of the heavy concentration of squatter huts in these areas, and work cannot commence until they have been resettled elsewhere. The resettlement of these squatters alone will constitute a major operation.

The Government is continuing with its scheme to extend the water pump sewerage system outside the city area. This extension must of necessity be a gradual process, and over the next few years it is expected that some $70 million will be spent on providing more modern sanitation facilities to new homes. To cater principally for the needs of the proposed Toa Payoh new town, a sewerage scheme is now in the course of implementation. Contracts to the value of $8 million have already been committed. Other small programmes to cope with new development and also for normal extension of sewerage facilities to other non-sewered areas are progressing.

Agricultural and access roads are also being built. Altogether 200 miles of rural roads have been built. The programme will be intensified to benefit those living in the rural areas. Other improvements include the provision of footpaths and bus shelters, local drainage and flood alleviation measures and extension of water and electricity supply to the kampong.

The new Airport building at Paya Lebar will be opened about March 1964 almost concurrently with the multi-storey car park at Cecil Street. The temporary television building for the temporary T.V. services was also completed by the P.W.D. which is now working on the proposed permanent building on Caldecott Hill. The total value of these buildings completed by the P.W.D. to date is some $60.538 million; projects under construction value some $8.315 million; projects for which working drawings are being prepared another $29.576 million; while projects for which sketch plans and estimates are being prepared value $15.076 million. While these figures reveal a satisfactory position as regards our building programme, having regard to the shortage of technical and professional staff during the initial days of the present Government, steps are being taken to increase the efficiency and output of the department.

The Housing and Development Board will complete its first five-year programme of building 61,000 units slightly ahead of schedule. In the second five-year housing development programme to be initiated in the latter part of 1964, the Housing Board will continue to build and provide low-cost flats along the periphery of the city at the rate of 12,000 units per annum. With the housing problem under control, the Government is able to look into the question of encouraging house ownership. Some discredited political elements have claimed that this was their idea. Let me suggest to these people that to dream dreams is one thing, but to turn them into reality is another. These people might occasionally have visions, but it is only an honest, energetic, effective and efficient Government that can produce results. There has also been irresponsible talk about reducing interest rates and thus reducing rents. May I inform these irresponsible elements that on the scale that the Government is building houses, we cannot afford to play about with the finances of the State? We can either build a few hundred flats and subsidise them to such an extent that the rent is practically negligible and thus make such flats available to only a privileged few, or we must reduce costs, cut down on maintenance and exercise the strictest economy in order to make our resources go the longest way to enable as many people as possible who require housing to get it. In the last few years, we have cut down costs of construction. Where an S.I.T. flat used to cost $7,000 to $9,000 per unit, we are now producing them at about $4,000 to $6,000. Where the maintenance cost under the S.I.T. was $220 per flat per year, this cost has been reduced to $60 per flat per annum. With Malaysia, it is expected that greater prosperity will accrue to our citizens. With rising income, our people can look forward to ownership of their flats rather than mere tenancy. We can already see that many people in the middle and lower income groups are beginning to think in terms of motor-car ownership. The time is thus opportune for them to choose between owning a car or the house in which they live. The Government is working out the details to make this ownership of house a distinct possibility. In the next few days, concurrently with building the usual 12,000 units of flats to let, the Housing Board will set aside some of these flats for sale to satisfy the needs of one section of the population.

In addition, the Housing Board will actively participate in the formulation and implementation of the urban redevelopment plan to redevelop the central areas to ensure better economic and special utilisation of valuable land in the city areas. Old, dangerous and insanitary structures in the city will be demolished and replaced by multi-storeyed units of housing for all income groups. New offices and commercial buildings, hotels, restaurants, theatres, public parks and other social and community facilities for the city dwellers will be built.

It is intended to incorporate into this plan a system of speedier mass transportation of people within and out of the city. The Government intends to acquire sites that are dilapidated and due for demolition, clear them and redevelop them in accordance with the urban redevelopment plan.

It is expected that private enterprise will be invited to participate in this gigantic task of urban renewal. A pilot project, which is the first phase of the urban development programme, will be put into operation. Development in the southern part of the city totalling an area of about 132 acres will begin in 1964. This area is bounded by New Bridge Road, Outram Road and Have-lock Road, including the century-old Outram Prison which is already being demolished. A second pilot project is the redevelopment of an area of 82 acres on the northern side of the city, bounded by Nicoll Highway, Jalan Sultan, Kallang Road and Crawford Street.

A census is being conducted in this area to determine what alternative accommodation must be provided for the people affected. The experience that will be gathered in these two projects will assist us in planning future redevelopment areas. Urban redevelopment is a gigantic task and, to be successful, must have the full support and co-operation of all the people in the State.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by the end of 1964, our first satellite town, Queenstown, will be fully developed with 17,500 flats, ten primary schools, three secondary schools, one vocational school, five markets and shopping centres with several community centres, clinics, children's playgrounds, public parks and other amenities, serving a population of about 150,000 people.

The second satellite town will be Toa Payoh. Progress on this scheme has in the past been severely hampered by pro-Communist elements who instigated settlers to resist all efforts made by the Government for their resettlement. In spite of this strong resistance, sufficient progress has been made for construction to begin on a new satellite town which will eventually house about a quarter of a million people. There will be 20 schools, four markets, several community centres, creches, clinics, theatres, 500 shops, public parks and other amenities. Provision is also being made in this plan to set aside 43 acres of land for industrial uses. This construction is proceeding.

While construction is proceeding in Toa Payoh, the Housing Board will be investigating the site for a third satellite town. One possible site is the area bounded by the Malayan Railway track, Telok Blangah and Alexandra Roads, where about 1,000 acres of undulating land is to be earmarked for development.

The shortage of suitable land for building is steadily becoming one of the major problems in Singapore. To alleviate this shortage of land, it is proposed to reclaim some 400 acres of swamp land in the Kallang Basin. Earth for this reclamation project will come from the development of Toa Payoh satellite town. Two Bailey bridges have been purchased by the Singapore Government and will soon be constructed across Serangoon Road for the direct transportation of the earth from Toa Payoh to Kallang Basin. These bridges are necessary so as not to interrupt the flow of traffic along Serangoon Road.

When reclamation and development is completed, the Kallang Basin industrial and residential town will be the fourth self-contained region providing housing accommodation in some 300 acres for light industry, it is expected that the final development of this Kallang reclamation project will be worked into the comprehensive urban redevelopment plan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have briefly outlined the projects we have in hand, projects which will provide the physical amenities of a civilized society for Mr, and Mrs Singapore and family.

4.10 p.m.

Mr Koo Young (Thomson): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have been accused by the Party in power; sometimes they accuse us of being pro-Communists; sometimes they accuse us of abetting Indonesia; and sometimes they describe us as children. It is easy to level such accusations and blame at anybody. But the question is whether such accusations can stand up to fact.

A little while ago, the Minister for National Development described us as children, as though he was a grown-up and those opposite us were grown-ups. In the recent general elections, the leader of the P.A.P., Mr Lee Kuan Yew, went down to the rural areas to tell the people that if the Barisan were elected, then the troops from the Federation of Malaya would march in. This is a very ridiculous argument. Many capable leaders in our Party have been arrested. Three of our Assemblymen have also been arrested and detained; and two of us, for fear of being arrested, have no choice but to hide. The P.A.P. now turned round and said that these people are new men, they do not know anything. This talk can serve as propaganda material, but it is not substantial.

The Minister for National Development a little while ago elaborated on the plans of his department and accused the Barisan Sosialis of having smeared the P.A.P.'s housing plan. I would like to touch on this.

Public housing for the people is a good thing. Nobody will object to it. But we of the Barisan Sosialis oppose their way of doing things because their motive is not really in the interests of the people. Actually, they are doing things for themselves, and the building of the houses, the funds and amenities also come from the people. We have heard the Minister say that about 25 per cent of the population of Singapore could live in houses provided and built by the Government and he challenged us to point out anywhere in the world where such facilities can also be provided by any government. But the question is not whether there is any such example to be found in any part of the world. Whenever a fire breaks out in any part of Singapore, the Minister will go there and grab the land for building houses, ignoring other considerations. How can the fire victims afford to move into Housing Board flats after having had their belongings burnt down? Have the P.A.P. looked into this? They are only building houses on the sufferings of the people. They build for the sake of building. As to the other questions, I will deal with them later on.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now touch on the P.A.P.'s education policy. No matter how the Yang di-Pertuan Negara brags in his speech about the P.A.P.'s education policy - saying that the Budget is providing one-third of the whole expenditure on education, and that Government will build 26 new schools and will raise the standard of teaching of second and third languages - all this is grand talk of gigantic figures - this beautiful talk cannot cover up the failures and the great mistakes that the P.A.P. have made in their education policy and in their handling of education problems. There are five main errors.

The P.A.P. have always been making use of the slogan of equal treatment to deceive our people. In fact, the P.A.P. have never given equal treatment as they had claimed. Recently the number of English schools is increasing; it is even more now than under the colonial regime; whereas the number of schools in the Chinese, Malay and Tamil streams is dwindling. According to the Prime Minister's speech published in the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 26th November, many parents send their children to English schools for two reasons. The first reason is that students from English schools have better prospects of employment and they can also learn Chinese and Malay in addition to English. According to him, it is because the English schools are able to provide teaching in four languages that parents like to send their children to English schools.

The second reason, according to the Prime Minister, is that there has been too much disturbance, like boycotting of classes in the Chinese schools, and the parents dare not send their children to Chinese schools. This kind of talk by the Prime Minister is a smear, smearing the efforts of those who have worked hard to better Chinese education. Let us analyse the question. Before the P.A.P. came into office, there was the government of the S.P.A. The number of student troubles then was more than that under the P.A.P. Another point is that the S.P.A. Government also advocated the destruction of Chinese education. At that time the number of students in Chinese schools was not smaller than it is now. This explains the Prime Minister's talk of unrest in Chinese schools, thereby causing a decrease in enrolment in them. This talk is false. According to logic, Chinese schools should develop very fast because in the Federation there is almost no student trouble at all in Chinese schools. I hope that when the P.A.P. Members go to the Central Parliament, they will go round and find out the reasons for the absence of student trouble in the Chinese schools there. If that is so, then Chinese education will prosper. In the Federation a lot of Chinese school teachers have become unemployed. If they have an opportunity to understand Chinese education, I am sure the Prime Minister will not dare to say that because of the student unrest the enrolment in Chinese schools has dropped.

