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

6.21 p.m.

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.'.". -[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).

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

Mr Speaker: As I have indicated before, the debate can range over the whole of the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara as well as over the amendment. Other than the mover of the original motion, that is to say, the Prime Minister, the Members who have already spoken on this debate will not be allowed to speak once again. Those who have as yet not spoken will be given a chance to speak. When last we adjourned this debate, the Member for Jalan Kayu had the Floor. Will he indicate whether he wishes to carry on or whether he had finished his speech then?

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the past one week the debate in this House has revealed several matters and facts. I will talk about these facts. The first fact is to show that the reactionaries in Singapore and Malaya have been led by the nose by the British, who imposed Malaysia on the people here, resulting in difficulties and hardships. All these can be seen from the evasive attitude of the Ministers.

The second fact is that the P.A.P. resort to dirty tactics. They are opportunists and they dare not face realities brought about by Malaysia. They are making use of propaganda and other tactics to put the blame on the Barisan Sosialis. This is a very low tactic and is despicable.

The third fact is that the Prime Minister is dreaming of the P.A.P. being able to supersede the M.C.A. in the Federation. This can be seen from his speeches when he came back from London. When he came back from London, he said that it was only the P.A.P. who could fight the Communists. It is very low and mean of them to appease the British and curry their favour.

Another point is that this House is full of foul words. Every now and then they talk about Communist bogeys. Even their Back-benchers indulge in such low tactics. The P.A.P. dare not face the Central Parliament. Therefore, they have to resort to the use of the Communist bogey. We hope the Ministers and the Party in power will be calm in their attitude and to discuss with us how to urge the Central Government to resolve the differences between Indonesia and Malaysia. They should not play party politics and bring hardship on the people of Singapore. These are the characteristics of the debate in the past few days.

Now, let me talk about what the Prime Minister has said. In moving his motion, the Prime Minister has said that when the Yang di-Pertuan Negara came to this House to deliver his speech there was no gun salute. That means that the power has been shifted to the Federation. It is not the shifting of the power, but the sell-out of our power.

The people of Singapore are very concerned about this power. They are not concerned about the question whether there should be a gun salute when the Yang di-Pertuan Negara comes to this House. What the people in Singapore are concerned about is their citizenship problem; whether there is equality on the issue of citizenship, whether there is equality in their political rights, whether their present problems and their livelihood can be solved or not. These are the questions which our people are concerned about. But we find that the Government Ministers and their Back-benchers dare not face stark realities. Their speeches tend to evade the fundamental problems affecting the people's livelihood. Instead, they use all sorts of epithets to cover up their sell-out of the interest of the people of Singapore. And they try to describe Singapore as a paradise in South-East Asia. I want to reiterate what I have said in the past. That is, what we have said and done is right. They are motivated by our desire to look after the interests of the people. We have said that Malaysia was brought about by colonialism and imperialism to replace the so-called divide-and-rule policy of the past colonial regime. This divide-and-rule policy can be seen in other territories as well. We are able to see that Singapore has been going backwards, retrogressing, politically and constitutionally. Mr Speaker, in the past the people of Singapore made great sacrifices to secure a semi self-governing status for Singapore. If the Government could be united with the people and continue with this kind of struggle in order to achieve full internal self-government, then it would be very good But, regrettably, after the establishment of Malaysia, the ruling clique in Singapore has collaborated with the Central Government in surrendering all the rights and interests to the Central Government, thereby resulting in the people of Singapore losing equality in the economic and political fields and other rights. In the past the Prime Minister told us that we would get equality and a fair chance in respect of citizenship rights. Since the citizens from the Federation of Malaya could come to Singapore, we should also be allowed to go to Malaya to take part in all sorts of activities. Otherwise it would be a kind of sell-out.

Judging from the present situation, Singapore's position is one that is being ruled. We are losing our natural rights, and in the end Singapore will become a colony of the Federation. At present we have only obligations and duties. We have no rights in return. We have the obligation to pay taxes but we have no right to receive anything out of these taxes. The Ministers and Government Back-benchers have never dared to mention this question. According to the Prime Minister, we have stepped into a new phase in our history in achieving independence through merger with Malaya. This kind of phrase has been used to deceive the people. It is used as a kind of propaganda to deceive the people. Malaysia has been brought about by the British in collaboration with the Federation of Malaya. It was also abetted by the P.A.P. Government. Malaysia has been brought about through the joint efforts of the three Parties. They even went to the extent of resorting to force to bring about Malaysia. They arrested anti-Malaysian nationals in order to achieve their purpose. Now that these people in Sabah and Sarawak have been arrested, they have now come to Singapore to arrest these people. The Prime Minister should admit these facts. They talk about the United Nations Investigation Commission to the Borneo territories to inquire into the wishes of the people in regard to the establishment of Malaysia. In fact, they were only sent there after the Malaysia plan had been conceived and even carried out. If the result showed that the people did not agree to merger and Malaysia, then what would be their next step? We know their tactics. Ngo Dinh Diem could remain as the President even though the majority of the people hated him. So this does not show that if you have a certain amount of votes you have the support of the people, because the Government has control over the election machinery. It does not show that if you are in power you have the support of the people. It does not also mean that the results of the U.N. Investigation Commission have reflected the true wishes of the people there.

