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

Debate resumed.

5.16 p.m.

Mr Lee Teck Him (Tiong Bahru): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I express my support for the Motion of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his policy Speech. In the Speech it is stated that the Government would treat all races equally, safeguard their rights and interests, and realise a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society. I fully support this policy. Our country has been independent for four months now and many countries have recognised our independence and sovereignty. The majority of Afro-Asian countries have established foreign or trade relations with us.

Our purpose is to survive. In order to survive, we have to get as many countries as possible to befriend us and to open up international markets so that we can maintain our economic standards. International markets are very important to us. But the eight Barisan Sosialis Members opposite have chosen to boycott this Session. They have denounced our parliamentary democracy as false and our independence as phoney. I would like to ask them: why do they not boycott their allowance of $500 each per month? Just look at them. They want the money but they do not want to carry out their responsibility or do any work. They are irresponsible in this respect. There should he by-elections to decide their seats. They have all along been inducing the workers to go on strike and to carry out all sorts of activities to sabotage our national development programme and to overthrow our Government, so that they can have the opportunity to take over and rule the country. But their subversive activities can never succeed. They have been saying this: drive out the British bases here and make friends with Indonesia and the Communists of other countries. If such actions were possible, why have they failed? It shows that the people are very discerning and they have seen through the tactics and intrigues of the Barisan Sosialis. That is why they have met with disaster after disaster anti failure after failure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have also said that our independence on the 9th August is not "correct". We should realise that Malaysia and Singapore are economically inter-dependent. One State relies on the other for existence, it is just like a human being, made up of flesh and blood. So it is not possible for one to have only skin without flesh, or flesh without skin. That is the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia. The logical conclusion, therefore, is the coming together of the two territories. Our Prime Minister, and also our Minister for Finance, have said that the two countries should co-operate economically and work closely together in order to bring about a better standard of living for the two halves of one body of people.

For next year there is about $500 million in revenue, and expenditure will be slightly less than that, and in the end, there will be a small surplus of about a few million dollars. From this, we can see that our economy is stable. It is a sound economy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in March this year the Ministry of National Development sold the pre-war Tiong Bahru houses in order to permit the people to own their own homes. As one who resides in this area, I wish to express my thanks on behalf of the residents in Tiong Bahru to the Government. Talking of the rents of these houses, I suggest that those who cannot pay the initial deposit on rents should he given generous consideration. One month's notice of such payment should be given to these people, and only then can any action be taken. This is to lessen the difficulties of the people concerned. The practice at the moment is that a notice is issued after only seven days of the due date. Several days after the issue of this notice, another notice is issued to the occupier to quit the house. The first notice is to demand the payment of rent, and the second is to evict the occupier and also demand the payment of all rents due. In my view, this measure is a bit too harsh, because, in addition to the arrears of rent, there are other payments to be made on receipt of the second notice. So I hope that the Housing Board will take a more liberal view in this regard and not just issue eviction notices which will affect the livelihood of the people concerned. I hope the authorities will take steps to rectify these measures in the interests of the people.

5.24 p.m.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first express my gratitude to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Speech to this House, which sets out in clear terms the tasks ahead and the efforts that have to be exerted by all of us in Singapore for the future prosperity and happiness of our people.

Despite the Business sessions having commenced for several days now, I find it most difficult to comprehend the reasons for Members of this House in the Opposition to stay away, particularly when vital matters affecting the nation and the future of our people are being discussed. Although confusion and uncertainty could have led to their absence, I can only conclude that their action amounts to a clear abdication of their responsibilities to the people of Singapore. These men, who have constantly spoken as if they, and only they, are the knights of freedom and democracy and leaders of the people, have now demonstrated publicly that it is part of their creed to abdicate responsibility whenever it suits them - without even ascertaining the wishes of those who elected them to this House. To use their own vocabulary, I can only say that their actions in this regard are indeed phoney, particularly when it is abundantly clear that these Members of Parliament are abiding by the wishes of Dr Lee Siew Choh, who incidentally is not a Member of this House, as against the wishes of those who elected them. It is obvious from their actions that it is they who are the stooges and not us in the N.T.U.C.

