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

2.31 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving the Motion of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Address, I am faced with the unusual duty of recounting to the House, first, the unusual circumstances in which we have found ourselves as a sovereign and independent Legislature, and, next, the problems that arise, in order to ensure that our sovereign status shall always be safe-guarded and respected by our neighbours. It is not often that a people achieve independence in the way we have. There were a number of unusual features about Singapore and its geographic, economic and demographic nexus with Malaya. There have been cases in history where nations have fallen apart into independent halves, like Syria and Egypt. But then Syria was already an independent nation before she went into voluntary federation with Egypt. There have been federations like the Central African Federation or the West Indian Federation which did not succeed; and component parts of the federated whole then became sovereign, as in the case of Zambia, Malawi, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago. But in the annals of nation-making, I think Singapore must occupy a unique place, for one of the most strategic islands in the whole world acquired sovereignty over the Western European bases without violent revolution. This is not to say that I altogether disapprove of violent revolution, but however violent we could have become - and the Cypriots in their revolution were extremely violent - we would never have achieved sovereignty over important base installations, important not just to Britain but to a whole host of other countries, for security and survival are intimately linked with certain checks and balances of power in the region. When eventually Cyprus emerged as an independent Republic, her bases remained British and sovereignty remained with the British.

For the price of about $70 million in loss of revenue over two years, which my colleague, the Minister for Finance, recounted yesterday, an excess of payment over actual Federal expenditure in Singapore of $25 million per annum, making approximately $50 million for two years, and loss of two years of currency profits at $10 million a year, we have acquired sovereignty without bloodshed. If we could put things in pecuniary terms, that was the price we paid in place of blood - not that the British would have taken that price for I think they knew the value of this real estate in Singapore. But be that as it may, perhaps it was our good fortune that someone with an antique gold sovereign exchanged it for a bagful of sweets; and who are we to complain when we have found ourselves the proud possessor of an antique gold piece?

But there was another price which we paid besides the $70 million. Two years in which we came face to face very rapidly with the stark realities of conflict - conflict over race, over language, over religion. Very quickly all the cliches of inter-communal co-operation were shorn off as we found ourselves confronted with a somewhat crude and blatant attempt to subdue us as a submissive member of a federation, the inner workings of which we were not so conversant with before Malaysia. Whilst we laid the emphasis on the constitutional framework and good faith, intending to bring the territories and the peoples closer together as they operated within one national unit, sharing one economic system irrevocably wedded together by ties of common experience and the fact that their destinies had been so closely interwoven in the past, we found that there were certain inarticulate major premises upon which others had based their calculations, and the constitution, which was written and the inarticulate major premises of race, language and religion which were unwritten were irreconciliable. All that is over for us for the time being. The problem has not been solved, but for us the problem does not immediately arise.

What we wish to do now is to get into a new working relationship with our former partners in Malaysia. This working relationship is likely to come about only if we approach it on a matter of fact basis of what is the common benefit to be derived in any act of economic or other co-operation. For the time being, our problem is that it is difficult for us, without being accused of intransigence, to bring about that spirit of co-operation as long as some people believe that Singapore out of Malaysia means the relationship which existed between Singapore and the old Malaya. Then, for many years, wanting merger, wanting reunification, and seeking a more enduring basis for our future, Singapore - not just the Government but the people - was prepared to tolerate a relationship which was not altogether mutual. Certain advantages accrued to Malaya without corresponding advantages to Singapore. Their products found markets in Singapore whilst our products did not find markets in Malaya. So it was in fact in a large number of fields of economics and finance. It is not possible to go back to this relationship. Before a new working relationship is established, we must first dispel the illusion that because we wanted merger in Malaysia, therefore we are vulnerable without merger. Whilst politically an independent Singapore holds hazards in the long-term, not just for overselves but for all in South-East Asia, economically it does not follow that it is within the dispensation of our neighbours to decide our economic destiny. Two years of confrontation have given us an opportunity to demonstrate that we did not live on the bounty of our neighbours. We did them a service, and if that service is not required, it could be extended elsewhere for other returns. It may take some time and no little effort before the same axiom is demonstrated with other neighbours. I am reasonably confident that eventually we can reach a rational relationship, not one in which the bigger assumes automatically that he must get the greater benefit, but a relationship in which each and every step is weighed in accordance with whether it is of value to them and to us. In other words, a relationship based on a quid pro quo. If we are not to get something out of it, naturally it is not our intention that we should give up something which is valuable. Similarly we ask nothing of our neighbours unless we give them something in return. In this way we hope to establish in the course of next year a new balance which has now become necessary as a result of our emergence as a sovereign State, living with the Government of Malaysia not as a State Government to Central Authority, but as two independent and sovereign regimes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I go into the programmes for this Session of Parliament, I would like to put forward the difficulties with which we will be confronted as a result of the decision of the Opposition to boycott this Parliament. I do not know for how long they intend to absent themselves from this Chamber. I would like to be able to say that despite their absence we shall attempt to put forward every act of legislation, every decision of policy, fairly and squarely before this House, and before the people to whom we are ultimately responsible. It means, in other words, an added responsibility of not only putting forward our point of view hut of all the conceivable opposing points of view which we have considered before we have decided to over-rule them. There must be a scrupulous presentation of the reasons for and against legislation and policies.

To begin with, I would like to remind the House why the Opposition has decided to absent itself. On the day on which we assembled, the Barisan Sosialis issued a special edition of its Party publication called Shih Chen Pao. On page 4, it sets out why it was not to participate in this Legislature.

Mr Speaker: Could the Prime Minister give the date of the publication?

The Prime Minister: It is on the 8th of December, 1965, the day when His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara addressed this Assembly. It is in Chinese, and if I may just read the relevant extracts before I give an interpretation of what I think it means. It says here: [The Prime Minister read the extracts in Mandarin which he then translated into English as follows]:

They have attributed three reasons why we have convened this Parliament.

`First, to give legal seal to our departure from Malaysia which was a neo-colonialist plot to divide and rule. Second, to get legal cover for our abuse of public funds. Third, to use this Session of Parliament as a platform for propaganda to cheat the people and confuse them.' They, therefore, came to these conclusions:

`Under these circumstances, to attend Parliament and to lend support and credence to the mockery enacted by the PAP., either intentionally or otherwise, we are helping the P.A.P, to cheat the people with regard to Singapore's false independence.'

And the final conclusion is:

`Therefore, if we are to oppose them, we must resolutely expose the PAP., the falseness of their parliamentary democracy, and their anti-the-people's views. Also we must go a step further and expose the falseness of Singapore's independence. And in this way we can raise up the level of consciousness of the people. Therefore, we must oppose the debate in this Assembly and it is something which must he done.'

Mr Speaker. Sir, I think it is important that we should understand how they have come to this conclusion. It is pretty dreary reading, to follow the tortuous paths that they have followed since they started off with "phoney merger" ending up in "phoney Malaysia", and now finding themselves denouncing Singapore as a phoney independent country. But I would ask Members to hear with me when I read out certain extracts which they have published, their Party philosophy, their analysis since the 9th of August. I would like to start off with this - this was their latest publication, on the 8th of December, and the one before that, of relevance in understanding their mind, is that published by the Malayan Monitor, which is a publication by Mr H. B. Lim, a member of the Malayan Communist Party, who has been in London for many years and who runs this particular publication. He carried in full a statement by Dr Lee Siew Choh, who styles himself in this statement as Chairman of the Malayan People's Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee. This is of the 30th November, 1965. He said:

"We met Asst. Secretary, Comrade Murshi Said El Din recently in Singapore, [he is the Assistant Secretary-General of the Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organisation] and he asked us our views on the recent political developments in Malaysia' and especially on the so-called separation of Singapore from Malaysia', and the phoney `independence' of Singapore.

