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

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14th December, 1965],

`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.".'. ---- [The Prime Minister].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: The debate can now resume.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, the policy speech delivered by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in this House has enumerated the new policies and programmes for our nation-building. All these programmes and policies represent a challenge. They outline our aims and tasks for nation-building, that is, to build a multi-racial, democratic socialist society which is fair and just. The task of nation-building is not of the Government alone. It is also the task of all patriotic citizens. All people should be mobilised.

The opening of the present Session is a new page in the history of Singapore. It has ushered in a new era in the history of Singapore as an independent and sovereign country. It has ushered in an era in which we should all contribute our best towards building a prosperous and happy nation. What is regrettable is that when such an era is being ushered in, the Barisan Sosialis Members are not sharing our sentiments and the sentiments of the people when they resort to boycotting this Session or Parliament. This is understandable from their philosophy - subversion against our nation. We condemn the Barisan Sosialis action in boycotting the Parliament and in resorting to anti-national activities. As Assemblymen elected by the people, their basic duty is to speak for the people and to voice the intentions and the will of the people in this House. Yet they have gone out of their way to say that our independence is phoney and that our sovereignty is only superficial. More than 100 nations throughout the world have recognised in as an independent and sovereign country, although ours is a small country. This can be seen from the keen welcome extended to our Goodwill Mission to Afro-Asian countries led by our Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Toh Chin Chye. The talk by the Barisan Sosialis that Singapore's independence is false should be condemned by all the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what has made the case of the Barisan Sosialis so sad is the Fact that the people have not paid any attention to their shouting of slogans. Their boycott has caused no surprise because all the people have come to realise that their performance and the shouting of slogans that Singapore is a neo-colonialist country created by an imperialist plot have been seen through by the people. Now the people are discerning. In the end, in the course of history, such a hunch of political adventurers will be buried by the overwhelming strength of the people.

The task ahead of us is to build a multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-religious society - fair and just - in which everybody can get a fair share of the facilities and benefits offered by the country and where nobody will he discriminated against by others. This has all along been our objective, in fact, since 1959 when our Party came to power. This policy has been implemented ever since we have been in power. It is the one best fitted to the multi-racial character of our society. The intelligent leadership and policy of the Government have rallied the people closer together. They have set an objective for all the people to strive for. All patriotic citizens should seize this opportunity to do their best in this work of nation-building. This policy is the only correct one that can lead our country towards a happy and prosperous society.

Although the Chinese are the majority in Singapore, our policy is based on multi-racialism. This is the basis of our policy in nation building. We have recognised Malay, Chinese, Tamil and English as the four official languages, with Malay as the common national language. In fact, this humane and correct policy will not only bring about prosperity and stability to our nation, but it is also one that has the popular support of the people. From this we can see that the policy of nation-building based on multi-racialism is one that is acceptable to all. It is the only correct one. It is also a humanitarian policy which can lead to the happiness and prosperity of our country. In Switzerland, where the same policy is pursued, we also see peace and happiness. The events in Rhodesia and South Africa and in some other countries, on the contrary, are not very enviable for us to emulate. There is discrimination in those countries. They are in a state of turmoil and we can see sanguinary fratricidal activities going on there. We want to remind the racial extremists of such racial inequality and the tragedy that is taking place there. They should reconsider their attitude. They should open their eyes wide and see what is taking place in South Africa, Rhodesia and Cyprus where there are racial disturbances. These conflicts are a great tragedy.

Mr Speaker. I shall now touch on the Five-Year Plan as contained in the policy speech of the Yang di- Pertuan Negara. The task ahead is for a peaceful reformation of our society. After seven years of continuous improvements in building and construction, we have achieved certain objectives. These achievements have won the general applause of international circles. They have acclaimed our achievements. Even our Minister for Finance, Mr Lim Kim San, was acknowledged for his meritorious service in nation-building by being presented with the Magsaysay Award.

This policy is good for our society. Under this policy a high living standard for our people has been brought about. From 1961-64 we implemented the first Five-Year Plan. We spent about $870 million in economic development, housing, industrial development, public administration, social services, and other services which have given a great impetus to the progress of Singapore. From 1961 there have been annual increases in revenue and expenditure on development is also increasing. In 1961 the sum was $230 million, and in 1964 it was $280 million. There was an increase of 7 per cent. Additional sums are to he allotted for the additional one year to the First Plan. Large sums have again been allotted for the next Five-Year Plan which will he used for social reforms, housing, urban redevelopment and industrialisation which will create more opportunities of employment, and which will lead to the modernisation of our City State. Undoubtedly this Five-Year Development Plan can be expected to succeed. This will further raise the standard of living of our people who are already enjoying a comfortable standard of living, just as what was said in the policy speech.

British bases now in Singapore are only a temporary measure for our own defence. Therefore, our Government is contemplating the implementation of a volunteer force in order to defend our country. No matter how the Barisan Sosialis and their stooges boycott us, the people will pay no heed to such foolish antics.

These measures strongly reflect the fact that our nation is recognised as one having a good standing. The people understand very well that it is the duty of everybody to contribute his bit to the continued progress of his country. For that purpose, all the people should volunteer to join the People's Forces in order to defend our country, so that we may survive. There is a Chinese saying that it is the duty of every citizen to see that his nation exists, and this kind of patriotic act is the surest guarantee of our continued survival and the existence of our nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this newly independent country of ours has given all the people new tasks to perform in order to build a model country in which all races will have equal status. The minority races will have special safeguards in the Constitution. Everybody can play his part in nation-building. Every able-bodied person and youth should brace himself for the task of nation-building and render his services to the country to the best of his ability, whether it is in the fields of commerce, education, agriculture, defence, or in any other field of human activity. Everyone can contribute his hit to enable the country to march forward to become a modernised and highly industrialised country which will bring about an affluent society for all the two million people of Singapore --- a new model society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech, and I support the motion.

2.53 p.m.

Mr S. Rajoo (Farrer Park): (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the First Parliament of independent Singapore, and I join my friends in thanking the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Address delivered in this House. In his Address, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has said that equal treatment will he given to all races and all language streams, and also that a Commission will be appointed to look into the rights of the minority races and to find .out their problems. No country in the world has only one race for its population. At one time or other different races have lived in these countries and different cultures put into practice. Finally, as the days go by, all these different cultures are integrated and become one. For example, take Russia or the United States of America. In these countries there are people who speak many languages and who belong to many races. Countries in Asia, Africa and Europe are no exception either. We can even take our neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia. They have people of different races and of different cultures. It is also the case with Singapore, which now has attained full independence. It has got a multi-racial population. We, the Government, can put into practice proper programmes and adopt a policy of mutual understanding and tolerance. By these policies, we can have a nation of peaceful co-existence.

Singapore is a small island and our people have to depend on trade. We have to admit that we are enjoying a high standard of living and, at the same time, our population is increasing. So the Government has a duty to increase the facilities for the people. In education, housing, and in the industrial field, we have achieved progress through our first Five-Year Plan. At the same time when we talk about our progress, we have also to look into the defects. The Government has to find out the defects and work out remedies.

There is a Tamil secondary school in Singapore. It is the only Tamil secondary school and is called the Umar Pulavar Secondary School. The children who leave it after completing their studies are not able to get equal opportunities for jobs in Government departments. If the reason for this is the lower standard of education in this school, the Government should find out the defects and, if necessary, introduce a new syllabus, thereby giving such school-leavers equal preference with children who leave schools in other streams.

Our housing programme is praiseworthy. But the Housing Board is adopting certain policies which are not practicable. For example, take a family of two boys, two girls, and a mother. They take a Housing Board flat under the name of one of the boys and live for 15 years. As the days go by, the two boys are married, and one of them is quick enough to buy a house through a loan from the Government. Since the Housing Board flat was acquired through him, he writes a letter to the Board saying that he has bought a house and requesting the Board to change the tenancy to his brother who is going to live there. But the Board says, "According to our rules, if a tenant buys a house of his own, he has to vacate the fiat as a whole with his family." "This is impossible," says the tenant. "I can move into my own house only with my wife and children. I can't take the whole family in, my brother and my mother." But the Board argues that they can change the tenancy only under two conditions - one is should the tenant die, and the other should the tenant leave the country. Other than these two conditions, they will not change the tenancy to any other person. So we have certain rules which are not practicable, and I request the Board to change them, so that they could he put into practice and help to raise the standard of living of our people.

Next, I wish to touch on foreign policy. We are adopting a non-aligned policy in our foreign affairs. This was stated by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. For example, we are friendly with our neighbouring countries and we show our goodwill to them. This is our desire. This is important for the progress of our people and country as a whole. Now we are in an atomic age, and we can only survive if we adopt a neutral policy. Afro-Asian countries and India are adopting such a policy. Our Government has adopted it in world politics. It will be independent in such policies. If we put into practice our policies, we show no partiality towards West or East. We are not bound by any of these countries. In our foreign policy as regards Vietnam and the Indo-Pakistani conflict, we are neutral and we closely go with the Afro-Asian countries. By adopting this policy, we can create more opportunities for the trade of our country. Most of our people depend on trade and industries for their livelihood.