Having been given a glaring demonstration of their intellectual dishonesty, I am sure that our citizens now realise that they have elected a bunch of men who are prepared to make unsubstantiated criticisms about this House after having been here for the past two years and not forgetting the financial rewards they have derived from its membership. Be that as it may, what other interpretation could we give to this insane move? Could they have exhausted their supply of gramophone-record-like speeches and remarks? Is it because they now find it extremely untenable to continue as spokesmen for the anti-national forces, following recent developments in our neighbouring country? Or can it be that, with their channel of overseas instructions, which had served them well during the few years, now disrupted, they are awaiting fresh channels of communication to be established? To my mind, it is this disruption of the channel of communication and the delay in receiving directions from abroad that has prompted them to stay away - lest any remarks they make in this House prove to he contrary to instructions that may yet come from their foreign masters. Whatever it may be. I feel sorry for them today. The intelligence and political awareness of our people makes it impossible for them to play the role of "Proxies" for overseas masters, without being hounded from pillar to post, and life indeed must be difficult for them.

In the policy Speech of the Head of State, reference was made to the need for awareness amongst workers in Singapore for the successful industrialisation of Singapore and the creation of job opportunities. Mention was also made of irresponsible trade unionism and trade union actions for political motives. First, Jet me assure the House that the democratic trade union movement in Singapore, which today represents more than 75 per cent of organised workers, is fully aware of its responsibilities. It believes that it cannot operate in a vacuum. As an organised part of society, it believes that it has a clear and positive role to play, primarily to safeguard the legitimate interests of labour and to fight exploitation of labour in any form. It also recognises that the economic stagnation of Singapore must inevitably mean the emasculation of the labour movement, and therefore its own future is inextricably tied up with the economic future of Singapore. I would like to remind this House that it is this basic and fundamental realisation that has led workers, led by the N.T.U.C., to give their full support to Singapore's industrialisation programme. We fully believe that this programme must succeed and, we say here and now, that in the years ahead, we will demonstrate our capacity and ability to adjust ourselves not only to meet the challenges but also prepare for some of the sacrifices which the pioneering years of industrialisation ahead will call for. But, lest it be mistaken, let me also say that workers have no intention of giving any employer a blank cheque for exploitation. In this regard, it will largely fall upon Government to continue to ensure that employers make an equal contribution to the national development and share our trials and tribulations. We seek an assurance from Government that it will not encourage employers to seek refuge from their obligations and use these economic circumstances to exploit and stifle the aspirations of workers in Singapore. As my colleague, the Member for Bras Basah has already mentioned, employers in Singapore, like any employers elsewhere, are already giving different unintended interpretations to certain remarks of the Prime Minister. We are also aware that some among them even chose this occasion to use our struggles against the anti-national forces in our midst to play workers against workers, thus hoping to deny workers in the democratic trade union movement their legitimate rewards. To those employers, I give notice that, notwithstanding the need for stable labour conditions for our own economic future, we in the democratic trade union movement will not hesitate to make exceptions of such employers, regardless of Government's policies. We will endeavour, through sheer economic unionism and not political motives, to teach them some lessons on how collective bargaining and labour-management relations should be conducted in a free and independent country. In welcoming this remark by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I hope that the Government will equally ensure that employers do not take this plea for stable labour conditions to be an indication that Government would he a silent spectator of the exploitation of workers in the process.