Therefore, the series of incidents consequent upon the establishment of Malaysia go to explain why the British and the P.A.P. wanted to bring about Malaysia as quickly as possible. Their motive was clear to all. There are many reasons for them to do so. I will just mention a few evil things that they have done. Many members of our Party have been arrested. Even our Assemblymen have been arrested. These are some of the evils that they have done in collaboration with the colonialists and reactionaries. Some are forced to go into hiding. I believe that if Government were to bring them to open court for a trial, they would not run away. They have smeared us as rioters in the past. Yet we did not run away. These people who have now been arrested are innocent. If you were to set up a court and bring them to open trial, would they run away? I believe they would not run away. They would come out courageously to face the trial.

Certain civic organisations have been banned by the Government on the pretext that they are pro-Communist. This is also another deception. The real reason is that these bodies are actually looking after the interests of the people. They are in very close contact with them. Their relationship with the people is very good since they are furthering the interests of the people. Since you are anti-people and jealous of their good relationship with the people, you have no other alternative but to ban these organisations in order that you might gain something out of the situation. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Would the Member address the Chair and not Members of the Government? Would Members of the Government allow the Member to proceed in silence? Please proceed.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, it is said that these organisations are traitors. They say they are engaged in subversive activities. If that is the case, how can they receive so much support from the people? If they are traitorous, the people will know about this - [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: The Member has not even got up on his feet for 30 seconds before he is interrupted. Please proceed.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we can say that a traitor will be hated by the people. You do not have to arrest him because wherever he goes he will be ostracized and despised by the people. He will die a natural death.

Following these arrests, the P.A.P. Government launched other arrests such as the arrests of Nanyang University students and other people. They are thus causing panic among them in order to achieve their aim of destroying Chinese education. They also want to bring about a general reign of terror among the people.

The next step was to take action against the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Singapore because he was not so obedient to the P.A.P. We can see this very clearly from the newspapers. Mr Tan Lark Sye, who has been supporting Nanyang University with all his might and wealth, was deprived of his citizenship by the P.A.P. Government.

Mr Speaker: There is a Legal Committee going into the question of Mr Tan Lark Sye's citizenship. Before the Member goes any further, he must not make any comments on matters which are sub judice.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. I will not touch on that. I merely want to show that a millionaire is not a Communist. Since the case is being heard in camera the people will not know about it. Otherwise I would not have mentioned it. Do they think that by their action in suppressing the people ---

Mr Speaker: The English translation seems to have broken down. I am sorry to have to interrupt the Member. Please proceed.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): So no matter how much the Prime Minister and the Ministers may evade their responsibilities and put the blame on the Central Government, they cannot escape the results of their responsibilities and actions. All these have been brought about by them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on the fancies of our Singapore Prime Minister who dreams about becoming the Prime Minister of Malaysia. From his speeches recently we could see that he had been indulging in souring up the good relationship between the M.C.A. (Malaya) and U.M.N.O. in order to achieve his purpose of becoming the Prime Minister of Malaysia. We and even the Tunku himself could see through his intrigues. The Tunku is not a fool. We can make an assessment of the political development and the situation in Singapore and Malaya. His hopes can never materialise, because, first of all, the interests of M.C.A. (Malaya) and U.M.N.O. leaders are closely related. The Prime Minister cannot achieve his purpose.

The second point is that some of these P.A.P. Assemblymen have come from U.M.N.O. Before the P.A.P. was a political power, the U.M.N.O. and the Singapore People's Alliance had had an agreement between them.

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap: (In Malay): On a point of order. This does not relate to the present debate.

Mr Speaker: The debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech is very wide. It covers so much ground. It is difficult to say what is relevant or irrelevant. But on this particular matter, I rule that the Member for Jalan Kayu is being relevant. Please proceed.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Even the Tunku can remember these facts and they cannot be obliterated and denied. The Singapore Prime Minister's fancy to become the Prime Minister of Malaysia is really his own personal fantasy, because at the moment all the rights and powers of the people of Singapore are already in the hands of the Federation. The people of Singapore have been deprived of every right and power. Unless the Prime Minister can stay in the Federation for about ten years to get citizenship papers from the Federal Government, he has no chance of seizing power and becoming the Prime Minister of Malaysia. I would like to tell you this fact. His fancy will lead him nowhere. In the end he will get nothing.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Jalan Kayu has repeated three times that the Prime Minister desires to become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Can we go on to something else? He is repeating himself here. I think he has made his point clear. Please do not repeat but get on to some other matter.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I was trying to persuade the Prime Minister not to indulge in fantasy by enumerating facts and events and I was putting forward my arguments for his benefit. If the P.A.P. have a brother party in the Federation of Malaya like the Socialist Front, then perhaps there can be a political future for them in the Federation. But since the Socialist Front and those in the socialist camp have kicked them out and have condemned them as stooges of neo-colonialists, they therefore cannot achieve their ultimate aim of seizing power in the Federation. The most important thing is that the British have now found that the Tunku is more capable of looking after British interests in this part of the world than the P.A.P., otherwise they might have a chance.

Mr Speaker, let me now touch on some of the utterances made by the Minister for Labour. The Minister for Labour has been rather unique in his speeches in the last few days ---

Mr Speaker: Order. We are not debating the Minister for Labour or what the Minister has said for the last three days. We are debating the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and the amendment to the speech. Can the Member leave the Minister for Labour alone and what he has said in this Assembly? Otherwise we will go on to that. I have tried before to prevent personal attacks.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is because the Minister for Labour had attacked us after we moved this amendment. So I am just going to deal with several points in his speech to show his hooliganism. The Minister for Labour appears to be a good candidate for Assistant Anti-Communist Minister of the Ministry of Culture. His speeches are full of grandmother's talk. And in this respect he is similar to the Minister for Culture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I greatly suspect that because the Minister for Labour has been successful in this respect, he has been able to become a Minister. This is very welcome to and appreciated by the British, because the present Minister for Labour has learnt well from the Minister for Culture in calling others Communists.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Mr Sia Kah Hui): On a point of order. The Member should not be talking about the Minister for Labour, but he has been for the last two or three minutes talking about the Minister for Labour and nothing else.