In the Jurong industrial complex, there are many factories coming up and more goods are being produced. We have to search for outside markets for these products. There is no Common Market going to be established with Malaysia, so we have to find external markets for the good of our people. We have to live, so the only way is to have a neutral policy with all the countries and establish trade relations with countries like America, Russia and so on.

Recently, our Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister and the State Minister for Education went on a tour. A good reception was given to them. This reflects the correctness of our policy. Next year we are going to send trade missions to different countries. This shows our victory in this field.

The Barisan are boycotting this Parliament now. They say we should be friendly with Afro-Asian countries. In fact, we are friendly with Afro-Asian countries. Not only that, but we go even beyond that. We are adopting the neutral policy of these countries and I would like to tell these people this, in fact, it is the Barisan who adopt a particular group policy. They say that we should he friendly with Afro-Asian countries but they do not have the foresight of the Afro-Asian countries.

Singapore has been accepted as an independent country by the United Nations. When our delegation went to the Afro-Asian countries to explain our independence, they respected the independence of Singapore and gave a red carpet welcome to the delegation. But the Barisan here are boycotting the Session of this Parliament. This shows how defunct they are in their policies. They do not know how to respect their own country's independence. They do not understand the independence of their own country. I say to them that they should learn from the Afro-Asian countries to respect Singapore's independence. We are trying to he friendly with Indonesia, our biggest neighbour. We are prepared to sell to Indonesia, which needs them urgently, food and medicine. Recently the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Subandrio, has expressed his desire to have talks with Singapore. In future, there is an opportunity for better relationship between the peoples of both the territories. One day Indonesia and Peking will realise the status of our independent country. When that time conies, I do not know where the Barisan will go and hide themselves. Our foreign policy will always take into account not only the welfare of our people hut also the welfare of the people in Malaysia.

3.07 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are indeed very grateful for the opportunity to he here today to express our thanks to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Address at the opening of the present Session of this House. Grateful indeed we ought to be for our very presence here, for the political developments in the last two years --- two very eventful years --- took such a rapid and rigid course that even the then Central Government contemplated repressive measures which were openly admitted without reserve by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Prince Abdul Rahman, on the day we became independent.

Sir, I do not know whether we can regard ourselves as unfortunate, for we happened to assume the role of speaking the minds of the people and, therefore, we were supposed to be the ones that were repressed. But one thing we are fortunate in - and I think the people across the Causeway should also share in it --- is that these repressive measures never became a reality. Because if they did, then it would throw the whole country into chaos and confusion, and the existence of this House and the Members here would have become a mockery of democracy, a term which has a different connotation in the minds of both the feudal reactionaries ---

Mr Speaker: Order. I have indicated to the House that that is a line which the Chair will not accept.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: The term "democracy" has a different connotation in the minds of the communalists and the Communists.

Sir, the intensity of the political struggle between the P.A.P. and the ultra-communalists in the last two years was not only a bitter battle to win and capture the hearts and minds of the people for our survival alone, but was also a conflict of the basic political philosophy between the Right-wing and the progressive democratic Socialists, in our way, we believe that we can succeed and we have succeeded to a very large extent in proving to the people that our method is the best alternative in achieving a better deal in life for the people.

Sir, in whatever direction the political development in our country may take, we, the P.A.P., are always alive to the challenges that confront us from time to time; and for these challenges, we sought for and obtained new approaches and new solutions. In this gruelling struggle, we have never lost sight of our objectives and obligations to the people of Singapore, i.e., to build, in the course of five, ten or even 20 years, a multi-racial society founded upon the principles of democratic socialism. We are caught, as in every developing country in the world, in a dilemma; that is, in our political approaches, the Government must be ideological and as pragmatic in its administration. There are some political Parties which cannot adopt a fixed political ideology for their party lines. Some political Parties are openly anti-Communist and, at the same time, resist the idea of socialism, for it was branded as a foreign ideology. And at the same time, they refuse to be called capitalists. So if they are anti-Communists, reject socialism and refuse to be called capitalists, what are they?

Sir, the struggle was in fact the result of rising fear of the traditionalists. It was the fear of progress, the fear of new ideas, the fear of a better deal for the people, the fear of a better alternative which inevitably must result in higher demands and expectations from the people. For us, these demands and expectations are to be welcomed, because we believe it is only with the political sophistication and maturity of the people that a nation can survive and progress. We can afford to make this statement because, with our determination, our dedication and our dynamism which is so apparently absent in the leadership in the neighbouring countries, we can meet, to a fairly adequate extent, the immediate and the long-term requirements of our people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to the traditionalists, our progress and achievements must be resisted and halted. But they were not the only ones who were envious and frightened of our success. For the Communists and the pro-Communist Barisan Sosialis, our success would mean that the democratic socialist way in nation-building was far better than the Communist-Marxist idea of armed revolution - that destruction must necessarily be a prelude to construction. En all these struggles, the Communists and the front-line expendables in the Barisan Sosialis found themselves in a state of complete indecisiveness and, therefore, inspiration would have to be sought from somewhere outside Singapore. But this inspiration was not forthcoming and neither was this arrangement satisfactory because, at this very moment, the two reluctant Members of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Nee Soon and the Member for Toa Payoh are now being chased from pillar to post by the anti-Communist army quite near to Singapore.

Sir, our struggle in the last two years can be generalised into two fronts. On the one hand, the ideological front and, on the other, the pragmatic front. The temporary impotency of the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis gave us good time and a good opportunity to concentrate our efforts in our fight with the communalists and the traditionalists. For the P.A.P. in Singapore, politically our base has been secured. And to the Communalists, there is only one avenue open to them. They know that politically they can never control Singapore. Our people with progressive ideas, our people with higher demands, require an administration that will bring better results. Therefore, the political arena of Singapore was totally hostile to them. And, therefore, the only avenue left to them was by way of economic strangulation.

Sir, I do not wish to touch on the pros and cons of Malaysia. I personally feel that the concept and the basic principles which brought about Malaysia are still valid at this very moment. However, when we were a member in Malaysia, as I said earlier, our progress was not to be tolerated. And in this action, they paid a high price - turnover tax, crown cork tax, profit tax and a whole host of others - at the expense of even the sufferings of their own people - our people. Sir, in sentiment, I cannot regard the people across the Causeway as a separate people. And they introduced all these taxes even knowing full well that their own people would suffer.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Member is referring to present measures taken by the Malaysian Parliament, he is completely out of order.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Mr Speaker, I was referring to the taxes imposed while we were a member in a larger family.

Mr Speaker: Then the Member is in order.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: And just because we criticised the undesirability of these taxes, we were branded as subversive. Now that Singapore is no longer a member State of a greater family, Malaysia, all these taxes were dropped for they are no longer valid and useful with the P.A.P. now confined and localised to a small island of 224 square miles.

Sir, independence on the 9th of August caught both the Right-wing and the Communists by surprise. For the Barisan Sosialis, new instructions could not reach them in time and they are now facing a three-level split, a split in the higher leadership, as acknowledged by Mr Lim Ching Siong that Singapore's independence is genuine and that they must accept the situation and channel and redirect their struggle within an independent nation. Another split is among the front-line expendables, that is, the present Barisan Sosialis leadership - third-class heroes they are - that Singapore's independence is phoney, and for that matter they must boycott Parliament sittings and even elections. But some Members of the Barisan Sosialis may be more practical, for even at this moment when they are boycotting Parliament, the usual allowance will still go to them and they will accept them with open and willing hands.

Sir, they are now caught in a dilemma, as was the case with the M.C.P. in the year 1957, whether or not to acknowledge the Pan-Malayan Independence, with Singapore's independence - and the Right-wing also found themselves in difficulties, some of them in respect of their livelihood. For example - I would ask your guidance, Mr Speaker, if I am allowed to refer to a former Chief Minister of this House - a former Chief Minister from 1955 to 1959 who said that he was the only saviour for the people of Singapore and that Singapore was his only country. So many good words had been uttered, so many good things had been said, but two or three days after independence, he found himself forsaking the people of Singapore and willingly accepting the citizenship of another country. Does it mean that within two days, he suddenly lost his love for the people of Singapore, after so many good things had been said? He is now enjoying a good position as a High Commissioner for a foreign country. Sir, "loyalty" is a very abstract term. As I have said, to the Communists, to the Right-wing and to us, it might mean different things, but definitely it does not mean that if one's rice bowl were to be broken tomorrow or next week, lie therefore would forsake his citizenship and loyalty, would assume citizenship of another country, and would pledge his allegiance to another country.