Finally, it was indeed heartening to note that our foreign policy aims at having the maximum number of friends and the least number of hostile countries. Speaking as a worker, I must say that this is indeed an enlightened policy to follow. We workers in Singapore have always recognised this need for positive neutrality and Afro-Asian solidarity. Unlike those absent Members from the opposite row, who preach a brand of Afro-Asian solidarity which changes from time to time, the workers in the democratic wing have consistently believed that positive neutrality was and still is the correct policy for Singapore. We have never supported ideological exclusiveness and have always adhered to establishing fraternal relations with workers in the Afro-Asian world on the basis of mutual respect for each other's approaches to fundamental problems. As evident from the large number of fraternal delegates from the Afro-Asian trade unions who recently gathered in Singapore for the National Trades Union Congress Annual Convention and the international Labour Seminar, these policies have always paid dividends. Having succeeded in a small way in fostering this friendship among Afro-Asian nations for us in Singapore in the trade union field, we naturally feel confident that we can speak from direct personal experience that the policy indicated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech is the right one to adhere to. We should consistently display our adherence to the principles of non-alignment and the ideal of Afro-Asian solidarity, based on the Bandung principles. Far from being fence-sitters, we should never hesitate to make known that we dislike anybody making up our minds for us. Speaking on behalf of the workers of Singapore, I am indeed glad that the Government has seen the righteousness of this trade union philosophy in international relations and embodied it as the cornerstone of the foreign policy of our nation.

Speaking as one who belongs to the democratic trade union movement, let me assure the House that the workers of Singapore will stand resolutely by the Government in the years ahead so long as it adheres to a policy of positive neutrality in international affairs and respects the institutional independence of the working class led by the National Trades Union Congress.

Permit me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to close my remarks with the expression that the workers of Singapore, with their high degree of political consciousness, will have no sympathy for those who have so disgracefully abdicated their responsibilities to the people of Singapore and stayed away from the open argument taking place in this House, to decide the destiny of our nation.

5.38 p.m.

The Minister of State for Culture (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of the Prime Minister to thank His Excellency for his Speech in this Parliament.

Mr Speaker, speaking as the Member for Hong Lim, I have a mixed variety of feelings. The by-election in Hong Lim has, to a certain extent, some connection with the independence of Singapore and the emergence of a Parliament in Singapore. If the P.A.P. had been defeated in the Hong Lim by-election, probably we would not have had an independent Singapore, to say nothing of a Parliament. Even the existence of the Legislative Assembly would have been in doubt under those circumstances.

The facts show that after Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia, the leaders of our immediate neighbouring country said openly that if Singapore had not agreed to leave Malaysia, then probably repressive action would have had to be taken, thereby giving rise to further bloodshed. That clearly shows that they would not have hesitated to do what they had said they would do if Singapore had refused to leave Malaysia. Under those circumstances, if we had not left Malaysia, there would not be an independent Singapore nor a Parliament sitting today.

Mr Speaker, after Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia, what do we see with regard to the actions of the Barisan Sosialis? In page 1 of the Barisan Party Organ published on the 11th of September, we notice one article with the title, "Where is Democracy? An Open Argument". In this article, the Barisan demanded the immediate convening of Parliament; and the article went on to say, "The Lee Kuan Yew regime still refuses to call a meeting of the Legislative Assembly in spite of the repeated requests of the Opposition Members. The Lee Kuan Yew regime seems to treat the question of independence as one of its own Party's problems, thereby treating the Legislative Assembly as an expendable showpiece." Mr Speaker, this is from an article published in the Party Organ of the Barisan Sosialis wherein they made their demand.

At that time, the Government was very busily engaged in setting up relationships with other nations in the world, laying its foundations in the international arena, and finding trading outlets for the people of Singapore. So a Goodwill Mission under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister visited countries in Afro-Asia and Eastern Europe. We have made friends with these countries and we have laid a new foundation in our international relationships. The Goodwill Mission has accomplished its task, and we are now in this House. But we are facing a boycott by the Barisan Sosialis. Why should they boycott the proceedings of this House? Only a few months ago, Mr Speaker, they were clamouring for an immediate sitting of the Assembly. Why should there be a sudden change now in their policy and strategy? I think we should review the circumstances, and I can offer several reasons for their boycott of this Assembly. Firstly, they are running away from facts and realities, because they know by now that more than a hundred nations in the United Nations Organisation, including Russia which is a Communist country, as well as the other Communist countries, have recognised Singapore as an independent sovereign State; and if the Barisan Sosialis Members were to attend the sittings in this House, then it would be difficult for them to reconcile the fact of their attendance with their slogan of "Phoney independence! ". They would then be making a laughing stock of themselves. That is the reason why they are not attending these proceedings.