Our views on this matter have been made abundantly clear in the various press statements issued by the Malayan People's Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee and jointly by the Party Rakyat and the Barisan Sosialis Party.

We have repeatedly pointed out that the separation of Singapore from Malaysia' is yet another imperialist plot, designed to save Malaysia'. The independence' of Singapore is phoney, and this is clearly seen in the Agreement of Separation' released on 9.8.65 the day of proclamation of Independence' of Singapore. This Agreement stipulates that British troops and bases will continue to remain in Singapore; that Malaysia' troops and bases will also occupy Singapore; and that the Singapore Govt.' cannot establish diplomatic or trade relations with foreign countries unless approved by the Malaysian' Government. Further the British and `Malaysian' govts, can send Singapore troops to suppress the national liberation struggle in Kalimantan Utara, and this is being done."

And it ends up in this flamboyant fashion:

`We are Malayan patriots.'

So much so, Mr Speaker, Sir, that they refer to Sabah and Sarawak as "Kalimantan Utara".

"We cannot, and must not, accept the British-US imperialist manipulated constitutional separation of Singapore from the rest of Malaya. Neither can we in our thinking, and in our struggle for national liberation, accept the new imperialist plot of divide-and-rule. The withdrawal of Singapore has not brought any drastic change to Malaysia'. There is only a change in form, but no change in content. As far as Malayan internal politics is concerned the present constitutional arrangements are merely intended to isolate and confine the Lee Kuan Yew clique to the island of Singapore and prevent them from competing for status in the wider arena of Malaysia'.

Our struggle is a most difficult one."

This is about the sanest of all the comments that they have made.

`But with the solidarity support of the peoples of Afro-Asia, we are absolutely confident that our struggle for a genuinely democratic Malaya (including Singapore) free of foreign troops and free of foreign control, will be crowned with success.'

Mr Speaker: Will the Prime Minister give the date of the publication?

The Prime Minister: 30th of November, 1965. Mr Speaker, Sir, they started off with a special edition of the Plebeian Express of August 1965 with the title Singapore `independent'? I will just read out phrases from it; I think they will convey the kind of reason and logic which they have mesmerised themselves into believing, that white is black; that black is white; that independence means phoney; that Malaysia does not exist; that Malaya includes Malaya the peninsula and Singapore.

`So-called independence of Singapore. Phoney independence, a humbug, intended to confuse, hoodwink & side-track. Change of form. No change in content. Singapore has limited powers and in fact is little better than a City Council. The British imperialists (supported by US) still rule over the Federation & Singapore.

The special clauses which stipulate that Singapore cannot enter into any separate treaty or agreement with other countries without the consent of the Federation govt.; that Singapore has to enter into a treaty for external defence & mutual assistance with the Federation govt.; and that Britain can continue to maintain the bases in S'pore and use them as & when they like, without even the usual pretence of "consultation" with the Singapore govt.! - all show that Singapore is not truly independent.

It is a private arrangement between the British agents on the one side and British puppets on the other, with active encouragement & support of the British imperialists.'

I am not quite sure who are agents and who are the puppets. But obviously both are viewed with considerable disfavour.

`It will be noted that the few countries that have recognised Singapore's so-called "independence" are mostly US-puppets & pro-western countries.'

I do not know whether the editors of the Barisan Express really understand what this is all about. But I think they derive a great deal of their inspiration from a group of revolutionaries who believe that revolutionary thinking consists of the emphatic repetition of dogmatic slogans.

In the September issue of the Plebeian Express, they carried an analysis of Singapore by Mr John Eber, whom they have very modestly described as a Malayan now staying in Britain. He is also the Secretary-General of the M.C.F., which means the Movement for Colonial Freedom. He is many things besides just being Secretary-General of the M.C.F.

Heading, Who Decides on S'pore's "Eviction"?

`Federation was phoney.

The decision was primarily a British one.

The British decision to evict was based on the necessity to preserve "Malaysia", and it is important to realise that Singapore is today still a part of "Malaysia" in all but name. This fact is very pointedly underlined by the continuing presence under the "secession" agreement of "Malaysian" troops in Singapore - together, of course; with the massive British force there. All that has happened is that Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues have now been excluded from the struggle for status in the wider federation. One speaks of "status" and not of power, for no man or party can have power in Malaya while it remains under the shadow of 55,000 British troops.'

"Malaysia was a fake. So is independent Singapore." That is conclusive authority for our revolutionary heroes in the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker: The date of that document?

The Prime Minister: That document is the Barisan Express of September 1965. Having read Mr John Eber's erudite analysis, an editorial appeared in another edition of 21st September --- another edition of the month of September of the Plebeian Express.

"Controversial Question Concerning The Present Situation", says the editor. There are two views about the independence of Singapore.

`The first view holds that this is a purely Alliance-PAP affair, that the British knew nothing about it before hand, and that the British have merely accepted the Alliance-PAP fait accompli in good grace. The second view holds that this is a British plot, that the British knew about this from the very beginning and have jointly initiated this new arrangement with the full agreement of the Alliance & the PAP govts.'

Needless to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, they came to the second conclusion. They said:

`From all this we can confidently come to the conclusion therefore that though the timing could be a surprise, the separation of S'pore from "Malaysia" was not a Tunku-LKY affair, but was British inspired. The leaders in the Alliance & the PAP are merely actors who play different roles.' And under the heading "Why Do the British Want this New Arrangement?":-

`Hence the new arrangement which in essence is still the same old thing. There are no drastic changes. It is a change only in form with no change in content. What was once a federation now becomes a confederation...'.

But there again the plaintive note at the end, which is the only note of sanity:

`All this would create immense difficulties for the Left in Malaya (i.e. S'pore & the Federation).'

And so they went on to October this year, again talking on the Algiers Conference which was abortive. They wrote in the editorial, "Phoney Independence of Singapore":-

'The question of the Lee Kuan Yew "govt." must also be considered in the same category as the above-mentioned. The "separation" of Singapore from "Malaysia", carried out by the British imperialists, is a trick."'

And so they recite all the arguments.

Mr Speaker: What is the date of that publication?

The Prime Minister: October 1965.

But I think more important for our purposes than just understanding how they arrived at the conclusion that this independence is phoney, that in fact this is the old Malaysia dressed up anew in order to preserve British interests -I think more important than that is their approach to parliamentary democracy, because in this bigger problem, on this wider issue, we have a glimpse of their real Party ideology. In November and December they published three instalments of an article which bears the title, "British Parliamentary Democracy -What it means" -No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 for November and December. At a subsequent date I will be able to tell the House about No. 4 because the series is still running. The gist is a simple Marxist-Leninist line - it is their hard-line, and none of this revisionism of Khrushchev, of wishing to win power by constitutional means, the musical chairs, the bourgeois parliamentary democracy. What is important is this: here is a denial of the value of any democratic institution, not of this House, not of Singapore's "phoney" Parliament, but the denial of the worthwhileness of the constitutional struggle of winning power via popular elections.

November 1965 "British Parliamentary Democracy - What it Means" (No. 1):

`A brief survey of the British State Machine in relation to Democracy.

