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

Debate resumed.

Mr Ong Lian Teng (Bukit Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will continue from where I left off yesterday.

Yesterday, in the Minister for Culture's speech, there was nothing but intimidation, threats and smears. We can see from his speech his despondency and evil intentions. There was nothing in his speech but smears, accusations and fairy tales. He put all the blame on the Opposition side. His speech can be described as reflecting on the P.A.P. He defended the Central Government for all the evils and failures the P.A.P. have perpetrated in the past and for all the repressive and oppressive actions carried out with the abetment of the P.A.P. on the people. The P.A.P. have defended themselves by putting the blame on the Central Government for the arrest of the trade unionists and other progressive elements. Today they use the same tactics; tomorrow they can also resort to the same game and tactics on the people. This has been their usual political practice. But I would like to advise them not to put the blame on the shoulders of others in order to show to the people that they are people of integrity and a Party of integrity.

On the question of policy in regard to the rural areas, the P.A.P. have been following the same past practice - shifting the blame for their failures on to the shoulders of others. All the failures in their rural policy have been shifted on to the shoulders of the Opposition Parties and the pro-masses of the rural people. They have never thought of analysing their failures themselves or realising that they themselves are to blame. They should have revealed their own mistakes but in His Excellency's speech, nothing was mentioned about how the P.A.P. Government could improve the lot and livelihood of the rural people. The P.A.P. have never started anything on concrete grounds and have never paid attention to the realities existing at present. As in the past the P.A.P., have been making use of every available opportunity to achieve their political propaganda purposes. For instance, the Ministers have been using occasions when community centres were declared open by the Ministers, and using the radio and other available opportunities to do publicity for the P.A.P. But our defeated candidates have never resorted to these actions. Some of them are in gaol now. Further, the Prime Minister is now going on another round of rural tours and is trying to change the former Welcoming Committees of the areas, where he toured, into the so-called Citizenship Consultative Committees to help the Government when there are so many rural problems awaiting solution by the Government. Though these questions have not been solved by the Government and the needs of the rural people have not been met, yet the Prime Minister is doing something which will go to strengthen his own political power. There is a grave doubt whether the advice and opinions of the so-called Permanent Citizens Consultative Committee will be listened to by the P.A.P. overlords. And the P.A.P. intend to extend the fields of its activities in the community centres. But the P.A.P. Government have not disclosed the details and the nature of these activities. Does it mean that the P.A.P. intend to use the community centres as clinics or as veterinary stations or as offices for collecting centres for property taxes, or are they to be used as P.A.P. propaganda stations? On the other hand, we see that the P.A.P. are allotting $1 million to be used for the so-called training of leadership to serve P.A.P. purposes. This is another indication of collusion with the Minister for Culture. The Minister for Finance has also said that he would use most of his time to deal with the youths of some other sections. That is the only method of policy he could have in dealing with State matters. This policy of the P.A.P. can only create undesirable consequences in the State.

In the past few years the P.A.P. Government's policy of suppression in the rural areas against the rural people - this sort of activity of the P.A.P. has far exceeded the good it has done to the rural people, and the enthusiasm and efforts of the P.A.P., in helping the foreign capitalists have far exceeded their efforts in helping the people themselves.

The industrialisation policy of the P.A.P. is another humbug. It is a fact that the P.A.P. have been making extensive use of the police and the military to suppress the people and workers generally. The P.A.P. have driven away over 100,000 people from their homesteads without giving them any adequate compensation or properly solving their resettlement problems. This includes Toa Payoh, Kallang, Geylang Serai, Lorong Meng Kong, Bagan Merah, Aljunied, Potong Pasir, Bukit Linchik, Delta, Lim Chu Kang, Lamaji, Choa Chu Kang, the Geylang areas and various other places. People living in these areas are all involved. From November of last year up to this November, the P.A.P. have demolished more than 100 houses and destroyed the vegetable plots of the farmers.

On the question of rural problems, unpleasant incidents have always been caused by the bureaucratic and unreasonable attitude and actions of the P.A.P. They will never listen to the opinions and wishes of the people of the rural areas and the representatives of the people. They are following the line of the Lim Yew Hock Government. They never consider the economic situation of those people who are affected. Do they not know that many of the rural people could not afford to pay high rentals? Do they not know that certain hawkers, after being forced to remove, would be short of finances to start their business anew? Do they not know that certain workers, when they are forced to settle down in areas far away from their places of trade, experience great inconvenience and economic difficulty? Do they not know that the costs of agricultural products would also be affected by removal? There are also other problems such as the difficulties and inconveniences caused to school-going children who are resettled in outlying areas. We should understand when the rural people are faced with enforced removal, they will suffer the loss of their wealth and other possessions and will be faced with new unknown changes which will cause undesirable psychological effects and an unnecessary burden.

If their future livelihood and business could be assured by the Government and if their psychological ill-feelings could be avoided, then I am sure that they would be quite willing to be resettled, otherwise they would have no alternative but to react against their enforced removal and of course to oppose the Government's unreasonable compensation rates. All civic-minded citizens would also demand, on their behalf, adequate and reasonable compensation. This inhuman enforced removal carried out by the P.A.P. is uncalled for.

Mr Speaker: The Member for Bukit Panjang is discussing the rural problem and resettlement on which much has been said in the Budget sittings and by his colleagues in this debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. He should not repeat what the other Members have said, I would ask him to try and get on to some new matter which has not been touched upon by any of his colleagues.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I wanted to say was about the Government's rural policy. They only mentioned the Government's rural policy in passing, but they did not give full details. That is why I would like to add my own points and views.

Mr Speaker: I would ask the Member to accept my ruling and go on to something else.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we can see from the policy speech of the P.A.P. that they do not have a complete education programme for the rural people. The Government should have planned to make use of available land in our State. But have the P.A.P. been using State land?

What about the P.A.P.'s Master Plan? Let us use what the P.A.P. have said to rebut them. In 1959, in their election pamphlets there is a passage saying that the Master Plan drafted by the colonial regime could only satisfy the greed of the great landlords, that, in actual fact, it was not beneficial to the people and that it should be drawn up in accordance with the practical needs of Singapore. Besides this, the P.A.P. also condemned the compensation rates of the Lim Yew Hock Government. But when we look around, we can see that the P.A.P. are out in full force implementing the same Master Plan and the same compensation rates of the Lim Yew Hock Government. Therefore, unpleasant incidents have inevitably occurred. Perhaps the P.A.P. think that building and industrialisation programmes are not compatible with the interests of the rural people and that the interests of the rural people must be sacrificed in favour of industrialisation. That is why they always use terms like "industrialisation" and "housing programmes" to suppress the rural people. Those who oppose their actions are dubbed as anti-national by them. What else can the P.A.P. contribute towards the welfare and interests of the rural people? It is more pitiful to see their persecution of the rural people by making use of the money from the rural people for their other evil deeds. We are of the opinion that the interests of the broad masses of the rural people and those of the workers are compatible with each other. The industrialisation and housing programmes should not contradict each other. In our opinion, these two programmes are not compatible with the interests of the rural people. We have about $400 million in revenue every year, and yet we have to contribute $120 million to the Central Parliament. In addition to this, we have to lend $150 million to the Borneo territories. The P.A.P. further want to use public funds to set up centres to train their own cadres. I say that if these sums of money are used to resettle those who have been forced to remove in a proper way, then this question can be resolved to a certain extent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during these few days, although we have debated the question of rural policy, all our views and opinions have never received any proper answer or reply from the Government Ministers. That is why I feel that it is again necessary to give my viewpoints on rural policy. Because our viewpoints on rural problems have not been published in the newspapers, that is why I feel it necessary to touch on it again in this House.

Mr Speaker, once more I tell the P.A.P. that their suppression of the rural people far exceeds the help given to the rural people.

Mr Speaker: The rural problem has been gone over for days. The reason given by the hon. Member for repeating it here is that the newspapers have not carried it. But under the Standing Orders, a Member is not allowed to repeat himself. Can he go away from the rural problem, on which so much has been said and on which he has already spoken, to some fresh matter?

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now go on to something else. As to the other points which have been raised by my colleagues, perhaps I may mention in passing that they have not been adequately dealt with in this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, the rural economy is facing great difficulties at present. There are poverty and diseases in the rural areas.

Mr Speaker: I am not prepared to allow the hon. Member to go on to this rural problem. Can he not go on to something else? We have been debating this subject for four days. I am quite prepared to hear anyone who has something new to say. But do not repeat not only what he has said but what has been said over the last four days.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if you think I have been too repetitious, then I will try to finish my speech in the shortest possible time. What I have mentioned just now might not have covered all that has been mentioned by my colleagues in the past. But anyway, I will now try to finish my speech by dealing briefly with certain other points.

The P.A.P. have not been able to find out the real problems existing in the rural areas. Once, when the Prime Minister toured a certain rural area, he found that some people who came out to welcome him with bouquets wore very nice clothes. He then said that the rural people were well-fed, wealthy and enjoyed a very high standard of living. In addition to the forced removal from their land, the rural people are faced with the scarcity of land. Here in this Assembly, the Prime Minister has said previously that 17,000 acres of land were occupied by the British Forces. Had this land been used to help the people, something good and useful would have come out of it, and this, to a certain extent, would have solved the scarcity of land.

Many small farmers have gone bankrupt. This was because they lack capital and know-how. In the past, the P.A.P. promised to give loans to them, but they have not fulfilled their pledge. They have not adopted effective measures to stabilize the prices of farm products. There is a great fluctuation in the prices of farm produce. For instance, although the price of pork has gone up, the price of poultry has remained at $1 per katty. And because of an outbreak of a poultry disease, 200,000 chickens perished in this epidemic.

The P.A.P. have stated that after the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, there would not be any tariffs. But we see that the tariffs are still there. A duty of one cent has to be paid on each egg that is exported to the Federation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Lim Yew Hock regime, two rural organisations were banned. They were the Farmers' Association and the Rural People's Association. And during the regime of the P.A.P., two rural associations were also banned. They were banned after the 16th of September. They have a membership of more than 20,000. And no good reasons were given for their banning. The only reason given was that these associations carried out activities which were not consistent with their rules and regulations. This goes to show that organisations which do not support the P.A.P. are suppressed by them. The banning of these two organisations gives an indication of the rural policy of the P.A.P. and their collaboration with the Federation Government. It also symbolises the unity of the 500,000 rural people. That is why they have to be banned on the pretext that they were being used by pro-Communist front organisations. This is nonsensical argument. These rural organisations truly represent the rural people. They work for the interests and welfare of the rural people. They were opposed to the unreasonable policy of the P.A.P. What is wrong with that? Just because they are considered to be organisations that oppose the Government, they are banned. Instead the P.A.P. should arrest Lim Yew Hock because Lim Yew Hock organised the so-called Alliance Party, which also has a united front among them. The P.A.P. themselves rely on colonialism. Likewise they have a united front - an alliance with the colonialists.

If you say that the rural people organise themselves to look after their own interests, the Government should not accuse them of being tools of the Communists.

From all actions of the Government, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that spit and spittle will fall on their heads.

Dr Toh Chin Chye rose ---

Mr Speaker: How long does the Deputy Prime Minister propose to take?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: About ten minutes.

Mr Speaker: Then, please proceed.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, the debate of the last week has exposed the Barisan Sosialis in their true colours as a group of people who are willing to betray the security of Malaysia. I do not think the people are so naive as to believe that the Barisan Assemblymen and Representatives in the Dewan Ra'ayat in Kuala Lumpur were sincere when they took the oath of loyalty that they will defend Malaysia. The Barisan Sosialis is now in an impossible contradiction out of which they cannot extricate themselves. Can there be anything more stupid for Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen to take a solemn oath that they would defend and die for Malaysia, when at the same time their own Party Chairman publicly stated that he is opposed to Malaysia? The stand of the Barisan Sosialis is always confusing, like a dog chasing its own tail.

Barisan Assemblymen have been only too eager to exaggerate the unemployment situation due to the cessation of trade between us and Indonesia, but they have not uttered a single word to condemn the Indonesian Government which brought this misfortune upon the people. In fact, the Member for Tampines has said it is not the Barisan's concern whether the present attitude of Indonesia is correct or not.

The Member for Thomson takes the cake when he urged the Central Government to stop scolding Indonesia. If the dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia amounted to only an exchange of words, then there need not be any anxiety at all. Let me ask this. Is the Member for Thomson not aware that Indonesia is not only scolding Malaysia but also bleeding the people of Malaysia to death by acts of aggression along our borders and piracy in our waters? This afternoon the Prime Minister has related in this Assembly acts of sabotage by Indonesian fifth columnists in Singapore. Will the Member for Thomson, or for that matter any Member of the Barisan Sosialis, be brave enough to go to the Indonesian Parliament and tell big brother to lay off smashing up Malaysia?

The Member for Jalan Kayu declared that the Barisan oppose Malaysia because of their patriotism and love for their country. Let me ask him. Which is your country? He is not here to answer. May I ask his colleagues, which is their country? Indonesia? Is it that the Barisan loves Indonesia so much that Mr Bani, ex-Member for Thomson, made the revealing statement in this very Chamber that Indonesia is the heartland of Malaysia? Is it that the Barisan loves Azahari so much that it supported him during the Brunei revolt so that he could capture Sabah and Sarawak? Is it because of patriotism to Indonesia that the Barisan is now speaking in this Chamber on behalf of Indonesia to smash Malaysia? The Barisan has called the Central Government Fascist, neo-colonialist, brutal, suppressive and by every other conceivable adjective in the dictionary. But on Indonesia which is perpetrating aggression against us, they keep a pious and hypocritical silence.

Together with the Member for Hong Lim, the Barisan Sosialis want us to crawl to the feet of Bung Soekarno and to plead for mercy. The Barisan Sosialis do not condemn the Indonesian Government as inhuman for stopping water supplies from Singapore to the inhabitants in the Rhio islands. They do not condemn the Indonesian Government as being Fascist for issuing a decree that all those in Indonesia who listen to Radio Malaysia will be executed. They do not condemn the Indonesian Government as brutal for inspiring the terrorism committed by Indonesian commandos in Sarawak and Sabah. On the contrary, the Barisan is acting as an advocate for Indonesian aggression and applauds, what they have called, "the national liberation struggle" in Borneo. Will the Barisan despatch volunteers to help Indonesia liberate Sabah and Sarawak as they did in the case of West Irian? Is the Barisan looking forward to Soekarno liberating them from the Tunku? I do not think we should make an error in thinking that those in the Barisan Sosialis are stupid men. Far from it. It will be more correct for us to believe that they are evil men with sinister aims. Their hatred for Malaysia and their delight at being able to make political capital out of the plight of those who are now unemployed on account of Indonesian confrontation stem from one fact, and one fact alone, and that is, the Barisan prefers to sleep in the same bed with Indonesia and dream the dreams of the P.K.I., the Communist Party of Indonesia.

There is no positive or constructive thinking in the Barisan. Their attitude is one of destruction and condemnation. That was their stand during the general election. Condemnation - no positive construction. That frame of mind has persisted today. If there is a drought, they condemn the Government for not bringing in the rain. If there is rainfall, they condemn the Government for flooding. The Barisan call themselves champions of the workers. But they condemn the Government for putting up housing for the working class. The Barisan was prepared to sacrifice autonomy in education and labour by demanding complete merger with Malaya like Penang and Malacca. But what is their stand during this debate? Now they plead with the Government to protect the autonomy which we have fought for.

The Barisan calls Malaysian citizenship second-class. I suggest let them then apply to become Indonesian citizens, and having acquired Indonesian citizenship, they may find a dialectical answer to explain the anti-Chinese rioting in Java and Sumatra. I do not believe the Barisan appreciate the amenities of civilisation and tranquillity that they now enjoy in Singapore and Malaysia. Nothing can be more salutary than for all of them to go back to Jakarta. They will then be thankful for the little mercies that they now enjoy.

I think, Mr Speaker, we owe a duty to ourselves to appreciate Indonesia's feelings on the role of Singapore in Indonesian trade so that there will be less bewilderment about the motive for Indonesian economic confrontation. For decades Indonesian rubber and copra and other raw produce have been sold to the markets of the world through Singapore and in return rice, textiles and consumer goods have been imported into Indonesia, again through Singapore. This has been possible partly because of our commercial expertise and the banking and insurance facilities which exist in Singapore and partly because Indonesia has no port comparable in efficiency and ability to handle the world's shipping to our own port.

