(Fourth Day)

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: At the close of yesterday's sitting, the Minister for Foreign Affairs was addressing the House. Mr Rajaratnam.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I indicated why it was necessary for us to stick to a policy of non-alignment, because to be aligned to any big country would eventually have meant the loss of our freedom of action even in domestic fields, because foreign policies are in fact an extension of domestic policies into the international field. And therefore I said that was why we refused to join any anti-Communist crusade because we are non-Communist. We are socialists at home because we believe that the non-Communist policy is the best way of dealing with our domestic problems, including the Communist problem in Singapore. We cannot be non-Communist at home and anti-Communist abroad.

For the same reason we have resisted demands that we should align ourselves with the Communist bloc. This demand has in fact come from the Barisan Sosialis for, when all their verbal disguise is removed, what they really want us to do is that we should align ourselves with one of the Communist blocs. This was clearly revealed in the foreign policy motion which they originally submitted for our consideration last August when, as a test of the genuineness of our independence, they specified the countries with which we should immediately establish diplomatic relations. There were only two countries, Peking and Jakarta. Since then they have amended this motion, but I do not wish to anticipate the debate to which we are looking forward in the coming days.

For us then, non-alignment means avoiding entanglements in what are essentially power conflicts even though these conflicts may be wrapped up in such highly moral terms as the struggle for a free world, for the liberation of oppressed people as a struggle against Communism, capitalism, neo-colonialism and what have you. We are intelligent and hard-headed enough to know that these fine slogans are merely cloaks to cover big power national interests, and these are not always identical with ours. To align ourselves with any one power bloc is to add to its potential strength. And having regard to the strategic value of Singapore, we will he adding decisive strength to one side. This, far from contributing to stability in this area, will do just the opposite.

In view of all this, 1 think it is in the real interests of the big powers themselves to see that Singapore is non-aligned. If the big powers are really interested in averting a major conflict in South-East Asia, they should accept and ensure the non-aligned status of Singapore. Since Singapore is genuinely convinced that a non-aligned policy is the correct one for itself and for the peace of South-East Asia, a major power need not fear that the strategic position of Singapore would he exploited to its disadvantage by one of its rivals. Our policy will be to ensure, to the best of our ability, that Singapore remains the still centre in the power storm raging in South-East Asia.

However, non-alignment does not mean indifference on our part to the real issues of peace and war in this region or even feigning blindness as to what is right and wrong. A non-aligned policy, in fact, gives us greater freedom to make pronouncements or adopt stands purely on the merits, as we see them, of specific international issues. An aligned position on the other hand obliges us automatically to take the stand that our major and more powerful ally takes on any important issue.

It is inevitable that Singapore's stand in specific international issues will he coloured heavily by national interests. The promotion of national interests is the essence of the foreign policy of all countries, big and small. Only a country aligned to a big power, whether as a colony or as an ally, may he compelled to sacrifice its national interests where these conflict with those of its major partner.

However, the pursuit of national interests cannot be absolute in a world where the fact of national independence has to he balanced against the reality of interdependence between nations. Even big and powerful countries like the United States and the Soviet Union cultivate allies and friends in order to safeguard and promote what they believe to he their national interests. Interdependence implies give and take between the partners involved. Interdependence cannot therefore be on the basis of unrestrained pursuit of national interests without regard to the national interests of one's partners and friends. There will arise occasions when we may have to make some sacrifice of our national interests for the long-term interests of the nation. This need not give rise to insurmountable difficulties if there is broad coincidence of views between the partners as to their ultimate national interests.

In the case of Singapore, our ultimate national interests are the preservation of the essential values on which our society is founded. We believe in democracy. We believe in the establishment of a multi-racial non-communal society. As Socialists, we believe in the eradication of poverty, ignorance, disease and other forms of economic and social injustice. We believe in "a more just and more equal society", a slogan which does not always give reassurance to some other countries. We believe in peace between nations simply because we have nothing to gain by war and, in any case, we have not the capacity or the resources to make war on others We covet no people's territory. We have no desire to save other peoples by interfering in their affairs. They must save themselves.

These then are the elements which constitute our national interests, out of which our national interests are compounded. These, I submit, in no way conflict with the national interests of those countries which genuinely want to live in peace with us.