Starting with this issue, the PLEBEIAN Express is publishing a brief survey of the British constitutional institutions & state machine in order to give our readers an insight into the British system of government which is being so loudly acclaimed by the propagandists of the western powers & their local stooges. We feel an understanding of the workings of the British system of government is useful and so many of our so called "leaders" have made it an object of imitation.'

"Leaders" in inverted commas. Therefore, it does not include Barisan Sosialis leaders because they are not going to make this the object of any imitation.

`The following is the 1st instalment of the article. Further instalments will be published in future issues of the PLEBEIAN Express. -- Ed.'

It does not say who the author is, hut obviously he is no revisionist. Now, I will just read out the pertinent extracts so that Members will get the flavour of their approach to this House, what it implies, the folly and the futility of the whole parliamentary machinery.

`The same brand of democracy is being sold to our people in Singapore and Malaya and we have seen how this crude imitation of the British Parliamentary system has worked in our country.'

It goes on:

`...it is necessary for us to discover and understand the true nature of this so called "democracy" which is being peddled to us by the stooges of the Anglo-American imperialists & colonialists.'

They always seem to find stress in repetition of tautologous phrases. If you just say, "You are a stooge of the imperialists," it does not carry the same conviction as if you said, `You are a stooge of the imperialists arid the colonialists." Presumably there must be imperialists who are not colonialists, Mr Speaker, Sir.

They went on, at the end of the first article, to recite this fact:

`This ownership of the means of production allows the monopoly capitalist class to maintain a tight grip over the state machinery and over the lives of millions of wage-earners & salary-earners who have no choice but to work for them and constantly enrich them. It is in this context that the issue of freedom & democracy in Britain must he seen and judged.'

Second instalment - mid-November 1965 "Parliamentary Democracy - What It Means!":

'A BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

...Even the apparent continuity is deceptive. While the old feudal institutions have retained something of their original forms, they have undergone tremendous changes in the past 600 years.

Not all the institutions have this appearance of continuity. Some of the organs of the British State (such as the armed forces, the civil service, the police and the secret police) are essentially products of the modern industrial capitalism of the past 150 years, or even less.'

Next heading, "THE STATE SERVES MONOPOLY CAPITAL", "MONOPOLY CAPITAL USES COERCION AGAINST THE PEOPLE". And it ends up, "CAPITALIST RULING CLASS FEARS DEMOCRACY".

`The attitude of the capitalist class towards democracy has always been clear. They fought for an extension of democratic rights in the last century in order to dislodge the landed aristocracy from their exclusive control of all the key position in the State apparatus; but they have become increasingly hostile to these very rights & liberties in the course of the present century owing to the growing strength of the working class movement which threatens in turn to dislodge them.

They so fear democracy now that it has led them to be oppressive in a variety of indirect forms in Britain, and in direct & brutal forms in the colonies against the national liberation movements. The striving of the Peoples of Malaya (including S'pore), N. Borneo. Kenya. British Guiana and more recently Aden for national independence, were met with the most savage repressions which completely unmasked the bitter anti-democratic nature of the British ruling class.'

Article (3) , December 1965, "What It Means!"

`POWER REMAINS IN HANDS OF CAPITALIST CLASS

So the whole state machine and other institutions under the control of the monopoly capitalists have manoeuvred the voting rights of the people in such a way that in a general election the people are compelled to choose between two parties, both ready to serve their interests. For the labour Party too has proved itself during office willing to subordinate itself to the monopolies

This is made possible by the nature of the two main political parties. The common feature of both parties is that their leaders have accepted without question the capitalist foundation of society, Their Parliamentary leaders have always been free from control by the rank and file of their party. However much they may have paid homage in public to the principles of democracy, they have never tolerated the application of these principles to the relations between themselves and their followers.

So long as the official top leadership of the Labour Party has the control of the Party and are prepared to serve the interest of the monopoly capitalist class, they will be tolerated and even welcomed by this class. But in case the attitude of the Labour Party changes, the capitalist class has built-in safeguards within the State machine which will he discussed later.

So we see that the 2-party system places serious limitations on the democratic rights of, the people which they achieved in the form of universal suffrage.'

Sir, I shall he looking forward with interest to the continuing article because I hope, from them, ultimately to know just how far the Barisan Sosialis are prepared to go. This is not a negation of this Chamber or Singapore's phoney independent Parliament. This is a challenge to the whole system of government. Thev consider that system to be - to put it in orthodox Marxist-Leninist verse - the handmaid of capitalist monopoly. Whether it is the Parliament of Singapore or whether it is the Parliament of Westminister, it is the instrument of repression of the revolutionary working class which the Communists say they represent.

Logically, arising from those attitudes, not only must they boycott formal sessions of this House since this is a ruse and a guise to confuse the populace with the false independence that we have acquired, to get legal sanctions and respectability for votes on public expenditure which we are seeking hut they also have to carry the battle one step further to wreck it. The question is how? And for all these years, we strenuously sought to prove that in fact they were operating on the twin premises of (1) work the system and shake it and rock it; (2) undermine it altogether. In other words, use constitutional forms of struggle which the bourgeois enemy is foolish enough to afford the Communists, use the public forum, not to work it better, hut to denounce the system and break it - shake public confidence in it. And the other, the armed revolution, where State power is wrested from the hands of the monopoly capitalists and vested in the hands of the vanguard of the proletarist - the Communist Party.

I am not quite sure whether the present leaders of the Barisan Sosialis intend to pursue this to its logical conclusion, or whether they intend to go hack to the much more subtle line which they used to follow, of pretending to he a constitutional Party whilst at the same tune operating on directives issued by illegal and unconstitutional parties seeking to usurp power by violent means. But it is useful for us to remember this, that whatever the shifts and turns of policy or tactics, as they call it, from time to time, their objective never changes. Fortunately for us this time, a series of false premises have led them into so blinkered a situation that they have come to a series of repeated defeats and into mare illogical, absurd and untenable propositions. They have mesmerised themselves by repeating words like "phoney" ---

An hon. Member: An American word.

The Prime Minister: And from one false premise, they have gone to the next spurious conclusion. The plum fact of the matter is, right at this moment, they are so confused by defeat and, worse, demoralised by the prospect of further defeats, that the leadership is now questioned.

Sir, when an army goes into battle, generals are never questioned when battles are being won. But when a general leads his army into one disaster after another, the younger officers and eventually even the privates begin to question the wisdom and the authority of the general. And in this case, the generals in apparent authority were only recently privates and corporals. So with-out the prestige of long years in positions of leadership, it is only natural that the Barisan Sosialis should face these problems of challenge to the Party leadership. If it were just a question of the Party leaders being in constant conflict with their ground because they have failed to bring about confidence in the wisdom and success of their policies, it would not matter so much for us. But I make it my duty, Mr Speaker, Sir, to read these dreary tracts, because, behind it all, whether we like it or not, there are people in higher authority than the apparent leaders of the Barisan Sosialis. There is a consistency of line of policy which dovetails with broadcasts of policy statements made by the Malayan National Liberation League recently formed in Jakarta, consisting of a number of quite well-known Malayans closely associated with the Malayan Communist Party in pre-Emergency days who disappeared during the days of the Emergency. They have formed themselves into a group before the recent coup in Jakarta on 30th September. If one were to compare what comes out in the Plebeian and the Shih Chen Pao with the words and phrases which have come out from the M.N.L.L, in Jakarta and from other radio stations which broadcast the policy statements of the Malayan People's Liberation Army, one finds a consistent pattern.