Ever since Indonesia attained her independence in 1949, she had always been conscious of this dependence on our entrepot port to conduct her trade with the rest of the world. Because of maladministration, over-attention to political affairs and inattention to economic matters, Indonesia had no alternative but to tolerate Singapore's role as her banker and trade agent. Indonesian oil had been distributed throughout her archipelago by ships based in Singapore, a foreign port. This has always been regarded by the Indonesians as prejudicial to their own defence and security measures. The desire, therefore, by Indonesia not to rely on Singapore traders and Singapore based ships is therefore not an overnight decision but one which has been considered for a long time. As has been indicated by the Prime Minister this afternoon in his statement, Indonesian efforts to subvert Singapore began in 1960, long before the Tunku announced his support for the Malaysia Plan. In other words, let us not underestimate the political intention and ambitions of Indonesian leaders, The umbilical cord between Singapore and Indonesia had to be cut some day; confrontation against Malaysia precipitated the economic surgery. Quite obviously in this context, we ourselves must make our own readjustments. Fortunately the Government has, as early as 4 years ago, foreseen the difficulties which Singapore would face with each passing year if we made no efforts to diversify our economy. Singapore's trading economy could not grow if neighbouring independent countries were to take steps to trade directly with other parts of the world. Moreover, since our trading economy could not grow as fast as our increasing population, new avenues for productive activity had to be found. So positive plans for industrialisation in Singapore were laid down by the Government. The Economic Development Board was founded and plans to create industrial estates in different parts of Singapore were executed. It is our hope that in the next five years industrialisation will be on its way to fulfilment. But to enable industrialisation in Singapore to start and in order for us to maintain the tempo of industrialisation, it is essential that industrial peace be observed, for without industrial peace, factories will be working at half cock, or some of them may even close down as we have observed in the past few years. The Minister for Finance two days ago in answer to a question has so ably illustrated what irresponsibility in the trade union field could do to damage industrialisation. It is also essential that markets must be found for goods manufactured in Singapore. Fortunately, no one can be complacent by solely being dependent upon our home market. There is already the Malaysian Common Market which has been agreed to by the four territories of Malaysia. However, it is essential that, if our manufacturers are to prosper and the people to share in the prosperity, that Common Market must be extended. Exports towards overseas markets must eventually play a considerable part in preserving our prosperity and standard of living. Our economic tasks ahead are difficult but not impossible. So long as our entrepreneurs and workers can be inspired in the task of building up our economy and our Malaysian nation, the prospects are bright, notwithstanding Indonesian confrontation, and we all look forward to a new historical era in which true Malaysians can play a loyal part.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to suspend the sitting until 9.15 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 7.55 p.m. until 9.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.15 p.m.

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

Debate resumed.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the tone and tenor of the debate that has been set in the last week is a depressing reminder of the futility of these meetings when the purpose of the Opposition is not to debate, to criticise and to improve. Their purpose is to read out under cover of privilege in this Chamber long and dreary extracts repeating the Communist united front line, anti-Malaysia, and anti any policy or plan of action that in any way makes things difficult for the Communists to strengthen their ground.

In moving this motion of thanks, I had set out in broad outline four main targets, industrialisation, housing and the re-building of the old city, education to meet the needs of an industrial society, and, last, raising of social standards, Most important of all, I had explained a new addition to the organisational structure of the Government, the Citizens' Consultative Committees. One would have expected the Opposition, if it were a democratic Opposition, anxious to play its role as constructive critic, to take the Government up on its main targets, to show, if they can, why these targets do not measure up to the economic and social problems before the country and how they can be improved. But no such debate has taken place. It is clear that what we are going to have, even more so than in the last Assembly, are long and windy, repetitious speeches all scripted beforehand and dutifully read out in this Chamber. They talk of the death of freedom, of the end of democratic rights, of merger and Malaysia being a sell-out, all as if the referendum never took place last year and as if they had won the last general elections. For it appears that, every evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, only they can speak for the masses.

Sir, I have said in introducing the motion that we must always be prepared to face new situations and adapt and adjust the democratic system to meet the specific problems as they come up from time to time. Three-quarters of the time on the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and on the Budget Estimates were more properly within the province of our Parliament in Kuala Lumpur.

But for various reasons they feel inhibited and they have remained silent in Kuala Lumpur although their parliamentary leader, the Member for Bukit Merah, has taken leave from this House to attend Parliament since the 11th of December. And it is his comrades here who have dressed in parliamentary privilege the ghost writings in Chinese of a hard-working but somewhat unimaginative group of aspiring Marxist-Leninists.

By our next sitting I think we should have re-adjusted our Standing Orders to take into account this growing abuse of the legislative chamber.

Sir, I have no desire to give a point-by-point refutation of their line of calumny. Suffice it to say that if we were able to survive their vicious campaign of lies, scare and slander which they have unleashed since June 1961, we can and will debunk all these dreary falsehoods, for finally it is on the record of our performance in the five years from now that the people will judge us.

However, we should do well to always remember that if they, the Barisan Sosialis, were in charge of the country, it is very unlikely that we would be allowed, in the Opposition, to say the things of them that we have allowed them to say of us. It is also unlikely in that situation that either in the unions or in the civic organisations we would be allowed even a one-hundredth part of the opportunity that we are now giving them to organise and preach their gospel against the nation. Our failing, I fear, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not that we have stifled democratic rights and liberties, but that we have been too tolerant with a group of men who interpret tolerance as a weakness to be exploited and abused.

We can all remember what happened throughout Malaya and Singapore in the few weeks immediately after the defeat of Japan and before the re-occupation by the British Forces. The Communists were in charge in some towns and districts. Sir, Members on the other side have been talking about the right to free and open trial. But the unreasoning, unceasing screech of hatred which they have preached leads us straight back to the summary methods of justice that the people's courts then enforced. They had little time and even less regard for the niceties of the rules of evidence and of trial by jury. We on this side must never forget that if ever we lose this fight, then we must be stupid to expect of them to concede to us what we have conceded to them even after their defeat.

But it is worthwhile pointing out to them that whilst the democratic system concedes the rights of opposition to the new nation before it is formed, once it has been formed, to preach disloyalty and incite disaffection against Malaysia is treason and punishable as such. Sir, they may have taken their oath both here and in Parliament to defend the Constitution of Malaysia more out of perfunctory duty than out of any conviction. But let them know that the whole of the apparatus of the State will go into motion if they, instead of honouring this pledge, actively incite disaffection, The whole of their effort over the past ten days has been to cast doubts on Malaysia, weaken the people's resolve to defend it, and generally create disloyalty to the Government of Malaysia. Sir, one can more than guess at the motives of these speeches, when we find Radio Kalimantan Utara picking up with relish every falsehood on Malaysia, every exaggeration on the effects of Indonesian confrontation, that has been uttered in this House. Whatever they said their intentions were, the consistent use to which enemy propaganda has put their speeches can leave no doubt that they are, in fact, helping the confrontationists to inflict injury on Malaysia.

Sir, the very wording of this motion,

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 ...'

and so on, every phrase is cast in terms of villainy. To talk of Malaysia having been imposed upon the people - I presume the people of Singapore - after it has been endorsed both at the referendum and again at the general elections is not just to perpetrate a lie, but to actively help hostile forces around us to intervene against Malaysia.

With the disclosure today that confrontation even for Singapore does not stop at a trade boycott but goes on to active sabotage which has cost up to date the lives of two innocent civilians, a new significance is given to the anti-Malaysia activities of the Opposition. Sir, the intelligence network shows that these activities of penetration and subversion have been going on for many months before Malaysia was even mooted. Reluctantly one is pushed to the conclusion that, quite unconnected with Malaysia, a scheme was launched at penetration and subversion which, if successful, must lead to the gradual absorption of Singapore and Malaya, and now Malaysia, by our bigger neighbour.

The violence that has been undertaken was planned only after April this year, shortly before Malaysia, hut the cultural and ideological penetration had been mounted several years ago even before Malaysia was ever suggested. We must be blind if we fail to see the basic objective and the end result of all these Activities.

The question I have asked the Opposition is: on whose side are they on? They have not answered. They have remained silent. They have never even admitted the existence of Malaysia. So how can they even admit that they are Malaysian? And how can they defend Malaysia, if they are not Malaysian? But let me give them this piece of advice: whatever their intentions, if by any overt act, by any open action, they help the enemy against Malaysia, then they must bear the full consequences of being treated as traitors to the nation.

The fact that Indonesia is now prepared to use agents and fifth columnists to disrupt our economy puts a sombre hue on our responsibilities. We are now in the midst of, literally, a battle of life and death, a battle for survival, our survival as a separate entity, to live our lives in our own way in South-East Asia unmolested by bigger and more powerful neighbours. We have always feared that the temptation of the big to be bigger and to absorb the smaller would be too much to resist. But now we know for a fact that confrontation includes fifth columnists and saboteurs trained to wreck the economy of Singapore and, even more important, to weaken the will of the people of Singapore and of the other parts of Malaysia to resist absorption, for that is the alternative to Malaysia.

Our chances of survival are ten times better in Malaysia than if we were by ourselves. Malaysia may have been followed by a trade boycott and a loss of 8.7 per cent of our national income. But this was not the logical consequence of Malaysia. It was the consequence of a conscious act of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia to inflict damage on all the parties in Malaysia, either by economic sanction even if it costs Indonesia four times our losses, or by military pressure along our borders and sabotage from within, if it appears to have a chance of success, then direct military action cannot altogether be ruled out.

We must resolve to defend ourselves to the death, for death is preferable to conquest and absorption. When our neighbours, both friendly and unfriendly, understand this, then peace in South-East Asia is more likely to be preserved. Whatever the economic pressures, whatever the harassment by sabotage, whatever the psychological tensions, let no one mistake our right to be masters in our own house. We cannot afford to be befuddled or bemused into weakening in our resolve for Malaysia. What is at stake is not just 8.7 per cent of our national income but, literally, our survival as a separate people in this part of the world. When survival is at stake, those who help the enemy to weaken the nation will find to their cost that the nation is prepared to defend itself against the enemy without and also against the enemy within.

I ask this House to reject this amendment as the line of treachery and treason. If ever the Communists succeed in weakening our resolve for Malaysia, then verily, first, Sarawak, then Sabah, then Singapore, and finally Malaysia itself, will be slowly absorbed into the Indonesian orbit. If this happens, then even the Barisan which has moved this amendment may look back to this era as a golden age compared to what is in store for them and indeed for all others in that situation.

The Minister for Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok): (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, since over a week ago this House has witnessed the tactics exhibited by the Barisan Sosialis Members when this House debated matters which have been tabled. From their tactics, it is obvious that the seven Barisan Sosialis Members behave like agents of their masters who instruct them what to do, without taking into consideration the consequences of their actions. This is not surprising, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the Barisan Sosialis Members are still young and they think that this House is a place where they can indulge in games so that they can exhibit their bravery. All this, as I have said earlier, is the attitude of raw parish pump politicians who do not follow the trend of debates previously.

Their speeches remind me of the writings of Mao Tse-tung, their big leader, in one of his articles entitled Tactics to Oppose Imperialist Japan. Inter alia, Mao Tse-tung said that the young people have a lot of ideas - good plans - but they cannot be trusted to implement state and world tasks, because they are unable to understand such tasks. I do not think the Barisan Members, who are raw, understand what they have said themselves. I do not think they understand the consequences and the dangers of their speeches which they merely read in this Chamber. After hearing their speeches, my conclusion is that generally their speeches do not indicate any sign of loyalty at all to this country. On the contrary, their speeches are of a nature to instigate the people to fight Malaysia, which has been acknowledged by the world.

Are their speeches really concerned with how to improve this country? Are their speeches concerned with how to solve the unemployment problem as a result of economic confrontation launched by Indonesia? Do their speeches contain constructive suggestions on how we should provide more amenities and assistance for the benefit of the people of this country? Or what should be done by the Government to give facilities to the rural dwellers in this country? Or what should be done by all of us to defend ourselves from aggression and threat by Indonesia? Not a thing. The speeches by the Barisan Members, on the whole, indicate how Malaysia is suffering as a result of confrontation which is now being launched by Indonesia. Their speeches show that the people are against merger, and the people of this country will rise at any time in arms because they oppose Malaysia. Which people? Are they the people who have chosen Malaysia in the referendum? Are they the people who have cast their votes in the general elections in September last and who have reelected the P.A.P. Government to govern for a further five years? No, definitely no, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The people referred to in their speeches are those anti-nationals and pro-Communists, whom they represent in this Chamber, and the people who comprise the minority and who do not wish to see this country prosper and live in peace and harmony. In fact, the speeches of the Barisan Sosialis are not directed at the people of Malaysia, but directed at the Communists in Indonesia and abroad. I am confident that what they have said in this Chamber will be broadcast by Radio Indonesia, Radio Kalimantan Utara, and Radio Peking. Do the speeches by the hon. Members condemn Indonesia for launching aggression in North Borneo? Do their speeches contain the incidents of intrusion of Indonesian war-planes over the Malaysian sky and Indonesian pirates who robbed the property of our fishermen in the Straits of Malacca and in international waters? Not a bit. On the contrary, their speeches indicate they are encouraging the incidents to continue.

I feel such an attitude as exhibited by these hon. Members, sooner or later, will encourage Indonesia to commit aggression against Malaya and Singapore. One day we will witness Indonesian jet bombers flying over this Chamber. Confrontation has increased our responsibility even more, because more problems have been created. Plans which were to have been implemented by the Government for the betterment of the people cannot be put into effect now, as the Government are obliged to concentrate on their efforts to solve problems of unemployment as a result of Indonesian confrontation, with the encouragement of hon. Members opposite us. But, on the other hand, there is good in confrontation because it has caused the people in this country comprising many races to be even more united behind the Government.

In the last general elections, the people voted the P.A.P. Government once again to govern the country. We are proud that the people have put their faith in us. I am happy to say in this Chamber that the trust placed in us will be honoured and, God willing, will not be betrayed forever. The faith and trust placed in us by the people will be reciprocated. I promise that the P.A.P. Government will never at any time misplace this trust. We will continue to strive for the benefit and improvement of the people in this country as a whole. What we hope from the people is their co-operation and understanding so that we can smash the anti-national and pro-Communist elements which are in our midst. We are proud. Mr Deputy Speaker, in this struggle to eliminate these anti-national elements, the people are solidly behind us. The Malaysia Plan was announced by the Malaysian Prime Minister, the Hon. Tunku Abdul Rahman, about two years ago. About six months later, that was on the 17th November, 1962, the New York Times published a letter signed by Dr Subandrio, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, who mentioned the plan to establish Malaysia. In addition to welcoming such a plan Dr Subandrio, who voiced the official stand of the Indonesian Government, said, inter alia, that "the Indonesian Government sends its good wishes to Malaysia because the object of Malaysia is the process of decolonisation of Malaya over Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore and that Malaysia will free the people of these three territories from the shackles and exploitation of colonialism." Not a word did the letter mention that Malaysia was a new form of neo-colonialism planned by the British and American imperialists and neo-colonialists. Tunku Abdul Rahman was praised for mooting such a plan. Furthermore, Dr Subandrio urged the people of Sarawak and Sabah to determine their own fate and choose whether they wished to join Malaysia or otherwise. The people of Sabah and Sarawak have made their decision through general elections in their respective countries to join Malaysia. Singapore through the referendum also decided for merger and Malaysia. All these means of getting the approval of the people have been carried out by the Governments of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. In accordance with constitutional democratic practice, they voted of their own free will, without coercion, and by the secret ballot they chose Malaysia. What else do these anti-nationalist pro-Communists want? The people have made their decision clear that they desire Malaysia. But the anti-nationalist elements and pro-Communists refused to acknowledge the decision of the people. Then they started to spread wild charges that the elections and referendum were conducted as a sham and that the people were bluffed and frightened so that they were forced to choose Malaysia and merger. But, Mr Deputy Speaker we all know that the decision of the people has caused the anti-nationalist and pro-Communist elements, represented by the Barisan Sosialis in this Chamber, to suffer a severe thrashing because their leaders at that time made statements indicating that Malaysia could not be destroyed from within this country. Then they started their instigation from outside. They made contacts with Communists from outside. Their leaders, such as Lim Ching Siong, have stated openly in the newspaper Bintang Timor in Indonesia that the Barisan Sosialis preferred to merge with Indonesia and that Singapore would be better off by merging with Indonesia than with Malaysia. The Barisan Sosialis leaders and leaders of the Socialist Front in Malaya also made close contact with Communist leaders in Indonesia. Then they used Azahari, a bankrupt politician, to launch an armed revolution in Brunei. We all know that before the revolution was launched on the 8th of October last year, Azahari had several negotiations with the Barisan Sosialis leaders in Singapore. A few weeks before that, a number of Barisan Sosialis leaders went over to Borneo to persuade the people there to support the armed insurrection. Azahari launched his armed revolution which was crushed in a matter of a few days. He fled to Manila and subsequently to Indonesia. Agitation from outside against Malaysia continued. The P.K.I. launched a big campaign with the help of the Barisan Sosialis to oppose Malaysia.

