Hansard, 1955-04-26

Mr Speaker, I rise to propose the name of Mr R. C. H. Lim for Deputy Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I rise to second the motion.

Mr Speaker, I rise to propose Mr R. Jumabhoy as Deputy Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I rise to second the motion proposing Mr R. Jumabhoy to be the Deputy Speaker.

We will proceed to ballot under Standing Order No. 2. Ballot held.

The result of the ballot, hon. Members, is that Mr R. C. H. Lim received 18 votes and Mr R. Jumabhoy 12 votes. I declare that Mr R. C. H. Lim has been duly elected Deputy Speaker.

"to declare and define certain powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislative Assembly established under the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, and of the members of such Legislative Assembly, to regulate the conduct of members and other persons in connection with the proceedings thereof, to give protection to the persons employed in the publication of the reports and other papers of the Legislative Assembly and for purposes incidental to or connected with the matters aforesaid". presented by the Attorney-General (Mr E. J. Davies); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 24th May, 1955, and to be printed.

"to consolidate and amend the law relating to labour", presented by the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 24th May, 1955, and to be printed.

Hon. Members will please wait until their names are called before they speak.

If it please you, Sir, I move, That this Assembly, in accordance with Standing Order No. 61 of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly, Singapore, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection:- The Hon. Mr Lim Yew Hock (Member for Havelock). Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Member for Tanjong Pagar). Mr Lim Choon Mong (Member for Serangoon). Mr Mak Pak Shee (Member for Geylang). Inche Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid (Member for Southern Islands).

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with Standing Order No. 61 of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly, Singapore, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection:- The Hon. Mr Lim Yew Hock (Member for Havelock). Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Member for Tanjong Pagar). Mr Lim Choon Mong (Member for Serangoon). Mr Mak Pak Shee (Member for Geylang). Inche Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid (Member for Southern Islands).

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my privilege today to move the motion which stands in my name, That this House conveys its humble duty and thanks to Her Majesty the Queen for Her Majesty's gracious message. It is with pleasure, I am sure, that hon. Members of this House noted the message and its terms, particularly that part especially, Sir, which stated, "I look forward with every confidence to the faithful discharge of this trust for I am sure that those on whom this responsibility falls will carry it out with foresight, courage and honesty of purpose." Sir, it is reasonable to hope that as this confidence is proved to have been well placed in the months ahead, it will be but a prelude to far greater things. I beg to move, Sir.

Mr Speaker, I rise to second the motion. I believe that Her Gracious Majesty has indeed done Singapore an honour to give us such an encouraging message.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House conveys its humble duty and thanks to Her Majesty the Queen for Her Majesty's gracious message.

Sir, I rise to move Motion No. 3 on the Order Paper in the name of the Chief Minister, namely, That this House conveys to the Secretary of State an expression of warm appreciation for his message. Sir, in this message of greetings and goodwill is an expression of regret that neither the Secretary of State nor any of his Ministerial Colleagues could be present in person to deliver the message. I feel sure, Sir, that all of us share that regret, because if the Secretary of State or one of his Ministerial Colleagues could be present with us that day, we would surely have taken the immediate opportunity afforded us to discuss the question of complete self-government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion moved by the Member for Havelock. While seconding this motion, I am deeply moved by the message of the Secretary of State when he said that it was with every confidence that he looked to the Assembly and the Council of Ministers to build and maintain a tradition of mature deliberation and of sound and impartial administration. Sir, I do hope and believe that all of us will take that message to our hearts, and will deliberate the various problems of this country with maturity and impartiality. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are asked on this motion to associate ourselves with the Government to thank the Secretary of State for the Colonies for having sent us this message. Far be it from the People's Action Party not to observe the civilities and courtesies of life, but I think it is important that we should take this occasion to remind ourselves what we have to be grateful for. In his message he said, "It gives me great pleasure to send a message of greetings and goodwill to the Legislative Assembly of Singapore on the historic occasion of its first meeting under the New Constitution. My only regret is that neither I nor any of my Ministerial Colleagues can be present in person to deliver it I must first of all congratulate all those who have taken part in the working out of this New Constitution, the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir George Rendel who now see the fulfilment of their labours and His Excellency the Governor and his officers who have devoted much time to framing and bringing the Constitution into operation. Secondly I want to express the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom at the successful completion of an important task which is signified by the convening of this Assembly today and our most sincere good wishes for the prosperity and happiness of Singapore in the New Era which is now opening. It is with every confidence that I look to the Assembly and the Council of Ministers to build and maintain a tradition of mature deliberation and of sound and impartial administration. You will I am sure prove yourselves worthy of the high trust which has been reposed in you by the people of Singapore. Good luck to you all." We join with the Chief Minister and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sir, in all these pious hopes, and we thank him for his good wishes, but we take exception when he says, "I must first of all congratulate all those who have taken part in the working out of this New Constitution, the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir George Rendel". Sir, the authors of this constitution, with some exceptions, were not representatives of the people. Its Chairman was a man with a very distinguished career in the diplomatic service, amongst whose many achievements in life was a trip across Saudi Arabia at the invitation of King Ibn Saud. No doubt that gave him a sufficient understanding of our political and our economic problems, but the people of Singapore on 2nd April did not congratulate these men and they decisively showed, with one exception, that they would not have the authors of this phoney constitution. That one exception, Sir, is because the Member concerned is a man who is versatile, a man of many sides and many colours, a man who was agile at some later date to dissociate himself from some very spurious provisions of that recommendation. An hon. Member: Shame!

Shame indeed on him for not having had the courage to say then and there, "I sign a minority report." Now, Sir, not so very many months ago an enterprising newspaper published a very elucidating article in which the new Member for Cairnhill, the Hon. the Chief Minister, said this constitution is out-moded even before it started, and if men of stature were asked to operate the constitution it would not work.

Correction. That is an inaccurate report of what was indicated. I said that men of stature, if elected, could conflict very sharply with the Official Ministers designated in that constitution. I did not say it was unworkable.

Very well, Sir. I am afraid I must apologise to the Hon. the Chief Minister for having so inaccurately summarised it; but be that as it may, what the Hon. the Chief Minister said then, and I hope he still believes it now, is that men of stature will find it difficult to work this constitution in opposition to the Official Ministers. Now, Sir, I think the People's Action Party is charitable enough to believe that there are men of stature on the Benches opposite, and we look forward with great anticipation, and even with some amusement, to the conflicts that will inevitably arise if there are men of stature. We in the People's Action Party believe that freedom is the inalienable right of any people anywhere in the world, and it is not for any retired diplomat who has travelled across Saudi Arabia or any colonial official to say that we are not fit to run; we are not fit to walk; we are not even fit to stand on our own feet. The people of Singapore - is it on a point of order, Sir? - I had hoped that there were men of stature opposite, but I might yet be mistaken in that pious hope. We believe, Sir, that this country is fit now for full self-government, and, but for that useless, spineless lot that was supposed to represent the people of Singapore in that Constitutional Commission, we would not today find ourselves with the Governor's triumvirate, the men whom the Government has referred to as professional administrators - and no doubt they are capable and efficient. Finance, law, the police, the civil service - these are the three keys on which the whole system operates. The People's Action Party went before the electorate and said that we rejected this constitution in toto. We say this constitution is a sham. We say this constitution is colonialism in disguise. Only a few days ago an eminent supporter of the Government Benches, who was in Bandoeng, no doubt exhilarated by the high rarified mountain air in those parts, was moved to say that this constitution was nothing but a cloak for colonialism. Sir, I can only hope that his thoughts, the inspiration that he received in those parts, will not be altogether lost and that all the difficulties of booking air passages would have been worth-while when he returns and carries on the inspiration to his colleagues on the other side of the House. But we need not go to Bandoeng to understand that what the people want is freedom, above everything else. A very distinguished politician and diplomat once asked us whether, if the People's Action Party lost the elections, it would mean that the people did not believe in freedom, the people did not want freedom. We did not say that, that if that were so, the people did not want freedom. But it is quite clear that when the people on 2nd April decisively rejected those parties which were tinkering with the colonial system, those parties which were afraid of change, those parties which advocated orderly gradualism, they were swept out because the people would have none of them. And if they wanted to congratulate the framers of this constitution, as the Secretary of State for the Colonies wishes to congratulate them, I think the Chief Minister opposite and quite a number of his friends and colleagues would not be in this House. Finally, Sir, no one in this House knows for how long this constitution will last. No one knows for how long this Assembly will last. But for as long as this Assembly lasts, let it never be forgotten that there are only 25 men here who can stand up and say "I speak for the people. I speak for the people of the constituency I represent"; that four men are here by leave and licence of His Excellency the Governor of Singapore; that they represent no one but themselves and their friends whom they are supposed to typify; and that the three professional administrators are in three pivotal positions. And we can only hope that there are men of stature in the Front Benches opposite who will prove that this constitution is not worth working and unworkable. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would therefore move that the motion to thank the Secretary of State for the Colonies be amended by the addition of the following words at the end of the message: "save and except for that passage in his message where he congratulated all those who had taken part in the working out of the new Constitution, the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir George Rendel". Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not a motion of no confidence in the Government. We fully endorse the Government's policy of civility and courtesy to all those who are civil and courteous to us, and it is necessary that we should return the felicitations that have been sent to us. But right across party politics, we must, on this first business meeting of this House, make a clear and categorical assertion that we do not accept this constitution as befitting the people of Singapore; that we do not say this is a constitution which should be given to free men in a free world; that this is Asia and we are part of that Asia which is asserting itself. Both the Government and the Opposition, or some parts of the Opposition - I expect some parts of the Opposition to be even more vehement than the Government Benches opposite in their defence of the Constitutional Commission - but apart from them, there should be agreement as the Chief Minister said six months ago, this constitution is out-moded; we do not thank the people who framed it; and that is the amendment I seek to move, and I hope the Chief Minister and his friends and colleagues are still of the opinion they were when they went before the electorate and said "This constitution is no good."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the amendment. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with very real regret that I note an attempt to make a political issue out of an act of courtesy. It is not, I respectfully submit, Sir, the appropriate moment and in so far as we have been attacked for moving that motion of thanks, which is the normal act of courtesy for greetings and good wishes received, I should like to make our position clear with reference to the particular passage envisaged by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew). Sir, as we have clearly indicated in our policy which will be debated in our motion of thanks to His Excellency's Address, the Government is of the view that the present constitution is inadequate, but it is not of the view that it is unworkable and never has been. There will be conflicts, Sir, there is no doubt about it, but the policy, the doctrine, of collective Ministerial responsibility will, I think, prevail in all circumstances, and make it workable where there is goodwill. Whatever the conflicts within the Ministerial ranks, it must be remembered that the people have the majority representation in the Council of Ministers, and the majority decision will prevail, and I am satisfied, with only the past fortnight's experience, that I will have the Official Ministers' loyal co-operation in this House, whatever the conflicts within the Council. Sir, Sir George Rendel has been somewhat slightingly referred to. I can say that I view with amazement what has been achieved in view of the atmosphere of the times when certain so-called leaders of the people of this country advised him. Sir, but five months ago language was used in this House which I dare not have used myself and would never dream of using, language of so discourteous a character that I have no doubt you would not permit it, but which I trust you will permit me to read since it is from the records of our predecessors. On the 2nd of November, 1954, the President and leader of the then only existing political party of any standing, Mr C. C. Tan, made these remarks, Sir, in this Council Chamber: "I do not think that anyone, except a few dishonest, self-seeking demagogues, will maintain that a period of another eight years will be too long to endure before we achieve self-government", and it is my maligned colleague and friend the Member for Havelock (Mr Lim Yew Hock) who said, "Too long." Sir, in that atmosphere, with that advice, with the so-called leaders of this territory pleading, "Do not give us self-government. We do not want it. We are not ready for it, please."- it is in that atmosphere that Sir George Rendel and those who believe in freedom and democracy managed to achieve what Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to call a "significant advance" in our political development, and it is a significant advance. Sir, with reference to this amendment which the Member for Tanjong Pagar has asked us to view on a non-political basis, I, as the Chief Minister, will not seek to use the Whip on voting - if voted on it must be - but I will say for myself that I consider the amendment discourteous, inappropriate and unfair.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully sympathise with the mover of the amended motion, but I would like to say this: that nobody in this House who has the interests of the people of Singapore at heart would venture to suggest for a moment that the constitution suggested by the Rendel Commission is the most appropriate one for this country. I do believe that we are not considering that subject now. If the constitution suggested by Sir George Rendel has been faulty, I would say that it was not the fault of Sir George Rendel or the members of the committee; it was the fault of the people of Singapore.