The P.A.P.'s policy on education is to destroy Chinese education. It is very easy for us to give examples. We do not say that the P.A.P. education policy is good. What we want is to strive for equal treatment for all the various streams of education. And we do not say that only under the P.A.P. can Chinese education in Singapore prosper and thrive. Nor do we advocate that we could give autonomy in education back to the Central Government. I want to cite a few well-known examples to prove my argument. It is true that English-educated students have better prospects of employment. That is not because they know Chinese and Malay in addition to English. It is because the civil service recruits people who have a good knowledge of English. Of those in the civil service only about 10 to 20 per cent come from Chinese, Malay and Tamil schools. That is a small number. The rest are recruited because they have a good knowledge of English, i.e. they possess a working knowledge of English. If they do not know English, they will not be recruited into the civil service. Is this not serious? Is this not a fact? If they have a conscience, they will not deny this fact. Of course, for the sake of their children's future, some of the parents send their children to English schools. On the other hand, the P.A.P. build many English schools to surround one or two Chinese schools, e.g. at the 5th and 6th m.s. Bukit Timah Road, the Government have built many English schools. They have built about four to five English schools to encircle some of the Chinese schools there. I am sure they will not deny this.

Another point is that the Government build English schools only in places where there are no Chinese schools. For example, in Queenstown, there are at present six English schools. These Government schools are all English schools. But the one who decides on education is not Dr Lee Siew Choh in that constituency. Many fire sites have been cleared and the fire victims have to send their children to English schools because there are no Chinese schools around their area. If they want to send their children to a Chinese school, it would not be convenient because some of the Chinese schools are very far from their homes. How can they afford to send their children to a faraway school when they can hardly feed themselves? Neither is it possible for them to engage a person to look after their children in a school which is far from their homes. Therefore, they find it necessary to send their children to a nearby English school. The Government says that the people have a choice of sending their children to whatever language school they like. But have they got this free choice? I believe most of the Government Members are Chinese and some of the Malay Members know better because they find it difficult to send their children to a Malay school which is some 10 miles away. All this shows that the P.A.P.'s education policy is discriminating against other vernacular education. They favour only English education. About ten of the Chinese vernacular schools in the rural areas have been closed down. They have been forced to close down on the ground that they are not up to sanitary health standards, and that they do not have a proper playground. But it is the Government which should give them land to build playgrounds and other facilities and provide them with sufficient sanitation. As a result, teachers in those schools are now unemployed. When I say this, I do not mean that I do not like English education. As a matter of fact, we want every person to acquire a knowledge of English. What I am trying to say is that they are only paying lip service to the slogan of giving equal treatment to the various education streams, whereas, in fact, they are favouring English education.

In one of the pamphlets on education policy entitled Youth is the spring source of our nation, which was announced by the former Minister for Education, he said that at present the vernacular schools are communal in nature. They are isolated from one another. It is only in English schools that we can find children of various races working together, studying together, playing together in the same playing field and able to accept the same values of life.

The ex-P.A.P. Minister for Education cannot deny that he had said these things before. We are not interested in the whole passage. But there is one paragraph which is enough to show that the P.A.P. is only making use of the slogan of equal treatment in order to deceive the people. This shows that the P.A.P. does not recognise the value of Chinese, Tamil and Malay education. Not long ago, some Malay school students also staged a boycott against the discrimination of the Government's education policy. Another example is that they forced the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Singapore to resign from his post. The fact that the Government forced the resignation of Mr Tan Lark Sye from the Nanyang University Council is another example to show that the P.A.P. intends to control all educational institutions.

Yesterday the Prime Minister in his speech accused those people who have helped the Government to build schools, especially the Chinese merchants, although he did not mention them by name. He said they wanted to make pretensions to the greatness and fame of Mr Tan Kah Kee. This is a great insult to the members of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. Mr Tan Kah Kee is a real patriot. He devoted all his wealth to the cause of education. He also fought the Japanese during the Japanese Occupation. He was an anti-colonialist, anti-Japanese and he called upon all others to follow him. It is well and proper for these merchants in Malaya to admire him and to follow his example.

The Prime Minister said that he is a Chinese. But to me patriotism and anti-colonialism transcend all national boundaries. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government should encourage people to build schools. Let me quote an article from our Party organ on the building of schools by civic organisations and the public. This was published in the 24th issue of our Party organ. The article deals with the question of education and it reads as follows:

`The population in Singapore is increasing very rapidly and the school-going age students are also becoming more and more. How are we to deal with this problem? Experience in some of the advanced countries has told us that it is not enough to depend upon the Government to build schools. The only way to remedy this situation is to encourage the public to donate money to build schools so that the Government schools and the schools run by the community can flourish together so as to raise our education standard which is lagging far behind other Western countries. Only then can we solve our grave problem of development in education.'

It is wrong for the Government to build schools alone and control all of them, and not to have confidence in the public in the field of education. The Government should not monopolise education when they actually cannot do anything.

Mr Deputy Speaker, talking about schools built by the public, I will now touch on Nanyang University. The Ministers have been accusing Nanyang University of being a ground for fostering Communists and that it is sponsored by pro-Communist elements. I would like to point out that all the sponsors of Nanyang University are merchants and people in all walks of life. These people have contributed money and effort towards the building of Nanyang University. When the Minister for Labour smeared these people, he was actually doing a great wrong. He himself was also educated in one of the Chinese schools which produced students for Nanyang University. How can he say that the sponsors of Nanyang University have been fooled by the Communists? The Minister was distorting the good points of the schools built by the effort of members of the public. He also said that members of the families of principals are engaged as teachers in the schools; that there is nepotism in Chinese schools in general. He was educated in a Chinese school before.

4.40 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Koo Young (Thomson): it would appear that he does not quite understand the question of Chinese education. In fact, he does not know anything about it at all. He has wiped away the efforts of all those who have worked hard to support Chinese education and has collaborated with the colonialists in their colonial education. Without the support of the general public, how could the P.A.P. come to power? Another mistake made by the P.A.P. is to monopolise education. There are several examples to substantiate my argument. Firstly, Mr Lim Seck Kian was arrested. He was the President of the Seventh and Eighth Councils of the Singapore Chinese School Teachers' Union. He was appointed a member of the School Curriculum Committee in Mathematics and also a member of the Educational Advisory Committee. Later on he dared to stand up and criticise the 4-2 system and expose the P.A.P.'s so-called equal treatment of the four streams of education. Then the P.A.P. Government, in co-operation with the British colonialists, arrested Mr Lim on the 2nd of February this year. This is because he had the guts to stand up and expose the falsity of the P.A.P.'s educational policy. But before he criticised the P.A.P. Government's policy, he was very much appreciated by them and he was appointed as a member of important councils. The P.A.P. only made use of him when he was in their favour. When he opposed them, they nabbed him, without taking into consideration that he had devoted half his life to education.

Let me say something about the things that have happened after his arrest. Since his arrest the results of the secondary entrance examination in the school where he was Principal have dropped from 70 per cent to about 30 per cent. That is why the members of the Management Committee, the teachers and the students have not forgotten him. Mr Lim is a devoted educationist. It is a great loss to the people.

The second fact is that the P.A.P. Government have sacked a lot of teachers with progressive ideas. These school teachers, clerks, principals, and even I myself, were sacked. I will deal with the details of my sacking later. But at the victory dinner party at Sembawang the Prime Minister said he was surprised that I was sacked when I disclosed the news to him. He was a bit doubtful. I will deal with my personal matters later.

As far as I know, there is at present a special committee dealing with Chinese educational matters. They are preparing a blue-print to sack more Chinese school teachers with progressive ideas. The P.A.P. are preparing a black list of about 200 teachers who are to be sacked next year. According to what I have heard, these people who are to be sacked include those who were together with Mr Lim Seck Kian. They had been responsible members of the Seventh and Eighth Executive Councils of the Chinese School Teachers' Union. Another fact is that when I said the P.A.P. sacked me - the Minister for Education is not here now or else he would stand up and say that the authority who sacked me was not the P.A.P. but the School Management Committee. But I will disclose something to let everybody know the true picture of the whole matter relating to me. The P.A.P. have never paid any attention to those persecuted, suppressed, or wronged. If the P.A.P. want to keep close to the truth, reason and justice, then they should not brush off all the facts.

We are all very young and perhaps we can still see our future. The Minister for Labour yesterday said that the P.A.P. intended to fix us. Now, let us see. Let me relate the matter relating to my sacking, to let this House as well as the people know. The intention to sack me started at the victory dinner of the P.A.P. branch in Sembawang. Some P.A.P. Assemblymen and defeated candidates ---

Mr Lim Kim San: On a point of order. I thought we are debating the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and the amendment. He is talking about his personal trouble.

Mr Speaker: He is talking about himself, but the subject which he is discussing relates to the subject the Assembly is discussing. I think he is quite in order. Please proceed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the P.A.P. are short of reasons and have nothing to say, they will always try to stop us from advancing our reasons and the truth. They try to seal our mouths --- [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order. I must allow the Member to proceed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): So those members and defeated candidates coerced the Management Committee of the school into sacking me in their own names. But this suggestion by the P.A.P. was not accepted by them. Following that, the P.A.P. pressurised the School Management Committee into sacking me. We know that certain members of the School Management Committee found it difficult and awkward not to take this suggestion seriously. So in the end, on the 28th of October, I received a letter from the School Management Committee saying that "This is to notify you that on the instructions of the Ministry of Education, your services to the school are terminated as from the 31st December, 1963." No further reason was given. I do not quite know the reasons for my sacking. I graduated from Senior Middle III. Though I did not graduate from the T. T.C. final year, I had been in attendance there for three years. My examination number was 2097. But later on I was notified that I was not allowed to sit for the examination. This shows that the P.A.P. are ruthlessly adopting measures to deal with their political opponents. If they can adopt these measures to persecute their political opponents, we can very well imagine how they can deal with other people --- [Interruption]

Now, do not let me expose more of your evil deeds. Do you want to force me to expose your misdeeds? Let me say something.