Mr Speaker: We are not discussing the Minister for Culture or the Minister for Labour. I appreciate the Minister for Labour has spoken on this debate. The Member for Jalan Kayu may, if he likes, make references to what the Minister has said in his speech on this debate, but otherwise please make no references. So he is not in order in attacking. Can we get on to the subject matter of the debate?

The Prime Minister: On a point of order. Perhaps we may be of some assistance to the Member for Jalan Kayu if a short adjournment is given so that he can rearrange the paragraphs, otherwise he will have to proceed according to what was planned for him.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. Please proceed, Mr Tan.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, here is a newspaper of the 10th of December. Here you have a full coverage of the speech by the Minister for Labour on this page and on the other page [Indicating]. So I am going to quote, if I want to quote from the newspapers, it will take a lot of time, but I do not desire to do so, i have to point out here, Mr Speaker, that "Communist" is an expression which has been used by the reactionary and colonial elements against patriots of countries all over the world. For example, the British, the Federation, the P.A.P., in order to take action against the national patriots in this part of the world, have resorted to the adoption of this expression. Without using this tactic, they just cannot do anything against the Barisan Sosialis. If they want to have an open trial against us, then we will be acquitted and discharged. Those found guilty will be the P.A.P. - guilty of treason and treachery.

Let me give you some more facts, Mr Speaker. I was talking about Ngo Dinh Diem, who called the nuns and the monks in South Vietnam Communists. Before Lee Kuan Yew became the Prime Minister, he was also called a Communist. You can refer to the back copies of the newspapers. So let me tell you the use of "Communist" against political opponents is the best method ever available. As I have said last week, Mr Speaker, Communists existed in the past. As far as I know, there are no Communists now. The Communists came into existence against the Fascists of the Japanese in Singapore and Malaya. They took up arms against the Japanese and later on against the British in the national interest. Now there are no more Communists. But the Barisan Sosialis, which is a legitimate Party registered according to the law, has also been branded Communist. It is a pity that they have to resort to this means of calling their political opponents Communists. This only goes to show their inability and incompetency.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour said last week that Singapore was a paradise on earth. His talk was full of exaggeration. He described life in Singapore as happy and gay. I give you one illustration. When he has gained the favour of the Prime Minister, of course, his life is happy and gay. Why? Because he gets a salary of $2,500 a month as a Minister and he gets another $500 a month allowance and he has a car.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: On a point of order. The Minister for Labour is getting $2,500 a month salary. What has that got to do with the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech?

Mr Speaker: The Member for Jalan Kayu seems persistently to want to attack the Minister for Labour in spite of my ruling. Please forget the Minister for Labour. Let us get on with the debate. Otherwise there will be further attacks from this side and we go on and on forever. Mr Tan.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just basing my talk on the facts related to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. His speech is full of smears against the Barisan Sosialis. Now, if we cannot explain away their points, that will amount to admitting that the Barisan Sosialis is to be blamed for the confrontation. So, in order to show that they are trying to indulge in humbug propaganda to deceive the people, I wish that you will give me sufficient time, Mr Speaker, to explain the position clearly in order that the people of Singapore will not be misled by the P.A.P.

As the Minister said in his speech, Singapore is a paradise on earth comparable to New York in America, and he says that Singapore is the New York of Malaysia. If you can say, according to facts, that Singapore is the New York of Malaysia, then we will be very happy. Then they try to compare Singapore with Indonesia and say that Indonesia is a hundred times worse off than Singapore, but this is entirely the business of Indonesia. Of course, we wish to have a happier life. We have a chair, we want to have a sofa, that is a natural desire. The people want to improve their livelihood from time to time. That goes without saying. So I am just trying to say that if you want to get the salary of the Minister as the basis to say that Singapore is a paradise, of course, it is true, but true only to the Minister.

There is one other question I wish to ask the Minister for Labour. Why has he seen fit to evade the mention of workers who have to work under the hot and burning sun year in and year out? Why has he failed to mention the fact that these labourers and workers are unable to earn enough to keep their body and soul together, that they are unable to have a decent life? Now, why has he failed to mention all these facts? He should have mentioned taxi-drivers and trishaw riders as the basis in saying whether Singapore is a paradise on earth or not. There is mounting unemployment in Singapore. Students who have passed out from school will go and join the ranks of unemployed labour. There are many graduates from the secondary schools who are still unemployed after years of graduation. Are these not facts?

Mr Speaker, I hope that those people, particularly the Minister for Labour, who say that Singapore is a paradise on earth will go round Singapore Island and see the large number of beggars and shoe-shine boys in the city of Singapore. They have only to sit down in Chinatown and then their legs will be pulled by these shoe-shine boys. Now, why should they do this, why should they behave in this manner? They do so because they are forced by circumstances, because of their miserable life. Are these not facts? If the Ministers do not believe in what I say, they can go to the People's Park for some time; then they will agree with me. If they appreciate these facts, then they will not dare to indulge in the nonsense that Singapore is a paradise on earth.