If other countries understand that these constitute our national interests and that the preservation of these are the only objectives of our foreign policy, then they will put a kinder construction on many of the things that we do, including the existence of a British base in Singapore, unlike the Barisan Sosialis who put a different construction on the existence of our base. In the light of what I have said so far and in the light of what are our true national objectives, the bases are here not for any aggressive or imperialist purposes but for the defence of Singapore and Singapore's national interests. We are realistic enough to recognise the limits to our capacity to be able to defend ourselves against external threats. We shall, of course, build our own defence forces to the fullest extent we are capable of. But what we are interested in is the defence of Singapore in the context of a major conflict in regard to major and more powerful neighbours. We are in no position to build or finance an army capable of defending Singapore in a conflict of this kind. Even big powers with far greater resources of money, men and material plan their defence on the basis of friends and allies. That goes for the Soviet Union. That goes even for the United States. So it is sheer madness for certain people in Singapore, like the Barisan Sosialis, to advocate that Singapore should be self-sufficient in regard to defence. But the Barisan Sosialis know that self-sufficiency in defence is merely another way of leaving Singapore defenceless, and that is what they really want. They know that their prospects of capturing power by constitutional and even by unconstitutional means are pretty dim in Singapore. Therefore, their only hope of seizing power is by the arrival of rescue parties from outside Singapore. A defenceless Singapore is therefore their dream and hope and the objective of their foreign policy. Getting rid of British bases, they well know, does not mean no bases at all in Singapore. Even if the British were to quit the base, the strategic value of Singapore still remains. Many countries outside of Singapore know this. What is likely to happen if the British were to pull out is that there will be a scramble by other militarily more powerful countries to get control over the base in Singapore. In such a scramble of elephants, it is Singapore which is going to be trampled to death. Because of this, we would like the British base to be here until such time as we can find other more effective and more practical ways of ensuring our defence. For one thing, the British base is already here and it has been here for decades. So there is no question of any scramble starting for possession to control the base, which there must be if the British were to quit it. However, now that Singapore is a sovereign and independent country, we can take steps to make it clear to those who genuinely fear that the base is an imperialist base and that it is a base for aggression against them, that their fears are unfounded. We have no intention of allowing the base to be used for aggressive or so-called neo-colonialist ends, simply because it is not in our national interest to encourage aggression or neo-colonialism. This assurance is a firm one and it can be an effective one. Because, as you know, Sir, the base cannot in a sovereign country be effectively used for purposes which the Singapore Government believes to be against the national interest. We all know that without the goodwill and support of the government of the country in which the base is, a modern base cannot be operated effectively, if at all it can be operated. Of course, those who have designs of their own on Singapore will persist in believing that the base is a neo-colonialist threat. There is nothing we can do to persuade them otherwise except not to be needled by such charges into abandoning such arrangement as we think necessary for our defence for our national interest. Our responsibility is not to any outside country but to the two million people who have entrusted their welfare and safety to us, and we will ensure their safety by the most practical and most effective means we think is necessary to secure their defence.

Sir, we have been independent for just under five months and our foreign policy, though still rough about the edges, has won regard as well as friends for us. The essential thing is that we have not been isolated as the local Communists and others who are not Communists had hoped we would be. There are people, Communists and non-Communists, who thought that Singapore, by the manner in which it achieved independence, by openly proclaiming its intentions that the base would remain, would never be accepted by the Afro-Asian countries as a truly sovereign and independent country. Sir, though we are new to foreign policy, it is the measure of the effectiveness of our foreign policy that we have been accepted as a sovereign independent country despite the British bases by nonaligned countries, and even by Communist countries. Therefore, it is not a bad beginning for our foreign policy. It only underlines the effectiveness of our foreign policy. We have made a good start. We have made a start in the right direction by adhering to a non-aligned policy. The process of consolidating the friendly relations we have established with foreign countries will take time and money. It may not be feasible to establish missions in every friendly country because we cannot mobilise the personnel and the money to do this. So friendly contacts with foreign countries will have to be maintaned and consolidated, in some cases, by establishing overseas missions. In others, by official visits and, for the most part, because there are 116 nations, by working together with all countries in the United Nations to help build a more peaceful and more prosperous world.