The second reason, Mr Speaker, is that there is now an internal split in the Barisan Sosialis itself. Dr Lee Siew Choh, not being a Member of this House, cannot give expression to his showmanship in this House and so he does not want Members of his Party to avail themselves of the opportunity to do so. Neither is he in a position to gain control of those Party members who have divergent views and he is afraid that they may say something against him or his Party in this House. That again is another reason for the boycott.

The third reason, Mr Speaker, and this is the most important one, is that some leaders of the Barisan Sosialis have already succumbed to the truth. Some of them have openly shown their repentance and confessed that they have made mistakes in the past. They have criticised and even renounced Communism. Others who do not dare come out in open criticism of Communism are in a state of confusion, thereby making themselves fit for psychiatric treatment.

All along, Mr Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis have been boasting that only their Party, the Barisan Sosialis, have the support of the people. This is what they have been claiming, and they say that they alone really represent the people. But look at the facts, Mr Speaker; the referendum in 1962, the general elections in 1963 and the Hong Lim by-election in 1965 all go to prove that the people are on our side.

The people of Singapore support socialism, democracy and parliamentary procedure. They are in support of a socialist democratic Party, because they realise that socialist democracy and a socialist democratic Party like the P.A.P. can bring about the progress and prosperity of Singapore without bloodshed. They can raise the living standard of the people. The people have realised that only by democratic socialism can they have a better future. Since the Barisan Sosialis have learnt these lessons from history, they have come to realise that it is impossible for them to capture power by the one-man one-vote system through peaceful means; so they have no choice but to change their basic stand in abandoning the line of capturing power by democratic means.

Mr Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis have not been genuine in their belief in the parliamentary system. In fact, they want to make use of this system to destroy the system itself in order to establish a one-party autocracy. If they were really sincere in their belief in parliamentary democracy, then as an Opposition they should have had some effect in this House, because it is under the system of parliamentary democracy that the Opposition is charged with the responsibility to guide and criticise the Government, to point out the mistakes of the Government, and to put the Government on to the proper path, so that whatever actions the Government may take or are taking will not be against the interest of the people. But in spite of the responsibility charged upon them, they are now boycotting the proceedings in this House, thereby showing that they have forsaken the mandate given to them by the people.

Mr Speaker, we support the bi-party system because we are of the opinion that, although human beings are the most intelligent of all forms of life, they are by no means perfect. Even saints themselves are not infallible. So we cannot say that whatever we do is not without fault. That is why there is the necessity for an Opposition to be present here and this is part and parcel of our parliamentary democracy.

Mr Speaker, under this parliamentary democracy the Party in power has to go back to the people every five years. It has to return the power to the people at intervals of five years. Because of the existence of an Opposition and because of the fact of having to return the power to the people every five years, there is the necessity for the Government or the Party in power to be very careful in handling the affairs of the people and the nation. But today, because of the boycott staged by the Barisan Sosialis, the P.A.P. in this House is without a single opponent, a situation which has been forced upon us. But in spite of all this, Mr Speaker, and in view of our beliefs, our convictions and our respect for the parliamentary democratic system, we are encouraging our Back-benchers to come out to criticise the measures to be taken or have been taken by the Government.

This again goes to show our sincerity in our belief in the socialist parliamentary democratic system. If the people have lost confidence in the Barisan Sosialis entirely so as to result in all the 51 constituencies being in the hands of the P.A.P., thereby making the P.A.P. a one-party autocracy, then whatever it may be will be achieved through the democratic process of the one-man one-vote system, and this will be done by a general election. The abandonment of the democratic struggle by the Barisan Sosialis is worthy of our attention, because we have to know what steps they will take to achieve their aims. Will they, for example, go beyond the constitutional limits to resort to unpeaceful and unconstitutional means for their revolution? This will only be proved by time and history. We do not know at this stage, but at any rate if they choose to do this, then I can foretell their fate right now - that they will only be digging their own graves.