Rubbish!

For some time they have been apathetic towards the political problems facing this country. We had not mobilised our resources and organised political movements in the way that we should have, the fact being that the people have been organised into various political camps, which has enabled the Government to split hairs in the political scene. For example, we have a number of political parties here. They all have always the welfare of the people at heart. They all aim at one thing, but in different ways. If the whole political structure had been based on one ideology and thought, i.e. the political emancipation of this country, then I would say that we would have got a better constitution than the one which we have at the moment. On the one hand, we had the people divided into various parties, and a solid Government bloc on the other hand. The people divided themselves, and therefore we had to suffer the consequences. All we can do at the moment is to seek a better future, reorganize our political parties in the best possible way, and see that in the coming years we get a better constitution. It may be, as my colleague has suggested, that the constitution may break, but we will have another opportunity of holding general elections and put matters right. Sir, in opposing this move, may I suggest that I have no intention of going into details of the whole message. What I am doing is to say a word of thanks for the message which the Secretary of State has sent in the normal courteous manner.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand now to speak against the amendment to the motion. We still believe that it is much too early for us to do anything except to try out the government which has now been so graciously entrusted to us. We have seen with our own eyes what is happening in this part of the world - in the territories that are not more than a few hundred miles from us - with all the disorder, disorganization, corruption and troubles which they are facing. Should we, gentlemen, go through that phase when everything has been promised to us? Our education is notably far from complete. Our system requires a lot of overhauling. Our technical training is very poor, and we still have very few people, local people, to man all those very important posts which will be open to us in a few years' time. It may not be eight years, it may be four, but let us take our time, learn our lesson, and do not run before we walk. I am sure the House will join with me in rejecting this most unwelcome amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to speak on the amendment. It is rather surprising, Sir, that so soon after the election we have again election speeches. I have just moved a very harmless motion, just a motion to convey an expression of warm appreciation for a message; and I even said in my speech just now, Sir, that I shared the regret that if the Rt. Hon. the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers could have been present with us at the official opening, we would have accepted that immediate opportunity to discuss immediate complete self-government. I made it rather clear, Sir.

Otherwise you would not?

No. Otherwise, Sir, it would mean that we would have to go to the mountain. Sir, I find it difficult to reply to the, shall we say, odious remarks that have been hurled at the members of the Rendel Commission, because I was one, but I am here to say, Sir, the public knowing that I was one have returned me to this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had no idea that I should rise so early in the House, but I now do so because I am delighted to learn from the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) that I only represent myself. So I think I have every right to say something. I should like to remind the House of the conditions the British Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden) when he was Foreign Secretary laid down, I should say suggested, should be fulfilled before the Federation of Malaya attained self-government. They were, firstly, to suppress terrorism; secondly, to see that the people were on guard against Communist infiltration and aggression; thirdly, to develop a sound economy and administration and to achieve a durable accord between races; and, fourthly, to provide a secure system of defence. Well, as I see it, the British Government, present and past, has been falling over backwards to give self-government to these territories, and in doing so, I feel that in retarding - what the Member for Tanjong Pagar regards as retarding - this progress I think they have been wise and far-seeing.

Shame!

Speaking as a native of a country that has experienced seven centuries of freedom since Magna Carta, I thoroughly sympathise with the feelings of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, but I agree with the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) that the time is not yet ripe.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak on this amendment which we cannot support, but I must express my regret that the Chief Minister has used discourteous, phrases towards his recent opponent in the constituency of Cairnhill. He himself expressed regret that the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) had been discourteous in this House. Let us remember -

On a point of order, Sir. Is it proper for him to indulge in this personal attack on a Question of the motion before the House?

Sir, I do not think I was indulging in any personal attack.

I have been asked to rule on a point of order, whether anything that the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede) has said is a personal attack. I for one have not as yet discovered anything of that nature in the Member for Tanglin's speech, but if he does speak in that strain, of course I will have to rule him out of order. Please continue, Mr. Ede.

Sir, all I wish to say is, let us remember that the gentleman referred to was a member of the Constitutional Commission, and he helped to frame the new constitution which the Chief Minister himself has said is workable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now actually only trying to frame a message of thanks to the Colonial Secretary. We are not debating on any political issues. In effect, the Colonial Secretary has been correct in praising the people who sat on that Commission. Way back in 1947 or 1948 we started our election. If there are people who think that they are good enough to represent the people did not come out and allow the other people whom -

We are not good enough.

- the people have trusted to come out and represent them, what grouse have they got in such a matter? Again we must see that credit must be given to those pioneers who are setting us up towards the road to independence. We cannot, at a jump, achieve what other nations have achieved after a long time, but we do not at the same time say that we are not fit for anything. I think it is the duty of Members of this House to see that we must get independence as fast as we can take it. I think it is important that we should give this constitution a fair trial, and as it becomes evident that we are able to take on more responsibilities, then we should so frame our constitution again in order to achieve the early aims of independence. On the matter of colonialism, paternalism and all that, I believe that there are two forms of colonialism. We do not want both. Perhaps we are now trying to get rid of one, but we do not want the other type of colonialism. That is not only going to tie us physically, but will also tie us up spiritually. We detest that other form of colonialism. On the matter of the leader of my Party, I believe that he has been a good man, a very reasonable man. If he had not been, he would not have been elected once, and again, and I believe that he was not far behind when the votes were counted. Such a man has given his service to this country for a long and continuous period, and I think credit must be given to him. Hon. Members: Too long!

On a point of order, Sir. May I reply to the amendment?

There is no right of reply on an amendment. Question put, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." The House divided: Ayes, 4; Noes, 24; Abstentions, 3. Ayes Noes Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat. Goh Chew Chua. Braga, A. J. Lee Kuan Yew. Chew Swee Kee. Lim Ching Siong. Davies, E. J. Ede, John. Goh Tong Liang. Goode, W. A. C. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lazarous, A. R. Lee Choon Eng. Lim Choon Mong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Marshall, D. S. Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Seah Peng Chuan. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. Abstentions Jumabhoy, R. Lim Cher Kheng. Tan, William. Question on the amendment accordingly negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House conveys to the Secretary of State an expression of warm appreciation for his message.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the,motion that stands in my name is, That this Assembly expresses its thanks to His Excellency the Governor for his Address delivered on Friday, 22nd April, 1955. On this motion, Sir, it is traditional that the policy of the Government is debated, its point of view is amplified, and the Opposition has an opportunity to attack. At this point in our history, Sir, it is perhaps appropriate to look back a little to see how and why our policy has been evolved the way it has shaped in the Address. Hon. Members have heard that at the beginning Singapore was a village situate where this Assembly House now stands, and today it is the tenth busiest port in the world with a population of more than a million. In between, Sir, we have established a gold-mining town economy. The law of the jungle translated into business terms was our basic philosophy of economy, and the god of money was the god of gods. Our gold, Sir, is our geographical position - we are at the crossroads of the world; and also in the flood of expatriates from many lands who flocked to this territory to make their fortunes. The English expatriates, Sir, whom Sir Stamford Raffles called "merchant adventurers of our nation", using their military and their political power, backed by their economic resources and experience, maintained a rigid and overwhelming domination over the Asian expatriates to whom was relegated the role of worker ants. These are the people who became the merchant princes, the taipans of the East, with the Government officials their willing satellites. They found it convenient, Sir, for the better control of the mass of Asian labour, without which this port would not have developed, to permit some few Asians to achieve prominence in the economic field - and only in the economic field. A sharp line of domination was drawn between the white man - lord of the earth - and the Asian, his humble slave, his inarticulate slave. To support this political and economic set-up, we had that very convenient theory that in Singapore nobody lives, that Singapore is but a port of call. It is known as the theory of expatriates, the land of expatriates. Singapore is only the land of the prospectors for gold. The white man did not live here permanently, was not domiciled here, and it was convenient to assume and for Government to proceed on the basis that nobody lived here, and eyes were closed to the cemeteries that proved this theory false. It was a convenient theory, Sir, because it meant that Government had no obligations for social services of any nature. Its only obligation was to hold the ring and let the prospectors slug it out, making quite certain that the expatriate from the West had such political assistance that he was at all times the victor, the dominating factor, in every strategic aspect of our life. The Government services, Sir, were keyed to the welfare of the wealthy, and only the wealthy. It is true we had medical services, but that is because, unfortunately, Sir, we have never been able to educate the bug of disease to recognise the sacred division between the wealthy and the poor, and so we had to have medical services for the poor as well as for the rich in order to protect the rich. There was no need for schools, Sir, since there was no expatriate to educate. It was soon found, however, that the commercial machine required cheap local fodder, and so we had schools that turned out tambies and clerks. Just a few. The rest of the children, who did not exist in the eyes of the Government, had to depend on mission schools, on the private charity of communal schools; but large sections of them, Sir, were left uneducated; and how convenient! because the uneducated are far more docile and far more amenable to the role of economic slaves. They formed our bulk of untrained labour, cheap labour, Sir, and every effort was made to depress the labourers as far as possible. Our gates were thrown open to floods of emigrants to maintain cheap labour to the greater glory of the profit earner. Such was our tender regard for the wealthy that Government never dared suggest that they should contribute anything to the cost of running the Government. The cost of running the Government was largely defrayed by profits from the sale of opium, encouraged amongst the poor, the coolies. In the days when I was young, Sir, I remember vividly one sunny day watching a Chinese labourer hefting heavy bales from a lorry to a godown, and I said to him, "How much do you earn?", and he said, "50 to 60 cents a day." I asked, "What do you do with it?" He said he spent 35 to 40 cents on opium; and when I protested at this extraordinary extravagance, his calm reply was "If I don't have opium, what have I to live for?" It is this coolie, Sir, thrown on the slag-heap of our gold-mining town economy, who has largely been responsible for the development of our port. It is this coolie who has paid for our Government in the past. It is the sweat and the misery of this coolie, extracted from him in generous measure, that has been transmuted to the milk and the honey on which the wealthy feed to slake their queer thirst for more money. It is on this slag-heap, Sir, of our economy that we are sacrificing the mass of our population, the hundreds of thousands who live in sties, in dens of disease, on pavements, the large mass of our school children who have to depend upon private charity for education. It is on this slag-heap that we find our vaunted standard of living, the highest in Asia. Even if that were true, Sir, what it amounts to is this. It is depressingly, unnecessarily, dreadfully low - $3l a week is what our manual worker gets - when he gets work - $3l a week! Can hon. Members understand $31 a week? - to have a family, a home and to live normally - and this in the richest country in all Asia, with an estimated income every year of $2,000 million or more! The smouldering embers of the slag-heap, Sir, are throwing out poisonous fumes of hatred, so bitter that it cannot distinguish between the system and the rulers. These fumes and this slag-heap are a danger to the health of the entire people of this territory. They are a menace. It is in this context, Sir, that Government laid its plans, and it is because of this context that primary emphasis was laid on the need, the urgent need, to free the people of this territory from the twin evils of racial domination and economic slavery. It is my belief that in this constitution, which we have so recently heard attacked, lies the opportunity to achieve those aims. Sir, I have been called a political innocent-[Interruption.] (yes, out of the mouths of babes and sucklings it has been said, I would remind the hon. Member) - and that, Sir, because I am told I place too much faith in the English. Sir, in this city of my birth, which holds a unique position of being the crossroads of the world, many peoples and many cultures meet, and differing peoples absorb different proportions of the various cultures. I will freely admit that by virtue of my education, particularly by virtue of my training and professional calling, I have come strongly under the influence of English concepts of living. Sir, I will freely admit that, whatever the transient antagonisms, I am basically pro-English. I know it is supposed to be political suicide to admit it. I have been told that repeatedly during my campaign. I believe in facing facts, Sir. I seek nothing for myself, and from that fortunate point I can indulge in the luxury of the truth. During my political campaign, whatever might have been the adverse effects of admitting it, I clarified my position and I would like to repeat it. As a Malayan I have naturally sought to lean backwards against my natural bias in order to assess wherein lies the true welfare of the people of this territory, and I have come back always to the same conclusion. I am convinced that the great majority of the English people are now conscious of the evils of colonial rule, and I will say this to some of the hon. Members opposite - it is not fair to judge the English people by the conduct of the old guard colonials whom we find in these territories. It was an Englishman, Prof. Silcock of the University of Malaya, who said, "Colonial rule is unbelievably corrupting to the ruler and to the ruled alike." But those of us who have had the privilege of knowing the English people in England will, I think, admit that the Englishman is as fine and decent a human being as any anywhere, and his consciousness of the evils of colonial rule has brought about - need I remind hon. Members? - the independence of India, our great neighbour, and those other great neighbours of ours - Burma and Ceylon. I hope some will remind me that it was the Labour Government which conceded that independence. I think in fairness I should indicate that only recently Sir Winston Churchill's Government - a Conservative Government I believe - gave Sudan its independence.