The only problem that has arisen for them in this case, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the unexpected separation of Singapore from Malaysia which entails a serious reassessment of the policies which they were about to initiate in order to succeed in armed conflict. Had there been no separation, then the policies which they were espousing just before separation, if continued to its logical conclusion, were designed to lead, and would inevitably have led, to a situation in which armed revolution was not only feasible but was most probable, and success was not altogether that remote. Unable to win by the open argument, it was their intention to seek discord principally by changing their policy on language and, via racial conflict over language issues, to create a situation in which armed force would be used and the Malayan Communist Party as the instrument and the holder of that armed force would emerge triumphant. In 1955 at Baling when they last pronounced their programmes and policies, the M.C.P. accepted Malay as the national language. Recently we had information, which was corroborated by the statements made by the M.N.L.L., that certain members of the united Communist open front organisations who journeyed to Algiers and other conferences had received instructions that they should withdraw support for any language as the national language and that they should insist, on the other hand, that there should be four official languages. The distinction between their policy and ours is a very subtle one, but a very important one. They say that there shall be no national language - there is no need for a national common language - and that there shall be four official languages. And if, on the one hand, the Language Action Committee who represent the ultras in the linguistic field espouse one language to the exclusion of all others, here was the M.C.P. fanning the desire, a very natural desire of everybody, to preserve their own linguistic and cultural heritage - a situation which must have led to conflict. In that situation, of course, both the Parliament in Kuala Lumpur and the Assembly in Singapore were valueless. And the policies and the statements they have made would have made very good sense if in fact separation never came about.

I am not sure how long it will be before the Communist Party come out with their new policy, new tactics, in view of the different circumstances they are faced with as a result of Singapore's emergence as a separate, distinct and independent nation. Undoubtedly, they will pursue the same cliches for some length of time, but I would not be surprised if in the end their top leaders did not make the necessary adjustments which are inevitable to meet this new situation. But for our part, whatever their policies may be in the Peninsula, or in what they call Kalimantan Utara, we have given them all fair notice that any exploitation of issues of language or culture, any divisive policies designed to create racial discord and conflict will have to be dealt with swiftly and effectively. By way of illustration, I will just refer to the kind of difficulties which I anticipate will occur from time to time, the kind of mischief which they are hound to peddle. This was the Plebeian of the 16th of October, heading on page 8:

'DEMAND TO MAKE CHINESE AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE IS CORRECT AND JUST!

If in putting forward a just demand someone has said that Singapore has 80 per cent Chinese instead of 75 per cent, is this such a monumental error? If so, then this is also an error which the PAP ministers themselves have frequently committed in the past. So why the fuss about the 5 per cent error?'

This is in the English text, Mr Speaker, Sir,In the Chinese text, it has got subtle overtones of chauvinism which the interpreter will find difficulty in bringing out. But this was the same publication which joined with the Communists in denouncing our analysis that in Malaysia, with Singapore a part of Malaysia, it is not possible for any one racial group to dominate the others to the exclusion of their languages and cultures. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Barisan Sosialis joined in the condemnation of the analysis 40: 40: 20, as a communal provocation, because it was designed to arouse chauvinistic feelings in the various component parts. But 40: 40: 20, is communal, but exaggerating 75 to 80 is not a monumental error!

I would like to ask you, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of this Session, and until such time as they either decide to reappear in this Chamber, or if they do not, then until such time as elections are held either generally or to fill up the vacant seats caused by continual absence of Members who are at full liberty to represent the views of their constituents in this House, to give considerable latitude to Members on this side. My colleagues and I will try as scrupulously as we can to put forward all the pros and cons of every piece of legislation and every policy in the hope thereby of discharging the duties of the Opposition. But more so, I hope you will allow considerable latitude amongst the Backbenchers on the Government side to take up more of their time in playing the role of the constructive critic. It is part of the technique of the open society that the wisdom of certain policies, of certain programmes, are tested in the open argument. It is difficult for us to propound the kind of criticism which the Barisan Sosialis, if they were here, would propound, because I do not think they would want to go into the merits or demerits of the legislative programme we have placed before this House. But, nevertheless, I think there are certain valuable points which could be brought out by Members on the Government side if they were given considerable latitude in appearing, so to say, to speak against the Government; not that they are against the Government but that they are thereby in a position to bring out the underlying problems which led to certain policies being decided the way they were.

Meanwhile, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the Five-Year programme that we have outlined in the Address of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. You will recall that His Excellency mentioned the land reclamation projects which are going on - 620 acres in Toa Payoh, excess land from which is used to reclaim 400 acres in the Kallang Basin ---

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is running into difficulties with Standing Order No. 43 (8) . But possibly in view of the exceptional circumstances, is it the general wish of Members that the Prime Minister continues his speech without being affected by that particular Standing Order? Is there a general assent of the House?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Next, the reclamation of land from Bedok to Tanjong Rhu of about 1,000 acres, giving in turn another 600 acres of available land from sites where excavations are now being made for the filling. Then the Housing and Development Board plans for 60,000 units in the next five years. I do not think there is much doubt that these targets will he achieved. But I would like, if I may, in the next twenty minutes before I close the argument for the objectives which have been set out, the long-term objective which has been set out in the policy statements, to explain first the interim measures which we have had to take to stabilise and limit our liability; and, second, our long-term attitude on the future of Singapore and of the people that we consider one with Singapore the people in Malaysia.

In the short-term, we have had to introduce certain new measures in order that we can take stock of what our liabilities are, our immediate liability to give jobs to our own people, our own citizens, provide schools for their children, hospitals and social and community services, housing and so on. To this end, identity cards and work permits will be implemented. The problem becomes particularly acute because it has been said, since the 9th of August this year, the flow of migrants, the flow of people across the Causeway, has ended up with considerable credits on our side. The rate has increased to twice the normal rate prevailing before the 9th of August. I have not got the complete figures for November and December., but the rough gross turn-over of people crossing the Causeway on both sides since the 9th of August shows an increase or a credit or plus on the Singapore side of about nearly 50,000. It is true that quite a number of these people may have come to Singapore in order to take ship or aircraft to go abroad. But I do not think it is feasible to explain this away on the basis that more than perhaps 5,000 could have travelled in this way. Assuming that 10,000 went abroad by ship and aircraft, we would still be left with a net credit of about 40,000 people.

Sir, I would like to emphasise this point, that this is not designed to exclude Malaysians. It is designed to limit our liabilities so that we know what it is we have to cater for. For only by making our problems finite will we be able to know what it is that we must o in order to ensure the economic viability of Singapore. And only then will we be able to define the problems and the solutions to these problems which we hope will come by way of new markets being made available to us. I would like to emphasise that so far as we are concerned, we are one people in two countries. All that separation has done is to divide the one society into two not altogether dissimilar parts. But whereas before we would have sought one solution for the whole, now there are two experiments being carried out in these two halves. And the experiments on how to find a solution to the problems of multi-racialism, multi-lingualism and a multiplicity of religion, and the policies pursued in any one half are bound to have repercussions on the attitudes and assessments on the other side; and the side which produces a successful solution is the side whose views will ultimately prevail. This is one people now divided into two arenas. But in the last resort they are one people, and work permits and everything else notwithstanding, in extremis, in an emergency, it would be inhuman to believe, and unrealistic on our part to believe, that we could maintain a separate and a disinterested posture if a major catastrophe were to take place in South-East Asia.