Ours is an open society. We prefer and we believe in open argument, a frank expression of ideas and opinions.

This House itself is a public forum for the elected representatives of the people to come and voice the grievances of the people they represent. In the ten years from 1955 to 1965 - and from 1959, the first time the P.A.P. came to power up to the present time - we have fought the colonialists, the Communists, the Right-wing opportunists, the communalists and the feudalists and even a combination of some of them, as we have seen in the Hong Lim by-election. Sir, the Hong Lim by-election could have probably changed the entire course of history of Singapore. Had the P.A.P. lost the Hong Lim by-election, then I would say, as I have said earlier, that it might have led to repressive measures, and therefore the existence of this House would no longer be regarded as useful. However, each phase and each struggle gave us new strength, dedication and renewed conviction in our beliefs, and I do not believe that any amount of suppression, threats, such as one voice, one race and one religion, meaningless demonstrations by the Barisan Sosialis and bomb explosions or even race riots - we experienced two race riots in 1964 - can deter us from our set course to nationhood. We do not submit to any intimidation.

Sir, with independence, we are now faced with a heavier burden, but we can bear it. In three years' time, Singapore will prosper. In the short period of three to five years, we will set the right foundation for our new nation. We do not ask for anything more than the right of our people to determine our own destiny and to live our own way of life, unmolested and unhindered by anybody in this region. We are small in every respect, in terms of population, area, natural resources and, therefore, we have no capacity to attack others, and it is not our intention to do so, but we must have the capacity to prevent others from attacking us. On the other hand, we cannot bear the tremendous expense of raising and maintaining a full-scale army and, therefore, we have the idea of building up a big people's force, a volunteer army. As the Prime Minister has said, the world does not owe us a living, and we also do not owe the world a living. We want to be friends with all. The friends of another country may be our friends too, but the enemy of another country may not necessarily be regarded as our enemy. To those who have a special and vested interest in the political stability of this region, I say that they really have something to ponder on. But it would be naive for us to believe that we can survive on our own without subjecting ourselves to the influence and development of neighbouring countries, it is in our interest that we wish to see Malaysia succeed and prosper, because we believe that if a volcano erupts 250 miles away in Kuala Lumpur, the lava will come down to Singapore, but that does not mean that we will beg for our survival on bended knees. And to those who think they can sink us by hostile acts, we say, "Think again," because Singapore will not be the only one to sink. In this sinking ship, you carry along the entire feudal system, the entire old social order. But whatever happens, Singapore is bound to be a catalyst that will start a chain reaction throughout this region, whether for prosperity or for chaos. If we succeed, so will this region. If we fail, then I say that those who have special interests in this region will have to sit down and recalculate their obligations in this area.

Sir, in our foreign policy, we have adopted a non-aligned stand and I am given to understand that there is a motion in the House in the name of a Barisan Sosialis Member to urge the Government to be friendly with Afro-Asian countries. Sir, we are not only friendly with Afro-Asian countries, but we are accepted as a member of the Afro-Asian camp. Our Goodwill Mission first to the United Nations and then to the Afro-Asian and Eastern European countries is sufficient proof to the Barisan Sosialis that the independence of Singapore is not a phoney independence and a neo-colonialist and imperialist plot. Even Russia, who, according to some pro-Peking elements in the Barisan Sosialis, are revisionists but by no means neo-colonialists, accepted Singapore. What else do they want?

Sir, with growing recognition from countries in the world, our international position is strengthened and consolidated. While we find more and more friends coming to our aid, we still find opposition among the Barisan who say that Singapore's independence is phoney and a neo-colonialist plot. But we have passed through difficult periods since independence. On 9th August there were some high hopes in the former Malaysian Government - before 9th August were still a member State - the then Federal leadership, and even the Barisan Sosialis had hopes that we would he caught in a difficult position to explain to the world the existence and the necessity for the foreign bases in Singapore. However, that hope and expectation did not turn out to he in their favour, because not only the Afro-Asian countries accepted the existence, and the necessity of the existence, of the foreign bases in Singapore to protect our national integrity, but they have also gone a step further to justify the necessity of these bases. Even Zambia, Mr Speaker, Sir. When Zambia ran into difficulties with the neighbouring Rhodesian Government, the Zambian Government openly requested troops he sent, not to protect them but to attack Rhodesia. But the British bases in Singapore are not meant to attack anybody. As I have said, they have no capacity to attack anybody. They exist here solely for the purpose of defending the territorial integrity of Singapore. But I agree we cannot depend forever on others to defend us. If the Barisan Sosialis feel that the British bases should go, we say yes. But not now. In the long run, yes. We cannot depend on others forever. If they can give the Government a scheme or a plan to settle or to solve the consequential situation arising Out of the withdrawal of the British bases, then we say we are prepared to consider it. Think of it. 40,000 employees, and if each one has a family of five to feed, that means 200,000 mouths to feed. This will also affect taxi drivers, provision shop-owners, domestic servants under the employ of British army personnel, and a whole host of other incidental and related trades. If the Barisan Sosialis can give us a solid plan which can cope with this kind of situation, where we have 200,000 hungry stomachs and hungry mouths to feed, then we say we will consider it.

Sir, whatever our shortcomings, whatever our difficulties in the years ahead, we are confident that in ten years we will build up a new generation of people under a multi-racial, multi-religious, and multi-cultural setup. But there is one fear - not a conscious fear though - whether or not our success in ten years will be regarded as a threat or even subversive to the leadership of a neighbouring country.

Mr Speaker: Did the Member say "country" or "countries"?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Country. These are not exaggerated or empty assumptions. As I said earlier, the success of one country is hound to cast shadows on the success or failure of another country, let alone when these countries are so nearby to us. In a short time to come, our industrialisation programme will succeed, and we must succeed. To the Barisan Sosialis Members, the Jurong industrial complex is a sham; it is designed only to build up a few capitalists. But can they say that these factories and the employment opportunities for 9,000 to 14,000 people will he there had we not embarked on an industrialisation programme? They are not there for nothing. They are there as a result of the efforts, the determination and the dynamism of the Government. In the next two or three years, the Member for Jurong - he is not here today - will find that he will have to face a very much different electorate from the one lie faced in 1963. Housing and social development, as the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has said in his Address, will proceed at an even faster pace. We have no fear of the days ahead. We have calculated, considered and set our course. We know where we are travelling. We, of course, cannot re-write the history of Singapore. For example, we cannot pretend that we were never under British rule; that we were never under Japanese occupation; that we were never a part of Malaysia. We cannot re-shape history. But what is to come we can shape and influence. In the short years to come, we are confident we can build up a generation and a society that can serve as an example to this part of the world. In ten years of the P.A.P., names have been called of the P.A.P. - chauvinist, Fascist. But none, not even the Opposition, the Barisan Sosialis or the Right-wing, could accuse us of corruption. And we sincerely believe and we are convinced that with an honest and incorruptible administration and with the dynamism of the leadership, we can bring about a better distribution of the country's wealth to the people. We assure them, everyone of them will have a fair share, not the way the Barisan Sosialis may think - that "from each according to his own ability, and to each according to his need." We say to everyone a fair share. Perhaps even now some Members of the Barisan Sosialis will disapprove of armed and violent revolution for the simple reason that they may have now more things to protect and to treasure. Some things are dear to them that they have to protect rather than to destroy. We call upon Members of the Barisan Sosialis to reconsider, to re-orientate their thinking and adapt themselves to the new situation, and not to go along with meaningless demonstrations, empty slogans that Singapore's independence is phoney and a neo-colonialist plot, but put themselves together and perhaps in that way their survival could be prolonged, but not for long.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with this note I would like to associate myself with the motion by the Prime Minister, to express the House's sincere thanks for His Excellency's Speech made at the opening of this Session.

3.40 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to associate myself with the Prime Minister in thanking His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Speech to this House last week when he graciously declared this first Parliament open. Before I proceed to the debate proper, permit me, Sir, to make an observation on the total absence of the Hon. Members of the Opposition. The Barisan Sosialis have pointed out in their Party organ and in their local newspapers the reasons for their Members' absence and their boycott of this Session. This performance on their part can be construed as an act of irresponsibility to the constituents they represent. The Members elected to this House are to be the voice of the people and to serve their constituents well. Time and again, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Members have stressed and maintained that they represent the people. Curiously enough, they choose to absent themselves from attending this first Session of our Parliament, I really feel sorry for the people who elected them, for they are now without their representatives to voice their opinions for them in this House. Instead of bringing up their arguments in Parliament and facing up to the replies of Government Back-benchers, the Barisan Sosialis choose to use the people as the vanguard for their opinions. Truth is what we cherish and truth is painful to the Barisan Sosialis. But, nevertheless, we on the Government Benches will continue to deliver our replies in this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Barisan Sosialis' allegation that Singapore's independence is an imperialist colonialist plot and, therefore, phoney, let me say this. This allegation denotes stupidity oil their part. For consequent upon Singapore's declaration of independence, a delegation led by the Deputy Prime Minister went to the United Nations to seek Singapore's admission into the world body. And Singapore was admitted into the United Nations without dissent, not even an abstention nor opposition to admission was encountered. Some 116 members voted for our admission. Why is this so? If the independence of Singapore had been phoney, then Singapore would have been rejected on application.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when our Goodwill Mission went to the Afro-Asian countries and some Eastern European countries to explain to them the circumstances leading to Singapore's eviction from Malaysia, the Mission found sympathy and understanding wherever they went, and the Mission returned home with success.

