Hansard, 1955-11-25

asked the Chief Minister whether he will postpone his trip to London in order to meet Mr Chin Peng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question presupposes a conflict between the two events indicated therein. No such conflict exists and the question does not arise.

Does the Chief Minister mean that he will be meeting Mr Chin Peng?

On present indications, Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Chief Minister whether he will represent the Labour Front only or the Labour Front and the UMNO-MCA-Malay Union Alliance at the proposed talks with Mr Chin Peng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be going as Chief Minister of Singapore on the suggestion and at the request of the Chief Minister of the Federation to the talks with the Communists arranged by the Chief Minister of the Federation. I think I ought to add, for the information of hon. Members, that the Chief Minister of the Federation has told me that he would not welcome the presence of the questioner or any other person whom he has not invited to the meeting which he is arranging.

Sir, will the Chief Minister be good enough to tell Mr Chin Peng, if he meets him, that he does not represent the majority of the elected Members?

Is the Chief Minister aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, that Mr Chin Peng has indicated that he does not want to meet the Government or Government representatives? Mr Speaker, Sir?

There is no answer.

May I then put to the Chief Minister this question? What is his mandate in going to these talks? No answer?

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to make a statement on my forthcoming visit. Sir, I have received an invitation from the Government of Ceylon to visit Ceylon, and I shall be their guest on the 2nd and 3rd of December. I have also received an invitation from the Government of India, and with my colleague the Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy), will be their guests in Bombay on the 5th, and we will be in New Delhi between the 6th and the 9th of December. I am scheduled to be in London with the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock) and the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) between the 9th and the 16th of December. Although the suggestion, Sir, originally came from the Secretary of State that it would be helpful if we were to visit England towards the end of this year, there is no indication as yet that we will be the guests of the United Kingdom during our seven-day stay in London. We will, however, be the guests of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State at official functions. On our return journey we have been invited by the Pakistan Government to be their guests, and it is probable that all three Ministers will be in Karachi for one or two days. I should like to indicate briefly the reasons for these courtesy visits and the London visit. During the many functions that attended the Colombo Plan conference, Sir, here in Singapore, I became conscious of feelings of friendship for Singapore and strong sympathy for its political aspirations from many countries, both inside and outside the Commonwealth. The visits to Ceylon, India and Pakistan are intended to strengthen this friendly feeling and this sympathy. I would add that I expect to learn a great deal from the leaders of these countries who have arduously blazed the trail to independence, a trail which we are now following. All Singapore, I am sure, is proud of the honour India, Pakistan and Ceylon do us in extending these official invitations. On the visit to London, I wish to reiterate that, apart from seeking to obtain clarification of the British Government's attitude to the Labour Front's citizenship proposals, we shall seek officially only to fix a date for a constitutional conference and to agree on an agenda. For the rest, Sir, during those seven days my colleagues and I will be addressing a large number of gatherings. We will seek to make England conscious of the fact that in this lovely island of ours there are more than 1,200,000 human beings with a human being's primordial urge and moral right to be free from subjugation. There is one other matter that I would like to touch on. The Government of Thailand has extended an invitation to us to visit Thailand on our return journey. It is our view that the first visit to a close trading neighbour should be of a fuller character than would be possible in this hurried visit. Many of us are conscious of the impetus of the goodwill mission to Indonesia not only in the realm of commerce but especially in the realm of friendly relations which will be an important factor in our future. I have therefore indicated to the Thai Government, Sir, that we are grateful for the honour they do us, but are unable to accept the invitation at present. We look forward with pleasurable anticipation to the possibility of an invitation for a full mission from Singapore to visit Thailand in the new year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be permitted, with the assent of the House, to move without notice the necessary exemption, under Standing Order 7 (11), to enable the business of the House to be concluded today? It is, in fact, doubtful, Sir, that we will reach the moment of interruption but I think hon. Members would not wish to continue further tomorrow if it is a matter of short duration. I therefore seek your consent, Sir, to move the necessary exemption, under Standing Order 7 (11), to enable us to complete the business of the day today.

Have I the assent of Members that the motion be moved? Hon. Members: Aye.

Question, "That the proceedings on the business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7," put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7 (Pursuant to Standing Order No. 7 (11)).

I thank the House, Mr Speaker, Sir, and in the circumstances I do formally move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to the 8th of February, 1956.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to the 8th of February, 1956.

Order for Committee of Supply read: [4th Allotted Day]

FIRST SCHEDULE Head 61 -

We are on Head 61. Mr Lee Kuan Yew:

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, To reduce by $18,240 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (8), Senior Executive Engineers, Grade G, on page 244 of the Estimates. Mr Chairman, Sir, in the Remarks column it is indicated "Increase one to include the appointment of Senior Executive Engineer (Defence Services) now abolished." At sub-head 1 (15), this particular appointment which is being abolished is put as "Senior Executive Engineer (Defence Service), Grade G - Abolished." We heard the Minister for Communications and Works yesterday trying to impress us with his Ministry's efficient pruning by the reduction of redundant superscales. We want an explanation of why it is found necessary, when a post is abolished, to create a new one to absorb the person whose post has been abolished. Question proposed.

Sir, during the last few days we have listened to the Member for Tanjong Pagar speaking on motions to remove new posts from the Estimates. These motions have covered a wide field - in fact, all the posts which an expatriate might conceivably be appointed to, or required for, or promoted to. The reason generally given for the motion was that the post was unnecessary and that it should be removed. Latterly, however, he came out into the open and suggested that the posts were deliberately created for the benefit of the expatriates now envisaging abolition and that the elected Ministers had, shall we say, been hoodwinked into agreeing to their inclusion. I had intended to answer that suggestion yesterday, Sir, but I thought perhaps I might speak in heat and it would be better that I deferred the matter until today. That suggestion, Sir, is a base and dishonourable suggestion which can only stem from ignoble and dishonest minds. It impugns the intelligence of the elected Ministers and the integrity of the civil service, both expatriate and locally domiciled, which over the past 80 years, by its unswerving devotion to duty, its conscientiousness, its incorruptibility and its sense of justice and fair play, has built up a reputation second to none. The suggestion is so ridiculous that no one will believe it, apart from a handful of unhappy bigots who conceived it and a measure of whose judgment and ability the suggestion is. Even the hon. mover of the motion, being a man of great intellectual ability and integrity, knows in his heart that it is false, absolutely false. Perhaps if I explain the procedure in dealing with applications for new posts, it will put the suggestion in its true perspective. Proposals for new posts must be in the hands of the Treasury by the 15th of April. The great majority are received in February and March. The proposals put up by the heads of departments are considered with great care in the Treasury. Many factors, such as the planned expansion of a department to meet the growing needs of the public, the duties to be performed, the qualifications and experience required, the responsibilities to be borne, staffing requirements generally - all these matters are considered in the Treasury. Other branches of Government are consulted. The head of a department himself is called up to amplify and explain his proposals. In the end all the proposals are considered against the background of the financial position of the Colony, and only those are approved for entry in the Draft Estimates which are absolutely imperative for the successful and efficient conduct of the business of government. In this connection over the years, the Treasury has built up perhaps an unenviable reputation for being difficult in respect of new appointments. I should also like to make it quite clear that in deciding whether an appointment should be entered or not, the only criterion - I repeat, the only criterion - is need, the need of Government, the need of the public. The question whom the post is to be filled by is completely irrelevant. Sir, all the posts entered this year have satisfied this criterion and need. They have been proposed by officers of long administrative experience who have only the efficiency and successful operation of their departments in mind, men who, as a result of that experience, can look ahead and see the needs of the future. They have been vetted by a succession of officers of wide administrative and financial experience, whose duty it is - and they have never failed in that duty - to eliminate any proposal which is not justified. What has now happened, Sir, is that the judgment of these acknowledged experts has been challenged and called in question by a small band of civil servants who, to the best of my knowledge, are not qualified to say whether posts in, say, the Medical Department, or the Audit Department, or the Accountant-General's Department, are necessary or not in the public interests or for the efficient discharge of government business. In expressing these opinions, they appear to have been actuated by motives which reasonable men and women would spurn with contempt. What they say in effect is this: that it is better that a post should remain uncreated or unfilled rather than that they should run the risk of having it filled by an expatriate. All I can say is this, Sir, that this bigoted judgment will be small comfort to the parents of a child whose life is perhaps lost because specialised knowledge which might otherwise have been available is lacking. That, I think, Sir, sums up the matter. The honest opinion of disinterested civil servants of long experience is called in question by a small band of bigots of little or no experience. I think judgment in this matter can safely be left to the intelligent members of the public and to the large body of the civil service with whom I have worked for many years and for whom I have the highest respect. Lastly, Sir, I should like to touch on the suggestion that elected Ministers were, shall we say, hoodwinked. This is a dishonest, scurrilous and disreputable suggestion.