And this brings me to my last theme. The danger of a major catastrophe which we can precipitate if we are not conscious of the problems of finding a new balance in South-East Asia to take the place of a balance which was maintained by the European empires before the war.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the multi-racial character of the population of Singapore and the States of Malaysia creates the probabilities of two different trends. As long as British rule kept everybody in place, multi-racialism or the problems of having a multiplicity of communities of different races, languages, religions, never gave rise to any problems of law and order, for in the ordered nature of former colonial society, the British Raj decided who should do what and who should fulfil what roles in their system. The disappearance of direct political control has brought about the necessity of finding an authority indigenous to the peoples who now reside in these territories, and with imperfection, a compromise was found in certain forms of elected representation weighted to hold the balance between people who were supposed to have been here longer, the indigenous people, and those who were supposed to be more recent migrants. As long as we were one, Singapore and Malaysia, the danger of the multi-racial communities going their separate ways was less than it is now. If we are not conscious of this and we each play only to our own immediate electorate, then having two halves of one whole - and not very equal halves of one whole - one in which the accent is inevitably that in Singapore, in numbers, the migrant community or people of migrant stock and, on the other hand, in Malaya peoples of indigenous stock, a polarisation of policies and attitudes would take place which in the end may well bring major calamity for all in South-East Asia, with repercussions throughout the whole of Asia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the problem is popularly presented to the Western world as the Problem of a Third China, which is the title of a fairly readable dissertation by a scholar in the Australian National University, and in historical terms he puts it in this way. This is a recent publication called Third China by P. C. Fitzgerald, Professor of Far Eastern History in the Institute of Advanced Studies in the Australian National University.

He said - talking about the Second World War and its aftermath - on page 50:

`In the latter part of the war the Japanese decided that for both military and political reasons, it would be desirable to grant a measure of self-government to the peoples of the occupied countries of South-East Asia. They did not see any reason to respect the arbitrary boundaries which the play of European political parties had imposed upon South-East Asia. They perhaps remembered that in the Middle Ages before the rise of the colonial powers or the intrusion of the Europeans, there had been a powerful State comprising both Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula, Sri Vijaya. The proposed to revive this State under the name of Maha Malaya or Greater Malaya.

General Terauchi, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Army in South-East Asia, summoned various Malay and Indonesian, Sumatran leaders to his headquarters in Saigon for consultations. On other occasions he flew to Ipoh in Malaya and held similar meetings there. These were attended by, amongst others, Hatta, the Indonesian nationalist leader in Sumatra, and Dato Onn bin Jaffar. There is nothing in the record to show that the Japanese proposals were unwelcome to these leaders and the project began to take shape. The end of the war made it abortive. Maha Malaya was never proclaimed.

This wartime incident revealed the fact that among the Malay leadership there had already arisen a new nationalism which looked for a political order should the British and the Dutch never return, which would secure Malay majority rule, This was agreeable to the Japanese who knew well that they would never obtain the allegiance or loyalty of the Chinese community. Singapore under this plan was to remain a Japanese naval base and colony excluded from Maha Malaya.

It will thus be seen that the separation of Singapore from Malaya devised by the British project of the Malayan Union agreed with the abortive Japanese plan of Maha Malaya, a fact which certainly did not escape the notice of the Chinese. On the other hand, the Malayan Union offered the Malays a great deal less than Maha Malaya would have given them, for under that plan they would have been a large majority in the new State with Sumatra added to Malaya, and Sumatra is the ancestral home of a great part of the present Malay population of Malaya.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to quote another extract from Prof. Fitzgerald's short treatise:

`Singapore has always resented and deplored the policy, first conceived by the Japanese and later implemented by the British, by which the City on its relatively small island was separated from the rest of the Malay Peninsula and treated as a different community with lesser political rights. This separation was the one feature of the abortive Malayan Union which survived the demise of that ill-fated scheme. It was also the one feature of the Malayan Union which the Chinese thoroughly detested.

The British could not deny their responsibility for this development, but the reason why they had originally separated Singapore was still present. Singapore added to the Federation would give the Chinese community a clear majority of the population, and thus ultimately of the voters.' That was pages 88 and 89. And on page 101:

`Internal changes in the political representation of the States giving more equitable distribution of seats would do something to effect such a change of attitude, but it may well be that more than this would be required before the allegiance of the younger generation of Chinese is won, They will require some positive evidence that Malaysia is to be a progressive and increasingly democratic community; not continue as aristocratic society dominated by the Malay feudal families. If these changes do not materialise, the opposition of the Chinese will continue and probably be intensified, ultimately veering more and more towards the support of the Communist movement.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I quote these extracts to show the dangers into which we are inevitably going to slide if we begin to think in terms of race arid racial hegemony. Hence the recurring theme of multi-racialism, of tolerance, of understanding and sympathy, and forbearance of other people's habits, customs, susceptibilities. If, on the Singapore half, account is taken only of the Singapore sector of this one people, then the solution that will be derived out of that one sector will be very different from the solution which will be derived `if we take into account the whole. And the very different solution attempted here, based on the demographic features of Singapore, will in turn act as a spur to contrary measures being taken on the other side; and so it could go on until inevitable conflict. Conflict not only between two independent and sovereign nations, but between two independent and sovereign nations both with plural societies.

We are no longer in a position to decide or in any way to influence directly the course of political events in Malaysia. That is the price of independence for Singapore. But we would be dishonest to ourselves if we did not express a profound interest in the policies and the consequences of such policies upon the relationship between the communities in Malaysia, which would, in turn, help to influence attitudes and relationships between communities in Singapore. The future is more fraught with danger than before separation -- the long-term future -- for if there is a failure to understand this nexus between us, then it is extremely easy for one to embarrass and to influence attitudes and policies in the other, which, as I have said, must end up in the polarisation of two opposing attitudes based on two opposing assumptions of superiority of race, language, and culture, which can only spell disaster for all.

But whilst we have no control over events there, independence has given us a unique opportunity to order our way of life, and I would like to believe that the two years we spent in Malaysia are years which will not be easily forgotten, years in which the people of migrant stock here who are a majority learnt of the terrors and the follies and the bitterness which is generated when one group tries to assert its dominance over the other on the basis of one race, one language, one religion. It is because of this that my colleagues and I were determined, as from the moment of separation, that this lesson will never be forgotten. So it is that into the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore will be built safeguards, in so far as the human mind can devise means whereby the conglomeration of numbers, of likeness, as a result of affinities of race or language or culture, shall never work to the detriment of those who, by the accident of history, find themselves in minority groups in Singapore. There will be this Commission which will hear the views of all the minority communities. It may well be that their recommendations would be sufficiently wide to ensure not only that individuals shall not be penalised or discriminated against by reasons of race, language or culture, but also that their views should always be taken into consideration when formulating policies which affect their collective interest. It is more than just an idealistic desire to create a just new world that has motivated us.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have a vested interest in multi-racialism and a secular State, for the antithesis of multi-racialism and the antithesis of secularism hold perils of enormous magnitude not just for the people living in South-East Asia, but dangers of involvement by bigger powers who see in such a conflict fertile ground for exploitation of either ideological or other power interests.

The future is not ours to see, Mr Speaker, Sir, but we can safely conclude that there are two possible trends in which events can unfold themselves. One, the emergence in one half helping the emergence in the other half of a tolerant society not based on the concepts of exclusiveness of race, language, religion, which means an ultimate re-association, a political re-association, of the parts which form the one larger federation of which we were a member until so recently; and the other a trend towards a bias and emphasis on exclusiveness of race, language, religion, which must have fissiparous effects, divisive effects, on the other. There is an element of urgency in this and we are reassured to see an air of more confidence in dealing with problems of language and culture now that we are out of Malaysia. This in turn helps us in our solution of the problems on this side. For us we can only hope that ultimately our policies will also be able to help our neighbours in reaching similar rational adjustments in their own domestic arrangements. In the meantime, the business of life and administration has to go on.