Another allegation which the Barisan Sosialis made is that because of the presence of both the British military bases and some Malaysian Army units in Singapore after the declaration of independence of Singapore, this independence is phoney. To this allegation it has been explicitly explained not only to the world, but in particular to the Afro-Asian world, that the presence of the British bases is necessary for defending our territorial integrity and national sovereignty.

Here, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to quote from today's Straits Times, 15th December, back page:

'Bases: You are quite right, says Zambia

Zambia's Minister for the Western Provinces, Mr A. B. Mutemba, said today that Singapore was "absolutely justified" in retaining the British bases because it was not strong enough to defend itself.

He added that if there were no British bases the security of not only Singapore but also neighbouring countries like Malaysia, would he threatened.'

Moreover, talks will he held soon with the United Kingdom Government to sign a bilateral defence treaty in which Britain would be responsible for the defence of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of this island State, and that the bases would not he used for aggressive purposes, it is also a well-known tact that military bases for defence purposes are highly expensive to set up and, therefore, cannot be built in one day, just as Rome was not built in a day. What happens if we ask the British to dismantle their bases when we are not yet formidably equipped to defend ourselves? We will then fall easy prey to our hungry hitter neighbours. This is what the Barisan Sosialis would like us to be - to be colonialised again. Never, I say never, will this happen so long as this Party is in power.

In fact, the bases here employ some 40,000 workers who, on an average, have each to maintain a family of five. And as what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs has pointed out just now, the bases have directly been a source of livelihood to some 200,000 of our population of 1.9 million. A helpless situation is what the Barisan Sosialis would like to see happen, so that in a non-stable society where hunger exists and where the people are demoralised and angry with a weak government, they could capitalise and seize power in consequence.

Last month, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government instituted a campaign to recruit volunteers for our Territorial Army for local defence. Again the Barisan Sosialis came out in open condemnation of such a campaign and tried vigorously to get the people not to join. Posters and handbills were plastered all over the place calling on the people not to join the Territorial Army. These posters and handbills claimed that the people of Singapore would not like to fight their own people and that they wished to eat bread. Did they succeed? Far from it. They failed miserably, for the response to our country's call was overwhelming. And I am quite positive that by the middle of next year our first batch of Territorial Army volunteers would have been adequately trained to assist in the local defence of our country. Let me make this point clear to the Barisan Sosialis. They need not fear, because the Territorial Army is intended to safeguard our national integrity. But I say this: to those who resort to violence and unconstitutional methods, thereby threatening the security of our country, then we will not hesitate to deal with them firmly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to dwell a little on our foreign policy. First, I would like to draw the attention of this House to the noteworthy success of the Goodwill Mission headed by the Deputy Prime Minister to the Afro-Asian and some Eastern European countries. The Mission took pains to explain to these countries not only our problems regarding the presence of foreign military bases in Singapore but also our non-aligned policy, and to win and to establish friendly ties with them. We are non-aligned in any of the world power bloc conflicts, be it Western or Eastern. We wish to be friends with whoever wishes to be friends with us, so long as our domestic affairs are not interfered with. As His Excellency has said in his gracious Address - here, I quote [Hansard, 8th December, 1965, col. 11]:

`Our security depends upon having the minimum number of unfriendly countries and the maximum number of friendly ones.'

So this non-aligned policy is very necessary for our survival. Here again, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I quote from today's Straits Times on Zambia's attitude, or Zambia's support to such a policy?

`Zambia's Minister for the Western Provinces, Mr A. B. Mutemba, ... described Singapore's foreign policy as "practical and far-sighted."'

He went on:

'"As a young nation you could not have done better."'

In being friendly, we are not to be construed as meek and weak and that the internal affairs of our country can be tampered with. Non-interference in internal affairs should be the basis and prerequisite to the establishment of friendliness. With this clear-cut policy, we will maintain our survival in this turbulent part of the world.

There are some countries which have bilateral defence treaties and which are non-aligned, and they have not been branded as neo-colonialists, in pursuing a non-aligned attitude we are prepared to accept economic, technical, military, and foreign aid without prejudice. You see, Mr Speaker, Sir, our Government can only carry out policies after much meticulous deliberation and planning, unlike the Barisan Sosialis who act on impulses. I would like to pose this question to the Barisan Sosialis since they have been shouting slogans of phoney independence, neo-colonialist and imperialist plot. What happens when Peking or Djakarta decides to recognise us? What have the Barisan Sosialis got to say on this matter?

The next point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is about the education system of our country. It is heartening to note that as from next year the study of a second language, beginning with Secondary 1, will be compulsory in all secondary schools and that this second language will be additional to the medium of instruction. This is a big step forward towards the building of a multi-linguistic and multi-racial society in which young students in our multi-racial society will not only be able to converse in more than one language but also write in and understand more than one language, and who will be geared for their future role as the leaders of tomorrow when the responsibility of government falls squarely on their shoulders.

There is, I notice, an emphasis on scientific, vocational and technical education to meet the needs of industrialisation. I think our education system needs a careful reappraisal because of the circumstances, We are developing a generation of certificate-conscious and utility-conscious people and there is apparently little or no attention paid to developing the innate talents of the children, culturally or otherwise. Because the young students have so many subjects in their school curriculum and with these topics upper-most in their minds, they have practically little or no time at all to develop their cultural talents, May I propose that the Ministry of Education see to the proper channelisation of time and effort towards the teaching of the appreciation of art, music, culture, and the fine arts in the school curriculum which, after all, is part of the development of human personality. Although technicians and skilled workers are required in the industrialisation of our country as industry develops, a non-Communist, democratic, socialist government should also see to it that the citizens also know how to enjoy their leisure profitably.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although Singapore is now out of the Federation of Malaysia, I still maintain that the people of both territories are still one and that nothing can prevent the people from thinking as one people - the people of both Malaysia and Singapore. For more than 140 years both territories were ruled by the same colonial masters, shared the same masters, and jointly struggled for independence so as to he free from the shackles of colonialism. This was achieved, hut both were to be separated after barely two years. Both are aware that whatever happens in one territory, there will he repercussions in the other. Both are inter-dependent of each other on a long-term basis in order to survive, for the simple reason that the people share a common destiny. This artificial separation by a legal stroke is not going to make the people who was one, into two separate peoples. I sincerely hope that sometime in the not too distant future, Singapore and Malaysia will be hack in one fold and become one people in which a Malaysian Malaysia will emerge.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, another point I wish to bring out is about the White Paper on the Government's family planning policy. It is out of personal and religious convictions that I would like to deal with this. Furthermore, I feel certain that I am speaking for quite a large proportion of my constituents who share my views on this matter. Now, all of us realise that irresponsible parenthood is a bad thing, both for the individuals concerned and for the State. I would he very happy, therefore, to support the Government in a campaign to educate the people towards a more responsible attitude to parenthood. But after reading this White Paper, I get the impression that the Government is proposing an over-simplified solution to a very complex human problem. There are some assumptions in this document that I would question. For instance, that small families are happier than large ones. Many of us here, I am sure, have been happily brought up in families, not of two or three children but of five or more. We have seen the good results of such an upbringing where children are taught discipline and tolerance, self-sacrifice and a willingness to help, in short, those virtues most needed in society today. We are always hearing about the unusually large families of 14 or 16 children living in miserable conditions. Let us not forget the many moderately large healthy and happy families who are living in modest comfort. My point is that it is one thing to provide advice and help for those who wish to space their children or to limit the size of their families. It is another thing altogether to start a campaign aimed at persuading people to have small families whether they like it or not. The White Paper constantly says that its intention is to increase the happiness of families in Singapore. But I disagree with the view that families of two or three children are necessarily happier than larger families.