We still remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, how the Communists and their puppets, their lackeys, tried to evict Malaya from attending the Afro-Asian Solidarity Conference in Moshi. The Communists were afraid and worried because of the presence of the Malaysian delegation from Singapore who could expose their lie about Malaysia. The Communists in the conference tried to lobby the other Afro-Asian countries to agree to a resolution to send 20,000 volunteers to support the aggression perpetrated by Azahari in Borneo, but the Singapore and Malayan delegates headed by Mr Devan Nair - a sincere and true patriot, who at one time was involved in the M.C.P. struggle but who later left the M.C.P. because he was convinced that the struggle launched by the M.C.P. was not good for this country - were able to influence the other delegates in Moshi. Likewise, in the Afro-Asian Journalists Conference held in Jakarta not long ago, the Communist groups once again expressed strong opposition to Malaysia, but their efforts were futile, and they could not influence the other delegates from the Afro-Asian countries who attended that conference.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the people who have really fought for Malaysia outside this country, with the result that the United Arab Republic, India, Burma and other countries gave their support to the establishment of Malaysia, are the leaders of the P.A.P. headed by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Do the Barisan Sosialis Members in this Chamber consider the U.A.R., India and Burma as neo-colonialist countries? If the Members opposite consider themselves anti-colonial, we are even more anti-colonial. But we are national patriots with undivided loyalty to this country, and we are prepared at any time to defend our country against aggression from any quarter. Where is the patriotism of the hon. Members opposite? Are they loyal to this country? No. Their loyalty is to Indonesia. They are agents of Communist Indonesia which has embarked on confrontation against Malaysia. They do not work for the interests of the people of this country, but for their foreign masters in Indonesia. In other words, they are agents of their foreign masters in Jakarta. They are agents of a country which is our enemy - a government which has embarked on aggression resulting in many Malaysian lives being lost. They represent the enemies in a place where they get facilities for education, and as Members of this Assembly, they receive an allowance of $500 per month.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this country has fed them - sometimes they eat food more than three times a day; in Indonesia, if you get food once in three days you are lucky. But what has happened? They are the spokesmen of a country which is determined to smash us. I am ashamed to see their behaviour in this Chamber. I do not think any true Malaysian citizen will adopt such low tactics of the Barisan Sosialis Members opposite. They expect that if confrontation succeeds, they will get high places in this country; they hope that their defeated candidate in the last election in Rochore will be elected Prime Minister and that many of them will be Ministers. Let me emphasise here that if we are destroyed by Indonesia, they will not get a chance at all to hold such posts which they dream of. What will happen is that the aggressors from Indonesia will confiscate everything in this country and what the agents will get will be the residues from the hungry aggressors. Therefore, there is no use for them to shout in this Assembly that the P.A.P. Government are exploiting and suppressing Chinese education and culture, because they know very well the attitude of the Indonesian leaders towards the Chinese. Yesterday, my colleague, the Minister for Culture, stated in this Assembly that the utterances and behaviour of the Barisan Sosialis over the last few days will involve them in a very dangerous position. What they have done amounts to treason against the government and the nation, and according to the law, it is punishable by death. For that reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, their leaders like Messrs. Woodhull, James Puthucheary and Lim Shee Ping have announced publicly that they do not wish to associate themselves with the Barisan Sosialis activities because these actions are fraught with danger. Therefore, the necks of the Opposition Members in front of me are in the noose. People like Messrs. Woodhull, James Puthucheary and Lim Shee Ping are no political chickens. They know the consequence if they involve themselves in the activities of the Barisan Sosialis. They are more politically intelligent than these seven Barisan Sosialis Members. Well, there is still time. I advise them to retreat before they are swallowed. I wish to remind the Members opposite that the people in this country condemn their acts which involve treachery and treason in collaboration with foreign countries to smash Malaysia. They are fed up and they hate the tactics of the Barisan. The Barisan Members must consider carefully what they say and how they behave in this Assembly. They may be applauded by the Gallery but they are hated by members of the public. Their acts are bringing shame to the people of Malaysia. Let us take stock of the position. Refrain from carrying out treacherous acts against this country, because those who will bear the consequences will be the hon. Members themselves opposite. As we reminded them yesterday, there is still time for them to reconsider the situation. If they are lost at the end of the road, they should go back to the beginning of the road.

Mr Deputy Speaker, today we have read in the newspapers that 37 saboteurs from Indonesia have been arrested. I feel that in the next few days the total will be increased. At least a further seven will be nabbed!

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member for Paya Lebar is most eager to speak, but I think the Chair has given ample opportunity to the Opposition to speak. As he is the last speaker in the Opposition, I intend to give the Government benchers the opportunity to speak first and he will then be given plenty of time to speak later. Mr Yong Nyuk Lin.

The Minister for Health (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion, standing in the name of the Prime Minister, expressing our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech on 29th November, 1963, and to reject the amendment proposed by the Member for Jurong which was supported by the Member for Paya Lebar.

Although Singapore can reasonably be proud of its health and medical services, if judged in comparison with standards obtainable in countries of South Asia, yet we see no reason for complacency over this state of affairs, because we must always strive to raise the standards of public health and hygiene of our people to the highest possible pitch, so that ill-health and disease can be reduced to its lowest level.

However, in attempting to provide better medical facilities for our people, we must ultimately face up with other problems, e.g. finance, shortage of qualified personnel like doctors, which is not peculiar to Singapore alone but is world wide in its applicability. Therefore, we, need to find new solutions to our problems by making greater efforts to recruit and train more para-medical and auxiliary staff like nurses (male and female), health inspectors, laboratory technicians, midwives and others, in order to provide a full and adequate service for our people.

As is well known, our rate of population growth at nearly 4 per cent per annum is twice the average world rate. But our present infant mortality rate at 31 per thousand live births and crude death rate at under 6 per thousand are reasonably comparable to any of the advanced nations of the world today. In these circumstances, we must pay more attention to family planning for our mothers than hitherto. I wish in this respect to pay the highest tribute, Sir, to the gallant efforts of our dedicated voluntary workers in the Singapore Family Planning Association for their good work in the past and to assure them that our Ministry will spare no efforts henceforth to work more closely with them, in order to provide yet better facilities for the dissemination of information and advice to mothers at every one of our Maternal and Child Health Centres throughout Singapore.

In the final analysis, how healthy a country's population is will largely be determined by the effectiveness of its public health measures. May I remind the House of the relevant part of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech on the subject of Public Health [Hansard, 29th November, 1963, col. 124]? I have mentioned it before, Sir, in the Budget debate, but I think it needs repetition.

`On the Public Health side, the Ministry is planning a reorganisation of the City Cleansing services. A gradual run-down of transport equipment, expansion of urban and housing areas and the corresponding huge increase in the number of hawkers, inadequate methods of supervision resulting in lack of discipline in the work force, complicated by secret society elements in their midst, have brought about an increase in rubbish, flies and mosquitoes. All this can and will be put right. Reorganisation can succeed once these factors have been dealt with.'

In his speech of 9th December, our Prime Minister, when elaborating on the fourth target of the Government for the next five years - that of raising social standards - said [Hansard, Vol. 22, No. 4, col 148]:

`I wish to emphasise higher standards of public and social conduct. This can be brought about by a sustained process of education.

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

Public health measures, Sir, can therefore only be effective if each and every one plays his part, and it is our hope that with patient education and time, we can make our people uphold higher standards of social responsibility in respect of public health than hitherto.

Sir, I now wish to answer the irresponsible statements made by the Member for Jurong in his speech of 9th December pertaining to the Health Ministry. According to the transcript of Hansard, p. 18, para. 6, line 4 [col. 161], he said:

`Diseases like malaria, long unheard of in Singapore, are once again making their reappearance.'

The Member for Jurong does not know what he is talking about. Presence of mosquitoes alone does not signify incidence of malaria, although it is true that certain types of mosquitoes can cause malaria and spread this disease. May I enlighten the Member for Jurong that the World Health Organisation regards Singapore as "an area in which Malaria has been eradicated", unlike his homeland - Indonesia - and that my Ministry will continue to maintain its anti-malarial measures to the best of its ability to keep up this good record.

The Member for Jurong again shows not only his utter ignorance of the subject of El Tor Cholera but also states falsehoods (typical of all Barisan Sosialis types) when he goes on further to say, according to the transcript of Hansard, page 19, first paragraph, line 9 [col. 162]:

`With such a dangerous and infectious disease like cholera, the confirmed diagnosis of two cases is sufficient to warrant the description of the disease situation as epidemic. Yet the people were not informed of the seriousness of the situation until there were 10 confirmed cases.'

Sir, ever since the first bacteriological confirmed case of El Tor Cholera was known on 13th November, 1963, the W.H.O. International Sanitary Regulations required public announcement of Singapore being declared a cholera infected port. This was done by Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 2774 of the same date and this news was published in all newspapers, including the Chinese newspapers, the following morning. With every confirmed case or discovered "carrier", there had not only been the usual follow-up of public health measures such as isolation of direct contacts, stoppage of food preparation by hawkers within 200 yards, sterilisation of wells, disinfection of houses, etc. but a daily bulletin was also issued giving details of the residence and area of every confirmed case and opening of new inoculation centres to suit the convenience of the public.

10.16 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister for Health (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Ever since the first confirmed case was discovered, the professional officers, i.e. qualified doctors of the Ministry, held daily meetings to assess the situation. Professor Lim Kok Ann of the Bacteriological Department of the University of Singapore was present at these early meetings. During the first few days it was the view of the professional officers that as more than 1.2 million have had inoculations only six months ago during the May outbreak, the number of cases did not justify a decision to launch another mass inoculation campaign until 19th November when there were five known confirmed cases and four symptomless "carriers".

The decision was then arrived at, too, that El Tor Cholera had come to stay in Singapore in an endemic form and that anti-cholera inoculations alone would not be good enough and that adequate and effective Public Health measures must be maintained throughout the year. It was then decided that a second mass inoculation campaign should be organised with the opening of more than 30 centres throughout the island as from 25th November. I am pleased to say that up to date more than 700,000 have inoculated themselves at 33 free Government centres, and I hope that many more will take advantage of the free services offered by Government before the month-long mass inoculation campaign comes to an end, in three days' time.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the Council of the Singapore Medical Association for their co-operation in recommending to their members to charge only a nominal fee of $1 when using free cholera vaccine from the Government during the Mass Inoculation Campaign. I want also to express my deepest gratitude to the doctors associated with 32 private dispensaries for coming forward to assist the Government during this period. I understand that many thousands have been so inoculated under the free Government vaccine scheme. It is my hope that this welcome co-operation from our private practitioners will be extended to all fields, in order that the best possible medical service may be placed at the disposal of our people in Singapore.

Up to date there have been 24 confirmed cases and 13 symptomless carriers - the figure 13 is very symbolic - with two regrettable deaths. One was an 85-year old woman who was already in a state of collapse when admitted to Middleton Hospital and died within a few hours, and the other a 56-year old man who was an opium addict and had, in addition, pneumonia as well.

If the Member for Jurong says that two confirmed cases of cholera means an epidemic, then I am afraid he has been wrongly advised by his Party doctors for not keeping abreast with latest medical knowledge, as not to be able to differentiate between classical or "Asiatic" cholera, which is a more virulent and explosive type of cholera, commonly known in India, from El Tor Cholera, which has now come to stay in Singapore. El Tor Cholera was first diagnosed in 1906 in Egypt from Mecca pilgrims. According to the World Health Organisation, 16th World Health Assembly held at Geneva in May this year, Report No. 127 -page 31, para. 18.

`The Committee recalls that in 1957, at the time of its fifth session and for some decades before that time, all reported cases of the disease due to El Tor vibrios had been limited to the Celebes. [That is, Indonesia] It was on this basis that the Committee was of the opinion that this disease should not be included in the term cholera, a quarantinable disease under the International Sanitary Regulations. The 11th World Health Assembly endorsed this opinion.'

It was only in May 1962 after hearing detailed reports of several outbreaks of the El Tor infection in Indonesia, Sarawak, Macao, Hong Kong, the Philippines and North Borneo, and having considered the views of the experts on these outbreaks, including the conclusions and recommendations of the Scientific Group on Cholera Research and the findings of the meeting in Manila, that El Tor Cholera became a notifiable and a quarantinable disease. This then is the situation in Singapore today. There is no cause for panic or alarm but of determination to raise the Public Health consciousness of everyone throughout the State of Singapore.

In this respect, Sir, may I enlighten this House by quoting a further relevant extract from the W.H.O. Report again. I quote from page 37, para. 48 on Hongkong:

`During the period 1 July 1961 to 30 June 1962, Hongkong in common with certain other countries in the region was infected with cholera El Tor. An account of the outbreak in Hongkong has been published as a White Paper and copies of this White Paper have already been forwarded to the Director General of WHO.

From the experience gained of the epidemiology of cholera during the outbreak in Hongkong, it is suggested that Articles 60 to 69, of the International Sanitary Regulations should be reviewed. Despite the considerable powers conveyed by these articles, it has not proved possible to prevent the entry of Vibrio cholera infections into countries in the region despite rigid application of the quarantine measures allowed by the Regulations.

The role of the contact-carrier in the dissemination of cholera is not fully understood, but there is evidence to support the view that the contact-carrier without clinical symptoms of the disease may be the agent of dissemination from country to country, particularly those contact-carriers moving by sea in small vessels over short distances which do not normally go through quarantine inspections.

It is evident that the powers at present given under the Regulations are not wide enough to prevent the dissemination of cholera.'

The existence of El Tor Cholera in Singapore today can be said to be similar to the unfortunate existence of Communists and Barisan Sosialis in the political field. Whereas the Barisan Sosialis can be likened to persons suffering from diarrhoea or dysentery or even confirmed cases of El Tor Cholera because they are open front apologists for Communism for all to see, the really dangerous people are the Communists who spread the doctrine of Communism, of hatred, evil and poison without disclosing who they are and what they are. It is these symptomless carriers like El Tor Cholera carriers, outwardly harmless and innocent but actually sinister and dangerous carriers of germs, disease and death, that we must slowly and patiently ferret out, isolate and quarantine, as it were, so that the rest of the people of Singapore may live in peace and happiness.

Sir, the Member for Jurong has seen fit to say that "the manner in which the Government has handled the cholera epidemic is deplorable" (page 18 [col. 161] of the Transcript of Hansard). He even ended with the much stronger words that "the P.A.P. must be condemned for its criminal negligence in the handling of the cholera epidemic" (page 19 [col. 162]). As an elected Minister and charged by my Prime Minister with the responsibility of being in charge of the Ministry of Health I accept full responsibility for everything that is done or has failed to be done by my Ministry. I do not disappear and run into hiding when things happen or appear to go wrong like two of their so-called leaders - the Members for Nee Soon and Toa Payoh. Where are these so-called leaders? Where are they? Sir, I am not in the least disturbed by the strong language used by the Member for Jurong. It is for the people of Singapore and the responsible people of Singapore to pass judgment on me or my Party, which I am privileged to serve.

But if there is to be any condemnation in this House, then I say we condemn the treacherous and treasonable Barisan Sosialis and ask them to return to their homeland Indonesia where they belong!

Mr Bernard Rodrigues and Mr Kow Kee Seng stood up ---

Mr Speaker: Is the Member for Telok Blangah going to be long?

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: No, Mr Speaker. 15 minutes.

Mr Speaker: How long will the Member for Paya Lebar be?

An hon. Member: Three hours.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I have been waiting since eight o'clock now. Three or four Ministers have already spoken.

Mr Speaker: I will then allow the Member for Paya Lebar to speak.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Thank you. Mr Speaker, for giving me a chance to speak.

Mr Speaker, Sir, concerning the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and the debate thereon up till now, we have not seen and we have not heard what the P.A.P. Government have advanced or what measures they have given to us to understand in tackling the confrontation policy. What they have been doing is all the time blaming the Communists, the Barisan Sosialis. It is most regrettable that no one has taken down how many times they have used the phrases "Communists", "Barisan Communists" and so on. On matters that affect the livelihood of the people, the P.A.P. Members have never said anything. Instead they put all the blame on us. They blame Soekarno, Indonesia and the Barisan for the confrontation and its consequent sufferings.

I will now refute the arguments by the Ministers and advance my reasons for doing so to show to the people of Singapore that we are not smearing and we are not slandering or talking without any reason or fact in support. Perhaps the P.A.P. Ministers may not want to admit what I am going to say, but the man in the street in Singapore knows what kind of attitude they have been adopting in this House.

Firstly, I want to deal with the smears made by the Ministers of the P.A.P. in this House. First of all, the Member for Punggol asked us to express our stand. He was only taking the cue from the Prime Minister. He had nothing new to advance in this House. From what the Minister for Social Affairs has said in this House just now, I say there is no need to counter him in my reply because his speech is similar to that made by the Minister for Culture. So I will now first deal with the allegations of the Minister for Culture against us.

On the 11th of December and yesterday he tried his best to attack us. He used a very simple weapon - the term "Communists". He applied this term to us, the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen. Playing on this term, he thought that he could bamboozle the people by his long and stinking speech, shouting and yelling at us. We were bored by his speech. I dare say that without the term "Communists", he would have had nothing to say. The only thing he could talk about was Communists, Communists, and Communism. His logic was also absurd and ridiculous.

He tried his best to put the blame of Indonesian confrontation on the shoulders of the Barisan Sosialis. On the other hand, he tried to whitewash the sufferings and consequences brought about by Malaysia and the hatred of the people for Malaysia and the P.A.P. He even tried to make good use of the hatred of the people for the P.A.P. and for the sufferings and ill-consequences brought about by Malaysia. He even made use of this hatred for the P.A.P. to put the blame on us in order to achieve their purpose of isolating us. He seemed to think that by doing so he would be able to fix us, which is mere fantasy on his part. I would like to remind him of something, but unfortunately he is not here now. In the course of his speech, he forgot to hide his fox-tail. He made very serious mistakes. He admitted that there have been economic difficulties after the establishment of Malaysia. And in his defence of the establishment of Malaysia, he said that the purchasing power and the standard of living of the people have been raised. He painted a very rosy picture of Singapore. In doing so, he exposed the ulterior motives for bringing about Malaysia, and at the same time, he smeared all those Parties and people who did not agree with the P.A.P. In our speeches, we have refuted his specious arguments. I had thought of asking the Minister one question but I am unable to do so now as he is not here. But I would ask him not to waste his time by calling us "Communists". It is futile. In his speech, which was specious and incorrect, he harboured impure motives and evil thoughts. I say that the true reason for the economic difficulties is the nature of reactionary Malaysia which has obstructed the development of our national culture, education and progress. But the Minister for Culture tried to put the blame on others. Yet in the end, he could not explain away all these evil consequences of Malaysia.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah): On a point of order. I do not think we have a quorum.

Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present, Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

Mr Speaker: We now have a quorum. Will the Member for Paya Lebar please continue?

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): The patriotism of the Barisan Sosialis and their anti-Malaysia stand are always a grave threat to the reactionary Government which have not been able to refute our arguments. That is why they have resorted to a slanderous campaign to distort our stand and to undermine us. That is why they have slandered us as agents of foreign powers. But their every attempt to slander us is not convincing to the people. And they have not been able to explain away their own arguments and who are really working for the foreign powers. The cunning and sinister attack by the Minister for Culture is clear to all. His childish argument cannot deceive people with political common sense. The Barisan Sosialis stand is for the people of our country and we place the interest of the people above everything else. What we have done in the past clearly shows that. The P.A.P. accuse us of being the so-called agents of foreign powers in order to divert the attention of the people from the grave economic problems of our country. Every one knows that if a country achieves its political independence without any economic freedom, this sort of independence is not complete in itself and there is a danger of the country being controlled and manipulated by other powers. South Vietnam and Thailand are some examples of countries which have achieved only political independence. We hope that this Government will not follow the line of these two countries and induce foreign capital to put up a facade of prosperity which will not help to solve the living problems of our people. Instead, they will bring hardship and disaster to our people. The inducement of foreign capital will only result in exploitation of our people. We cannot tolerate such a type of policy. The P.A.P. persistently carry on with this policy. They have unashamedly said that they work for the people, but do you think that the people cannot see through their policy? The Minister for Culture said that their loyalty is towards Malaysia. We believe that, but the P.A.P. are trying to curry favour with the reactionary cliques and their masters to sell out the interests of the people. All the new emerging forces have also made clear their stands, but these people have brought instability and chaos to South-East Asia. In order to shift their responsibility, the P.A.P. are trying to make the Barisan Sosialis a scapegoat, but the facts are irrefutable. They try to mix up socialism with Indonesia in order to divert the attention of the people, to confuse their vision and to make them forget the real crux of the problem - that the cause of our present difficulties has been brought about by the imperialists. The P.A.P. also say that the Barisan's demand for the abolition of the British military bases here will pave the way for invasion by another foreign power. Every one with any self-respect will know that the stationing of foreign troops here is an insult to our country. It implies that the colonialists want to maintain their exploitation by ruthless means to strangle our economy. All those who are loyal to our country will not tolerate the stationing of foreign troops here for the so-called safeguarding of our country. This act of betrayal is very clear to all. [Interruption] Do you dare to have an open argument with me at Hong Lim Park?

Mr Speaker: If we argue among ourselves, we will never be able to end this debate. Please carry on with the debate.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the financial policies and budgets of a government reflect its character and nature. A government of rogues will have a budget befitting its character. The P.A.P. which have betrayed the people, can only put up a Budget which will be beneficial to the foreigners. Therefore, the Minister for Culture should not level all sorts of accusations against us.

Now, let me refute his challenge. He has brought our people to the brink of war with our neighbours. Malaysia, which is designed to serve the interests of the imperialists, has brought about the suppression and exploitation of our people, tension and instability in South-East Asia. We should condemn the Alliance Government and the P.A.P. for having brought about this disastrous outcome. The diplomatic break and the severance of trade between Malaysia and Indonesia is the result of their policy. Factories have closed down and unemployment has increased. We feel that, at the present juncture, the only way to solve our problems is to open negotiations to solve the differences peacefully. All those who shirk such responsibilities do not help to solve our problems.

The Minister for Culture has challenged us to say whether we hope confrontation will succeed. His argument does not merit our rebuttal. We want to ask him on what foundation he has made this allegation. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the first place, we fully realise that there has been a loss in foreign exchange as a result of Malaysia. We also fully appreciate that Malaysia is to serve the interests of the colonialists. This appreciation should be accepted, as this is the whole crux of the matter.

The Minister for Culture is afraid that the people of Singapore will see through Malaysia and his plot. So he has brought in other extraneous matters in his speech in order to blind the vision of the people of Singapore and to divert their attention from the crux of the matter. The P.A.P. are now trying to push the responsibility of an economic crisis over to this side of the House, namely, on the shoulders of the Barisan Sosialis.

The Minister for Culture is afraid that we want to expose the whole matter, clearly and in detail, to the broad masses of the people. So he has brought in these extraneous matters in order to blind the vision of the people. And we know what he is up to. He is making this challenge in order to smear us as agents and collaborators of foreign powers so that he can push the whole matter on to us.

The Minister for Culture has also attacked our amendment with a lot of intimidation as though the Opposition Members are not allowed by law in Singapore to air their views on the Government's policies. He says that we are pro-Indonesia, and so we should be charged with treason in court punishable by death or life imprisonment. Does he mean that we in the Opposition have no right to criticise the Government's policies in this Chamber? Everybody in Singapore knows that Malaysia is a new form of colonialism brought about by the colonialists in this part of the world. And now the P.A.P. are trying in every way to put through this neo-colonial plan. Who is the traitor? Who has sold out the interests of the people? Who is guilty of treason? It is not the Barisan Sosialis. In order to judge whether a person is guilty of treason or not, we must know whether the acts committed by him are in the interest of the people or against the interest of the people. You cannot judge whether a person is guilty of treason or not from the point of view of the imperialists and colonialists. If you do so, then you are a traitor and you are guilty of treason. If you disregard the interest of the people, then you are not a true patriot. Those who do not actually struggle for the genuine interest of the people are the traitors. So if the Minister for Culture says that anybody who votes for the amendment tabled by the Barisan Sosialis will be guilty of treason and perhaps be charged in court with treason and punished according to the law, I say that this is a grave threat to the rights of parliamentary democracy.

We warn the Minister for Culture and the rest of them that if they should persist in their acts against the interest of the people and sell out their rights to a foreign power, then the people will one day inflict on them serious punishment for what they have done. History will prove that the people will punish the real traitors - namely, the P.A.P. - who have sold out the interest of the people to a foreign power. History will prove this to be so.

We have dealt adequately with the speech of the Minister for Culture who barks like a dog at shadows. Now we shall deal with the Prime Minister. As I have already said, Mr Speaker, the Member for Punggol has more or less echoed the speech of the Prime Minister. But we will not deal with what he has said. We will go back to the root of the whole matter - namely, the speech of the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister made his speech on the 9th of December this year. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that he was incapable of saying anything new in his speech. He has repeated his old arguments; to put everything in a nutshell, he has been trying very hard to smear his political opponents and those who come out in defence of vernacular education and the labouring class. So I will touch on his main points and give him suitable replies. From his speech, one can notice several main features. Perhaps the Back-benchers of the Government may not understand; so I wish to draw their attention to these main features.

In the first place, the Prime Minister tried very hard to please the Malaysian Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman. He attempted to compete for the Tunku's favour to oust the M.C.A. in the Federation of Malaya. In fact, the Prime Minister has said quite clearly that he wishes to oust the M.C.A. from the U.M.N.O./M.C.A./Alliance, so that the P.A.P. can replace the M.C.A. in the Alliance.

The second point is that the Prime Minister tried to show that the P.A.P. really had the support of the people in the elections, thereby covering up the fact that they had resorted to filthy means in the general election to gain power.

Thirdly, in his speech, it is clear that the determination of the P.A.P. is to destroy parliamentary democracy. In this attempt, he tries to put the blame for the grave consequences and ill-effects of confrontation on his political opponents and true patriots of the country.

Fourthly, it is the intention of the Government to try to strangle Chinese education. We can see very clearly what action the Government have taken against Nanyang University, which is the seat of Chinese education.

Fifthly, it was also the intention of the Prime Minister in his speech to indulge in a dangerous game by describing all those who come out in defence of Chinese education as Communists, thereby whipping up racial feelings. He tries to whip up racial feelings over educational issues. The so-called Citizenship Consultative Committee is a measure by which the P.A.P. desire to further control the daily lives and freedom of the people of Singapore. He is doing all these things in the name of Singapore. He has said that if in the town areas the election results show that the M.C.A. is no longer welcome and influential, then the U.M.N.O. in the Alliance should reappraise the situation with regard to the P.A.P. in Singapore. He was not specific; he was very vague, but one can read between the lines to find out his intentions. He wants to try to kick out the M.C.A. from the U.M.N.O./ M.C.A./M.I.C. Alliance and to replace them.

Mr Speaker: The Member is repeating what his other colleagues have said, that the Prime Minister is trying to be the Prime Minister of the Federation and that the P.A.P. are trying to take the place of the M.C.A. Can we get on to something else?

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I shall go back to the main topic, but I have to reply to the smears made by the P.A.P. against the Barisan Sosialis. Since you rule that this is repetitious, I shall not dwell on it anymore. I am not going to say any more about the P.A.P.'s attempt to gain U.M.N.O.'s favour in the Federation of Malaya, but I personally feel that as far as we are concerned, we should be very frank in our political struggle. We should not try to be very vague and indulge in smearing others, particularly political opponents. We have to adopt a spirit of statesmanship in our political struggle. We cannot allow ourselves and others to indulge in dirty political games. Today, the Prime Minister hopes very much to kick out the M.C.A. so that there can be more co-operation between U.M.N.O. and the P.A.P. On the one hand, he tries to sour up the relationship between U.M.N.O. and the M.C.A., and, on the other hand, he tries very hard to please the Tunku and also his colleague, Tun Abdul Razak, with whom the P.A.P. are trying hard to curry favour. But it is impossible for the P.A.P. to kick out the M.C.A. from the U.M.N.O./M.C.A./M.I.C. Alliance.

Mr Speaker: The Member is back on the same theme. I have just ruled him out of order. Can he get on to some other subject?

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): This is very important, Mr Speaker, but I shall take your advice and forget about this. What I am going to say is of great importance. The Prime Minister has said unashamedly that the P.A.P. represent the majority. It seems that the P.A.P. represent the majority and that we, the Barisan, represent the minority, and we should be banned. The Barisan Sosialis should be banned and expelled from the Chamber, but it is futile for the P.A.P. to make use of some superficial figure to cover up the true facts of the situation. If you are not forgetful, Mr Speaker, you will remember that in the last general election in South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem claimed that he had a 99.8 per cent majority, and his wife also claimed that Ngo Dinh Diem was able to obtain a 99.9 per cent majority in the general election. The Prime Minister, who has not been able to obtain 99.9 per cent of the votes, compares himself with Ngo Dinh Nu and Ngo Dinh Diem. But what are the facts? The people in South Vietnam simply hate Ngo Dinh Diem and his regime like poison. Yet Ngo Dinh Diem's regime has the audacity to claim that they represent the majority of the people. Mr Speaker, we all condemn the so-called election that took place in South Vietnam. This is sufficient to show that majority representation and minority representation is not a criterion on which the true wishes of the people can be measured. In some countries such as South Vietnam, arrests are made of political opponents of the Party in power, persecution is resorted to, and all the state machinery is marshalled and made use of against the true patriots and the real statesmen in the country. In spite of all these repressive actions, the Party in power has the audacity to turn now and say that they represent the majority of the people. What a shame! In spite of what the P.A.P. have done, they can only obtain less than 50 per cent of the votes cast in the general election, to say nothing of their being able to obtain the majority support of the people. In spite of all this, they say unashamedly that they represent the real majority of the people. Mr Speaker, although we were defeated in the general election we have to draw your attention to the fact that the way in which the election was conducted was unfair ---

Mr Speaker: We are not discussing the last elections. Keep on to the Negara's speech. I had occasion to rule before that we have had enough of the elections. Go on to the Negara's speech.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I hope that you will bear with me because this is precisely the point mentioned in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. So we want to let the people know our views of the results of the general election, otherwise the people might be misled by the P.A.P. It is our responsibility, as Members of the Opposition, to clear up the position. We were able to poll 200,000 votes in the general election, and so we ask that our views be respected.

In the Prime Minister's speech, we were further smeared by him. He said that we tried to pull down the pillars of parliamentary democracy. Now, this is a smear which we have to squash. It is not the Barisan Sosialis which desire to pull down the pillars of parliamentary democracy. In fact, it is the other way round. It is the P.A.P. which desire parliamentary democracy to fail in this part of the world. The P.A.P. are not prepared to face up to the consequences of their action in breaking up parliamentary democracy in this island, and so they try to put the blame on the Barisan Sosialis and make use of this as an excuse to further persecute them.

Who have banned the rural organisations and hawkers associations? Who have resorted to violence to break up legitimate strikes? Who have assaulted non-P.A.P. election workers? Who have prohibited and denied the people freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of publication? Who have sent Special Branch men to Nanyang University to arrest students and undergraduates and assault some undergraduates? Who have exerted pressure on the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Singapore? And who have resorted to undemocratic means? Are these not facts enough to show that they try to break up parliamentary democracy? This is what the P.A.P. have done. Or can one say that it has been done by the Barisan Sosialis? In fact, their dirty game has been seen through by all concerned. As I have already said, in spite of all the futile means adopted by the P.A.P., they can only obtain less than 50 per cent of the votes. In spite of their persecution of us, we are able to get more than 20 per cent of the votes cast in the general election. This is a cause of great worry to the P.A.P. That is why, after realising that it is futile to resort to humbug and deceit to gain further support, they are resorting to further means by which they hope to crush their political opposition.

The P.A.P. try to make use of legal means to further control and squash political opposition in Singapore. Now, this again is enough to show that it is the P.A.P. which desire to break up parliamentary democracy.

Therefore, we have to appeal to al the people in Singapore who are politically conscious to pay attention to the damage that the P.A.P. have done to parliamentary democracy.

The P.A.P. have been very sarcastic about those who fight for Chinese education. In his speech, the Prime Minister has disclosed his hatred of those Chinese-educated people and his intention to strangle Chinese education in Singapore. He smears those who light for Chinese education and the cause of Chinese education as traitors, pro-Communist and anti-national elements. He even smears the Management Committee of Nanyang University and tries to sour up the relationship between the teaching staff and the Management Committee of Nanyang University.

The Prime Minister in his speech says that the appointment of members of the teaching staff is good for only one year. That is why they do not enjoy security in their appointments. That is why they are not daring enough to come forward to defend academic freedom. So he talks about security of tenure of appointment as a means by which he wishes to sour the relationship between the teaching staff of Nanyang University and the Management Committee of the same University. This again is enough to show that the P.A.P. and their oligarchy will not hesitate at anything to smear, to the fullest extent, Chinese education, Nanyang University and those who fight for the interests of Chinese education. The reactionary attitude of the P.A.P. in education has been seen through by the people in Singapore. So the responsibility of having put Chinese schools in a precarious position should be shifted from the P.A.P. shoulders to somebody else's shoulders. That is why the P.A.P. are putting on the shoulders of other people the responsibility of the failure of Chinese education in its growth.

In fact, the P.A.P. wish very much to gain control of Nanyang University. This is a fact known to everybody. That is why they are making use of finances and economic aid against Nanyang University. They have refused to recognise the degrees and qualifications of Nanyang University. In spite of the Government's interference with academic freedom and autonomy in Nanyang University, Nanyang University shall stand unshaken, Nanyang University shall continue to safeguard the interests of true education. Nanyang University will not allow itself to be swallowed up by the P.A.P. Nanyang University will never allow itself to be made use of for the P.A.P.'s party interest. All the persecution that Nanyang University has suffered at the hands of the P.A.P. must receive our strongest protest and condemnation. We shall go further into this matter in my speech.

Mr Speaker, the intention of the Government to set up the Citizenship Consultative Committee is a measure by which the Government desire to further control the freedom of speech of the people, and the movements of the people in their daily lives. This is a measure of a feudalistic nature. The real purpose is not to strengthen the relationship between the people and the Government. On the other hand, the real purpose is to further exploit the freedom and liberty of the people. This action of the P.A.P. has been exposed. By doing this, the P.A.P. hope to control the people through those so-called Citizens Consultative Committees by using them as their lackeys to get intelligence information through them, and disseminate their propaganda through them too, because they can be made use of to deal with and to control the people, and they will be making use of some nominal heads to manage these committees in order to achieve their purpose of doing harm to others in order to benefit themselves. So if the people suffer as a consequence of their rights being infringed, then the P.A.P. oligarchy can turn round and put the blame on those nominal heads. You can see the nature of P.A.P. oligarchy. This is their usual tactic - always claim the merit for themselves and blame others. These Citizens Consultative Committees will become the intelligence centre of the P.A.P. and will be used as an instrument to further the P.A.P.'s control over the people, and as a tool to restrict the rights and freedom of the people. They will thus be a very convenient piece of machinery.

From the speeches made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education, we see that they have smeared the Chinese-educated and Chinese education, as well as those who are patriotic and sincere in their cause for national education. We can well understand the intrigues of the P.A.P. in smearing patriotic educationists and Nanyang University. They try to sour up the good relations between the Chinese, Malays, and other racial communities in order to create misunderstanding among these communities against us. So you can see how they manage to sour up the good relations between the Malay and Chinese communities.