Therefore, it is our intention first to establish missions in some ten countries. These are in alphabetical order: Australia, Burma, Cambodia, India, Japan, New Zealand, Thailand, the U.A.R., the United States and the United Kingdom. These will be, as I said, the first of our overseas missions and we hope to set up most, if not all, of them during the course of the coming year. They will of necessity be initially on an austerity basis. There may be some countries where there will he just the Ambassador and nobody else. But whatever it is, we have to make a start, and this is a start. With some of these countries, we have very substantial and close trade relations. With others, identity of political interest and aims counts for more than trade interests. And with the rest, trade and political interests happen to be equally important. These are, as I said, Sir, the first of our overseas missions. We shall set up others when we can find the personnel and the money or when political and trade considerations justify their being set up earlier. The promotion of trade with as many countries as possible will he a major objective of foreign policy I should like to state here that ideological differences will not be made barriers to trade between us and other countries. The only criterion for trade is whether trade with another country is in our economic interest, because promotion of our economic interest is promotion of our national interest. There may, of course, be occasions when economic interests may have to be sacrificed to safeguard some important political interests the total ban on trade with Rhodesia recently is a case in point. But, generally speaking, ideological differences will not he made obstacles to trade, i.e., legitimate trade. We shall take care to see that trade does not become a cover for political manipulations, interference or attempts to control us.

Talking of trade brings us to the most important aspect of our foreign policy, our relations with Malaysia. I have kept this to the last because our relationship with Malaysia is of a special kind. I confess, Mr Speaker, that I find it difficult to keep a straight face in talking about a foreign policy towards Malaysia. There is something unreal and odd about lumping our relations with Malaysia under foreign relations. But then some rather odd things do happen in the history of peoples and countries. All that we can then do is to accept the oddity as something not of our making and try to make the best of an odd situation. Because the situation is odd., we should be more than usually careful to devise rational and intelligent policies in regard to Malaysia. In theory, i.e., in regard to the Constitution, the relationship between us and Malaysia comes under the category of foreign relations. So we set up a High Commission as part of the necessary formalities between two foreign countries, and the machinery functioned efficiently when on occasions the two Commissions had to exchange formal diplomatic protest notes. However, constitutional forms are one thing and the hard facts of history, geography, economics and demography are another.

All these latter factors underline not the separateness or foreignness of the two territories, but the oneness of the people in the two countries. People on both sides of the Causeway have not since 9th August even begun to treat one another as foreigners. And I do not think they ever will. This is a hard fact.

Sir, if I may be permitted a personal note. I have my parents and a brother in Malaysia. Though I have tried very hard to keep up with the appropriate spirit demanded by the Constitution, I could not bring myself to regard them as foreigners. I am quite sure this goes for hundreds of thousands like me on both sides of the Causeway. So one cannot talk of a foreign policy towards Malaysia in the same sense as we would in regard to other countries. It must be a foreign policy of a special kind, a foreign policy towards a country which, though constitutionally foreign, is essentially one with us and which, when logic and sanity reassert themselves, must once more become one. It must be a foreign policy based on the realisation that Singapore and Malaysia are really two arms of one politically organic whole, each of which has, through a constitutional proclamation, been declared separate and independent. True a Minister in Malaysia not so long ago did say that on 9th August a diseased arm was cut off. I do not think that anything was cut off, in fact, fortunately for us. I say, fortunately, because if one of the arms is really cut off, it must result in the whole organism bleeding to death.

Our foreign policy is based on an awareness of not so much the constitutional fact as the fact of what is real - the reality of the thing. The survival and well-being of Malaysia is essential to Singapore's survival. Conversely, the survival and well-being of Singapore is essential to Malaysia's survival. We should not, however, confuse the survival of the peoples in the two territories with the survival of governments and political parties, because political parties and governments come and go, as the mood and aspirations of peoples change and as the political environment changes.

With this broader background in mind, we in Singapore have to accept the fact that we and Malaysia are two sovereign States compelled to move, by different routes, towards the ultimate destiny of one people and one country. We have chosen our route towards this ultimate destiny even if we have to do so, now, as an independent and sovereign State.

In one way, Sir, this may not be a bad thing because we have the freedom now to choose our route towards this ultimate and inevitable goal. We live the way we want to live, the most effective way. I believe, Sir, victory goes to the one who chooses the route and successfully reaches the goal set for it by destiny. When we were in Malaysia, we chose the route of a Malaysian Malaysia as our objective, and that resulted in many difficulties and ultimately in our receiving a quit order or else. We were told never to darken Malaysia's door, and they exhorted us to set up house on our own elsewhere.

Well, so be it. We are now an independent State. True it is no longer within our power to help in the building of a Malaysian Malaysia. But it is within our power and within our rights to build what I would call a Malaysian Singapore - not a Singaporean Singapore but a Malaysian Singapore. The essence of a Malaysian Malaysia was that it was possible to build a just, prosperous and progressive nation in a multi-racial society only on the basis of a non-communal and a non-racial approach in policies and in economics. When we were in Malaysia, this thesis was rejected as not only impractical but also dangerous.