The Member for Jalan Besar said I misbehaved myself in school. As a matter of fact, the P.A.P. had been making use of my school as their branch. The principal of my school is the branch secretary of the P.A.P. in that area. But I have no personal grudge against my principal. And in the School Management Committee there is one member who is also a treasurer of the P.A.P. branch there. Now, who has converted that school into a P.A.P. branch? It is the P.A.P. and nobody else. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said just now that they dismissed me because I am an Opposition Member. If they can do this, they can do worse things to other people. The Prime Minister yesterday said the P.A.P. Government is prepared to accept criticism from the Opposition. That is why I am now airing my views. I want to see how they are going to answer my question. Or do they not want to answer my question at all? Or will they ask the Press not to publish my speech relating to my personal case?

The fourth mistake in the education policy is that they spend more time in shouting slogans than in implementing their education policy. They talk more than they do. Previously they talked of raising the standard of science teaching. Now they want to raise the standard of the second and third languages. It is no use merely shouting slogans. What is important is that we must get rid of the colonial influence on our education system and to popularise education. It does not mean that by shouting empty slogans the standard of education will be raised. To eradicate the colonial education system, you must change the substance and, nature of education for the better. It does not mean that by building some Chinese, Malay or Indian schools it will be amounting to equal treatment to all streams of education. To conduct Malay classes in Chinese and Indian schools ---

Mr Speaker: It is five o'clock. I propose to suspend for half an hour until half-past five.

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before the break I was talking about the fourth point - about the P.A.P. Government raising the standard of teaching of the second and third languages in our schools. If the Government cannot truly deal with this problem, it is useless just to put up some slogans that will not be of any good to education. If they can achieve that by shouting slogans, then everybody can become an expert educationist.

There have been Press reports that certain Ministers officiated at the opening ceremonies of certain schools and after some time, other Parliamentary Secretaries and members of the P.A.P. officiated at opening ceremonies of certain newly built schools. If such acts were to constitute success in education, then it would be merely making a laughing stock of the P.A.P.'s education policy. It would not deceive the people nor make them believe that the P.A.P.'s education policy is the best in this part of the world.

Now, about interference of academic freedom and university autonomy. The students of the University of Singapore went on strike against the Government's action against the University of Singapore. Also, the Nanyang University Council had not accepted the conditions attached to Government aid to Nantah; and the P.A.P. had forced the resignation of Mr Tan Lark Sye, because Government aid to Nantah was given with strings attached. The Nanyang University Council did not accept the aid. It is a smear and a slander to say that without Government aid, Nantah would be turned into a training ground for Communist cadres. What about the University of Singapore? It also receives Government aid. How is it that there were incidents in the University of Singapore where the students went on strike in protest against the Government's action?

It is very clear that the Government is making use of aid to universities in order to control them and to introduce P.A.P. politics into them so as to turn them into P.A.P. universities. Only when the universities are not controlled by the P.A.P. can there be safeguards for university autonomy and academic freedom.

Regarding academic standards in Nantah, this is something that can be assessed by the public and not by the P.A.P. alone. To label a university, which has received the support of thousands of people, one that has produced many students who have gone abroad with high academic achievements and merit, recognised by universities abroad, as low in academic standard is really ridiculous.

In the past Nanyang University had never received a single cent from the P.A.P. Instead the Government had tried to put many restrictions on it and had banned publications by its students.

The Minister for Labour yesterday described the Nantah students' participation in University Week as the behaviour of students devoid of learning. What about the University of Singapore students who went on strike in protest against the Government's action relating to university autonomy? Can the Minister use the same terms to describe these students? I will not want to criticise the Minister by using the same terms as he has applied to Nantah students.

The Prime Minister said in this House yesterday that the Governments tasks were, firstly, industrialisation, secondly, housing programme, thirdly, education - especially, technical education - and fourthly, the raising of social standards. These plans only show the P.A.P.'s superficial actions. They want to put up a beautiful facade without actually going down to the ground.

In order that the Government can have money as a prerequisite to that object, the people should have money. This can only be realised when the people have work to do. But these factors will not be forthcoming because Malaysia is not and cannot be for the interest of the people. The establishment of Malaysia is only for the benefit of foreign capitalists and monopolists in order to exploit the people. Secondly, the confrontation policy as applied by Indonesia has caused thousands of people to lose their jobs. This, in turn, has affected the livelihood of thousands of people in Singapore. This series of chain reactions has caused great suffering and difficulties to the people.

Now the markets both inside and outside Malaysia are controlled by foreign capitalists. Our own industrialists and merchants cannot compete with them. On top of this, our Government will not encourage our local merchants to compete with them. Instead it is helping the foreign capitalists. The present market available is that of the so-called ten million people of Malaysia, but due to the Indonesian confrontation policy, this market cannot flourish. When the people do not have money, it is not possible for the Government to have more revenue from taxation to carry out the various projects such as industrialisation, housing and provide other public construction.

The economic problems will be one factor that will cause an economic chain reaction. When the people are poor, when their coffers are empty, how can the Government do anything? All the schemes for social welfare and education will have to be discarded. In the end, the people will be worried about their livelihood and there will be robberies and thefts, and people may try to take to the highway, and all sorts of social evils will arise. The so-called paradise in South-East Asia as described by the Minister for Labour will turn out to be a hell on earth. That is why the Prime Minister said yesterday in this House that the P.A.P. Members of Parliament would strive to have an impact on the Malaysian Parliament to try and gain entry into the Central Government and replace the M.C.A. in the Alliance Government.

As a matter of fact, our Party has long ago pointed out this intention of the P.A.P. The P.A.P. has all along been souring up the relationship between the M.C.A. and the U.M.N.O. in order to fish in troubled waters, thinking that if the M.C.A. is defeated in the towns in Malaya, then the P.A.P. would have a chance to go into the political arena in Malaya while the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee) could become the Minister for Finance of Malaysia to replace Mr Tan Siew Sin. The Prime Minister of Singapore would then become the second or third most important person in the hierarchy in the Central Government. But this is impossible because although the magician may be clever, the devil is cleverer. The M.C.A. is clever enough to know the intentions of the P.A.P. The relationship between U.M.N.O. and the M.C.A is still going strong. In spite of what the P.A.P. are trying to do, this relationship cannot be soured up for the time being. So the people of Singapore have the right to ask the P.A.P. to stop indulging in their fantasies. The P.A.P. should turn over a new leaf and try to solve their problems by more constructive means. They must come back to face the realities of life and solve their problems in a practical way.

Therefore, we urge them to call on the Central Government to commence negotiations with the Indonesian Government and the Philippines Government to stop the confrontation. We also urge the P.A.P. Government to stop scolding Indonesia. It was very bad of the Minister for Labour yesterday to scorn the people of Indonesia by saying that they have to live on roots and barks of trees and even on rats at times. Now, such accusations will do no good to anybody. To prove his point, he even went to the extent of saying that our colleague, Mr Chan Sun Wing, had to carry two bags of notes in order to do some shopping in Indonesian streets. Yesterday the Minister for Labour resorted to jingoistic talk to refute the validity of our amendment to this motion. This act of the Minister will give the world at large the impression that this House in Singapore is full of the spirit of jingoism, because he seems to suggest that it is useless to solve problems by peaceful means and round a conference table. He seems to have forgotten that the poverty of Indonesia stems from colonial economic aggression and exploitation rather than from their confrontation against Malaysia. He also seems to suggest that the bases in Singapore are meant to protect Singapore against any aggression from outside. Now, this goes to show that they are praising the colonial masters for their military bases in Singapore and that they are trying to defend their colonial masters for their possible future military actions. He seems to have become the defence counsel for the British to have military bases in Singapore. What a shame! The P.A.P. have all along been harping on the theme that the Barisan Sosialis is receiving instructions from Indonesia to oppose Malaysia. Now it is the Minister for Labour of the P.A.P. who turns round and says that it is the Barisan Sosialis who is encouraging Indonesia in its opposition against Malaysia. What a contradiction of statements! This is their kind of logic! What kind of logic is this? On the one hand, they say that we get directions from Indonesia to oppose Malaysia and, on the other hand, they say that we are encouraging Indonesia to oppose Malaysia. This is their logic!

The Minister for Labour quoted an extract from our Party organ to say that we are toeing the Indonesian line. But if there were anybody toeing anybody's line, then it would be Indonesia that is toeing our line. This quotation was made out of context. And I am inclined to believe that our Minister for Labour does not know very much of the Chinese language, for he used certain phrases which are entirely out of place. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I know better Chinese. I am just trying to give you the facts. And if Members on the Government side can prove for a fact that they know better Chinese than I do, then I shall be very happy to listen to them.

Now, let us go back to the speech of the Minister for Labour. He said yesterday that the Nanyang University undergraduates are making use of their vacation "to train soldiers, groom the horses and arm themselves". He used this Chinese phrase in his context as though the Nanyang undergraduates are now training themselves for military purposes. Now, this phrase, "to train soldiers and groom the horses", has been used entirely out of place. And this wrong use of the Chinese idiom made his speech ridiculous.

Mr Speaker, our Party has previously issued a warning that if the opposition against Malaysia outside this region is not considered and is disregarded entirely, then a sad situation will arise.

On 23rd August this year, our Prime Minister went to Kuala Lumpur to urge Tunku Abdul Rahman to establish Malaysia by 31st August. He was even more interested in the establishment of Malaysia than the Tunku himself, in spite of the opposition that had been generated against Malaysia abroad. So the present troubles can actually be attributed to the reactionary alliance between Singapore and Malaya. The P.A.P. were very interested in the formation of Malaysia because they wanted to pave the way for themselves to find a place in the Federation of Malaya in case they could not stand in Singapore.

