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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

5.16 p.m.

The Minister of State for Education (Inche A. Rahim Ishak): Mr Speaker, Sir, twice in the past twenty years has Singapore been separated from Malaya. On both occasions, they have been artificial separations, and on both occasions, for illogical reasons which some outside power had forced on the people of both territories, with one possible exception. In 1945, the British separated Singapore to retain its hold on the island as a strategic military base in the days when Britain could no longer hold on to India, Burma, Ceylon and Pakistan, and her other colonial possessions in the East were becoming untenable. In 1965 Singapore was separated after two years of merger because the Central Malaysian Government found that politically Singapore within Malaysia was a threat and a danger to her political position in Kuala Lumpur. The people of Malaysia, including Singapore, were told in August this year that we had to he evicted because of imminent racial strife. The official reason given was that it was a choice between separation or repression, and that if Singapore remained in Malaysia and neither course of action was taken, then there would have been a blood-bath all over the country. Here, it might not he altogether futile for us to dwell a little on the subject of separation, although now that we are a distinct and independent nation, so suddenly thrust upon us, it would fall upon the historian to write about the second severance of Singapore from mainland Malaya.

Sir, the British in their three odd centuries of colonialism all over the world have the knack of leaving behind problems of their own creation which, even after they have been thrown out, proved in many cases to be problems which are not easy of solution. Whether it is in India, Pakistan, or Palestine, or Burma, Ceylon. Cyprus or Malaysia, the policy of divide-and-rule perpetrated by British colonialism has left in its wake serious political, economic and social problems which, long after they have gone, the people of these countries are saddled with through no fault of their own, except for the fact that they have the misfortune of being subjected to British colonialism.

For us, it is no use crying over spilt milk, although we know that quite often the ex-colonial power makes pious pretensions of desiring to solve problems of their own making. The industrial revolution in Europe leading to the acquisition of colonies in Asia, Africa and South America belong to one era in the history of the world, and that era will not repeat itself. Hence there is no question of avoiding a second time what colonial powers have once committed. For better or for worse we have to face and solve these problems ourselves. The colonial powers in most cases have the habit of leaving behind not only economic and social problems hut also political inheritors of their ilk who quite often have an interest in wanting to perpetuate the economic and social hierarchy bequeathed by them. Seen in this light the events of the last few years in Singapore, Malaya. Sabah and Sarawak are not at all difficult to understand. Was it racial strife and a communal blood-bath that those in Kuala Lumpur were trying to avoid? Or was it the gradual erosion of the established economic and social system which the powers that-be in Kuala Lumpur in the Alliance Government were trying to halt and postpone? Sir, it is clear to the people not only in Singapore and Malaysia but to all who believe in progress, human dignity, equality and justice, that Singapore was evicted to postpone the eventual victory of social forces inspired by the ideology of democratic socialism from spreading far and wide into the towns and kampongs, from Tebrau to Padang Besar and Tawau to Kuching.

Mr Speaker, Sir, recently I had occasion to ask a visiting Member of Parliament from a friendly country, who had earlier visited Kuala Lumpur, what he was told of the reason for Singapore's eviction from Malaysia. He told me that officials in Kuala Lumpur had told him that because Singapore was predominantly Chinese, and the Chinese were dominating the economy of the country, therefore the solution was to get rid of Singapore. Sir, I believe this Member of Parliament I am quoting was himself quoting from not only officials but Ministers. I remember very well the Tunku, in justifying his call for the formation of Malaysia in 1961, said that the reason Sabah and Sarawak should be taken into the new Federation was to balance up the Chinese in Malaysia and Singapore with the indigenous people in the Borneo States whom the Tunku then thought were also Malays. There are in Singapore about 1.3 million Chinese and almost four million in Malaya, apart from those in Sabah and Sarawak. The problem of the Chinese is, therefore, not one which is peculiar to Singapore. It is not even one which those in power in Malaysia have to face alone. Indeed all over South-East Asia, in Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, and to a lesser extent in the Philippines, the governments in these countries face the same problem of immigrant Chinese who had settled and made their homes in these countries. The question is, how is this problem of the Chinese to be solved? Are there any lessons we can learn from Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam about the problem of integration? Is political, cultural and social integration possible over a long period of political stability, for example? Or must segregation be the only solution of the Chinese in Malaysia and Singapore? Conversely, is it possible to solve the problem of Chinese presence by racial domination in politics? Or has the solution to be brought about by a get-together of the people of Malay race in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines to outnumber and later to squeeze out the Chinese from these areas?

Sir, these propositions have direct relevance to the Speech by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara when he said that "we may be two countries but we are one people." Not a few people in our closest neighbouring country believe that this is also the case. It is hard to believe that our neighbours think it possible really to isolate Singapore on a racial basis, because I think they would have found the same problem reverberating within their own territories.

