ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1965

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.40 p.m.

The Chairman: Estimates of Expenditure of the State of Singapore for the year 1965, as contained in Paper Cmd. 24 of 1964. For the convenience of hon. Members, I intend taking the total for each head of expenditure as it appears in the last column of the abstract of estimated expenditure on page 39 of the Paper.

Dealing now with the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement :- Head 0103 -

Mr Chia Thye Poh (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0103 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 3002.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

This is on the production of the Legislative Assembly Hansards. We find that the vote provided for next year has been reduced to a great extent, namely, from $33,780 to $22,000. It seems to me that every year the vote provided for the production of the Legislative Assembly Hansards has been reduced .1 would like to ask the Minister responsible whether he can give any explanation on this matter.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Sir, the reduction in the provision made for the production of the Assembly Hansards is in anticipation that there will not be so many night sittings of this Assembly to warrant overtime payments. In 1961 there were 41 Assembly sittings; 34 in 1962 and 32 in 1963. The provision of $22,000 for 1965 is estimated to cover overtime payments and remuneration for about 30 sittings.

The Chairman: Does the Member wish to withdraw his amendment, or does he want the House to vote on it?

Mr Chia Thye Poh: I withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $686,070 for Head 0103 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0104 -

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $100.+

+The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

Sir, we find that under this head there are several items of expenditure concerned with students in higher institutions of learning, for example, items of expenditure relating to bursaries, scholarships and allowances. The Government has announced that it will provide bursaries and financial assistance to poor students entering these institutions of higher learning to help them to continue with their studies. Sir, superficially these promises sound very nice. But we have found that the Government has been making use of these bursaries under this Head to achieve the P.A.P.'s own selfish interest.

2.45 p.m.

We know that before a bursary is issued, all students will have to apply for it, and the Government will have to carry out an investigation which will take a long period of time. Of course, in the course of investigation, political factors will be involved. Perhaps certain students not liked by the Government will not be able to get the bursaries. But even after getting the bursaries, these may be cancelled. There is a recent case of a particular student's bursary being cancelled. The Government has also cancelled the bursaries of quite a good number of Nantah students whose conduct and academic merits have been very good. These students have not been found to be deficient in their studies; nor has there been any blemish on their character. So the abolition of their bursaries can be attributed to the Govern ment's political prejudices. Such actions by the Government undoubtedly can be construed as extorting funds from the public and misusing them. We know that in the past, the Government tried to split the student bodies in the universities. Bursaries were also used as a means to achieve that purpose. For instance, the Government could resort to getting the help of the P.A.P. elements in the institutions to propagate the line that if the students did not vote for their man, the P.A.P. man, then their bursaries would be cancelled. Such things did happen before in the past. This has happened in Nanyang University and also in the University of Singapore. Therefore, we say that the true intention of the Government is to misuse public funds to carry out its open corruption. I will also raise another matter.

During August to September this year, the Public Service Commission wrote to the Ministry of Education in Japan to cancel the bursary of a student who was the Chairman of the Malayan Students Committee in Japan. Chua Swee Lin was the person who got a Japanese scholarship amounting to $200 Malayan money per month in 1962 to learn ship-building. Because the students' union there expressed their dissatisfaction with Malaysia, the Government therefore took suppressive action against the student there, and tried to resort to the cancellation of the bursary through the Japanese Government to achieve its purpose. Such action by the Government -

The Chairman: Order. I think the Member should confine himself, while he is on this particular item, to matters which are within the power of the Public Service Commission. It may well be that the recall of the student is not within the powers of the Public Service Commission.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this action of the Government has been carried out through the Public Service Commission. It was the Public Service Commission that wrote to the Japanese Government to cancel the bursary of this particular student. That is why I have mentioned this.

I also want to talk about certain matters relating to Government departments. If graduates want to join the Government service so that they can teach, they have to go through a selection procedure by way of interview by the Public Service Commission. Many teachers in aided secondary schools applied to the Public Service Commission for confirmation of their jobs after a period of time, and they had their applications refused. In other words, their applications to continue to teach in the schools were refused. I understand that many of these graduate teachers were not taken to be incapable or inefficient in their teaching. The fact is that the Public Service Commission, during their investigations, received certain information from the Special Branch. I would like to ask, where is the value of the Public Service Commission if they have to listen to and be subjected to interference from the Special Branch? If that is the case, then let the Special Branch take over their functions.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Jurong began with some very nasty allegations that scholar-ships are awarded on the basis of political patronage and political chicanery. But he ended on a more realistic note. I reject both the scurrilous allegations that the P.S.C. in fact carries out the instructions of the Special Branch, and, therefore, it is best that the Special Branch were to substitute itself for the P.S.C.

The purpose of these scholarships now appearing under the Head of Public Service Commission is to centralise and co-ordinate the award of scholarships in such a way as to meet the requirements of the State; the Finance Ministry, the Economic Development Division, the Education Ministry. Awards are given to persons on the basis of merit, not whether they are pro or against any political Party. But where a person is deemed a security risk to the State, where his political beliefs are of such a nature as to constitute a risk, then it is not the business of the State to give money to such people in order to help them undermine the State. But these policies are interpreted very liberally. Let me explain that the Member for Tampines was in receipt of a bursary under the P.A.P. Government whilst he was at the University of Nanyang. We are fairly wide and flexible. We do not want to make a man more embittered and more frustrated with society than he need be. If he has youthful inclinations towards extreme political views, well, by all means, let him go through that phase; let him mature. But when we know a man is already committed to the destruction of the democratic State, it is not our business to spend money on him to equip him to carry out his purposes better.

However, Mr Speaker, Sir, this problem will arise on less and less occasions in the future, because, as the Member now knows, there is the Internal Security Act which makes it necessary for a student to be security cleared first before he is admitted to a university.

As for the other allegation that the Public Service Commission wrote to the Japanese Government to cancel a scholarship given to a particular student, that is not within my knowledge. I do not think the Public Service Commission did any such thing. It is not in a position to communicate with any foreign Government. The only Ministry which now communicates with foreign Governments is the External Affairs Ministry in Kuala Lumpur. I do not even know whether it did or not. I should not assume, as the Member for Jurong did, that one student is so very important as to warrant the intervention of the External Affairs Ministry. I should not be the least bit surprised that the student brought it upon himself by his foolish activities in Japan which came to the notice of the Japanese Government.

Finally, the selection of officers by the P.S.C. for appointments into the administrative or the education service. Here again, as I have said, it is not the business of the Government to appoint people either into the administrative or the educational service to breed more disaffection and disloyalty, not to a particular political Party or to a parti cular government of Singapore, but to the whole institution of the State, to the whole concept of the democratic State. Here again it is a policy which has to be implemented with a great deal of sensitivity. One of the points the Public Service Commission must consider is the security risk a particular person may carry with him into the administration; information which comes from the Intelligence organs of the Government, now the Central Government.

3.00 p.m.

We have to weigh whether a man is really committed, or it is not better to give him a chance and a way out, to let him find fulfilment in fruitful, constructive work, than to throw that away out of sheer frustration and bitterness. It is a fine balance. We do not want to make more people look more haggard, more hard, and more bitter day by day, as the Member for Jurong and his colleagues do. Over the last one year, trouble upon trouble has fallen upon his shoulders - very youthful shoulders, Mr Speaker, Sir. First, it was the Member for Bukit Merah who was leading the charge of the light brigade (a very light brigade this one). The Member for Bukit Merah, being a much more cir cumspect, equable type, decided that this was a mug's game, if I may say so, and has opted out from the leadership.

Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, -

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I doubt if the remarks made by the Prime Minister have any relevance to this issue.

The Chairman: Perhaps the Prime Minister will come back to the amendment.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I know it hurts, Mr Speaker, Sir. But the point I want to make is this: we do not want to have more bitter people in this world. If we can give them jobs, give them scholarships, and give them fulfilment, we will. But when we know that the man is so embittered as to bring the State down, then I say it is the business of the P.S.C. and let me inform the Member for Jurong that usually the P.S.C. takes a lenient view and gives the man a chance. But when he turns out to be a security risk, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, on my advice, intervenes.

If we are foolish in the implementation of these scholarships, and giving of jobs, and if we are insensitive and crude, we drive more people to bitterness and to opposition. That is not our job, that is not our intention, and that is not in our interests. We want to give all those who desire to contribute to the welfare and well-being of our country an opportunity to play their role. It is not too late even for Members on the other side to rethink their positions in these very changed circumstances.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been listening carefully to the Prime Minister's reply to the query raised by my colleague.

In regard to the administration of bursaries and scholarships which he relates closely to the security risk of a certain student, I have this doubt, Mr Speaker. What is the criterion by which students may be judged with regard to the so-called security risk?

The question also arises: those students receiving bursaries who refuse to become tools of the P.A.P., or who refuse to be made use of by the P.A.P., or who do not endorse the policies of the P.A.P. - are they to be regarded as security risks?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, I could have saved a lot of trouble if I had explained further. These security objections are not objections taken by the Government. It is done by a proper Intelligence agency. It is now, in fact, not a State Government responsibility. Security Intelligence is placed before the P.S.C. in the making of appointments or in the dispensation of scholarships, it has nothing to do with political party affiliations. I think the Member may be under some misapprehension that it is either because the man is pro-P.A.P., or pro-Alliance, or pro-Barisan. That has got nothing to do with it, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to say this, that Singapore is still under colonial rule or neo-colonial rule. Take, for example, a student of Nantah or the Singapore University or the Singapore Polytechnic, if he is against imperialism, i.e. if he is against the British masters, then will the P.S.C. refuse to give him a bursary or a scholarship? We can give several interpretations of his behaviour. Those who are in actual control have absolute power at any time over all the departments under their control.

I would also like to raise one other point with regard to bursaries. The administration of bursaries is not aimed at fostering talent in our country. Why should I say this? I say this because I have come across some highly talented students who have been denied the opportunity of having bursaries or scholar ships. Furthermore, because of their family circumstances, these highly talented students cannot afford to go for further studies. I would have thought that bursaries would have been awarded purely on the basis of academic standards and financial difficulties of the students. But the Government is not helping these people who deserve bursaries. As far as I know, the P.A.P.'s idea is to give bursaries to some students who are not so highly talented and who are not so poorly off. I, in the Opposition, have the responsibility to express the view that the Government should be urged to note the facts that I have raised - that the allocation of bursaries should not be based purely on security grounds alone, because this should not be the case.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Jalan Kayu can give me any specific instance where he thinks an award of a scholarship or a bursary has been granted not in accordance with merit and need, I shall certainly have the matter investigated.

I would like to tell him that there .are two forms of scholarships and bursaries. One is on the basis of competitive merit, regardless of the financial circumstances of the family; competitive merit and performance entitles the student to a scholarship. The other comes under the classification of bur saries and other assistance. This is related to the question of need - first, that the student is worth assisting; and second, that the student is in need of assistance. If the Member will supply me with any information - as he says he has knowledge of irregularity or improper award - I shall have the matter properly investigated. And I am quite prepared to place the result of any such investigation into his complaint before this House, or otherwise make it public. I think it is important that in the process of wanting to score political points, one should not spread a big smear that scholarships, appointments to the State, the whole works is just one bag of tricks meant to patronise friends, supporters, carpet-baggers. If the State is to survive, it must stand strict scrutiny. If the democratic system of one man one vote and open criticism is to survive, it must withstand criticism such as has been made in a veiled and vague manner by the Member for Jurong and the Member for Jalan Kayu. I say: make your specific charges, list them, and we will investigate them and place the results before this Assembly. But I say this, that first we accept the position that nobody is entitled as of right to ask, if the State helps him, to dismantle the democratic system. That is not the purpose of this Government or the P.S.C. or any of the other institutions of state.

Mr Poh Ber Liak (Tampines): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has said just now that the information was from an Intelligence source. I -

The Prime Minister: On a point of order. I do not want to be misquoted. I have never said "informers" (ching pao jen). What I said was "security assessment by the Special Branch". We do not have any informers.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, so let it be Intelligence investigation. The so-called Intelligence investigation should be revealed in this House.

I now want to talk about bursaries. At the present moment, the payment of bursaries in the State is intended to help poor students to pursue higher education. But this aid does not exist any more because the payment of bursaries has become a tool of the P.A.P. The administration of bursaries is virtually under the control of the P.A.P. so that the disciples of the P.A.P. and their supporters may be gathered together to help them during the elections and to contribute to the Party funds. If you want to get this bursary, then you must toe the line of the P.A.P. This is the present situation.

The Prime Minister says that these bursaries are not given casually but are given according to certain rules, and to the financial circumstances of the applicants. If this is so, then it is strange that when an undergraduate, who is considered poor and receives a bursary for the first, second and third years, and in the fourth year - when he is still poor - he is all of a sudden recalled. Does it mean that all of a sudden his family has become so well off that he does not deserve any more help? This is strange. This is done according to the Intelligence given by the Special Branch which is virtually under the control of the British.

I say that at the present moment those recipients of bursaries are under certain restrictions. They run the risk of having their bursaries withdrawn. If they cannot afford to go on without bursaries, they have to work part-time in order to carry on their studies. They cannot enjoy life so comfortably as the Ministers can. And if the students refuse to be suppressed by the Government, then they have to work extra hard to earn money to finance their studies.

3.15 p.m.