Then they also stand up, on the other hand, and say that Singapore has not sold out Chinese education. Our colleagues have already mentioned certain points in this regard, but I wish to add to their views. The Minister for Labour drew an analogy by saying that the neighbouring countries were trying to destroy Chinese education and that they were quite successful. But it is a pity that he should have drawn an analogy on this basis. If he is right, then there is no point for the people to struggle for a better life.

I am going to tell you now that the situation regarding education is not as he said. He said that the teachers are getting good salaries, the students are well dressed and well fed. But there is one point which he forgot, that is, the security of employment of some teachers. If they do not get the favour of the Party or the principal, then their jobs will be insecure.

Then there is another point. There are many parents who wish to send their children to aided schools in Chinese, but the vacancies are all taken up. So the only thing that they can do is to go to English schools. Is this not the way by which they take action to destroy Chinese education?

They talk about the outlet of the Chinese school students. They are not fairly treated in so far as employment is concerned. The Senior III graduates even find it difficult to get jobs as teachers in the Chinese schools. This also shows that this is the best way to force children not to go to Chinese schools, to narrow down their outlet in order to divert children to English schools in future.

I am going to mention that the Minister for Labour is full of the colonialistic outlook in his speech. There is one paragraph here in which he says that the amendment moved by the Barisan Sosialis, to urge the P.A.P. to get the Central Government to negotiate with Indonesia, is a means by which we wish to have foreign interference in our local affairs. He goes on to say that if we should abolish all British bases in Singapore tomorrow, then we will become an Indonesian colony. This is what he has said.

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, it appears that the Barisan Sosialis are not debating the speech of His Excellency but the speech by the Minister for Labour. It appears to me that he is being irrelevant to the speech by His Excellency.

Mr Speaker: It is relevant to reply to or make comments on the speeches of Members on the debate in question, provided, as I have said, there are no personal attacks. Please proceed, Mr Tan.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the Back-benchers of the Government have not heard what the Ministers have said and they have not even read the newspapers about what they have said. If they had, they would know that the Ministers' speeches dealt with the amendment. But I will forget about them now and go back to the debate.

Here I wish to say that the speech made by the Minister for Labour was purely in defence of the rule of the British colonialists, because the British colonialists have no locus standi in this Chamber, and so the Minister for Labour has come up to speak in defence of the British colonialists. He becomes the mouthpiece of the British colonial masters.

In the past they were very fond of using such expressions as "anti-national elements" and the rest of it. I think it is more appropriate that such phrases should be used on the P.A.P. Members. It is they who are anti-national, they who are loyal to foreign forces and powers, it is not we in the Barisan Sosialis who are so.

I have a few points to draw your attention to, Mr Speaker. For example, the Minister for Labour said that the people of Singapore will have no chance of getting independence if we should drive away the British because Indonesia is a big power. So if we should drive the British away, the Indonesians will come in and then we will have no chance to become independent. In other words, you must either be ruled by the British or by the Indonesians. That is their argument.

They say Malaysia will bring prosperity. Now this is again another humbug. I will put it the other way round. Malaysia brings neo-colonialism in this part of the world.

The Minister for Labour said also that the British have got bases in Singapore for well over a hundred years. True, nobody can ever deny it. I agree that the British have got bases in Singapore for well over a hundred years, but I must ask - in all these years, what have the British bases in Singapore done? Are they here against possible Indonesian aggression? No. Indonesia became independent only during the last decade. Did the British make use of military power in Singapore to exploit us, economically and politically?

Mr Speaker, the last point that I raise will be of interest to the Minister for Culture. I hope that the P.A.P. will try some means to resolve these differences between Malaysia and Indonesia and improve the trade relationship between the two countries.

First and foremost, why did the Indonesians want to carry out confrontation? According to the Government's report the Indonesians suffer more than we do. I have some doubts whether this is wholly a political matter. Why does Indonesia want to oppose Malaysia? Is it because the first front-line is S.E.A.T.O., and the second front-line is Malaysia which serves to safeguard political and economic interests? If it is so, then we have to review the question of Malaysia in the context of South-East Asia.

While there are countries which want to keep their neutrality, the U.S.A. is trying to safeguard British and U.S. imperialist interests. If they cannot do so, then they will remove Ngo Dinh Diem and company so as to suppress the people. Now, when they fail in these objectives, is this not what they want to carry out in this part of the world, by using Malaysia for their purpose? We should kick out the British imperialists. We do not want them to protect us. We can look after ourselves. If we are peaceful and sincere in our negotiations with Indonesia, I dare say they will not carry on with confrontation, because they suffer more than we do by it.

Another point is that the Indonesians have much experience in getting rid of imperialists. The Dutch were making use of West Irian to sabotage Indonesia and were trying to undermine the social order in Indonesia. That is why Indonesia is afraid that the foreign powers are trying to make use of Malaysia to undermine the security of Indonesia. If this is so, then we must try to bring about negotiations to resolve the differences. They should not indulge in abusive arguments which are not worthy of themselves.