I do not wish to go into the figures given by my colleague, the Minister for Finance, yesterday, but I would like to add this comment, that however important statistics are in giving weight to an argument or to demonstrate the validity of certain premises, they are never able in themselves to give a complete picture of what the performance is going to be, for they fail to bring forth one important quality --- the effectiveness of the digits of the units that the statistics comprise. Sir, we are nearly two million people --- 1.9 million --- in an island of 224 square miles with a few adjacent islands. The statistics do not tell the world the factor that really decides performance, the quality of each individual digit, the intensity of the effort that the digits are capable of, and the efficacy of the framework within which they can be marshalled and organised for high performance.

For us, survival has always been hazardous. We sought to make it less so by seeking the larger framework of Malaysia, but it was not to be. We are on our own, not unfriendless, not helpless, but nevertheless in the centre of an extremely tumultuous arena of conflict. Our survival depends upon our capacity first to discern where the dangers are for us as a distinct and separate community in South-East Asia; and, second, our ability to convince the bigger powers interested in this region that it is in their interests to ensure our separate survival, and in the end, whatever happens, to ensure that we have got enough will and capacity to see that no policies, no solutions, are attempted which will destroy our right to be ourselves in this corner of South-East Asia. Whilst we are unable to say, having gone through so many changes in a matter of two years, what will happen in the next two years, I think we can safely predict that in two decades, either there is a tolerant multi-racial society comprising us in this region, or this will be an area of constant strife, very much like what the Balkan States were before and after the First World War. We are here in South-East Asia for better or for worse, and we are here to stay. Our policies are designed to ensure that we stay peacefully in South-East Asia in accord and amity with our neighbours, but with a right to decide how we order our own lives in our own home. Every action, every policy, must be decided by this yardstick. Any policy which endangers our long-term interests as a separate and distinct community in this region must be eschewed. Any act, any programme, any decision which will help to secure a more enduring future for ourselves and our progeny in this region must be pursued whatever the sacrifice. We have not sought this particular formula of survival, but it is now the basis on which we move forward; and with independence comes an independence of action in policy and planning which can help establish that enduring basis for ourselves in South-East Asia. It is with confidence - a confidence born out of the past performance of our people - that we feel we can overcome problems of economic development, problems of unemployment. But in the other wider fields of inter-racial harmony and tolerance, there are so many other factors that even though we are independent, we have not got an exclusive prerogative to decide what is to be that relationship even between our own citizens. For as I have said, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are other factors, factors outside our dispensation, which can affect our own position. But whatever the result will be, we would like those who come after us to believe, and to have grounds for believing, that we did not leave a stone unturned in seeking a just and enduring future for all the people who made up the society - those who were here when the British came, those who came when the British were in control, and those who are willy-nilly now rooted in this corner of South-East Asia and whose destinies are interwoven - whatever we would have wished it to be.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name.

*The motion reads as follows:

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

"We, the Legislative Assembly of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present Session of this Assembly.".'

Question proposed.

4.11 p.m.

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in support of the Address of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech, I wish to say a few words.

Since the 9th August, 1965, Singapore has become an independent and sovereign State, separated from Malaysia. As an independent State, Singapore has to be very careful henceforth in seeking defence aid from our neighbouring countries. I believe that the people of Singapore do not wish to see history repeated as regards the incidents which occurred in July and September 1964 during which time the multi-racial people of Singapore lived in fear. This was because there were ultras and communalistic elements. When Singapore was in Malaysia, the Police were unable to give their co-operation to Singapore. I am sure that Singapore can safeguard its integrity and Singapore's armed forces must be expanded by accepting more volunteers comprising the people of Singapore. Singapore is a young, independent and sovereign State and it has the capacity to maintain peace and security. Since the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, conditions in Singapore have improved and the people are living in peace and harmony on the best of terms among themselves. The communalist elements have begun to fear this fact since Singapore became an independent and sovereign State. They realise that their safety cannot be guaranteed as internal security is now in the hands of the Singapore Government.

The housing development in Singapore has won the praise of the world. Also the achievements of the Government for the people. Only recently, U.M.N.O. has organised a Housing Trust to buy flats built by the Singapore Housing Board. But previously, U.M.N.O. leaders did say that the flats built by the people of Singapore were fit for birds and that the Malays could not adapt themselves to live in them. But today we are thankful that they have changed their attitude and that they, especially those in Geylang Serai, including, of course, U.M.N.O. Malays, are rushing to live in flats.

Not very long ago, Tun Razak, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, condemned the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech in the Utusan Melayu. He said that it was an old film. But they will realise that with the victory achieved recently in the by-election in Rahang ---

Mr Speaker: Order, It is not part of His Excellency's Speech to the Assembly. Will the Member please confine his remarks to His Excellency's Speech?

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap: (In Malay): This proves that the people of Malaysia are aware that what the people of Singapore have achieved will be good for them. For the people of Singapore are aware now and they do not want the people to suffer any longer. I support the motion in the name of the Prime Minister.

4.18 p.m.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do hope that all hon. Members on this side of the House will express their sincere gratitude to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Speech delivered at the opening of the first parliamentary session of independent Singapore on the 8th of this month. I think our presence here today harhours a similar if not the same degree of appreciation for His Excellency who has painstakingly endeavoured to present, not only to us in this Parliament here but also to the people outside this House, the present circumstances of Singapore in its actual perspective arising from its secession from Malaysia on the 9th of August this year. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are proud to be Members of our Assembly which has now become our Parliament as a consequence of recent constitutional changes, an Assembly which has passed effective laws and improved on existing ones. Our Government has emerged in Asia as one which has been most effective, farsighted, impartial and able to withstand the strains of the socialist democratic process in the past few years, during which period no other Government could have achieved greater results in the field of housing, social welfare or even in fostering diverse cultural activities in a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society. As Singapore is now a newly independent and sovereign State, no doubt we have to encounter many more difficulties and problems. We can overcome these difficulties with tolerance, courage, intelligence and tact. In the past six years, the people of Singapore have gone through many adversities and withstood a lot of hardships. We have had in our midst anti-national elements creating subversive activities. We have had Indonesian confrontation, racial agitation by communalists, political pressures and now we have economic pressures from Malaysia. For years we have shown that we are a determined people and are ready to stand up and fight for our rights to live and survive. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt that we will ultimately survive if we pool all our resources together. The people of Singapore have courage, strength, tolerance and ability to work hard for a better future for all.

It is the normal practice in this Parliament for Government Members, particularly the Backbenchers, to praise the Government for its policies. But a deviation from this may seem proper for the Government Backbenchers to criticise the Government on its shortcomings as has just been mentioned by our Prime Minister earlier. I have therefore taken this opportunity to say a few humble lines.