The Government is now extensively suppressing the students. In the past few years, we have seen that many students and graduates have been unable to get jobs from the Government. The Government is not in any position to give them jobs - particularly to Nanyang University graduates. I who have been a Nantah student know that there were many recipients of bursaries, hut now the number has been reduced in spite of the fact that many of them are deserving of bursaries. Some graduates who have passed out are unemployed. So the granting of bursaries is a means by which the Government tries to oppress tbe Nanyang under-graduates and graduates. Those who have passed out are unable to get jobs and tbe Government is not giving them any help; no outlet is provided for them. I who have been a recipient of some aid from the Government - [Interruption]. I who have been a recipient of some aid from the Government, together with other recipients of bursaries, know that we have not been accepted into the public service. I myself have not been taken into the Government. On the other hand, we see that the Deputy Prime Minister is a teacher and a Member of the Assembly at the same time. The P.S.C. has made a ruling that teachers of government-aided schools cannot undertake any extra work. The ruling is that extra-mural activities should be controlled. This adversely affects the under-graduates because if they want to do anything outside their studies, they will be interfered with by the Government: there will be a lot of restrictions on their behaviour. When they are dissatisfied with the Government, they run the risk of losing their bursaries.

The regulations governing the granting of bursaries are unreasonable. When the under-graduates discover this fact, they air their grievances before the Minister for Education. Certain claims are made to revise the existing regulations, but in spite of repeated requests and discussions, the Government refuses to revise them. So the students have no alternative but to accept these stringent regulations. These regulations have been used by the P.A.P. Government to oppress the undergraduates of Nanyang University.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. want recipients of bursaries to give information on others who have acted or said anything against them. So the P.A.P. are making use of bursaries to help the Special Branch to oppress students. We oppose the abuse of such funds.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has said just now that if we could give him specific cases of misuse of bursaries by some students, he would deal with them accordingly. I would like to tell you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this statement made by the Prime Minister is an attempt to shirk his responsibility as the head of the Government. If the whole ruling machinery with a force of thou sands of civil servants are not aware of this fact, then it is very sad. The administration of bursaries is not well done. This is not admitted by the Government and it tries to shirk its responsibility. It is a fact that public funds have been abused and misused.

I have to say some more on this. I have been given to understand by my friends who applied for bursaries that during the interview, questions were fired at them at random and they were made fun of. One question asked of these students was, "Have you ever been in love?" [Interruption in Mandarin by the Prime Minister] You know it too well. If you do not believe it, ask your informers!

The Chairman: Order. If the Member is talking about the Prime Minister, he must say, "The Prime Minister knows it too well."

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we can imagine how improper it is that bursaries are thus awarded!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a suggestion to make: every citizen of Singapore is duty bound to pay taxes and if a person is against colonial rule or imperialism, tben no matter whether he is pro-P.A.P. or pro-Barisan, he should be treated in the same way as the others. There should be equal treatment all round. My colleague has said that he was the recipient of a bursary, but he was not taken into the Government service because of his political affiliation. But if he had wanted to be as servile as the others, he would have been taken in.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Sir, out of all these scurrilous charges have come two specific instances - the Member for Tampines himself when he compared his unfortunate position or his unfavour able treatment with that of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Sir, I have already explained why, in spite of his undesirable political associates, we allowed him a bursary in Nanyang University. It was the policy of the Government that so long as a man is redeemable - in his case, I would not write him off as already lost - he will be given a chance. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, Sir, he failed. He had to be referred for an extra year and ultimately he passed. He now says that we have not given him a job, unlike the Deputy Prime Minister who is not only in office as a Minister but is also teaching. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite different. The University is an autonomous body; it is not a Government institution. The Deputy Prime Minister asked that he be allowed to continue the direction of scholars whose research he was supervising and to give his lectures to keep his knowledge up to date. The Member for Tampines is asking for a Government appointment and it is against the Constitution for a Government servant to be a Member of the Assembly or vice versa. If we allow him to become a member of the public service, we will be doing him a disservice, because automatically he will be disqualified from sitting in this Chamber and then he will say what a lot of wicked people we are for disqualifying him. But let me tell him this. Any man worth his weight does not have to get a job in the Government service to make his living.

Let me tell him this further point, that in a number of so-called socialist countries, a man who is against the State, who is against the Russian Government, the Chinese Government or the Polish Government, not only does not get a scholarship, but he does not even get a place in a University. And worse if he graduates, not only does he not get a job in the Government, but the Government will see that he does not get a job at all. Here, Mr Speaker, Sir, we allow a great deal of latitude. All that we are saying is that a person who is deemed on security assessment - not on the basis of just the Government's likes and dislikes - to be a security risk is not put into a sensitive Government job. But we leave it free to him to seek other avenues of employment in private enterprise, a private firm or even to launch into private enterprise, and if he is any good he will make the grade. But it is not the business of the Government, having given a man a bursary, he having failed to make the grade, to give him a job in order that he will be disqualified from this Assembly. Where is the sense in all this?

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Prime Minister has made some points in relation to my speech. I have waited for some time before rising to reply to his speech. He said that he was not aware of the case of Mr Chua Swee Lin, but the fact was that the P.S.C. in August wrote a letter to the Japanese Government to cancel his bursary.

Now, the Minister for Finance - [Interruption]. Had he been here, he would not have made such a mistake. He would not have been so stubborn by saying that this has nothing to do with the Singapore Government but is the concern of the Ministry of External Affairs. This shows that the Government has made use of the granting of bursaries to persecute certain students who do not hold the same views as the P.A.P. The Government has made use of bursaries to carry out political patronage. The Prime Minister gave reasons saying that the Government does not want to deal with those who are against it but with those who are against the country and nation. Those who are against the P.A.P. are classified as those against the democratic system and as anti-nationals. So in this way he could speak on behalf of democracy. This is how he wants to evade the criticism levelled at him. I can cite a few examples to prove my contention. When the P.A.P. Government was going to split certain student bodies in the University in order to set up another student club, it had a meeting in the house of the Minister for Finance.

The son of the Minister for Finance had a meeting with a party in his house.

3.30 p.m.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): On a point of order.

The Chairman: The point of order being?

Mr Chia Thye Poh resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Ministerial responsibility. The activities of my son are not my ministerial responsibility.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): After that he asked some of his friends to carry out sabotage in a certain student body. He says that his son's behaviour has nothing to do with him. But we have discovered that bursaries have been made use of to serve a purpose.

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

The Chairman: The point of order being?

Mr Chia Thye Poh resumed his seat.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: The point of order is whether this is relevant to the issue we are discussing. What has that got to do with this?

The Chairman: I myself was coming to that. I was just wondering what the Minister for Finance's son has got to do with bursaries. Perhaps the Member will confine himself to bursaries and what arises Out of them.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Under the circumstances, certain students have come into contact with another group of students. If those students join the clique of the Minister for Finance's son, then they will get scholarships and bursaries. Another phenomenon is that if a certain person is going to leave a certain student body which supports the P.A.P., then his bursary will be revoked. This is well known in the University. The P.A.P. say that they will revoke the bursaries of those students who are against the State and the democratic system. All this is nonsense. This is mainly to cover up the fact that the P.A.P, are using bursaries as a means to serve their purpose.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): If the Member for Jurong will give me the name of any friend of the Minister for Finance's son who has got a scholarship as a result of being associated with the son, I will cause investigations to be made and the results tabled before him in this House. There is no point in making scurrilous allegations. To begin with, not even the Minister for Finance's son got a bursary. What more his friends! If we want to give it, we might as well give it to the Minister for Finance's son to start with. As for the student in Japan, what I understand from the Minister for Finance was this. What happened was and as I have said, I did not have any direct information on this matter; I had no notice: his information, from recollection, was that the Japanese Government informed us of the student's activities. This is a Colombo Plan scholarship, the donor country of which was the Japanese Government. Whilst the student was there, he got himself into undesirable activities with a group connected with the Zengakuren, which is the extreme lunatic fringe Communist type of Japanese student movement.

Mr Chia Thye Poh rose -

The Chairman: Mr Chia, on a point of order?

Mr Chia Thye Poh: On a point of information.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

The Chairman: The Prime Minister has given way. Please proceed.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can say explicitly that the Japanese Government wanted to revoke the scholarship or whether the Singapore Government wrote to the Japanese Government asking them to revoke it.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): The activities of this student cannot be known to the Singapore Government. We do not keep an Intelligence service in Japan just to look after a few odd Colombo Plan students there. This information of activities considered undesirable was sent to us by them. We then stopped the Colombo Plan scholarship. That is from recollection. If the Member wishes to press the point, he can table a question and full details will be given.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): The Prime Minister has persistently talked about anti-democracy and the undermining of the State. I would like him to tell me, in view of the fact that I contested the election and my bursary has been withdrawn by the Government, in what way have I taken part in any activity which is contrary to the security of the State?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I am sorry that the Member for Tampines is so innocent and ignorant of the capacity for damage by Members of this Assembly. Three of his colleagues are still enjoying the hospitality of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's Government. He himself had the good fortune not to be too closely inter-related with their activities, and that is why he is still here. But I can assure him that if he were foolish enough to believe that just because he is here he is entitled to do all the foolish things that were done by the others who are not here, then he would soon find himself in the position where the others are.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to press this point, as I have it in my note here that for having put himself in a position where he cannot discharge the conditions of his bursary to serve the Government by voluntarily making himself a Member of this Assembly and, therefore, unable to serve the Government as a Government servant, he can, if we wish, be sued for breach of contract. We can make him refund the whole sum that has been expended on him and which enabled him to become a graduate of Nanyang University, although, mind you, he failed on one occasion, I am told. Nevertheless, in the end, he did pass, and we wish him well.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, just now the Prime Minister has said that if as a civil servant I do not carry out my duties, then the Government can sue me for the bursary. But I have not been engaged as a civil servant.

The Prime Minister has also referred to the case of the Deputy Prime Minister who he said was in a different position. I would like to ask why an hon. Member of the Government can, on the one hand, be a Government Minister and, on the other hand, he can still be teaching in a Government-aided institution. Why were the bursaries of other students revoked? Because of doing such things?

The Chairman: Fully as this House is interested in Mr Poh Ber Liak, from now I think we should stop discussing his case and come back to the subject.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the bursaries are awarded by the Government for the training of talent. This is a kind of investment. We all know that in order to reap a good harvest from the investment, we should make a good selection so that those selected will be put to proper use. The bursaries come from public money. Other friendly countries have also donated towards this purpose. Therefore, we must make proper use of the bursaries to train suitable persons to serve our country in order to achieve a more just and equal society. As to how to allocate bursaries and to whom, it is the decision of the Public Service Commission, so that in the end we may have the services of the candidates concerned. With regard to the granting of bursaries, I think it is only right and proper that the criterion should be the academic and other merits of the applicants concerned. Only then will they benefit from the bursaries. If there are inefficient students who failed their examinations, such as the Member for Tampines, then it will be a waste of money to award bursaries; and naturally they should have their bursaries revoked. On the other hand, we should pay attention to whether the candidates, politically speaking, are a risk to the security of our State, because we cannot use public funds to train political subversives detrimental to our own State. Therefore, every government will see to it that those who apply for bursaries arc at least loyal to the State. We cannot use public funds to train students to carry out anti-national activities. After we have trained such students, the knowledge they have acquired and the technique and the know-how they have attained will not in the end be used by them to build our nation because they are by nature anti-national and antisocial. How can they use their knowledge and the know-how they have acquired to serve their country? Therefore, a democratic country has the right to protect itself. If there are students who make use of funds given by the Government to undergo a course of study and who resort to activities detrimental to the security of the State, then I feel that the Government has every right to revoke such bursaries.

Mr Koo Young (Thomson): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Members have used the term "bursaries" as a kind of investment. They have used such-like epithets. Is it their intention to term the candidates for bursaries as tools or machinery? Perhaps they want the products of bursaries to be branded as made by the P.A.P. They claim that the purpose of awarding bursaries is to train people to serve the country. They claim that those persons whose bursaries have been cancelled have been engaged in anti-national activities. But so far, the P.A.P. have not been able to prove this. If they have the facts, they should bring up such cases to court, otherwise all the people who are against the P.A.P. can be construed as being anti-national. Such a method of smearing people can only prove the dictatorial nature of the Government.

Talking about inefficiency and foolishness in studies: the Minister for Labour has said how foolish and stupid the Member for Tampines was in not being able to get his bursary continued. Bitt this is a personal question and we should not pursue it further. I would like to ask whether it is better to be sycophants or be people who are somewhat foolish. The Members opposite cannot be compared with my colleagues sitting over here.

3.45 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I can assure the Member for Thomson that neither scholarships nor ministerships arc given on the basis of "patting a horse's hack, side," as he said. Very simply, I put it to them that if they were running their Communist-type State, they would not give anybody a scholarship to go and further sharpen their intellect in order to bring down the Communist State, would they? They do not do it in China: they do not do it in Russia; they do not do it in Poland.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Or Indonesia.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Or even in Indonesia. He who is against the State cannot expect it to help him to destroy it. As for the rest - the vague smear - I have said that any charge of nepotism, favouritism in the award of scholarships or appointments, will be investigated to the full. There is this one distinction now - the position as it stands from the position before merger. I mean before it can be said, "Well, this is a security report, a security assessment by an organ of the State Government: there fore there is bias in any way in favour of the P.A.P." It is not even that way now. The security organ is part of the Central Government. The security assessment made is part of an assessment completely unconnected with the likes and dislikes of the P.A.P. Whether a man is for or against any democratic political Party is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether it is our job to give people who are out to destroy the State, money in order to further themselves to further their objectives. I do not think anybody in his right mind believes that that is the responsibility of this Government - giving money to people to undermine the State.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $2,192,540 for Head 0104 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0105 -

Mr Kow Kee Seng (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0105 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1051.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

I would like to ask the Government why there should be a difference between the estimates for this year and those for next year. Why is it that there should be a general increase in the estimates for next year?

The Chairman: Order. I do not quite follow this. Is the Member on subhead 1051? His question is why the amount has been reduced this year. There does not seem to be any figure set out in the 1964 estimates, Mr Kow Kee Seng. On the face of the Budget, it would appear as if it is a new post. I do not know.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): On subhead 1051, I move to reduce the whole sum.