Mr Speaker, in order to have a Common Market we tried very hard in the past to secure a merger by way of Malaysia, but the Barisan at that time were shouting that merger was phoney. If, assuming that they were right, that merger was phoney, that merger sold away the interests of the people of Singapore, then today we would not have been kicked out of Malaysia.

Mr Speaker, the slogan of the Barisan Sosialis all along has been that Malaysia is phoney, that Malaysia is a neo-colonialist plot, an intrigue, but in spite of their slogan, they sent three representatives to the Parliament of the Malaysian Federation. In fact, they were sworn in and demonstrated their loyalty by taking part in the swearing-in ceremony for Malaysia at that time. If Malaysia was phoney, then why should they swear the Oath of Allegiance to Malaysia? Now they turn round and say that Singapore's independence is phoney. This is the biggest laughing stock in the twentieth century. This is a most peculiar way of talking things in this century. Those who believe that Singapore's independence is phoney in fact require more psychiatric treatment than the inmates of Woodbridge Hospital, because ever since we became independent, there has not been a single country which has opposed our admission to the United Nations Organisation. Even Russia has not objected to our presence in this world body. In fact, Russia has agreed to send a trade mission to Singapore. The same applies to some East European countries which are Communist in nature. They are also willing to come here to establish trade relationships with Singapore. If Singapore's independence were phoney, then the more than one hundred countries which have recognised us, the people of these countries must have been mad, but the fact is that those who have gone crazy are not the one hundred and more nations which have recognised us, but the Barisan Sosialis. It is the Barisan Sosialis that have gone mad. I say so because we can never see anywhere in the world any people who refuse to recognise the independence of their own country. If the Barisan Sosialis still refuse to recognise our independence, then they must also admit that they are phoney citizens of Singapore. That being so, they are not fit to be citizens of Singapore and they should not enjoy the rights of Singapore citizens.

Mr Speaker, as we can see now, even Russia, China and some other Communist countries have recognised their independence. They recognised their sovereignty and their nations as such. The true disciple of Marxism was Trotsky who believed that the revolution of the Communist world must be above the national interest. It was only he who genuinely believed that after the successful revolution of the Communist world, all nations in the world would perish. Perhaps the Barisan Sosialis is the incarnation of the life and soul of Trotsky. And it will attempt to start a world revolution in the Communist fold above the national interest. In the minds of people like Trotsky, nations are phoney; it is revolution that is genuine. But what happens to this kind of people? They are either crazy or they have committed suicide.

The eviction of Singapore from Malaysia is a temporary result of the battle between the nationalist and communal forces. We have to avoid this type of cold war. In fact, this cold war turned into a hot war, namely, bloodshed, as a result of communal strife. So Singapore was evicted from Malaysia.

In Singapore, we have faced many trials and tribulations. Those of us born and bred in Singapore cannot forget our brothers and sisters across the Causeway. In fact, the worst thing one can do is to lie to oneself and say that the people of Singapore and Malaysia are two different types of people. For 140 years, the people of Singapore and Malaysia have been under the rule of the British colonialists. They went through similar sufferings in both territories and they were determined to strive for freedom and independence. We are determined to suffer and work together. This spirit of sacrifice and hard work is not what the Constitution can provide. Neither can the constitutional arrangements stifle these qualities. In the last two years, we have felt the poison spread as a result of the work of communal forces, and we hope that our brothers across the Causeway will not repeat this foolish act.

Ten years ago, Singapore suffered a great deal because of the emergence of communal forces, and now we have been evicted because of the rise of communalism. We do hope that history will not repeat itself.

Singapore is an island faced with trials and tribulations. After the P.A.P. Government came to power in 1959, we went through serious troubles almost every year. In 1960, there was Mr Ong Eng Guan who believed in individualism and who liked to fish in troubled waters. In 1962, he revealed his hypocrisy. He claimed to serve the interests of the people, but in fact he was a pseudo-revolutionist. And in 1962, he was busy with slogans of "phoney merger", and he called for general elections. These were the years when we had Mr Ong Eng Guan and the Barisan incidents. In 1963, there was a general election. In 1964, we participated in the Federal elections and there were two riots in Singapore. In 1965, we were kicked out by the racialists from Malaysia. It seems that every year there are incidents.