The Prime Minister has said that Nanyang University has been used to disseminate Communist doctrines, and the Minister for Education has mentioned Chinese chauvinism together with Communism as though the two words mean one and the same thing. He makes use of Chinese education as the object of his attack, accusing it of being the cause of trouble and disharmony. The attack on the so-called Chinese chauvinism and the blame on the so-called ignorant people have been made for obvious ulterior motives. If the P.A.P. oligarchy is like Don Quixote in its attitude, then its propaganda will be more glaringly exposed, and it will have to resort to more mean tactics with worse results.

Here in Singapore we have a plural society of Chinese, Indians, Malays, and others, and we try to persuade all these different races to live peacefully and harmoniously. We should also try to educate those people receiving education in the different language media to live peacefully and harmoniously and to co-operate with and understand one another. How is the education policy of the P.A.P. going to achieve these objects? How is it going to succeed in uniting the different races? The P.A.P. have put Chinese education in a bad light before the racial communities, and in the end they think that Chinese education can be destroyed.

This smear, the mean tactics and dirty propaganda will only serve as a warning to the racial communities, and it will only lead to a misunderstanding among the races and cause a split among them. Have the P.A.P. considered this possibility? I therefore say that this is a dangerous matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I have said just now is mainly directed at the Minister for Culture and the Prime Minister who have been accusing us of being anti-nationals and also smeared us with names. I say that the P.A.P. Government have not dealt properly with the question of confrontation and the sufferings that have been brought to the people. On the other hand, the P.A.P. Benchers have been trying to evade these questions.

Taking the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara as a whole, we can divide it into four points. On the first point, we see that the speech praises the P.A.P.'s so-called achievements. It has ignored the serious and evil consequences that have been brought about by Malaysia and has forgotten the people's sufferings. It also tries to shift the blame for the sufferings of the people brought about by Malaysia and confrontation on to others and the Central Government. It also tries to explain away the P.A.P.'s inability to deal with the problem of the livelihood and living standards of the people and for their betterment. From this we can see what the P.A.P. are like. The people of Singapore can never forget what the P.A.P. have done to cause them to suffer. The P.A.P. Government have been collaborating with British colonialists and the Central Government to confiscate the property of trade unions and have arrested their leaders and also banned their organisations and increased their sufferings to further their own ends. The P.A.P.'s deceptions cannot prevail forever.

They carried out a sham referendum on 1st September last year. This referendum, manipulated by them, cannot be conclusive. Do not think the people are fools. The people cannot tolerate this. The P.A.P. cannot shirk their responsibilities. Malaysia has brought a lot of suffering and difficulties to the people. The P.A.P. are making use of the bogey of Communism to curb the reactions of the people. They are thus taking action against the Barisan Sosialis and those who are with us.

I wish to talk now about building construction. Do not think that by their propaganda on their so-called construction work they can fool the people. The P.A.P. are trying to put up a show when they say they are carrying out construction work and other building activities. It is actually a facade. It is a deception to cover up the difficulties which the people are suffering. Are not these sufferings caused by Malaysia? The Government's speeches are the same as those delivered previously. They are old speeches in a new bottle.

Let me talk of the livelihood of the people as it existed before and the conditions prevailing after Malaysia. Many merchants have suffered in their business. Many workers have lost their jobs. Many industries have had to regulate the number of shifts for their workers as a result of the shortage of imported materials. Some of them have been asked to work only for a few days in a week. Some factories have had to close down entirely. The industries affected include those engaged in a rattan and sago industries. We can see this situation clearly if we go along the sea front and the Harbour Board. We can see from this situation the result which confrontation has brought about consequent upon Malaysia. Much as I would like to enumerate all these instances, I will not deal with them at length. Many factories have been closed down as a result of confrontation. Some of them are Loo Ee Toh, Hock Soon, Yan Chuan, Chew Leong, Ho Kah Heng, etc. They are too numerous to enumerate. Thus, as a result of confrontation which Malaysia has caused, people in all walks of life are suffering. This is unprecedented in the history of Singapore. Most of the workers, especially stevedores, are on the brink of starvation. Many workers were retrenched as a result of the closing down of their factories. There are only a few workers who are given partial work. Just look at the empty vessels in the harbour. Look at the number of workers waiting along the quay queueing up for jobs. We can see from all this that the situation is going from bad to worse. There are about 8,000 workers directly affected by confrontation. They are now unemployed. The total number of people who have lost their jobs as a result of confrontation may well be 15,000. These are workers in all kinds of industries and trades. Some workers have only been offered one day's work in a whole week. It is difficult for them to eke out a living like this for the whole month. What about the workers in other industries? For instance, what about those in the shoe-making industry? According to the Government, only 8,000 workers have been out of job. This statement is deceiving the people. They are minimising the difficulties and hardships suffered by the people as a result of Malaysia. According to the Minister, there are about 40.000 to 50,000 people unemployed. This is a very serious social problem. Every year there are more and more school-leavers. On top of this problem, Malaysia has brought more hardship and suffering to the people. They are living like ants in a hot pot. What are the Government going to do about this? This is a situation which the Minister for Labour has described as a paradise in South-East Asia. He says this kind of living is a paradise. Perhaps we may not want to take his words seriously, because such utterances have also been made by ex-colonialists. Even the Prime Minister has said that Singapore is a paradise in South-East Asia. Perhaps the Minister for Labour has avenues for the accumulation of wealth. He is riding in a big car ---

Mr Speaker: The Member is being repetitious. The Member for Jalan Kayu has attacked the Minister for Labour on the same line. It was mentioned that the Minister had a salary of $2,500. So the Member is out of order on two points. First, the Member is being repetitious. Secondly, the Member is about to indulge in a personal attack. Can we get on with this debate, if the Member has anything new to say? I do not want the Member to make any more references to the Minister for Labour.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has tried to cover up the truth. Instead of letting the people know the truth, he has described Singapore as a paradise in South-East Asia. I do not wish to indulge in personalities now. But we have the right and, indeed, it is our duty to expose the false picture the Minister has painted.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have ruled that the Member for Jalan Kayu has already replied on this point. The Member is being repetitious. Please get on to something else. I have made a ruling. I intend to stick by it. We can go on for hours if the Member is going to repeat the same argument. He has spent about half an hour on that point. I am not prepared to allow the Member to go on on that point. Please proceed.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): So talking about the life in paradise, except the Ministers who can enjoy life in paradise ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not want the Member to speak of the Ministers or the life of paradise that we live here. I have just told him that the Member for Jalan Kayu has spoken on this point. Though he was not spoken on it, it is repetitious. Please do not proceed on that line.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, since one of our colleagues has already touched on it, I will skip it. But I should explain that we have the duty to condemn the incorrect utterances made by the Ministers because the Minister for Culture has even dared to speak against our own people for the foreign countries. We know that in Brunei the oil there is controlled by the British and the people there are suffering in spite Brunei's rich natural resources. Yet the Ministers hope that our Parliamentarian in the Central Parliament would speak to defend the exploiters. What kind of representatives are you who dare to make speeches in defence of foreign exploiters? Is the Minister drawing $2,500 just to speak on behalf of the foreign powers? He has accused us, the Barisan Sosialis, of receiving $500 allowances. I ask particularly the Minister for Culture, why did he speak for the foreigners and not for our own people --- [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. Please proceed.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): I was talking about the Minister for Labour. That is why I find it necessary to rebut the utterances made by him.

At the same time, on the question of Malaysia, the P.A.P. Government have all along smeared us as being Communists, and because Indonesia is supposed to oppose Malaysia, so we must be opposing Malaysia. But the accusation will be exposed by the general masses of the people. They have challenged us to declare our stand. Our stand is that of patriotism. We are for the interests of all the people and our stand on Malaysia is based on this patriotism. Therefore, the Ministers' propaganda would in the end be met with bankruptcy. That is why, since they cannot succeed in their propaganda, they will have to change the tune of their speeches. Their lies one day will be exposed. The Minister for Labour has been putting forward his reasons which are absurd and childish. He says Indonesia is a sovereign country, the Barisan Sosialis is a political Party in Singapore. What strength have we to influence the policy of Indonesia? The Minister for Labour is futile in his attempts. His reasons are not worth our rebuttal. Let us hear what he says about Indonesia in order to understand the trade severance between Singapore and Indonesia. He says the Indonesian people have nothing to eat. They have no clothes to put on and have been eating the bark of trees and rats. These are common occurrences, he says. In Indonesia, he also says, the rupiah is not even worth a Japanese note. He also talks about the well-fed leaders who ignore the starvation of their subjects. We know the Minister has been attacking the Indonesian people and the policy of Indonesia. This is a gross interference in the internal affairs of Indonesia which will lead to their hostility. This is an insult to the respect, the dignity of the Indonesian people which will lead to adverse consequences - bad relationships between Indonesia and Singapore. The people in Singapore have asked for the restoration of trade relations between Indonesia and Singapore. We must not talk about their troubles. We must negotiate with them peacefully. But the Minister's attitude is not so. He gloats over the difficulties suffered by the Indonesian people. This will only make matters worse. This is not the way to bring about good relations between Indonesia and Singapore. The Prime Minister has said that we must resume relations between Indonesia and Singapore, but the Minister's speech will only result in a worsening of relations. As the Government of Singapore, we have the right to urge the Central Government to open negotiations with Indonesia, so the State Government has the night to urge the Central Government. It is our responsibility. Therefore, the Minister may attack Indonesia but he must also consider the people who are affected by the severance in trade. Factories have to be reopened and the workers have to get jobs. The Government must seek ways and means to improve the situation. It is useless and futile for the Minister to carry on abusing our neighbour. This will not help the matter very much.

In the publications printed by the Ministry of Culture, the P.A.P. have admitted that the confrontation staged by the Indonesians has been brought about by Malaysia. Therefore, the Indonesian confrontation and the severance in trade between Indonesia and Singapore have been caused by the P.A.P.'s effort to bring about Malaysia. The Minister for Labour talks about the excess of population and other reactionary theories. Now, what is his motive?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): If you are capable, let us have an open debate. Why should you repeat the speeches of the Prime Minister? Because of the tension brought about by Malaysia, the people are suffering a lot and they are miserable. The merchants have no business; the workers have no jobs and they have to face resistance from the people of Borneo. The Prime Minister has told us that Malaysia has brought peace and happiness to ten million people who will be able to lead a happy, prosperous and peaceful life. The present situation is a slap in the face of the reactionary clique. So they are now trying to shift the responsibility for the present difficulties and hardship on to others as they are not able to account for the present difficulties. Therefore, they have to find a way out to deceive the people. That is shirking their responsibility. They realize that they have collaborated with the British imperialists to sponsor Malaysia. The Prime Minister has given all sorts of reasons, such as that Indonesia has about 400,000 troops who are well armed, that Malaysia has very few troops and that the population of Indonesia is bigger than that of Malaysia. Now on the 9th of December, the Minister for Labour repeated the same argument. Mr Speaker, Sir, when one country threatens another country, the size of their respective populations need not be a deciding factor.

00.01 a.m., 19-12-63

For example, Japan with a population of 90 million people was able to conquer China with a population of nearly 500 million people, and Britain with a smaller population than India was able to conquer India. This was because they pursued aggressive policies. Britain was the oldest empire ---

Mr Speaker: Order. We are not speaking of Britain and Japan. The hon. Member needs only one example to make his point. I want to be fair to both sides of the House. He has been on the Floor for one and a half hours, and I think, in fairness to both sides, he should try to wind up his speech. We have been here from half-past two in the afternoon. I hope he will try his best. I want to be fair to both sides, but we cannot go on forever, otherwise the standard of debate in this House will deteriorate. I would ask him to try to wind up his speech.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): All right, I will not touch on this any more. Let me touch on a graver problem. From the debate in the past three days, it seems that the P.A.P. have tried to shift their responsibility and that they dare not face up to the stark reality. We will prove that they have done bad things and that they dare not shoulder responsibility. I want to put forward these facts.

After the P.A.P. came to power, what have they done? As far as I know, their first misdeed was to deprive Mr Tan Lark Sye of his citizenship - a man who has contributed a lot towards the building of Nanyang University. The leadership of the P.A.P. did not consider the adverse consequences of their ruthless measure in depriving him of his citizenship. They think that because they were elected in the last election, the people will support their misdeeds. So they think that they can do what they like now. Victory has gone to their heads. They have been arrogant. During the last election, the people who voted for them did not return them to power to deprive Mr Tan Lark Sye of his citizenship. If they persist in their barbaric misdeeds, I believe that those who supported them in the past will not tolerate them. They put the P.A.P. in power because they want them to do good things and not bad things. The P.A.P. have disregarded the liberty and other basic human rights of the people. They have collaborated with the Federation police to launch an attack on Nanyang University. Soon after depriving Mr Tan Lark Sye of his citizenship, the Federation police launched an attack against Nanyang University and arrested the students, in addition, they banned 7 trade unions in Singapore. The general strike for two days in protest against the Government action was broken up by the Government by repressive measures. In fact, this general protest strike was brought about by the repressive actions of the Government which forced the workers to go on strike. The workers had to take strike action in order to safeguard their own interests and the existence of the organisations.

Mr Speaker: The Member is talking about how this strike was caused. Are we going to have all this again? Six of his colleagues have spoken - they have all spoken on this strike - and if he goes on with this subject we will go on forever.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): The development of my argument will be quite different from the other arguments.

Mr Speaker: I rule that the Member must not go on to the strike, so please accept my ruling. I do not care in what context he speaks. I have ruled that he is out of order in talking of this strike, because he is being repetitious. He has had the Floor for more than one and a half hours. If he is going to bring up fresh matters, I am prepared to hear him, but if he is going to talk of the strike of which we have heard so much, I think it is a waste of time.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): So it is regrettable that when the reactionary Alliance in the Federation is making inroads into the liberties and freedom of the people of Singapore, the P.A.P. are trying to ignore these facts. Instead, the P.A.P. are assisting the Federation Government and its reactionary Alliance to take action against Nanyang University, against those who do not endorse their policies. These actions are only taken in the interests of Devan Nair and his trade union. They have forgotten entirely their promises made to the people of Singapore. They have promised the people of Singapore that if the Federation interfere with the fundamental rights of the people of Singapore, they will not compromise with the Federation of Malaya, and the Singapore Government will defend the rights of the people. This is what has been said by the Prime Minister. But when these things do happen, they resort to the cheap propaganda that it is due to the trouble created by the Communists that the Central Government have to take certain actions.

So the P.A.P. have turned now to speak in defence of the Federation action, instead of fighting for the interests of the people in Singapore as they have promised. To put everything in a nutshell, the P.A.P. are trying to make use of their powers to ensure that their political position will be perpetuated. The P.A.P. have forgotten the promise made to the people to fight for their fundamental rights. They are now acting in collaboration and in collusion with the Federation Government against the interests of the people of Singapore. We must tell the leaders of the P.A.P. that in so doing they have been very foolish, and this has been too much on the part of the P.A.P. to have done so.

Although we do not deny that the P.A.P. have a majority vote in this House, they cannot make use of this majority to trample over the fundamental rights of the people in Singapore, and the P.A.P. should never be allowed to make use of this majority in this House to destroy parliamentary democracy. As we have already said, in so far as Singapore's political control is in the hands of the Federation reactionary elements, then the fundamental rights of the people of Singapore will be destroyed and undermined. I lay all these facts before you to prove the truth of our warning that we gave quite a long time ago. The contempt that the P.A.P. have for parliamentary democracy and for the basic rights of the people can be seen clearly in recent developments and this contempt will give rise to widespread dissatisfaction among the people. There will come a day when the people will rise up to defend and fight for their own rights. In the struggle for their liberties and freedom and personal security, the workers, the under-graduates and other people have been branded Communists. This is the usual tactic which deserves no repetition. The people of Singapore will never endorse the policies of the P.A.P. Government which are detrimental to the people's interests.

We want to ask a question, that is, whether the rights of the 60,000 workers in these two unions can be denied and ignored. Why should not a certain amount of respect be given to the rights of the workers and why should the rights of those arrested be denied?

The Nanyang University problem is again a knotty question that worries the Government. In failing to solve this problem, they have taken repressive actions against certain Nanyang undergraduates, and in trying to destroy academic freedom they have arrested certain under-graduates. What is the ulterior motive behind all these repressive actions? Have they any conscience at all? We must point out that if parliamentary democracy is not respected, if the personal freedom and security of the people and human rights are not respected, then it is difficult to have peace and harmony in this country. The blame for disharmony and possible unrest in this country should be placed squarely on those responsible for the repressive actions which seek to break up parliamentary democracy. As the saying goes, there is no smoke without fire. If there is no action coming from the Federation against the interests of the people, and if the P.A.P. have not failed to defend the rights of the people in the face of Federation interference, then there will not have been so much trouble. So to ensure peace and harmony in Singapore, the people of Singapore should be given sufficient democracy and freedom to exercise their rights. It is only when the people have certain democratic rights, it is only when the democratic rights of the people have been given the minimum respect, that peace and harmony can ever exist in Singapore.

It is most improper to give democratic rights only to a minority group of people to enable them to boss over the majority of the people. If this happens, then there will not be any peace in Singapore. The P.A.P. do not appreciate the truth of this thesis and pretend not to know about it. In fact, they try to put aside the indestructible truth of this thesis. It is our duty to present the true facts to the P.A.P. and to the people, so that all concerned will wake up one day to take part in the struggle to safeguard their basic rights. It is only when the people's rights are respected that there will be peace. Those who deliberately try to distort facts and put aside the truth of the situation should be exposed. Their true colours should be shown up. They should be dealt with. Then they will have to bow to the will of the people.