Sir, I have lived many years of my life in Malaya, and in those years, I have posed to myself and to others this same question. I have found that not only has this problem remained the same after all these years, but that I have been unable to get new answers to this problem of the Chinese in this part of the world. As a matter of fact, as the years pass and my hair grows grey, I am more arid more convinced that the only solution is for us of all races to live together peacefully and strengthen the foundations of the multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. Even today I am prepared to consider and rethink about any other solution, if there is one forthcoming from any quarter. Upon separation, when the Tunku offered the Malays in Singapore ten acres each in Johore, I was wondering whether he was taking the second step towards what he thought was going to be the complete isolation of Singapore. I wondered whether he wanted all the Malays in Singapore to leave this fair island and go back to Malaya and thereby encourage the four million odd Chinese in Malaysia and possibly millions more all over South-East Asia to make Singapore a Chinese city. I do not know what his intentions were. But it is clear that the absence of any response from the Singapore Malays is more than an answer to the Tunku's call. It seems to me that even if there are unthinking Malays elsewhere in Malaysia who are thinking along the same line, then they will similarly learn that the Malays in Singapore do not propose to leave our shores even if they were offered ten times ten acres. It would indeed be a tragedy for the Malays if we helped to make Singapore a Chinese city. He must be a mad man to help in the creation of a second Israel in this world. It goes against the grain of any sane Malay to leave Singapore, an island which is part and parcel of the Malay world, for purely party political reasons to satisfy the selfish political ambitions of certain people. Singapore is to us our world, as much as Malaya is to those living in that part of the world. You can ask a Malay who has, for example, settled in Bangkok to return to his country of origin for these reasons. But can you ask us to leave Singapore to fit in with the political strategy of the Alliance? And if we leave Singapore, where do we go?

Sir, in terms of land and ownership of land, Singapore Malays, and for that matter Singaporeans of all races, have very little in their possession. But in terms of earning capacity we in Singapore, the Malays included, earn on the average two, three or four times more than the padi farmers or fishermen in Malaya and other parts of Malaysia. When we were still in Malaysia, I had occasion to look into the problem of resettlement in land development schemes carried out in at least two areas in Malaysia, including the one at Sungei Buloh. What I saw there leaves much to be desired. On the other hand, the Malays in Singapore, who have been used to modern and advanced social amenities and services made readily available and accessible to increasing numbers of people in the lower income group, are not at all likely to leave their homes which are in many cases subsidised by the Government. I am pretty certain that they will not go to the less habitable and undeveloped areas in Johore or Pahang.

Mr Speaker, Sir, more than this Singapore Malays have come to love the open society and the nature of equality, freedom, justice, democracy and progress, the five principles symbolised in the stars in our flag. The Malays in Singapore are not used to be treated as Harijans by local Brahmins. Sir, we in Singapore, all of us - Malays, Chinese, Indians, Ceylonese, like you, Sir, Eurasians, Pakistanis and others - have strong and healthy red blood in our veins. In Singapore our inquiring minds want to know whether there are really people with white blood, as a Malay idiom describes it. For hundreds of years we have heard about the so-called blue-blooded chieftains who enjoyed privileges and comforts for doing nothing.

I do not know if you are aware of a fundamental teaching in Islam which prohibits its followers from cringing or in any way worshipping human beings whatever the colour of their blood. Muslims are not supposed to sembah to anyone except Allah. The term to describe prayer in Islam, Mr Speaker, is Sembah Yang. In its fuller form it is Sembah Yang Maha Kuasa dan Maha Esa. Muslims only sembah to God and to no one else, and we believe in this. We are an independent and sovereign State in the comity of nations. A hundred and sixteen independent and sovereign States and their governments have accepted us into the United Nations Organisation. More than a billion of the world are with us in the international family of independent and sovereign nations. Yet there are a few miserable characters in the Barisan Sosialis who say that our independence is phoney. They do not recognise Singapore's independence. In a statement in reply to a challenge to them to ask for a public inquiry regarding Lim Chin Siong, the Barisan Sosialis asked for air radio and T.V. time on our mass medium. What is the true position? The true position is that on two occasions when the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, Dr Lee Siew Choh, was invited to take part in T.V. forums, he refused to attend them. He was running away from the open argument. I am told that they want radio and T.V. time to themselves so that they can make speeches without having to take part in a discussion. Sir, they can have this; they can have what they ask, but on condition that they first win a general election in Singapore. Then, as members of the Government, they can appear on T.V. and radio to explain Government policy and other related matters. The people in Singapore look upon them as being no more than political opportunists who have time and again lost out in free and democratic elections, open arguments, in the Referendum and even in international forums. You remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that Dr Lee Siew Choh, Woodhull, Dr Lim Hock Siew and others went to the United Nations to fight against Malaysia and the Referendum. In the December, 1965 issue of the Plebeian Express, the Barisan Sosialis alleged that the Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organisation had snubbed the P.A.P., the governing Party in Singapore, it seems. It is a fact that the Permanent Secretariat of the A.A.P.S.O. works on the principle of unanimity, among other things, on the question of membership.