Secondly, the White Paper states that it is the Government's intention to advise the woman at her request of the best available method of family planning. I have nothing against this, hut I seek the assurance of the Minister for Health that no pressure would he put on anybody to volunteer for artificial methods of birth control. For instance, to tell a woman, whose family due to financial difficulties have to accept public assistance, that unless she consents to family planning, she may not get any assistance at all, would, in my opinion, be nothing short of moral blackmail. This would be victimisation of the poor. What worries me is that I do not think the White Paper makes it sufficiently clear that the Government recognises the fact that the responsibility for deciding on the number of children they want belongs to the parents alone. The State exists to help families, not the other way round. Therefore, instead of the slogan "Family Planning for All", I would prefer to see the slogan "Responsible Parenthood for All",

Another point is that the White Paper seems to ignore completely the fact that there are tens of thousands in Singapore who do not consider most of the methods mentioned here as morally acceptable forms of family planning. They consider that marriage is a noble and demanding vocation and that true happiness in marriage requires self-sacrifice, self-control and cannot he achieved just by mechanical control. Everybody must be free to follow his own conscience in this matter. But I seek an assurance from the Minister for Health that doctors and nurses in Government Service will not be required to act against their consciences by being ordered to do things which they consider morally wrong.

I regret that I do not find in the White Paper any mention of the dignity of marriage and parenthood and of the necessity for a careful all-round preparation for this noble vocation. In my opinion, too much stress is put on material prosperity, as if it alone will bring happiness. There is nothing about the importance of educating our people to become morally mature responsible citizens. All the emphasis is on material happiness and mechanical control, and what I fear is that in lowering our population rate by the sort of campaign envisaged here, we are in grave danger of lowering the whole moral tone of our people. We are producing a generation of soft and thoroughly selfish people, interested solely in their own comfort, lacking the vigour and generosity which are so vital to our nation today. If this should happen, the cure, in my opinion, would be much worse than the disease.

4.07 p.m.

The Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department (Inche Yaacob bin Mohamed Al-Haj): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, permit me to support the Motion moved by the Hon, the Prime Minister on the Speech by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, you will agree with me if I say perhaps nobody, whether those inside this Chamber or those outside this Chamber, would be surprised on hearing the formal proclamation of Singapore's independence on the 9th of August. However, it is customary, of course, that every marriage sometimes ends up in a divorce or breaks up, except that the reasons for the separation must be studied as a guide for our future generation, and we shall leave it to the historians to find out and assess in the hope that it will be a guide for posterity.

Nevertheless, we know that Singapore with the States comprising Malaysia are one, not one in name but one from a historical and geographical point of view. The separation of Singapore from Malaysia is a very sad event indeed. Singapore, with its strategic position in the world, is just a mere dot. Singapore is a small island State and known as the smallest Republic in South-East Asia. As a result of the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, we have heard many leaders saying that separation of Singapore from Malaysia was consented to by both parties. But, Mr Speaker, I would like to emphasise in this Chamber that Singapore was evicted from Malaysia. If a husband wishes to divorce his wife, he gives an ultimatum, "Out you go" or "Stay in this house." If you stayed, you would be faced with difficulties, and in the interest of the family or the children, you must go out. Therefore, there is no alternative for the wife but to leave the house at the behest of the husband. That is the fate that has befallen Singapore. On the 9th of August, I - and there were many others like me in Singapore - was worried about the fate of this small island of ours. But after the storm has abated, the situation is clear, the spirit of the people of Singapore, their determination to live, to survive, is there. And we hope that Singapore will continue to live and survive on the same equal status with other nations throughout the world.

Before I go further, Mr Speaker, let me touch briefly on the question of the Opposition Barisan Members who have boycotted not only the debates in this Chamber but also boycotted the Ceremonial Opening of the Assembly by His Excellency our Yang di-Pertuan Negara. This is an indication which is not healthy to us, because the step adopted by the Opposition in boycotting the Ceremonial Opening by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara as Head of State of this country, is an unhealthy indication, an ill omen, and a mark of disrespect for the Head of State and also for the Assembly. The boycott by the Barisan Sosialis and their unwillingness to participate in the open argument - they are not prepared to come face to face with the Government means that they have betrayed the trust placed in them by their constituents that they can voice their grievances in this Chamber so that the Government may take remedial measures where necessary. Their avoidance of open argument is deeply deplored by the people of Singapore who wish to see Singapore prosper as a democratic society. What is the meaning if this Chamber is empty? Are they against a democratic society? Are they to depend on news items from the newspapers? If they consider newspapers are more important than this Chamber, then we can go back to the people and let the people be the judges, and let them decide whether they want a democratic State or otherwise. This boycott is not a boycott of the Government alone but a boycott of the wishes of the people who desire parliamentary democracy in Singapore. And this, Mr Speaker, shows that there are indications of a break-up in the Barisan Sosialis, because if they attend the debate, they cannot see eye to eye with each other on certain matters, as it has been reported in the newspapers that there are frictions in the Party between the Right-wing and the Left-wing. An allegation that this Assembly serves no useful purpose, unlike the City Council, was voiced by the ex-Member for Hong Lim, Mr Ong Eng Guan, who resigned his seat in this Chamber, thereby creating a by-election which he did not contest. I think this was more honourable. If the Barisan Sosialis maintain that this Assembly is of no use, how is it that they contested the by-election? But unfortunately for them, they were defeated.

Now they further allege that Singapore's independence is phoney. Mr Speaker, Sir, if Singapore's independence is phoney, how do we explain the Barisan Sosialis' attitude to all the countries in this world who have extended their recognition of Singapore's independence? Do they think that those countries which have recognised our independence are phoney "independent" countries? Therefore, indirectly, they are alleging that these countries are phoney independent countries; they are therefore denigrating these independent countries. This word "phoney" has been on the lips of the Opposition ever since the formation of Malaysia was mooted. The Barisan Sosialis have had occasion to allege that the merger between Singapore and the Federation was phoney. This term "phoney" is used freely by the Opposition Members. The Barisan Sosialis sent three representatives to sit in the Malaysian Parliament. If it was a phoney merger, why did they not boycott the Malaysian Parliament by not sending their representatives there? But they sent three representatives to sit in the Malaysian Parliament, so that they could each receive an allowance of $750 per month, free train tickets and other amenities. And now again they say that Singapore's independence is phoney. They receive their allowance but they absent themselves from this Assembly! On our side, we receive our allowance and we attend meetings. On the other side, they too receive their allowance but they absent themselves. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing that is not phoney. Everything that we do is wrong. There is a Malay song entitled, "Anything that we do is wrong." But the only thing that is right is if Singapore became a colony of a foreign country to which the Barisan Sosialis owe their allegiance. Such an action would then he right in their eyes - the surrender of our sovereignty to a foreign country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now we must be far-sighted and look into the future. The future of our State depends, firstly, on the various people living in harmony, secondly, on political stability which ensures industrialisation and, thirdly, on the people's determination to progress. These are important points we are faced with so that our country may prosper in future. Singapore, a sovereign and independent State which will be known as the Republic of Singapore is the smallest State in South-East Asia. It is only a tiny dot in the eyes of the world. It will be a beautiful garden in which many kinds of flowers and trees will be planted. We must therefore look after the trees to prevent them from being destroyed by pests. We should not forget that there are disruptive elements who will go all out in future to wreck our harmony, as stated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech: firstly, the communalistic elements, and secondly, the Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, the headquarters of narrow Malay communalism is not in Singapore but outside Singapore. This communal feeling was fanned at the time when Singapore was a member State in Malaysia. If you, Mr Speaker, are following the speeches and articles appearing in the Malay language newspapers daily, there is not a single day in which there are no speeches and articles by leaders outside Singapore which whip up communal feelings in order to disrupt the harmony not only of the people of Singapore but of the whole of Malaysia. We are very concerned with this group which has its headquarters outside Singapore. On the very day that Singapore was separated from Malaysia, a leader from the Federation came here to give a guarantee to the Malays in Singapore that although Singapore had been evicted from Malaysia, their fate and destiny would be looked after, and that if they could not bear the hardships under the P.A.P. Government, they would be received with open arms across the Causeway into Johore. This was the tenor of the speech made by a Malay leader designed to appeal to Malay organisations so that the 250,000 Malays in Singapore will go across the Causeway into Johore and Singapore will appear as a Chinese State on the surface. Is it his intention to create chaos in this country? I am a Malay, and I say that we Malays have never migrated. I consider that the spirit of migration is a cowardly spirit. The various races must live in peace and understanding. In my opinion, those people who exhort the Malays to migrate are cowards.