So since 9th August we have had the opportunity and the freedom to show in Singapore that such a society for which we struggled in Malaysia can be made to work in Singapore; that a multi-racial society founded on the concepts of democracy, social equality and socialist concepts of economic and social justice is the only safe and practical way of building a united nation, of building a nation out of many races, and of solving the economic and social problems of peoples of all races.

But for the time being, all we ask of our neighbour in Malaysia is that having insisted that we should be a sovereign State, they should treat us as a sovereign State and allow us the rights and privileges that go with sovereignty, because we concede to them the right to behave like a sovereign State. We are resentful when they behave towards us as though Singapore is still a State within Malaysia. And Malaysia can be assured that we will not use our sovereignty in such a way as to jeopardise their interests - their genuine and ultimate interests - because we are well aware that we have a vital stake in the well-being and security of Malaysia. We cannot do them in because eventually we would he doing ourselves in. Malaysia is for us a sovereign State but not a foreign country.

We shall always bear this in mind in our relations with them. All we ask is that they should reciprocate this attitude.

Sir, I shall have more to say about the particular aspects of our foreign policy when we come to debate the Barisan Sosialis' amended motion on foreign policy. I do not wish to anticipate the motion or their return to this Chamber. All I wish to point out now is that the course of a foreign policy is never smooth. It is never a straight line between two points. There must he changes, of course, as the international landscape changes. The fact that the Barisan Sosialis had to amend their motion within a period of a few months only underlines my point that the world, and particularly our part of the world, is changing rapidly, and a foreign policy must be flexible enough to meet these changes.

The tragic weakness of the Barisan Sosialis - that is, tragic for them but good for us - is that the more the world changes the more they remain the same old hunch of tenderfoot Marxists.

3.52 p.m.

Mrs Devan Nair: (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the Motion of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Address, I wish first to express my thanks for being granted this opportunity to participate in this debate. The policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is giving confidence and hope to everyone. I am also pleased with that speech. At this juncture, I wish to give some of my views to this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all our citizens should be given adequate employment opportunities. That is our basic task. The employment exchange is not functioning well. That is what I have gathered. There are some people who have registered with the employment exchange for many years, but they have not been able to get any job. However, those who have newly registered have been able to get jobs. I hope the Minister for Labour will look into this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our nation has four official languages. All of them have the same official status. It is remarkable and praiseworthy that all of them should be given equal status. We do not have the policy of having one language, one religion and one race. We have quite clearly declared our policy. Democrats who have the interest of the people at heart should accept this objective. This policy of multi-lingualism is accepted with much pleasure.

At this juncture when we are practising multi-lingualism in our society, I should mention one important matter. There have been some defects in the working out of this system. The Tamil language is being very adversely affected. It is my duty to point this out. Notice boards at Government offices are written in all the four languages. But there are too many errors in the Tamil language version. In some places there are only three languages. Tamil has been omitted. In some Ministries there are not enough officers in certain departments for the Tamil section. Therefore, the sections do not function well. I hope the departments concerned will take adequate steps to remedy this.

Tamil is used in the Tamil secondary schools. However, there are no opportunities for these students in the secondary schools to continue with their education. They have no means to continue with their education even though they may have the desire to do so. Opportunities and facilities should be made available for such students. I feel there is a shortage of teachers. I appreciate that. There is the Teachers' Training College to train teachers. Even though there are Tamil-trained men in the College, not enough graduates are being produced. I feel that immediate steps should be taken to rectify this situation. Those who have passed well and with credit in the secondary schools should be given bursaries. They should be sent to India for higher education. On their return in a few years' time, the pressing shortage of trained staff will be eased. Meanwhile, officers on contract could be brought from India. They can be appointed for teaching appointments at the Teachers' Training College. In this connection, the Ministry of Education should take adequate steps to implement this proposal. I would request them to do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy of the Government to protect the interests of the minorities is most gratifying. The minorities will have full confidence in the Government.

In conclusion, I wish to point out one fact. In any democratic society Opposition Members should always bring up any points on which they disagree, in this House. They may even walk out if they wish to do so. But our Barisan Opposition Members have chosen to boycott this Session altogether. This shows that they have no faith in the democratic system. At the same time, they must realise why they have been elected by the people. They have forgotten the duty which they owe to the people.