First of all, I wish to dwell on the subject of local infant industries. With the Common Market in Malaysia not successfully obtained because of separation, our Government has seen fit to establish good relationships with Afro-Asian countries in an attempt to gain their friendship and, at the same time, establish trade links for our export trade. To he self-sufficient in our industries is no good to the economic growth of our country. A nation thrives well on its abilities of exports over imports. There will be no difficulty in exporting local products to countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand or Afro-Asian countries. In order to share a fraction of their domestic markets for our products, the quality and price of our export goods must be competitive if not superior. In this respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, the establishment of an Export Quality Control similar to that set up by advanced countries like Japan, the U.S.A., the People's Republic of China, etc., is essential and necessary so as to lay down the standards of quality of local products and to regulate the qualities of goods before exporting to foreign countries. As far as I know, the Singapore Institute of Management, in co-operation with the Economic Development Board, is imparting knowledge in quality control to managerial executives of local factories and firms. There should be an extension towards setting up a Quality Control Board for export goods. It must be competitive and not just a party dependent on the favour of other countries for their share of markets. That is more practical and permanent in nature.

Perhaps our Government may wish to reconsider the encouragement of cottage industries which thrive well in Hongkong and Japan. Goods are first made with materials by machines to become component parts, and are then subsequently assembled at home on a piece-rate basis manually. This type of industries would benefit more persons instead of being confined to a few persons at work in the factories.

On the social amenities, it is the desire of the people who live in flats to see more playgrounds for their children. There are many vacant grounds around Housing and Development Board flats in various housing estates, but very few have playground outfits.

Traffic circles can be turned into beautiful spots if fountains are built on them. Improvements to the existing parks should also be considered. In fact, there is plenty more that the Parks and Recreation Division of the Ministry of Social Affairs can do to make our country beautiful and attractive, for tourism to prosper alongside with other trades and industries.

Social Welfare aids are aimed at assisting unemployed families to subsist in their living. They are not meant to encourage recipients to be lazy and idle and rely on Government for subsistence of living. The amounts in grant are considerably low and it is not an uncommon thing that some recipients take home some crafts from light industries, such as assembling paper bags, boxes, etc. Although the extra incomes are always low, it is more often than not that their social welfare aids are cut or terminated upon their being discovered by the Social Welfare Department. This being the case, it is hoped that the Social Welfare aid schemes could be amended so as to allow these recipients to earn such meagre incomes without affecting their public assistance. Apart from the above suggestions, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the duty of every Government Backbencher to render his full support to the policy of the Government. I hereby pledge my support to our Right Hon. Prime Minister's motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's policy speech with full sincerity.

4.26 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me at the very outset express my deep sense of gratitude to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for delivering a most illuminating policy speech in this House which, apart from demonstrating the strength and resilience of Singapore's economy, also holds out hopes for a bright and prosperous future. I can see empty rows facing me which perhaps furnish some indication of the mental confusion and vacuity besetting certain Members who are thereby not in a position to make an analysis of the speech of the Head of State. But I do not rule out the possibility that the silence of the Opposition may signify full agreement with the policy of the Government as propounded in the policy speech of the Head of State.

While perusing in detail the highly imaginative and constructive approach of the Government towards the economic ills of the nation, I appreciate more fully the fact that the policy speech is well set against the backdrop of reality and the determination to survive. I hope that this spirit will be maintained throughout the coming year and by this time next year the Government in all probability will be in a position to state in categorical terms that they have made considerable progress and achieved the target in record time.

It is true that the ejection of Singapore and the economic boycott of this island by our powerful neighbour has done immense injury to the economy in addition to that resulting from the economic confrontation and blockade on total entrepot trade imposed by Indonesia. But I am indeed pleased to note that during the past few months the Government, instead of adopting a defeatist attitude, continues to implement its programme of industrialisation in keeping with its avowed objective of achieving a more just and equal society.

Our success in this "pilgrimage towards progress" is bound to bring about favourable repercussions in neighbouring areas which in turn will accelerate the pace of a social and political revolution in those States for the establishment of a democratic socialist society. In this way, the policy speech of the Head of State has to be viewed in this perspective and it is my intention to put forward constructive suggestions which might perhaps make it more convenient and comparatively easier to attain our objective of a welfare State.

Mr Speaker Sir, the Head of State has reiterated the Government's policy to promote a healthy non-Communist trade union movement as an essential element in our economic life. I must congratulate the Government on not only being consistent in promoting healthy trade unionism but also in providing every possible assistance to us in our struggle against unscrupulous employers who are out to exploit labour. Further, as a result of the progressive measure adopted by the Government, the oft-quoted expression "industrial peace with justice" has received of late an additional significant meaning. The establishment of the State Economic Consultative Council with full representation from labour, management and the Government, has further enhanced the prestige of this nation, apart from providing the necessary machinery at the highest level to minimise industrial friction at its very source. We hope frequent meetings of this Council will be held so that general policy matters pertaining to labour-management which are bound to have repercussions in the industrial front would be thrashed out in order to reach a common basis of understanding.

We in the trade union movement will continue to be the watchdogs in preventing subversive forces from disrupting our solidarity or slashing the existing wages. In this connection, I would like to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister that his advocacy for wage restraint has been mis-interpreted by a number of bosses of established firms. These business houses which continue to declare high dividends are nowadays reluctant to entertain either the reasonable wage claims of the workers or their demands for an enhanced bonus in order to bring it in line with the general industrial pattern in Singapore. In the case of such firms, I cannot understand why there should be any restraint on the part of the workers. I should he very much obliged if the Prime Minister would qualify his statement and express in categorical terms that he did not mean such interpretation as certain employers have placed on his speech, it is most unfair that the employers should double and treble their profit margin, while denying the legitimate rights of the working class and their standard wages and fringe benefits. An explanation by the Prime Minister to this effect will dispel the fears of the working class and also prevent the employers from capitalising on the Prime Minister's speech.

In this connection, I would also like to remind the Government of its promise to utilise the entire amount collected as payroll tax for the benefit of the workers. I would suggest the introduction of an insurance scheme for the workers with the payroll tax forming a common pool together with an equal contribution from the workers and the Government to match the employer's contribution. Such an insurance scheme is bound to be beneficial to the working class in Singapore and likely to serve as a model for others to follow. I hope the Minister for Labour will give due consideration and come out with a plan sooner or later incorporating these ideas. When the workers are told to make sacrifices for the larger interest of the nation, it is the responsibility of the pro-labour Government not to neglect the welfare of labour. Only under such condition where the welfare of labour is safeguarded through securing employment for workers and maintaining wage increases in line with the rising cost of living can we expect or demand an increase in productivity from labour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has also touched on the education policy of the Government which should naturally be consistent with the promotion of education in all four language streams. Of course, as usual the Communists will be there to advocate a chauvinist approach and incite racial feelings under one pretext or another. The Nanyang episode and the unfortunate incidents in the campus exploited by the Barisan Sosialis are well known to the Members of this House. Nevertheless, I would like to make a number of references to Nantah since it appears to be a corner-stone of our education policy.

Some two months ago, we witnessed the sad and sorry spectacle of innocent teenagers at Nantah being led astray by unscrupulous political elements who were out to destroy this citadel of Chinese language and culture in South-East Asia, under the pretext of preserving and consolidating Chinese culture. It was obvious that the hidden hand behind this hooliganism and mob violence was that of the Barisan opportunists, who had amply demonstrated in the past that they desire to convert Nanyang University into a stronghold for the Barisan Sosialis, with the intention of perpetuating a system by which more cadres to the Communist cause would be recruited at this "Temple of learning".

It all began with the capture of the student body within the campus and the continual terrorising of the academic staff by a clique of unruly elements, who claimed themselves to be students or student leaders.