If Mr Speaker permits me, may I relate what happened in the Malaysian Parliament as a result of the guarantee that the people from across the Causeway would be prepared to welcome the Malays from Singapore? This concerns the movements of people to and from Singapore. In the Berita Harian of the 18th November, there was a news item- "800 Malays will go to Johore in 1965." A small headline only. But the Utusan Melayu, on the other hand, carried a bold headline. "800 to quit Singapore." Mr Speaker, this piece of news item is very sensational. On the same day, 18th November, 1965, in the Utusan Melayu, the contents read as follows: "Kuala Lumpur, 17th November. 800 families of Singapore citizens have applied for permission to live in Johore, in response to the exhortation by the Prime Minister of Malaysia after Singapore became separated from Malaysia." "In response to the call of the Prime Minister of Malaysia." And according to this news, the Johore Government has offered flats. The report says that they rejected the offer because they realised that the rentals of flats in Singapore are very much cheaper than those in Johore. They are fully aware of that. Cost of construction of flats is much cheaper in Singapore than in Johore. But, Mr Speaker, what is the motive of these 800 people who will migrate to Johore Bahru? Are they people who work in Singapore? Why did they select Johore of all places? It is because Johore Bahru is separated only by three-quarters of a mile from Singapore. They can live in Johore and yet work in Singapore, because there are no employment opportunities for them in Malaya. So the intention is to collect revenue in Singapore and live in Johore. But why not go to Pahang? Pahang is a much bigger State; or for that matter in Kelantan or Trengganu? It is because of the proximity of the place. Most of these 800 people were born in Malaya and they work in Singapore as Customs officials and so on. Yet, it says in the newspapers that the Johore Government cannot entertain applications for land from Johore citizens. Is this not a dirty political tactic towards the Singapore Government? Is this not a dirty tactic to divide the people of Singapore? 800 out of 250,000 people means that the Malays are being oppressed in Singapore? I say that the Government of Singapore is giving more privileged treatment to the Malays in Singapore than the Malaysian Government is giving to the Malays in Malaya. These are indications that ---

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has up till now been in order, but I am afraid he is in danger of getting out of order. If he is criticising the Malaysian Government with regard to Malaysians, then he is out of order.

Inche Yaacob bin Mohamed Al-Haj: (In Malay): Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, Sir, the headquarters which fanned this communal sentiment is situated outside Singapore, as I have explained and proved just now. In Singapore there exist groups who are agitating the Malays to move out to Malaya. There are such elements, yes. When they do migrate they hope to move to Johore in a procession. I would like to see whether these leaders who have called for their migration will be among them. They are urging others to go. But they stay put in Singapore because they know they can enjoy the comfort and luxury here.

And, Mr Speaker, the other elements who try to hoodwink the people, the communalistic elements who use language as an issue in order to disrupt our unity, do not come from the Malays only but also from non-Malays. Malay, Chinese, Tamil and English are now the four official languages in this country, with Malay as the common language. Malay has now been accepted as the national language. This has come about because of the foresight of people who are aware of this problem. Hence, we can create a happy and prosperous society.

Mr Speaker, I think I need not elaborate on the achievements which we have made in Singapore. These are well known. On housing, for instance, every 45 minutes one unit of flat is being built. But what I would like to say on housing is the problem which the Housing and Development Board is facing. When they embark upon a project they face the problem of acquiring sites, especially when the sites are being occupied by squatters. This is our problem. Obscurantist forces are exploiting this situation. If the sites acquired belong to the Malays, they will spread wild propaganda that the Government is evicting and suppressing the Malays. This is the propaganda used by Malay extremists. If the squatters affected are Chinese, then the Barisan Sosialis will exploit the situation. They will shout at the top of their voice and accuse the Government of wanting to evict the squatters. There are elements in Singapore who are out to disrupt our unity. We pay compensation and provide alternative accommodation to these squatters in such a way that they are prepared to accept the Government's scheme.

Mr Speaker, the problem also arises when there are people who do not wish to see progress. They consider flats as pigeon-holes. They say Malays cannot adapt themselves to live in flats. Mr Speaker, I am astounded at this. Pigeon-holes have now been converted into a haven which everyone is rushing for! Previously they have charged that these fiats are fit only as pigeon-holes. But they themselves are now occupying and living in these flats. Why do I mention this, Mr Speaker? We are prepared to accept any criticism or condemnation. When the Government wanted to sell flats to the Malays, these elements agitated them not to buy them. But when they became the intermediaries, they purchased the flats from the Government and in turn sold them to the Malays. The middleman gets the credit! I appeal to the people concerned to he prepared to give and take. This is a time when the Government is faced with squatter problems, resettlement and so on. I appeal to them to co-operate with the Government and come forward to accept Government's scheme to build flats. Then there is some meaning to it. But if in the course of building the flats, they buy the flats and sell them, then they become like brokers.

Mr Speaker, in the Speech of his Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I am impressed when he touches upon the proposed setting up of a Commission to guarantee the rights of every individual. This Commission will hear the views of the minorities, from the racial, linguistic and religious angles. Their opinions will be carefully considered by this Commission.

Mr Speaker, when I returned from New Zealand I read all the back issues of the newspapers. This will be ammunition to certain groups of people, for they can charge that the Government have neglected the rights of the minorities. In fact, immediately on separation, the Prime Minister himself gave a guarantee on the position of the Malays and other minority groups in Singapore. Therefore, if we implement this, it is not because it is forced upon us. If we advance, it is not because we are being pushed by them from behind. We carry this out in full consciousness, with a full sense of responsibility to create a multi-racial and multi-religious society in our independent State. To them, I say, do not use this as a weapon to create dissension among the various races in our State. With a full sense of responsibility we must ponder over this for our own safety and that of posterity, because our policy now is to survive. That is basic and fundamental. We want to survive. And we will survive according to the real philosophical means of survival. We cannot live like wild boars. We cannot depend on other people's bounty. We cannot live like dogs or like cats which eat only the remnants. We want to live and survive as an independent people, equal in status with other independent peoples of the world. That is our basic philosophy, and we are determined to find ways and means to live and survive. For this, we are prepared to make friends with anybody, provided it does not jeopardise our security. We are on the best of terms with the East European and African countries for our interest. Yes, we will make friends. We are not going to make friends with countries which are not sincere in wanting to make friends with us. We must be careful when we shake hands with countries which can poison us. Mr Speaker, I would like to emphasise that our desire is to make friends with all countries and to live in peace, but not at the expense of our birthright and our security.

Mr Speaker: I think this will be a convenient time to take a break. I will suspend and take the Chair again at 5.20 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.48 p.m. until 5.20 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.20 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley): Mr Speaker, Sir, the expulsion of Singapore from Malaysia four months ago has brought us independence as a sovereign State. Although there was rejoicing for the newly acquired freedom, there was also uncertainty and anxiety amongst many people in Singapore as to what their future would be.

The speech which was delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara last Wednesday in this First Parliament outlining the policy of this Government was most inspiring and most significant. The Address was very brief, but it gave our people the confidence and hope for the future as the approach to our problems is correct. Faced with Indonesian confrontation then and now, and an unfriendly Central Government who simply wanted to suppress us in all forms and see us down, it is reassuring to note that the leaders of our people are resolute and determined that we survive, that we succeed, and, above all, refuse to be intimidated. I need not recall events which led to our independence, but with independence new problems have been brought about.

Up to now we have been able to withstand Indonesian confrontation. We managed to isolate the Communists and kept the Communalists down. We would be foolish to assume that the Communists will not intensify their activities to create chaos and to recover lost ground, nor can we overrule the fact that communal extremists will not emerge to take over the leadership of our immediate neighbouring country, as was reported in the Straits Times of 14th December, 1965 - the Prime Minister of our immediate neighbouring country was criticised for making a declaration to consider the call for the liberal use of other languages. When such leaders do assume power, they are bound to cause a lot of misery to the people, and whatever happens in that country is hound to affect us.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when such hostile actions are directed against us, we must ensure that they will not succeed in a multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-religious society like ours, any other form of policy pursued to establish a one race, one language, and one religion is hound to create chaos for its people. With our independence, Mr Speaker, the prospects of our succeeding in establishing a tolerant multi-racial society are much greater, and our results and successes are hound to have an impact on our neighbours in contrast to what they are pursuing.

Mr Speaker, in this First Session of Parliament, I welcome the Prime Minister's call to the Backbenchers to perform the role of the Opposition as a result of the decision of the Barisan Sosialis Members opposite to boycott this Assembly. As elected Members, we have an obligation to our electorate, and the Barisan Members, by staying away, have forfeited their right to open argument and open debate. What can be the intentions of this boycott? Are they planning a mass by-election or will they resort to armed struggle?

Mr Speaker, I would like to touch on certain subjects and policies of the Government. Housing has been a successful achievement of the P.A.P. Government in the first five years, according to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech, we produced 51,000 units of low-cost housing. What was more important was the scheme for home ownership for the people, which has offered the public about 3,500 units.

Under the second Five-Year housing programme; it is stated in the Speech that the number of units for sale to meet increasing demands will he decided upon. Here I would like to urge the Minister for National Development to consider and encourage our people to own their own homes, if it is within their means, rather than renting them from the Housing Board.