The Chairman: I am afraid that is not proper at this time. Perhaps if the Member will turn to page 64 of the Estimates, he will find the sum of $18,240 under Estimates 1964, Director, Grade G. On page 55, which is the estimates for 1965, the same figure appears under the same title and the same grading. So it would appear from these two figures that there has been no reduction.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I want to refer you to Head 0105, subhead 1051.

The Chairman: That is right. Director, Grade G.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): I would like to ask, who is the Director?

The Chairman: That is the right question.

The Prime Minister: The same person who is shown designated in page 64, un- der Head 0201. You will find there Director, Grade G. It is the same person who has been there as a Grade G officer, who used to be in the Special Branch and who, previous to being in the Special Branch, was the Director of the C.P.I.B.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): I would like to ask whether he is a local officer or an expatriate officer.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): He is an expatriate officer, Sir, and one who has given distinguished service and was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal in 1963 for excellent work in breaking up the Communist united front activities.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I would like to ask a supplementary question, that is, whether it is not possible to find a local officer to fill up this vacancy so that no expatriate officer has to be engaged. In other words, is there no available local talent among the existing serving officers who can do better than the present holder of this post, namely, the Director of the C.P.I.B.? Does it mean that there is no one who can do better than this officer for the P.A.P.?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Sir, the job of the Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau is one which is extremely sensitive, and the officer brings to this job a wealth of experience and expertise on quiet investigations. I can inform the Member for Thomson that quite a number of his comrades have given me eloquent testimony of the efficiency of this officer, including Mr James Puthucheary, Mr Sandra Wood-hull and a few others who are considered heroes of the united front organisation. I am not suggesting that there are no local officers more able or less competent to discharge these responsibilities. The problem now is to get somebody there to carry on the work; one who brings to this job a wealth of experience. Unfortunately, this officer's service will end in 1965, and it is my intention, if there are no local officers by then fully trained to take over this job, to extend his contract. We have gone over this phase of just chasing the white man out. He is there as our servant to investigate corrupt practices. Our problem now is to get an adequate number of locally-trained men. Not able men; ability there is, but trained ability is another matter. There are several big jobs open - General Manager, Singapore Harbour Board, Dockyard Manager, General Manager, P.U.B. These jobs are being occupied at the moment by local men without the adequate expertise. We are still looking for good men to fill them up, whether they be expatriate or local.

I suggest to the Members opposite that if they believe we are still in the 1956 phase of Malayanisation for the sake of Malayanisation, they are out of tune with the mood of the public. There are more than enough big jobs for all locally-qualified men. The problem is to find enough locally-trained men to fill the enormous number of big jobs that are now vacant.

4.00 p.m.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I personally feel that this post held by an expatriate officer is not quite proper. The Prime Minister says that there are local officers who are as capable as this officer. If we allow this post to be held by an expatriate officer - particularly one who has worked for the British to suppress and exploit our own people - to control this organisation, and if it is discovered that some of the officers are corrupted, then this man can make use of his powers as Director to continue serving the British colonialists. Let us assume that one Minister in the Cabinet is involved in irregular activities. Then this Director will make use of this weakness to turn him into a local agent for the British. This is inevitable, because the British want their bases to remain in Malaya, and they may want to make use of some of our people to be their agents. So I suggest that it would be more proper for a local officer to hold this post.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Sir, I would have thought that having shot the line that the PAP, misuses its governmental powers all to its own political party advantage, here is an expatriate official who is not likely to play the P.A.P. game and who is not going to charge a man with corruption just because he happens to be anti-P.A.P., and we are being exhorted now to put in our own man. Where is the sense or logic of all this? It is suggested that an expatriate officer in that position would exploit his authority to get a lot of informers going. I do not know how tortuous people's minds can become. I can assure the Member for Thomson that the job of the C.P.I.B. is to investigate and be vigilant against corrupt practices in Singapore in all public departments. As you can see from the realignment of this job from the Prime Minister's Head to the State Advocate-General's Chain-hers Head, his instructions now come from the State Advocate-General. It is an indication of the way in which this Bureau is being made completely non-political and divorced from the administration. The Director carries out his own investigations, and whatever evidence he has, goes direct to the State Advocate-General who commences prosecution. I will be quite happy to appoint a local officer when this officer's service expires at the end of 1965, if we have a local officer by then who has developed a skill for painstakingly tracking down corrupt elements. It is the same technique - I am sorry to say, Sir - that is required in painstakingly tracking down subversive elements without their knowing that they are being tracked down until it is too late for them.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the Director of the C.P.I.B. is a very capable and talented person, and he knows what he is doing. He goes on to say that if the Director continues to serve in this post, then corruption will be reduced in Singapore, and there will be less cases of corrupt practices. In other words, if a local officer were to hold this post, then, from this logic, I am afraid that there would be more cases of corrupt practices because a local officer would not be so talented and capable. This question then arises: since this officer is so capable and talented as he has been held out to be, how is it that the provision for this year is only $250,000-odd and that for next year it is $800,000-odd? Why should there be an increase in expenditure for this particular Bureau?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid, Mr Speaker, that the Member for Paya Lebar has not followed the layout of the Estimates. The items concerning the Corrupt Practices investigation Bureau that can be compared are those appearing in page 64, from "Director" down to "Variable Allowance", and the total there is not the total of the C.P.I.B. but the total of the Prime Minister's Office. Similarly, the total of $499,270 shown under S.A.G.'s Chambers in page 55 is the total of the whole of the State Advocate-General's Chambers. I think he is a little confused, Mr Speaker, Sir.

The Chairman: Does the Member wish to take a vote or withdraw his amendment?

Mr Kow Kee Seng: A vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $591,190 for Head 0105 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0201 -

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

Mr Speaker, before and after the formation of Malaysia, the Prime Minister has made many mistakes. At the same time, he has talked a lot of nonsense to the people of Singapore - lies.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Point of order.

The Chairman: The point of order being?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: I heard the hon. Member for Paya Lebar use the word "lies".

The Chairman: Well, I must say I did not hear it. Did the Member for Paya Lebar use the word "lies"?

Mr Kow Kee Seng: No, I did not.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): That is a lie!

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I challenge the Member to repeat that word in Mandarin and get it translated right now.

The Chairman: Just a minute.

Mr Speaker consulted the Mandarin / English Simultaneous Interpreter.

Mr Rajaratnam: It is recorded, you know.

The Simultaneous interpreter confirmed that the word "lies" was used.

The Chairman: The word "lies" was used, and the Member must withdraw it.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, if I have used the word "lies", then I will withdraw it.

The Chairman: Order. The Member must unreservedly withdraw it, it is not a question of "if". He has used it.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): In that case, I withdraw the word "lies".

The Prime Minister has, after Malaysia, made many mistakes. There are things which he was not sure of doing but which he had promised the people to do. There are things which the people do not know but which the Prime Minister promises to do. As a result, the people of Singapore suffer. For example, on Malaysia, our Prime Minister repeatedly told the people of Singapore over the radio, television, the newspapers, and through all media of publicity machinery in order to carry out propaganda about the good points of Malaysia, that if Malaysia should come true, then Singapore would become a paradise, the New York of Malaysia, happiness for all, and prosperity for everyone. These are very beautiful words used by the Prime Minister in the past during his constituency tours. What happens now, and what is the situation? Malaysia has come about and what happens to the people of Singapore? What about their livelihood? It is a fact that there are difficulties, misery and unemployment all round. Even the Prime Minister cannot deny this. He has made promises to the people of Singapore. He has given the powers of the people of Singapore to the Central Government, so that the Central Government is controlling our economy.

Mr Speaker, all this has been done by the Prime Minister. He should not do what he did before Malaysia was formed. Furthermore, we know, and everybody knows, that Malaysia is made up by the British. As an anti-colonial Party, we oppose the British and the Alliance for their behaviour. But the Prime Minister did not do this. On the contrary, in open defence of the British colonialists in this Chamber, he said that it was the British who are protecting the people of Malaysia; it is we who (10 not want war. This is a House of the representatives of the people. This is not the House of Commons of the British. We are elected by the people of Singapore, and we have some Members speaking in defence of British interests. This is the usual practice of the Prime Minister.

Furthermore. Mr Speaker, if you will remember, last year when we were debating the policy statement of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, we gave our solutions to confrontation, and our views on the dispute and relations between Singapore and the Central Government, how the position of Singapore should be safeguarded, and how the difficulties should be resolved in Singapore. At that time, the Prime Minister said boisterously, blowing his own trumpet, that the confrontation problem would be solved in three months. After three months Indonesia would not be able to with stand the results of confrontation. But what happens now, Mr Speaker? All those words uttered by the Prime Minister show that he simply made wild promises to the people, of doing things they could not do.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Member please quote the source which reported me as saying all this?

The Chairman: I was coming to that, Mr Prime Minister. Is the Member saying that the Prime Minister made all those statements in this House?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Or anywhere else.

The Chairman: Or anywhere else.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, this is what I remember what the Prime Minister said. [Laughter]

The Chairman: Order. Will the Member please repeat what he has said? Because laughter from the other side prevented me from hearing what he said.

4.15 p.m.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): I was saying that the Prime Minister, during the debate on confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia, said that it would be solved within three months.

The Chairman: The Member is entitled to say what he likes in this House provided he conforms to the Standing Orders. But when he makes a serious statement against the Prime Minister, the head of the Government here, he must tell the House, quote chapter and verse, as to where and when he made those statements. Otherwise it makes it very difficult for the Prime Minister to refute his statements when he does in fact answer him later. Will the Member please remember that?

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, to continue, I would like to talk about the Prime Minister's mistakes. For example, when he went to tour the constituencies, he went to Lim Teck Boo Road in Paya Lebar. He promised the people there that their road would be built free of charge. Now the road is beginning to be built. Yes, there is no mistake. But the money is to be paid out of the pockets of the villagers living there. Mr Speaker, this again is a thing which the Prime Minister should not do. He said, "Free road construction." But he makes the people pay for the road. This is another instance to show that the Prime Minister is good at making empty promises. I would like to advise him that, as the Head of State in Singapore, he should be more careful in what he says.

The Chairman: Order. He is not the Head of State. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara is the Head of State. The Prime Minister is the head of the Government. I think we must keep those two positions quite clear and distinct.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): As the head of the Government, namely, the Prime Minister, he has been elected by the people. He should, therefore, be careful in what he says. He should keep strictly to his word. If he has made any promises, then he should carry them out. If he is not sure of carrying them out, then he should not make them; otherwise the people will suffer if the promises are not kept. For example, Malaysia. The people of Singapore are not given equal status, and no reasonable political power is given to the people of Singapore. They are suffering miserably in Singapore. More people are unemployed. All this shows that the Prime Minister did not think carefully when he did things in connection with the interest of the people. With his P.A.P. majority, he bulldozes things through. I hope he will be more careful and alert in future in dealing with his business.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Sir, I have been wrongly condemned, for the biggest issue of Malaysia to the smallest issue of making up a road in his constituency. I do not want to refight the Malaysia and merger issue all over again, Sir. Suffice it to say that we fought those issues hard. If there were alternatives open to us it was not for want of ingenuity that we did not offer other options. I already put it to him in this House yesterday that the Indonesians have held out this expectation: break up Malaysia and resume trade. Is that in our interest? I ask Members in this Assembly not to waste the time of this House and of the country dwelling over past issues. Where do we go from here now? Do we make Malaysia work? Do we break Malaysia as the Indonesians want to do? If we break Malaysia, where do we go from there? We go back to the old anti-colonial days of 1955/1959. That is not possible.

I say to the Member for Paya Lebar that I am extremely conscious of my responsibilities, not only to this Chamber but also to the people at large, for having got what we in those circumstances could get to ensure the viability of Singapore's 1.8 million people. Even now the problem is not the simple one of whether Malaysia has brought us confrontation, but how do we get out of this confrontation which the Indonesians have mounted. Confrontation did not come because we brought it about, but because the Indonesians initiated this action. The parroting of the line Malaysia is neo-colonialism does not make it neo-colonialist. I put this proposition yesterday evening to Members opposite, that if in fact Malaysia does not work out equitably; if, as is alleged by Members opposite, including the Member for Hong Lim, it breeds bitterness, frustrations which will follow if things are not equitably and fairly worked out, then a new situation must arise. They know it. We know it. It is our responsibility to see that these provisions which have been solemnly agreed and enshrined in the Constitution are honoured and are worked in a fair and equitable way, that Singapore within Malaysia is allowed to flourish, as I am sure it will.

How we get rid of confrontation is another matter. This unfortunately is not my immediate responsibility. I am sure in the debate on the Budget in the Federal Parliament, the Member for Paya Lebar, who is a Member, can take the Prime Minister of Malaysia to task and tell him how he should resolve confrontation, it is no use picking up these things with me here. If he is a fierce fighter for freedom, unafraid of the perils that fall upon revolutionary fighters who go along with the Com munists, then I ask him to table a similar motion to reduce the Prime Minister of Malaysia's salary by $10. Be a brave man. Do his duties in Parliament, as we intend to do.