The Government naturally could not permit such a situation to develop whereby the Government continues to dump millions of taxpayers' dollars in order to produce elements with a crude mixture of chauvinism and Communism. When the Government began their spring-cleaning a couple of years ago, the Barisan Sosialis, who realised perhaps that their base or foundation would be subjected to a thorough shake-up, decided to encourage the innocent undergraduates to resort to arson and plunder with a view to making the Government kow-tow to their subversive ends. But the Government was determined to checkmate these adventurers, and to maintain law and order, thereby preserving the democratic way of life in this island State. Sir, the swift and immediate response of the Government and the lukewarm support of the general student body caught the Barisan Sosialis by surprise and they were forced by circumstances including, not the least of all, the hostility from the general body at Nantah, to make a most unceremonious exit from the precincts of the University.

Communists and communalists are noted for their perseverance and the Barisan Sosialis are no exception to this rule. After a lapse of a few months, the clique began to operate within the campus, and under their instigation a second round of violence took place in Nantah which resulted in the arrest of the Barisan ring leaders within the campus. Peace prevailed once again at Nanyang University.

But the people of Singapore and those who are aware of the modus operandi of the Barisan Sosialis were convinced that the last word was not said on the entire episode. Educationists and political pundits were predicting a final round with the Barisan before political opportunists can be completely eliminated from this institute of higher learning so that the undergrads can continue with their academic pursuits without being subjected to relentless and systematic persecution at the hands of those who follow and believe in operations essentially geared to Communism and communalism.

Thus, it was not a surprise that last month the Barisan struck again at Nantah and this time ostensibly to preserve Chinese language and culture which, according to them, was ignored in the Wang Gung-Wu Report. Under the leadership of the Barisan, we witnessed a microscopic minority of so-called student leaders giving instructions to the professors and the Vice-Chancellor on how they should reorientate their thinking and revise the syllabus in tune with the coloured views and muddled thinking of these teenagers. In other words, educationists should not be the people to take a decision or make recommendations on syllabus or curriculum hut a handful of immature individuals, who in all probability take their instructions from political elements who continue to play "ducks and drakes" with the interests of the student population.

Sir, we in the P.A.P. have demonstrated in the past and will continue to demonstrate in the future too that we are always willing to meet any challenge on the political plane from any opposition either by the communalists or by the Communists. But the Barisan Sosialis, after being mauled in the political arena, has turned out to he so naive as to stoop to the level of enlisting the support of the teenage group to fight the P.A.P. Perhaps they can no longer expect any support from the adults of Singapore that they have to pick on the universities, secondary schools and perhaps kindergartens too in order to ensure their own political existence. They can be rest assured that the P.A.P. is unlikely to permit chauvinism and Communism to pollute the atmosphere of the higher institutes of learning in the State and that sooner or later appropriate remedial actions will he taken to eliminate this cancer from the body politic of Singapore. The Barisan infection can continue to do damage until such time, hut we hope the suffering will not be long.

It is also true that quite a few Nanyang undergrads who could have become useful citizens have fallen prey to the evil designs of the Barisan. Recently three of them who had been in detention were released and their statements after their release should serve as an eye-opener to those who continue to be swayed by the Barisan propaganda. These three persons have categorically stated the folly of resorting to Communist and violent methods with a view to establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. They now subscribe to the principle of democracy, and it is earnestly hoped that they will turn out to be responsible and useful citizens, contributing their respective shares towards the prosperity and progress of this nation. I hope that some of the misguided youths, who are led by the nose by the Barisan Sosialis, would also take time off to read the statements and other pronouncements made by those who have passed through the stage of Communism and come out of it with repentance.

The Barisan is there not to preserve Chinese culture but to destroy it. It might not be a surprise to me if the recent incidents at Nantah had given an impression to the outside world that chauvinism had got the upper hand in Singapore. In other words, if at all any group, political Party or clique had done any irreparable damage to the Chinese race, their language and culture, it is the Barisan Sosialis and their henchmen in Nantah. Their persistence and continued efforts definitely give an impression that they are determined to strike at the very roots of our concept of a multi-racial society.

It is claimed by this motley crowd who demonstrated both at Nantah and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce recently that the introduction of English would destroy this Chinese language university. They conveniently forgot for a moment that Chinese will continue to be the medium of instruction at Nantah, and English takes only a secondary position. In short, while preserving Chinese culture and language the implementation and recommendation of the Wang Gung-Wu Report would only enhance Nantah and provide the graduates with a better opportunity, especially when they become bilingual, by being fully equipped with the knowledge of English in this multiracial society in addition to their mother tongue (Chinese) so that they can compete successfully in both public and private sectors along with the graduates of the University of Singapore.

There is a limit to which the public sector can encourage and absorb Nanyang graduates, and if they are not well-versed in either English or Malay, the private sector is unlikely to employ them in preference to the graduates of the other universities. Thus, at this juncture the Nanyang boys are placed at a most disadvantageous position, and we feel that the Wang Gung-Wu Report would provide a solution, thereby enabling Nantah to cope with the present situation.

But the Barisan follow a policy of suicide. We know why they advocate the continuance of the existing policy of Nantah, since it would fit in with their general pattern to recruit frustrated, unemployed intellectuals and, as far as possible, cadres for the cause of Communism and the violent overthrow of the popular democratic regime. And we can assure them that we are determined to foil this attempt to establish a dictatorship in this island State. Nanyang must prosper and it will continue to do so in spite of interference from political opportunists and communalistic Communist elements.

Chinese language and culture are not the property of a clique or a group. It can exist and it will continue to be encouraged by this Government at all costs, Barisan or no Barisan. I wish the Opposition will find new pastures for agitation and leave Chinese language and culture alone. There are men of eminence, educationists, men of letters and others, who can take care of Chinese culture. We do not need any assistance from the Barisan Sosialis.

Sir, while touching on the education policy of the Government, I take this opportunity to refer to the English language stream which continues to be unhappy about the delay in the implementation of many of the assurances given by the Minister for Education as well as officials of the Education Ministry. The anomalies in the salary structure of the teaching service are not conducive to the promotion of goodwill and understanding among the teaching staff, and if the Government feels that the Report of the Salaries Commission is unlikely to come out in the near future, it should take immediate and appropriate measures to redress the grievances of the teaching staff. Dissatisfied teachers cannot give of their best. In the end, the victims of the Government's procrastination would be the younger generations of this country. Hence, I would like to request the Minister for Education to look into these matters and do the needful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a casual glance at the policy speech enables us to appreciate the Government's point of view in introducing workers' permits with a view to preventing non-Singapore citizens from across the Causeway from depriving our citizens of the opportunity in the employment field and other social benefits. Nevertheless, I would like to request the Government to direct the officials concerned not to be too strict in the application of this rule since Singapore citizens might have dependants who are Malaysians. Thus, I hope every case will be treated on the basis of individual merit since our intention is not to antagonise any group or section of the population, but to promote mutual understanding between Malaysia and Singapore so that sooner or later we will be in a position to share a common destiny. Of course, we have to protect our interests at all costs, and to this extent the Government must carry out its responsibility to our citizens. But sufficient room should be given to the officials to manoeuvre so that, while not neglecting the interest of our citizens, we would be able to win over the people living across the Causeway.

In this speech it is not physically possible for me to analyse all the salient features in the policy speech. I have only touched on certain problems which I feel should be tackled with caution and understanding so that we will not fall or falter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that by next year the Head of State will be able to inform this House of our achievements during the course of the year. I hope it will further indicate a completion of the first phase of our struggle for survival.

Mr Speaker: I think this will be a convenient time to take the tea-break. I shall suspend now and take the Chair again at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.56 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.