One deterrent factor which prevents the people from owning their own homes is the cash deposit which, I believe, is about one-fifth of the total cost of the house. A good many people cannot afford this down payment deposit, but if an arrangement can be agreed upon, I am sure the home ownership scheme wilI have a great response. In this respect, I have two suggestions to offer to the Minister for National Development. Will he consider amending legislation to the Central Provident Fund to allow people with adequate contributions to use them as security for the down payment? The other alternative is whether he will allow employers, as has been done in private companies, to stand as sureties for the down payment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposal of the Government to re-register the population by issuing them with new identity cards is welcome. There are in Singapore a great number of people who are born in Singapore with birth certificates without their names on them. This problem has caused a lot of hardship and uncertainty to many Singapore citizens who wonder what their future will be. I would ask the Minister for Labour to consider a scheme where bona fide birth certificate holders can have their new identity cards registered as being Singapore citizens without having to go through the arduous process of obtaining citizenship again.

Mr Speaker. Sir, on the establishment of missions abroad, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the new issue of passports for Singapore citizens on Singapore becoming an independent sovereign nation. We are at the present moment still using pre-Malaysian passports, and visas and entry permits for permission to enter Singapore are still being undertaken abroad either by the British Consulates or the Malaysian Embassies. I feel that to prolong this unnecessarily would have a detrimental effect on our country. We would rather see our own missions abroad and our own staff handling this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on Finance, col. 16 of Hansard states:

`The basic economic challenge is one of providing remunerative and meaningful employment to our predominantly youthful people.'

I am drawing the attention ---

Mr Speaker: You are quoting?

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Yes, I am quoting.

Mr Speaker: From where?

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Hansard, Volume 24, No. 1, col. 16, second paragraph.

Mr Speaker: Please continue.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: I am drawing the attention of the Backbenchers on this side of the House who are trade union leaders and active leaders in the N.T.U.C. I quote here again the same Hansard, col. 13, third paragraph, on the same subject:

`Our workers must understand that the creation of industries and job opportunities will in a large measure depend upon their capacity for hard work and disciplined performance in factories,...';

and I go on to the last paragraph:

`This means that people with industrial capital, managerial talent and the manufacturing know how must be assured of sane and stable labour conditions and trade unions do not indulge in obstructionist policies or stoppages of production for reasons of political manoeuvre.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have quoted all these passages in support of Government's policy and I believe that workers must sacrifice in order that other workers should get employment. It would be reassuring for trade union members on this side of the House to support Government in that policy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I wish to associate myself with the sentiments that have been expressed in thanking the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for delivering his policy speech.

5.47 p.m.

Mr Chow Chiok Hock (Ulu Pandan): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, please allow me to express our felicitations because in the policy speech delivered by the Head of State, I can see that the Government is determined once again to implement its policy of equality on the matter of languages and, at the same time, making Malay the national language. This policy is to the interest of our country. Not very long ago, the Government announced its policy of raising the standard of the second language in all schools and to train teachers to teach the second language in all the schools. The expenditure on education has shown that education plays a very important role in our Government policy. The people in Singapore are fully aware that our nation achieved independence only four months ago. We are in a very critical stage. Everything must be started afresh and our task forward is full of difficulties. Apart from charting a course for prosperity, we must also see that education is being promoted. In his speech, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has outlined this policy, but the anti-national elements have neglected to admit all the achievements of the Government. They have tried every means to make use of the language issue to wreck the unity and solidarity of the people. Such an act should be condemned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, education poses no problem in our country. All along, our Government has been pursuing a policy which treats the various streams of schools equally. Our Government's policy on education also lays stress on technical and vocational education. All this is reflected in the policy speech. From the financial figures, we can also see that the Government has spent a lot of money on education. It has not neglected its duty to nurture our youth. It is prepared to shoulder more difficult burdens, but there are anti-national elements who try to make use of the culture and language issues, which are explosive in nature, in order to wreck the social order and to undermine and topple the Government. We do not have to waste time by arguing with them but we should expose their irresponsible acts and speeches.

Referring to the incidents at the Nantah campus, we can see that anti-national elements have tried their very best to seize any opportunity, without regard to the consequences, to create chaos and disorder in our society by shouting slogans, "Anti this and that" in order to create more unnecessary trouble and burdens for our society. What is more abominable is that these people are not facing reality. They are anti-national. Their political ideology has been brought into the university campus to create trouble there; but on the other hand, they dare not explain their actions and the motives for their behaviour. For the past few days, we have not been able to see any of the Opposition Members in this House. They are ashamed of what they have done. That is why they dare not come here to attend the solemn sittings that are held in this Parliament. If they are ashamed of their acts, it is some consolation for our nation. They have neglected their responsibility. Instead, they are creating trouble outside the House, and they do not recognise that Singapore is independent and sovereign. Are they really representing the interests of the people or are they trying to sell out the interests of the people?

I must justify what I have asserted just now. Let us see what the Opposition Party has published in their Party organ. These articles boil down to this point: they are geared to create trouble. All these articles are meant to distort facts. In the November 6th issue of Barisan - their Party organ - their so-called actions at the University, their indulgences in all sorts of irresponsible acts such as the burning of furniture and wrecking of university equipment are mentioned. All these actions on their part are meant to lead our young people on to the path of destruction. I must stress that while the nation is trying to educate our young people to produce more talented and skilled people, the Opposition are not only unable to help the Government in this respect but they also go out of their way to spread all sorts of groundless rumours, using all sorts of means to mislead those guileless students into a dead alley. This is very wrong of them. In fact, the incidents in Nantah were only engineered by a few cliques of misguided youths, but they have allowed the students to waste their time in meaningless activities. Apart from this, the students have also wasted their parents' money and effort, and have let down the general public. These young people in their speeches talk about their being highly educated people, that they are for Chinese education, that they are preserving Chinese culture and protecting Nantah; but if they really understand what they have been doing at Nantah, I believe these so-called highly educated people, this so-called group for the preservation of Chinese culture and education would not be willing to wreck their own future. They would realise that they are being misguided by the anti-national elements among whom are some who have been intimidated or misguided. However, the folly of these young people has been encouraged by the Opposition Party from the beginning of all this series of incidents. The Member for Jurong, who can usually be seen at the university campus or in one of the attap houses near the university, and who carries out all sorts of activities to preserve the so-called Chinese culture, is regrettably absent in this House today, and is therefore not able to answer my criticisms. Is he encouraging the young people to embark on a suicidal path?

Mr Speaker, Sir, nobody will say that the Wang Gung-Wu Report has anything wrong in it. Some of the students have regarded the Report as an indictment. University staff also admit that the Report is a praiseworthy one. The anti-national elements are making use of this Report to justify their actions. But sonic of our youths and students have been misguided by these elements into doing wrong acts. They try to explain that the Report is drafted by the Government to change the nature of the university, to anglicise the university. Such a poisonous lie is spreading like wild fire in the campus of the university. They tried to incite the students, and even to resorting to violence to intimidate the staff of the university, in order to recover the ground, to regain control of the university. But when they found that the university authorities were adopting a rational attitude, hoping that the misguided students would not be deceived by these elements, they were forced to stage a procession in the university, to assault the parents of the students, and wreck the furniture of the university. This was the performance and behaviour of these so-called highly educated people, but the real directors are the pro-Communists, anti-national elements, who staged this procession. They thought they could make use of the students. They incited the students, turned them into terrorists and hooligans, and made use of some stupid people to intimidate other students in order to prevent them from attending classes. We must praise the Government for its firm and swift action in taking action in conjunction with the university authorities to restore law and order in the campus. The pro-Communists tried to make use of the chauvinistic sentiments, but their attempts met with failure.

I would like to tell those anti-national and communalist elements that the destruction of public furniture and assault on the students' parents will not go towards preserving Chinese culture or education. If they continue to try to wreck our institute of higher learning, they are bound to fail, and they will be fully responsible for all the consequences of their acts. That is why they will not be able to face the democratic sanction of the people. They will not be able to deceive the people any more. They have betrayed the interests of their electorate.

Nanyang University is now a part of our higher education system. The Government, in implementing the policy of equal treatment for all streams of education, has not neglected the existence of Nanyang University. It also respects the autonomy of the university. It has spent millions of dollars on grants to the university in order to solve its problems and to bring about improvements. This shows what the Government has done for the university. It is not going to interfere with the internal affairs of any university. The Government has the responsibility to see that our institutes of higher learning must function properly in educating our people, and not turn them into hot-beds for anti-national elements.

Therefore, if pro-Communists and communalist elements try to indulge in subversive activities, I hope the Government will take steps to eliminate them. The two million people in Singapore are co-operating with the Government and are working hard for their prosperity, and for their self-reliance. The Government has outlined many policies for nation-building. All patriotic people must concern themselves with all the speeches and legislative acts of the Government.