7.18 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): I hope that when the next Barisan Member opposite gets up he will not continue to utter a long string of rubbish ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the Member going to speak on this debate or is every Member, when he gets up, going to make wonderful comments on Members of the Opposition the first thing he does? Get on with the debate. I do not want any more personal attacks, and if you persist, Mr Ng, I am going to stop you before you go on further.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw what I have said.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Address of Thanks moved by our Prime Minister on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech on behalf of our Government on Friday, the 29th of November, 1963. Furthermore, it is my most sincere hope that this House unanimously express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

The Barisan Sosialis Members, in the course of their speeches, have made countless repetitions of false allegations against the People's Action Party Government. Their speeches were more or less similar and sometimes identical in many respects, so much so that we on the Government benches wondered whether the Barisan Sosialis speakers were attempting to out-read one another. However, these repetitions only revealed that they have nothing concrete to say apart from glorifying Indonesia, and that they are still consoling themselves and nursing their wounds which they suffered at their unbelievable and miserable defeats in the general elections last September.

The Barisan Sosialis Members have tried vigorously to shift the blame on to the P.A.P. Government for the unemployment and the Indonesian confrontation which has resulted in an 8.7 per cent drop in our economy. It is actually the Barisan Sosialis who are to be responsible for these external threats. No one in his proper senses can forget or deny that Indonesia supported Malaysia when it was first brought up. But when Indonesia saw that anti-nationalist and pro-Communist elements both in Singapore and Sarawak were opposed to Malaysia, they were led into believing that Malaysia would fail and could easily be crushed. Consequently they mounted a confrontation policy against Malaysia. All these were brought about through the instigations of the Communist Barisan Sosialis; as a result of which trade relations between Indonesia and Singapore were severed, thereby causing a drop of 8.7 per cent in our State's economy and rendering a few thousand workers jobless. Our Government, however, took the unprecedented step together with the employers concerned to pay a two-third's salary compensation for six months for each worker affected so as to enable the worker to look for another job in the meantime.

As a new nation, Malaysia today has to face both external threats and pressures. But if Malaysia is to survive and flourish, then I say it is the paramount duty of every citizen in Malaysia to be ever loyal to our nation. In fact, the Indonesian confrontation has done us a great service in further uniting the people.

I was happy, Mr Speaker, Sir, when I observed Barisan Sosialis Members taking their oaths of allegiance on 22nd October, 1963, but today I am sadly mistaken. Why is this so? Because it grieves me to see that on the one hand they swear allegiance and collect their $500 monthly allowance as Assemblymen, but on the other hand they condemn Malaysia as a British-inspired neo-colonialist concept imposed on the people. But can the ten million people in Malaya, Singapore, Borneo and Sarawak be wrong in wanting to have Malaysia? After taking their oaths, the Barisan Sosialis Members have never at any time admitted that Malaysia exists. They only talk of Singapore and Malaya. Let me once again remind them that anyone who actively aids and abets aggression against his own nation is a traitor and for that ---

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Punggol has bud occasion to remember that I stopped the Minister for Culture from calling the Opposition traitors. So please refrain from doing the same thing.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I put it this way: let me once again remind them that any man who actively aids and abets aggression against his own nation will be severely punished. The Communist Barisan Sosialis Members opposite have not answered our questions put to them. I therefore challenge them to answer the questions again. (a) On whose side are they - on the side of Malaysia or Indonesia? (b) Do they want things to get better between Malaysia and Indonesia, or do they want them to get worse? And (c) What they have said over the past week on confrontation and loss of Indonesian trade, is it going to make things better or worse for Singapore?

On the education policy of the State, the Member for Jurong alleged that our Government is trying to destroy Chinese education and culture, and asked why there is such a marked difference in the proportion of students in the four streams of education. The allegations are absolutely not true. In fact, our Government is trying to raise the standard of Chinese education in Singapore; also it is a fact universally acknowledged that equal treatment of education is accorded to the four streams of education in Singapore - namely, Malay, Tamil, Chinese and English. There is also free universal education for six years in primary schools. There is a marked difference in the proportion of students in the four language streams because every parent in Singapore has a right to choose the type of education he wishes his child to pursue, and for that matter they are frightened by the agitation of the Barisan Sosialis in Chinese schools, such as strikes by students and examination boycotts. Every year more than 40,000 children are registered for education in primary schools in the various language media, and every registered child has a place in school.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is clear proof that the P.A.P. Government gives equal treatment in education. In the P.A.P. 1963 Election Manifesto, it was proposed to implement free secondary education as from 1964, but this proposal has to be postponed due to the setback in the State's economy as a result of Indonesian confrontation, which the Barisan Sosialis proudly claimed in their Party paper that they started. Who are to be blamed for all this? Yes, the Barisan Sosialis of course, for this!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not trying to paint a rosy picture about the PAP. Government's past achievements, for they are all evident; but I have to state the naked facts in answer to some of the wild and empty accusations levelled at our Government by the Barisan Sosialis Members. It is also not our habit to glorify our success.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the rural areas are not forgotten. Rural development projects are taking place in almost every rural constituency. Kampong electrification schemes and street lighting are carried out. More public standpipes are installed; better kampong roads are constructed; bridges spanning canals and streams and many other social amenities are now extended to the rural folks. All these developments are not brought about out of thin air as the Barisan Sosialis have claimed, but by careful calculation and intelligent planning on the part of the Government.

Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I once again urge that for Malaysia to survive and flourish, we must be solidly united and ever loyal to the people of Malaysia - not as the Barisan Sosialis are to the Indonesian Communists. We must be ever alert and continue to carry on the relentless struggle and check against infiltration into schools, trade unions, old boys' associations and other civic organisations by the Communist united front cadres. We must not allow ourselves to believe that all important activities beyond our control have now been shifted from this Chamber to the Federal Parliament in Kuala Lumpur, and that we can sit back and relax; but we must persist vigorously in our constant and unyielding efforts to bring about a prosperous society through careful planning of the political, social and economic policies. Only in this way can we win the ultimate battle for democracy in Malaysia.