On the Permanent Secretariat, besides members from the U.A.R. and other non-Communist Asian and African countries, are also to be found members from Peking, the Japanese Communist Party and the Indonesian Communist Party, the leaders of whom, Mr Speaker, Sir, are today running for their lives looking for hide-outs. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that opposition by any or some of these Communist representatives on the Permanent Secretariat of the A.A.P.S.O. can prevent unanimity, and this is what has happened in the case of not only Singapore's membership, but the membership of other applicants as well. Membership of the A.A.P.S.O. is on an unofficial basis, unlike the Afro-Asian Conference where Heads of State and Heads of Government attend. Membership of the A.A.P.S.O. is limited to organisations which may or may not be in the governments of Afro-Asian countries. For example, Japan is represented on the Permanent Secretariat of the A.A.P.S.O. by members of the Japanese Communist Party, but not by Members of the Government.

So the Editor of the Barisan Sosialis is talking through his hat when he talks about the governing Party in Singapore being snubbed by non-government pro-Communist members of the Permanent Secretariat of the A.A.P.S.O. What matters is the official recognition by Governments in Asia and Africa and in the world at large as represented in the United Nations Organisation.

In the light of these hard facts the boycott of the Barisan Sosialis of this Chamber does not constitute even a ripple in the ocean of support and expressed friendship and understanding shown to Singapore by accredited Governments and Asians of the world. Dr Lee Siew Choh and his gang are not going to make any difference to our position as an independent and sovereign State.

Sir, I am inclined to think that not only Lim Chin Siong should be examined by psychiatrists, but there are many more in the Barisan Sosialis who would appear to be in greater need of psychiatric treatment.

In the field of education, the planned programme of expansion in Primary and Secondary Schools, the Teachers' Training College and other institutions of high learning, speaks for itself. If Singapore's independence is phoney, if all our development plans, including those in the field of education, are phoney and of no consequence, then leaders in the Barisan Sosialis, married and with children, like Dr Lee Siew Choh, should withdraw all their children in our schools in Singapore and send them for higher learning to Peking, if they want to. In Indonesia, there is an institute called the Lenin Institute in Sourabaya, and Dr Lee Siew Choh can send his grown-up children or even the younger ones to that Institute. But, of course, I believe that the professors and lecturers in the Lenin Institute are also running for their lives.

The Barisan Sosialis, Mr Speaker, Sir, have lost hope in the democratic processes, and it is only when politicians have given up all hope of ever winning in an election, in a referendum and in an open argument, that they turn to more desperate ways; and, when they do, some of the manifestations take the form of boycott of elected Legislatures like ours for no logical and rational reasons.

Sir, I was reading a short letter in the Straits Times the other day from a writer in Petaling Jaya, which happens to be part of the constituency of the Member for Bungsar - but that has nothing to do with the letter. But the writer has asked whether or not Barisan Sosialis Members of the Singapore Parliament should also boycott their $500 a month allowance. I think, Sir, before this Parliamentary Session is over, it would be good if you could make a ruling on this matter.

Coming back to the question of Singapore's independence, we were travelling in some parts of Africa, Europe - Eastern Europe - and Asia, Mr Speaker, Sir, and what struck me most about the reception given to us was that it was not only warm everywhere we went but that the people were interested to know why Singapore left Malaysia. In not a few cases, leaders of governments, leaders of the Opposition, some of whom are pro-Communists like Dr Lee Siew Choh and others here, shook our hands warmly and congratulated us on having left Malaysia. Words like "liberation" were mentioned, as the Minister for Health has just said. But one other thing which sometimes gladdened our hearts was that some of them said, "You have done very well by having left the-Kuala Lumpur type of politicians," and all the rest of it which went to describe people who go cringing about before blue-blooded chieftains.

Sir, this allegation of our independence being phoney, I do not know what measure the Barisan Sosialis leaders use when they talk of independence. Whether a country which has a foreign military base, when it achieves independence is phoney; whether countries like the Philippines, which has a relatively large American military base, is phoney; whether Ceylon, which upon attainment of independence in 1947 also had a base in Trincomalee was phoney in its independence; or whether Thailand with its S.E.A.T.O. base is also phoney. Incidentally, Cuba under Fidel Castro has a large American base ---

An hon. Member: Russian!

Inche A. Rahim Ishak: Yes, the missiles had to be withdrawn, being a threat to the late President Kennedy. I ask whether that country's independence is also phoney.