Sir, on a point of order. Is it relevant, what he is speaking?

It is not out of order.

If my hon. Friend is pained by the truth, he has always, I understand, Sir, the liberty of walking out. I shall not miss him. I was saying, Sir, that it is only in friendly negotiation, I am convinced, and in co-operation with England that we can achieve complete internal self-government in peace. That is the keynote of our entire philosophy - peaceful development through democratic process - and I can assure hon. Members present that whether the mountain comes to Mohamed or not, we shall commence within this year, I hope, negotiations with the Secretary of State which we hope will lead to complete internal self-government within the life of this Assembly.

It had better be.

It is not sufficient.

I think it comes ill, Sir, from us to question the good faith of a nation that seeks to give us its hand to help us to our feet. The present constitution is an earnest of that good faith. Our present constitution was evolved, no thanks to our so-called leaders, because the English people are aware of the inarticulate cry of the masses who had no leaders to speak for them at the time of the Rendel Commission, or very, very few - one, as far as I know. Sir, from whatever angle we view this problem, we always come back to the same conclusion, and I think hon. Members will agree that the welfare of this territory is knit with close and friendly relations with Great Britain. I have spoken of self-government. The question of independence is tied with the question of union with the Federation. Sir, the separation of this territory from Malaya and from the Straits Settlements has brought, I understand, some material benefits. We are the richer territory proportionately, and if there is to be union we may have to share our wealth. The Government is not of the view that money is the all-important factor in human life and as soon as the newly elected Government of the Federation is ready, we shall open negotiations for a union to lead directly to independence. Self-government, Sir, and even more, independence, requires a domiciled civil service, and although I am advised that Malayanisation of the civil service has been the policy for many years, the present position is most unsatisfactory and this matter is receiving anxious priority consideration from our side of the House. There will be no further recruitment of expatriates except in imperative circumstances where we have no alternative, and even then, even then, generally on contract only.

Always.

Sir, that is the political aim. In the economic field Government is anxious not to alarm capital. We do not wish to do anything which would prejudice the already meagre livelihood of our people, and in order to achieve our twin aims of increasing trade and commerce and industry, and to move steadily towards a welfare state, we plan, as hon. Members have heard, to have an economic adviser of world repute, an economic planning commission of men of recognised standing, and a trade advisory council representative of all commercial and industrial interests in this territory to advise Government. Hon. Members need not fear that they will hinder Government's aims. There is no question of that. But it is our view, Sir, that business men who, by virtue of survival in competitive callings, are normally of more than average intelligence, once they are satisfied that we are being guided by experts, once they are satisfied that they have to deal with men who seek to give them fair treatment and not the Frankensteins of their heated imagination, we believe that these people will awaken to a realisation of one important factor to commerce, and that is this, that the success of our welfare projects will mean greater security for their own investments in this territory. On the subject of housing, Sir, my friend and colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat), will deal with this, but I think I should deal briefly with the policy of Government with reference to immovable property. Immovable property is an essential commodity of life, as necessary to human beings as food and water. To-date, Sir, there has been the most extraordinary profiteering in pursuance of our jungle law economy in that essential commodity, and this to the very grave prejudice of the welfare of the people of this territory. There is the Land Acquisition Bill which our predecessors did not care to pass. The Government is of the view that that is very anaemic, whatever others may have thought. It is wholly inadequate, and it is our intention to bring before you a comprehensive bill freezing all values of immovable property, probably with retrospective effect to the date of the Address, and we will seek additional powers of acquisition. There will be no more profiteering in land. Sir, to some, the question of free legal aid may seem minor. I am of the view that it could have a tremendous influence on the life of the people of this country, and a truly beneficial influence. Those of us, Sir, who know our system of justice, know the comfort and the pride we take in it, recognise that it is one of the principal pillars of the development of this territory. It is unfortunately true, Sir, that the heavy cost of legal assistance in many instances makes it impossible for the common man to obtain the full protection and seek the full advantage of our magnificent system of justice. I know, Sir, as does my hon. Friend opposite, that a certain amount of good work is being done in the Social Welfare to advise those in need on legal problems. There is also in forma pauperis procedure which some fifty people a year take advantage of. These are superficial palliatives. It is the intention of the Government to take the law to the people, to decentralise our law courts as far as possible, and by making available fully trained qualified Government employees in a legal aid bureau, to assist the poor both in civil and criminal cases, and in advice out of Court. It had been hoped that today we would have at least one more Bill tabled, Sir, the City and Island Council Bill. The Government recognises how urgent is the measure and how important that we should not further prolong the prolonged life of the present City Council, which does not reflect the true balance of opinion of the people of the territory. But, Sir, principles of an extremely important character connected with that Bill have been raised, and all I can say is that we shall do our utmost to present it at the next meeting, on the 24th of May. Sir, a short acquaintance, a very short acquaintance, with Government, does seem to indicate that we are apt in many spheres to live on a somewhat extravagant scale, and we intend to take action shortly to bring about a realisation by the various Departments of the important need for economy. Every dollar saved, Sir, is an extra dollar for social services for which there is such a crying need. In every sphere of Government activity Members sitting on this side of the House are finding it necessary to reassess the existing policy and to lay down fresh instructions. The task is considerable. Our programme has been called ambitious. I freely admit we are ambitious, very ambitious. Our ambition, Sir, is to bring hope and sustenance to the frustrated and the dispossessed majority of the people in this Island. Our hope is to gather in the bitter, the angry, the despairing, within the warm fold of fellowship and mutual help in a united people. Our hope is to bring a realisation, Sir, to these people so far left out in the cold, that this Government is their Government, that we on this Front Bench are not the heaven-born, sitting on the snow-capped peaks of Olympus, but in all sincerity their servants, seeking their welfare. It is our hope to bring this Government to the people ever more closely, so that it can be true that it is they who govern. If we can only impress the people with a realisation, with the vision that is ours, of a peaceful evolution to a dignified way of life for all the domiciled races of this country, Sir, we may look forward with confidence to the day when the various peoples and the various cultures of this country have so inspired each other that Singapore, the crossroads of the world, will be the brightest star in the Eastern sky. This is our ambition, and this is our task, Sir, and I would like to say to Members opposite, "This is your task too." I expect, we all expect, we welcome from hon. Members opposite honest criticism, because in that way we learn. Where we err, hurl your rocks. I shall gather each and cherish it and build my house the better for it. But where you agree with our platforms, do not only pay lip service. Whatever party you may belong to, and if you belong to no party at all, Sir, I would say to you, "Come in and help. The birth of a new Singapore should not be a matter of a political party. Come in and give us your assistance. Our doors are open day and night to you, and not only on Mondays." Sir, I beg to move.