And now from the sublime to the road in Paya Lebar. Lim Teck Boo? I need notice of this, Mr Speaker, Sir. There are a few thousand roads which have been repaired or otherwise improved throughout Singapore. I can assure the Member for Paya Lebar that, despite the misfortune of the people in Paya Lebar to have him as their representative, nevertheless, we shall maintain the road. But if I guess rightly what the Member meant, it means that the people, the frontagers, the owners of land whose roads are made up as frontages, they have been served under the Municipal Ordinance with notice to show cause why they should not pay a certain sum of money to make up that road. Is that what he intended'? He said they had to pay for it. .1 have got the data here how the administration works in the office. Now with peace and stability there is no need to go around chasing shadows caused by the united front. Even with regard to a road in Paya Lebar, can dig tip the information for him. A twelve-foot wide 200 feet long road with metalling costs $17,200. According to the law, the frontagers must pay for it. They must share this cost, because by making the road the price of the land immediately goes up. He is not suggesting that I should help his capitalist supporters in the area, using public money, $17,000, to improve the price of the land and not collect it from the land-owners. I thought he is on the side of the depressed masses, the poor unemployed, the hawkers, the farmers, the pasar malam people. He must always try to compete with the Member for Hong him. He never forgets in his speech the poor trishaw riders, the poor hawkers, the poor redhatted women in his constituency. The Member for Paya Lebar, instead of standing up for all these poor people, is standing up for a few bloated landlords, land-owners in Lim Teck Boo Road. I am not oppressing the poor tenants. The owners of land have got to pay. The price of their land goes up when the road is made, 12 feet wide. If he is suggesting that I should abuse the duties of my office by neglecting to carry out my duties ---

Mr Rajaratnam: He is a revolutionist.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I suggest that if they find it difficult to pick faults with my office, perhaps they deal with questions of policy. What have we done that is wrong? Tell us. We want to learn, particularly from wise men of the world like the Member for Paya Lebar. We always learn from everybody.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his reply just now, the Prime Minister has said that because it is the Government which makes up the road, the frontagers of this road will have to share the expenses. But during his tour of the constituency, he has promised that the road will be made up free of charge. Yet he now wants the people there to share the expenses of making up the road. The residents in Lim Teck Boo Road are not landlords as described by the Prime Minister. They have been staying there for many years. They have put up their attap houses there, and yet they have been asked to pay for the expenses of making up this road. They are not landlords. Of course, according to law, the landlord must share the expenses. But these people are not the landlords as described by the Prime Minister. I hope he will investigate this matter.

4.30 p.m.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Prime Minister has said we must talk about our future. Now, what is our future? If Malaysia is going to succeed, then we will have prosperity. He says this. Whether Malaysia succeeds or not is a secondary problem. What we want to solve is our problem of livelihood. Especially after the severance of trade, the people in Singapore are now in distress. We must see to it that we have to solve their problems. Those nations which are against Malaysia include many of the Afro-Asian countries. Why did not the Afro-Asian countries in the Cairo conference -

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): On a point of order. Mr Speaker, it does not fall within my responsibilities to send representatives to Cairo, non-aligned nations, and so on. I suggest they raise it in Parliament.

The Chairman: The point is well taken. Will the Member confine his remarks to the Prime Minister's duties?

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we will not talk about this matter.

There is another problem. On confrontation, he told my colleague that it is useless to raise this question with him. He seems to think that all questions are of no use to him. I think he should solve our immediate problem. We have to search for all ways and means to solve our problems arising out of the suspension of trade. It is useless to say that Malaysia will bring prosperity.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, may I go back to the road in the Paya Lebar constituency? My further information on this is that none of the residents of Lim Teck Boo Road are made to pay for anything. If there is any payment to be made, it is to be made by the landowner, not by the residents. What has happened, I am told, is that since the road has been made up, there have been some potholes. Perhaps the residents may have taken upon themselves the job of repairing the road. Well, good luck to them. I have no recollection of going around promising to repair public roads for nothing. Roads will be repaired. It is the business of the Government. If under the law land-owners have to pay for improvement on their frontage, the law will be applied. But we do not make the tenants or the residents pay. There is no law to enforce that.

As for the Member for Tampines, let me say to him that I do not desire to prevent discussion in this Chamber of the problems arising out of confrontation. Indeed it is our business to seek ways and means to resolve the problems arising out of confrontation and, best of all, to resolve confrontation. But specific items such as the representation of Malaysia at the Afro-Asian non-aligned nations conference in Cairo are not within my dispensation. If it were, we would have done something about it. It is a responsibility which we would have discharged in our own way. But it is not our responsibility. Our views are well known. But we do not wish to use this Chamber to criticise the Central Government for policies in a place where they cannot answer. What the Member for Paya Lebar has to say, what the Mem ber for Tampines has to say, can be said in the Central Parliament. Why did Malaysia not have a representative in Cairo? Let them explain. I am in full agreement that we should have. But perhaps there were valid reasons why Malaysia's representation was not possible. I cannot answer. It is not for me.

But on the broader issues of how to resolve confrontation, I say, let us have more constructive proposals than just harking back to neo-colonialism and the dissolution of Malaysia. How do we resolve confrontation and survive? That is the nub of the matter. I told Members yesterday that the Indonesians have held out this bait to us. They will resume trade if we back out from Malaysia. I say calculate. Tell me now whether that is a good thing. Calculate. Let the people of Singapore hear their views on that. I think it is a good thing if we can resume trade and be friends all over again, but only on terms which will leave our future secure, not our future in jeopardy.

Mr Ong Lian Teng (Bukit Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is one question the Prime Minister can answer. Perhaps he does not like this question. I remember the Prime Minister in his visit to Crawford Division said the people in that division are still the supporters of the Barisan Sosialis. He said that there are' some Indonesian infiltrators who try to sabotage the unity of the people in Singapore. He said at the Seremban branch of the P.A.P. that certain U.M.N.O. leaders deliberately or unwittingly tried to incite racial conflict. Now that racial conflict has taken place - this was spoken by him before the racial disturbances took place -

The Chairman: Order: The Member is getting perilously close to a matter which I ruled was sub judice. I hope he does not get anywhere near it or around it. Does the Member wish to proceed with his speech?

Mr Ong Lian Teng indicated dissent.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir,I fully agree with what my colleague the Member for Paya Lebar has said regarding the various mistakes made by the Prime Minister. I will now mention sonic more serious mistakes that he has made. I hope he will be careful hereafter. Using his Party members and posing as the Prime Minister, they together toured the constituencies and called themselves representatives and had meetings with goodwill committees. Perhaps. Mr Speaker, you have ruled this out. But I am not speaking of personal matters. I am referring to the racial conflict that took place sometime ago. But the representative sent by the Prime Minister went to the goodwill committees and had discussions with them. In the end, the representatives on the committee also broadcast over the radio. I myself was present. Many people went there to see, because they were also concerned about the incident. The representative of the Prime Minister arrogantly told the gathering that the Prime Minister had ordered him to go there to organise a good will committee. Although this is not too important and the attitude of this person is not something we can praise, the arrogant utterances made by him saddened me. I felt that people would not be taken in his such words. The Prime Minister sent a representative there. When he was speaking on the platform, he said that this racial conflict had been caused by the Barisan Sosialis and Indonesian subversive elements. But after we had given him two slaps. I think, ---

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): On a point of order.

The Chairman: Will the Member resume his seat? On a point of order. Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): The Member is now raising the question of a speech which is alleged to have been made by somebody who is supposed to represent either me or the Minister for Culture, blaming the riots (said he) on the Socialist Front and Indonesia. First, I do not know whether this is true or not. Mr Speaker. Sir, you have ruled that this subject is sub judice. Otherwise, I would allow him to make a point on his behalf without being able to answer.

The Chairman: I have just told the Member that anything approaching a debate on the matters which I have ruled are sub judice should be avoided. I have asked him to refrain from making any statement which us likely to excite a debate on this matter which I have ruled is sub judice.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I dealt with this matter, I had already explained my position. I only wanted to point out that the Prime Minister should be more careful when sending any representative to act on his behalf. Of course, I quite understand that any person sent will be acting like his tail. But the actions of such a person invariably cause anger among the people, and in the end make the goodwill committee useless. So I would advise that, if he himself could not go, he should send somebody who knows the business. He should not send a person who does not know how to deal with the matter in question. So I would give the Prime Minister this piece of my advice.

4.45 p.m.

Just now the Prime Minister has also touched on a point raised by the Member for Paya Lebar. He says that the people of Malaysia would bring about Malaysia. But I agree with the Member for Paya Lebar that the Prime Minister has made various mistakes, because he is making use of propaganda to create a smokescreen to bamboozle the people, whether locally or not. There had been information and talk about the consequences of Malaysia. He claimed that after Malaysia there would he happiness and prosperity and everybody would benefit. That was what he said before Malaysia. But now he has changed his tune. He is trying to deceive the people. Before Malaysia, he said that the people of Singapore would be prosperous and would benefit. But now he has again given the promise that after a few more years Malaysia would bring more benefits, perhaps 20 or 30 years thereafter. Only after such a period can we see such results. Even before merger the Prime Minister had said that Malaysia would bring prosperity to us. Now he is not sure of himself. Now he is assuring the people that such promises could only be realised many years hereafter, 10 to 20 years. If he was not sure of himself, if he himself was doubtful, then he should not have made such utterances. This also shows that Malaysia in the end will bring disaster to the people. Their sufferings will be more than what they are enduring at the moment. Therefore, the Prime Minister, as head of the Government, should think in terms of the future of the people and not in terms of his personal selfish interests and ignore the future of the people. The mere use of deceitful words will not be absorbed by the people forever. The sum of $42,000 under this vote should be worth its while, and he should not make use of empty promises to fool the people.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, if my responsibilities could be measured only by the salary I am paid, I think I could find much more congenial pursuits besides having to discharge the duties of my office.

I suggest to Members opposite that a lot of useful thinking and formulation of public opinion can be done if they begin to think forward. Where do we go from here'? Not "Malaysia is a neo colonialist plot", "Look at it, it has brought us misery and confrontation". When Malaysia was formed, nobody had the right to prevent its formation if we decided to get together. We did it in our best interests. We argued it for two solid years before it was formed. The day after its formation, the Indonesians mounted an economic boycott, and severed diplomatic relations. Now one year after its advent, they have sent, not just into Sabah and Sarawak, which they can say is disputable territory, but into Malaya and into Singapore, saboteurs and guerrillas. Where do we go from here? The people are not interested in harking back to this refrain, for the good old days when we were making money out of the Indonesians - 20 per cent of our entrepot trade. Where do we go from here? I said to the Member for Jalan Kayu yesterday - he was not in the Chamber perhaps - that the Indonesians have held Out to us this expectation, this hope, this inducement - "Break out from Malaysia and we will resume trade." I say, calculate publicly now and tell this House and the country why they think this is a good idea. Let me hear the arguments that it is, in fact, a good idea, and that to opt out and resume trade with the Indonesians is in the interests of the people of Singapore. Then I say it may well be that Members opposite can persuade the people of Singapore to follow them. But let us hear the arguments.

I suggest to Members opposite that the mood of the country has undergone a cataclysmic change. Before, just shouting slogans and holding mass rallies for or against Malaysia was a form of political exercise. Now the people understand that this is a matter of life and death. So far as the Indonesians are concerned, what they want is Malaysia`s death and our absorption under their aegis, under their hegemony. I am quite sure Members opposite know that the people do not want that. I do not know what they themselves want. But how do we avoid that and still survive as a viable entity? I say our best chances are in Malaysia. I said yesterday that the ideal paradise was full trade with Indonesia, full trade with Malaya, plus a common market, plus industrialisation, which would have happened had the Indonesians not mounted their confrontation. Two years more of common market without confrontation and we would have been up. We had reasons on which we could base our expectations of Malaysia bringing us stability and progress. But on the 1st May, 1963, Indonesia got back West Irian, and she was ready to make her next move in South-East Asia. The people know that.

Where do we go from here? Out of Malaysia? Back to trade with Indonesia? Back to the abolition of the bases? What is the long-term future? Or is it not better that we get Malaysia to succeed? The l0� million people, nearly 11 million people, have a chance, if they are fair to one another, to build a viable society that can withstand the pressure of 103 million people. I read in the newspapers that the President of Indonesia represents 105 million people now, and the number will grow bigger and bigger year by year. And can they watch Singapore flourish all by itself? They are not even happy to see Malaysia flourish.

Where do the Barisan stand? They are against Malaysia, just like the Indonesians. They are also against Malaysia flourishing, because they are against Malaysia to begin with. They know that they are isolated. That last escapade on 12th September was a flop. The Member for Jurong should never be allowed to forget that.

We face realities, and I suggest more usefulness would be served if we started off on the basis now that we are here with the Indonesians doing this - where is the next move in the interests of Malaysia? Or if they wish, just only in the interests of Singapore. Let us hear it. Tell us what the next move is. If we are wrong, and if indeed Malaysia is not the way out, tell us.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: Perhaps this might be a convenient time to take the tea break.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I shall suspend the sitting of this House now, and take the Chair again at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.58 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Chairman: There is an amendment standing in the names of Mr Kow Kee Seng and Mr Lim Huan Boon. It is amendment No. (2)*.

• Amendment (2) reads as follows :

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1151.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not moving.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (3) in the name of Mr Koo Young. Mr Koo Young.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2006.+

• The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

I would like to enquire whether it is all right for me to discuss this amendment with amendment (8)++ in respect of subhead 3005 and amendment (9)� in respect of subhead 3006. May I touch on amendments (8) and (9) in conjunction with amendment (3)+ under the head - Prime Minister?

++ Amendment (8) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3005.

� Amendment (9) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3006.

The Chairman: I think it will be convenient, Mr Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Yes.

The Chairman: Mr Koo Young, please proceed on amendment (3) and the debate may range over the other two amendments.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this subhead 2006 is in connection with "Expenses of the Senior Trade and Cultural Representative's Office in Indonesia".

I would like to ask the Prime Minister, regarding this $10 token vote, whether Singapore still has such a representative in Indonesia. If so, how many of the representative's staff are at present in their houses and offices in Indonesia, and whether their properties have not been confiscated by the Indonesian authorities.