Order. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that he must not use unparliamentary words in this Assembly, no matter how much he feels like using those words. "Dishonest", "scurrilous" and "disreputable" are possibly unparliamentary.

In the circumstances, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw those expressions. This year, since we had some prior warning through the Press that certain new superscale posts might be the subject of attack by a small unhappy group of the civil service, it was decided by the Council of Ministers that all proposals would be examined by its Finance Committee. This has been done. The need for each post was examined in great detail. Heads of departments were called up for discussion in most cases. Some posts were deleted. Those which remain are those which satisfied the elected Ministers that they were essential for the efficient discharge of government business.

I think I have only got a minute or two left, Mr Chairman, to deal with this matter. I find it difficult to express my sense of disgust at the profound absurdity of these amendments which the Member for Tanjong Pagar continues to move. His objection here is simply to the removal of two brackets and two or three words. The title of the post has been abolished, but the works still remain. What is going to happen in the future will be that the Executive Engineer concerned with defence works will still continue to do it, but if the defence work is slack for a period, he can do other work. If there is a lot of defence work to be done, then another engineer can help him with it; that is the simple effect of this change. I think, in fact, I could have had this shut out under Standing Order 33 (1) (b). If this amendment were accepted, Mr Chairman, there would be no money to pay the officer concerned in this post, and consequently he would have to live rather meagrely on his expatriate allowance and his variable allowance which would not get him very far. I wish to make it quite clear that this is a preposterous objection to a mere change in the designation of the work for the purposes of greater administrative flexibility.

I am glad, Mr Chairman, Sir, that it is an expatriate who finally has to answer for these things. He has alleged that it is an unhappy band of bigots, unbalanced men with scurrilous minds and scurrilous hearts, who have made these allegations, and the Chief Minister yesterday was astonished that representations were not, in fact, made to him. I made enquiries yesterday to find out the reason for this. As early as the 17th of October this year, the Federation of Government Union Employees, the Singapore Senior Officers Association, the Graduate Teachers Association and the Singapore Teachers Union wrote to the Chairman of the Malayanisation Commission and sent copies of the letter to the Chief Secretary and to the Chief Minister. They were dealing with the creation of superscale posts to which they took the strongest possible exception. I do not know how much time I have, Mr Chairman, Sir, and I wish to read only the relevant passages. The penultimate paragraph of that letter, to which they have had no acknowledgment or reply from the Chief Minister or the Chief Secretary, -

The letter was not addressed to us.

- says: "We do urge the Commission to make an interim recommendation to Government that the Singapore Establishment should be fixed as from the date of the appointment of the Commission, and that no new Division I posts, whether timescale or superscale, should be created by Government without prior reference to the Commission. We also request the Commission to make an interim recommendation to Government that no superscale posts in Division I should be filled substantively on the advice of the present Public Services Commission until after the recommendations of the Malayanisation Commission are known. We are sending copies of the letter to the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister - "

Order. I think I have to interrupt the hon. Member because it seems to me that the Malayanisation Commission is a quasi-judicial body and this document was sent to them and perhaps ought not to have been referred to, except possibly in passing.

Mr Chairman, Sir, this is not a confidential communication to the Malayanisation Commission. This was a point of view publicly declared and proclaimed by the Federation of Government Union Employees, the Singapore Senior Officers Association, the Graduate Teachers Association, and the Singapore Teachers Union. They proclaimed it publicly. They sent copies to the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary. They stated in clear categorical terms that they were against the creation of any new Division I posts. The Chief Minister will have to answer to the people. The Financial Secretary does not have to answer to the people. He does not have to answer to the bigots. If he does not like them, he can call them bigots. But the Chief Minister will have to answer to the people whether he likes them or not, and whether they are bigots or not, because they represent the will of the people.

Order, order. The time has elapsed.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $4,669,470 for Head 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 62 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 4 (1), Upkeep of Government Roads, on page 251 of the Estimates. In moving this amendment, my attention was drawn to the fact that an allocation of $130,000 has been made under this head as against one of $10,000 in 1955. I would have no objection to this increase if provision is being made for at least one item, or rather group of items. I refer to the approach roads to schools. All three of the main Government schools in the Tanglin Division have approach roads which are in appalling condition, and I know that these are by no means the only schools which are suffering. This matter has already been brought to the notice of the Minister for Education, and I hope that this increase means that the information has been passed on to his colleague at the Ministry of Communications and Works. Sir, the argument which might be used is that roads leading to schools are not the responsibility of the Government because they are frequently private roads to be made up by frontagers, but in the three cases I have quoted the schools are the very first buildings situated on the roads in question, and it seems to me that it is part of the duty of Government, when building and maintaining schools, to build and maintain serviceable approach roads to them. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the increase under this head is intended at least in part for this purpose. Question proposed.

This vote is in respect of some 120 miles of Government roads which include car parks and access roads, roads to hospitals, prisons, Mount Pleasant Road, Haig Road and so on. I am afraid, Mr Chairman, Sir, I cannot give you a clear picture of what will be done about school approach roads in particular. I am very well aware of the situation, Sir. When I was a teacher, the approach road to my own school was exceedingly bad. I very warmly sympathise with the hon. Member for his efforts to get the roads improved.

Mr Chairman, Sir, it is not clear to me from the remarks of the Minister whether these roads will be attended to or not.

I am afraid he will have to remain unclear for the moment.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 6 (7), Minor Works, on page 252 of the Estimates. In the Estimates it is shown that $150,000 is required this year for minor works. The approved estimate last year was only $60,000. I now seek information as to the necessity for the increase of this vote by 250 per cent and the work to be done. Question proposed.

This is a simple little grant of money which is used for im- proving Crown land when you anticipate building or other work of that kind; for example, the filing up of the swamp land at Kolam Ayer for civil defence purposes; the taking up now of some bits of concrete flooring at Shenton Way which will have to go at some time. That is the general purpose - where Crown land needs to be cleaned up and put into good order, perhaps with a view to building, then the work is put in hand and the work is done.