The P.A.P. are now undermining the rights of the people. The Government have every intention to destroy the progressive forces in Singapore in order to consolidate their own reactionary forces in Singapore. These unreasonable actions of the Federation Alliance can only be frustrated by the strong will of the people. In order to safeguard parliamentary democracy and the fundamental rights of the people, we have to unite together.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 16th of September, 1963, the Federation of Malaysia was forced through as a result of collusion among the P.A.P., the Federation of Malaya, and the British. In this new Federation, although it appears that the British colonialists no longer hold the reins of government, in actual fact, the rights and powers are still controlled by the British through the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker: Order. This again is mere repetition that the British are still in control. May I remind the Member for Paya Lebar that he has been on his feet for nearly two hours? I am not prepared to allow him to repeat himself. I must appeal to him once again not to repeat himself. To be fair to the others, I think he should wind up his speech is soon as possible.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, what I have been saying has some connection with what they have said and the arguments we have advanced in this House during the course of the debate in the last few days. I was trying to make the point whether our country, after Malaysia, is really an independent sovereign country. In order to do so, I will have to enumerate the existing facts for the people to judge.

Mr Speaker: I agree with the Member that it is relevant. I am not saying that it is irrelevant to the subject. What I am saying is this. This subject has been dragging on, from both sides of the House. It has been referred to time and again and I will not allow the hon. Member to repeat it. That is all.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): So, superficially the golden colonial era has passed into the annals of history. But after the establishment of Malaysia, British influence and the same social structure still remain, although superficially the British are not in the ring. In fact, British military and economic rights still exist and they have not been disturbed. Her influence still exists to a very great extent in this ---

Mr Speaker: I rule the hon. Member out of order on this subject about the British. I think he should go on to something else. Perhaps there is this difficulty of language between us. For that reason, I have allowed him to go on a little more, but I must put a stop to this. I have ruled him three times out of order on the same point. I do not want to have to rule him out of order again. I must ask him to get on to something new.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, let me conclude briefly. I would like to enumerate a few facts to show that actually there has been no change at all after Malaysia. Economically speaking the British colonialist position is still consolidated and they still maintain their bases through the so-called Anglo-Malaysian Defence Treaty. Their influence and power have not been touched in the least. Even the Australian and the New Zealand armies are making use of our land as their bases. They are driving their military trucks on our roads.

SEATO was not established to serve and maintain the interest of the people in this region. It is a military alliance of foreign countries. The British are clever in manipulating. Through the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Treaty, the British can still maintain their interests in South-East Asia. The Malaysian Government are serving the British by this treaty. The countries affected are still in a state of submission, economically and militarily. This does not help to maintain peace in this region, and it is not in our interest. Our stand on anti-colonialism is directed at getting rid of this position of subjection to the military might of a foreign power, and securing true peace, happiness and prosperity for the people in this region. I have already said that actually there has been no change in the situation after Malaysia. Only the economic situation will prove whether our country now is an independent sovereign country. Britain has still an economic hold on our rich resources, such as rubber, tin, palm oil and other products and they are still in control of communications, trade, import and export firms, banking and insurance which have always been monopolised by the British colonialists. The economic power structure is still in the hands of the British colonialists. Although independence has been achieved, yet the economic situation has not changed at all; the position is still the same. The plutocratic economic exploitation has not been got rid of yet. The livelihood and living conditions of our farmers and fishermen still remain the same. There has been no improvement at all. The Alliance Central Government in encouraging foreign monopolists and capitalists to come here and compete in this exploitation are still not checked. Although the investments by foreign capitalists and monopolists have contributed to the superficial prosperity, this is detrimental to an independent sovereign country because it will only make our country dependent on foreign economic support. Is this the kind of policy that should be pursued by an independent sovereign country? Opposition to colonialism means that we should get rid of foreign economic control over us so that we can develop our economy freely and achieve our own independent industrial economic policy to bring about a better livelihood for the people. Industrialisation carried out by foreign capitalists and monopolists will do no good to us because it will only mean their interference in our economic life. In order to promote a healthy growth of our economy, we have to improve our economic policy. As an independent sovereign country, there should be a manifestation of new life brought about by a new policy which can be distinguished from that used in the colonial past. But in this regard, the policy of the present Government has nothing to boast about and there is nothing of merit in it. Although we have a new Constitution which lays down and ensures freedom of speech and publication in the Assembly, what actually is the situation in our nation? The Government are making use of the P.P.S.O. and other emergency laws which were passed by the colonial Government. On the one hand, the Constitution provides us with our basic liberty and human rights; on the other hand, it has taken back all these rights. This is not compatible with the spirit of a new nation. All right-thinking people and political Parties must condemn and oppose this P.P.S.O. Only those who talk about democracy but who in actual fact have benefited from this P.P.S.O. will not oppose the P.P.S.O. After gaining independence the past regime of darkness has come to an end, but the suppression of the democratic movement has again been enacted. Trade union leaders and students have been arrested ---

Mr Speaker: The Member is being repetitious. Ten minutes ago I asked him not to be repetitious and he said he was going to conclude. That is why I allowed him to go on. But if he is going on and on, I must stop him from being repetitious. Can he let me know how long more he is going to take?

Mr Kow Kee Seng: A few minutes more.

Mr Speaker: Very well.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, let me sum up my speech. Politically, there has been no change. Although we have a new nation, a new constitution, we have inherited things that were left by the colonial government in the past, including the laws. We wait to stress and reiterate our stand when we opposed Malaysia in the past. Before Malaysia and merger, our Party pointed out that if Malaysia were to be pushed through, it would bring suffering and disaster; if merger and Malaysia were to be forced through, it would only bring hardship, because the concept and scheme of Malaysia had been sponsored by British imperialism. Therefore, the P.A.P. have helped to impose Malaysia. What happens now? The things that have happened are the result of the imposition of Malaysia. Our prognosis has been correct, and recent happenings have proved this. The people have suffered as a result of merger and Malaysia and confrontation. I fully support the amendment tabled by the Member for Jurong.

00.35 a.m.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: There are many ways of changing a ten-dollar note. I would choose to change it in five-dollar bills and one-dollar bills instead of half-cent coins.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to dwell on aspects of public health wherein reference has been made to labour. It is customary in many parts of the world to attribute blame for many things on workers. It appears to me that we in Singapore are no exception, as that is the only inference that I can draw from the remarks that inadequate methods of supervision resulting in indiscipline among public health workers together with the existence of secret society elements in their midst have contributed to an increase in rubbish, so that they cause a menace to health in Singapore. Being directly associated with the workers of Singapore, I wish to emphatically refute such allegations. The blame for the state of affairs in public health, particularly relating to the cleansing of the city, cannot be attributed either to the indiscipline of labour or its inefficiency.

Let me first touch on the remarks about secret society elements in the midst of public health workers in Singapore. Whatever may be the shortcomings of the pro-national labour in Singapore. surely the House will appreciate that we differ at least in this respect from the anti-national unions of the S.A.T.U. group who have never hesitated to introduce such elements - I mean the secret society elements - to force workers into participating in anti-national political strikes. Anyone acquainted with workers in Singapore will recall that the 1961 strike of these workers, unlike the many strikes in the S.A.T.U. group, did not result in any free-for-all. Despite considerable delay in the implementation of the terms of agreement arising from this strike, public health workers have shown considerable restraint over the last two years even to the extent of agreeing to the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry to settle unresolved issues. All these can only speak well for the restraint and patience shown by cleansing and other public daily-rated workers, a situation hardly possible had it been true that secret society elements were working in their midst.

Sir, many of the defects in this field of public health, particularly that relating to the cleansing of the city, must be squarely placed on the shoulders of the Member for Hong Lim who, during his short reign as Singapore's one and only Mayor, did lasting damage to our record as one of the cleanest and healthiest cities of Asia - nay, the world. With his advent, orders for the purchase of new vehicles for the cleansing and other public health work were cancelled; existing vehicles were deployed from other purposes, and even the incinerator was closed down. The consequence was that refuse had to be dumped in open spaces, even in the frontage of the labour lines and housing settlements, and this is still the situation in Singapore. Thus, by the dumping of refuse, delays in removal caused by the lack of necessary equipment and a host of many other things have contributed to this vicious cycle of disease - I mean refuse, flies and diseases.

Sir, I say that the position is even worse today. About 29,000 houses have been built since 1959, many miles of new drains and roads constructed, new schools built for the increasing number of school-going children, large numbers of people, including room dwellers moving into separate houses and establishing separate households and a general expansion of social services in Singapore since 1959. It is all well known to the Members of this House, both the Opposition and the Government. The consequence of all this is that the amount of refuse has increased, and all this calls for a larger cleansing labour force and more and better equipment. What do we really have in their place? We have merely an additional 200 workers over and above the 1958 labour force. We have vehicles, thanks to the Member for Hong Lim, which operate 12 to 14 hours per day over considerable distances with frequent breakdowns, dust-bins despite the considerable public money spent by the then City Council are no longer adequate but usable. In some places dust-bins with their bottoms about to fall off are issued to cleansing workers for their work. Despite these handicaps and difficulties, I must say the workers of the cleansing section are doing a magnificent job.

Sir, I regret that no recognition has been paid to these workers for their services under these handicaps. I, therefore, ask this House to judge the remarks regarding labour's contribution to the uncleanliness of the city in the light of what I have said. What the situation really calls for is to find ways and means of improving the cleanliness of the city, and I say the answer lies not in assigning blame to the workers, but in the provision of more vehicles for the transportation of refuse, a larger work force, and a trained set of frontline supervisors, not those who will brow-beat workers without regard to the difficult circumstances under which they are required to work. Nobody has thought fit to look into the methods nor the efficiency of those in charge of public health in Singapore.

The recent Commission of Inquiry into the Public Daily-Rated Employees reveals a shocking state of affairs. The cross-examination of the Health Ministry by a genuine trade unionist, Mr C. V. Devan Nair, showed up a set of anti-labour officials in that Ministry who showed a greater knowledge of anti-labour theories than that of the requirements of public health. I hope that before making sweeping remarks about workers, the authorities concerned will take the trouble to study the shortcomings of those who are supposed to be in charge of public health. There are more flies, mosquitoes and rubbish today. Only the workers are responsible? That is rubbish! Only the officials in the Ministry of Health who have mismanaged public health and systematically misled their Ministers will dare say so. I appeal to the Government to take a fair and objective view of the situation in public. The workers may not be entirely innocent of the responsibility, but the major guilt lies elsewhere. It lies with those who have systematically mismanaged public health. It lies with the rat-racing, responsibility-dodging, union hating, and blame-throwing bunch of inefficient buffoons who staff the Ministry of Health. The Public Daily-Rated Employees Federation, which represents the Public Daily-Rated Employees in Singapore, have assured the National Trades Union Congress that they will give their full co-operation in improving public health in Singapore, but co-operation is not a one-way traffic. It is a two-way traffic. There must be mutual accommodation between workers and officials and mutual efforts towards improving public health in Singapore.

May I warn the Barisan Sosialis in this House that our criticism of the Government is not an act of anti-national and Soekarno-loving inclination? This is democracy at work, and it is the only way to ensure that democracy does work.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in his speech the Head of State has also stressed the importance of the Industrial Arbitration Court in bringing about stable industrial relations in Singapore. We in the N.T.U.C. fully endorse this hope of the Government. But it is necessary to point out that the Government's hopes and our hopes about industrial relations in Singapore may be defeated if shortcomings in the Industrial Relations Ordinance are not removed. For example, section 77 of the Ordinance provides penalties for employers who dismiss or victimise employees by reason of the circumstance that they join trade unions. But so far, these penalties have never been enforced. Why have they never been enforced? When trade unions break the law, they are hauled up quickly enough. Why is the law not quick enough to punish employers who offend against the law? In the last one year about 15 employers have violated section 77 of the I.R.O. All the facts have been given to the State Advocate-General. But to date not a single employer has been prosecuted Trade unions are, therefore, justified in expressing dissatisfaction with this state of affairs. What is the use of the law if it is not enforced?

The Barisan Sosialis will say that the law is not enforced against employers because the Government is pro-employer. That is rubbish. No worker in Singapore will believe that the Government is pro-employer. What then has gone wrong? It is simply this: the machinery for the enforcement of the law has proved to be grossly inadequate. An employer sacks his employees because they have joined a trade union. The union, under the present regulations, must complain to the police. The police then send their reports to an over-worked S.A.G. The over-worked S.A.G. has no time to deal with these reports because he is deluged with other responsibilities. Now, why should the police have anything to do with industrial offences? Industrial offences are not criminal offences. Would it not be better for a legal officer to be attached to the Ministry of Labour, whose sole responsibility would be to take charge of the prosecution of industrial offences? Speed is essential for industrial justice. You cannot be slow in these matters without disillusioning workers about the rights conferred on them under the law. I suggest that if the Government really want to establish industrial justice, then the machinery for enforcing the law must be thoroughly overhauled.

Let me give a recent example of how an employer deliberately violated section 77 of the I.R.O. and got away with it. The management of the American firm of Grant Advertising Incorporated dismissed all seven members of the Branch Committee soon after their employees joined a trade union. Complaints have been made, but to date nothing has happened, and the workers have become demoralised. If employers are allowed to get away with this kind of business, then constructive trade unionism becomes impossible. We in the National Trades Union Congress must insist that the law be enforced against Grant Advertising Incorporated, and that proceedings should be immediately instituted against the employers in accordance with section 77 of the I.R.O.

I hope that the contentions of the trade unions will not fall on deaf ears and that the new Minister for Labour will take immediate steps to improve the machinery for the enforcement of the law.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Prime Minister's motion.

00.55 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Inche A. Rahim Ishak): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, ever since the debate on the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara started and throughout the Budget debate last week, we have had the opportunity of listening to an exposition of the Communist cause, not from misguided pro-Communists of the Lee Siew Choh or the Sheng Nam Ching variety; they have vanished from the scene, washed away by the tide of history, but from a group of Communist front workers who are better trained, more well versed in Communism and more committed to the Communist struggle of setting up the dictatorship of the proletariat in this country.

No doubt it was clear that every one of them in the Barisan Sosialis was parroting the old tune we had heard enough of before the elections. Neo-colonialism, phoney merger, sell-out merger, and others. There was nothing new for them to deliver, simply because the underground Communist Party of Malaya has nothing new to offer and obediently follows the tune set by the Partai Komunis Indonesia. But the strategy now that Malaysia is a fact seems to be to undermine the faith in and loyalty of the people towards Malaysia. They have said everything possible to do this, short of openly declaring, like the Indonesian leaders have done, that "Malaysia will be crushed". In their attempts to undermine and spread disloyalty and disaffection towards Malaysia, they are in actual fact acting as the fifth columnists and agents of the Indonesians. This blatant act of treachery and betrayal of the nation is being perpetrated at a time when the Indonesians are carrying out their policy of confrontation against Singapore and Malaysia. While the Indonesians are busy committing military action, economic boycott and generally harassing our nation, these fifth columnists are busy helping the Indonesians from within.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last week when they were confronted with the question posed to them by the Minister for Culture as to whether they wanted Indonesian confrontation to fail or to succeed, they had no reply to offer.

The Barisan Sosialis did not expect that they would be cornered and exposed so soon after the debate started. The Member for Thomson made feeble attempts to evade the question by saying that the Barisan wanted a peaceful settlement between Malaysia and Indonesia. The truth of the matter is that they are unable to give a clear-cut answer to that question without making a stand of their intentions. They are faced with a situation where they want to carry on with the Communist struggle against Malaysia and, at the same time, they do not want to be identified with the Indonesians. They have found themselves in a position where they are doing exactly what the Indonesians are doing. The Communists want to avoid being identified publicly with the Indonesians, although privately they know they have decided to be loyal to the P.K.I. line and accept Indonesian leadership in South-East Asia. They cannot, of course, publicly declare their loyalty to Indonesia.

In order to remove this image of being the pawns of the Indonesians and the P.K.I. and to mislead the people here that they are not working for a foreign power, they have, in the last one week, gone out of their way to espouse the cause of the Chinese, Chinese education, Chinese language, Chinese patriots in China. They do all this to show that while they fully agree with what the Indonesians are doing against us, they are still Chinese at heart. Sir, in other words, they want to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

In their clumsy tactics, Sir, they have overlooked the important fact, i.e. the national language takes precedence over all the other languages, and that if they want Chinese to be used in the administration, then they should also put up the case for Malay as the national language. Mr Speaker, apart from their missing leader in this House, the rest of them here are very Chinese in their outlook. They may be loyal followers of D. N. Aidit, they may know the theories of Marx and Stalin, but I feel they know very little about the Malays and the thinking of the Malays. They are out of touch with the hopes and aspirations of the Malays. Have they ever wondered why the Malays who are economically the poorest community in Malaysia do not rally round the Communist Party or any Communist front Party in accordance with the Marxist theory that the Communist Party is the vanguard of the proletariat and peasantry? Do they understand the political problems faced by the people of Malaysia? Do they understand why all races in Malaysia reject Communism?

One matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, which I wish to clear is the charge made by the Members in the Opposition that we deliberately raised the Communist bogey just to gain political advantage. Truly, Mr Speaker, this is a matter that I wish to dwell at some length in my speech. When the Barisan Sosialis say that we are bringing up the Communist bogey, they mean to say that there is no such thing as Communists in political Parties or non-political Parties in this country They mean that we are purposely trying to frighten the people with stories of spooks, ghosts and bogeys.