The Chairman: In dealing with amendment (3) relating to subhead 2006, the debate may range over amendment (8) relating to subhead 3005 and amendment (9) relating to subhead 3006. Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, our Trade and Cultural Representative stayed on in Jakarta for some six months after Malaysia was formed. The head of our Mission there returned a little earlier, and the others were allowed to continue until such time this year when, following the cessation of complete official trade with Indonesia, there being no further business to transact, they were given time by the Ministry of External Affairs of Indonesia to wind up their business and leave, which they did - I am speaking from memory now - probably in March or April this year.

We have kept this item in the Budget, because in accordance with our constitutional arrangements in Malaysia, we are entitled to keep as part of the Malaysian Embassy or Commission a Trade Representative in any of the countries where Malaysia has a Mission or Legation, and it is our intention, when diplomatic relations are restored, to send a Trade Representative back as part of the Malaysian Mission.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder why the Government of Singapore is still retaining various items in the Estimates by asking for token votes for them. This item relates to "Expenses of the Senior Trade and Cultural Representative's Office in Indonesia" and refers to diplomatic bags, office equipment, houses, repairs and redecoration to the office, and other expenses.

Since the formation of Malaysia, the P.A.P. has changed its attitude towards Indonesia. In the past, the P.A.P. Ministers and even the junior officials, stressed the importance of our relationship with Indonesia. Subsequently, because of the desire of the Alliance Government for merger and the formation of Malaysia, the P.A.P. collaborated with the British Government and they are now hostile towards Indonesia. Now we hear these people belittling Indonesia by saying that its people are living on rats and corn. Because of the severance of trade, they say that Indonesian rubber has been piling up along its ports. The Minister for Finance has taunted the Indonesians by asking how long they could continue with their confrontation. He seems to think that if the piled-up rubber can be sold, only then can the Indonesian people prosper and not be hungry any more. Such has been their tune since Malaysia. They say that we are anti-national. Why? I do not understand their charge. But, strange to say, in this Budget the Government is still providing token votes for such expenditure. The Prime Minister yesterday and today has been stressing that even without Malaysia, Indonesia will try to ---

The Chairman: We are now on "Expenses of the Senior Trade and Cultural Representative's Office in Indonesia". I think the Member is again embarking on a political discussion of merger and Malaysia. Will he please confine his discussion to the particular topic?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to explain to you that it is difficult to understand their attitude towards Indonesia. On the other hand, they are providing token votes under these various items. This shows their inconsistency in doing things.

Since the Prime Minister and the P.A.P. think that Indonesia is a hostile country and since we have severed diplomatic relations with it, why then do they not want also to delete the various items under these subheads in the Budget? Does this not show a contradiction in the P.A.P.? People would think they are hoping that one day they may resume trade and cultural relationships with Indonesia. Since such resumption is impossible, because they themselves have brought about the present situation, we wonder why they are still anticipating such a resumption of trade.

The Prime Minister has stressed the severance of trade between Indonesia and Singapore and has given the people the impression that Indonesia had intended to sever such trade even before Malaysia was formed - even in 1959.

5.45 p.m.

This is something the people have never heard of since the formation of Malaysia for about one year. Because of their losses in trade, the conditions of living of the people have been deteriorating. The people feel that hoping for things which cannot materialise is not a practical way of doing things. They have therefore tightened their belts. I feel that what the Prime Minister has said about Indonesia's intention to sever trade with Singapore has been entirely his own concoction.

The token vote provided here shows that the P.A.P. are preparing for an exit for themselves in anticipation of the day when they cannot persist further with the Malaysia plant then they can find a way out. Because the Prime Minister has no confidence in Malaysia, trade between Indonesia and Singapore has now been severed, and Singapore is faced with confrontation. The Prime Minister in the past has claimed that within three months he could resolve the problem of confrontation. But now after one year, when they are meeting with difficulties, the Prime Minister claims that he can resolve it in two years. Now it is no longer three months. It is now eight times three months. Perhaps after two more years, when the situation gets worse, he says perhaps in five years he can resolve the situation.

He has also claimed that Indonesia has sent feelers to him to resume trade and other relations. Perhaps he is banking on the hope that something may turn up in the future, and that is why he is providing the token vote as a feeler from Singapore to Indonesia.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, I find it a very tedious business going back over the whole argument. The position is quite simple. There is no contradiction between putting the token vote for our Trade Representative in Jakarta and our position vis-a-vis Indonesia. The Russians know that the Americans do not love them, and yet they keep an Embassy in America and they trade with the Americans. They even bought American grains when their own crops failed. One day - it is not impossible - the Indonesians may understand that we are not so easily digested and absorbed, and they may learn how to live with us. And if they live with us, it is not unlikely that we should, in the nature of the geography of South-East Asia, once more have trade and other relations with each other. This is a token vote. It does not mean that we do not know what their present leaders want to do to us.

For many years Mr Speaker, Sir, we have watched their activities here with considerable interest. Whilst we were making alternative arrangements how we should live in the eventuality that has transpired a little earlier than we had expected - a complete cut-off of all trade lines with Singapore; if we do not show that capacity to survive, then this will go on until we are absorbed. If we do show that capacity, it is not unlikely that they will just have to learn how to live with us.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it tedious to have to deny things put into my mouth. I promised confrontation would be over in three months. Now I promise confrontation will be over in two years. I never did say any such things. Produce the documents. [Interruption] When did I say that? My assessment of the position has been made on many an occasion, that I think it will go on for as long as they believe we can be absorbed, we can be broken. They will stop: there will probably be a change of tactics, a change of technique, the moment they find it no longer profitable to go on doing this. When that will be, I do not know. It might happen in the course of 1965. Hence the token vote. But whatever it is, I do hope Members opposite will become more sophisticated. We do not have to love each other in this world to do business with each other. The Chinese People's Government do not love the British, but there is a British trade exhibition going on in Peking, and business is being transacted. Similarly we do not have to be falling over our selves over the Indonesians, nor do we expect them to hold us in high esteem. All we need do is to respect each other's integrity and trade with each other. And if it comes about again, we should be ready to re-open those avenues of contact between them and us.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Prime Minister was replying to this question, he was putting himself into a vortex of conflicts. He was quite inconsistent. He said in the last two days that it was difficult for Singapore to maintain trade relationship for a long time because Indonesia had intentions to sever such trade and to establish its own free port to export directly and buy directly. So we cannot depend too much on Indonesia. That being so, we must have Malaysia. This was his argument. From this we can see that when Malaysia is met with di fficulties, he is trying to find excuses to cover up the intentions behind Malaysia. But today he says something different. He says if we should go on like this, then there will come a day when Indonesia will realise the necessity to live with us and to resume trade with us. This is very puzzling. On the one hand, he says that it is important for Indonesia to cut off trade with us. Today he says there will come a day when Indonesia will realise its dependency on Singapore on trade. So his arguments that Singapore is entirely independent on others for a livelihood cannot hold water. He says we must cling to Malaysia for our survival. Then he says that Indonesia will realise the importance of trade with Singapore. From all these arguments one can see that his past utterances were made to put Singapore into a pathetic position in order to justify the formation of Malaysia. His arguments were intended to create some imaginary embar rassment so as to make way for Malaysia. Actually Singapore has a very important place in trade. We can survive on trade as we have done in the past, it does not mean that we have to depend on others for a livelihood. If that is so, it is equally important and clear that others will have to depend on us for a livelihood. The dependency is mutual.

The Prime Minister said a moment ago that without Malaysia there will be no way out for Singapore. He was slapping himself. If he is sincere in solving the problem, I would suggest to him that the people of Singapore should be given a chance to decide on the future of Singapore in a democratic way. We can hold another referendum or by some other means ---

The Chairman: I have been very patient. I think we are really straying off the point. The Member can make his point about Malaysia in reference to trade and cultural relations, but let us not embark again on a discussion on whether Malaysia is good for us or not. I think we have discussed that ad nauseani. Does the Member for Jurong still wish to continue? Mr Prime Minister will await the completion of his speech if he has not completed it. Has the Member completed his speech?

Mr Chia Thye Poh: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, I really have high regard for their capacity to pursue a given line regardless of their completely changed circumstances. There is a Chinese proverb, Mr Speaker, Sir, which I think is rather appropriate. What they have been saying in the last two days might have been all right before Malaysia. As the Chinese proverb says, "The sword has fallen overboard. They mark the place on the ship where the sword has fallen overboard. Then time passes and the ship moves on. Then they go and look for the sword at the point where they have made the mark." Ker tow chiew chien.

6.00 p.m.

The world has moved on beyond all this phoney merger - Malaysia is a neo-colonialist plot. I will put the problems simply to them and if they can give me their views, I think we will carry the argument one step forward. Now, the Indonesians have held out the expectation of resumed trade if we break Malaysia, if we come out. Never mind about the interest of the people of Malaysia; let us be selfish and say let us consider the interest of the 1.8 million people of Singapore. Do they tell us now that that is a good thing? I would like to hear that. Then we carry the argument forward. We have put this as a token vote, Mr Speaker, Sir; maybe in 1965 something happens in Indonesia; they see the light; they want to resume trade; we resume trade. We do not have to love people to trade with them. Or just because they want to eat us up but they cannot, it does not mean that we do not have to trade with them. If they want, we trade. There is no contradiction between what we have done here in putting in a token vote and the fact as I said yesterday, not two days ago (tsuo wan not chien hang tien), that early in 1960, 1961, 1962, our man in Jakarta, on one occasion, even had an Indonesian document fall into his hands. What they planned to do was to cut off the Singapore trade. Let us be quite honest: they felt that they were being fleeced, being bled by the Singapore merchants. They did not get the hard currency: goods were smuggled out according to their regulations because they had no export permits. They wanted to put their customs and police on our boats to check as they came in. We kept them in negotiations for four years, while the trade went on. One of the reasons why we had a balance of $400 million in the coffers was that the trade went on. There were cultural exchanges and there were occa sions when one licence and Bills of Lading were used six or seven times to get six or seven consignments out of Indonesia. Cases were mounted in our Courts, proceedings were held. And so it went on. But life went on. But we knew what was at the back of their minds - to stop this trade with us. They must, on the one hand, hope for its continuance and, on the other hand, make preparations if it should be discontinued. Now it has been discontinued.

On the one hand, we must be prepared to do without it and proceed on the basis of just industrialisation and what trade we have with the rest of the world. On the other hand, it is not impossible that there will be a change of circumstances in Jakarta in which they may find it necessarily urgent to exchange goods with us. They may need rice. People may get tired of eating corn, I do not know. The situation may alter. If it does, here is the vote; we do not have to come to the Assembly; we can act and then ask for supplementary. That is all it means: a little bit of political sophistication. And I say, let us save ourselves a lot of argument. Where do we go from here? Not the old argument, whether there should have been a Malaysia or there should not been a Malaysia. Members opposite will have another chance, Mr Speaker, Sir, unless they do something stupid between now and 1968, when the whole Party may be scrubbed out. I do not know. We do not want them scrubbed out. We will meet them again in 1968 and they can put their proposals on the future of Singapore to the people. As I have said, we are realists. The arrangements we have made for Singapore in Malaysia, if worked out fairly and equitably, should see us through. If perchance things do not go right, and they go wrong, and Singapore does go South, then I concede to them the possibility in that situation of Malaysia breaking off.

Let me explain to them and do their calculations for them. This is obvious. If anyone of the three new member States of Malaysia says. "Out with Malaysia," then the Indonesian guerillas become like the Algerian liberation fighters. That means Malaysia has had it. They can put this to the people in 1968 when the time comes. If really Malaysia has brought misery, degradation, exploitation, subjection and oppression, they will get their votes. Then every time there is a bomb exploding, it is no longer an Indonesian saboteur. That Indonesian saboteur becomes a volunteer fighting for the freedom of the people who have been subjected. These are on the cards. Our job is to make it succeed. Their job is to bring the house down. We will see what happens in 1968.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has spoken too much in order to cover up his present embarrassment. He says that the Members opposite condemn the resumption of trade with Indonesia. No, we have never made such a condemnation. We only want to speak on this token vote in order to expose their irresponsibility. They try to split up the same matter into different parts. On the one hand, they say how bad Indonesia is, and when we pin them down on the consequences of confrontation, they turn round and say that it is useless to talk on these lines, because it was the intention of Indonesia to cut off trade with us. But, on the other hand, they are prepared to resume trade. We do not want to condemn this action, but we are trying to expose their inconsistency.

The Prime Minister has time and again shown that he is one step ahead of all the others when he explains the justification for this token vote. He says that we must be prepared to show Indonesia that we have the capacity to survive and then Indonesia will realise the importance of trade with us. The people of Singapore are capable of surviving. There is no doubt about it. We have never said that the people of Singapore are not able to survive. If we do not have people like the Prime Minister, perhaps we can survive better. The Prime Minister is always carry ing out political intimidation. He says, "You oppose Malaysia? If you do, then you will discover that in the South you will have Indonesian confrontation and in the North you will have Malayan confrontation." I do not know how he has based this calculation. He speaks as though the people of Singapore have enemies everywhere. He has made a lot of very poor calculations. It is because of people like him who pushed through Malaysia that the people of Singapore are what they are. They are isolated. The people over there make enemies for the people of Singapore. He has raised one question, "All right, let the Barisan tell us what we should do about the future of Singapore."

Let us go back to the old controversy. There is no difficulty about it. The question is: if you want to solve a problem, you have to find the cause of it. Now, where is the cause? The cause of the problem lies with Malaysia. This is known to everybody. We have said long ago that Malaysia will deprive Singapore of its political rights, that the people of Singapore will not have equal rights politically. They have said in the past that we have autonomy in Labour and Education and so we are equal. We have equal rights in citizenship, and political rights are not important. Autonomy in Labour and Education is more important.