Mr Speaker: As I have said, I notice that only two Opposition Members have not spoken. I do not want the position to arise where all Members of the Opposition have spoken and we will then have only Government Members to speak on and on. So for this reason I am letting Mr Rajaratnam take the Floor.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first business session of our Assembly and it is an occasion when every Party - the Government and Opposition Parties - sets the course for the next few years and for the future. So, I would like, as I said sometime ago, to give in all sincerity and without any sarcasm on my part - the Opposition some friendly advice.

Sir, listening to them with regard to this amendment, I have a distinct feeling that they have not thought out the consequences to themselves collectively and individually if they were to vote for this amendment, which they have been instructed to bring into this Chamber. So I propose to convince them, so far as it is possible for me to do so, that by voting for this amendment they are going to be trapped into a course of action fraught with a greater danger than what their predecessors encountered. I hope that for their own good and welfare, they will give more serious consideration than their predecessors did to our prognosis of what is in store for them.

Sir, on 23rd November, 1961, when merger was discussed for the first time, and when we on the Government side gave our reasons why we thought that the Communist and Barisan Sosialis effort to halt Malaysia would fail and end in disaster, there were many Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen then who laughed. May I quote, Sir, the concluding portion of my speech which I made on 23rd November, 1961? It is in Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 7, cols. 547 and 548:

`Anyway, it is my contention that the Barisan Sosialis have miscalculated for the reasons which I have indicated. Today in this debate it will be possible for the Members of the Barisan Sosialis to dismiss them as fairy tales. They can dismiss our contention today ..... that the Barisan Sosialis is fighting the M.C.P. battle against Malayan nationalism as a fairy tale. But there will come a time very soon when merger is finally realised and the M.C.P. gives the signal to launch a do-or-die offensive. [This was said, Sir, two years ago] ... When that time comes, the battle lines will be clearly drawn. There will be no equivocation then, because there will be no no-man's-land. There will only be a thin red line dividing the forces of Malayan nationalism from the anti-nationalist forces.

I said then:

`When this battle comes, there will be no rescue parties, because all the contestants will be in the battle-field taking position on this or that side of the line.'

This prognosis was made two years ago. At that time the Barisan Sosialis laughed it off as P.A.P. bravado. They then jeered back and claimed that, on the contrary, it was the P.A.P. who would be washed away by the wrath of the masses. At that time, they were flushed with the victory which they obtained at Anson by the betrayal of one of their own colleagues. I may in passing say that this act of political betrayal by the Communists has been thrice avenged. The Member for Kampong Kapor, whom they stabbed in the back, has been returned to this Assembly! We have also regained the seat that we lost in Anson! And finally, the man whom the Communists put into power at Anson has not only lost his seat, but also his deposit!

Sir, at that time in November 1961, the Communists were so confident of their strength that our warning of why they could not halt merger was disregarded. May I, Sir, make one last quotation from the prediction I made then? I also prophesied in the speech which I made two years ago that some people in the Barisan Sosialis and - I quote:

`.... can opt out of the battle in the nick of time, provided they get their timing right. I understand, Sir, that some people are already passing the word around that they may cease being students of politics to take up law or medicine abroad.'

Well, Sir, that has come to pass.

Mr Speaker: Order. Can the Minister get back to the debate? He has spoken on his previous announcements and on two gentlemen. Unless he can satisfy me that all that is relevant, I think he should press on.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, what I would like to say is this. Once again, the same decision that their colleagues made in November 1961 will have to be made today by the seven Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen and their friends outside this Chamber. It is my contention that being anti-Malaysia before 16th September of this year is something different from being anti-Malaysia after 16th September. This is because, to use a Marxist term, there is a "qualitative" difference between being anti-Malaysia before 16th September of this year and today. I think it is necessary for them to understand that, because, as I shall try to show, this adventure that they are embarking upon is one that involves great risk. Before 16th September, opposition to Malaysia was at least superficially an internal political struggle. There was a legitimate difference of opinion between Malaysians as to whether Malaysia should be set up and whether Malaysia and merger had the approval of the people. Therefore, the Barisan Sosialis could have then claimed that in campaigning against merger and Malaysia during the referendum and during the general election, they were engaged in a perfectly legitimate, constitutional, and possibly patriotic struggle. And the price of defeat then, Sir, was at best a loss of political face and of seats. But today, as I have said, there is a qualitative change. Malaysia has been set up with the consent of the vast majority of the people. This fact has been endorsed not only by the elections in Singapore, Sabah and Borneo, but also by a U.N. survey team. What is more important, Sir, is that Malaysia has been accepted internationally as a political reality. Despite the intense lobbying by the Indonesians in the United Nations, the vast majority of the 113 nations who compose the United Nations have accepted Malaysia as an independent political entity. Hon. Members opposite also know that the Russians, the Communist countries - everybody - voted for Malaysia to share a seat in the Internal Security Council of the United Nations. This is a very important position. Malaysia shares the seat with Communist Czechoslovakia. Therefore, internationally Malaysia is accepted as an independent nation. All these people who say that it is a neo-colonialist plot are ignorant because the 113 members of the United Nations know that, by the rules of the United Nations, no country, except an independent country, can be accepted as a member. In passing, Sir, may I also observe that when our Ambassador in Washington sent out invitations to celebrate Malaysia Duty, many East European Communist countries attended the function to celebrate Malaysia Day? Therefore, Malaysia is accepted nationally and internationally. It is a political entity, an independent State. May I also point out that the eight Barisan Sosialis Members took the oath of allegiance to Malaysia? So everybody has accepted that constitutionally and legally Malaysia is a State. Therefore, in persisting in their anti-Malaysia struggle, the Barisan Sosialis are now dedicated to the destruction of an established Malaysian State, a State to which they have sworn loyalty, and which the vast majority of Malaysians support, and which is now recognised by the United Nations. That is one qualitative difference in the anti-Malaysia struggle before and after 16th September.