With regard to our desire to negotiate with Indonesia to solve the problem of confrontation, the Minister for Labour made his wonderful speech yesterday giving people the idea that he was belligerent. He boasted of the high standard of living that Singapore has achieved. He described Singapore as a paradise on earth, forgetting the fact that it had been exploited by the colonial masters for over 150 years and that the people are living in misery. Even the real stooges of the colonial masters will shout, "Bravo!" for his wonderful performance in this Chamber yesterday. If he cares to go round the rural areas and factories in Singapore, then he will be able to appreciate the difficulties that the Singapore people are facing now. Then he will think twice before he makes wonderful speeches about Singapore being a paradise! If you turn over the, pages of the newspapers, every day you will see a lot of news items about suicides, robberies, murders and other miserable stories of the man in the street. There has been a lot of news in the Chinese papers about widows and children who have to live on charity. The newspapers have to issue public appeals for donations. Are these events consistent with Singapore being a paradise? As a matter of fact, the Minister for Labour seems to disregard completely the realities and the true difficulties of the people in Singapore. He describes those who are dissatisfied with life as people who take the wonderful state of affairs as things for granted. But I will turn round and say that he is living so close to a sty that he does not smell the bad smell.

The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir,

`No single factor is more likely to bring about a more fair and just society than equal opportunities for education for all. The ideal to which all nations in the world aspire is the utilisation of its human resources to the maximum.'

Mr Speaker, these words from the policy statement by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara must ring in the ears of the people of this country with much greater significance than in other South-East Asian nations. For us, it is no longer a statement of intention, but one of fact. Free universal education for six years is a fact. Free universal education for at least ten years will be a fact in the next few years.

For us in Malaysia, who are involved in nation-building, this signal achievement has even greater significance. In practice, it means equal treatment to the Chinese, Malay, Tamil and English streams in our education system with Malay as the national language. It means reducing to the minimum a contradiction which existed for more than a hundred years. In intent and purpose, it paves the way for inter-racial and inter-communal harmony and peace. The free choice which parents make of the medium of instruction for their children gives democratic lustre to equal treatment for all.

Mr Speaker, these are the facts. At a later stage, I shall give you the figures. I wish to refer again to the fine words of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara I quoted earlier, and say quite frankly that we have been and are still earnest in everything we do. The social revolution, started 4½ years ago, will continue without interruption. About a third of the budget will be spent on education and this amount is more than what many countries in Asia have ever done.

We never tire of this confrontation with a social problem such as education because we know that ultimately it will bring good. We do not believe in deliberately depriving our children of something beneficial and concrete for something abstract. The Singapore Government places a very high premium on the education of its children. We not only have implicit conviction, but we try to make a reality of the importance of education in the general progress of our developing nation. It is not for nothing that we have autonomy in education, among others, and we shall continue to decide how best the money should be spent for our industrious people.

There are in Singapore today 464,000 children in our schools. Of this huge figure, 25 per cent are in our secondary schools. This means that one in every four of our population is in school. This is a record which is seen in the light of the fact that our children go to school every morning decently dressed complete with shoes. They go to school after having breakfast. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is our pride that in every classroom in Singapore's schools there can be found a future Malaysian citizen who will have the opportunity for a full primary and secondary education.

This great expansion was achieved in four years by building 48 new schools and training 3,500 teachers who passed out as qualified teachers. Of this figure for schools, 30 are primary schools, 18 secondary schools - namely, nine secondary academic, four secondary technical and five secondary vocational schools. In addition, eight primary and secondary schools were extended to take in more students. The Teachers' Training College has likewise expanded in accordance with the policy of giving equal treatment to all the language streams of education and the relative increases in the various language streams.

Within this broad framework of a system which has won the support and acclaim of all loyal and right-thinking citizens, the Government intends to present a White Paper on the next Five-Year Plan next year. In this will be incorporated such recommendations of the two Reports of the Commission of Inquiry into Education as are acceptable to the Government.

To utilise the ten years of free education to the best possible advantage with a view to "the utilisation of all human resources to the maximum" is our major national objective. The social and economic needs of a changing society will necessarily demand a dynamic approach to our educational problems. We must always be ahead of the situation and Singapore, more than any other constituent State in Malaysia, needs a well-planned programme to cater for the commercial and industrialised State we are heading for. We could not turn to agriculture even if we wanted to.

The national language and one or two more languages is the ideal armour for the future Malaysian. Whether it is for knowledge, employment or nation-building, or pure interest, the acquisition of an extra language is an asset. Plans are in hand to raise the standard of teaching of the second and the third languages to make every school-leaver at least bi-lingual, if not tri-lingual. This will mean that the integration of schools using different language media, introduced by the P.A.P. Government in its first term of office, will be brought one stage further.

We shall establish bi-lingual schools where instruction in different subjects will be given in two languages. At the same time, the study of the national language will be intensified in all schools and at all levels as more and more teachers are trained and qualified to teach in the national language. The curricula in secondary schools will be reviewed so as to allow every pupil a wider choice of subjects.

The planning and administration of all scholarships and fellowships as well as awards for training overseas are now centralised in the Scholarships Co-ordinating Committee of the Public Service Commission. This new unit will ensure that our needs for various types of training are co-ordinated and accorded the proper priority. The policy of making generous awards in the form of Government bursaries to all institutions of higher learning and at all levels will be continued and further increased.

While every effort has been taken in the last four and a half years to expand and cope with the strictly educational opportunities of our children of all races, there remains the problem which since the end of World War II has beset Chinese education. This is the use the Communists make of Chinese educational issues as a cover for their nefarious subversion of students and even of teachers.

They have been successful to the extent that sometimes they have brought about confusion regarding educational issues and followed this with mass agitation against the Government. Fortunately, however, the growing consciousness on the part of the people and political developments leading to independence through Malaysia have out-paced the Communists, and it is my earnest intention that before long they will be completely isolated and exposed as being nothing more than dangerous political opportunists who have all along utilised education and educational issues to further their own sinister ideological ends. This will not be an easy task and it will take many years of relentless determination before the Communists finally lose out at the hands of the people themselves.

It becomes necessary for me to put before the House the problem of Communism and discipline in the schools. It is imperative that the people get a panoramic view of the whole problem and understand the intricacies therein. In this way, they will understand the position themselves and consequently understand what Government has done and will do in the future in dealing with what has for so long appeared to be an insolubly knotty problem.

With national independence, Communism and Communist activities in Chinese educational institutions in the State have become a security problem which affects the peace and harmony of the races, particularly the Malays and Chinese in this country. It nonetheless constitutes a threat to the democratic basis of our society and our Government. Clearly in a matter of struggling against a totalitarian ideology which aims at destroying individual freedom and human values which we have learned to cherish and uphold over the years, there cannot be any compromise or neutrality. Seen in this light, even the most ardent existentialist in the precincts of our older university will agree that democrats too must draw the line when it involves their own survival.

Let us see why the Communists have found the field of Chinese education a fertile ground to pursue their vile activities. Whether it is Israel, Kenya, Thailand or Malaysia, it is a fact that immigrant communities tend to stick together to safeguard their "common" interests. The Chinese in Malaysia are no different. Under colonial domination and discrimination which is the inevitable sequence of divide and rule, it is common knowledge that the colonial power in Singapore and Malaya took little or no interest in the education of the Chinese community. The creation of an English-educated compradore and clerical class was incidental to the general scheme of colonial exploitation.

The Chinese immigrants therefore took upon themselves the task of building schools and educating their sons and daughters. Against the background of a long civilisation going back to 5,000 years of scholarship and culture, chauvinism was given added impetus by the oppression and discrimination of the colonial power whose primary concern was the exploitation of immigrant labour. The revolutions and renaisance in China in recent years could not but reinforce the trend towards chauvinism and Chinese consciousness. Pure admiration, if nothing else, is enough to rekindle nostalgia for the old country. So would Malays of Indonesian origin feel if not for the mess that is the lot across the Straits of Malacca today.

Attempts to "do something" about Chinese education in the early post-war years were more in the nature of apologies for more than a century of dismal neglect. While education in the English language opened all doors to employment, it brought about frustration and a feeling of being unwanted to tens of thousands who passed out from Chinese schools annually. The Communists took this golden opportunity to exploit the growing fear which they themselves helped to spread, that Chinese education, built by the sweat and toil of the Chinese community for more than a hundred years, will be gradually eliminated. From the colonial power there was no evidence at all of any attempt to accommodate school-leavers from Chinese schools, let alone help in their expansion.

The Communists, true to their deceptive ways, found enthusiastic allies in the chauvinistic leaders who champion the cause of Chinese education. It is well known that members of School Management Committees are predominantly merchants and towkays who in their time have contributed to the establishment of these schools. Some members of the Management Committees found nothing wrong in joining forces with the Communists who, on the surface, appeared to be fighting for Chinese education. This was one ground where their respective ideological, political and economic beliefs were sufficiently sunk for the common objective of "saving" Chinese education and Chinese culture. Before long, many innocent people were jointly voicing slogans like "Struggle against attempts to destroy Chinese education and culture" and "Preservation of Chinese education, language and culture" and "Do not forget our ancestors" with the Communists. Communists and Chinese chauvinists have struck common ground. The traditional respect for scholarship and culture lent force to this unholy alliance.

In this atmosphere, the Communists were able to carry out planned activities to further their cause under the cover of Chinese education. In the field of education, this was the beginning of united front tactics pursued with skill and cunning by people who openly and proudly proclaim Marx, Engels and Stalin as their guiding light and inspiration. They manipulate the School Management Committees whenever they can and plant their agents wherever they want. They "eliminate" members of these committees who show independence of mind and action and refuse to be used as pawns by the Communists.

But there are others who willingly lend support and knowingly allow themselves to be manipulated by the Communists in the fond belief that if the Communists are helping to further the cause of Chinese education, then there is nothing wrong to co-operate with them to help further the same cause. Mr Tan Lark Sye is one such person. He typifies others who sit in Management Committees. Two recent incidents in the Nanyang University show this. The first is the assault on six undergraduates by pro-Communist students on 12th September, 1963, on which he took no disciplinary action and, second, his support given to the pro-Communist Nanyang University graduates standing as candidates for the Barisan Sosialis in the last general elections by issuing statements drafted by these pro-Communist graduates. Then there are political innocents who want to be with the Communists in the hope that the "revolution" is just around the corner.