That is not very much information, but still I thank him for the little he has given me.

Can I amplify further, Sir? In last year's Estimates there appeared "Minor Works Medical"; "Minor Works Education"; "Minor Works General". I think the total came to $500,000. We decided this year that we would cut all these special departmental minor works votes out and increase this General Minor Works vote by a very much smaller sum than the sum which we cut out.

I thank the Financial Secretary for helping out the Minister. [Interruption.]

Order, please.

If I may say so, Sir, we work as a team!

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. Question proposed, That the sum of $6,549,400 for Head 62 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I should like to refer for a few moments to the question of flood alleviation. I am glad that the Bedok scheme has now been started and will be completed, I hope, to the satisfaction of the residents there in a few months. But I would ask the Minister now to turn his attention to the Ulu Pandan area. He stated, in reply to the Member for Tanjong Pagar the other day, that plans must be formulated before money can be spent. But I would remind him that a plan already exists in the Ulu Pandan area. It was formulated two years ago, published in fact in July 1953 by the Flood Alleviation Joint Committee, composed of representatives of the Government and the City Council, which recommended a scheme to take water away from Alexandra and Bukit Timah through Ulu Pandan to the sea. The Alexandra canal scheme was originally estimated to cost about $4 millions, and this was subsequently reduced to a one million dollar scheme. Finally, however, it was decided first to go forward with a pilot scheme to make sure that the waters of Alexandra would run away in a westerly direction and the reverse direction from what it does at present at a cost of $120,000, of which Government agreed to pay $60,000. Eventually this scheme was completed, I think, about nine months ago at a cost of $200,000, the extra cost being due largely to the need to purchase land from the War Department. I say this scheme was successfully completed in the neighbourhood of nine months ago and I think I stated in this House in April that the water was running away in the right direction, that is to say, in a westerly direction. But what has happened since then? A lot of the canal has silted up. Enterprising farmers are now growing water-hyacinth in ponds for their pigs, and the water at the top end of the canal is now running in the opposite direction back towards Alexandra and the city. It seems to me that a scheme which has cost the public $200,000 and was successful should be followed up immediately and that money should have been granted in the 1956 Estimates to see that what has been done already is not wasted but is being carried on.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I have only got at present the preliminary very brief mention about Ulu Pandan. The Member for Tanglin's remarks do seem to me to indicate that if the work done is silting up and if farmers are interfering with it, - do I understand that properly? - it does seem to indicate the need for proper planning before we put these works in hand and for a really comprehensive overall scheme before we undertake those relatively minor works. I cannot give a figure for this area. It is one on which we have not got a report yet, but it might be in the nature of $1½ millions. I think that could be considerably reduced. I cannot anticipate the expert report which we shall get in the course of the next few weeks. I hope early next year it will be available for discussion by the Assembly.

Mr Chairman, Sir, water-hyacinth growing and silting of the canal does indicate a lack of supervision and a lack of interest rather than anything else.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $6,549,400 for Head 62 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 63 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew - To reduce by $19,960 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1 (3), Assistant Controllers of Telecommunications, on page 253 of the Estimates.

Mr Chairman, Sir, this is another of the amendments that I was to move against an increase in superscale posts for expatriates. If, in fact, I were to move it this morning, I would give the Chief Minister an opportunity to state categorically in this House whether he agrees with the opinions expressed by his Financial Secretary that the representations which I have carried into this Assembly were made by bigoted civil servants. I am blocked by Standing Orders from moving this amendment, but I would like to take this opportunity to say, Mr Chairman, Sir, that I have not during the course of this debate impugned either the personal integrity or character of anybody in this Assembly. I have, however, categorically stated that the only reasonable inferences one can draw from those facts presented as they are in official publications are the ones I have drawn in this Assembly. In view of the obstacle of Standing Orders in the way of this amendment, I will not move. Question proposed, That the sum of $4,397,680 for Head 63 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Chairman, Sir, reference has been made to certain representations which were made to the Sreenivasan Commission of which copies were addressed to me, and a complaint that there was no receipt of a reply from me -

Is the Chief Minister speaking on this question?

To some extent it is on this question, Sir. If I may be permitted to comment, Sir, on the motion that was withdrawn?

I am afraid, Mr Chief Minister, you are out of order.

May I speak on a point of explanation, Sir?

On another occasion, Mr Chief Minister.

There will not be any left, Sir. I would ask your indulgence on a point of personal explanation, Sir.

Not at this time, Mr Chief Minister.

Call a Press conference!

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $4,397,680 for Head 63 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

That disposes of the First Schedule. Now, on the Second Schedule - Development. SECOND SCHEDULE Head D 13 - The sum of $15,030 for Head D 13 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 14 - The sum of $6,000 for Head D 14 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 58 - The sum of $3,344,970 for Head D 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 29 - The sum of $295,000 for Head D 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 48 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, To reduce by $500,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 4 (2), Primary Schools, Group B, on page 8 of the Development Estimates. In view of the explanation of the Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee) yesterday, I had intended not to proceed with this amendment as I felt I could not extract any more useful information from him, but I understand that my friend the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) wishes to have an opportunity to speak on this subject as he had none yesterday, and so I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank the Member for Tanglin very much for giving me this opportunity to speak. With your permission, Mr Chairman, Sir, before I touch on this subject, I wish to remind all Members in this House that, despite so many Party differences, yet we have at least one common aim, that is, this country is going to get rid of colonialism. Therefore, we must also get rid of the colonial educational policy. Mr Chairman, Sir, we have had a chance to glance at the development estimate on education. One glance and we can see that this is another colonial educational policy. We cannot trace anything at all that shows that the Government has kept its word when it promised during the elections, "Equality of education for all races! Preservation and promotion of all cultures!" Our Chief Minister even went to the extent of talking during the elections about lifting the language barrier in this country, and I am sure, Sir, that all this is connected with education. We believe that the educational policy of any country in the world is always of prime importance. Whoever can carry out a healthy and constructive policy will not only bring about immediate benefit to the country but benefit for a long, long time to come. Sir, when we look at the Estimates, we see a number of new secondary schools scheduled to be built. I wish the Minister for Education would clearly indicate to us how many of these will be Malay secondary schools; how many will be Chinese secondary schools; and also whether any primary school is to be built during the coming year. Sir, we cannot understand Government's policy on education. On the one hand, it promises the people that their cultural position would be secured. They say, "We are going to give you fair treatment." Yet, on the other hand, they are promoting only English education. Although we are very happy to note that more money is voted this year, we must not forget that the previous Legislative Council - we very often called them a colonial Legislative Council - unhesitatingly gave $12 millions to improve Chinese education. Whether this grant met with welcome or just only resentment or even fear and suspicion is not known. Sir, I think it is now high time for the Minister for Education to have the courage to make a start to get rid of the colonial educational policy in this country. My sympathies quite often go to many Ministries which have been attacked by the forceful and learned Member for Tanjong Pagar who accuses the Ministers of being influenced too much by their expatriate assistants. But, Sir, my sympathies do not, in the least, go to the Minister for Education. I believe the Minister for Education has betrayed Chinese education. He, more than anybody else, should understand the Chinese school tradition in this country. He should himself deal with the policy on Chinese education or even vernacular education and should not depend solely upon the expatriate officers. Sir, if I have your permission, I can give a particular example.

Order, order. I just want to understand what the hon. Member is getting at. The amendment is in respect of primary schools. The hon. Member is talking about primary schools?

Yes.