Sir, it is very difficult to explain, but what I know as a member of the Goodwill Mission to Africa and other parts of the world, is that Mr Rajaratnam, our Foreign Minister, explained to accredited and sober leaders of the world that Singapore has a military base. They all know about it. There are very few leaders in the world who do not know that there is a military base in Singapore. But we explained to them very clearly and forthrightly that there is nothing wrong with having a base in Singapore, and that there is nothing wrong in having an air base - and a naval base at that - within the confines of an independent and sovereign nation.

Sir, not one government leader in any of the countries we visited questioned the independent and sovereign status we have in Singapore today. So who are those characters in the Barisan Sosialis to question us? What do they want? Must Singapore fall into the hands of the Communists and then only become independent? Then only will Singapore's independence not be phoney?

I have also searched my mind on this question of the allegation of the Barisan Sosialis and their other pro-Communist friends about Singapore's phoney independence, but it is very difficult to understand them. One can almost see the glint of insanity in their eyes when they talk along these lines, because I am sure you yourself, Mr Speaker, Sir, have asked this question and not found the answer as to why they say Singapore's independence is phoney. We can go on considering this question, probably only to arrive at one conclusion, and that is, that the Barisan Sosialis are phoney socialists. One is sometimes tempted to describe them as Communists or pro-Communists, but even the Communists we met in Russia were not phoney. They were genuine Communists. But here we have Members of Parliament who earn $500 a month as allowance - not 500 Indonesian rupiahs, but 500 real Singapore dollars, Straits dollars - and yet they boycott everything except what they pocket.

5.44 p.m.

The Minister for Health (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister expressing our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Speech on the 8th of December.

As this is the first sitting of Parliament after Singapore's independence four months ago, it is worthwhile recalling that Singapore is unique, not only in the manner as expressed by our Prime Minister, that independence was achieved without bloodshed, and with a large foreign military base still intact, but that in recorded history, no country has ever proclaimed its independence three times like Singapore! It shows how much the people of Singapore love independence, but they also love peace - not violence or bloodshed - even more.

Our first declaration of independence was made on the 31st of August, 1963, as agreed by the signatories to the Malaysia Agreement signed in London. Singapore, which had, by majority consent through a referendum accepted merger and Malaysia, was not to be deterred in its objective of independence by 31st August, 1963, despite the ferocity of Indonesian confrontation, whilst other signatories to the London Agreement dithered and dallied.

The second occasion was on the 16th of September, 1963, when Malaysia "officially" came into being. Whilst we in Singapore accepted, in good faith, the conception of a multi-racial Malaysia to be realised through a Malaysian Malaysia, yet during the two years in Malaysia, we suffered the traumatic experience of two heart-rending racial riots, and thus we in Singapore came to the rude awakening that the authorities in Kuala Lumpur were not thinking along the same wavelength as us.

As stated in the Appendix to His Excellency's Speech, the separation of Singapore from Malaysia did not affect our health services in any way, because we had autonomy in health matters when Singapore was in Malaysia. But it should be recorded that when Singapore was part of Malaysia, attendance at international conferences required Singapore's representatives to be part of the Malaysian delegation, which is correct. Yet, for the 18th World Health Organisation Assembly Meeting held in Geneva in May this year, although the official Malaysian delegation consisted of four delegates, yet Singapore was not officially invited by the then Central Government to send a delegate. Being then an Opposition Member of Parliament in the Malaysian Parliament, I tabled an Oral Question to enquire why this was so; and believe it or not, Sir, the official reply given was that "it was due to an oversight"! There could only be two explanations: one, the gross inefficiency of the Central Government authorities, or, two, the then Central Government already had the pathological attitude that Singapore, although then in Malaysia, was still a "foreign" country. Either explanation is revealing, and sad!

Thus it was that on 9th of August, 1965, Singapore had independence thrust on it by Malaysia. This should not be regarded as our third try at independence; rather that the dynamism and the virility of Singapore and its people refused to be browbeaten, bullied or cowed by the unreasonable bludgeoning from the Centre. Singapore could not be swallowed and digested, and had to stay out! Singapore therefore now stands proudly as an independent country, amongst the family of nations. Though we may be the youngest of independent countries, No. 22 in the Commonwealth and No. 117 in the United Nations, we do not necessarily remain in that order of position where quality of performance or desire and ability to live in peace and harmony amongst the troubled nations of the world are concerned.

Singapore stands at one of the most important cross-roads of the world, and its citizens come from various racial stocks, which comprise many of the world's peoples. With its multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious composition, we are a little United Nations in being. Every effort should therefore be made to make Singapore a tolerant society as it had been, to give and take, and also to be united as one people and to prosper.