Actually, Mr Speaker, Sir, a little while ago, the Member for Paya Lebar himself has said that the Minister for Culture has charged them with being Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, only fools will believe that the Communists do not exist in our society. Only the naive will think that the Communist threat has been eliminated. Only the politically uninitiated can be bamboozled by the Communists into believing that they, the Communists, are democrats who intend to work the parliamentary democratic system to better our society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Emergency which lasted for twelve years, beginning from 1948 and which ended in 1960, is still fresh in our minds. The period from August 1945, when the war ended, to June 1948 is also fresh in our minds. The people of this country remember this period very vividly for the Hammer and Sickle emblems in the Red flags which fluttered over the Communist Party of Malaya Headquarters in Queen Street in Singapore and Foch Avenue in Kuala Lumpur, and over all its branches throughout Malaya. We remember the Communist-front organisations called the New Democratic Youth League, the Women's Democratic Federation, and the M.P.A.J.A. Ex-Comrades' Association. As a matter of fact, we still remember many names and many faces who proudly saluted the Communist flag with their fists clenched before their crowns.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the armed insurrection started by the Communist Party of Malaya is over. The Communists decided to call it off after continuing with their atrocities against the people three years after Malaya achieved independence and became an independent and sovereign member of the United Nations. The Communist Party of Malaya was declared an illegal organisation since the Emergency started. The other Communist-front organisation I mentioned which flourished from 1945 to 1948 also vanished from the political scene. But what happened to the leaders of the Malayan Communist Party and all these organisations? Have they all been killed or have they all committed suicide in the jungles of Malaya? Have they renounced their Communist ideology of revolution and violence? Or have they become democrats?

Mr Speaker, Sir, Communists and non-Communists know that the answer to all these questions is no. The aim of the Communists and Communist Parties the world over is the establishment of proletarian dictatorships where the Communist Party rules under a one-party system in which the democratic institutions, as we understand them, are abolished forever.

Now the Communist Party of Malaya does not function in the open. On the contrary, it functions in the open as legally constituted organisations, be they political, social, cultural or literary in character, by infiltration of these legally constituted organisations. The Communist Party of Malaya functions in our society today as open-front organisations within the democratic system which permits their existence. In fact, Sir, they are free to flourish under the democratic system. The Communist Party of Malaya, like Communist Parties all over the world, has its open-front as well as its united front organisations, which they have organised. Lenin taught them this. Stalin too taught this. So also did Mao Tse-tung. They taught them how to carry on with the united front organisations. Aidit also believes in this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in their united front strategy, they invariably try to control the united front with non-Communists for their Communist ends, whether it be in the Old Boys' Association, trade unions, Students' Unions or political Parties. They still control these organisations. Mr David Marshall recently found it to his cost. He has accepted this fact. The coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948, when President Benes was betrayed, bears this out. Two years ago, the Communists in this country carried out these same tactics in the struggle of the people. But they failed. This is one example where they have failed and it has boomeranged against them.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, it is sheer hypocrisy for pro-Communists and Communists to say that we are raising the Communist bogey when we try to expose them and their deceptive tactics. They are no ghosts nor spooks. These Communists are live men and women with eyes, ears and noses like you and me, Mr Speaker. They are full-blooded Communists in sheep's clothing. Naturally they do not go about advertising that they are Communists or Marxists. As a matter of fact, a Communist whose name the Prime Minister has referred to in his book The Battle for Merger once told me that under the present circumstances, the more reactionary a Communist appears to be, the better for the cause of Communism. The Communist is still at large outside prison gates today.

When the Minister for Education a few days ago exposed Communist subversion in Chinese Secondary schools and in Nanyang University, the Barisan Sosialis Members loudly protested that he raised the Communist bogey. Let me ask them whether students who distribute Freedom News and other Communist literature are bogeys? Are under-graduates at Nanyang University, who write under the auspices of the Geographical Society, bogeys?

Mr Speaker, Sir, Messrs. S. Wood-hull, Albert Lim Shee Ping and Puthucheary, were they ghosts when they were taken in in February? Neither was Lim Ching Siong a ghost. Nor is Chin Peng, the man who met the Tunku at Baling in 1955, a bogey. They are live Communists. So let not the Barisan men say again that we raise the Communist bogey when we expose them for being what they are. Mr Speaker, actually, since this session started 10 days ago, we have been able to identify these young and inexperienced Communist debaters with the greatest of ease; whereas old timers like S. T. Bani. Chan Sun Wing and Wong Soon Fong in those days were very careful to avoid using terms and cliches which Communists are trained to use. The present crowd of Barisan men have been using with gay abandon terms like "national bourgeoisie", "progressive forces" "feudal reactionary government", "revisionists", "reactionary clique", "inevitable collapse of capitalism", "anti-people", "foreign monopoly capitalists", etc. I have even heard one of them refer to the P.A.P. as "revisionists".

Mr Speaker, Sir, last week in the debate in this House, one of the Barisan Opposition Members said that the Barisan Sosialis comprise patriots. He said that Tan Kah Kee was also a patriot. If Tan Kah Kee was a patriot, he was a Chinese patriot in China or a Communist patriot in China and not a Malaysian patriot. This is another reason why he went back to his country of origin. This is another instance of the dangerous line they are taking to show that they are not the stooges of the P.K.I.

On Saturday the Member for Thomson tried to show that the P.A.P. have not done anything for the Malays in the field of education. Actually he has been repeatedly saying that the P.A.P. have not done anything at all for education for all the races. I marvel at his ability to ignore the facts when the facts stare at him in the face, and known to the people. 56 new schools, 464,000 children in schools, 35 integrated schools, more than 5,000 adults who are mainly teachers with certificates in the Malay language, two Malay secondary schools and 126 Malay secondary classes, 10-year education for every child in Singapore - with all these, he says the P.A.P. Government have not done anything. What sort of human beings are they who ignore these facts? Mr Speaker, Sir, we can ignore these unimportant things, but when people deliberately choose not to see concrete and rapid progress over 4� years, the like of which is unheard of anywhere in South-East Asia, then there must be something wrong with such people.

Last week the Member for Thomson asked why the number of scholarships for Malays in the Polytechnic and the University of Singapore has decreased. I replied that it was not that the number had decreased, but that it had increased. I said that the number of Malay students were not enough to take advantage of these scholarships. However, one matter which I would like to ask is this: since when have the Barisan Sosialis shown interest in the welfare and education of the Malays? The truth of the matter is that because of the lunacy of the Communist Party of Malaya in their armed revolt, the hatred of the Malays towards the Communist Party and Communism could not be greater. Actually even today, Malays and other Malaysians are ready and prepared to take up arms to crush the Communists if they dare to start another armed rebellion in Malaysia.

Mr Speaker, while Malaysia is being threatened externally, we are still allowing fifth columnists and traitors to attack us from inside. What is the Barisan Sosialis stand in this situation? What should be done to disloyal people like those in the Barisan Sosialis? Such as those people who are in front of us here? A week has passed since the Minister for Culture challenged them to state whether they wanted confrontation to succeed or fail. They have still not yet given a categorical answer.

Mr Speaker, the amendment by the Barisan Sosialis, among others, says that as a result of Malaysia, the Government have caused great difficulties and hardships to the people in Singapore. We all know that confrontation was started by the Indonesians. Therefore, how is it that the Barisan Sosialis now say that the Government have caused hardship to the people? The people voted for merger and Malaysia in the referendum and again in the elections. The United Nations investigation team reported that the majority of the people of Sabah and Sarawak wanted to join Malaysia. Then what logic is it that makes the Barisan Sosialis say that the Government have helped to impose Malaysia? It is the people of Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak who wanted to join Malaysia. That is the crux of the matter, Mr Speaker, Sir.

To end, before long these political opportunists who are prepared to be the stool pigeons of the P.K.I. will be exposed for what they are worth. Their loyalty is not to the people of this country, but to a foreign country, a country they have called their heartland. If so, then they have no place in our society. They should go and live there forever like Mr Tan Kah Kee.

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to say a few words briefly in this Chamber. I wish to ask the Barisan Sosialis Members in this Chamber whether they oppose Malaysia. Malaysia has been established with the wishes of the people. Because the people were not deceived by the Barisan Sosialis or the Communist front in the referendum and in the recent general elections, it is clear proof that the people have no faith in the Barisan Sosialis. We see clearly how many of them have been elected by the people in this Chamber. The Barisan Sosialis are not yet aware that they represent the minority of the people in this Assembly. I wish to inform the Barisan Sosialis that if they consider this country as hell to them, they are free to go to any other country of their choice - Peking or Indonesia. I wish to ask them, if they are anti-Malaysia and do not support Malaysia, why should they live in Malaysia? If they consider this country is hell, they should leave it and go to any other country which they consider a paradise to live in.

1.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Ho Cheng Choon): (In Mandarin): Since the 16th of September when Malaysia was established, the so-called anti-colonial and anti-Malaysia struggle was launched by the Communists. According to them, they have been pushing national revolution to a high peak. The Communist front and their spokesmen, including the Barisan Sosialis and the Socialist Front in Malaya, the S.U.P.P. in Sarawak and the University Students' Union and Barisan Assemblymen, especially the Member for Jurong, the Member for Thomson, the Member for Tampines and the Member for Paya Lebar, have been shouting anti-Malaysia, anti-colonial, anti-this and anti-that slogans to please their P.K.I. masters in Indonesia and to take orders from their foreign masters to carry out their anti-national activities ---

Mr Speaker: Order. We have had this for four days - "taking orders from their foreign masters". If the hon. Member is going to speak on this at a quarter past one in the morning, I am not going to allow him to repeat himself. So if he wants to speak, he should not repeat himself.

Mr Ho Cheng Choon: (In Mandarin): They are indulging in anti-national activities and they openly support the armed rebellion in Borneo and Brunei. They are opposed to national registration and they want to overthrow the Central Government. They are the representatives of the anti-national and Communist united front. They are not prepared to be loyal to Malaysia, in spite of the fact that they have sworn allegiance to Malaysia.

The Malayan Communists have not abandoned their attempt to set up a Communist Malaya since the Emergency. If they cannot put their plan into practice, then they want to split Malaysia into so many parts in order that they can absorb these territories one by one. Their underground activities are still continuing and they have effective control over some organisations which openly carry out the instructions of the Communists.

In the past two years, according to the documents revealed in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Students' Boycott, the Freedom News stated that the political situation in Singapore had all the necessary conditions for launching a new anti-colonial struggle to a new peak and that all the open front organisations and leaders should be educated in order to enhance the political consciousness of the people and to strengthen their anti-colonial fervour to end colonialism in Singapore. It also pointed out that in order to achieve real independence, they must, first of all, get rid of British imperialism which it was impossible to do by peaceful negotiation, and they must be prepared to continue with their national revolution. It also called upon the open front organisers to be the vanguard of the students, peasants and workers in the struggle, to concentrate their efforts to organise themselves, to receive and welcome their mission in the struggle. From this policy statement of the Malayan Communists, you can see that the open front organisations had been carrying out their activities according to the instructions of the Malayan Communists. They have concentrated their efforts in the Chinese Teachers' School Union and the Nanyang University Students' Union. Through these organisations, they have staged examination boycotts and the "liquidation" campaign in the University. They have also concentrated their efforts in trade unions - especially the S.A.T.U. - in rural areas, in the Country People's Association and Rural Dwellers' Association and the Barisan Sosialis is their main organ in the political field. Although they have been defeated by a force led by the P.A.P., but in view of the establishment of Malaysia, they will be more daring in carrying out their anti-national struggle.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to suspend this sitting for 15 minutes.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.25 a.m. until 1.40 a.m. Sitting resumed at 1.40 a.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: We were debating the main Question and the amendment thereto. Mr Ho Cheng Choon had the Floor.

1.41 a.m.

Mr Ho Cheng Choon: (In Mandarin): The Barisan's Old Boys' Association did this and the boys opposite also did this. The speeches made by the Barisan Assemblymen in this House reflect their anti-national activities. They have said that we have been using the two words, "anti-nationalists" and "Communists', on them. Their speeches on the amendment only reflect their anti-national stand and go to prove that they are on the side of the Communists. The Barisan Members and their united front members are all in the same Communist united front.

I would like to quote from some statements on the investigation of the Commission of Inquiry into the Students' Boycott which has exposed the activities of the students concerned. The Communists think that they can control Nanyang University. They make use of Nanyang University as a training ground for Communist cadres to carry out their anti-national activities. During University Week they carried out anti-national activities. On the 1st of December this year, there was a so-called academic forum, but in actual fact it was a political forum to carry out their anti-national activities. The speeches of the Barisan are the same in content, in that they accused the British imperialists of having brought about Malaysia and suppressing the people. In their speeches, they also defended Indonesia, saying that the Indonesian confrontation was justified as a means of self-defence. They put the blame for the formation of Malaysia and confrontation on the British and the Alliance, and they also condemned the national service registration as a means of suppressing the revolution in the Borneo territories. Therefore, they started the anti-national service registration struggle in order to overthrow the Central Government, to drive out the British imperialists and to establish an independent country without foreign troops, foreign exploitation and reactionary influence, so that the people can have their own freedom to live happily in Utopia. But if this objective of theirs cannot be realised, then they propose that the four territories of Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and Malaya should be independent countries by themselves.

University Week was made use of to further the Communist anti-national activities and to promote the so-called University autonomy and freedom of academic exercise. The Nanyang University Students' Union made use of University Week for the purpose of disseminating Communist propaganda to further their anti-national activities and to recruit new Communist cadres to train students as future camp comrades. They allowed the students to stay in the University campus for several weeks under the pretext of preparing for University Week. In actual fact, the activities carried out in the University campus had nothing to do with University Week to be held in March. During their stay-in, they exhibited articles and pictures from Communist countries, praised the Red Army, issued anti-national pamphlets, and carried out all sorts of anti-Government and anti-State propaganda and other subversive activities. Their main purpose in the campus was for this. They said that one of the objectives of University Week was to welcome new students - the freshies - to get settled in the University and to know one another. By this means they intend to recruit new cadres. After training, these new cadres will become their new blood. This has been an open secret.

On the question of whether the standard of Nanyang University should be raised, the Barisan Assemblymen have all claimed that because the standard has been raised, therefore, the lessons are tough. They do not want the standard of Nanyang University to be raised, because if it is to be done, the students have to spend more time on their studies than on Communist activities. If this is to be achieved, then the professors and lecturers would be very strict and have to spend more time on their lectures, and the students would have no facilities to carry on their non-academic activities. The students who belong to the united front, in the event of the standard of the University being raised, will not be able to carry on with their activities, as the curriculum will be very heavy. On the other hand, their examinations will be quite stiff, if a high standard is to be maintained. That again will be another cover by which the activities of the students and undergraduates can be restricted. That is why they do not want to have a high standard in the University of Nantah. Some of the Nanyang undergraduates make use of the typewriters in the University for the purpose of typing out Communist literature. They supply material typed on Nanyang University typewriters. These typists were closely associated with the Communist activists during their school days. So there are available facilities in Nanyang University for the fostering of Communist activities. The Communist united front workers are very active in Nanyang University. So there is no chance of anybody wishing to raise the academic standard of Nanyang University.

The academic standard of Nanyang University is really deplorable. The University authorities desired to arrange the position of the students according to their examination results, but the united front workers opposed this move by the University authorities, because they did not want their front workers to be placed at the end of the list. As a result of certain pressure exerted by the united front workers, the Nanyang University authorities had to give way.

These are facts which I mention to show that the Nanyang University students are under the control of the united front Communists. They are trying to make use of academic freedom to carry out their anti-national activities. They are closely related to other united front organisations of a Communist nature. They even go to the extent of misusing the students' union funds to finance their non-academic activities up to the amount of $5,000. The question by the Barisan Members has been raised in order to defend the activities of their friends in the united front in Nanyang University. It is our duty to expose their ulterior motive. The question of whether the standard of Nanyang University should be raised should be judged by the experts.

1.50 a.m.

Mr S. Rajoo (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Members on the Opposition benches have been making a hue and cry over Malaysia and confrontation for the past few days. They deliberately seem to ignore Malaysia and give prominence to the Indonesian confrontation.

Their proposed amendment to the Prime Minister's motion to express thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's policy speech is ill-conceived and evil-minded. I wish to deal with a few points raised by them.

First and foremost, they deplore the existence of Malaysia, and try to show to the outer world, more fittingly to their Indonesian counterparts, that there exists dissension among the people of Singapore with regard to Malaysia, and this bunch of disillusioned politicians are their leaders. If the cap fits them, let them wear it. Has the inception of Malaysia caused any difficulty in the normal way of living of the people of Singapore? In fact, it has opened a vast stretch of land from Malaya to Sabah, Sarawak and North Borneo for the benefit of the people of Singapore. Then why are these Barisan Assemblymen trying to distort the facts?

Malaysia is not a dream land. Malaysia is in existence, as real as the Barisan themselves. Malaysia is a political and economic entity of 10 million people of Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo. It is universally accepted. There could be nothing more serious than to undermine this fact.

Malaysia is not an armed gang-up against any country - not in the least against the Indonesians. Then why this confrontation by the Indonesians?