I hope the Barisan Sosialis will carefully follow my next step of the argument because literally - Sir, I am not talking metaphorically - it is a matter of life and death to them if they do not know the distinction. They may accept or reject the essence of my speech, but they do so at their peril. If they persist in their anti-Malaysia struggle today, the stakes involved are pretty high. The stakes are not Assembly seats or loss of political face, but the stakes involved this time are not only their patriotism, their loyalty to the country and its people, but also their lives. To put it bluntly, Sir, the anti-Malaysia line today, i.e. after 16th September, must lead logically and inevitably to acts of treason. "Treason" is not used in the rhetorical sense of the word, Sir, but in its legal and constitutional sense. I would like to read the relevant portion on offences against the State. It is the Penal Code (Cap. 121):

`Whoever wages war against the Queen [this now means the State of Malaysia] or attempts to wage such war or abets the waging of such war shall be punished with death, or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine.'

Sir, I am not being frivolous about this. For the first time I do not want to taunt them unnecessarily because this is a serious step they are contemplating - today or tomorrow, when they have to vote on their own amendment. I shall try to convince them that it is a trap or a noose set around their necks by the men who manipulate them. Sir, my thesis today is this: to fight or to try to overthrow Malaysia is logically to involve themselves in an act of treason; the Barisan Sosialis must become a party to treason.

Sir, those who direct the Barisan Sosialis - I am not interested in the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen because they have been talking all sorts of frivolous things, but the people who really run them - have analysed the situation and have decided that the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists of Malaya cannot capture power in Malaysia either by violence or by constitutional means within the foreseeable future. Here is evidence of that, Sir; as you know, the M.C.P. were engaged in an armed revolution for eight or nine years, and failed. And they have admitted this failure. In fact, I would refer the Barisan Sosialis not to my thesis but to a statement called Ends and Means of Socialism which Mr Fong Swee Suan and Mr Lim Ching Siong among others signed. These two gentlemen, together with Mr Devan Nair and Mr Puthucheary, and others, showed logically why it would be impossible within the foreseeable future for the M.C.P. to capture power by violence in Malaya and Malaysia. This is even more important, Sir - Chin Peng at the Baling Talks admitted that much. When the Tunku put a point-blank question to Chin Peng, "Do you, Mr Chin Peng, regard me as a British stooge?", the reply of Chin Peng as contained in the White Paper was, "No, Tunku. I regard you as a leader of Malayan nationalism." This is the biggest admission by the leader of the armed revolt, a man far more intelligent and far more dedicated than any of these gentlemen - that the Malayan armed revolt had failed. [Laughter] Sir, the Member for Jalan Kayu is laughing. I ask him to read the memorandum contained in The Battle for Merger, which is an analysis by Lim Ching Siong. It is a very important and a very intelligent analysis - why it is impossible for the Malayan Communist Party ever to capture power in Malaya by violence. So, Sir, armed violence is out.

In the recent elections and the referendum we have proved another point - that the Communists cannot capture power by constitutional means in Malaysia. So it is out - the M.C.P. cannot capture power by violence or by constitutional means. The referendum has shown it: the recent elections have shown it.

What then becomes the role of the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists in Malaya? They cannot capture power by constitutional means or by violent means So what is their role? That brings me to the third step of my argument - that the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis can capture power only by aid of foreign arms. This, Sir, again is not a wild allegation on my part. I say that the role that has been allotted to them by their masters, who are manipulating them either here or in Indonesia, is the role of Quislings or Wang Ching-wei. It is not because these people relish that situation but because they have no choice. The only way the Communists can survive is at the point of foreign bayonets. In fact, Sir, the real leaders who write their speeches which are delivered here by their representatives knew as far back as January 1962 before confrontation started - and the Barisan Sosialis are aware of this - that armed intervention must take place in order to break up Malaysia. Many of us will remember, Sir, that in January 1962 the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Lim Ching Siong, held a mass rally long before confrontation came into the picture. He said, "We realise that the moment is coming when we too will receive the support and help of other peace-loving people to free us from colonial domination." Where? You can look around, Sir. Obviously it is not America, not Britain, not China as it is too far away, not Russia. Which country is the peace-loving country?

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Across the Indonesian Ocean.

Mr Rajaratnam: Indonesia. In 1962, Sir, which is over a year ago, the Barisan Sosialis, or at least those who manipulate the Barisan Sosialis, were preparing for the time when foreign bayonets must save the situation and continue the anti-Malaysia struggle. Again, in April 1963, that was before the old Assembly went to the polls, there was a debate here when Dr Lee Siew Choh, who always reads other people's speeches, ended his speech in this Assembly with the following warning. He had lost the referendum and he knew what was coming; his masters knew what was coming. He said:

`If the last door to constitutional struggle is closed to the people, then there can remain hut one final answer, i.e. the British and the P.A.P. rein in their horses on the brink of the precipice and turn back before it is too late.'