I think I had better make certain points quite clear to hon. Members. Hon. Members must remember that when a Member is speaking, there must be silence. There must be no unseemly interruptions. I have been indulgent, and I propose to continue being indulgent in this formative stage, but my indulgence may be strained. Let the item proceed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion of the Hon. the Chief Minister in expressing the Assembly's thanks to His Excellency the Governor for his Address delivered on Friday last. Sir, it may appear to some people, as the Chief Minister has just said, that the programme which Government has laid before this Assembly is somewhat ambitious, but if I may say so, it is a programme which should meet the pressing needs of the people of Singapore today. We shall endeavour to implement the policies laid down in His Excellency's Speech in a spirit of honesty and a sincerity of purpose, for these are two assets which this Government has in abundance. As has been indicated in His Excellency's Address, three of the important measures that we propose to carry fall within my portfolio as the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. The first is legislation to freeze the values of immovable property and give the Government additional powers for the acquisition of land for public purposes. Such legislation is designed to ensure that land, which is a very scarce and valuable commodity in Singapore at the present moment, is made available to the people at reasonably non-speculative prices. This is necessary if the Government is to keep its pledge of improving the standard of living of the poorer classes and providing them with adequate low-cost housing. In addition, it is proposed to tackle the housing problem more vigorously and efficiently by setting up a statutory Housing Authority, solely responsible to Government, to replace the present Singapore Improvement Trust. It is hoped that such a Housing Authority would be able in a comparatively short time to bridge the increasing gap between public housing programmes and the needs of the people. The third important measure for which my Ministry will be responsible is the introduction of a system of land title registration to replace the present cumbersome and costly system under which rights to and over land are recorded by the registration of deeds. The superiority of land title registration over registration of deeds is now universally recognised. The new system will certainly result in considerable reduction in the cost to the public of land ownership. As hon. Members are aware, it is proposed to introduce the Torrens system of land title registration, a system which was successfully introduced in South Australia about a hundred years ago, and later, in a more modified form, in the Federation of Malaya. I should like to conclude by repeating to the people of Singapore my assurance that this Government, which has assumed office on a mandate, will work sincerely for the promotion of their well-being and prosperity. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have just heard the Chief Minister elaborating on what he would like to do during this year. He has drawn to us a picture of past Singapore. He has painted a picture of the difficulties of the labourer, of economic exploitation, but I am more interested in what concrete plans the Government is going to put up to achieve all this. Indeed, when I first heard His Excellency's Address on Friday, I could not fully interpret it. At most I could call it as being for the most part a mixture of pious hopes and slogans. The new Government, as we know it today, has inherited from the previous Government a great deal of benefit and, in many instances, it has only to repeat and carry out such plans as have already been approved. I quote instances: "It is the policy of this Government to finance low-rental housing for those in the lower income group", but this was approved unanimously as a result of a motion by the Progressive Party in the last Legislative Council. Public memory may be short, but I think credit must be given to whom credit is due. The next important question is the union of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. We need clarification on this point. Is it going to be a union like that of South Africa, or is it going to be a federal government on the basis of Australia? In any case, we must sound a warning that in no way must it be a sell-out for Singapore. The people of this great trading centre have a right to be assured that at the minimum it must be an equal partner with the Federation, and I hope the Government will bear this fully in mind when it puts up any plan for the union. Perhaps you all know that not only is Singapore small, but the union with the Federation is still too small a territory to stand alone. And I believe that it would be very much better if it be not only a federation with the hinterland, but a federal union with such territories as North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak. If such a federation were to be realised, I believe that greater benefits would accrue to each one of the members. And I believe that it becomes not two sections - the port and the hinterland - but it can become a co-operation between many territories. Coming to the question again of the Government policy on public services, I would like to state that it has always been one of the platforms of my Party to Malayanise the civil service. Previous to this, recruitment of expatriates has been in the hands of the permanent executives, with the Public Services Commission acting in an advisory capacity. The power now lies with the Council of Ministers, and if there should be unnecessary recruitment, or further recruitment, of expatriates, we will know where that responsibility lies. It is very good to gloss over what we want to do, but the more important thing is, can we do it? How can we do it? I look at the policy of the Government, and I find that there must be a means whereby we can get to that end. The question of staffing of our senior services with local people ties up very closely with our educational system. There is no mention, however, of higher education in that Address. There might be primary education. There might be training of workers in industries, but no amount of primary education and no amount of training of workers in industry will ever lead us to have men sufficiently qualified to take over that senior service. The emphasis, may I suggest, should lie with the expansion of more secondary schools. We should assist to a far greater extent the University of Malaya and other higher institutions of study. We must give our unstinted help to the much publicized Singapore Polytechnic, which was passed in the previous Legislative Council, and if such measures should be insufficient to meet our need, would Government be prepared to augment our supply of locally trained men by granting more scholarships to our promising youths for overseas studies? With regard to the raising of the standard of living, I believe that everyone of us in this House here must agree most whole-heartedly. I find in the Address that farmers and fishermen were specially mentioned. Farmers, however, need no fair to stimulate their interest. What is most urgently required is more speedy development of rural areas and early implementation of the policy made by the previous Government for the development of rural areas with a grant of $20 million to bring the services to a proper standard. We have learnt in the past and for a very long time that the coastline of Singapore is not too very long, and whatever in-shore fishing by small fishermen has been fully exploited. If we do want to bring in a greater supply of food to lower the cost of commodities and thereby raise the standard of living, we must search for other means such as organised fishing industries. We hope Government will encourage that, because in all these cases the standard of living can only be brought down by more food to bring down prices, or increase individual income so that the people have more money to buy foodstuffs. Encouragement in this direction must be given. We noted from the Chief Minister's Address that he has been grumbling about the exploitation of the workers, about how the prosperity of this country has been built on labour; but as I go round Singapore I always meet a certain group of people, the most hard-hit people, the group of people that requires most assistance. They are the small hawkers. They number thousands. High licence fees, constant raids and heavy fines have driven this group of people to desperation. I have met a few more unfortunate ones, and some have even said to me that it would be better to be thieves rather than try to earn an honest living by hawking. Would Government devise ways and means to assist them earn a peaceful living? Would Government try and get more open spaces to build shelters for them? I believe that the preponderance of the number of hawkers in this country is a good indication of the unemployment problem, and this can only be avoided by an increase of industries. And whilst I am on this subject of unemployment, I feel, too, that unemployment in the educated class of people who are coming out of secondary schools would be acute. I forecast that the problem will be serious in the near future. We would like to know what plans Government has to combat such a problem. Coming round to the Emergency Regulations, I am really surprised that the new Government is no better than the old one. Perhaps their views have now changed, now that they are in power. We know that the new Government is contented with the removal of a few petty Regulations, but these Regulations are already dead letters. The power to arrest without trial, the most important clause, has been left untouched. It is difficult to reconcile this with the Labour Front's platform which says: "The situation in Singapore does not warrant the continuation of the Emergency Regulations and the Labour Front will seek the removal of this unnecessary and undemocratic restriction on the liberty of the people." The Chief Minister has further reinforced this platform over Radio Malaya by saying in no uncertain terms that the Emergency Regulations are not justifiable. Under the Emergency Regulations, a man can be convicted out of hand as a result of confidential reports of which he and his lawyer know nothing or very little. We are for law and order, but we believe they can be maintained without these extraordinary laws. And now I believe that those who have voted Labour will know what they have been voting for. We do not, however, say that this attitude of the Labour Government is wrong. We believe, too, that the security of the whole people of Singapore at large must be maintained, but we always believe in an honest platform. I think while we are on these Emergency Regulations we might also refer to such Regulations as those relating to the Publication, Control, Sale and Circulation Regulations, 1950, for the Press. These Regulations were introduced in 1950 during the Korean war. And again there were the highly unpopular Emergency Newspaper Regulations of 1951. These are still allowed to remain undisturbed. I believe that it is high time that such repressive Regulations should be repealed, and I believe, too, that the laws in our ordinary statute book should be sufficient to control the Press. On the matter of social services, we must congratulate the Government for focusing its attention on the aged, the disabled, and the unemployed. For the youths of Singapore at large, however, the Government policy is silent. It is a matter of right and urgency that the youths of Singapore today, who will be the citizens of tomorrow, deserve a little attention from the Government. At present youth clubs and organisations are mainly the responsibility of public spirited and generous people. I would like you to compare what they did in England or what they are still doing now. In a county called Glamorgan, where the youth population is 57,500 between the ages of 11 and 20, the total estimated expenditure for the year 1955 to 1956 is �63,000. How does this compare with our own budget for assisting youth clubs? The problems of today must be tackled. If the youths of Singapore today are to be the good citizens of tomorrow, conscious of their responsibilities, then, I believe, they must be guided. Not only must their education be adequately catered for in schools, but after school-hours their excess energy and their leisure hours should be channelised and guided by experts. We ask Government that it be considered, and that plans for enhanced assistance to youth clubs be considered. I would now like to refer to another point in the Address, namely income tax. The present income tax laws have not taken into account the family unit in Singapore, which is entirely different from that of the West. Parents out here are regarded as very important parts of the family, and rightly so; they should remain to enjoy the support and continued love of their children even after retirement. Hon. Members here will agree with me that it is a good system. Further, I believe we can all agree that because of such an attitude, it has made old-age pensions, as practised in Australia, unnecessary in Singapore. Furthermore, we have less people in need of public assistance owing to the Social Welfare Department. I make this point in order that in our income tax laws the regulations may be revised so as to include parents under income tax relief. Finally, I must come down to what has always received the popular support of all parties - multi-lingualism. My Party has never been opposed to it. We have always been motivated by the idea of efficient despatch of public matters. We are agreeable that any system that meets with popular approval should be given a trial, and a very fair trial. We are agreeable that if it should be tried out in the City and Island Council, no restrictions on dialects and languages should be made, no sections of any population should be debarred from using their language. If it is successful, I believe it will receive also the blessings of my Party. And before I end, I would like to assure the Government side that whatever proposals or projects that are good for the people and the country will always receive our support. On the other hand, we trust that the Government will serve all sections of the people without bias.

Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to express my views on certain planks on the Government's programme as stated in broad lines in His Excellency the Governor's Address to this Assembly at its inaugural meeting on 22nd April, 1955, and the address by the Chief Minister a few moments ago. The programme is, of course, a programme of the Welfare State, which the Labour Front has promised its electorate and now endeavours to present to the people. In so doing, the Government should bear in mind the fact that in order to carry out the programme it will be necessary to consider how and from where the funds may be obtained. The simple answer that the Government may provide would, of course, be the raising of taxation, but before the Government resorts to this measure it should first explore all possibilities of increasing the revenue and income for the Colony. The Democratic Party has emphasized the importance of expanding trade and industry, and I hope that the Government will bear this in mind in carrying out their programme. On the Government's policy on education, I am pleased to note that the policy of the Government is to aim at equal treatment for all schools and all teachers in those schools.

Point of order. Is the hon. Member permitted to read his speech?

The Standing Orders are, of course, against Members reading their speeches, but I have not noticed that the hon. Member has, in fact, read his speech. Carry on, Mr William Tan.

On the Government's policy on education, I would like to quote these few words: "the policy of the Government is to aim at equal treatment for all schools and all teachers in those schools". By this I take it that the Government means that it intends to have a common policy for all schools. May I ask the Government, is it for only schools for one particular language, or schools for all languages? And I feel and believe that there must be no discrimination between English and vernacular schools. I feel also that Government may wish to bear in mind the underlying principle that education for all citizens is properly the Government's responsibility, and aids should not be used as reward for behaviour nor lever to secure obedience.

Point of order. Is the Chair satisfied that the hon. Member was reading from his speech, Sir?

I have not, in fact, noticed anything out of the ordinary. Mr William Tan.