The united front tactics of the Communists in exploiting Chinese education issues is carried into students' organisations, old boys' associations, trade unions, Management Committees, cultural bodies, sports and welfare organisations and even mutual benefit societies. They use leaders of these organisations mentioned to obtain support by statements, by cajoling others to join in demonstrations they secretly organise. They have bamboozled many a unionist to take part in strikes and in 1961 they had again succeeded to a certain extent in using these united front tactics to get students to stage examination boycotts.

Their methods might differ from one organisation to another depending on the degree of support, co-operation, response, hostility or indifference on the part of the leaders of these organisations. Where they meet with ideological opposition from men with principles and guts, they are quick to use smear tactics. They will not hesitate to delve into the private lives of their opponents to discredit and smear them. They have branded those who have opposed them with epithets like "selling out Chinese education", "running dogs who destroy Chinese education and culture", and "ungrateful people who forget their ancestors".

Intimidation and direct assault and violence is not altogether unknown in the tactics of the Communists. As recently as 12th September this year, there was such a case of Communist strong-arm method. On that day, the Nanyang University Consumers' Co-operative Society held its general meeting in the Assembly Hall of the Faculty of Arts building. The pro-Communist students had planned to capture it at the elections of the Committee. At this meeting, six students, most of whom were from the Commence Faculty, were assaulted by pro-Communist students after the meeting. One of them was seriously injured. The incident was investigated by the Board of Student Welfare whose secretary, Lim Kim Hiong, is known to have associated with Communist elements since his school days. It was later disclosed that one of the six attacked had stood as a candidate for the Society's Executive Committee. When the six injured students were interviewed, the Chairman of the Board of Student Welfare repeatedly asked one of the victims why he had gone to the police station to report the matter. Is it not strange that in the civilised age of today there are leaders of "student welfare" who question the wisdom of reporting cases of assault to the police? Are they seriously thinking of taking the law into their own hands and administering rough justice according to their whims and fancies? What discipline is it that eliminates all others who do not accept their dictatorial leadership?

The Board decided that a thorough investigation would be instituted to identify the students who were responsible for the violent incident that evening and that the whole case would be submitted to the University Disciplinary Committee for action. Three months have passed. Neither the Disciplinary Committee, which is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, nor Mr Tan Lark Sye, the Chairman of the University Council, has taken or ordered any action. Four days after this unfortunate incident, a group of under-graduates who were about to celebrate the founding of Malaysia were forcibly prevented from carrying out their celebrations. Again, no disciplinary action was taken.

The cases of indiscipline and lawlessness in the Chinese schools have been brought out by the Commission of Inquiry into the Examination Boycott set up in 1961. Members of the Assembly remember vividly the incident at Chung Cheng High School in 1950, the anti-national service action in 1954, the camping-in campaign and involvement in trade disputes leading to riots in 1955 and 1956, and more recently the examination boycott in 1961 to further the Communist opposition to merger and Malaysia. The very recent attempt to use the Singapore Rural Dwellers' Association premises to run kindergarten classes to indoctrinate children and subvert parents is one of the many examples of their methods.

Mr Speaker, Sir, against this background of subversion, intimidation and open violence is the record of positive growth and expansion in the field of Chinese education planned and executed by the P.A.P. Government in the last four and a half years. Against this base accusation of attempts to destroy Chinese education is the splendid record of achievements which stare in the eyes of the Communists and pro-Communists, who fortunately cannot blind the people to hard facts and concrete proof of solid achievements.

For all their deception and lies, they cannot deny that in 1959, the year the P.A.P. Government first assumed office, there were only four Government Chinese primary schools with an enrolment of 2,508. As at 30th June, 1963, there are 21 (including 14 integrated) Government Chinese primary schools with an enrolment of 12,073 - a fourfold increase. The increase in the Government Chinese secondary schools is equally impressive. In 1959 there were four Chinese secondary schools with an enrolment of 4,056. In June this year there were nine (including three integrated) schools with an enrolment of 10,428 students - another big increase. When the proposal to raise the standard of second language is implemented next year, the figures are likely to double in 1965.

These figures nail the lie that the P.A.P. Government tries to destroy Chinese education. On the other hand, they show that, for the first time in the history of Singapore, Chinese education has been given a place to flourish and grow in the context of the larger national entity. The irony of the whole thing is that while the anti-national pro-Communist champions of Chinese education shout from the roof-tops about "preservation of Chinese education" and that Chinese parents should send their children to Chinese schools to the accompaniment of intimidation, assault, sit-in strikes, examination boycotts and demonstrations, more and more Chinese parents are sending their children to English schools.

By their ceaseless agitation, intimidation and violence, it is the Communists and pro-Communists who are helping to destroy the growth of Chinese education and culture. Their complete disregard for student discipline and student welfare has brought disrepute to Chinese schools and fear among Chinese parents. Non-Chinese parents no doubt are observing this trend with great interest and alarm. The Communists and pro-Communists know that they are to blame for the present state of affairs.

It is a matter for regret that while it is becoming increasingly clear to the people that the tactics and the anti-national activities of the Communists only help to retard the growth of Chinese education, there are still waverers in influential journals who are unwilling to confront the realities of the situation. Whether it is about indiscipline in schools, which is tied up with the Communist problem, or whether it is outright subversion which has today been bared by the Government in numerous acts of indiscipline, these people prefer to evade the issues of the day. Are they, like some members of Management Committees, also easily intimidated and cowed?

There has been a relatively large expansion of Malay-medium primary schools. For the first time in the history of Singapore, two Malay secondary schools were established in the first term of office of the P.A.P. Government. There are altogether 128 Malay secondary classes in schools all over the island. The first Malay-medium secondary students have already sat for the Federation of Malaya Certificate Examination this year. Malay parents do not fear sending their children to Malay secondary schools, as the Communists have so far not been able to penetrate Malay primary and secondary schools. However, the utmost vigilance against subversion is equally necessary in the Malay stream.

New schools which will begin functioning in January 1964 are the Blakang Mati Primary School, the Tanjong Rhu Primary School, the Queenstown IV Primary School, the Sembawang Malay Primary School, the Joo Avenue Primary School, the Thomson Road Secondary Vocational School, the Queenstown V Secondary Vocational School, the Old Kallang Airport Secondary Vocational School, the Dunearn Road Secondary Technical School, the Balestier Hill Secondary Technical School, the Serangoon Garden Secondary Technical School, and the Queenstown IV Secondary Technical School.

In addition, the following schools will be under construction in 1964 and are expected to be ready by January 1965: Wallich Street Primary School, New Market Street Primary School, Queenstown III (North) and Queenstown III (South) Primary Schools, Changi Road, 10 m.s. Primary School, Queenstown III Secondary Vocational School, Queenstown III Secondary Academic School and the Changi Road, 10 m.s. Secondary Academic School. Other schools which will be under construction towards the latter part of 1964 include the following: Primary schools at Bukit Timah Village, Holland Village, Jurong Industrial area, Balestier Hill West, MacPherson South and Farrer Road; secondary vocational schools at Geylang Serai, Jalan Ampas, Upper Serangoon Road, Whitley Road/Dunearn Road junction; secondary academic schools at Kaki Bukit, Still Road, Bukit Ho Swee; and secondary technical schools at Upper Aljunied Road, a site near the Government Printing Office, Kim Seng Road and Alexandra Road.

In 1958, there were 2,000 trainee teachers at the Teachers' Training College. With the rapid expansion in the school building programme and in the educational needs of the people generally, the number at the T.T.C. has increased to 5,000. Next year plans will be ready to build extensions to the Teachers' Training College. Two large lecture blocks, catering mainly for technical teacher training and later a library block and a hall-cum-gymnasium will be built at the present site.

In the Polytechnic, entry requirements to the Professional Diploma Course are being raised, thus paving the way to higher standards and to a higher status for the institution, the largest of its kind in South-East Asia. The Report of the Committee on the Establishment of a Faculty of Technology in the University of Singapore is receiving attention.

Generous bursaries have been awarded to approximately 50 per cent of Singapore students of Nanyang University, like the University of Singapore. To date, about 500 Nanyang University graduates have been appointed to various Government departments and Government aided secondary schools, after selection by the Public Service Commission. It is a pity that despite reminders, Nanyang University authorities have so far not indicated whether they are prepared to accept the Government Upper Secondary II Examination Certificate as a qualification for admission to Nanyang University. With the abolition of the Senior Middle III Examination in 1962, the first Government Upper Secondary II Examination in Chinese was held recently. This certificate has been accepted as a qualification for admission to the University of Singapore in 1964. Chinese secondary school leavers can now join the University of Singapore, after six years of secondary education, like their counterparts in the English stream.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these then are the impressive and concrete achievements of the forward planning launched 4½ years ago. They can stand the test of time as much as they can stand any amount of destructive and senseless attacks from any quarter. As a matter of fact, they are like the thick armour of the tortoise - the more knocks they get, the more they reveal the achievements, progress, growth, expansion and development of education in Singapore.

Mr Chio Cheng Thun (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have listened to the Minister for Education. When he first stood up he gave us the impression that he was going to let us know how the four streams of education were going to be treated equally, and what plans the Government would have to implement this policy of equal treatment. But surprisingly and strangely enough, the Minister concerned has not made any reply to the points raised by our Members on this side. All he has been talking about is Communists, Communists. If we have to count how many times the term "Communists" has been used by him, I will not be surprised that it will come to a great figure. So we just wonder whether the P.A.P. is really interested in giving equal treatment to the four streams of education in Singapore; and whether the Government now can speak on behalf of all those who are interested in getting equal treatment. In fact, it is very clear that the P.A.P. is now giving special favouritism to English education, rather than any other stream. I hope the P.A.P. will be able to explain this allegation. The Minister concerned has not been able to explain the qualifications required for entry into the civil service. He has not been able to answer the question as to the number of schools built in respect of each of the four streams of education. The figures for the schools for each stream of education are not available even up to now.

Concerning the question of education autonomy, I shall go into this matter further when I deal with the motion under discussion.