Dr Soekarno has repeatedly stated over Radio Jakarta that he will crush Malaysia. In other words, the confrontation will go on until Malaysia is crushed. Do the Barisan seriously advise us to give up Malaysia?

If the Indonesians confront Malaysia, it is their business. But to defend Malaysia from any external threat or attack is the duty of all true Malaysians. But what are the Barisan trying to do? They want to subvert Malaysia in favour of Indonesia. They are not interested in the country in which they live. In actual fact, they follow the Indonesians. They admire Indonesia where there is no Parliament, no rule of law, no democracy, but guided democracy being steered at the whims and fancies of Dr Soekarno. There is no civil government but Army generals at the helm of the nation's administration.

Perhaps all these impress them more than the peaceful and democratic way of life of the people of Malaysia. Perhaps Dr Soekarno is being considered by them as a big brother and liberator of the Barisan masses who are suffering in Malaysia due to the undemocratic imposition of Malaysia on them.

That is what the first part of their amendment indicates. They say in their amendment ---

"; 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 ---".

Truly none other than the Barisan are discontented with Malaysia.

But we Malaysians consider the Indonesians as good friends and big brothers too. But the confrontation is something the reality of which we cannot escape from. Sarawak and North Borneo are part and parcel of Malaysia, although they are far apart.

Coming to the Indonesian confrontation, Sir, it seems that the Indonesians are very familiar with the word "confrontation".

Immediately after the Second World War the Indonesians confronted the Dutch colonial masters with an army trained by the Japanese, because they found a die-hard colonialism in the imperialist Dutch who did not give in to their demand for independence. Well, that is all to their credit.

Following their independence in 1949, there was rebellion in the Celebes Island. There was a second confrontation of Indonesians against their own people.

There was the third confrontation for the annexation of West Irian. This time they received jet planes and warships from Russia which made them stronger still. Fortunately the world body moved in and the Indonesians were saved from a devastating war. The United Nations mediated in the peaceful transfer of West Irian from the Dutch to Indonesia. So the lessons of confrontation run all the time in their veins.

Now they confront Malaysia! What next? Do the Indonesians have any ulterior motive to annex Malaysia with Indonesia? Sir, history has taught us that any dictatorial means of action employed by power-mad politicians and their armies has caused more harm to themselves than to the people intended. Germany's Hitler was an example of this. He had a powerful army. He went on annexing and annihilating country after country. First from Munich to Czechoslovakia, from the Sudetenland to Poland where he was finally caught between the cross-fire of big powers and perished.

Sir, the Barisan's amendment, as it stands, undermines the integrity and freedom of the people of Malaysia. It would have been better for the Barisan to talk to the Indonesians and persuade them to stop talking about confrontation and conflagration and go to the conference table to talk things over. It is an ignominious act on the part of the Barisan Sosialis to ask their own Prime Minister to go on his knees before the Indonesians to talk things over, because the doors are closed on our faces by the Indonesian confrontation.

We are an independent nation and a self-respecting people. We want peace more than war. We have seen the horrors of the Japanese war in Malaya during 1941. We know the dangers of nuclear war and radioactive fall-out. We know the devastating effects of the hydrogen bomb over Hiroshima. Therefore, we do not want war, we want peace. Nobody likes war. Even the Russians who are leading in the atomic bomb race dared not start a war over Cuba. Neither are the Americans, with their huge stockpile of nuclear war-heads, prepared to fight a war. Malaysia is not an exemption to this. Even a goat, if confronted with a lion, will put up a final fight before it succumbs. Therefore, I would advise the Barisan Members not to try to be scare-crows in this Assembly and be His Master's Voice of Radio Jakarta. It is quite logical for newly emerging independent countries to first set right their own economy. Perhaps the Indonesians are not quick-witted in this respect. Perhaps they have been absorbed in too many confrontations for too long. Now they realise the seriousness of their home economy and find a scapegoat in Malaysia for it. Dr Subandrio has said over Radio Jakarta even if Malaysia is settled he will not resume trade relations with Malaysia on the same basis as it was done before. In the past, Indonesian raw materials found their world market through the Singapore free port. Now Jakarta wants to come out as a free port and the marketing area for Indonesian goods. In such an event Malaysia cannot expect a big volume of trade with Indonesia even after confrontation is settled.

The Government of Singapore is not minimising the seriousness of the Indonesian confrontation and the loss of trade. Our Prime Minister has openly admitted that the Indonesian trade embargo has caused us a loss of $8.7 million in national income. Our Minister for Finance has not concealed this in his Budget Estimates. On the other hand, provisions have been made for temporary relief measures for those workers and firms affected by the loss of Indonesian trade. This loss of trade will be made up eventually through the rapid industrialisation of this country, and the Jurong industrial development will play a big part in redeeming the national prestige and setting right our national economy and increasing the national income.

Sir, I wish to tell the Barisan Members to correct themselves from the Indonesian illusion. Think and act for themselves as true Malaysians, and co-operate with the Singapore and Federal Governments by forwarding constructive criticism rather than bringing up a treacherous amendment such as this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I conclude my speech.

2.05 a.m.

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): [Break in translation] If you are really repentant, then we will not scold you any more. Mr Speaker, Sir, in another two weeks' time a new year will be ushered in, a year full of significance, because this is the year in which the people in Sarawak, Sabah, Singapore and Malaya have got rid of British colonialism and have formed themselves into a new nation. In the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, the Government has stepped up its effort to bring more happiness, peace and prosperity to the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the past era has ended and a new era has come, we must look back and look forward. Looking back over the past few years, we are overwhelmed with feelings. Under parliamentary democracy and in this august Chamber, things are the same but the people have changed. That shows that under a parliamentary democracy where the one-man-one-vote system is in existence, all those corrupt officials and all those who have exploited and oppressed the people have been discarded by the people. In every election these people will be swept away by the political tide. This includes the Ban-san Sosialis Members opposite. Therefore, today, in this House, we are not able to see the so-called Progressive Party, the Liberal Socialists, the Workers' Party and the Lim Yew Hock Party. All this political rubbish has been discarded by the people and has been driven from this House, this august Chamber. The Barisan Sosialis Members today have been elected through their deceitful and deceptive tactics. The P.A.P. are still able to command majority strength in this House. It is not, as alleged by the Barisan Sosialis, that we are able to form the Government ---

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we feel very cold. What I want to raise is a point of order. I would like to have your guidance. I feel that the speeches made by the Government Members have been repetitious. I do not know whether we can shorten the debate so that we can go home. It is getting very late now and we feel very cold.

Mr Speaker: It is ten past two. We have to be here at half-past two tomorrow afternoon. We do not mind about ourselves, but I think we have to think about our staff - our shorthand writers and interpreters. Hon. Members get up and speak for ten minutes, but our interpreters have to go on and on. I do not want to impose on any particular Member, but it is only the Government Members who will be speaking. I would ask them in the interests of all to be as brief as possible. I cannot stop them unless they are being repetitious. But I feel that after four days of debate, everything that can be said has been said. Madam Chan, please proceed.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): If the Opposition want to indulge in personal attacks we are prepared to continue the debate in this tone. (In English): If you allow the Opposition Members to make personal attacks, then we will go on till six o'clock in the morning - only on personal attacks.

Mr Speaker: I am not prepared to hear personal attacks for one more second, and I certainly will not listen to personal attacks till six o'clock. All I am prepared to hear is the debate on the question. We will not have any personal attacks. The Lady is speaking and I hope that the Opposition will afford her the courtesy of letting her finish her speech in silence. She is the only Lady left here.

Madam Chan Choy Siong: (In Mandarin): The Opposition had better sit outside if they do not want to listen.

I feel that the people throughout the world realise this. If according to what the Barisan Members have said, it is possible to gain power through suppression, and all sorts of tactics, then I am afraid that it is only in a Communist country that one can gain power through suppressive and other tactics. In a democratic country, it is not possible to gain power through repressive means; otherwise there would not have been so many coup d'etat in so many countries in South-East Asia, for example, in South Vietnam. The Lim Yew Hock regime in Singapore would not have collapsed. The P.A.P. have been able to get the continuous support of a great majority of the people. There are several reasons for this. The first reason is that our stand is firm. We dare to practise what we believe. And we are dedicated to the cause of the people. The third factor is that the people have trust in us as a clean, efficient and honest government. Fourthly, we have been able to face the threat of the Communists and we have been able to help set up Malaysia, to bring about merger. Fifthly, the Government have carried out all their pledges contained in the Five-Year Plan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our splendid achievements in the past four years have been known to all. This cannot be effaced by what the Barisan have said. I would like to ask them whether there is any country in South-East Asia which could carry out such a big housing programme as we have done, at such a low cost. The living conditions of the people of Singapore compared with those of four years ago are very much better. We have been able to build houses surpassing our schedule. Provided the family has more than three members, in just a matter of two weeks it will be able to get allocation of a house. The back of the housing problem has been broken. At the moment, although there are several thousand people still on the waiting list for houses, the Government are continuing with the public housing programme in order to meet the needs of these people. Our Minister for National Development has said that we are trying to build 10,000 units every year in order to meet the needs of our people, but those despicable and ignominious Barisan Sosialis Members have been distorting the facts and misconstruing our intentions, alleging that the rentals of the houses built by the Housing Board are too high. The Government wanted to develop the Toa Payoh area but the Barisan Sosialis Member tried very hard to obstruct the Government's scheme and persuaded residents not to accept Government's compensation but to obstruct their scheme in every way possible. A member of the Barisan in the Toa Payoh area - he was also a resident there -very early had received compensation from the Government and had chosen for himself housing accommodation given by the Government. He was the first one to choose his own house and yet he asked the people there not to accept Government's alternative housing accommodation. Now these are the true colours of the Barisan Members. In spite of this, the Government intend to carry on with their Toa Payoh building programme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the past four years the Government have dealt very well with the most important problem of the people, namely, the economic problem. The Government have a complete, comprehensive economic plan which is directed towards securing the happiness, prosperity, peaceful living and better future for the people. Even the Barisan Assemblymen cannot deny this. We have been able to rectify the bad economic situation left over by the Lim Yew Hock Government and have, in the end, accumulated a surplus instead. This has all been due to our integrity and to the efforts of our Government, its acumen, its intelligent leadership and its integrity and honesty. Therefore, in every field of work - building construction, roads, shipping, etc. - there have been great developments and achievements over the past few years. The economy of Singapore at present is more prosperous and is growing faster than ever. The people are enjoying better and more equal treatment. There is no distinction of classes: whether you are a merchant or a poor man, you can choose your way of life. Foreigners who come to Singapore describe Singapore as a paradise. This is not an exaggerated statement by them, because they have seen for themselves many countries in South-East Asia which are facing economic bankruptcy. They have also seen in these regions the prevalence of poverty, sickness, and other evils.

Although there are poor families in Singapore, they can at least live a decent life. With gradual development, their living conditions are gradually improving. From our Budget Estimates and Development Estimates, we can see how we can achieve our objects in this respect.

The Indonesian confrontation has not brought any increase of taxation on the people. Property tax rates for owner-occupied houses have been reduced from 36 per cent to 27 per cent per year. This is concrete evidence to prove that we have done something for the benefit of the poorer classes. Our economy is very sound. Our living conditions are improving day by day, and through the co-operation and unity of the people, we can achieve our objectives.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all day long, the Barisan Assemblymen have been hurling abusive words at us. They have been indulging in this for more than two years. Their role should be to help the Government by advancing constructive criticisms for the betterment of the people. On the contrary, whatever they do and say is done with evil intentions, and the effect is only to worsen things. Without any rhyme or reason, they have incited the workers, misappropriated trade union funds and caused many workers to lose their jobs. After creating such chaos, they turn round and put the blame on the Government, accusing us of not being able to resolve the unemployment situation. [Interruption] If you are impatient, you can leave this Chamber now!

Mr Speaker, Sir, the achievements of the Government over the past four years have been acknowledged by the people of the Federation of Malaya. On the rights of women, we have been able to provide better and fairer opportunities for them to enjoy equal rights as the men. This has brought a sense of dignity to women. Our women in the civil service are enjoying equal pay for equal work. The Government have built quite a good number of creches to enable mothers to leave their children there when they go out to work. In the coming years, women will be able to contribute their efforts and energy towards the building of a better socialist society. There is an old Chinese saying that if you are holding an important position you have a greater burden and task before you. We have fulfilled the task entrusted to us.

The Barisan's attitude and actions in regard to Indonesian confrontation are despicable. They have sworn in this House to support Malaysia. But in the face of confrontation, they have forgotten their pledge. They have not dared to come forward. Instead they have been engaging themselves in anti-national activities and have tried to speak on behalf of Indonesia, trying to magnify the serious consequences of Indonesian confrontation. When we thoroughly expose them in this House, they turn round and say that they advocate a peaceful settlement with Indonesia and urge us to negotiate with Indonesia for a peaceful settlement. I ask them whether they are only paying lip-service. Even at the time when Singapore accepted the principle of Malaysia, the Barisan Sosialis had begun creating chaos and trouble everywhere.

For about two or three years the Barisan Members have never ceased to instigate students and workers to go on strike and cause a chaotic situation in the State. They even went to the extent of lending their support to the Brunei rebels. Today they even have the effrontery to say in this House that they are advocating a peaceful solution to the problem. In actual fact, they are earnestly hoping and praying that the Indonesian army will march into Singapore. They are like Wu San Kwee of the Ming Dynasty of China. He let in the enemy armies into China. The Barisan's true colours have been thoroughly exposed in this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after their great defeat and disaster at the general elections, the Barisan Sosialis have now turned round and accused the Government of having taken repressive action. In fact, the people have taught them a lesson by their defeat, at the general elections. The Barisan Sosialis talked eloquently, what with their propaganda tactics, at the general elections, but nevertheless their debased actions cost them their defeat. In the end the people were fed up with them. This is because even before they could form the government they were arrogant and unstable in their actions. They created fear and trouble everywhere. I would have thought that the Barisan Sosialis would have changed and mended their ways after their defeat. I would have thought that they would have discarded their past evil activities. In actual fact, we see that these people can never change. They have instead persisted in, and indeed stepped up, their usual activities. I would like to give a piece of advice to the Members of the Barisan Sosialis. If they do not want to hold back their horses on the brink of the precipice and go back, they will be discarded by the people in the end.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are filled with emotion when we look back over the last four years of our term of office. We have discovered some of our shortcomings. But the fact remains that we should be happy because Malaysia has been achieved. We can see for ourselves that the Common Market is now an accomplished fact. This is a great encouragement to the people in this area. History has also proved that the P.A.P. can keep the trust which the people have placed in them. The P.A.P. have ended colonialism in this part of the world. They have brought about reunification between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. In this way, we have been able to establish a society in which there is no exploitation of man by man. The aspirations of the people are now being realised through the enlightened leadership of the Malaysian Government. In spite of intimidation and pressure from many quarters, we are able to ensure that everybody within the territories of Malaysia will have a decent life. This is our objective.

2.40 a.m.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, and agreed to.

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

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 27; Abstention, 1; Absent, 15. Noes Ayes A. Rahim Ishak Chia Thye Poh Buang Bin Omar Junid Chio Cheng Thun Chan Chee Seng Koo Young Chan Choy Siong,Madam Kow Kee Seng Chow Chiok Hock Ong Lian Teng Fong Sip Chee Poh Ber Liak Gonzales, R. A. Tan Cheng Tong Govindasamy, P. Ho Cheng Choon Jek Yeun Thong Abstention Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Barker, E. W. Lim Kim San Mahmud Awang Absent Ng Kah Ting Bani, S. T. Ng Yeow Chong Chan Sun Wing Ong Pang Boon Fong Kim Heng Othman Bin Wok Goh Keng Swee Rahamat Bin Kenap Ho See Beng Rajoo, S. Lee Kuan Yew Rodrigues, Bernard Lim Huan Boon Sia Kah Hui Lingam, S. V. Sim Boon Woo Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Teong Eng Siong Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi Toh Chin Chye Nair, Mrs. Devan Wee Toon Boon Ong Eng Guan Yong Nyuk Lin Rajaratnam. S. Wong Soon Fong Yaacob Bin Mohammad Al-Haj

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Original Question put.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 27: Noes. 7; Abstention, 1; Absent, 15. Ayes Noes A. Rahim Ishak Chia Thye Poh Buang Bin Omar Junid Chio Cheng Thun Chan Chee Seng Koo Young Chan Choy Siong, Kow Kee Seng Madam Ong Lian Teng Chow Chiok Hock Poh Ber Liak Fong Sip Chee Tan Cheng Tong Gonzales, R. A. Govindasamy, P. Ho Cheng Choon Abstention Jek Yeun Thong Barker, E. W. Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Absent Lim Kim San Bani, S. T. Mahmud Awang Chan Sun Wing Ng Kah Ting Fong Kim Heng Ng Yeow Chong Goh Keng Swee Ong Pang Boon Ho See Beng Othman Bin Wok Lee Kuan Yew Rahamat Bin Kenap Lim Huan Boon Rajoo, S. Lingam, S. V. Rodrigues, Bernard Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Sia Kah Hui Ayes-cont. Absent-cont. Sim Boon Woo Mohd.Ariff Bin Suradi Teong Eng Siong Nair, Mrs. Devan Toh Chin Chye Ong Eng Guan Wee Toon Boon Rajaratnam, S Yong Nyuk Lin Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

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

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