Thank you. Carry on, Mr Lim Cher Kheng.

Mr Chairman, everything has been so frankly debated that I am going to emphasise that this Budget has been framed entirely by the Colonial Office, including its policy on primary schools. I remember not long ago we invited a so-called education expert from Hongkong to give us advice on bilingual education, to give us advice on Chinese education in particular. Sir, let me speak as a former Chinese school teacher. We always regard Chinese education in Hongkong as peculiar and unpopular. Mr Chairman, Sir, it will surprise you to know that Chinese education in Hongkong is - The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee) rose -

Point of order?

Sir, the Member is referring to evidence given before the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education, which evidence is not yet allowed to be brought up before this House for discussion.

Arising from that point, if the hon. Member, in fact, is referring to evidence which has been given before the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education, then, of course, he is out of order.

Mr Chairman, I think our Minister has jumped too quickly to conclusions! I just say according to what has appeared in the papers. Sir, this so-called bilingual expert was going to give us advice on Chinese education, and I am going to say that that is wrong, and the decision to invite this Hongkong expert was, I am sure, not made by our Minister. Sir, it may surprise you to know that Chinese education in Hongkong is taught not in Kuo-yu but in Cantonese, with profit-making as the motive. It is not only colonialised but commercialised. Yet we are going to accept such advice from this colonialised and commercialised expert! Mr Chew Swee Kee rose -

Point of order?

The hon. Member is not talking on the Development Estimates. He is now talking on the educational policy.

I had better refer hon. Members to the relevant Standing Order 69 (7), which says: "Any Member may move an amendment to the schedule to reduce by $ ... the sum to be allotted for any head of expenditure ..". Then, paragraph (11): "On the question, "That the sum of $ ... for head ... stand part of the schedule", debate shall be confined to the policy of the service for which the money is to be provided ..."; so that I must rule that the hon. Member is probably making a speech on the main Question. The Question that is before the House is the question proposed by the Member for Tanglin, and it is an amendment to reduce by $500,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 4 (2), Primary Schools. If, therefore, the hon. Member wishes to speak further on the question of policy, he should wait until the main Question has been proposed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think our Minister is getting very impatient! The whole reason is that the Minister for Education has been greatly influenced by the expatriates, and I doubt very much whether the Minister has framed the educational aspect of this Budget, or has he only just been consulted?

Order. From what I can gather, the Member for Changi is, in fact, talking about the policy on education. That is correct? Mr Lim Cher Kheng indicated assent.

Please wait until I propose the main Question before the hon. Member speaks on it. This is an amendment.

Mr Chairman, Sir, then I simply have to ask the Minister for Education to indicate clearly whether this $500,000 for all the primary schools is intended to be allocated among Malay schools, Tamil schools and Chinese schools, or merely to English schools alone. Sir, many a time the Government Ministers accuse Members of the Opposition of reading their speeches. This proves to us that there is prejudice against one's mother tongue which one wants to use because one cannot speak English as fluently as our Hon. Ministers can. But that does not entitle them to say, "Well, I am an educated man." We cannot, on the one hand, give fervent support to Government's policy in building so many English schools to promote English education, and, on the other hand, stop vernacular education from progressing. So I want to repeat that I am not clear whether our Minister himself has framed the development aspect of education in this Budget or whether he has only been consulted. Have I your permission to point out how much our Ministers are influenced by the expatriate officers? Can I?

Order. The hon. Member might or might not be in order if he carries on in that theme when I propose the main Question. If he wants to speak on the main Question, he can do so, but whether he will or will not be in order I will have to decide as the occasion arises.

Mr Chairman, Sir, some Members come here just for the sake of criticism and nothing else. They just know how to criticise - destructive criticism, not constructive criticism. I think I had better confine myself to Standing Orders and reply to the amendment before the House, and that is the reduction of $500,000 from the Development Estimates. I gave that reply on Monday and I would advise Members to read that reply. The hon. Member the mover of this amendment had indicated that he would withdraw his question today, but he moved it again in order that an opportunity be given to others to speak on it. I repeat: the Government is all the time carrying out investigations into ways and means of reducing the cost of buildings, but it must be borne in mind that economy on capital expenditure must not be offset by increase in maintenance costs. It is also important that schools should be built, but we do not want them to have a quality, which is so inferior as to be a reproach to our legislators. We have, sitting on a Committee in the P.W.D., expert educationists who can advise how class-rooms could be reduced in size, how the ceiling could be reduced in height, and we are working out a scheme whereby the cost of buildings will be reduced considerably.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think the Minister for Education has not answered my question.

Order, order, Mr Lim Cher Kheng. The Minister has not answered your question because you have been out of order. Please wait until the main Question is proposed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I do take objection to Ministers repeating all the time that our criticisms are all destructive and not constructive. Actually, it is only out of destruction sometimes that construction emerges. We have to do a certain amount of destruction here in order to take away the ideas of standards of building which were set at a time when we were in affluent circumstances and when we had not undertaken such extensive social programmes for the under-privileged. May I put it this way, Sir, and ask a question: whether savings could be effected out of this enormous amount of, say, a few hundred thousand dollars during the next year or two and whether the savings, say about half a million dollars - being about ten per cent estimated to be spent - could be diverted to vernacular schools, Chinese, Malay and Indian?

Perhaps I might be able to help the hon. Member on this one. The situation, I think, is over these 18 schools in Group B, and I wish to inform hon. Members that one will be ready by the end of this year and tenders will be called for 13 more before the end of this year. That means, of course, that the very lengthy planning and so on - site investigation and all that - is now ready and we are in a position to call for tenders. Consequently, if you want to stop that in order to readjust your plans, you will have to go back one year and stop 13 schools from being built, which I am sure is not the intention of the mover of the amendment. There remain four other schools for which site difficulties have not yet been cleared, but as soon as sites are available, we shall go ahead with them. As far as I can see from my constructional angle, it would be extremely difficult in respect of this vote to divert the money from the schools since a large part of the preliminary work has already been done, and if that work is stopped, then you will stop the whole building programme.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. Question proposed, That the sum of $11,542,020 for Head D 48 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Chairman, Sir, looking through this estimate on development, I do find the item "School Playing Fields" coming up and $100,000 allocated for developing playing fields. We all realise that playing fields in Singapore are scarce and few and far between, and indeed you do find that there are many schools without playing fields. I must also inform this House that although some schools are fortunate enough to have playing fields, yet these are not put to maximum use. It is just a suggestion, Sir, that it is a good thing to put in probably two or three more playing fields out of this allocation of $100,000, but I think it would be a better thing that the existing playing fields of some schools -

Order, order. The time has elapsed.

- should be shared with other schools which have not.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $11,542,020 for Head D 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 18 - Question proposed, That the sum of $10 for Head D 18 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think there is a contradiction in terms between the First Schedule and the Second Schedule. The First Schedule refers to "Garden, Botanic", and the Second Schedule refers to "Gardens, Botanic". The correct title is "Garden, Botanic".

We will correct that as a typographical error. The "s" is deleted.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $10 for Head D 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 54 - The sum of $10 for Head D 54 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 7 - The sum of $385,000 for Head D 7 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 45 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 1, Acquisition and Development of Sites for Resettlement, on page 12 of the Development Estimates. Sir, this is a very huge sum of $5,500,000. No particulars on this subject are given, and before I say anything, I would like to know what they are. Question proposed.