We should, however, be on our guard against those who have evil thoughts and designs of wrecking this peace and harmony, namely, the pro-Communists, the pro-Communalists and pro-Confrontationists. Every loyal citizen of Singapore must decide to play a part in exposing such elements in order to help preserve our country and to make it more united and stronger so that we may be better able to overcome our many political and economic problems. Let it not be said that we, of this generation, were tested and found wanting. Let it be recorded that Singapore, on attainment of its sudden independence, weathered the raging storms and surged forward into greater prosperity and happiness because all its peoples rallied together and, with courage and fortitude, successfully overcame its present political and economic difficulties.

And now, Sir, I would like to deal with certain points raised by the Hon. Member for Punggol on the White Paper for Family Planning which was tabled in this House in September last. Although he expressed certain doubts and fears because of religious convictions, I am glad that he started off by stating, and I quote - "I would be very happy, therefore, to support the Government in a campaign to educate the people towards a more responsible attitude to parenthood." That is exactly what the White Paper on Family Planning attempts to do, that is, to increase welfare and happiness for all in Singapore, and only responsible parenthood can do that.

The Member for Punggol, however, disagrees with the view that smaller families of two or three children are necessarily happier than larger families. He is entitled to his opinion and even to practise what he preaches by raising a large family if he is so inclined. Paragraph 1.5, Sir, of the White Paper goes as follows:

`Family Planning does not prevent those who desire large families from having them, if so inclined, provided that the mother's health [not in this case the father's health, the mother's health] permits such frequent child-bearing and [here the husband comes in] the family bread-winner is in the position to earn enough to provide his children and family with a reasonable standard of living in basic necessities of life, ability to see them through school and other things which make a comfortable and happy home'.

But further down the paragraph is this very important sentence which points out that many parents are ignorant of family planning and this is where it is the responsibility of an enlightened Government to dispel such ignorance by educating and informing such parents that there are available a number of methods for family planning and there are seven methods. Now these seven methods. The parents will be told that some are 100 per cent effective through surgical ligation, where certain things are cut, but there are other methods which are nearly 100 per cent effective which are reversible, that is to say, if you practise this, it is nearly 100 per cent effective, but if you do not wish to have it, you just stop it, then you are back again into trouble, shall we say.

Now these nearly 100 per cent effective family planning methods are the Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices or the Contraceptive Pills. There is what is called the "menu card" of seven methods for persons to choose from, and they will be told method one, method two, method three, method four and so on down the line until a method which only gives 25 per cent protection. Well, if the mother chooses that 25 per cent protection and she comes within the other 75 per cent which does not prove effective, well, she has asked for it - like the T.V. film called "You Asked For It"! So it is for the married mother in these circumstances to decide which method she prefers -the 100 per cent effective method, the 90 per cent, the 70 per cent, the 50 per cent or the 25 per cent effective method. There is no question of compulsion, but one of choice and what her conscience prompts her to decide. The very first paragraph of the White Paper goes as follows:

`It is the intention of the Singapore Government, under its Second 5-Year Development Plan (1966-70), to bring the message to every married woman [not every woman, but every married woman, it is being very carefully worded] (within the fertility range) [that is, between the ages of 15 and 44-there are mothers who at 55 still give birth, but that is a rare exception. We are concentrating on those who will give birth more readily.] in Singapore that Family Planning brings her immeasurable benefits. And, at her request, [not at the Government's request, but at the woman's request; she wants something done, she wants knowledge, she wants a helping hand] to advise her on the best available methods of Family Planning which will be simple, inexpensive and safe.'

So there can be no victimisation of the poor nor moral blackmail of mothers in receipt of social welfare assistance that unless they consent to family planning, they may not get any assistance. The White Paper on Family Planning is intended to extend help to such poor destitute mothers from falling into greater tragedy and the disaster of bearing yet more children when she is already incapable of earning a livelihood to feed not only herself and whatever children she already has from her unemployed husband.

For such social welfare cases there will be no charge for services rendered, but for others there will be a nominal charge for such family planning services. For example, we intend to charge only a nominal $10.00 for an intrauterine contraceptive device insertion which is only a very insignificant percentage of what is now being charged by certain private practitioners for such a service.

Sir, I have no hesitation in assuring the Member for Punggol that no doctor, nurse, midwife or staff will be ordered to do anything which would run counter to any of their religious scruples or prejudices, if any, under the Government Family Planning programme; but, on the other hand, I would expect such members of staff to declare why they wish to be exempted from such work, and, on their part, do not stand in the way of others who may desire and wish such family planning advice or help. In other words, if you think you cannot practise this method, please keep off, but do not stop others who are queuing up for such service.

Finally, Sir, I completely disagree with the fears held by the Member for Punggol that this family planning campaign will result, I quote, "in grave danger of lowering the whole moral tone of our people." He is a brave man who dares to cast moral judgment on another. Besides, certain morals, like fashions, are one of relativity and would appear to change with the times. I see no danger of moral laxity in Singapore as envisaged by the imaginative mind of the Member for Punggol, but I am quite certain and emphatic that our White Paper on Family Planning will prove a great boon to our married women folk, because they will be liberated from the burden of bearing and raising an unnecessarily large number of children and, as a consequence, to increase human happiness for all.