The P.A.P., while undergoing all these difficulties, has been able to fulfil the Five-Year Development Plan. Through democratic socialist methods, it has resolved the housing problem and has improved the living standard and safeguarded the welfare of the people. And we have established the basis for industrialisation. All these achievements have been due to the support of the people. Therefore, these achievements go to show the hardworking spirit and intelligence of our people. Therefore, although independent Singapore is faced with all these difficulties, I believe, in the end, we can overcome them with the co-operation of the Government and the industry of the people. The people will, in the end, overcome all these difficulties so that the Second Five-Year Plan can materialise. Economically, we need new markets so that our manufactures will have an outlet. We need to build more factories in order to provide more employment opportunities. But we must understand that in any newly emerging country, there must be a period of trials and tribulations. Germany, which was a defeated country, went through various trials and tribulations. But because of the determination and hard work of the people, they have rebuilt their country and their living standard has also been raised. There is a saying that whoever can endure extreme bitterness can become a man among men.

I hope the workers in Singapore can forge ahead and consider the long-term interest in order that our industrialisation programme can materialise and that they would not just pay heed to the immediate interest and forget the future. If they can do so, then our industrialisation programme will materialise earlier and our better days will come earlier. We must always remember that although Singapore is a tiny island with a small population, her importance is internationally recognised. We remember that before the Second World War, there was a militarist who said that whoever had control over Singapore could control the whole of South-East Asia. Our neighbouring countries have recognised Singapore's strategic position. Although the British bases are here to protect Singapore, we must not forget our lesson in 1941. At that time everybody thought that Singapore was an impregnable fort, that it could not be conquered, and that everybody need not worry. Yet history has proved that in a short period of one week, Singapore was taken like a split bamboo. Why is it that Singapore fell so easily? The main reason was that Singapore was then a colony. Nationalism had not germinated, and Singapore was not defended by her own people. It was not backed by the people. We can learn a lesson from this. It is only through our own strength and our own efforts that we can truly defend our own country and preserve our own security.

There are some countries which are small, such as Switzerland, but their citizens are patriotic. They can turn all their people into soldiers, so that even strong nations would not dare bully them. Although there are many soldiers with modern weapons in Vietnam, there is no end to the war there because they do not have the support of the people. So we cannot fully depend upon the British bases to defend ourselves. We must depend on our own strength, and we must have the backing of the people.

Although we have been kicked out from Malaysia, the two subsequent by-elections in Malaysia have proved that the seed of nationalism has germinated and is coming to fruition. We also hope that with the increased trend towards nationalism, Malaysia will in the end be united.

Just now I have given the example of Switzerland. Such countries can even defend their tiny nations against strong nations when they have the support of the people. Hitler was a very notorious dictator who looked down upon other nations. Yet in the end he was defeated. So it is in Singapore. If all the people are patriotic and are willing to sacrifice themselves; if they are solidly united and willing to work hard, then I believe no country in the world will dare to bully us.

We hope that in our multi-racial society, all the races will be loyal and serve our country. We must give equal treatment to all the races. We must have a multi-racial policy. That is why we have tabled in this Parliament the Republic of Singapore Independence Bill and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. They have provisions to safeguard the interests of minorities. They will give freedom in language, religion, culture and other things. This is a basic principle in democratic socialism. Based on this principle - a multi-racial society - there will be peace, progress and prosperity in Singapore.

We must understand that Singapore is situated in South-East Asia, an area surrounded by some anti-Chinese countries. Any chauvinistic attempt to turn Singapore into a third China will only bring about a major disaster and tragedy to the people of Singapore. Singapore will be encircled by unfriendly forces.