I fully appreciate the difficulties experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Telok Ayer, and I think we have now agreed, Sir, that they will be solved in the future by the existence and the work of an Estimates Committee, reports of which will give detailed information about how the various votes are built up. With regard to this item, "Acquisition and Development of Sites for Resettlement", I do not think I need explain the purpose for which the money is provided. Perhaps I will merely give the hon. Member some information as to how the sum is made up. I think that is what he wants?

Yes.

We have estimated this year that we will probably have to acquire about a thousand acres for farming and that will cost approximately $2 millions; 200 acres for rural resettlement and other types - $0.8 million; for site development we have allocated $1 million; for general resettlement costs $1.2 millions, making a total of $5 millions. There is also a revote from last year's provision of $500,000. That is how the amount is made up.

Sir, I am quite satisfied with the explanation given to me, and I would not like to proceed with the amendment.

Has the hon. Member the assent of the Assembly that his amendment be withdrawn? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 2, Purchase of Land, on page 12 of the Development Estimates. I am moving this amendment for the same reason given in my preceding amendment - that no explanation is given about this item. When the Hon. the Financial Secretary replies, I hope he will indicate also whether the purchase of any land or buildings is in itself an investment and not an item of expenditure. Question proposed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I will answer the first part of the question. Actually, the Ministry of Lands or the Commissioner of Lands is the agent for various Government departments in the purchase of land. For instance, the Education Department would want land to build schools; the Medical Department would want to build hospitals and clinics. The actual authority for the purchase of land in Singapore is the Commissioner of Lands. He is nothing but an agent for the various Government departments. The break-down figures for the sum allocated for next year for the various departments are : $ Education Department 3,850,000 Medical Department 1,140,000 Social Welfare 500,000 Posts and Telegraphs 500,000 Secretary for Defence 160,000 Telecommunications 50,000 Customs 40,000 Broadcasting 30,000 These are the break-down figures for the various Government departments and Ministries which require land and for which the Commissioner of Lands acts as the agent. As for the second part of the question, I think I will leave it to the Hon. the Financial Secretary to reply.

I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend had in mind when he spoke of the investment of Government funds in land. Perhaps he might care to elaborate further?

What I meant, Sir, was this. I have bought a pencil. This is an investment and the property is in my hands. It is not an item of expenditure whatsoever. You can dispose of this pencil and again recredit. Now, can the Hon. the Financial Secretary indicate in his future Estimates that it is an investment, or that it is a reserve fund invested in something? That is all I want to ask. On the other hand, the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has explained that this will be required for Government purposes and, as such, I will not consider it an investment at all because it belongs to the Government of the Colony. In the circumstances, I would like to withdraw this amendment.

Has the hon. Member the assent of the Assembly that the amendment be withdrawn? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed. That the sum of $16,239,780 for Head D 45 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Chairman, Sir, under this head $5,500,000 has been allocated for "Acquisition and Development of Sites for Resettlement". I have one resettlement in my area, Sir. It was created nearly 18 months ago. The condition of the roads and surroundings is far from satisfactory. I am told, Sir, on a recent visit by the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing that the money is already there in the Estimates, but the difficulty is to get surveyors to survey road-works and then implement them, the reason being that there are no surveyors available in the Department. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, Sir, when one thinks of the fact that there is money available but the work is not done. These resettlements have very little amenities, and the more we can provide for them, the better would life be for the people living in these resettlements. I would suggest to the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing - I have already mentioned it to him during his visit, but I would like to put it on record as something that I have said in this Chamber - that the Government should resort to finding some private surveyor to do this type of work, so that the work would not only be speeded up, but the fact that it is being put in hand would give some confidence to the people living there.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the question which the Member for Seletar has in mind is receiving my immediate consideration.

Thank you.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am one of the people coming from outside the city area, and I am coming again to this question of contribution to the Rural Board. The Hon. the Financial Secretary has complimented the Rural Board on collecting a lot of revenue. I think that compliment must be qualified. Here in Singapore you do find that many people live in congested surroundings right in the heart of this city. I think it should be the policy of Government to encourage people to live in the rural areas, and if you are going to encourage them to live in healthier rural areas, you should bring to them more amenities of life. As a person who has been living in the rural area for a very long time, I can safely say that the amenities there are not up to standard. The roads must be greatly improved. Playing fields must be provided in almost every district. I will just give one aspect of living conditions - the night-soil system. It is not good in the rural areas and needs looking into. All these things need money, and yet we have four million odd dollars for an area which is, I think, ten times greater than the city area. Sir, I think this sum is inadequate and should be increased so that there will be more encouragement for people to live outside the city area. Furthermore, if this sum were increased, there would not be the necessity of increasing rates. I have heard the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing state that $2 increase a month for all the amenities in Serangoon Garden is justifiable. There should be no complaint about it. But I would like to inform him that when a person buys a house in Serangoon Garden, he buys it with a promise that all these amenities will be part of the price he pays for it. But after a year you say, "No, the value is greater. All that we have promised to install is not going to be installed unless we put an added value on the house." That, I think, Sir, is not justified.

Sir, may I remind the Member for Serangoon that the promise made was not by Government or the Rural Board, but by the owners of the estate themselves; and that, in fact, the Rural Board house owners have had considerable encouragement? I would also remind him that they pay 60 per cent of the assessment that the city dweller pays. The assessment on the annual value of their houses is 20 per cent. The city dweller pays 32 per cent in respect of the annual value of his premises. Sir, I am sure the Member for Serangoon is conscious of the fact that he cannot get services without payment, and payment ultimately comes from the public. The system of assessment is considered a fair one and has so far worked reasonably well in that the persons who have the amenities and are in a position to pay, do pay. A man who owns a house has his premises assessed, and I understand it is very conservatively assessed at an annual value of, say, $100 and he pays per year on that in the rural area only $20. If he gets $100 rent a month he pays on that rate for all the amenities that make possible the occupation of the premises in question, $20 a month to the authorities. I would like to add this, that there is no question whatsoever but that the amenities in the rural areas should be improved. On this I am in complete agreement with the Member for Serangoon, and it is certainly our hope, Sir, to continue what has already been done in the way of giving greater amenities to the areas outside city limits.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $16,239,780 for Head D 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 49 - The sum of $10 for Head D 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 39 - The sum of $200,020 for Head D 39 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 52 -

Sir, I beg to move, To reduce by $220,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 2, Urban Health Centre, on page 16 of the Development Estimates. In moving this amendment, Sir, I wish to express objection to the erecting of another $2 millions building in the vicinity of the General Hospital. I understand that it is to be a teaching centre and not for treatment, but why should it cost the equivalent of something like three secondary schools? Is the Minister entirely satisfied that such a centre must cost as much as $2 millions? I realise that three-quarters of the amount is from the Colonial and Welfare Development Fund, but could not part of this generous grant have been promised to further new industries? Question proposed.