What was he saying? He said that if Malaysia went through, that meant the constitutional battle was lost and there must be other means. What means? Dr Lee Siew Choh is not going to lead violence. He is a good chess player, I am told, and a bad rugger player. He cannot lead violence. Who then? Indonesia.

Sir, I could give other quotations. Therefore, Sir, today this is their course - the course of treason is inevitable. This amendment, Sir. All right, these were mistakes of the past. This is the first business session of the Assembly. And this amendment. What does it prove? Does it prove that the Barisan have changed, and realised, from their mistake, that it was a folly to fight Malaysia? No, Sir. Here is the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and an amendment is put. When a Party puts an amendment, it means that that is the subject which it holds most dear. They say that they are Malaysians, shedding tears about the suffering of the people, about housing, roads, electricity and kampong people. But what is the amendment they have put here? Is it related to housing, roads, houses for the people, sufferings of the poor? It is an amendment that relates to the problems of Indonesia. Let me read how it is worded, the way in which it is worded. I do not think it is worded by them. I will tell them why it has been worded in this way. It says:

` "; but this Assembly regrets that the Government in helping to impose Malaysia...." '.

Sir, nobody believes that Malaysia has been imposed. There was a referendum and an election. But this is an Indonesian argument. It is being put here because this amendment is going to be reported in Indonesia to give the impression to the Indonesian people that there is agitation and a fight against Malaysia, and therefore they can sustain their anti-Malaysia agitation in Indonesia.

Finally, Sir, time is short. They must think why they have been forced to bring this amendment here. Why have they been forced? They know the amendment is going to be defeated. So why do they bring it? The amendment will bring them into greater disrepute. The people will know that this is a pro-Indonesian amendment. It will not be of great advantage to the Barisan Sosialis. I will tell you why, Sir. Their masters, knowing full well that the course of the anti-Malaysia struggle must lead to acts of treason, carrying penalties which I have read out, want to ensure that these friends of theirs do not wriggle out when the moment of danger comes. Once these people have publicly committed themselves to this pro-Indonesian amendment, there is no retreat. That is what they want. They are helping to put a noose around their own necks.

Sir, may I conclude by a little quotation from The Revolutionary Catechism which has been praised by Lenin and which constitutes part of the organisational style of Communism? One of the first things they should note, Sir, is a piece of advice from the Revolutionary Catechism:

`All real revolutionaries should have second and third string revolutionaries under their command, i.e., they must be able to control those who are not yet completely initiated. These lower members of the revolutionary order should be regarded as revolutionary capital placed at their disposal. When a comrade is in danger it may be necessary to determine whether he is expendable.'

Sir, after listing the various categories of people who should be expended, they mention the fifth category which should be of great interest to them:

`The fifth category of expendable people consists of compromisers, doctrinaires, conspirators and revolutionaries. Those who orate away at meetings or on paper, they must be constantly driven into ambiguous positions. They must be compelled out into the open and assume real and dangerous tasks. The majority of these will disappear, but of the rest, we shall make genuine revolutionaries.'

This is what is happening to them, Sir, the moment they approve this amendment publicly. They know very well it is going to be defeated. But they are committed. The noose is round their necks. Treason carries the death penalty. Sir, what the confrontation ---

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister is repeating himself now. He talks about treason. He has said it about three times. He talks about their putting the noose around their necks. Can we wind up?

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, it took two years for the former Barisan Sosialis to realise what we said was true. This time, I can assure them, it will not take two years. It may be a matter of months before what I say here will come true. I am prepared to stand by it. I am prepared to quote it to the Gentlemen who may be here or who may not be here, but I can assure them that this prediction will come true, not in two years' time, but in the course of the next few months. What do we read in the newspapers? Confrontation means Indonesian terrorists going to Sabah to blow up things - sabotage. We have read of Indonesian bombers flying over Sabah territory with the bomb doors open. This time there were no bombs. I read in the papers today (this is the final quotation) Soekarno saying that they must solve their economic problems (it is in the Malayan Times today) within three months, which means that economic confrontation obviously is hitting Indonesia so hard that he has given instructions to end the crisis in 90 days, i.e., three months. So if they do not end their crisis in three months, confrontation can mean anything. But what it will mean to the honourable Members opposite is something which I hope they will take into serious consideration, whether by voting for this amendment they are going to set the course to disaster - where the price is very high - or whether, as I have said, they can opt out. Sir, the best time to jump off a moving train is when it has started to move, not when it is travelling at 60 m.p.h. Today the train is moving at 5 m.p.h.; tomorrow at 10 mph.; and then it is time to get off. I can only quote them the banner which I saw in a film called On the Beach, it says, "There is still time, brother." Well, I say, "There is still time, comrade."

7.58 p.m.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know by now what confrontation means to the people of Singapore; what burden it has brought on the shoulders of our people in Singapore - [interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. We have only got one minute.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): This great burden brought about by confrontation clearly means that in so far as Singapore is concerned, the onus of the burden is greater than what it is on the shoulders of the Federation people. As has been admitted, the burden on Singapore, brought about by the Indonesian confrontation policy, can only he solved by the Central Government. That being so, we are clear that the repercussions of confrontation act differently on Singapore and the Federation. So, since the final say lies with the Federation, we, as representatives of the people of Singapore, have the duty to urge the Central Government ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt. But the Member will have the Floor when the debate is resumed. It is the moment of interruption. Will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate the date of resumption?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Tomorrow.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.