6.01 p.m.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a little bit difficult to conduct debates in this Parliament because of the situation where you do not have an Opposition! For a good debate there must be stimulus and response. We have not got the stimulus because the Barisan Sosialis, for reasons best known to themselves, have decided to stay away from the Assembly - but I have enough imagination to visualise them in front of me to provide the necessary stimulus especially on the question of foreign policy, which is a matter dear to their hearts. So I would first like to state that when we come to talk about the foreign policy of a country, there are two senses in which we can do so. We can identify its foreign policy by the statements of principles and objectives propounded by the leaders of a country. These are generally very reassuring and infused with high moral purposes, but these do not necessarily constitute the foreign policy of the country involved.

Then there is another sense in which we can talk of a foreign policy, in that we can abstract it from the concrete decisions and actions taken by a country on specific international issues. From these we can abstract what the country's foreign policy is. In other words, there is a foreign policy of words, of principles, and there is a foreign policy of deeds. For practical purposes, the foreign policy of deeds is a more reliable guide to the intentions of a country than its declared and invariably reassuring principles. I am not saying that the enunciated foreign policy principles of a country are irrelevant or that they do not have any bearing on its foreign policy. They can and very often do. They denote what a country would like to do, though in the world of hard realities it may be forced to do things which do not quite harmonise with its proclaimed principles.

It is therefore necessary for Singapore, which is venturing for the first time into the jungle of international politics, to bear in mind always these two kinds of foreign policy. We should be on the look-out for possible discrepancies between deeds and words in the foreign policy of a country. Only then can we devise our own foreign policy which is sound and realistic. For example, we should not be lulled into a false sense of security just because a country professes undying friendship and high regard for us or proclaims peace and goodwill to all men. We should satisfy ourselves first that these proclamations accord with what it does.

Similarly, the fact that a country does not like us as a matter of principle (maybe because they do not approve of the system of government we have, or because they do not approve some of the actions that we have chosen to do), this should not preclude normal relations between us and them. So long as they do not translate their theoretical disapproval of us into deeds, we are prepared to enter into relations with them. Of course, it would be better if they say friendly things about us even as they enter into peaceful and workable relations with us. But if that cannot be done, then we would be satisfied with a friendly foreign policy of deeds. So in shaping our foreign policy we should have a clear idea of which category a country comes under, for upon this will depend the measure of friendship and closeness with it. While, generally speaking, we are sincere in our wish to be friendly with all countries which want to be friends with us, in the hard world of international realities there are bound to he degrees of friendship between countries. Those closest to us will naturally he those countries whose foreign policy principles and deeds coincide with our national interests and our basic aspirations. We may from time to time have disagreements with them on specific issues, hut so long as the fundamentals of their foreign policy and the deeds with which they hack them coincide with our basic national interests and objectives, they will continue to remain our closest friends and allies. We should not allow temporary irritations and minor disagreements between us and them to cause us to abandon them as our permanent and secure friends.

The second category of countries are those which may have to be unfriendly with us in theory (for ideological reasons or because of the exigencies of domestic politics) while developing friendly and normal relations with us in practice. So long as the practice is friendly, we are equally prepared to be friendly with them, though this friendliness will have to be qualified by the realisation that the friendliness is not as complete as we would like it to be. In a relationship of this kind - the second category - there is always the hope that the friendly relations, however tentative and however cautious, could in course of time and with good sense on both sides, mature into friendship of the first category. These things can happen and do happen in international relations. For example, during World War II, the Americans and Russians were the best of friends, so much so that they combined forces to bring to heel Germany and Japan - by mutual agreement then their No. 1 enemies. But since World War II, Germany and Japan have become America's No. 1 friends - more so than their wartime ally, the Soviet Union. So the friends of today or the enemies of today need not be the enemies of tomorrow.

Therefore, in international politics, it is not wise to formulate foreign policies on the basis of permanent enemies, especially in the twentieth century world of convulsive changes and rapid shifts in the balance of political forces within countries. Singapore's foreign policy, based on a realistic appraisal of the position we occupy in South-East Asia, will therefore not be postulated on the basis of permanent enemies. Ours will be the more positive approach of cultivating as many permanent friends as we are capable of. We shall therefore strive to convert this second category of friendship in so far as we can into the first category of friendship, of permanent friends. There will he no fixed and inflexible attitudes in regard to these countries. We shall not take wild and angry postures if from time to time in their foreign policy of words they say something which is not pleasing to us, so long as their foreign policy of deeds remains correct and reassuring. Here patience backed with some understanding of why they have to say the things that they say, might pay dividends and it could prevent their drifting into the third category of nations.