I wish to associate myself with the Motion of Thanks to the Speech made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

4.00 p.m.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, as you are well aware, ten years have elapsed since the publication of the last edition of the laws of Singapore. During the latter part of this period Singapore became a State of the Federation of Malaysia, as a result of which many of our laws were either amended or repealed, and many Federal laws were extended here. On the 9th of August this year. Singapore became separate from Malaysia, and though the Separation Agreement makes provision for all present laws in Singapore in force immediately before Singapore Day to continue to have effect according to their tenor, some of these laws will now have to be changed.

The publication of the new edition of our laws at the earliest possible moment has now become a matter of necessity and some urgency. The work of reviewing all existing legislation with the object of making such modifications as are necessary to bring the laws into conformity with Singapore's status as an independent Republic, as well as fusing amending legislation with principal legislation, would constitute a real contribution to those who have to find their way about our laws. To read the law as it is at present is now often a tiresome task, involving references to several books or documents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government, therefore, intend shortly to introduce in Parliament a Bill to provide for the appointment of a Law Revision Commission whose task will be to prepare and publish a Revised Edition of our laws. This will afford us an opportunity to take stock of our legislation by briefly surveying our laws as they existed from the days of the Straits Settlements and through the period when Singapore formed part of Malaysia to the present day with an indication of law revision plans for the future.

When the Government of the Straits Settlements Act, 1866, was brought into force in 1867 by an Order of the Queen-in-Council, certain islands and territories which were previously under the East India Company jointly became a separate colony known as the Straits Settlements. The first meeting of the Legislative Council was held on the 1st of April, 1867, when certain laws were passed. And in the following year was enacted the interpretation (Amendment) Ordinance, 1868, which provides that the legislation of the Colony shall be called Ordinances. The Ordinances of the Colony were reprinted by Government in two volumes in 1886 and again in 1898. In 1910 a thorough revision of the whole body of written law was begun, and a Commission appointed to prepare a new and revised edition of the Statute Laws of the Colony. The new edition, which was published in 1920, dealt with all legislation from 1835 to the end of 1919 exclusive of war and emergency legislation.

The Second Revision of the laws of the Colony was published in 1926 and contained the law's enforced on the 31st of December, 1925. The Third Revision, the 1936 Edition, was prepared under the authority of the Revised Edition of the Laws Ordinance, 1935, and contained the Ordinances amended to 31st December, 1935. The current edition of the laws of Singapore, which run into eight volumes, was brought into force from the 1st July, 1956, and annual supplements for the years 1956 to 1962 were subsequently issued. This then, Mr Speaker, was the position prior to Malaysia Day.

It could have been said that whilst the laws were not available in one set of volumes, they could at least be ascertained with reasonable diligence and care. Unfortunately, with the coming of Malaysia, the position was worsened and it has become more and more difficult to ascertain the law through the multitude of Modification Orders issued mainly in Kuala Lumpur, but also in Singapore, and the various amending Acts and Ordinances that have been enacted.

The Malaysia Act, as well as the Constitution of the State of Singapore, provided for the continuity of all laws which were in force or which had been passed but not brought into force before Malaysia Day. After the establishment of Malaysia on 16th September, 1963, laws which could not be enacted by the Singapore Legislative Assembly in so far as they were laws which could not be passed after Malaysia Day by the State Legislature, were treated as Federal laws by virtue of the provisions of section 73 of the Malaysia Act. The Malaysian Government, acting under powers given under section 74 of the Malaysia Act, made amendments by means of Modification Orders to such of the laws of Singapore as were treated as Federal laws. In the same manner, laws which before the 16th September. 1963, had application only to the States of Malaya were extended to apply to Singapore with or without amendments. Certain Singapore law's which were treated as Federal laws were also repealed by such Modification Orders.

The Singapore Government, in exercise of powers under Article 105 of the Constitution of the State of Singapore, made consequential amendments to such Singapore laws as were treated as State laws to bring them into conformity with Singapore's status as a component part of the Federation of Malaysia. The laws enacted by the Malaysian Parliament up to the 8th August. 1965, which had application to Singapore, also form part of the laws of Singapore at present.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the result of all these changes and manipulations is that our laws are by no means as clear or as easily ascertainable as they should be. It is inevitable that mistakes are being made not only by the administration but even by trained lawyers; and the layman has every reason to complain that the law is veritably an ass. In these circumstances, it will be one of the major tasks of my Ministry and of the State Advocate-General's Department to try to bring some order, coherence, and certainty to our laws.