Let us point out seriously that if there is an upsurge of racialism in Singapore, then the consequences will not be just one or two internal racial disturbances in Singapore, but it will also have repercussions outside Singapore. If we allow Chinese chauvinism to rear its head, then Singapore will easily be isolated in South-East Asia. It will be a country encircled by unfriendly forces. They will then attack Singapore, which is a tiny country. Under these circumstances, we cannot imagine that we can get help from Communist China or anywhere else. The question is that, "The distant waters cannot be made available to quench the fire that is immediately before us." We have a situation in Indonesia where the Chinese are persecuted. China could not send troops to Indonesia to protect the Chinese other than raise some protests. The Indonesian Communist Party has been suppressed by the Army, and yet the Chinese Communist Party could not intervene. They could not send troops to help the P.K.I.

Another point is this. Small countries which can he protected by China are, from the geographical point of view, close to the Chinese border. "The near waters can he made available to quench the immediate fire." Of course, that is quite possible. There is the convenience of nearness. Also, if anything happens next to the Chinese border, assistance from China will be quick and immediate. This is all due to the favourable geographical position. But the situation in Singapore is different. The Barisan Sosialis' idea is to set up a Communist Singapore or a Chinese Singapore. Whatever they may want Singapore to be, they will finally put Singapore in a situation where it is surrounded by anti-Chinese forces. Up till now the Barisan Sosialis is pursuing a foolish line - rash, reckless and dangerous political adventurers - a line which will ultimately lead Singapore into a situation which I have described just now. I hope they will reconsider their step and not allow Singapore to come to an impasse. Singapore must not be allowed to get into such a situation, a situation in which she is surrounded by anti-Chinese forces. There is only one way out, and that is, to practise multi-racialism and democratic socialism, There is no other alternative. This policy depends on the concerted action of all the people.

Yesterday the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department, Inche Yaacob, said that we were faced with the Ultras, Malay racialists, who were persuading the Malays in Singapore to go across the Causeway. This is another manifestation and challenge of racialism. If this scheme were to succeed, then naturally Singapore would become a Chinese State. But we believe that this intrigue or scheme will naturally fail because the Singapore Government has shown in all respects that its policy is one of multi-racialism and that it alone can look after the interests of all races.

The future of Singapore depends on democratic socialism and a policy of multi-racialism and a non-Communist society, together with our non-aligned foreign policy. We can then establish friendly relations with all countries of the world, including the Republic of China.

Although we want to establish friendly relations with the Republic of China, we do not propose to let Singapore become a third China, because this will only lead to suicide. This is a suicidal attempt. Only a policy of multi-racialism and non-alignment can lead Singapore to the path of peace, progress, and prosperity, and this policy that we have is not unique in the world.

Just now I have mentioned that certain countries are able to prosper through two world wars. One example I gave was Switzerland, which safely went through two wars and yet was able to build herself up. This was all due to her policy of non-alignment and also to the fact that no other country wanted to bully her. It is because her people are loyal to their Government and to their country. So in this situation the only sane thing to do is to look after the people and maintain their economic, social, political and racial interests. Seventy-two per cent of the Swiss people speak French, and 20 per cent speak Italian. Also in other countries with people of different races who speak different languages, there is no hindrance to their national development. In Switzerland, the national languages are French, Italian, Swiss, and German. This is so today. And the people who speak these different languages are liberal-minded. So I hope that every one, particularly the people of Singapore, should he liberal-minded and should not force others to speak only one language.

What we fear is the language policy adopted by our immediate neighbour. We hope that every citizen can speak the national language. Nevertheless, the method to be adopted should be one of persuasion and not of compulsion, because history has taught us that in a multi-racial society where one racial group tries to compel other groups to do its bidding, then there will be no peace, progress, or prosperity in society.

We in Singapore feel that our policy of multi-racialism is the right one, and there will be safeguards written into our Constitution to preserve the rights of the minority groups. In foreign affairs, our policy is one of non-alignment. With all these policies and with the support of the people, we can succeed in making Singapore the Switzerland of the East in a few years' time.

Mr Speaker, I support the motion moved by the Prime Minister to thank the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for delivering his Speech.

Mr Speaker: It is close to 6.30 p.m., and in accordance with the resolution of the House, this House will now adjourn.

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