Perhaps I am transgressing, Mr Speaker, but I have to give you one example about the autonomy in Education. The students of Singapore have to apply to the Federation Government for permits before they can go for higher studies. This is the decision of the Central Government and the people of Singapore have to follow. There is no democracy but they say that we must not go beyond the limit, in the morning they say something and in the afternoon they withdraw what they have said. This is what they call autonomy in Education. Political rights are very important above all things. Are the P.A.P. prepared to fight for equal poli tical rights? If it is, then we will support them.

Another point is, before Malaysia was formed, it was the British who had to pay for the soldiers. Now we have to pay for them.

The Chairman: Order. Could we get back to culture and trade?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I raise all these matters because the Prime Minister himself has made a lot of speeches about things irrelevant to the present item. So I have to reply.

The Chairman: The difficulty is that if one side gets irrelevant, then I have to give the other side some opportunity to reply to those irrelevancies. Then we go on ad infinitum like this. So shall we from now on talk about trade and culture and leave out politics?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): This is the last point I wish to dwell on. If you play a flute before a bull, it is useless because it will not be able to appreciate your music.

I will now talk about another subject. Does Malaya respect the rights of the Borneo people? No, Malaya is trying to help the British to deny the Borneo people of their rights.

6.15 p.m.

As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister has not made an adequate reply to the points I have raised on this item.

The Prime Minister: I am a little bewildered, Mr Speaker, Sir,I have asked for one simple answer. What is their view? Now, do we get out of Malaysia and resume trade with Indonesia? They have not answered it. In fact, because I have now posed that question, they are talking about merger - equal rights. That is a new line. Is that really what they want, complete merger, and that there is no need for State autonomy in education and labour? Put that in their programme in 1968. We will meet the people.

The Chairman: Does the Member wish to have a vote taken on this?

Mr Koo Young: Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to he allocated for Head 0201 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2008*.

• The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question. How many Assemblymen, from the P.A.P. and from the Opposition, have obtained this allowance?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must apologise to the Member opposite. He should give me notice of such questions if he wants this sort of information. Neither my Ministry nor I knew what he was driving at when he moved an amendment to this vote. The information I have here does not cover what he wants. All I can tell him is that so far as the Opposition Assemblymen are concerned, there is one Member who is making use of this vote. That is, the Member for Paya Lebar since March 1964, and three others, the Member for Jalan Kayu, the Member for Tampines and the Member for Choa Chu Kang. Three of them, together with the Member for Bukit Panjang, wanted to employ their own friend, one same gentleman, as their teacher. Unfortunately, the gentleman had not got the qualifications. He did not have a certificate. So we offered to get them a properly qualified teacher. And there, I think, the matter rested as on the 10th of July, 1964.

I do ask Members opposite that if they want to give their friends jobs, they should be qualified men and not just friends for the purpose of giving them $4 per hour.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to say about the friend I would like to employ. What I would like is to pose two questions to the Prime Minister. The first one is this. When an Assemblyman wishes to employ a language teacher, what are the qualifications required of him? I would also like to know whether all language teachers employed have got the required qualifications.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I am unable to give a list of all the former tutors who have been paid out of this vote. But I can assure the Member for Bukit Panjang that all the tutors who are being paid out of this vote are considered qualified to teach the language, either by the Ministry of Education or by the Public Service Commission. Most of these language teachers in the old days were qualified to teach the M.C.S., S.S.C.S. civil servants in Malay, Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien and so on. There were certain recognised teachers for this particular task.

With the introduction of this vote and multilingualism in this Assembly, a number of Assemblymen wanted to make use of this vote to learn English, which did not happen in the old days. In so far as the people who were brought in were already teaching that language in the schools, they are deemed qualified. In so far as they are not teaching that language in schools, they are deemed to be qualified if they can produce a certificate recognised by the Ministry of Education as a person qualified in that particular language or to teach that particular language.

The problem arose in the case of the four Members I have mentioned the Member for Bukit Panjang, the Member for Jalan Kayu, the Member for Tampines and the Member for Choa Chu Kang. They wanted to overwork one poor friend. We allowed these things. But when an obvious anomaly turned up, that is, when the teacher was going to teach four friends, three hours a week, it would have killed that poor friend of theirs. It occurred to us that there must be a special reason why this person was so popular with the four hon. Members of the Opposition. We thought it was necessary to find out whether the person was properly qualified to teach in the language, and it turned out that he had no qualification other than the fact that he was their friend. We, therefore, offered them a list of properly qualified teachers who could discharge their duties, and there the matter rested.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has said that only those who are teaching the language in schools are qualified to teach that language. He has also said that in another category, only very rich friends are qualified to teach. Has he said that? If a teacher is teaching a particular language in school, and if we ask him to teach us, then he is qualified. Is there a Member in the House who has employed a teacher who cannot speak and teach in that language? If what the Prime Minister has said is correct, then he is implying that the four Assemblymen on this side, including myself, have done something improperly. I would like to ask him whether a person, be be poor or rich, be he an enemy of the State, can be considered in such circumstances to have that qualification? Can that be counted as a qualification?

The Prime Minister: Sir, I am sorry that this mutual friend of the four hon. Members opposite who was considered unsuitable as a teacher under this scheme should have generated all this heat. If their desire is to learn the English language, then I do not see what the problem is. There are a number of properly qualified teachers for this language. If they do not like any particular person on that list, they can choose some other person. But surely they cannot have the whole of the English teaching profession as their enemies. I am not suggesting that they should choose an enemy to teach them. Of course, they want a congenial companion. But I would suggest to Members opposite that when an official in my Ministry gets an application from four Members choosing one person to teach all four of them English, it does seem a bit odd. First, they are overworking the poor man. Hence our curiosity was aroused as to why they chose this particular teacher, it turned out that he had no special qualification to teach the language other than the fact that he was probably a good friend of theirs. If they want a teacher, there is a list. What is the problem?

The Chairman: Mr Koo Young, you have two more minutes.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I will talk very briefly. This man has passed his Senior Cambridge Certificate ---

The Chairman: Did I hear the words "this man". Did the Member say "this man"? Who is he referring to?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I was referring to the teacher who was employed as our language teacher. He had passed his Senior Cambridge Examination, and he was teaching English in a Government school. Is he qualified to teach? The Prime Minister was talking of a friend. Does he expect us to advertise in the Press in order to employ a teacher? Last year we were talking about the insufficiency of books in the Assembly. When we wanted to employ a teacher to teach us, he placed obstacles before us and, as a result, none of us has benefited from this vote. He has spoken about a qualified teacher ---

6.30 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The time allotted for Head 0201 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the names of Mr Tan Cheng Tong, Mr Lim Huan Boon, Mr Koo Young and Mr Chia Thye Poh, were not proceeded with:

Mr Tan Cheng Tong:

Mr Lim Huan Boon :

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2009.

Mr Koo Young:

Mr Lim Huan Boon:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3001.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong:

Mr Lim Huan Boon:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3003.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong:

Mr Lim Huan Boon:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3007.

Mr Chia Thye Poh:

Mr Lim Huan Boon:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $1,514,990 for Head 0201 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0202 -

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0202 be reduced by $100*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is on the Land Office. I feel that the Government is the biggest landowner in Singapore. In many respects, this big landowner is worse than the other landowners. The first point is that the Government has taken back some Crown land. But did it give the land to the farmers? No. It gave the land to some merchants to wash sand, and such work has affected the livelihood of farmers. Now what steps have the Land Office taken to rectify this? This big landowner has done nothing in this respect; it has not even paid a single cent of compensation.

The other point I would like to raise is about building. If one wishes to erect a building on Government land, great difficulty is experienced. If one wants to build a pigsty, etc., the Government will normally refuse the application. In the case of pigs or chickens, this is all right, but people without land cannot live. If after a few years a family has increased by three or five members, then the Government should allow them to build an extension, otherwise they would not have any place to sleep. Take a private landowner, for instance. If only a sum of coffee money were to be paid, that would be sufficient in the case of private landowners: but the Government would not allow that.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I am astounded by the series of completely unfounded statements: first, that we have moved people out in order to give licences to private individuals to wash sand. I would like to have the data. Who have been moved out? From what land? And to whom have we given these licences? So far as I know the problem, in 1962 we decided that all the sand-washing operations that were being done were to be done by the Work Brigade. We gave employment to the Work Brigade. We saved money as a result of producing sand required for the construction work of the Ministry of National Development and the Housing Board. So I suggest that the Member for Bukit Panjang had better list out all these allegations, and then we might go into them.

Then he made this scurrilous allegation that you can get a licence to extend your pigsty or chicken run or to extend your little attap hut if you give a bit of coffee money. Well, that is what the C.P.I.B. is supposed to look into, Mr Speaker, Sir. Now that he has this information, I suggest that he immediately go to the C.P.I.B. and they will put the matter right. This is what we are here for: to see that things are properly and well run. I should have thought that in the licensing of these huts we have gone to great lengths. Everyone knows that land is in scarce supply in Singapore. And what starts off as a pigsty or a chicken run ends up as a house. Everybody knows that, in the rural areas, you start off first by pretending that this is a pigsty. Then all being well, after a period of one year has elapsed, you move into occupation. And from then onwards, gradually a mansion is built around it. Therefore, in order to prevent the complete "squatterisation" of all our State land, we worked out certain fixed plans. A chicken run shall not be higher than a certain height. It is good for chickens, more than ample space for chickens, but slightly uncomfortable for human beings to dwell in. So too with pigsties. I think it is a reasonable precaution, because every time the State allows buildings to be built on State land, it is at the same time undertaking the moral obligation of paying compensation when the time comes to ask the squatter to move to make way for building projects for the State. We do not do this for fun. These lands belong to the people, the Government. They are for clinics, hospitals, community centres, schools - all the things that a modern civilised society wants. Unfortunately, people have moved in for years. Where they are already in occupation, we do not want a proliferation of these squatter huts, which has been taking place by way of the pigsty and the chicken run. We have simplified the procedure and there are four District Offices where the farmer can go and get a standard plan free of charge showing what he need to do for a pigsty or for a chicken run. He does that, and there is no trouble. It is not that we want to make it difficult for them. We go out of our way to make it difficult for the Government. We produce a prototype plan - "This is a first-class pigsty, cheap, economical and practical, for pigs, not human beings." In that way when the time comes for that piece of land to be built upon - schools, clinics, community centres - we pay the compensation as for a pigsty, and the pigs will move with the farmer. If we do not do that, when the time comes, we find that the farmer has acquired a very large family, who in turn have themselves acquired large families, and all need to be rehoused. We gain nothing out of this, Mr Speaker, Sir,It is just an efficient, thrifty way of handling public money. The more we allow squatters to go into State land, the more we will have to pay to rehouse them. That is the problem. I would have thought that being socialist-minded chaps, they would all have been in favour of protecting the property of the State, of the people. They suggest that we should allow their friends to go and "squatter up" the open spaces in Bukit Panjang with more huts in order that they could get more money out of the State when they are asked to move to make way for public buildings.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister said that he was surprised to hear about the giving of permits to sand-washing operators. During his tour of the rural areas, especially Tampines Road, 11th milestone, a farmer gave him a letter saying that there were people operating sand-quarries there. He sought the Prime Minister's help in this matter. After two years, nothing happened. In the end, a notice was issued to reclaim the piece of land occupied by this particular farmer. He was shocked. He had paid the rent till December, but the Land Office, without any reason, withdrew the licence given to him. The land was inherited from his father.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, on a point of order.

The Chairman: The point of order being?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, the Member for Tampines is referring to some land. According to him, that piece of land was handed down to him by his father, in other words, he is referring to private land. We are discussing State land.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): If the Parliamentary Secretary for Culture is ignorant, I hope he will not waste much of our time here. This particular piece of land no doubt is Government land, but it has been rented out to this particular farmer, and the family of this farmer have been living there for many generations, rearing pigs and operating fish ponds and coconut plantations to maintain their livelihood. But now the Land Office has withdrawn their land lease, thereby causing these people difficulties. The Prime Minister spoke as though nothing had happened. But this particular farmer had seen the Prime Minister. But in the end there was no result - the Land Officer withdrew the permit. Yet the Prime Minister says that they try to carry on with Socialist principles.

6.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj): (In Malay): Mr Speaker. I am really surprised to see the conduct of the Member for Tampines. It may be that there is sonic-thing going on between the farmers and him.

The actual position is this. To allow a sand operator to dig sand on private land, a farmer Juts to hold a Temporary Occupation Licence. Subsequently, this particular farmer leases a part of his land to this sand operator at a high rental, and one of the sons of the farmer works under, or with the sand operator. The Land Office comes to know about it. When part of the State land is being let out, the T.O.L. licence fee is increased, because of the change of use from farm land to sand operation. And the sand operator has met the licensee concerned asking the licensee so that part of his land can be leased to the sand operator. He in turn writes to the Commissioner of I ands for that particular piece of land. This is the true position, Mr Speaker.

What the farmer is trying to do is to evade the actual licence fee. It is our right to take such action. The Member raises this point without further investigation into the matter. We are fully conscious that there is no farmer involved in sand-washing operations in Singapore. For that reason, the Government no longer issues T.O.L.s to sand washing operators to be sold to private developers. The sand-washing operator is required to obtain his licence to operate, to dig sand, from the P.W.D. If there are sand-washing operations, we impose strict conditions to ensure that the water will not damage the farmers' land and thus affect them.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am surprised that the Prime Minister himself said he was surprised about this matter, but when I have brought out the facts, he became quiet, although he is still here. He has got no guts to answer the points I have raised, so his Parliamentary Secretary has to answer for him.