I think perhaps I should answer these questions since the Development Estimates were really my child, a thriving child, I hope! As the Member for Tanglin has said, this is a project which involves not only Colony funds but C.D. & W. funds. It goes a bit beyond that in so far as it is what you might call a tripartite effort on the part of the Government, the University of Malaya and the City Council. It is, as he says, a training establishment - training of nurses in rural health; training of doctors in public health; and the City Council are going to use it as a child health clinic. As the Member for Tanglin knows, before we can get any grants from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, we have to put up a particularly strong case to justify expenditure, and it is subject to most careful scrutiny and pruning by the authorities at home before authority for a grant is given. I think I can say in all good faith that this represents the minimum amount of expenditure which is required to provide the services which we envisage. It is a training establishment of the highest order. As I say, $500,000 is coming from Colony funds and $1,500,000 from C.D. & W. funds.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Sir, I beg to move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 4, District Hospital, on page 16 of the Development Estimates. Sir, the Hon. the Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga) in his speech on Monday went some way to clarify Government policy as far as his Ministry is concerned but not, in our opinion, far enough. One question he has not yet answered is this: Why give priority to improvements in the General Hospital over the building of a new district hospital? Decentralisation is admitted to be essential, and admitted to be part of Government policy, and yet this is to be delayed for the best part of another year because money has to be spent on reconditioning the General Hospital wards first. Is this absolutely necessary, and is it in the best public interests? Let me pose another question. Even if more beds will be available than before in these General Hospital wards, what will the cost be per bed, and how does this compare with the proposed cost per bed at the new district hospital? I hope very much to hear that neither the reconditioned wards nor the new district hospital will be built of a very high standard, nor money lavished on the new Mistri wing of the General Hospital but that the public is going to get very much better value for its money. Nevertheless, at the cost of $3,200,000, I have my misgivings. Another point, Sir, needs explanation because the Minister for Health and the Financial Secretary on Monday seemed at variance with each other. The former explained to us that the first site for the district hospital selected was in Katong and was abandoned because piling would be too costly. The latter stated that work on the new site at Kallang would be slow because the land was reclaimed land and much piling would be needed and would take time. Now I can readily believe that most of the old airfield area is not suitable for heavy buildings because of piling problems on reclaimed land and there seems to be a contradiction. Is the new district hospital then to cost more than it need because it is going to be built on an unsuitable site? Is a great deal of piling going to put up the cost per bed of this hospital? Is the Minister satisfied that this is not only the best site geographically but also the cheapest from the taxpayers' point of view? I hope that hon. Members opposite will not feel that these are destructive, sterile questions. What we want is to be convinced that the right decisions have been made in the public interests. If money continues to be poured into the General Hospital area at the expense of decentralisation, it is our duty to probe into the reasons for it until we get a satisfactory answer. One other point I would like to mention is that under Head 3 this Assembly approves, among other items, a sum of $300,000 for a 250-bed hospital to be built by S.A.T.A. Plans for this have been drawn up by a private architect, and a charitable organisation has to be careful of money, especially when it is Government money and public money. Now, if a private organisation can build a 250-bed hospital for $300,000, why cannot the Government approach these figures? I realise, of course, that a T.B. hospital is a hospital limited to a single disease. It is a curative hospital, but there seems to me a very great disparity between a 250-bed hospital at $300,000 and, I think, a 400-bed hospital at $3,200,000. Question proposed.

I think the Member for Tanglin touched at one point on the Kallang site?

Yes.

Perhaps I can help him out on some technical details about that one. The first non-technical detail, of course, is that the site there is already Government property. We have not got to pay very high prices for it. In that respect, of course, the site is eminently eligible because it is free. Secondly, it is eligible because it is very well situated from a demographic point of view because the population around is both heavy and poor and it is therefore a very suitable place for a hospital to be where the poor people can get into it easily. On the question of piling, it is extremely hard to find any site in Singapore now where you do not have to put piles down and there will undoubtedly have to be piling, but no more than there is in the ordinary way with the majority of the buildings that have to go up nowadays.

On the question of delay in construction of the district hospital, I think I am right in saying that it will take a year to prepare the plans finally before work can be started. In the meantime, we are spending a certain amount of money on the General Hospital. I will deal with that point under the item "Alterations to Ward, etc." which is going to be raised, I think, by the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) very shortly. I am afraid I cannot give the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) any details about the cost per bed. He knows much more about the S.A.T.A. Hospital than I do myself, but I think it is of rather simpler construction generally than a fully-fledged district hospital with operating theatres and all the other things like staff quarters that go to make up a fully-fledged district hospital. The estimated cost, of course, will be most carefully drawn up. It may be that we will be able to reduce the estimates as a result of the activities of the Sub-Committee on Medical Building Costs which is now sitting. That is a matter which we will deal with in the future. As regards the site, I think my hon. Friend the Minister for Communications and Works has explained that. The first site mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health was at Katong - a private site close to the Sea View Hotel. That project was abandoned when we decided to build a hospital on the eastern portion of the Kallang Airport site. I think these are all the points which have been raised by the hon. Member.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I should like to add just a small point for the information of the Member for Tanglin, which he might find helpful in the matter of comparison. I did enquire as to the position in England and I was told that for a modern hospital that is fully equipped, with operating theatres, it is assessed that the cost is in the region of £2,500 per bed. I think that is a point which he might find useful for comparison.

Sir, the Financial Secretary has just told us that for this hospital one year will be required for planning, and I take it that about two to three years will be required for its construction and equipment to enable it to be run as a hospital. In the meantime, I am very much concerned about what is going to be done during the next four years to alleviate the position of the sick people in this area who have to go down to town through very congested traffic. I think during rush hours it would take an ambulance coming down from the Katong area to the General Hospital well over half an hour, if not more. Are we now going to adopt a defeatist attitude and do nothing about it? I have been assured that the beautiful building - the terminal airport - is not going to be used for the Malayan Auxiliary Air Force. May I humbly suggest that this building should in the meantime be pressed into service as a district hospital until such time as a new one is ready? It has all the facilities there. You have the administration rooms, telephones, services which can be used for surgical wards, offices, etc. You have on the first floor rooms ready to be turned into wards. There is a very large area of open space on the first floor which has been used as a restaurant and as a look-out chamber and which can be converted into extra wards, if necessary at a very cheap cost. I am now offering this suggestion to the Minister for Health whether, in all seriousness, something cannot be done for the people in this district, because it will not only serve the people living in this area but also all the people living in the Serangoon and Paya Lebar area - a very congested area - and enable them to by-pass the town by using the excellent roads of Paya Lebar and Aljunied Road.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the idea of having a hospital at the airport terminal has been considered by the experts whom we must consult and whose views we must accept, and we have been assured that that building is wholly inappropriate and inadequate for the purposes of a district hospital. But the suggestion just made by the Member for Paya Lebar that it might be utilised as a sort of temporary cottage hospital seems to have potentialities, Sir, and I would like to assure him that that question would certainly be investigated from the point of view of a purely temporary cottage hospital rather than a fully-equipped hospital. I think there might be something in it. It might well be feasible.

Sir, sometime in 1954/55, if I remember it correctly, Thomson Road was suggested as a site for a district hospital. As far as I can remember, there are two sites - both Government property - which are available for public purposes. One of them is an elevated site and I am wondering whether the Government has considered the possibility of erecting a district hospital on it. I think it is a very ideal site.

Mr Chairman, Sir, with due respect to the experts, I cannot see why the old Kallang Airport cannot be turned into a hospital. Just before the fall of Singapore, all the hospitals were in the open, under tents, and the terminal airport building is a very good building compared to tents for a hospital!

I think it was the Member for Tanglin who enquired what the average cost of a bed would be. Working it out on a $3,200,000 hospital, I have already intimated to the Members of the House that in the first phase, it is anticipated that with the staff available and by the time that it is erected, the hospital can accommodate 250 beds. This is, of course, anticipation, and we hope to enlarge on that. There will be provision for enlargement to a 400-bed hospital. Working that out, the cost would be about $7,100 per bed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am not quite clear what the Minister intended to convey. Does he mean that a district hospital at $3,200,000 will only have 250 beds?