The third category of nations are the nations whose foreign policy of words are as hostile and dangerous to our national interests as their foreign policy of deeds. Fortunately for us, no country has so far officially elected to put itself in this category vis-a-vis an independent Singapore. True, there are elements in Singapore, like the Barisan Sosialis, who are exhorting other countries to place themselves in this category vis-a-vis Singapore. Under the hilarious leadership of Dr Lee Siew Choh, for example, the Barisan Sosialis are trying to convince certain countries that Singapore's independence is phoney, that Singapore is a tool of Anglo-American imperialism. Of course, the Barisan Sosialis leaders think that in doing this they are acting like good Marxists. My view - and this may also be the view of the countries to which their appeals are made - is that the Barisan Sosialis brand of Marxism has more in common with the lunacy of the Marx brothers than with the thoughts of the author of the Communist Manifesto. The Barisan Sosialis leaders - if you will permit this euphemism - would be well advised to re-read the opening sentence of the Communist Manifesto which goes "A septre is haunting Europe...". A septre is certainly haunting the Barisan Sosialis and also their friends who not so long ago fled to Indonesia to help do in the people of Singapore. These comrades absconded to Indonesia on the pretext that they wanted to liberate Singapore, to free it from the fetters of British colonialism and Malayan feudalism. But all we know is that they sent terrorists from Indonesia who killed and maimed not British colonial soldiers but a number of innocent and decent Singaporeans, including two women bank employees. They make no distinction of the sexes in these matters.

Neither these self-exiled comrades-on-the-run nor their less adventurous cheer leaders who elected to stay in Singapore contributed anything towards the emergence of an independent Singapore. Even as terrorists from Indonesia slipped into Singapore with bombs and hand grenades, Singapore, despite the scheming and obstruction by anti-national elements, found itself independent without bloodshed, without turmoil, and without any damage to the social and economic life of the people. The so-called revolutionary methods of struggle advocated by the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis, it is clear to the people, achieved nothing. Revolutionary methods of struggle, as interpreted and practised by local Communists and apprentice Communists, have been barren of results in Malaya, in Malaysia and in Singapore.

Independence has come to Singapore not because of the so-called revolutionary struggles or methods of struggle of the local Communists, but in spite of them. The Barisan Sosialis therefore now try to cover up their bitter failures by pretending that Singapore's independence is phoney. In order to sustain this fantasy of phoney independence, they are compelled to create other and new fantasies. For example, in their Party journal, The Plebeian, they claim that Singapore's independence and sovereignty has been acknowledged only by Anglo-American imperialists and their stooges. In fact, some 116 countries represented in the United Nations voted for the admission of Singapore into the world body. There has, in addition, been formal recognition by individual countries. The recent Goodwill Mission, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, was officially received by Afro-Asian and Communist countries it visited. These countries would not have officially received a country whose independence they doubted.

So the Barisan Sosialis leaders evade the truth about the reality of Singapore's independence by pronouncing the United Nations a tool of the American imperialists and the countries which received us as stooges of the Anglo-American imperialists. In other words, the 116 nations which voted for the admission of Singapore are, according to the Barisan Sosialis, the tools of the Americans. That goes, I presume, for Albania, too, because it too voted for the admission of Singapore into the United Nations. If the Barisan Sosialis thesis is correct, then President Kenyatta, President Nyerere, President Nkrumah, President Nasser and many other Heads of State who extended personal messages recognising Singapore's independence must be Anglo-American imperialist stooges.

This kind of political lunacy is carried to astonishing lengths when the Barisan Sosialis move an amended foreign policy motion for the consideration of this House demanding that we adopt a foreign policy "friendly to Afro-Asian countries". This is illogical. They argue that Singapore's independence is phoney. On the one hand, the Barisan Sosialis leaders are busy asking the Afro-Asian countries to have nothing to do with Singapore because they claim Singapore's independence is phoney. On the other hand, they move an amended motion demanding that we should establish friendly relations with Afro-Asian countries, which the Afro-Asian countries cannot do if they believe the Barisan Sosialis thesis that Singapore's independence is phoney.