The Chairman: Order. Surely the Member can use better language than "the Prime Minister has got no guts". I think he should withdraw the expression "the Prime Minister has got no guts".

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I withdraw the words. "The Prime Minister has no guts". The Prime Minister has no courage to answer this question, so his Parliamentary Secretary has to answer on his behalf, to say that a certain farmer has sublet his land to a sand-washing operator. What evidence can he produce to show that any farmer has sublet the land to a sand-washing operator? This is a very important point. We know, Mr Speaker, that farmers are honest people. They live in the villages. They are hard working. They are rustic folks. They are not so cunning.

6.50 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time is up. Does the Member wish to proceed with a vote?

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $619,680 for Head 0202 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0203 -

The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Tan Cheng Tong and Mr Lim Huan Boon -

That the total sum to be allocated for head 0203 be reduced by $100.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am not moving my amendment.

The sum of $176.610 for Head 0203 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0301 -

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0301 be reduced by $100 in respect of subhead 1051*.

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

At page 77, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, this question, whether the citizens of Singapore can become citizens of Malaysia, and what is the procedure for application? I hope he will answer this before I go into the debate.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, the Member for Paya Lebar could have obtained all this information if he had bothered to look up the Constitution of the State of Singapore, in reply to his question, a Singapore citizen is naturally a Malaysian citizen. The procedures by which acquisition of Singapore citizenship can be obtained are all related in Part III of the Constitution of the State of Singapore Citizenship and I think, Mr Speaker, it would be very tedious indeed for me to recite at length all the clauses under which such applications can be made. However, if the Member for Paya Lebar so wishes, I can give him roughly the procedures by which citizenship can be acquired. First, Singapore citizenship can be acquired by birth, by descent, by registration or enrolment, or under the provisions of the Federal Constitution by naturalisation. There are, of course, conditions relating to these four different methods by which citizenship can be acquired.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): The Deputy Prime Minister has replied to the effect that Singapore citizens are naturally Malaysian citizens. However, after the formation of Malaysia, we discovered that Singapore citizens enjoy a different status from that of Malayan citizens. This is a fact. But the Deputy Prime Minister says that Singapore citizens are naturally Malaysian citizens. If this is so, then does he not know the difference between the two kinds of citizens, that Singapore citizens enjoy an inferior status compared to Malayan citizens, because they have learned from their difficulties and experience that Singapore citizenship is not as good as citizenship of the other States of Malaysia? This is a fact and cannot be denied.

The Deputy Prime Minister has also said that the people of Singapore, if they want to apply for Singapore citizenship, have to follow the conditions laid down. Mr Speaker, as far as I know, there are many people who apply for citizenship and they have to go through very difficult and troublesome procedures. They have to wait for a long time, one or two years, before their applications can be approved. This is a fact. As a result, people shake their heads if they have to apply for citizenship in Singapore. Even if they qualify to become Singapore citizens, they feel that it is rather troublesome to apply through the official channel. It takes a long time, some two years. This is the usual game that the Government is playing. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will pay attention to what I have to say. if there are cumbersome procedures, they should be simplified. If they think that people in Singapore have the residential qualifications and their applications for citizenship deserve approval, then they should approve them in the shortest possible time and do away with all the unnecessary troubles.

There is one other trouble; that is, if you have to apply for citizenship, there will be an interview for you. This interview is something like an interrogation to be carried out by Special Branch officers. I have a friend, a young man who. I think, is a good man hut who may be considered to be a not so good man, or an anti-national person, by the P.A.P. Now, this friend of mine is against the P.A.P. to the very last. He applied for citizenship but up to now - five years - he has not received any approval. When he was called up for interview, the officer concerned behaved like a Special Branch man. He would ask him. "Where do you work? Where do you act? What Party do you belong to?" And then the questions about his friends were asked. "Where are your friends working? Do you know about the activities of your friends? What are the family circumstances of your friends? Where do they live? Can you tell me about the activities of this man and your friends?" Now, such questions are fired at applicants for citizenship. This is not necessary. These questions should not be asked of the applicant for citizenship. What should be asked should be questions concerning his own affairs, his own residential qualifications, his own family, and not his political activities, and the political activities of his friends. All these questions, it appears, are asked at the whims and fancies of the P.A.P. before this person can be approved to be a Singapore citizen. If the person is against the P.A.P., then he has no chance of obtaining Singapore citizenship. This is political oppression. There should not be any political bias introduced into the applications for Singapore citizenship.

7.00 p.m.

The people who apply for Singapore citizenship will be unfairly treated. This is not proper. In the meantime, we also know that the P.A.P. is resorting to these means to oppress those who deserve to become Singapore citizens and deny them such rights. Perhaps, if the P.A.P. thinks that it should not allow the Registry of Citizenship to treat applicants in this manner, then I would like to ask this question. If the Deputy Prime Minister feels that the Registry of Citizenship does not behave in the way that I have described, then instructions should be given to the interviewer and the officers responsible to behave properly. I would like to ask him whether the interviewers are agents of the Special Branch or are they supposed to be working for the people of Singapore? If they are from the Special Branch, then they should go back to the Special Branch. If they are supposed to work in the Citizenship Registry, then they should work according to the rules and regulations governing citizenship applications. They should examine such applications without any political bias so as to deprive the anti-P.A.P. applicants of their right to take part in politics in Singapore. They think, by doing this, the P.A.P. may have more opponents in the political arena. If they think that by so doing the young people of the type that have described may become Singapore citizens, endangering their political position, then this is wrong.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, let me ask the Member for Paya Lebar, just give me an instance where lie says that Singapore citizenship does not automatically confer upon the holder of Singapore citizenship Malaysian citizenship? I think it is very far-fetched of the Member for Paya Lebar to rush into any discussion on this point. Fell me in what way Singapore citizens are not Malaysian citizens, like those who come from Sabah, Sarawak or from Malaya itself.

With regard to his allegation that delays occur when applications arc made for citizenship, I would inform him that applicants are interviewed on the same day as they make their applications, except for those who are required to obtain two persons to recommend their applications, in these cases, they are interviewed as soon as they appear with their applications duly recommended. If there is any delay, it is a delay on their own part, either because they find difficulty in obtaining recommenders, or they are unable to come for interview any earlier. Decision on an application usually takes about two weeks, so far as approval is concerned, as the applicant has to undergo screening. Those who apply for citizenship under Article 57 (1) of the Constitution of the State of Singapore, require a longer period of time, usually not longer than one month, as such applications have to be forwarded to the Federal Government for concurrence. If the Member for Paya [char wishes further clarification, let me refer him to the relevant section of the Constitution where it says:

'any person of or over the age of twenty-one years, not being a citizen of Malaysia, who was resident in the State on the coming into operation of this Constitution may, on application being made therefor in the prescribed form be registered with the concurrence of the Government of the Federation...'.

This, in simple words, means that applications must be approved not only by the Singapore Government, but also by the Central Government.

The Member for Paya Lebar complains that citizenship is not automatically conferred upon all applicants. I would let him know that citizenship is a prerogative for those who apply for it. It should not be automatically given to all and sundry who apply for citizenship. Could you imagine, Mr Speaker, if the friends of the Barisan Sosialis from Indonesia come across and submit their applications for citizenship, does the Member intend that we should automatically confer Malaysian citizenship or Singapore citizenship on his friends? I do not see any logic or any good reason why citizenship should be given to all those who have come into this country with one intention, and that is to subvert the country and to bring about the downfall of the system which we are practising. Those who apply for citizenship are in the manner of supplicants. They have no right, no privilege and, in fact, it is ridiculous indeed for the Member for Paya Lebar to say that citizenship should be something which should be given on demand. I dispute that and all those who are citizens here in Malaysia and who wish to make Malaysia their country of adoption, their fatherland, will dispute that citizenship should be given to all and sundry simply because they have filled up a piece of paper and, therefore, just as of right, it is granted them. It is quite correct that some of these applications are screened by the C.I.D. and the Special Branch, But if citizenship has been refused because of such screening, it is not because these persons have opposed the P.A.P., as the Member for Paya Lebar is alleging. It is because such applicants have previously been charged or found guilty of criminal offences, or have been found to be involved in Communist or Communist front organisations. I am surprised indeed that the Member for Paya Lebar should hold a brief for such persons. He should know better.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has said that the Government will not give citizenship rights to any Tom, Dick and Harry so easily because some of them are pro-Communist and Communist elements. This has all along been the tune harped upon by the P.A.P. When they are cornered and cannot explain any points raised by us, they bring in the Communist and pro-Communist elements. How does he know that they are any Tom, Dick and Harry and undesirable elements'? He has asked me why I should speak in defence of these people? I was speaking in defence of this man I was talking about because this man was born in Singapore. The only trouble with him was that his birth certificate had no name. That was why he had to apply for citizenship. Because he was anti-P.A.P. his application was not approved. This happens generally outside this House. People outside this House can tell you how the P.A.P. is carrying out political oppression against its political opponents. This is very simple. What about Tan Lark Sye? Mr Tan Lark Sye has lost his ---

7.10 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time is up. Does the Member wish for a vote?

Mr Kow Kee Seng indicated assent.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $504,560 for Head 0301 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0401 -

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead l003.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

I would like to ask the Minister for National Development whether there is any Political Secretary. Last year there was just a token vote. This year we are going to spend $16,200. I would like to ask why there should be such a post now. Is recruitment for this post done by open advertisement, or is it filled by some P.A.P. candidate who had been unsuccessful in the last election'? I would like to tell him, if it is the purpose to use public funds to absorb their Party rogues for the benefit of the Party, then it is using public funds for the benefit of the Party.

Another point is that the unsuccessful candidate can get a big sum of money. If he is unqualified to hold such a post, it is not a proper thing to do. I would like to ask whether the P.A.P. Political Secretaries are such persons who were defeated in the election and whether the P.A.P. are providing these posts for them as a means of livelihood. The P.A.P. should be held responsible for this. You cannot argue that because certain people in the past have been great Party officials or high State officials, and have now been defeated, they should be given such posts as Political Secretary. Such an action on the part of the P.A.P. is not correct.

7.15 p.m.

In the past few years, during the course of our debates with the P.A.P., they had argued that this post was to allow the holder to bridge the relationship between the Government and the people. Such an argument cannot hold water. If the representatives have been voted out by the people, they are persona non grata as far as the people are concerned. So I feel that since they are not wanted, the P.A.P. should not waste public money on this post.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Kim San): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Jalan Kayu has a very suspicious mind. He thinks that he is a mind-reader. In my own mind now, I have no idea who my Political Secretary is going to be. I am on the lookout for one who will be able to really track down the propaganda and subversive activities of the Barisan boys. The reason why I want a Political Secretary how, when there was no provision for this post last year, is that we are in a state of Emergency. We are facing confrontation from Indonesia and subversion from within.

Now, one of the duties of a Political Secretary is to liaise between the Government and the people. It is also his duty to find out what tricks the Ban-san boys are up to outside this Cham ber. Within this Chamber, Sir, during the last few days, we have heard them ranting and shouting pro-Indonesia and pro-Soekarno slogans. Outside this House, heaven only knows what they are up to. Therefore, during this period of Emergency, we will see to it that we can muster every able man to help the Government defend our independence and our sovereignty. That is the reason, Sir, why I have asked for provision for a Political Secretary next year.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, a great deal has been said in this House about the glorious achievements of the Ministry of National Development, par ticularly in the field of urban and rural development in Singapore. I am here today to speak in a different tone on a more solemn matter.

In doing so, it is my fervent hope that what I have to say will at least -

The Chairman: Order. I hope the Member will confine his speech to the subject under discussion - the Political Secretary to the Minister for National Development. I will not allow any debate on the general aspects of the Ministry. If there is any debate, it must confine itself to the particular item before the House.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just heard the Member for Jalan Kayu criticising the appointment of a Political Secretary to the Minister for National Development. He has said that it is not right to bridge the gap between the people and the Government. Of course, the Government must at all times liaise with the people in order to know what they want and what their feelings are. Political Secretaries are meant for this type of work.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Point of order.

The Chairman: The point of order being?

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): r Speaker, Sir, I was saying that we have argued with the P.A.P. Our experience was -

The Chairman: Order. That does not appear to me to be a point of order. If it is a point of explanation, then the Member must rise on a point of explanation. It will then depend entirely on the Member who has the Floor whether to give way or not. Now, is the Member rising on a point of order or on a point of explanation?

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): On a point of explanation.

The Chairman: Will the Member for Sembawang give way?

Mr Teong Eng Siong resumed his seat.

The Chairman: Yes, the Member has given way.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Just now I was saying that if people who have been discredited by the electorate are appointed as Political Secretaries to liaise between the Government and the people, then it is not proper because such people have already been discarded by the electorate.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Jalan Kayu is wont to utter contradictory speeches. I think his own colleagues have the same feeling. I will not touch further on that point.

As to who should be the Political Secretary, that is a question for the Government to decide, and not a matter within the purview of the Member for Jalan Kayu.

As to the point that candidates defeated in elections are people who are discarded by the electorate, then I say that the same thing can be said for the Barisan candidates as some of them were also defeated in the elections.

In the past, the Member for Jalan Kayu had not opposed the appointment of Political Secretaries. He made mention of Mr Lim Chin Siong who was drawing a salary as Political Secretary. Why did he not oppose that appointment then? Therefore, this shows that they are always changing their stand. When they were supporting the P.A.P., they said how good the P.A.P. was in serving the people's interests. But once they left the P.A.P., they said that the P.A.P. had sold out the people, and acted contrary to the wishes of the people. People who often change their stand will not be trusted by the people. Just look at them today. I believe that if they continue to change their stand, then by 1968 they will face a more disastrous fate, I hope they will consider their position carefully.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, nobody has denied the need for a Political Secretary. Even the Member who has just spoken from our side is not opposing the appointment. The question is that the person to be appointed to the post should be one who is educated and is worth his salt. If he were to be the Political Secretary to the Minister for National Development, then he should be of some use to that Ministry and capable in his work. Yet the Member opposite mentioned Lim Chin Siong. [Interruption] Can you compare yourself with Lim Chin Siong? You are just a small useless fry.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): Point of order. I think the Member for Paya Lebar is attacking the character of the Member for Sembawang. I think it is not in order.