No, 400. 250 beds in the first phase.

At $3,200,000 not 400 beds?

Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, To reduce by $200,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 10 (3), Alterations to ward, etc. on page 16 of the Development Estimates. I see here that the estimated cost is $2,820,000 and this will include an extension to the Orthopaedic Unit. This amount is to be spent for alterations to wards at the General Hospital. This amount seems to be a terrific one. To me it visualises a building - two buildings, in fact. I am reliably informed that the new Chartered Bank premises, Crosby House, at Anson Road costs just over $3 millions, and if you take away the cost of the foundations, I think it should be somewhere about what is going to be spent on the alterations to the General Hospital, with an extension to the Orthopaedic Unit - $2,820,000. Here is a complete and concrete building before us. For that same amount of money you have Crosby House - a beautiful huge six-storey building with equipment furnished. I am not an engineer, but I can see facts. For $3 millions, they have built the Bank of China building. The cost of Asia Building is $6 millions. It will need a lot of explanation from the Government to justify this amount voted in the Estimates for "Alterations to Ward, etc." - $2,820,000. I would also like to ask what extra accommodation we would get for this enormous expenditure, and how many beds we are going to get for spending nearly $3 millions of public money. We could have put up another skyscraper in Singapore. Question proposed.

Sir, I should point out to the Member for Paya Lebar that under this sub-head 10 (3) the total estimated cost of the whole scheme is $2.82 millions. That is an estimate of the cost of alterations which the Minister for Health has in mind for implementation over a number of years. Now I can tell him what has been spent so far and what we propose to spend this year against the provision of $400,000 which has been entered in the Estimates, part of it being a revote and part of it being new money. The revised estimate of cost of work done so far is $365,000. I think the hon. Member is familiar with the General Hospital to know what I mean when I refer to Wards 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. This money has been spent on remodelling of Wards 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to take in the verandahs, thus adding bed accommodation space to the wards. At the same time, new bathrooms, lavatories and other accommodation of a similar nature have been added to make allowance for the increased capacity of these wards. At the same time also, what is called a follow-up clinic has been made for Professor Monteiro's Unit. The object of this follow-up clinic is to get patients on to their feet as soon as they can walk and therefore free beds for the occupation of other patients. But at the same time, as they still require treatment, facilities have to be provided for them under the care of the same physicians who have been treating them before and not to force them to go to the General Outpatients Department. That is the object of the follow-up clinic which has been provided along with the alterations and remodelling of these wards for the sum of $365,000. Next year, with the money provided, we hope to supply a new Ear, Nose and Throat Unit. I think those who have had to attend the Ear, Nose and Throat Unit of the Hospital for treatment will realise that it is not very adequate. They have to use the general operating theatres in the vicinity of the consulting room. Waiting accommodation for outpatients is not particularly good. It is proposed to take the ward which has been vacated by the children who have been transferred to the Mistri wing and turn that into a complete Ear, Nose and Throat clinic, with operating theatres and a proper Outpatients Department, and so on and so forth. The net effect of that would be to provide 50 additional beds for Ear, Nose and Throat patients. We are also at the same time to add another floor to the existing block in the Orthopaedic section of the hospital. That will provide an extra hundred beds. At the same time there will be other minor alterations required to provide the facilities for the increased number of beds in these wards. As regards the future, I have here a long list of what is proposed to be done in the years from 1957 onwards. For example, modernise and increase the bed accommodation in the Stanley Block and Norris Block and so on and so forth, but I must say this, that it is not at all certain that we will proceed with this programme. The matter is now under consideration and it may well be that in the course of the next two or three months we will have a completely revised programme which may cut down future plans for alterations to wards in the General Hospital and divert the funds which have been earmarked for that purpose to other purposes. I think I can say that the remarks which have come from the Progressive Party in this connection are very constructive and helpful and they will be borne in mind by the Minister.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Financial Secretary has dealt with the programme regarding the suggested alterations to the General Hospital. I saw a frown on the face of the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) on the question of the district hospital with 450 beds. May I just remind him that the $3,200,000 is not specifically for the 250 beds? That is particularly to cover a 450-bed hospital. What I meant was that in the first phase we can only accommodate 250 patients, but the sum of $3,200,000 is for a 450-bed hospital with all the equipment and conveniences. I would also remind hon. Members that it is very misleading to talk about hospitals in terms of the number of beds. One must consider a hospital in terms of its functions. A hospital has beds and those beds must be used to the best possible advantage. It is not a question of beds but an increase of facilities to the general public. The Financial Secretary has told you about the floor that we intend to expand for the Ear, Nose and Throat Department and the Orthopaedic Unit and so forth; and also to provide a follow-up clinic for those patients who have left their beds. This will enable the beds vacated by them to be utilised by other patients. We must also provide facilities for out-patients as well as in-patients. I think the Financial Secretary has covered all the various departments that we have in mind when making alterations and additions to the General Hospital.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the assurance from the Financial Secretary has cut short all that I wanted to say! We are indeed happy to have his assurance. I would say that in all hospitals we want more facilities, but I maintain that the most important function of a hospital is to cure as many people as possible. Also I have faith in the predecessors of the Medical Department in their early planning, so that if it is said that they had not thought of knocking out verandahs to increase space accommodation before, I think I would differ on that.

Mr Chairman, Sir, whilst on the subject of hospitals -

We are on alterations to wards!

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, To reduce by $200,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 10 (6), Quarters for 78 Sisters, on page 16 of the Development Estimates. I see here under this item the estimated cost for these 78 quarters is $1,250,000 which works out at about $16,000 to $17,000 per unit. I take it that flats are intended for these 78 sisters? I do not want to spend too much time on this item. I mentioned at the previous sitting that it was possible to reduce the cost of housing the rank and file of the Police from about $10,000 to $5,000 per unit, and I would urge that similar consideration be given so that the accommodation cost here can be reduced to somewhere in the region of $12,000 per unit instead of $17,000. Question proposed.

If I only knew, Sir, before the event, I would be able to give very full answers! As my hon. Friend the Member for Paya Lebar says, the cost per unit will work out at about $16,000 to $17,000. I think I can say that this building has not been started. I think hon. Members will know where it is being built. It will be built just behind Vickers Block. Plans have been prepared, recently signed, but they have been prepared in the light of the decision taken by the Government to reduce the cost of medical buildings as much as possible. They will be revised in the light of the decision of the Sub-Committee on the cost of medical construction, and it is possible that considerable savings will be achieved on the cost per unit of these buildings, principally, I think, by reducing the standard of equipment and fittings, tiling and other things of a similar nature inside the block itself. As I mentioned, I think, at an earlier sitting of this Assembly in connection with the sister quarters in the Vickers Block, we have reduced the cost per unit very considerably, and the same economies will be practised in respect of this block for 78 sisters. As regards the principle underlying the construction of this block, we have found - I think it is generally accepted - that it is necessary to have a quarter of the staff of the hospital actually resident on the spot in case of an emergency. Provision of quarters for 78 sisters will really work out at one sister for 45 beds in the hospital once it has been expanded to the full capacity. I think in these circumstances it will be agreed that provision of a block of quarters of this size for sisters is not an unreasonable project.