On the subject of acquisition of land for public purposes, we note that the Government intends to acquire land. Additional acquisition of lands means additional revenue. Due regard must be paid to the interest of the people whose lands are being acquired, and safeguards must be made to protect their interests. Considerable extent of land has already been acquired - take, for instance, Changi - and this land, I believe, is still yet undeveloped. The Government should therefore reconsider from where this additional revenue may be raised. Civil Service. I, of course, heartily support the Government's policy of Malayanisation of the Civil Service and venture to express that it should be carried out without undue delay together with the attendant training schemes for local personnel. But I would like to ask the actual meaning of these three words - "adequate abolition terms". What does it mean by "adequate abolition terms"? How do you consider the terms to be adequate? Take, for instance, when we engage an officer, the officer in this case will say that he expects to rise to the rank of a Governor, and the terms to satisfy such an officer may be colossal, and I trust that the words "adequate abolition terms" will be clarified by the Government.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this sitting be suspended until 2.30 p.m." (The Chief Minister). Question put, and agreed to. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.17 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate resumed on Question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the speech of the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), much of which was quite commendable, I feel I would like to comment on one or two statements made by him. First, on the question of the schemes in respect of low housing formulated by the former Government, he asked that credit be given where credit is due. That sounds to me like the cry of a dying swan, crying out for credit and thanks in the last flutter. The necessity for any scheme of low housing was so dire and so desperately acute at that time that the last Government had to do something about it to justify its existence. Furthermore, his reference to multi-lingualism is most surprising. I think his memory is very short-lived because his great leader, my formidable and Tarzanesque opponent in Katong in the last election, when he was publicly asked whether he or his Party was in favour of multi-lingualism, he shouted out with all the force at his command, "No! Never!" This gymnastic somersault is most surprising but welcome.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it really amuses me to know that the Progressive Party has thought fit to draw the attention of Government on the question of hawkers. Little does the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) realize that this is a matter for the City Council and not for this Assembly. I quite believe that it is because of the defeat of the Progressive Party that the Member for Serangoon is trying to catch publicity in this Assembly so that by his speech in this Assembly he may be able to hypnotise the hawkers. I would draw the attention of the Member for Serangoon that in the City Council, when the recommendations of the Hawkers Inquiry Report came under discussion, it was the Progressive Party who caused all the obstructions. As a Member of the City Council, I had put forth a number of suggestions, but to my great disappointment it was again the Progressive Party who are the majority in the City Council that caused obstruction for the betterment of the hawkers. I have also on many instances tried to initiate the implementation of the Hawkers Advisory Board, which was recommended by the Hawkers Commission, but time and again it was turned down. I am again very much disappointed at that. But now the Progressives come forward and claim that they will look into the interests of the hawkers. I am quite sure that when the City and Island Council comes into being, the Government will take into consideration the vacant lands owned by the Crown, so that the hawkers may have public lands or private lands to erect more shelters for themselves. I have lately in the City Council initiated a suggestion to have prefabricated markets so that instead of putting up elaborate markets at extensive cost the hawkers will be able to put up temporary markets, movable at all times at a very low cost.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak, not as a member of the Opposition though, technically, I am sitting on this side of the House with the somewhat scattered remnants of the once ambitious party who, somehow or the other, miscalculated the intelligence of the electorate and, even worse, miscalculated their choice of songs and dances. There is a lot of speculation, particularly from those who sit on the same side of the House as myself, but whose views are as far apart from me, as from me and the man in the moon. They would wish to know, how long is this Government going to last, when is it going to finish up, and when they will have another bash? To those gentlemen who technically sit together with me I would have them know that the People's Action Party stands for freedom and will fight and support any party that fights for freedom. So long as the parties to which hon. Members on the other side belong strive towards that goal, we in the People's Action Party will be always behind them. We shall be behind them to support them and encourage them and, at the same time, to obstruct them resolutely if they should choose to beat a hasty retreat from their declared goals, which I hope will never happen. Having prefaced my remarks, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now proceed to deal with His Excellency's Address in which the Labour Front have so gracefully and so skilfully enunciated their plans and policies for this coming session. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is in a spirit of friendliness and constructive criticism that I wish to launch into what the People's Action Party considers this policy statement of the Labour Front. We are pleased that for the first time since Stamford Raffles, it has been acknowledged that the welfare of the people is directly connected with the early attainment of complete self-government; and for the People's Action Party it can never be too early. We are pleased that in furtherance of this declared objective, Malayanisation of the Public Service occupies an important place, a first place, in the policy statement of the Labour Front, which says: "In pursuance of these aims (the aims of self-government) the Government intends to give its vigorous support to the policy of staffing the Public Service with locally domiciled officers. Whilst seeking this objective, the Government recognises the just claims of officers recruited from overseas who have taken part in building up the present administration, and undertakes to look after their interests. If any of these officers are found to be redundant as a result of the implementation of the Malayanisation policy, the Government will ensure that adequate abolition terms will be fixed having regard to the interruption of the career which the officer had a right to expect when he accepted his appointment. In the meantime, no more expatriate officers will be appointed without prior reference to the Council of Ministers. The Government has implicit confidence in the continued loyalty of the Civil Service." Sir, the Chief Minister today has expanded on the statement and said that there will be no further recruitment of any expatriate on the permanent establishment unless it is absolutely essential. We in the People's Action Party are disappointed that this policy of Malayanisation, this declaration of policy, does not go far enough, and has not laid down in more concrete terms, the methods, the ways and means by which this policy is to be implemented. May I remind the Labour Front that they were somewhat less concerned with quelling the alarms and anxieties of expatriate officers when they framed their election four-year programme? This present declaration of policy is full of solace, consolation and reassurances, of bounties to come and bounties to go. But when they went to the electorate, and they were elected on this programme, they said: "The Labour Front stands for complete and rapid Malayanisation of the Public Services by domiciled officers. Transients, whose loyalties are elsewhere and who regard Malaya merely as a stepping-stone in their personal careers, may be retained on temporary contracts, coterminous with their utility." That is a much fiercer statement, more becoming of a very fierce party. But be that as it may, I think the Labour Front can be confident that if it fails in this Malayanisation policy, then it will fail as the Progressive Party has failed, for Malayanisation is the first test of bona fides, your first act of faith. If you say, "I am going to give you freedom, I am prepared to lose my job to give you freedom," then let us see it in the Civil Service. Let us see it in all the Public Services - not just in the Administrative Branches - in the Legal Branches, in the City Council and in the Singapore Harbour Board. I think it is necessary, first of all, to remember what the present position is. By the constitution of this Colony, the Order in Council, paragraph 11, the supreme power of appointment to any public office is vested in the Governor. It reads: "Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force in the Colony or to any instructions from time to time given to the Governor under Her Majesty's Sign Manual and Signet or through a Secretary of State, the Governor, in Her Majesty's name and on Her Majesty's behalf, may constitute such judgeships and other offices for the Colony as may be lawfully constituted by Her Majesty and may make appointments (including promotions and transfers) to any judgeship or other office constituted for the Colony, and any person so appointed shall, unless it is otherwise provided by law, hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure." The Public Services Commission is constituted by local Ordinance. It has powers only to advise and its advice can be ignored. Over and above these powers reserved by the Governor, the Secretary of State has got over-riding powers, by despatch, to appoint any officer in any public service whose commencing emolument is above a thousand pounds per annum. That, then, is the present situation in a dependent territory, and it is because we are a dependent territory that we were never at Bandoeng. Sir John Kotelawala is in a much more independent position, his Public Service and the power of appointment to it is laid out in the constitution of Ceylon - it is also in our draft constitution - and section 6 of the constitution reads: "The appointment, transfer, dismissal and disciplinary control of public officers is hereby vested in the Public Services Commission." Supreme authority - appointment, transfer, dismissal, disciplinary control. A similar provision exists for the judicial officers in Ceylon, and all the officers on the Commission are local men appointed by the Governor-General of Ceylon, with the recommendation or suggestion of the Government of the day. It makes a very great difference, these things, for our Public Services Commission does not command any respect or confidence from any member in the Civil Service that I know of. It has been staffed in its Chairman since its inception, by expatriates, ex-Judges, ex-Directors of Education, people conditioned, not out of any wickedness or malice on their part, but by their years of office as professional administrators, conditioned to be unsympathetic to a Malaya that is determined to Malayanise at any price, that is determined to be free, that is determined to have its own men run its own affairs. It is a makes of paramount importance that if this Government wishes to execute its policy of Malayanisation, there must be a review of the Public Services Commission, its powers and constitution, and there must be a reorientation of the policy of that Commission. I would elaborate on that in a few moments, but first I would like to mention to the Government Benches opposite that if, 136 years after Stamford Raffles, you end up with 68 expatriate executive officers as against 23 local men, all these pious protestations of enlightened, benign, charitable colonial rule just do not stick. I hear the Chief Secretary querying himself. I beg his pardon. 63 to 28 - a little more for the colonial system. If, after all these 136 years, out of that 28, only three were found capable of becoming, not the Permanent Secretaries who embellish the corners of this House, but just Deputy Permanent Secretaries; I would say 3 out of a hundred and thirty-six years makes it an average of 45 years each to produce a Deputy Permanent Secretary; that is the glowing tribute to an Administration which says, "We have come here to give you your freedom. Slowly, gentlemen." In a Paper before the Legislative Council last year the old Government (which my colleague, who really ought to be on some other side of the House than mine, has praised as part of the achievement of the old Government) adopted this Council Paper in which they suggested Malayanisation was a very important thing, and they should go on with it at the rate of four recruits per annum. At the rate of four recruits per annum to replace the 63 serving officers I should think 16 years will be required, and I believe even his ex-leader said eight years. Sir, I do not know if anybody worked out the arithmetic of that one. But in this Council Paper it is stated in paragraph 11: "In view of the shortage of personnel in sister territories, where possibly the inflow of qualified candidates is not as great as ours, we would be helping their recruiting position by withdrawing our claims on the services of expatriate staff of the non-specialist category, and review our indents on the Secretary of State accordingly. Sarawak in particular"- God bless Sarawak-"has intimated the difficulty experienced in attracting expatriate officers to her Services because of the superior salary scales offered here. On our part, we can but observe the injunctions in the paragraph from the Command Paper quoted above: it is not hastening, but regarding, the process of gradual assumption of responsibility by local people to continue to be dependent on expatriate staff when the duties involved can be performed just as well by local people. Apart from implementing what is really our recruitment policy, the employment of local staff of equivalent standard in place of expatriate staff represents a definite financial saving." There is an admission by the Committee which sat on it, including expatriate officers, that the talents of these professional administrators were much more urgently required elsewhere, but they chose to come to Singapore for some altruistic reason connected with the salary scales. And we are asked today, having attracted and retained them because of this wonderful salary, expatriate allowances and pensionable and non-pensionable expatriate allowances, to tell them that we are sorry that since their careers are to be interrupted, they must receive special consideration. As, not my friend, but the leader of the Democratic Party - one of the two, so one must lead - has said, there has been no clear detailed submission of what these abolition terms are; so my remarks here are purely by way of suggestion. The Government has not said what it proposes to do. The Government has declared its intention, declared itself very strongly in favour of compensating and comforting those who may lose their jobs. But I think it is useful to remember the present terms, apart from abolition terms, the present pensionable terms given to a man who is allowed to retire from the Public Service prematurely, on the ground of temperamental incompatibility or for reasons of health; he automatically gets a pension at a very early age of life, whatever his age may be, and for the rest of his life, and he gets a pension if he is an expatriate officer on his pensionable expatriation allowance, that allowance which we pay him to attract and retain him but which we continue to pay him long after we do not want him. Further, one must remember that it is as well in these matters to reach broad agreement between the Parties in the House because, as the Hon. the Chief Minister will know, no government can bind us, no declaration of intention, no declaration of policy, can bind the succeeding government, or even the government of the day. Speaking for the People's Action Party, I cannot assure any expatriate officer largesse galore and bounties galore. Their rights as public servants will be respected, but we cannot be party to anything which is by way of special consolation. Finally, Sir, on this question of Malayanisation, I think there is considerable cynicism not only amongst local serving officers, but also amongst local people outside the government service. This business of looking for talented young men and being unable to find them either in the universities or even in the Public Services themselves is one which we have got very tired of. Every year from the University of Malaya, every year from universities in Britain and Australia and other parts of the English-speaking Dominions, returned students come back, and I think it is a brave man who would say that they are not the equal, broadly speaking, in intelligence and grit of any other student anywhere in the world. And yet, we get this dismal story. Where there is personality, for some other reason a man is not acceptable, probably because he holds views not akin to those which are held by the ex-Director of Education or the ex-Puisne Judge who happens to head the Commission and the two gentlemen who sit with him and who certainly have not the confidence of the people reposed in them. I think immediately a proper Commission has been set up, a review must be made of all cases of people who have been turned down for one reason or another, for there is a very strong suspicion that a man who does not hold the views which the Government would like a civil servant to hold is never allowed to be a public servant. Of course, sometimes a few people do become civil servants and then alter their views so radically that the Government wish they had never employed them. But having employed them and being caught by their rules, they then set about amending the Pensions Ordinance to see how they can set about putting the matter right. I would repeat once more that the first test before this Labour Government is the expedition, the drive, with which they go into their Malayanisation policy.

Labour-Alliance.