The Chairman: I do not think he was, Mr Minister. Please continue.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Therefore, when he mentioned Lim Chin Siong, it is useless for him to do so because Lim Chin Siong is one who is loved and supported by the people of Singapore. He is a trade union leader.

Mr Teong Eng Siong rose -

The Chairman: Is it a point or order?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: Yes.

The Chairman: The point of order being?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Just now when I mentioned Lim Chin Siong, it was just to show that he had not been consistent or right.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Why is the Member afraid of my mentioning Mr Lim Chin Siong'?

The Chairman: Order. The subject under discussion is the Political Secretary, anti not the Member for Sembawang. Let us get back to the Political Secretary.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Therefore, at the time when Lim Chin Siong was appointed Political Secretary to the Minister for Finance, he was well qualified to hold that post. His character was good, and he was very capable and efficient in dealing with matters. But this is not the credit that we are claiming; it is something that is recognised by all the people of Singapore. So he was worth his salt in holding such a post, and the appointment was proper.

Therefore, today when we talk about the appointment of a Political Secretary in this Ministry, we should also consider appointing a person as efficient as Lim Chin Siong to fill the post. If not, then his conduct should be as good as Lim Chin Siong's, and not appoint anyone to this post. So let me tell the P.A.P. that if they appoint a person who was defeated in the last elections to this post, then he cannot be held with respect in the eyes of the people.

The Member opposite has just now said that my colleague who has just spoken presents a very pitiful sight. But let me ask him whether he dares to come out into the open in an election fight now. We ask him to come out and contest the election with our Member on this side. Does he dare do so?

The Chairman: The Member is addressing the Speaker, but he is looking at the Member for Sembawang!

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, therefore, when the Member for Sembawang raised such a point, he did not use his brains. His speech was not guided by his brains. That is why he ended up with such nonsense. In dealing with political issues, we should speak on the matter under consideration and not just utter anything haphazardly, thus causing difficulty to Mr Speaker to rule on the debate. If five of the P.A.P. Ministers were arrest ed, then the whole P.A.P. would collapse.

7.30 p.m.

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, what the Minister for National Development has said on the question of a Political Secretary is quite proper and correct. He says that we should appoint someone to be a Political Secretary, one who has contact with the public in this country, and whose appointment will be for the benefit of this country and the progress of Malaysia.

Just now, the name of Mr Lim Chin Siong was mentioned as a Political Secretary. According to the Frontbenchers of the Opposition, he was a smart man. This we admit. But his ideology is opposed to that of this country's and the aspirations of Malaysia. We oppose his ideology as it is something we cannot get adjusted to. The purpose of his ideology is to destroy the lives and property of our countrymen and Malaysia. Therefore, it is quite proper for us to welcome what the Minister for National Development has said, that what is required is a Political Secretary who can really be a liaison officer between the Government and the public, and who agrees with the aspirations of Malaysia. We do not want a person, however smart he may be, whose ideology is opposed to the natural requirements and desires of the people of this country. We do not want such a person to be a Political Secretary in this country.

The Chairman: Does the Member wish a vote to be taken?

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: There is an amendment No. (2) , standing in the name of Mr Ong Lian Teng. Mr Ong Lian Teng.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1051.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

This item covers many aspects. I will not ask questions which the Minister cannot answer. I just want to raise some facts and I hope that he will pay attention.

At present, can the Primary Production Department deal adequately with the problems of the farmers? These problems do not only concern the Department, but they also concern the liveli hood of the farmers who are raising fowls and pigs and who depend on their livestock for a living. First, I want to raise the problems which face the farmers and which need to be solved immediately.

Diseases of pigs and chickens are one problem that should be resolved by the Department. Such diseases are just like those happening to the P.A.P. [Laughter] The P.A.P. are also suffering from such diseases, but until now they have not yet been able to cure themselves of such diseases as the chickens and pigs have!

Can the Department study ways and means to cure domestic animals of such diseases, because this causes a heavy loss to the farmers?

The next problem is the market price in relation to cost of the farmers' produce. The price of corn has risen; the cost of primary foodstaffs and animal feed from Indonesia has also risen. Consequently, the cost of raising livestock has risen for the farmers. But have the market prices of farm produce equally risen? I understand that pigs are still fetching a good price in the market. On the question of chickens ---

The Chairman: Order. Will the Member please speak a little more slowly? I have received a buzz from the Interpreters to the effect that the Member is proceeding a little too fast. If the Member will speak at a slower pace, the Interpreters will be able to interpret him.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Just now, I was talking about the market price of chickens and pigs. The price of a cockerel is about $1 a kati, but if the farmers try to sell at such a price, they will find it difficult to get buyers. If they lower the price, they will be in a worse position as they will not be able to earn a living. The price of duck is also about $1 a kati. The prices of vegetables vary - to a certain extent, it depends on the locality. I will just give some examples of the prices of vegetables.

Formerly, some farmers living in Geylang - Lorong Buang Kok area - cultivated vegetables which were transported to the market for sale. The selling prices of vegetables in Jurong, Choa Chu Kang and Mandai areas varied to a certain extent. The wholesale price of lady-fingers was about 25 cents per kati. The cost was 8 cents per kati in some other areas. There is a great difference. As far as I know, in the Jurong area, some farmers transport their produce to other areas because of the attractive prices. This is the position of prices for vegetables, pigs and chickens.

Another point is fertiliser. Although the Primary Production Department has some chemical fertiliser for sale to the farmers, this is not a comprehensive and extensive measure to benefit a lot of farmers. The chemical fertiliser is quite expensive and is not popular with the farmers. The farmers in my area have told me that they prefer to buy chicken-waste at the price of $80 to $100 per ton. If that fertiliser is used, it will affect their livelihood.

The third problem facing the farmers is a central market. At the present moment, there is no proper market for the farmers to sell their produce. By this, I do not refer to vegetables, chickens and pigs alone. If we have a common comprehensive market to collect all the produce of farmers and re-sell them, that will he beneficial to the farmers.

Then the co-operative societies to help the farmers. At the present moment, vegetable farmers are faced with increased difficulties. I want to bring out one point. In the Chinatown area, there is a place called the Sam Kang Association which caters for vegetable-dealers coming from Jurong and Choa Chu Kang. This Association re-distributes the vegetables. But this place is far too small for proper use. I want the Government to make improvements or find alternative accommodation for a larger collecting centre for vegetables from various places in Singapore.

The fourth problem is more important than the others. There is the question of land. My colleague has just now spoken on the Land Office.

7.45 p.m.

At the present rate of development in Singapore, I think it is the intention of the Government to help the farmers in Singapore. But it is undeniable that the Government is oppressing some of the farmers in other ways and this oppression has not been mentioned by the Government. They only talk about de velopment and industries and give a lot of publicity to these two items. One cannot deny that, at the present moment, arable land is diminishing all the time. This is accepted and admitted by the Minister concerned. In many places, farmers have to face the problem of eviction and re-settlement and have to give up their farm land, If the farmers are forced to stay in Housing Board flats, they will lose their farm land and it will be impossible -

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Ho Cheng Choon): On a point of information.

The Chairman: Will the Member give way? No, the Member is not giving way.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): The Parliamentary Secretary can answer later. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying that it would be impossible for the farmers to stay in multi-storeyed flats. It will be difficult for them because they cannot grow vegetables -

The Chairman: I would like the Member to go on, but he is really out of order at the moment. He must address himself to the subject for which the Minister is responsible. Now, he is on a subject for which the Minister is not at all responsible, i.e. land. Please continue, Mr Ong Lian Teng.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I was talking about the farmers facing the problem of eviction. Where are they going to be re-housed'? I am suggesting that they should not be re-housed in Housing Board flats.

The Chairman: That would have been perfectly relevant if the Member had spoken about it half an hour earlier, but now we are on the Director of Primary Production.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, apart from this, there is one other matter about farmers applying for permission to rebuild their houses and this has some bearing on the Department of Primary Production. If the Primary Production Department is to go on effectively and efficiently ---

The Chairman: Order. The 15 minutes allotted to the Member has expired.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, during the last few days we have heard from the Barisan Sosialis nothing but a tale of woe, about what Malaysia has brought us, the difficulties that we face, that trade is declining, there is unemployment. But in this section - Primary Production, and among the farmers, Malaysia has brought them prosperity. At present Singapore farmers are producing annually an estimated 200 million poultry, 200 million eggs, three-quarters of a million pigs and 40,000 tons of vegetables, altogether worth a total of $200 million. This is because with Malaysia our farmers are able to export their chickens and eggs and pigs throughout Malaysia. This is one area where Malaysia has brought us prosperity, where Malaysia has brought benefits to Singapore.

Now, the Member was talking about whether we are aware of the difficulties facing farmers with regard to diseases of pigs and chickens. He is supposed to be in touch with the farmers. If he had been in touch, he would have known we have got 8 primary extension centres. We have to give him the figures. We have undertaken immunisation, inoculation of pigs and of chickens. During 1963, the veterinary staff has rendered free vaccinations to farmers' poultry against Newcastle disease and fowl-pox. Pigs were immunised against haemorrhagic septicaemia. The number of poultry vaccinated against Newcastle disease was 7,527,203, and against fowl-pox, 1,411,265. 6,942 pigs were vaccinated against haemorrhagic septicaemia. We are fully aware of the difficulties faced by the farmers and we are doing everything to help them overcome these diseases.

The Member for Bukit Panjang was talking about the varying prices of primary products from time to time. That is a natural economic law operating on primary products where supply and demand act on each other and the prices would naturally vary from time to time. It is impossible for the Government to guarantee any price for the products of the farmers, unless, of course, we subsidise them. He suggested that the Government should set up a large centre for the collection of vegetables so that they can be well distributed and we can have one price. I have every confidence in the business acumen of our farmers.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Sir, on a point of clarification.

The Chairman: If the Minister will give way?

Mr Lim Kim San resumed his seat.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): I was not asking the Government to establish a market to collect all the vegetables of the farmers. No, I did not mean that. What I meant was that the Government must pay attention to the collecting centre in the Chinatown area and expand it so as to give more facilities to the people in the locality.

Mr Lim Kim San: I am sorry I misunderstood him. But the collecting centre that he was talking about is not a Government collecting centre. As I have said, I have every confidence in the business acumen of our farmers to sell at places where they can get the best price. Anyway, I am grateful to him for the suggestion.

Although, Mr Speaker, Sir, land is not under my portfolio, I would like to take a little bit of time to answer the Member for Bukit Panjang. He said that we are pushing out the farmers from their land, and that they have no place to go to. Now this is the natural economic law - the best use of land. Even if the Government does not resettle these farmers who are holding their land on T.O.L.s, the natural force of economic pressure will make them do so. There are many farmers who are not occupying Government land, but renting land from private individuals. Now land prices have gone up. Even if a farmer should own a piece of land himself, say somewhere outside the town, he would find - and it has happened - that it would be more economical for him to sell his land and do some other trade, or move elsewhere to farm, rather than use his land for farming. There are instances where an acre of land which used to cost about $2,000 has been sold for $30,000, $40,000 or even $50,000. Therefore, as a man who can calculate, the farmer would opt out of farming.

With regard to the question of fertiliser, he said that the farmers prefer to use chicken-waste which costs about $100 a ton and that therefore the use of fertiliser is not economical. There is a Primary Production Department and an experimental station whereby new methods of vegetable-growing are being experimented, and from my in formation, the farmers are taking to these new methods. Results have shown that by using modern chemical fertiliser they get better produce than they did formerly. And as a result, we find that on the same plot of land they are able to produce more vegetables than hitherto. All in all, Mr Speaker, I think the Primary Production Department has not failed in its duty to increase the efficiency of production of our farmers. In fact, where it used to take as long as seven months to produce a pig weighing a kati, it now takes four and a half months.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, my colleague talked about the prices of primary produce but the Minister talked about Malaysia being able to bring about prosperity. But increased production does not mean that it is a good thing. If increased production is done at a higher cost, then the farmers have to sell their produce at a loss, I want the Minister to pay attention to the production cost of poultry and vegetables so that farmers will not experience difficulties. This has nothing to do with the rate of production. If the cost of production can be lowered, then the losses incurred as a result of diseases and other natural catastrophies may be recovered. There are some diseases and calamities which cannot be cured by medicine or modern science. There are instances of some 90 per cent of poultry dying of natural diseases in spite of injections and im munisation. It does not mean that immunisation is very good at all times. So the Minister should pay attention to this. It is an important point, that the farmers must not be asked to leave their land and go far, far away, it is useless talking about the increase in the price of land rising from $2,000 to $30,000 and $40,000, thus making it more profitable for the farmers to sell their land. This is all very unrealistic and we have never heard of any such case ---

8.00 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired. Does the Member wish to proceed with a vote?

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Yes. I would like to have a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The time allotted for Head 0401 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the names of Mr Kow Kee Seng, Mr Lim Huan Boon and Mr Ian Cheng Tong, were not proceeded with:-

Mr Kow Kee Seng:

Mr Lim Huan Boon:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1201.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong:

Mr Lim Huan Boon:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $7,057,170 for Head 0401 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

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

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Ordinary Estimates, and ask heave to sit again on Monday, 16th of November.

Mr Speaker: So be it.