All this, I humbly submit, Mr Speaker, is incontrovertible evidence of a fairly advanced state of political lunacy within the Barisan Sosialis fold. The Barisan Sosialis may not know it. In fact, I am convinced they do not. But the countries to which they are making these frantic appeals to adopt a hostile foreign policy of words as well as of deeds must surely be aware of this. In listening to pronouncements of the local Communists, such countries should be aware that they are listening to people who are inept because of a chronic inability to distinguish between fact and fantasy, to political leaders and a political movement which has been discredited in the eyes of our people. It may well be that there is a clear grasp in certain Afro-Asian countries that a Party like the Barisan Sosialis is an expendable coterie of ineffectual clowns to play around with for lack of something better. It may be convenient, from the point of view of these countries, to humour them into believing that they are advancing the cause of socialist revolution. If that is all, then we are content, because we for our part can deal effectively with the Barisan Sosialis and the local Communists. In fact, we can well afford to allow the Barisan Sosialis to play at revolution. Should they or their Communist mentors exceed the hounds set by the law and the Constitution, we are equally capable of checking them there too. For example, it is all right with us and the country if the Barisan Sosialis choose to conduct their revolutionary struggle by the simple process of absenting themselves from this Chamber. They have not broken the law or the Constitution by doing this. And at the end of the month, they will be paid their $500, and for so long as the law and the Constitution prescribe they should be paid. If knowing the law and the Constitution in regard to the remuneration of Assemblymen, the Barisan Sosialis representatives return to do their duty by their electors, then they would still be acting constitutionally and no harm will befall them.

But insofar as our foreign policy is concerned, what is important is that the local Communists and the Barisan Sosialis should not be treated by outside countries as their special responsibility, when in fact it is a domestic problem for us to solve. We do not care if foreign countries sympathise with the Barisan Sosialis or anybody else or even wish the local Communists were a little more intelligent than they have been. But what we ask in the conduct of foreign relations is that these private sympathies and regrets should not be allowed to obtrude into the relations of foreign countries with us. The fate and fortunes of the local Communists should not be made an active concern in the relationships foreign countries establish with us.

Equally, the fate and fortunes of anti-Communists or racialists should not be made the active concern of countries which seek to establish relations with us. In a democratic country like ours, there have been and will be contending political Parties striving for power on the basis of different ideologies consistent with our Constitution. It is natural for outside countries to feel sympathy for this or that Party or even to pray for the victory of a particular Party. But friendly relations between us and other countries become difficult and even impossible when the sympathy of an interested observer is transformed into active interference in our national affairs.

Though the Barisan Sosialis may prattle about phoney independence, this Government and our people accept the reality of our independence, and our foreign policy will be directed towards the safeguarding of this independence. It does not matter if some countries do not believe in the reality of our independence. It is sufficient for the purposes of our foreign policy that we believe in the genuineness of our independence, that the overwhelming majority of the people of Singapore believe in our independence, and that the vast majority of the nations of the world accept our independence. This being so, genuine respect for our political integrity and independence must be an essential element in relationships between us and foreign countries.

The primary task of our foreign policy will always be to safeguard our independence from external threats. We shall try to do this by establishing friendly relations with all countries, particularly those nearest to us.

Another way of establishing friendly international relations is to support any measure, whether on a regional basis or through concerted international action via the United Nations, which will enhance prospects for peace in this region by reducing tensions and fears. Because Singapore is regarded by the world and by our neighbours as a strategic key in this area, we shall ensure that our foreign policy and our defence policy do not increase tensions and fears among our neighbours. We are well aware that South-East Asia is in fact a battle-ground of great power politics and that Singapore could, as a pawn of some other countries, decide the outcome of the military game the big powers are playing in this region.

Because we are aware of this, our foreign policy and our defence policy must ensure that we do not become, or even appear to become, the pawn of any outside power. If this were to happen, then we would be that much nearer to a real military conflict in this area. Therefore, the contribution that Singapore can make towards peace in South-East Asia is not to side with this or that contending power bloc, or become the pawn of any one of them. So long as Singapore does not fall into the hands of any one contending power bloc, we are ensuring that they are not panicked into taking desperate and dangerous counter measures.

This was the reason, Sir, why immediately on independence we declared ourselves non-aligned. It was not, as some people believed, simply a case of Singapore following a current Afro-Asian fad! For an independent Singapore, which is also important strategically, to have aligned itself with this or that power bloc was to have invited counter reaction from its rivals. It would have meant Singapore, an independent Singapore, being drawn willy-nilly into the big power conflicts already raging in South-East Asia, and thus enlarging the arena of active conflict. More important, it would have also meant jeopardising our recently won independence. Alignment with one of the power blocs means aligning oneself completely with its major military and foreign policy objectives. And when a small country like Singapore aligns itself with a big power, there is no doubt as to who keeps in step with whose policies. In other words, Singapore's foreign policy, if it is aligned, becomes a copy reproduction of the foreign policy of its more powerful partner. Maybe to keep up the illusion of independence, the major power may permit or tolerate disagreements in minor matters of foreign policy, but in fundamental matters, we would have to stand smartly to attention when the roll call is made on any issue.

Once a country has put itself in a position of having to follow the foreign policy of another country, there must eventually be loss of freedom of action in regard to basic domestic policies. If, as it is generally accepted, foreign policy is promotion and protection of national interests through appropriate international actions, a policy of alignment with a big power means promotion not of our national interests but those of the big power. That is why we are loath to join in any international anti-Communist crusade, because we are non-Communist Socialists at home; because we believe -

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.