Labour-Alliance cum colonial government, because let it never be forgotten that it is not the Chief Minister but the Chief Secretary who is in charge of these matters and he has them very well under his control; and I hope he will accept the collective responsibility because it is finally his Chief Minister who must answer to the electorate for his sins of omission and sins of commission. Now, Sir, it is always said that we, as the Member for Serangoon has said, have no talents. If we have talents, we have no experience. If we have experience, we have no talents. If we have talents and experience, we have no qualification. It is one of those curious things. So in the City Council, for instance, out of 228 Executive Officers, 159 are expatriates and 69 are local; and this, I believe, after four years, or was it six years, of the good Progressive Party administration in the City Council. And I think the City Council's servants and their friends have had a great deal to do with the results of the last election, because local people do not take kindly, when you say, as they said in the case of three very senior appointments in the City Council: "You cannot be the Deputy Water Engineer because Mr White or Mr Black is senior in status." That was said on two occasions. On the third occasion the unfortunate Malayan was senior in status and so they said: "Well, it is very bad luck, but you have not got anti-malarial experience and so you cannot be Deputy Health Officer, and Mr Green will be the Deputy Health Officer because he had one year's special anti-malarial training." That is the sort of thing that breeds cynicism and a sense of hopelessness that there is no good faith in this Government. Well, I hope the admission of six new blood, injected into the old colonial system, will have changed the whole outlook and character of this Government. In fact, we are looking forward to some drastic changes in its outward manifestations. These are the difficulties you have to face, Mr Speaker, Sir, that unless the Government can pursue this policy of Malayanisation not only in the Government Public Services, but in all the Public Services and, last but not least, in the Singapore Harbour Board, where a very important Public Service is run almost exclusively by expatriate officers, there is going to be a great deal of, I would not call it sabotage, but I would just say, general dislocation, when a really vigorous Malayan Nationalist Government takes over in the very near future, when the Labour Front Government, as I hope, would have succeeded by then in removing the gentlemen who ought not to be in this House. I hope therefore they will give this matter their earnest consideration and, after earnest consideration, their untiring drive and devotion. Now, Sir, two more important but somewhat less exciting matters like Emergency Regulations. The Labour Front, particularly the Chief Minister, (a very, very able exponent of Socialism, having sat, according to one learned American journal, at the feet of Mr Attlee and one Mr Bevan) has said, perhaps in a moment of exuberance, that he wanted to repeal the Emergency Regulations. Now, Sir, my Party, for some reason or the other, has always been the target for rather unhappy, disconsolate and disconcerted attack-that we are extremists, that we do not stand for law and order, that we deliberately foster chaos, dissension and disaster. I think it is refreshing if this House could be reminded that it was the People's Action Party which carefully weighed and considered the Emergency Regulations, and as its election programme said, not a repeal of the Emergency Regulations, but "repeal of the arbitrary powers of arrest and detention without trial, of the restrictions on freedoms of speech, of assembly and of publication, which are all contained in the Emergency Regulations." It is said with care, with circumspection and with deliberation - as the People's Action Party always makes its pronouncements. We do not issue statements and then afterwards want to retract them, amend them, and, if possible, tear them up and forget that we have ever said them. But it was the Labour Front, in a beautifully printed manifesto which says, as the Member for Serangoon has said, that they were going to repeal, according to the heading, "THE REPRESSIVE LAWS", and I have to endorse, they are repressive laws. But we either believe in democracy or we do not. If we do, then we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from any democratic process, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed. If a man chooses to carry a hand grenade or a revolver, or some other lethal weapon, in times when the Governor and the High Commissioner have proclaimed a state of emergency, then he takes the supreme penalty the law has laid down for him. But if a political party wants to hold an election meeting, or even a post-election meeting after 7 o'clock, they are told: "We do not believe in democracy after the election. We only believe in democracy once in four years, for one month." That is not the kind of democracy that you can inspire men with, to fight for and die for. That is not the kind of democracy that is going to make it tick in South-East Asia, if you tell us that we can hold a public meeting in the heat of the sun at four o'clock or five o'clock when nobody would come to listen to us, when therefore there would be no real danger of any democratic movement starting, but that we cannot hold a public meeting after 7 o'clock, when by the habits of the workers they would have returned from work, the earth has got cooler, the walls have got cooler, the night is getting mellow and warm speeches can be made. But, no! That is not allowed. And yet, we are asked to believe that this is democracy. I must say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this is a very queer and curious democracy, the definition of which is not in the P.A.P. pamphlets. I sincerely hope the Labour Front will have time - I acknowledge that they have not as yet had time to consider all these aspects for the time being, but I hope they will have the time - to consider whether they would place their faith in democracy. If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought, and no excuse, whether of security, inconvenience to the traffic, or inconvenience to police officers, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right. There are, of course, a number of relaxations such as the firing of crackers after dark, and I am quite sure that someone has said, I do not know whether it is stated in malice, Mr Speaker, Sir, but it is said that perhaps they wanted the Labour Front supporters to be able to fire crackers, to celebrate their victory after dark. But I am quite sure that there will have to be a great deal of heart-searching on this question of Emergency Regulations. The Hon. the Chief Minister in his pamphlet and in his broadcasts under the old apple tree, which has stopped bearing apples ever since, has said again and again, "Out with it! It is unjust! We are the inheritors of a magnificent system of justice." Well, let us have it now. Let us now, now that it is in the hands of people who have such fervent and fiery convictions, translate them into action. Let us see whether this fiery demagogue is a man of action. I would say if he would go as far as the People's Action Party, which has said these things perhaps with less zeal or resilience, warmth, fire, expression, but with more circumspection and deliberation, he would have done very well indeed, and he would be assured of the support of my Party. Next, may I, after being somewhat uncomplimentary on the Emergency Regulations, compliment his Minister for Labour for the prompt assertion and categorical statement that trade unions should be allowed to take part in politics? Some other gentleman who thought trade unions should not take part in politics but should form organizations as they do in America has now been put into premature retirement and I think that is just as well for himself and for the public which he never served. And we also like to express our happiness that this foolish business of preventing Government trade unions from mixing up with other trade unions just in case they get revolutionary ideas about how to deal with their employers, the Singapore Government - we are glad that that is also gone. But let me remind the Minister for Labour that there is such a thing called the Trade Disputes Ordinance, I think passed some time in 1941 - perhaps the Hon. the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong - and it is a copy, more or less, from the English Trade Disputes Act passed in 1927 immediately after the General Strike. It was passed by a Tory Government that was determined to see that there was no other general strike in Britain like the one they saw that year. It was opposed bitterly by the whole British trade union movement, and the first act of the British Labour Government, which had a majority in the House of Commons in 1945, was to pass a complete repeal of this Trade Disputes Act. Now, Sir, I hope I will have the opportunity in the near future of congratulating the Minister for Labour for an equally expeditious despatch of this piece of anti-labour legislation. And now, to multi-lingualism. Lots of people change their views lots of times, but I have yet to see the cool impertinence, the insolence of the Member for Serangoon. He is either deaf, or perhaps he is a man with considerable courage in telling things which are not true, and we look forward to the energetic advance of the cause of the people, of the non-English-speaking peoples in Singapore from the Progressive Party. Almost everybody lives and learn, even the Progressive Party; but I think it is a little bit too late in the day for them to support multi-lingualism. The former Member for Katong said, "I oppose - with all my strength," and somebody else came up with a policy statement, I believe it was someone very close to the former Member for Katong, the Member for Tanglin, who came up with some great categorical assertions on what is right and proper for Singapore. Having been born and bred in some other part of the world, he must be well qualified to say this. We wish the Labour Government now every success in implementing it; we hope that they will not be beguiled by the suggestions made by the Member for Serangoon into making it a failure. It has got to be made a success. There is a clear mandate from the people; they want it; they want to try it. The principle is accepted, and let us make it work for their sake and for our sake. I would like to say on education that I was somewhat disappointed. When the Labour Front set out the education programme they said: "The Labour Front's Policy on education is free compulsory schooling for all children, in English or vernacular schools, for the first six years as a matter of first priority. Thereafter scholarships or grants may be provided in deserving cases." But, somehow, when it was translated into the Address by His Excellency, the position, I think, has been somewhat diluted. I just would like to make sure that I have not misunderstood it. What they have said is: "The policy of the Government is to aim at equal treatment for all schools and all teachers in those schools. The foundation stone of the policy will be a six-year course of free primary education for all children." It could be construed to mean including vernacular schools. On the other hand, it can be construed not to mean including vernacular schools, and I hope the Director - one gets so used to colonialism that one is apt to refer to the "Director of Education" - the Hon. the Minister for Education will elucidate this at some later stage. Why has the word "compulsory" been dropped? One must assume that the Labour Front is a party of intellectuals, not all of whom, of course, have had the benefit of a three months' cram course on Socialism, but nevertheless capable of cogent and deliberate thought. There must have been good reason why "compulsory" was put in the programme, and "compulsory" is the People's Action Party's view, for no child should go without education. Now, the Labour Bill. We congratulate the Labour Front in its ambition to try and bring the Armed Services within the Labour Bill, but we cannot congratulate them for not attempting to bring them within all the other Codes, including Workmen's Compensation, the Central Provident Fund as it will be amended, and all the rest of it. Why only the Labour Bill? Why should the Armed Services be in a special position of immunity? Only as and when they please, they would say, "We will be bound by the Code, but only by our leave and licence." It is a matter which affects a very large number of people in Singapore, and I take it that it is because it affects a very large number of people in Singapore that the Labour Front in their four-year programme said: "The Labour Front will seek to provide for similar conditions of service to the civilian employees of the three Services as are offered to Government servants of the Colony." I would not imagine that that was said not purely to get votes, but surely also to see that very large sections, some 40,000 civilian employees in the Army, Navy and Air Force, are given conditions of employment which are akin to those offered by the Crown in its manifestation as the Singapore Government. I would not wish to remind Members on the other side that if you say that the Crown is one and indivisible, then you should act according to your theory and treat employees of the Crown, be they government servants or employees of the Armed Services, on the same footing. It is a matter, I think, which will be received with great approval by the civilian employees of the Armed Services. There again, I hope the Chief Minister - it does not appear to fall within any other Minister's duties - would review the situation. On the land acquisition and the Torrens system, we extend our hearty congratulations to both the Chief Minister and his colleague primarily responsible, the Minister for Lands and Housing. We hope that he will be able to translate that policy into action as quickly as possible and they can be assured of our friendly and our constructive support. But there is one thing about housing to which I think I must draw the attention of the Member for Ulu Bedok. Perhaps that is why he has chosen rural development. I think one does not make these promises to a relatively enlightened electorate and then forget to mention them subsequently. If there is an urgent and cogent reason why it cannot be done, then the public has a right to know why. They have said on page 4 of the Labour Front programme:"A reduction of the present interest rates on Government loans to the S.I.T., thereby providing for cheaper rentals for Trust accommodation and carrying this important social amenity to a larger number of the lower income group." Now, Sir, there are a large number of people living in Improvement Trust flats and I believe a large number of them are voters and they have been promised this - as they have been promised by the People's Action Party that if ever they get into this Legislature - an abolition of the interest to the Singapore Improvement Trust. Sir, the Labour Front has said that they believe in subsidized housing. So does the People's Action Party. If housing is going to be subsidized, then the first act it can do, the least it can do, is to remove this piece of businesslike economics on the part of the Singapore Government, supported so ably previously by the Progressive Party and I believe even sometimes by the present Minister for Labour and Welfare. Some hon. Members: No, no! Never!