In his policy speech, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has expressed the intention that we are going to build a multi-racial society. Such a statement gives us encouragement. Our past performance and our future policy show that in carrying out its social reform, the Government is motivated by the interest of the people. Therefore, the Opposition Members of this House are trying to spread rumours. Such acts will not do them any good. Their irresponsible speeches will not be able to prevent the people from supporting the Government. All their plausible arguments will not influence the people or affect their attitude towards the Government. The policy Speech has received the support of the people. This shows that the anti-national elements are doomed to fail.

Once again, I would like to express my full support for the Address of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech.

6.11 p.m.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): Mr Speaker, the mentality of the Barisan Sosialis Members is extremely difficult to fathom. In their public manifestos and statements, they talk of their task to educate and free the people from ignorance so that they can build a new society over the ruins of the old. And yet in practical life, with their inconsistent behaviour and their contradictory arguments, they arc confusing the people more than anyone else.

On the 9th of August when independence was forced on us, the Barisan Sosialis Members were the first to demand an emergency sitting of the Assembly to debate the separation. We told them that there were other more urgent matters than a debate in the Assembly. Our country must first gain admission into the United Nations which had a General Assembly meeting in September. Our Ministers must he there to present their case on behalf of Singapore, otherwise we would miss the occasion. So we had to postpone our Assembly sittings in order that the Deputy Prime Minister and two other Ministers could proceed to the United Nations to make an appearance, and then to visit the Afro-Asian countries to win over their friendship and recognition for our new nation. Their achievements have been widely publicised in the Press, and I do not wish to elaborate on them. There is no doubt that we have firmly established ourselves in the international field. So now when the difficult task is over and we are ready to have our Assembly sittings to conduct a full debate on the independence and the manner in which Singapore was separated from Malaysia, we find the Opposition Members missing. What kind of a situation is this? They were clamouring for a sitting, but now when we let them have a sitting, they absent themselves. They complained that they were not given any opportunity to air the grievances of the people. They said that the Press used to black out their statements. They said that the radio was controlled by the Government and that there were very few Assembly sittings. And now when we arc having a full-scale debate on the policy of the Government, they refuse to turn up to fulfil their duties as representatives of the people.

On the one hand, they denounce the independence of Singapore as a phoney independence and a British plot. On the other hand, they formed a committee of the relatives of detained persons and got Mr Lim Ching Siong's father to sign a memorandum to the Prime Minister claiming that Singapore, having achieved independence, must release all the patriots who were arrested by the British during the colonial days. At the time when the majority of the population wanted merger and Malaysia, the Barisan Sosialis said that they were opposed to merger and Malaysia. They wanted a self-governing Singapore with control over internal security, which actually amounted to independence. Now that we have got independence, which is what they originally asked for, they turn round and say that they do not want independence but a merger with Malaya. They call it a "United Malaya" (including Singapore). So what kind of a political Party is this which is always going against the wishes of the majority of the people? They claim to he fighters for the cause of Chinese education and yet during the recent incidents in Nanyang University, their supporters heat up the Vice-Chancellor of the University and set fire to the dormitory of non-academic staff. They broke equipment in the laboratories. They defaced the wall of the university with their ugly slogans. They even locked up Professors in their houses in an attempt to prevent them from giving lectures. There was a case in which a teacher had to call for outside help to release him from his house because his door was tampered with by students in the night. By these and other underhand methods, they were able to carry out their so-called boycott of classes for a few days. They finally had to give up the boycott because public opinion was not with them. But their activities have put shame to the name of Chinese education.

On the day before His Excellency opened this Session, the Barisan leader, Dr Lee Siew Choh, announced that they were boycotting the Session. But when reporters pointed out to him the danger that his Assemblymen may lose their seats by doing so, he replied that he had to reconsider the matter. Even a resolute man like him is indecisive! Probably he has to wait for instructions from his underground masters or from his comrades in the Malayan National Liberation League in Indonesia, and these instructions are not yet forthcoming, because his friends in the M.N.L.L. are now busy hiding in Indonesia. Such is the indecisive and inconsistent Opposition we are facing today! They are lost souls. They do not know where to go from here, and so the only convenient way out of this dilemma for them would appear to be absent from the Assembly. With this tremendous amount of split mentality and inconsistency on their part, it is small wonder that one of their leaders had to go to Woodbridge Hospital to seek special treatment. If this trend continues, I am afraid many of them will have to follow the lead of their leader and they will have to line up at the doorstep of Woodbridge Hospital. If that is the case, then the Minister for Health will have to seek more money from this House to provide for more V.I.P. wards to accommodate them. They said in their statement that they would boycott this Session because they did not want to lend credence to the so-called phoney independence and help the P.A.P. Government to deceive the people. I do not believe this is the real reason. If that is true, then why did they ask for a silting in August? 1 think the real reason is that they have lost out on all fronts. They have lost in the Referendum. They have lost in the general elections. They have lost even in the Hong Lim by election. They have lost out in all open arguments. Furthermore, their Party is split, and there is no unity between their trade unions and their Party. Even their only hope, that the P.K.I may come and rescue them, vanished with the coup and counter-coup on 30th September in Indonesia. in August, the Barisan demanded an emergency sitting. Today, four months later, they have refused to come to the sitting. The only difference between today and four months ago is that in August the P.K.I. was at the peak of its influence in Indonesia. Today it is down and out. And their friends in the M.N.L.L. are in hiding. So the Barisan decided to boycott the Session because they cannot echo the voice of their masters any more, because the masters are nowhere to he found.

I now wish to touch upon the question of survival which was very much emphasised in His Excellency's Speech. The obstructive forces which work against the progress of our society stem from two sources. First, the Communists in our country, and second, the feudalists over the Causeway. We sought to join Malaysia for greater prosperity and security, which a small island like ours would not he able to achieve. But we were very soon disillusioned. Our big brothers over the Causeway turned out to be not so brotherly. During the two years we were in Malaysia, instead of helping us with their vast resources and the potentiality of their markets to hasten our industrialisation programme, they have looted and plundered -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Minister should he more careful in the choice of his words.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: For two years they have taken away 40 per cent of our Federal revenues plus our share of the profits in the Currency Board. But not one item of development projects was carried out in Singapore. Promises they had made before Malaysia were never carried out after we had joined Malaysia. For instance, their promise to let us have autonomy in labour and education. This was solemnly guaranteed in the Malaysian Constitution. But on Ithe slightest pretext, they tried to snatch away our autonomous power in labour by proclaiming a ban on strikes under the Emergency powers, and this was to include Singapore.

There is another example. It was agreed before we joined Malaysia that for the Singapore component of the Malaysian Police Force, recruitment, whether Malays or otherwise, must be from Singapore citizens. It was only fair because jobs in Singapore must be given to Singapore citizens, whether they belonged to Federal departments or not. But after we were independent, we were shocked to learn that of the new recruits in the Singapore Police Force since Malaysia Day, the majority of them came from the Federation. They were using Singapore as a convenient dumping place for their unemployed. We are not going to allow them to do this any more.

At a subsequent sitting, I will introduce to this House a Bill to provide for the issue of work permits to non-citizens. The Member for Bras Basah yesterday appealed to the Government to be lenient in the issue of work permits. Well. I do wish we could be rich enough to allow our neighbours and brothers across the Causeway to share our prosperity. But Members must realise that our rice bowl is barely enough for our 1.9 million or 2 million population. If more people come in to share the rice-bow, then the benefits to our own people will be jeopardised. If we allow more and more people to jump into our small boat, because life in the Federation is miserable, then our small boat may sink and our own life may start to become as miserable as theirs in the Federation. What we are now, in fact, telling our brothers across the Causeway is this. Do not take Singapore as your escape route from your present day problems. That is no solution. If you feel you should have a better society and a better Government like Singapore, then you must stay in your own place and rally more people to light for such a goal. If you try hard enough, then one day the whole of the feudalistic society will collapse and a more just and equal multi-racial society will emerge. Thenn the people in the two countries, which are separated by artificial means, will be one again.

The Federation of Malaysia is determined not to allow us to prosper. On this basis, we must seek our own survival. We do not have to depend on the Federation for our living, but we must warn them not to block us from seeking our living elsewhere. Trading with any country of the world is our sovereign right, and I hope the Federation Government will not interfere in our internal affairs. They do not want to trade with us, and they deny their market to us. That is their business. We cannot complain. But do not stop us from carrying out our legitimate trade with other countries under any pretext. The Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation, when commenting on the Speech of our Yang di-Pertuan Negara, said that lie hoped Singapore would live on her own, with her own way of life, and follow her own courses. We are doing exactly that. We are riot asking charity from anyone ---

6.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. It is 6.30 p.m. now and in accordance with the resolution of the House, the House will now stand adjourned.

Adjourned accordingly at Thirty minutes past Six o'clock p.m.