The Minister for National Development has taken a lot of time in this House to give people the impression that his Ministry has done a great deal to improve the lot of the rural people. But he seems to have forgotten the real difficulties of the rural people. Concerning the aid that the Minister for National Development says is being given to the rural people, I shall deal with it later when I go further into the motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not beyond our expectations that the policy statement of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has shown that the P.A.P. has been very clever in evading the main issues. In this policy statement of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, all that the Government has said is, "Oh! these questions belong to the Central Government. They are the responsibility of Kuala Lumpur." So, from this tune in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, we can note three characteristic features. Namely, shirking of responsibility and passing it on to the Central Government, deceptive propaganda of the P.A.P., and hollow arguments. These are the three characteristics of the recent speech by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

It is very strange, Mr Speaker, that in his lengthy speech delivered on behalf of the Government, there has been no talk of the political future and development of Singapore. There has been no plan for the political development of the people of Singapore. The P.A.P. now has seen fit to avoid the use of such common phraseology as a "common", "happy", "prosperous", "socialist society". In fact the P.A.P. has entirely forgotten the political rights of the people. It is not quite correct for the State Government to leave out the political issues of the people entirely.

Concerning the solution of the problem of unemployment, I dare say that this is a problem that occupies the minds of many people in Singapore, and is the most important question awaiting solution. But regrettably this matter has not been adequately dealt with in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. In fact, it has been entirely left out rather than dealt with in any manner. Instead the speech goes to some length to deal with the talk on industrialisation. We ask, is this P.A.P. Government a new Government for the first term? They have been in office for one term, but what has been done to solve the problem of unemployment over these years? We say they have done nothing. On the other hand, the problem of unemployment is getting worse. This can be shown by the swelling number of hawkers that one sees at every street corner of this island. The swelling number of hawkers is a standing monument to prove the gravity of the problem of unemployment in Singapore, and this problem has been aggravated by the confrontation that Singapore is facing now. At present, there are at least 100,000 unemployed people in Singapore. This is enough to show the gravity of the problem and, coupled with the confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia, it has become worse. Why should the P.A.P. try to cover up this unemployment problem and turn round and pretend to say that Singapore is a paradise on earth and an oasis of plenty? We must realise that a lot of merchants, employees, stevedores, harbour workers and hawkers in the waterfront have been thrown out of employment and they are facing bankruptcy as a result of the present political situation. Who has brought about this unhappy situation? I say that it is the P.A.P. And this situation will give rise to a vicious chain reaction of an economic nature, but the P.A.P. is pretending not to know of the existence of such a situation. If the P.A.P still maintains that industrialisation will solve the problem of unemployment, then I say that this is a statement of self-deception. There are several kinds of industrialisation. You have the capitalistic industrialisation, imperialistic industrialisation and socialistic industrialisation. As long as Singapore's economic structure is still of a colonial nature, the unemployment problem will not be easily solved. Let us look at America which is supposed to be industrially advanced. There are at least six million people unemployed in America, which is supposed to be at its peak of industrialisation. There are about 1.8 million people unemployed in Britain, which is also another industrially advanced country. So this shows that industrialisation alone is not sufficient to solve the problem of unemployment. We do not have to wait for five years to see that the so-called industrialisation programme of the P.A.P. will not solve the problem of unemployment in Singapore, because at the very most a hundred per cent achievement of the P.A.P. industrialisation programme will not give more than 40,000 jobs to the people of Singapore. So the industrialisation programme will not be able to produce enough jobs for the increasing number of job-seekers. This situation can be likened to the attempted pursuit of the sun by the moon. There will never be any possibility of the moon overtaking the sun. So you will see and you can expect that the people of Singapore, in spite of what the P.A.P. is trying to do in industrialisation, will continue to live in misery in the next five years - if not in greater misery. And this problem of unemployment in the face of a declining economy will come to a head in time to come and, coupled with the confrontation which, according to the Minister for Finance, will put our economy back by two years, will become worse. So, by that time there may be a lot of parks, swimming pools and fountains in Singapore. [Interruption] Mr Speaker, Sir, we therefore urge the P.A.P. to put forward a concrete plan to solve the grave problem of unemployment in an honest and practical way instead of evading it. In this connection, the P.A.P. seems to be totally helpless and entirely at a loss. Singapore has a revenue of $400 million, but as a result of Malaysia, it will have to pay to the Central Government more than $100 million, and as a result of the confrontation, it will have to lose another $290 million. The Prime Minister pretends to be calm by saying that the confrontation of Indonesia only affects our economy by eight per cent. The fact is that, according to the Minister for Finance, the loss of $290 million has brought about the lowering of our national income by 8.7 per cent and this is not insignificant. So no one can pretend that this loss is insignificant. His admission is sufficient to show the falsity of the speech by the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, on the question of economy, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech is also full of pessimism. It shows that the Government is at best only able to prevent the present standard of living from falling. That means in the next few years the standard of living of our people will not be raised. All that the Government can do is to prevent it from falling. That means that our standard of living will remain at a standstill. Is this talk not full of pessimism?

Concerning trade in Singapore, it has been stated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech that the problems relating to trade between Singapore and Indonesia will have to depend on the Central Government. Now, as a responsible State Government, the P.A.P. should at least have the courage to urge the Central Government to solve the problems. You just cannot say that you have to depend on the Central Government every now and then. For how long are you going to depend on the Central Government if you keep on saying this? Singapore is, in fact, now faced with a great problem as a result of the confrontation by Indonesia. The P.A.P. seem to give the impression that if you want to trade with Indonesia, then you must go and speak to the Central Government as this is not a matter for the State Government. Now, this is an irresponsible attitude to take. On the face of it, the State Government seems to be very servile to the Central Government, but actually it is shirking its responsibility towards the people of Singapore. This attitude will not bring about national unity.

On economic problems, the P.A.P has made a lot of presumptions. For example, it is stated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech that there are great differences between the Government of Singapore and the Government of the Federation of Malaya insofar as economic problems are concerned and that if the Federation Government should take rash action, then such action would reverse the enlightened policies of the State Government of Singapore. It is strange that at the beginning of the speech, it is stated that the people of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya have been united by Malaysia but later on, it goes on to state that there are a lot of unpleasantness and differences between the two Governments. Now all these are indications to show that there will be unhappiness in future and that the P.A.P. Government has not got the guts to bring up economic problems for solution with the Central Government. In other words, our orders have to be decided by the Central Government and this is stated in the policy speech of His Excellency. If we disregard, as the policy statement says, the social problems and economic injustice in Singapore, then we shall run the risk of having to face dissatisfaction generated by the Communists and the pro-Communist cadres. Now, this is the way by which the P.A.P. hopes to coerce the Central Government into giving in to the P.A.P. in the economic field. In other words, the P.A.P. seems to indicate that if there is any dissatisfaction over economic problems, then the responsibility should be placed on the shoulders of the Central Government. And so the Central Government, in order to avoid such blame, should give in to the P.A.P. From this, we can see that the phoney merger brought about by the P.A.P. is actually a sell-out of the interests of the people to the Central Government. It also goes a step further to show that the P.A.P. is trying to play a game of deception between the people of Singapore and the Central Government. [Interruption] As a socialist, I have to face facts and realities. You can say whatever you like. These are your usual tactics to smear others. The Central Government is reactionary in nature. We dare to say that, and so is the P.A.P. We say that the P.A.P. is cunning and we have said it many times. In spite of the fact that we have been conscribed and restricted by the Government, we have said openly that we have full confidence in our future.

On the question of autonomy in education, a clear statement was made in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. What is meant by autonomy in education? The statement says that it is essential that there should be confidence and good faith between the Central Government and the State Government in the handling of the security problem in all educational institutions, including the incipient problem in the University of Singapore. It is only when the Central Government does not doubt that the Singapore Government has no intention of hindering the Central Government from discharging its primary duty of ensuring that no Communist activity is subverting the nation in educational institutions that we can exercise our autonomy in education to the best advantage. I dare not believe that there will be autonomy in education. If autonomy in education is revoked, it will be unpleasant to Singapore.

Talking about equal treatment for the four streams of education, it is another well-known fraud. The Government intends to provide $8.5 million to help the University of Singapore and if the questions are settled, this amount will be increased further. But what has the Government done to Nanyang University? The Government has not given a single cent to Nanyang University. It is said that when the problem of reorganisation of Nanyang University is settled, the Government will provide some financial aid.

In this year's Budget no provision is made for Nanyang University and, according to the Budget, there will be only $300,000 surplus. Now, if Indonesia continues with its economic confrontation, our entrepot trade will be corroded still further. In order to give financial aid to Nanyang University, the Government will then have to increase the burden of taxation on the people, using the aid as a pretext.

As regards the so-called integrated schools, it is another scheme to foster English education at the expense of Chinese education.

The speech deliberately omits the important problem of rural farmers. Our farmers yearly produce about $150 million worth of farm products. In the 1959 elections, the P.A.P.'s election pamphlet talked about the importance of finding ways and means to increase our food production. It is as important as industrialisation. Now, after having been in office for five years, what has the P.A.P. done to help these farmers and to carry out its pledge? We cannot find from the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara anything concerning the rural farmers. They have increased our national wealth and help to solve the problem of unemployment. This fact cannot be denied.

The P.A.P. manifesto says that the farmers have produced a large number of poultry, pigs and eggs, that we are quite self-sufficient, and that there is an excess for export. The manifesto also goes on to say that our farmers have achieved this solely by their efforts and industry. The past Government and the present Government have done very little to support and to encourage them. Now let us see. After having been in office for five years, what have they done to encourage and to support the farmers? It is true the Primary Production Department has sold some pigs to the farmers and has carried out injections for poultry, but whenever the poultry of the farmers is attacked by disease, the Government is helpless. It cannot do anything. The Primary Production Department serves only as a propaganda machine. Some effective medicines which can cure the disease are not sold to the farmers on the pretext that these are poisonous. Do you think the farmers will kill themselves by using these drugs? Facts are facts. This is an example of Government trying to limit the food production of our farmers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, such an important policy speech has totally neglected the 200,000 odd farmers. Do they think that our food products will compete with foreign food products? Or has the Government no intention to help the farmers? Our farmers are waiting for their answer. The most urgent problem for them is the question of security of their land and the security of land lease. The Government has not made any legislation to protect their land lease. In the 1959 elections the P.A.P. said they would make use of the power of land acquisition to help farmers acquire land and give them permanent land lease. They are deceiving the people. What they said they have not carried out. "Land which is used for speculation will be requisitioned by the Government to give to the farmers who have no kind, and the rent of the land will be reasonable." The pamphlet also says that the land will be reserved for the farmers only and not for other people. Now, we want to ask the Government, where and when has the Government done this? What land has it acquired for the farmers? The facts show to the contrary.