Never? I withdraw. But be that as it may, there you are; three per cent interest to the Singapore Improvement Trust. Is it 2�? Whatever it is - 3, 4, and everything breaks even. You collect rent, you pay the caretaker, you whitewash once in six years or whatever it may be, and you pay your Improvement Trust trustees, directors, manager, estate managers, estate supervisors, and you have the profit for it. Then you can go to the people and say, "We have got a sound economy. Singapore is flourishing." Sir, I do not think these Improvement Trust flat-dwellers are very pleased about the rates they are paying, and I also do not believe that this promise made to them was completely unconnected with the election results. I think they are entitled, if not to a reduction as was offered, to a very good explanation why the reduction is not now being offered. On the question of this Passenger Transport Board, Sir, the People's Action Party never said, even though they always like to believe these things of the People's Action Party, that they were going to nationalize all these beautiful trams and omnibuses. But the Labour Front did, and nobody said that they were extremists. They said on page 6, "The Labour Front will nationalize the passenger transport system in Singapore", and after that came the announcement that they are going to have a board to fix fares and calculate mileages. How did these things come to pass? One finds it difficult to understand it. Here they say in the Address: "The unsatisfactory state of public transport calls for early action, and to this end the Government contemplates the setting up of a Transport Authority which will include in its functions the allocation of routes and the fixing of fares." What about this nationalisation? Does nationalisation mean the allocation of routes and the fixing of fares? Now, Sir, the Singapore Traction Company's charter is due to expire in June this year, and a Progressive Party-dominated City Council had expressed a desire earlier that it had no intention of upsetting this system of free enterprise. Free enterprise! We are all free; we are all equal men. If you fail, it is because your luck is not as good as mine and you do not work as hard as I. They said they did not want to upset things. The charter is expiring soon and the City Council can take over this transport system intact. The Company is making profits ranging, over the last four years, from the rate of one and a half million to two million dollars a year, according to their Singapore operative accounts of profits published. But the City Council passed the buck up to the Singapore Government, "We do not think we ought to take over. Why do you not form a Public Transport Board?" But the L.P.T.B. and the Singapore Government then, with all these go-slow, play-safe gentlemen who no longer are here, said: "Oh, no. We do not think we ought to do such things." But I am sure hon. Members opposite are not of the same calibre or the same inclination, even if they are of the same intention as the gentlemen who occupied seats in that old Council which was always placed in the Victoria Memorial Hall, where people hold concerts. I think action should be taken. The People's Action Party believes that here is a clear opportunity where, without having to pass any Bill, a notice could be given to the Company informing them that by the end of this year the Government intends to put up a Transport Board and take over their assets. There is no cutting short of any expectation involved. And even if operative costs were to go up for some unknown reasons, either because the officers in strategic position decide to retire rather than to make the system function, I think still there would certainly be no loss. There is no loss in any public transport board anywhere in the world. The railways which never make money are always nationalized and the State always pay for it. But private road transport is never nationalized and all the profits go to the directors and shareholders. I think it is up to the Labour Front to tell the people what they propose to do about this, and I think it is important that they should remember that the responsibility of power should not cause confusion with responsibility to the people who elected them. Last of all the other points in this Labour Front declaration of policy is the question of national service. The People's Action Party still says in categorical terms that no government that is not elected by the people, no government which has not the right to make wars, or declare wars in the interests of the people, should conscript, should have the right to say: "You will train and you will die for us." Sir, I am no apologist for being anti-colonial. My Party says clearly that we like freedom and we do not like colonialism, and we are prepared to fight it all the way - by democratic and constitutional methods of mass struggle, in case the Attorney-General has any ideas about anything. Now, Sir, Mr Nehru never had to say: "I am pro-British, but I hate colonialism." Mr Nehru spent many years of his life in British prisons in India. He never hated the British personally. And I can assure all these gentlemen here who are not Malayans, that we in the People's Action Party do not hate any Englishman personally because he is an Englishman. Of course, there are some Englishmen we hate for some other reasons. But we are not afraid to say that we are one hundred per cent against colonialism and we are not making any qualification about it by being pro-British. It is a difference of approach. The day I can say, "I am a free man. This is my country", that day I will welcome you as a friendly host would do a guest. But I will not be a guest in my own country. That is our attitude. Mr Nehru never agreed to allow Indian soldiers to fight British battles in Saigon, in Indo-China or in Indonesia. He wrote many a strong lamentation. When imprisoned together with his colleagues, he was helpless and impotent, while the British recruited Indians to fight their battles. No nationalist, no man who says, "I am a Malayan; I am proud to be a Malayan, and I am going to see that there is an independent, democratic Malaya", will say, "Let us train to be soldiers." What for? Why for? Whom are we going to fight? Who is going to decide we are going to be involved in a war or not to be involved in a war? Who is going to be our ally? Who is to be our foe? There is no provision anywhere in the National Service Ordinance which says that a man cannot be sent overseas to fight some other battle in some other battlefield. In my submission it would be un-Malayan to say that our youth should train and fight for somebody else's battles. That is the stand of the People's Action Party before the election, and that is the stand of the People's Action Party now. And now, we come to the milk and honey, the economy. Before the elections we had some, if I may say so with great respect, Sir, really patriotic, very expressive phrases which stick. "Our economy" - and I am told from very reliable sources who the author of this little bit was - "is to fulfil the urgent need of the rapidly growing population. The Labour Front stands for a reorganization of its economy, now cast in the role of a milching cow." Sir, I do not know why "milching", because I always thought it was "milch cow"; but perhaps it is for the rhythm and the milk in it. And quite good. But what a far cry from this: "We must not alarm our businessmen." If that was not designed to alarm the businessmen I do not know what that was designed for. The Labour Front said categorically: "We stand for reorganization of our economy. We are not going to have this 136-years' trading outpost forever a trading outpost. We are going to industrialize. We are going to do this and we are going to do that. We are going to subsidize this. We are going to make sure that these things are done." They were good things and they are still good things. The People's Action Party still believes in those things, and they hope the Labour Front still does. But this is a very far cry from the anxious reassurances that have been issued time and time again since April the 2nd. Capital will not fly from this country, Mr Speaker, Sir, for one very good reason - because it is making good profits. All the assurances and all the blandishments of the Labour Front and its Chief Minister will not attract one cent here if that one cent is not going to produce two cents by the end of the year. Anyone who cares to pay his fifty cents to the Companies Registry could check the profits and balance sheets of Robinson's, White-away's, John Little's, and United Metal Works. You do not get foreign capital because you are nice to them. You get foreign capital because you offer returns. And there are returns. There is no need, in my opinion, to try and appease these men who say: "Otherwise I am going home, and when I go home, God, you are finished lah." Well, I would like to see them try. They will not go, because we offer them profits. All this scare, all this fright to reassure them is, in my opinion, quite unnecessary. A sober policy will impress upon them this fact, that this country is not interested in having factories and industries for the sake of factories and industries, but in so far as these factories and industries pay high wages, increase the national income and increase the standard of living. We are not interested in trade for trade's sake. We are interested in income, national income, an increase in national income. I see the Financial Secretary doing some mental calculations, but I think I am right. If you increase the national income and you spread it more equitably all around, a larger number of persons will have more money to buy singlets, sandals and short pants, even if they cannot buy bush jackets. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important, in my opinion, that we should assure the Labour Front that a cold, deliberate, calculating policy, as enunciated in their programme, will not drive any capital out and will do a great deal to bring about a more just distribution of wealth. And then you will have no more of these smouldering slag-heap fumes poisoning the air, and we shall have more of the peace and prosperity which we, I think on all sides of the House, even those who belong to some other countries, want here. Because we are attracting and retaining them they would also like to see us prosperous and happy. And it is this vision which drives the People's Action Party on and on. We have not come here, Mr Speaker, Sir, in order that some laws may be passed and some laws may be unpassed. For us, and I say this, that I am more of a Malayan and more English educated even than the Chief Minister himself; for us it is the vision of a free and independent, democratic Malaya - a small country of seven millions, but proud and free. Proud because it is independent in an Asia which is reasserting its self-respect. We believe in freedom, unconditionally. We have no fears, no terrors because those who have protected us for so long will no longer protect us, because they are not making profits out of us, or because we are not going to pay them expatriation allowances. For us it is this dream, this hope which, in our opinion, is just round the corner; of a Malaya in which all its peoples, regardless of class, race or religion, will be given the same opportunities to live their own lives, preserve their own cultures, even their own languages, in so far as it is compatible with a Malaya which is united together in one common purpose; a Malaya in which all its peoples are dedicated to its own prosperity, its own happiness; and in which there will be none of this bitterness, frustrations, angers, between race and race, religion and religion, or even class and class. That is the Malaya that we dream of, that we will fight for, and, if necessary, go to jail for, and, if necessary, die for. And so far as the Labour Front pursues a policy which leads this country to that goal, the People's Action Party will be with them, as we would be with any party that pursues those aims. We feel even more strongly, even though we cannot express it with the same bitterness, that all the injustices, all the wickedness of the past, and all these indecent discrepancies of wealth, opportunities, fortunes of the past are things that should never have been and would never have been if there had been an independent government, responsible to the people it was supposed to govern. It was because they had a lot of professional administrators who were determined to do what they thought in their text books and in their experience in other territories was the right thing to do and who got, for the sake of cover, men, supine, servile, bred in a generation that has lost its self-respect, to support them as committee members, men on whom are ultimately showered even K.B.E.'s. That is a Malaya which we are ashamed of. And we say - it is not in His Excellency's speech - we say this from the bottom of our hearts, that we are ashamed of the people who have sold us for so long, those - some people do not like the word - "Quislings". But they sold out the people all the same for very good reason. They believe in peaceful and orderly foreign government. They believe that the local man is not as good as the white man. They believe if you have the qualification you must have the experience and anyway you have not got the tradition. They were the people who for long, long years have made fools of us. And when the people went to the polls on April the 2nd it was they who were rejected, perhaps forever, because Asia today will not tolerate such men. You may be silent before an official because it is prudent to be silent and submissive. But in your heart you neither respect him nor admire him for what he does. And they cast their votes for people who are prepared to fight colonialism. Not because they want disruption, disorder, disaster, but because they, like us, share this vision of a free country where a Malayan who is proud and free can look any man in the eye and say: "I am a Malayan, this is my country, this is my home. I am proud of it, I will make it better and better as the years go by, more just and more just." And it is that Malaya, that dream, that drives the People's Action Party, and that has sent four representatives here to help, to encourage, to exhort, to advise, and sometimes even to admonish the Labour Front a little - always in the hope that it will go for that goal of an independent, democratic Malaya and no other attenuated version. That is our dream, and we hope it is your dream for the sake of yourselves, of the Labour Front and the Alliance, and of the people not only of Singapore but of Malaya.

I think we have all listened with very great interest, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew). He reminds me irresistibly of the old cock in the story who turned to his admiring harem of wives, having observed the first signs of dawn in the sky, and said, "I am now going to make the sun rise." He then flapped his wings, crowed vigorously and continuously, and in due course the sun rose. Throughout his incursions into the debate the Member for Tanjong Pagar has pointed out the things that we have said we are going to do, and then he says, "I am now going to crow very vigorously to make sure that you do them." I think he is premature in crowing about it; he had better wait and see whether the sun does rise before he makes so much of this.

But there may be an eclipse. One never knows.

The sun still rises even behind an eclipse, is still going up, and finally emerges. The Member for Tanjong Pagar raised one question about Malayanisation, where he referred to one part of this well-known document (Labour Front's Four-year Programme), but I think he has not read on far enough to notice No. 12 of the Four-year Programme: "The Labour Front will immediately expand technological training at all levels not only for the young but also for those at present functioning in Government service and commercial undertakings with a view to entrusting locally domiciled personnel with the responsibilities that they are now deprived of but which responsibilities are essential for the effective control of our own planned economy." Speaking in regard to the Departments that come within my own Ministry (Ministry of Communications and Works), there is a very real need for this expansion of technological training. It is useless putting a man to build an airport who does not know how to build it. You will not get an airport out of it. It is a fact that before I got into the Ministry, there had been advertisements out almost on name your own terms for technical people, and nobody has cared to name his terms, because he is already satisfactorily employed elsewhere, and there is that real problem, that you have got to get technical training before you can go on to putting a man into the job. The Member for Tanjong Pagar also made some complaint about an undue tenderness by the Labour Front towards the capitalists, and assured us that it was quite unnecessary to say anything nice to capitalists at all. I do not mind about that in the least. I do not know whether he gets the documents of the Socialist International Information -

Communist.

Far from it, my dear Sir. It is published by Morgan Philips, or somebody. Anyhow, it comes to me from that sort of source. I have here anyhow the People's National Party Plan for Development in Jamaica. This was their approximate equivalent of our little green booklet - An hon. Member: Whose?

The People's National Party, not "Action", in Jamaica. "We pledge the fullest support in the maintenance and improvement of all schemes and laws designed to attract foreign capital to Jamaica for investment in local industry. We guarantee to maintain the utmost good faith in our relations for investors, and to give them security and protection in all proper ways. We explicitly repudiate and condemn all talk to the contrary as mere election propaganda." And this People's National Party is, of course, a member of the Socialist International, and it is Mr Norman Manley, a Queen's Counsel, and a man of very high standing and a very well reputed Socialist, who has just put out a thoroughly - perhaps I had better not use unparliamentary language - a pamphlet about Mr Bustamente's Labour Party, which was no more Labour than other Labour parties. I refer to one further thing - my eloquence cannot keep your attention for an hour, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar succeeded in doing - the matter of the nationalisation of the passenger transport system. There are, I think, four criteria which should be checked before you attempt to nationalise any industry. I have a note on them in my file, but I think I can deal with them without referring to it. The first one is, of course, that it must produce efficiency, and preferably more efficiency than you had with the un-nationalised industry. Another point is, of course that it must reduce or completely abolish monopolistic exploitation. It must form a part of the overall planning of the economy, and it must be ripe for nationalisation at the time that it is taken over. It is no use nationalising something before it is ripe. And a further point about nationalisation which could be added to the fourth criterion is that in certain circumstances nationalisation is necessary in order to get the capital required for some form of development which you cannot expect to get from private sources. You have to get it from public funds. Now the nationalisation of passenger transport in Singapore is not a matter of nationalising the Singapore Traction Company. My impression is that they would be happy to sell themselves to the Government if the Government were willing to buy them; and probably a number of other companies would also, in fact have been hopefully looking for- ward to a Labour Front victory with a view to saying, "Now I have got so many routes licensed. Will you kindly take over and I can sit back and live on the profits for the rest of my life?" That is not my notion of nationalisation by any means. I think that we should nationalise passenger transport, but I am not prepared to say that we should immediately rush out and hand out public funds to a lot of transport operators, some ten or twelve companies, operating on this very small island, until we have gone first through the process of rationalisation and getting things into a reasonably orderly system, from which we can go forward to the next step when the time is ripe. It is not, as far as I know, possible to give exact figures yet for what the cost of nationalising the industry at present would be. If we take passenger transport simply in the usual meaning of buses and trolley-buses, it is probable that the Singapore Traction Company does not represent more than about 50 per cent of the total capital that would be required for the takeover; and there are going to be very urgent and necessary projects which will call for considerable sums of capital, and I think that it is fair to say that with the existing powers, and with the powers that may have to be added, it will be possible to deal with the passenger transport system and to make quite considerable improvements without necessarily immediately having to go over into nationalisation of the whole industry at once. I am not prepared at this stage to indicate precisely what detailed plans I have in mind in this connection, but they will come before this House at. I hope, quite an early date and will provide a more lengthy opportunity for discussion. But I would like to revert to the People's National Party Programme again where they, on a rather similar island, Jamaica, also envisage first of all a radical reorganisation and reform of public transport outside the corporate area, that is to say, the system of passenger transport dealing primarily with the rural areas, which is of course one of the most important parts of the future development of passenger transport.