The Republic of Singapore Independence Bill provides that all existing laws shall continue in force on and after Singapore Day, and that they shall be construed as from that day with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications, and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with the Act and with the independence status of Singapore upon separation from Malaysia. The Bill also provides that the President may, by Order made any time during the period of three years after the Act comes into force, make such modifications in any written law as appear to he necessary or expedient as a result of the passing of the Act and in consequence of the independence of Singapore upon separation.

The term "modification" in this context includes amendments, adaptations and repeals, and in relation to any law of Malaysia or of the United Kingdom for the time being in force in Singapore, includes power to declare that such law shall cease to apply to Singapore. In anticipation of the enactment of this provision, the State Advocate-General has already commenced preparing Modification Orders to restore the laws to the position in which they were before Malaysia. These Orders cannot, of course, be published until after the Independence Bill has been enacted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to facilitate the reading of the laws modified during the Malaysian period and in consequence of our Independence Act, it is proposed to publish reprints of such laws incorporating not only all such modifications but also all amendments made to them whether before during, or after the Malaysia period, so that any reprinted legislation may be read as a connected whole without reference to several books or documents. The Interpretation Bill provides for such reprints, and many of these reprints will form the basis of the next Revised Edition of the laws of Singapore, provision for the preparation and publication of which will be made in the Revised Edition of the Law's Bill. The need for a new Revised Edition is apparent even if for no reason other than that a decade has passed since the publication of the last edition of the laws of Singapore during which momentous constitutional changes have taken place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the State Advocate-General and I ate mindful of the task of providing the Bench, the Bar. Government offices, and the public generally with readily available laws in a connected readable whole with the inclusion therein of all the amendments and modifications made to-date. It is for this reason, Sir, that the publication of every Modification Order made under the Republic of Singapore Act is to be followed shortly, after by a reprint of the legislation in question. These reprints will form the prelude to the Revised Edition of the laws, and when the Revised Edition is completed. Singapore will have a self-contained consolidated compendium of all statutes. It is the Government's intention, as stated in the speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, to set up a Constitutional Commission to consider the safeguards which should be inserted in the Constitution to protect the rights of minorities and to ensure that the rights of all citizens shall be equal not only in law but also in practice. Pending the deliberations and the conclusions of this Constitutional Commission, it is proposed that the provisions of the Constitution of Singapore and of the Malaysian Constitution shall continue to apply in Singapore subject to such modifications, omissions, and amendments as are necessitated by the independent status of Singapore and its ceasing to be a part of Malaysia. The amendments which the Government considers immediately necessary are contained in the Constitution (Amendment ) Bill and in the Republic of Singapore Independence Bill. And further formal amendments will be made by Modification Orders. After the Report of the Constitutional Commission has been received and considered, those provisions which have been accepted by the Government will become part of the Constitution.

4.15 p.m.

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am standing here to express my sincere thanks to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his fine delivery of our policy Speech in the first Session of Parliament.

Our country is standing up in the turbulence of South-East Asia as an independent nation fully fortified with the determination to survive. As an independent nation in the world, we are laced with some common problems in life, and one of the problems is that we must try to solve our economic problem which represents two schools of political philosophy. Mr Speaker, whether our people will have any well-being economically, can well he seen from the non-Communist democratic socialist policies of the Government. The experience in implementing these policies is that the well-being of the people must not he sacrificed on the altar of a totalitarian government. That means their personal freedom and political freedom must not he sacrificed. In fact, whether politica1ly, culturally or religiously, the people must be allowed to progress in all respects. This means that the future of the people must of necessity depend on the manner in which the people try to solve their economic problems.