Under the Master Plan of Singapore about 100,000 farmers will have to face eviction. This Plan was drafted by the past Government and recognised by the P.A.P. This Master Plan will be detrimental to the interests of the farmers and will only benefit the great land speculators.

This morning I learned that in Lim Chu Kang area the Government made use of police and riot squads to evict farmers from their land and demolish their houses. This is not the first occasion. This has happened in the past. And this picture shows how the P.A.P. help the farmers. They make use of police and riot squads to evict the farmers. The farmers' families have been expelled from their houses. We hope the Government will solve the fundamental problem of the people's livelihood and not just build houses. It is imperative for me to tell this House that in 1960 the P.A.P. bought a piece of land at Lim Chu Kang for the purpose of agriculture, but they demolished about forty houses on this piece of land belonging to the farmers. In 1962 these farmers sent a joint letter to the Government asking them to provide them with land so that they could continue with their farming activities. But what was the reply of the Government? They used the police and riot squads to pull down their houses. This is the way the P.A.P. helps the farmers, and this is their so-called rural policy. How can you say that what happened this morning was absurd, did not take place? The P.A.P. Government are singularly silent on this important question. Instead they talk about the building of roads and providing water supply and other facilities for transporting the farmers' produce. These are important to a certain extent, but they should have been done in 1963, because these works were scheduled to be completed in 1963. But the Government did not make use of the funds as provided in the Budget. On the other hand, they boast about the so-called surplus.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the P.A.P. Government deliberately neglect the question of protecting the farmers and stabilising the prices of food products but instead talk about building houses, is this not a case of putting the cart before the horse? You only build roads and bridges and houses. This is consumption, this is not production.

The P.A.P. neglect the interests of the vast majority of the people in favour of a few vested interests. Now, how have the Government dealt with the problem in Yio Chu Kang district? What the P.A.P. can boast of is how many houses they have built. "We build houses for the people to stay." The rural people are not foolish people. They know the importance of sanitation. Everybody knows how to enjoy life. The P.A.P. have evicted farmers from their land in order to clear the sites for building houses, and this is not what the people want. In the past, the P.A.P. talked about building houses to suit the lower income group of people. But they have not done so. Attap houses in the rural areas have been demolished and squatters have been chased here and there. They have lost their means of livelihood. How can you expect them to stay in so-called beautiful houses built by the Government?

Talking about the rural problem, you may remember that the P.A.P. owe a debt to the people. For example, the P.A.P. talked about protecting the people's land and about lowering the cost of production for the farmers. They also talked about building a model rural fishing village. These are things which can be done and should be done because they are very urgently required. They are not the moon, the sun, and the stars.

The best that the P.A.P. can do is to implement the past Five-Year Plan. Have they the guts to face facts? Have they the guts to face the criticisms of the people? All this depends on whether they are sincere in improving the lot of the people. Whether the implementation of their policy will bring benefits to the people or not depends upon whether they are going to discard and abandon their anti-people stand.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I only want to spend a few minutes to reply to the points raised by the Member for Hong Lim, one of which was on the Indonesian confrontation. I would not like to waste the Assembly's time by rebutting the absurd statements uttered by Barisan Members about economic policy, rural development, etc.

The Member for Hong Lim has raised a number of proposals which he has asked us to consider seriously and not to reject them merely because they came from the Opposition. Sir, the Government has always been willing to consider constructive proposals from the Opposition, even from Barisan Opposition if they should by some miracle have something constructive to say.

Now, the speech of the Member for Hong Lim on the subject of Indonesian confrontation was refreshingly different from his former habit of engaging in a political harangue. He tries to trace in some detail the consequences of the trade boycott. But I think he exaggerated the extent of the damage which confrontation can bring to Singapore when he said that we will suffer a 50 per cent decline of our national income. The Estimates made by the Government were based on recorded statistics of imports and exports and on estimates of national income made each year by the Department of Statistics. The Member for Hong Lim believes that the figures for Indonesian trade have been grossly under-valued for various reasons. I do not agree that in respect of manifested cargo, that is, cargo for which documents are presented to the Import and Export Department, there has been any significant degree of under-valuation, for the simple reason that Singapore is a free port. There are no import duties or export duties on these goods, and there is accordingly no inducement for traders to falsify their declarations. I do not know and I would not hazard a guess as to the accuracy of the documents prepared at the Indonesian end, but our figures of imports and exports are based on documents submitted to the Department of Imports and Exports, although there is a certain amount of unmanifested cargo which goes in small boats or wooden boats or as travellers' personal effects. But I do not think the total amount of such trade amounts to very much. I am very glad to hear from the Member for Hong Lim that it is his earnest hope that we will take measures to ensure that Singapore continues, in his own words, "her old prosperity". This is the first time that he has admitted, unwittingly perhaps, that Singapore has been prosperous under the P.A.P. Government.

Now, the Member for Hong Lim raised ten specific points and I will deal with them in turn. First he proposed that we ask the Federal Government to negotiate with the Indonesian Government for settlement of confrontation. I can assure Members that we have left no stone unturned to secure an honourable settlement on the differences between the Indonesians and us. But as Tun Razak once said, this settlement must be final as it is no use reaching a temporary settlement which can be broken at any time. And nobody will be happier than we will be to see a permanent end to confrontation and the restoration of friendly and honourable relations between Malaysia and Indonesia.

The Member for Hong Lim next proposed that we request the Federal Government to channel goods from various parts of Malaysia to Singapore in order that our factories and traders affected by confrontation can continue their businesses. Now one of the first acts of the P.A.P. Government after confrontation was to put exactly such a request to the Federal Government. A meeting was arranged in Kuala Lumpur more than two months ago at which representatives from all the Malaysian territories were present. Ways and means of ensuring a supply of goods to Singapore were discussed. As a result of this meeting, a Singapore Trade Mission will shortly visit Sabah and Sarawak with a view to increasing the supply of raw materials for those territories. Already some fairly good results have been achieved in respect of copra and we are now working on plans whereby the imports of copra from Sabah and Sarawak may be increased.

The third proposal of the Member for Hong Lim is to waive import duties on Singapore goods entering the other territories of Malaysia. This, in fact, is precisely what the common market is designed to achieve. The machinery for the establishment of the common market is in an advanced degree of preparation, and early next year we should see the first step towards the establishment of a common market taking place.

Now the fourth proposal of the Member for Hong Lim is to reduce licence fees for businesses and factories affected by confrontation. He did not give any details as to what licence fees could be reduced to advantage. As far as I am aware, these licence fees are nominal administrative charges levied by various departments and they are by no means onerous.

The fifth proposal. The Member for Hong Lim also drew attention to the credit squeeze difficulties which merchants involved in Indonesian trade are experiencing, particularly in regard to bank overdrafts. He expects that the credit squeeze will take place on or before the end of December 1963. I have already given attention to this matter and have held discussions with leading bankers on the subject. Their view is that the Indonesian confrontation, far from resulting in a tight money supply to Singapore, will in fact produce an easier credit situation. There is therefore little reason to believe that banks will bring undue pressure to bear upon these merchants towards the end of this year.

The sixth proposal relates to an assurance that the Bank of China will be allowed to continue. Under the terms of the White Paper on Merger, which the Member for Hong Lim had in the past so strenuously denigrated, control over the registration or de-registration of banks rests with the Singapore Government and I have previously given an assurance that the Bank of China will not be closed down. That assurance still stands.

The seventh point of the Member for Hong Lim is that the Government should give an assurance that we will not take reprisals in the way of seizure of properties and assets belonging to Indonesian nationals in Singapore. It is not the practice of the Government to seize assets and properties belonging to private citizens, be they nationals of this country or nationals of other countries, without due process of the law and without adequate compensation. We have taken action to freeze certain external accounts of Indonesian nationals in Singapore banks to ensure that this money will not be used against us. But unlike the Government of Indonesia, we do not regard the arbitrary seizure of properties and assets as a proper policy of Government.

The Member for Hong Lim in his eighth point recommends labour intensive projects. This matter is already in hand and the Minister for National Development is personally taking charge to step up the construction of roads, drains and irrigation canals and other labour intensive projects.

The next two points raised by the Member for Hong Lim relate to public assistance and Housing Board rent concessions. The Government's policy is to assist Singapore citizens in distress and it is for this purpose that substantial sums of money - in fact $1 million a month - are paid out by way of public assistance. As regards Housing Board rent concessions, it must be remembered that while genuine cases have always been viewed with sympathy, there is a limit to the arrears of rent that can be allowed to accumulate.

The final point of the Member for Hong Lim is to request the Governments of Sabah and Sarawak to make a special effort to absorb the unemployed workers in Singapore who have been laid off as a result of confrontation. More than a month ago I have written to the Federal Government with the request that early discussions be commenced on this matter. The Member for Hong Lim will doubtless recollect that under the financial terms of the Malaysian Agreement, which he had so bitterly denounced as being utterly inadequate. Sabah and Sarawak will employ from Singapore half the work force on their development projects financed by money from Singapore.

So all the worth-while proposals which the Member for Hong Lim made in his speech have, in fact, since confrontation, been items of policy of the Singapore Government. Some of these, in fact most of these, have already been made public. I am very pleased to note that the Member for Hong Lim makes it a habit to make a serious study of Government statements in this matter.