Mr Speaker, Sir, knowing the temper of this House today on multi-lingualism, he must be a very brave man indeed to explain the stand that the Progressive Party took on this question. Our Party had never made an issue of this question in our platform. We had left it to the honest belief and opinion of each individual member. We were the only Party honest enough not to make capital out of it to catch votes. We found it to our cost, but we were prepared to face the issue and let the people of Singapore know that we would rather lose the election than try something which, to our mind, is impracticable and impossible for the time being. We never said we were against it. Being a Chinese, I would like to see Chinese spoken in this Chamber, but can you, gentlemen, visualise six languages being spoken today? That is our stand. In this election it was impossible, and we made it clear. Mr Laycock on that day spoke for himself. He never mentioned our Party - that was our Party directive - and if he made that mistake, it was the Member for Katong's (Mr Braga's) gain. An hon. Member: What do you say today?

We have never been against it. Let us try it out in the City and Island Council. It takes time, Sir, to obtain interpreters. You have to have at least 16 interpreters. You have your additional staff, and it will cost you a pretty penny, which can be much better spent on your welfare work. Now, after attacking the Chief Minister. I want to give him a bouquet. I congratulate him - An hon. Member: Orchids.

- on his very quick action in putting through this legal free aid to the poor. Two or three years ago we took up this question with the support of another gentleman. That failed because of, shall we say, vested interests. I am very glad indeed to see it being pushed through so rapidly, and I think it will have a very important bearing on the new Faculty of Law. It will provide work, a great deal of work, for the young men who will be qualified locally. The Hon. the Chief Minister started by saying that the law of the jungle was applied to trade in this country, and that the "taipans" of business grew very fat on it. That may be true, but at this time, when we are changing to a Socialist government, let us not be ungrateful, for it is they who have built us this golden heritage. But for them, our Chief Minister may still be speaking under the apple tree instead of in this well-appointed House. After the uncertainty of the elections, it is most reassuring to see that Government recognises that commerce is the lifeblood of the local economy. This has never been mentioned in the Labour Front's election platform, nor in its Four-year Programme. This has always been the chief aim of the Progressive Party. Tied to this, however, is the encouragement of local industries, and an endeavour to seek more equitable distribution of wealth. The Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) seems to think that just by shouting the words - "You will make profit in Singapore" - the capitalists will come. We shall find that is a great mistake. Without security, stability and without people who wish to invest their money in this country knowing that they are going to get a safe return in future years, you will not get your factories. One of the biggest aims of this Labour Front is social welfare work. We all agree with this and we shall all support it; but we must be careful not to push it too far, because once you go on with all these schemes there must be all sorts of taxation. And when you have taxation, you are going to curb local industries. When the prices of your local products are too high, you will have to apply controls. Controls mean the curtailment of your entrepot trade. It requires a magician to keep these three undertakings - trade, local industries and equitable distribution of wealth - going together, and we shall wait with great interest to see how our chief magician, our Chief Minister, juggles with these problems. On the question of housing, I think we are all agreed that it is essential and it is not necessary for any Party to claim any credit. What we want to know is how rapidly and how cheaply will the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) be able to build his houses. In one of the election campaigns I think it was mentioned that loans would be given to people who wish to purchase houses without interest. As a businessman, I have never known how it is possible to obtain money without paying interest. A most striking note about Government's policy on the question of housing is the problem of clearing of slum and attap areas, and in the Address it was mentioned that it may have to be met by the most vigorous and, in some cases, drastic measures. Well, the clearing of slums has already caused much distress and much consternation. Last Sunday I spent the whole day going through 40 houses which have been ordered to be demolished. These 40 houses are inhabited by 400 people. I have gone and investigated the cases, and I am satisfied that the compensation offered by the Government is, shall we say, by a colonial government, and cannot be one that is to be offered by our Labour Front. Some were offered lands in Jurong, which is about 14 miles from the place where they are to be shifted, that is, on the south end of the Airport.

Order, order. Moment of interruption. Mr Chief Minister, resumption of the debate, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir, at 10 a.m. Remaining items on the Order Paper read and ordered for the next day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

I rise to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Four o'clock p.m.

Tuesday, 26th April, 1955

asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that a very high proportion of the tickers sold in the Social Welfare lotteries organised in the Federation of Malaya by the Government Social Welfare Lotteries Board the proceeds from which are being used to finance Federation of Malaya Social Welfare projects are being bought by persons resident in the Colony of Singapore; and what steps the Minister proposes to take to remedy this situation.

No, Sir. If the Honourable Member would supply further information I will see what action is necessary or appropriate.

asked the Financial Secretary if he will state the combined or respective hard currency earnings of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya for the years 1952, 1953 and 1954, what amount was allowed to be spent by Singapore importers, whether the Colony derives any direct benefit by handing its hard currency earnings to the United Kingdom, and whether such earnings are credited at the current market rate so that Singapore and the Federation can benefit thereby.

It is regretted that it has not been possible to collect the necessary information within the time available. The answer will be tabled at the next meeting of the Legislative Assembly.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether he is aware of the fact that the grant of $5 per person to the victims of the storm which demolished their houses on 9th April, 1955, is causing severe hardship; and whether he will consider the question of assisting the victims to rebuild their houses.

I am surprised to learn that the payment of money is causing severe hardship, but if the Honourable Member intended to indicate that the amount was inadequate I shall investigate the position.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare if he will detail the Boys' Clubs situated in the constituency of Tanglin; how many Boys' Clubs are being organised within the constituency in 1955; and where they are to be sited.

One Boys' Club affiliated to the Federation of Boys' Clubs is situated in the constituency of Tanglin. As far as is known one boys' club, the Bukit Timah Boys' Club, 4th mile Bukit Timah Road, is being organised now. It is not possible to forecast how many boys; clubs may be started in the constituency of Tanglin in 1955 as the readiness of the youth service to assist is only one of the factors to be taken into consideration. Other principal factors are the spontaneous desire and efforts of public-spirited members of the public. The siting of boys' clubs in particular is not a matter which is decided by this Ministry.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare if he will state the current figures of unemployment in the Colony.

As there is no compulsory registration of unemployed persons at the present time, it is not possible to state the figures of unemployment.

asked the Minister for Education how many primary and secondary schools have been approved for construction during the year 1955; and how many of these schools are expected to be completed in 1955.

Because of piling and constructional difficulties encountered, it is difficult to separate the building of schools into quotas for calendar years. For the combined period 1952-54 the number of schools approved was 38 Primary and 3 Secondary. Of that number 10 Primary and 2 Secondary were completed by 31st March, 1955; the rest were all under construction. It is expected that 9 Primary and one Secondary will be completed by mid-1955, 12 Primary by the end of 1955, and the remaining 7 very early in 1956. Eighteen additional Primary schools, and 6 Secondary schools have been approved in the 1955 Estimates. While work will begin on all of them in 1955, it is not expected that any of them will be ready for occupation before February 1956. It is expected that the number of schools which will be finished and ready for occupation during the calendar year 1955 will be 23 Primary and one Secondary. These figures do not include an extension which will double the accommodation of one school. The programme approved includes, in addition, the building of two Secondary Technical Schools. Work on these is in progress. The above figures refer to Government Schools only.

asked the Minister for Education if he will detail the schools of all categories (i.e. Government, aided, private, etc., and whether primary or secondary) situated in the constituency of Tanglin; how many and what categories of Government schools are being built within the constituency in 1955; and where they are to be sited.

A. English Schools Government: Duchess School (Primary). Dunearn School (Primary). Building: Whitley Road School (Primary) (by Whitley Road Police Barracks). Aided: Anglo-Chinese Secondary School. Anglo-Chinese Junior School. Private: Eastaff English School (Primary). Maris Stella Kindergarten. Killarney School (Primary). Hollandse School (Primary). Dean's School (Primary). Tanglin School (Primary). Hilltop Kindergarten. Sunnyway Kindergarten. Tanglin School Kindergarten. Art of Dance Studio. H. Tan Correspondence School. B. Malay Schools Government - Tanglin Tinggi (Primary). Aided and Private - Nil. C. Indian Schools Government, Aided and Private - Nil. D. Chinese Schools Government - Nil. Aided: Chin Chung School (Primary). Chinese High School (Secondary). Eick Kuan School (Primary). Keok Ming School (Primary). Lam Thong School (Primary). Lee Choon School (Primary). Min Chu School (Primary). Nanyang Girls' High School (Primary and Secondary). Pei Chun School (Primary). Yin Sin Branch School (Primary). Private - Tanglin Primary School. Note: - A large number of Government English and Malay Schools are situated just outside the Constituency boundary, particularly at Newton Circus and off Alexandra Road.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether he is aware that the Rural areas are very poorly supplied with electricity and water; and what steps does he propose to take to improve the supply of such services to these areas.

Government is aware of the need to extend the provision of piped water supply and electricity in the rural areas. The planning of this extension is already engaging the attention of Government and the existing Local Authorities.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether he will give particulars of the total acreage of Crown land in the Colony and how much of it is being occupied at present under temporary occupation licence.

It is not possible in the short time available to give exact figures, but approximate figures are as follows: - Total acreage of Crown land ... ... 39,000 Acreage under Temporary Occupation Licence ... 15,000

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing how many housing units have been approved for construction during the year 1955; whether he will give particulars of the number of each type of housing unit so planned; and how many of these housing units are expected to be completed in 1955 in each category.

The Singapore Improvement Trust as Government's agent for public housing puts up housing programmes from time to time, and within the programmes which have already been approved by Government, the Trust expects to complete the construction of 2,662 housing units during 1955. These units will comprise : - 816 3-room flats; 161 2-room flats; 1,554 3-room one-storey and two-storey terrace houses; and 131 tenements.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works what steps does he propose to take to improve the roads and telephone communications in the rural areas.

The need to improve roads in rural areas is recognized by the Government, and it is the policy of the Government to assist local authorities, where necessary, to carry out their responsibilities for such roads. The provision of telephone services is the function of the Singapore Telephone Board, established under the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance, 1953. The Board is aware of the needs of the rural areas for improved services, and the development plans which the Board is now formulating will include provision for these areas.

asked the Minister for Health whether he will supply a list of the building projects planned for construction during the year 1955; and how many of these projects are expected to be completed in 1955.

SCHEDULE OF WORKS UNDER MEDICAL PLAN - 21st April, 1955

asked the Minister for Health if he will detail the Government clinics and other medical buildings situated in the constituency of Tanglin; how many are being built within the constituency in 1955; and where they are to be sited.

There are two maternity and child welfare clinics in the constituency of Tanglin, one at Holland Village and the other at Race Course Village respectively. No provision is made for further buildings in this constituency in 1955.