Mr Speaker, I would like to crave your indulgence to speak with some certainty that in an ever-changing developing country and society, obstinacy, totalitarianism and feudalism are some factors which will arrest the progress of our society and will hinder our endeavour to solve our own economic problems. So the manner in which we try to solve our economic problems, in fact, is a reflection of the soundness of bankruptcy of our political and economic system. Talking about the concrete contents of our political ideology, we can see very clearly what kind of political line we are taking through our foreign policy and political contentions. On the other hand, we can also see our own political stand from the reflection and reception given to our foreign policy. These facts are very concrete and I believe many of us have already been acquainted with them and I do not therefore wish to spend any more time in this respect.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to speak as a representative of the people and, in this capacity. I would like to speak with some clarity and frankness on our economic future. I hope that by so doing I shall he able to correct the erroneous attitude and ideas of some of the obscurantists in their attempt to hinder our economic progress. I do not wish to spend the time of this I louse in trying to recall the dramatic experience that we had in achieving independence. But I would like to say that ever since we were forced to leave Malaysia, there have been some feudalistic rulers who have harboured the intention to hinder our economic development. They are of the opinion that by so doing they will he able to make it difficult or even impossible for Singapore to survive as an independent nation. There are several reasons for them to harbour this idea. Firstly, they think that without a densely populated market, Singapore would not be able to strive economically. As a matter of fact, we do not think that our economic foundation depends on whether we have a densely populated market or not. This fact of a densely populated market is not the important factor to determine our economic progress and prosperity. We can see that China and India are very densely populated. They are, in fact, a densely populated market. But these countries do not enjoy a very high standard of living. What is more important is that the mere existence of a densely populated market is not the determining factor to provide us with any economic prosperity. What is the determining factor then? Let me tell you. Mr Speaker, it is the purchasing power of the people that counts. I would therefore warn those ultras and shortsighted people that although the people of Singapore are without natural resources or perhaps without a densely populated market, they have a higher purchasing power. In fact, our own population can be considered a kind of natural resources. These are the important factors by which we may achieve prosperity and progress.

Industrialisation is to be the base of our economic progress. This, in fact, is a very important factor. But that is not enough.

We must also have a very enlightened economic policy. I believe that with a very enlightened economic policy, we shall be able to make progress with our programme. The maintenance of a good labour and management relationship is very important too. We must also see that the purchasing power of our workers, our businessmen and the whole society in general, must be maintained. In this respect, I would like to mention some aspects dealt with in the policy Speech of His Excellency. We must make our goods competitive in the international market. Our prices must be competitive enough to enable us to capture some part of the international market to provide an outlet for our manufactured goods. This, of course, will depend on the political consciousness as well as the discipline and efficiency of our workers. They should have high efficiency and effectiveness in their work. Given this effectiveness and efficiency, I am sure they will put forward their best effort so as to implement what is being stated in the policy Speech.

The main factor of our industrialisation is a big consumer market. Apart from this, we should also have two prerequisites. As stated in the policy Speech, we must establish trade relations with all countries in order to get a share of the international market. The only correct policy in our trade relations is that we want trade, not aid. Internally, people from all walks of life should make a concerted effort to ensure the success of our industrialisation and to take active and positive part in all economic activities. In view of this, I am confident that in our economic development, we will be able to bring about a better and higher living standard for our people. This is not a mere slogan. I would like to make an earnest appeal to our people here in order to ensure our independence and survival. Our entrepreneurs should have a new understanding of their role. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to say that the entrepreneurs should not be concerned with their own interests and their own dividends only. They should also be concerned with the overall interests of the whole society. They should not be concerned with their market and the curve of their production. They should take a similar interest in the overall interest of our nation.

On the economic development problem, I am glad to note that certain leaders in Malaysia have realised that closer economic relations between Singapore and Malaysia is a necessity. If I am allowed to quote certain statements made by the Malaysian leaders, 1 think I can make clear what I am going to say about the economic relations between Singapore and Malaysia. This relationship should be based on mutual interest and benefit. The Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister on the 24th of November said that the Western countries should give aid to Malaysia. Otherwise, they would lose their desire for the democratic way of living. If they have a better living standard, they would not turn to Communist countries for aid. Similarly, on the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia, our stand is that we want trade. We want to survive. If our neighbouring country is not able to give us aid and, in fact, go one step further to foil our attempt to increase our trade so that we can ease our burdens and difficulties, instead of incurring a loss of trade for ourselves. This will only create instability and chaos. This will give a very good opportunity to the Communists to wreck our democratic way of life. This is not only a danger to Singapore, but it would also be a danger to other countries in South-East Asia.

Mr Speaker, when Singapore was expelled from Malaysia, the Malaysian leaders declared that the separation of Singapore from Malaysia would bring about a better understanding between the two territories. We agree to what they said. But since we have achieved independence, what is the true situation? It is a matter for regret that the Malaysian leaders have not practised what they have said. I have to point out that since Singapore is a neighbour of Malaysia, the relationship should be close. Anything which happens here will have repercussions in Malaysia. Therefore, we should progress in a spirit of competition arid strive to achieve a common prosperity for the two territories by economic co-operation.