For the immediate future there are two practical measures that we must take. There is need to ensure that the workers who are laid off do not suffer abject poverty and penury. And this is the purpose of the economic defence scheme which I have described in my Budget statement last week. The next thing that needs to be done is to ensure that where workers can be re-employed in other industries, this is done in the most expeditious manner possible. The machinery to carry out these two measures has already been set up, and I have laid before the Assembly two Bills to give legislative authority for the Government to implement these measures.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing the Minister for Finance, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that he has been lying. In his reply to the various points raised by the Member for Hong Lim, such as the request to be made to Sabah and Sarawak to absorb Singapore labour, the Minister says that he has taken steps to ensure that Sabah and Sarawak will absorb about half its labour force from Singapore in projects financed by Singapore. I have some facts and figures to show that he has been lying on this point. This is a newspaper of ---

Mr Speaker: Will the Member for Jalan Kayu note that he must not make personal attacks on the conduct of a Minister? I think he has suggested that the Minister has been lying. Please proceed.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): What I am saying is that the Minister concerned has engaged himself in irresponsible talk. I have here the Sin Chew Jit Poh of Sunday, the 8th of December. Mr Stephens of Sabah is reported to have said that he would rather have labour elsewhere than from Singapore. [Interruption] You are all kayu. You are led by the nose by the capitalists and imperialists. [Interruption] You are all blockheads. It is unfortunate that your parents have given birth to people like you. You can see for yourself that this is the Sin Chew Jit Poh of Sunday, 8th December, 1963, page 1 of Malaysian News. According to this news item, there are several measures taken by Sabah; one of which is the application for permits by labourers from outside before they can ever be allowed to enter Sabah and Sarawak. The Sabah Government lays down that any applicant who wishes to be employed in Sabah must already be drawing a salary of $1,200 per month before he can be admitted into Sabah.

Concerning the problem of education, the Minister for Education has been boasting about the number of students in schools. There are still a lot of delinquent urchins in the streets of Singapore. The P.A.P. say that the Barisan Sosialis is running literacy classes to indoctrinate these children. Is it possible to inculcate Communistic ideas into the heads of such young children? As a matter of fact, these young children need others to help them when they mess themselves up. They are not even capable of understanding and the P.A.P. talk of adults in these classes. How can they be indoctrinated by Communistic ideas? All that I can say is that this talk of Communism only goes to show that the Ministers and Backbenchers of the P.A.P. are suffering from the Communist phobia, and that is why they always indulge in accusing others of being Communists. They even say that children are capable of accepting Communism. What absurd talk!

Let me now touch on the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I know that this speech has been drafted by some Political Secretaries in conjunction with some Permanent Secretaries in Government service. There is nothing new in the speech. I fully support the amendment, moved by my colleague, to the motion in the name of the Prime Minister. As time passes, the validity of the opposition of the Barisan Sosialis to Malaysia can he proved. We oppose Malaysia out of our patriotism and love for our country. There are facts to refute the allegation that we are loyal to foreign powers. As a matter of fact, the British imperialists and colonialists have in a very cunning way made use of the local stooges to look after their vested interests and these stooges have fallen into the trap of the Fascists. They are making use of "white terror" to deal a blow to those who are opposed to imperialistic colonialism. Malaysia has brought disaster to this region, and the P.A.P. are running away from such realities. Instead of squarely facing such realities, they are shifting the blame to others. They accuse those who oppose Malaysia of being Communist and anti-nationalist elements. They brand them as stooges of foreign powers. They do this in order to put the blame for the bad consequences of Malaysia on other people. Malaysia has brought about some unrest and greater unemployment in Singapore. There has been a trade recession in Singapore as a result of Malaysia brought about by the P.A.P. It is not the result, as the Minister for Labour has accused us, of the action of the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. are not only indulging in "white terror", but they are also pretending to make use of the open argument to deceive the people into believing that they are democratic. The open argument has been harped upon time and again over the last few years. But what are the facts? The facts are that they control the Press, with all the advantages of the publicity machinery, and this has been used by the Government against the population. There have been arrests of trade union leaders and the suppression of the Opposition. All these facts show that they have departed from their policy of the open argument. If you really want the open argument, then you must not have any control over the freedom of association of the people, the trade unions and other civic organisations. They should not restrict others from making speeches freely if they really believe in the open argument. If they still say that they believe in the open argument, then they should allow others to publish their statements freely in the newspapers. They should not control the newspapers. As a matter of fact, statements issued by the people, other than P.A.P. statements, are usually not given any space in publications. How can you then say that there is in existence the open argument? So far as understand, the so-called Communists described by the P.A.P. are none other than their political opponents. The so-called Communists referred to by the P.A.P. are none other than the true patriots like us in the Barisan Sosialis. All that the new Members over there can do now is to describe their political opponents as Communists and then put the blame on them. That amounts to giving a dog a bad name and hang it. These are the tactics adopted by the British against their political opponents. The Communist Party was declared an illegal organisation. They were in opposition to Japanese aggression after the Second World War. They then rose to oppose British colonialism and, as a result, they were declared an illegal Party by the British Government. From that time onwards all patriots have been described as Communists by the British Government which was then in Singapore. Now the P.A.P. are using the same tactics against their political opponents. [Interruption] Look at yourselves. You have changed your allegations against the Barisan Sosialis. When we were first organised as the Barisan Sosialis, you described us as the open-front organisation of the Communists getting directions from Indonesia. Later on you said that we were receiving instructions from Russia. Then you changed and said we were pro-Communists, pro-Indonesia and what not. You start changing your stories from time to time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Inche A. Rahim Ishak): On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): There is no time for me to give way. Yesterday the Minister for Labour used the word "slavish" ---

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): On a point of order.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong resumed his seat.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: The Member for Jalan Kayu said that I am a slave. I think that is unparliamentary language. Under no circumstances have I ever been a slave, and I require an apology from him.

Mr Speaker: I think he said that you talked about slaves. I do not think he called you a slave.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: In Mandarin it says "behave like a slave". [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: That is out of order. We have only about ten minutes. [Interruption] Order. Please allow the Member for Jalan Kayu to finish his speech. Please proceed

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Thank you for your direction. Yesterday they changed their usual stand. All their speeches were mainly concentrated on the argument that we were to be blamed for the disasters and failures and all the bad consequences that have been brought about through Malaysia. In other words, they are saying that all these evil consequences have been brought about through the instigation of the Barisan Sosialis in persuading the Indonesian Government to boycott us. They are saying that all this has been brought about by our instigation and collaboration with the Indonesian Government. Mr Speaker, why should the P.A.P. make such speeches? They twist the facts. It is because they cannot disclose what they are doing to the people. That is why they are making such sophisticated talk. That is why they are putting the blame on us for Indonesia's confrontation against Singapore. In the past Right-wing elements in Indonesia were directed by the U.S. imperialists and they started anti-Chinese moves in Indonesia. They thus caused dissatisfaction among the Chinese population in this region. The P.A.P. have been using this tactic in order to make the people have doubts about us. Now they are trying to put the blame for the bad consequences of Malaysia on us.

Mr Speaker, Sir, neo-colonialism after the formation of Malaysia, according to the Government report, has caused economic losses to Singapore amounting to 8.7 per cent of our national income and about 8,000 workers are affected by Indonesia's confrontation policy. According to my information, these figures are not correct. The prosperity of Singapore has been brought about as a result of smuggling between the two countries. We have to depend more on Indonesia. These smuggling activities have been curtailed by confrontation. The sudden change in the economic situation has caused a loss of more than 8.7 per cent and the number of workers unemployed is more than what the Minister has made it out to be. As far as I know, the workers affected number about 50,000. All this has been due to the P.A.P.'s subservience to their colonial masters in taking their directions. It is you who have brought about these consequences and you must bear the responsibility.

Now I want to talk on other points made in the policy speech. The Government taxes the people and therefore it should be obliged to provide social amenities and social facilities for the people. Since the people are obliged to pay taxes, they should then have the right to enjoy social benefits and facilities. These are not free gifts. Because of limitation of time, I would like to try to shorten my speech.

I will now deal with one important question because my colleagues are also very interested in this question. As a farmer myself, I make my speech on behalf of the farmers. At present, there is a very serious problem faced by the farmers which is caused by the Government's misdeeds and bad policies. This is about the problem faced by poultry farmers; that is, pullorum, a disease of the chickens the spread of which is very serious, and the risk of this disease spreading is very great indeed. Once this disease infects a chicken-shed, thousands of chickens will perish. It is something like cholera, but it is not so serious as this particular disease, which is prevalent in Singapore and causes the farmers much loss. When they went to see the veterinary officers, they were told that the Government at the moment did not have the drugs to prevent the spread of this disease because the Government had put a ban on the import of such drugs. The veterinary officers also said that the disease originated elsewhere. It has been spreading in Singapore for more than one year. This is a very serious problem which the farmers have been faced with. But for more than one year the Government has not tried to do anything to resolve this problem. Does this not go to show that the Government is not really interested in solving this problem in the welfare of the farmers?

Now I would like to touch on some other points. The P.A.P. have all along been stressing and harping on their four objectives, one of which is housing. I will now rebut this. The Prime Minister said that the first objective was to industrialise. But I would like to point out that they are only making propaganda and paying lip service instead of doing the actual work. The plan for industrialisation has been declared for so many years and yet nothing has been done about it. I would like to ask, since there has been so much publicity about industrialisation: how many workers have been employed? To what extent has the unemployment problem been solved? The Government dare not give any reply. I would say that the Jurong industrialisation project is a product of neo-colonialism because the neo-colonialists are making use of this project to control our economy through a new tactic. I would say that since this industrialisation plan is controlled by the neo-colonialists it can never succeed. Industrial products will have to depend on available markets. They claim that there is a common market in Malaysia. But before any success can be derived from the common market, there should be economic freedom, without which nothing can be achieved. Now, this common market is designed to enable foreign imports to be free from import duties, and the half-finished products to be assembled locally. It will provide a convenient cover for the interests of the foreign capitalists. Thus after these half-finished products are brought into Singapore and manufactured into consumer goods, they can be exempted from tariffs and other taxes under the cover of so-called industrialisation. This plan is really a design to help the ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the Member please resume his seat? Moment of interruption. Mr Deputy Prime Minister, resumption of debate, what day?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Monday, the 16th of December, 1963.