4.35 p.m.

The Minister of State of Defence (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the process of history is relentless and continuing. We who are here today as the elected representatives of our people never did hope in our fondest dreams to be in this House today to run the affairs of an independent nation. We entered Malaysia because we believe in Malaysia - a re-unification of the people who were artificially separated by a colonial power who saw in separation the way to successful colonial rule. Colonialism has, however, historical limitations, for the process of time wears down colonial domination. People elsewhere have achieved freedom from colonialism by revolution and counter-revolution. But we in this part of South-East Asia have achieved independence by nationalism against the colonial power that knows and understands the storms that nationalism can evoke. Indeed, political and economic expediency saw the graceful withdrawal of colonialism from Malaya and Singapore, and what we, who struggled against colonialism, achieved was a social and political change for the better.

For a time we felt that we had found the answer to our ills in Malaysia. But history had destined otherwise for us. Colonialism raised its ugly head with obscurantist slogans of one race, one language and one religion, and the whole structure for which we fought collapsed. Our stand for a nation of Malaysians, multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious, foundered on the base of racial fanaticism and we were forced out of a national entity which we sincerely helped to create and nurture. What we were forced ho accept we have accepted. And now it is for us to show all concerned that we can travel the road of independence under our own steam and overcome all difficulties. Indeed, we have travelled a long and arduous road. We have overcome colonialism. We have exposed and isolated the anti-national elements and we have shown the communalists that we will not stand any nonsense.

Independent Singapore is confident of building a tolerant multi-racial nation which will be the pride of Asia and the world. We are sure that our experience in tolerant multi-racial unity will find its echo in the neighbouring territories and lead to unity with our kith and kin elsewhere. In this sense our independence is a boon. That we are independent and sovereign no one doubts, except the pro-Communist Barisan Sosialis. They have boycotted this first session of the Parliament of Singapore and history will damn them for this stupidity.

The Afro-Asian world has acknowledged our independence, and we have been admitted into the United Nations. But to the Barisan Sosialis our independence is "phoney". The term "phoney" has been so much used by them for every conceivable reason that one wonders what they really mean by "phoney". Indeed, I am beginning to think that the very existence of the Barisan Sosialis is "phoney", because they exist not for Singapore but for others who are not interested in Singapore and her people. But if they would really apply their minds to what has happened to Aidit and the P.K.I., they would have enough time to mend their ways. Otherwise a similar disaster can well befall them.

The Afro-Asian countries have accepted us as truly independent and sovereign, committed to a policy of non-alignment. Even Russia and Yugoslavia - Communist nations - have understood why we still require British bases. We are a small nation and it is only natural for small nations to require assistance for defence until their territorial integrity can be assured by other means. The fact of life in a turbulent world must be accepted and South-East Asia is today a troubled area. It would be foolish for us to say. "Out with foreign bases." The Barisan, however, use the existence of the bases as a weapon for malicious attack. Trincomalee in Ceylon was for quite some time retained as a British naval base after Ceylon's independence. President Nyerere called for the assistance of British troops sometime ago to quell a rebellion, and today Zambia is asking for British troops to guard the Kariba Dam. Would the Barisan say that the independence of these territories is "phoney" and neo-colonialist? The rub really comes when the Barisan Sosialis endeavour to dissuade the people of Singapore from joining the volunteer force for their own self preservation and security. Can the Barisan Sosialis guarantee the people this by dissuading them? We do not want large standing forces because a small nation cannot afford to have them in the first place, as its primary duty is to ensure the social and economic progress of the people. Again, we cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be an aggressor. Our size rules that out completely. However, there is no reason why we should not have a volunteer force. If the people of Singapore can fight and win against the colonialists, the anti-nationalists and the communalists, the courage and quality of our youths can also meet the challenges for our survival and protection. There is no doubt that our youths will respond to the call of duty and their responsibility as citizens of an independent country. The Barisan have lost the battle to do Singapore in. Whatever they do or say, they cannot affect the future of Singapore - a nation that has the will to succeed in the face of onslaughts from anti-national elements, communalists and the illegitimate children of both these elements, the crooks.

In conclusion, Sir, I would like to associate myself with the motion which has been moved by the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: I think it is a convenient time to take the tea break. I shall suspend and assume the Chair at 5.15 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.43 p.m. until 5.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.15 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: I understand the Minister for Law has a Business Motion to move.