Sir, I would like to ask whether this work, or, for that matter, other works or buildings or alterations, is being done by the P.W.D., or do you give it to any private architect or private contractors? When discussing this item with the Member for Paya Lebar, who has some experience of construction of cheaper buildings and cheaper flats, I have been told that the work can be done by private architects through private contractors, under, of course, the supervision of a Government architect. Sir, I would like to enquire whether Government would be prepared to utilise private architects if their own costs are much higher than the others.

We do utilise private architects from time to time, Sir, if we find that the projects which we have in hand and which are regarded as essential are beyond the capacity of the Public Works Department, but the Public Works Department is our department. It consists of highly qualified architects, quantity surveyors and all the other people who are required to supervise the construction of buildings, and where possible we always employ the Public Works Department. On the question of cost, it is a difficult problem and I would not like to discuss it here - whether the cost of construction under private architects is cheaper or dearer than that of the P.W.D. There is, of course, the question of paying architects' fees which have to be paid when we employ private architects but which, of course, do not have to be paid when we employ the P.W.D. Our policy in general is that where possible we employ our own people, but if their capacity is over-taxed, then we have no hesitation in going to private architects.

I wish to assure the Member for Paya Lebar that the question of costs is continually in my mind, because the more money I have to use, the more benefits I can bring to the people - build more clinics and district hospitals. I have spent hours and hours with the Financial Secretary and the P.W.D. in trying my best to reduce costs, but for his information I would like to say, in connection with these quarters for 78 sisters, that there are only three flats there for the matrons, and each sister will have a bed-sitting room and a bathroom.

I would just like to make a point about the architects. People do level accusations against the Public Works Department for building - Mr R. Jumabhoy rose -

Point of order?

Yes, Sir. Sir, there was no accusation made by me at all, and the Minister for Communications and Works should not bring in this at all. I have never levelled any accusations against the Public Works Department for anything. I only wanted to enquire -

That is not a point of order.

Neither did I level any accusation against the Member for Telok Ayer. I was saying "people". I wish to have an opportunity of replying to things that are said by people around this town and which are in the same general form as what the hon. Member said, only more emphatic. The fact is, of course, that the P.W.D. builds the buildings which they are told to build. The architect is told what he has got to produce, and he produces the best he can with the money allotted. As regards the cost of the buildings, whether they are extravagant, whether they are luxurious, or whether they are economical and austere is a matter of general Government policy; and we are now instituting, as I have already explained in this Assembly, policies of economy and austerity. We have set up machinery which I have described for that purpose, and I hope that the economy and austerity will successfully follow. As I have said, they cannot be expected to appear until you have got new works in hand which will start with the plans made now. They cannot appear in respect of works which have been planned in the past unless you are going to tear up your plans and make a new start with consequent delay of a year or so.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 11 (1), Quarters for Matrons, Sisters and Almoner, on page 16 of the Development Estimates. In this case, I have studied the figures with great alarm and I shall indeed be really alarmed unless some explanation is given as to why there should be an increase of nearly 25 per cent in the estimated cost. Under the Remarks column we have "Estimated cost revised from $450,000", and under the Estimated cost it is now $720,000. Well, I am mistaken, it is nearly a 60 per cent increase. If the same amount of accommodation is envisaged, something must have gone very wrong. I will therefore seek information before I speak further on this point. Question proposed.

The answer to that question, of course, is that another floor has been added to the building which was envisaged for the $450,000 entered in the Estimates last year. I think hon. Members will remember, possibly about three months ago now, that I came asking for an application for supplementary vote for $270,000 to this vote - Quarters for Matrons, Sisters and Almoner at Kandang Kerbau. That was approved by the Assembly. As I say, the object of the exercise was to add another floor to the building - it is a two-storey building - making it a three-storey building, and adding one-third more to the accommodation. As I say, Sir, the increase has already been approved by the Assembly and I regret that I did not make that clear in the marginal note.

Sir, I am still unable to understand how an additional floor can make an increase of nearly 60 per cent to the total cost. There is very little information before us, and I shall just merely express my very sincere hope that the new Building Committee will go into this figure very thoroughly. As it stands at present, it looks as if we are spending $37,000 per flat.

I think there must be some mistake, Sir. The original estimate, if I remember rightly, was $450,000, and we have added $270,000, I think an increase of about 33 per cent, for another floor.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, I beg to move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 11 (4), Additions and Alterations to existing Hospital Buildings, on page 16 of the Development Estimates. Sir, I see here an item for $2 millions, and many of the remarks that I have made before apply in this case. From the rough figures mentioned this morning, it appears to me that the proposed cost per bed of this new S.A.T.A. wing will be around $3,000 each. That in the district hospital will cost about $8,000. The Chief Minister has mentioned a fantastic figure of somewhere around £2,500 per bed in a London hospital. I think we can get a very good idea if comparative figures are given to us showing the various costs of the S.A.T.A. Hospital and the General Hospital. Of course, we must make allowance for administrative offices and other equipment. Question proposed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think hon. Members are aware that a new block was opened at the Kandang Kerbau Hospital - I think some Progressive Party members were present at the opening ceremony - but now that that block has been opened, and it can accommodate 116 beds, it is necessary to modernise and renovate the old building and to provide the additional hospital beds as such renovation will permit. In the block facing Bukit Timah Road, for example, the ground floor and part of the first floor have now been vacated by the Administrative, Outpatient, X-Ray and Dispensary Departments and this accommodation will be converted into ward accommodation of 128 beds as compared with 75 in the old building. The pressure on this hospital is such that additional theatre accommodation also is essential, and it is proposed to provide under this item gynaecological operating theatres apart from the obstetrical theatres provided in the block lately completed. Members must also remember that the Kandang Kerbau Hospital, as has been told, is one of the finest in the world. It is a teaching hospital and adequate provision must be made for that purpose.

Mr Chairman, Sir, in the case of alterations to buildings, I am still putting up the old argument that whatever old buildings we have, they are still useful and can still be used even without alterations, and if the cost is going to be very large, you could easily put up another new building which will incorporate all the modern conveniences that you can ever think of.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, To reduce by $200,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 12 (2), Ward Blocks, four, on page 17 of the Development Estimates. I do so advisedly because I see here in the Remarks column that the estimated cost has been revised from $2,000,000 to $4,000,000. On that alone, I submit that I am entitled to ask for quite a lot of information. Question proposed.

I think the question was why had the cost increased by $2 millions. I think the answer is that four blocks are being built instead of two.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 12 (3), Conversion of Students Hostel for 150 Nurses, on page 17 of the Development Estimates. Now here we have a very clear case of what can be over-spent in the nature of alterations and conversion. 150 nurses are to be accommodated in this Students Hostel which, I presume, must have been built at quite a substantial price pre-war. Now $300,000 is required for conversion, which works out at $2,000 per unit. As I have been informed this morning that sisters only get one bed, one sitting room and toilet, I presume the nurses will only get just one room instead of two - one bed-sitting room instead of a sitting and a bedroom. To my mind, to spend $2,000 for converting an existing building into one-room quarters is fantastic. I know the Singapore Improvement Trust are now building two-storey flats - admittedly they are small - in Guillemard Road. They are units by themselves and can house at least four to five persons each. They each cost $2,300 only, and with the services, sanitation and all, I think it is $3,000, not more than that. Now, if you can have a complete house for $3,000, what justification is there for spending $2,000 to alter one little room - $2,000 per unit? Something has gone wrong somewhere, and I think there is a lot of room, as I say, for a change of heart, according to our friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Sir, these are the things that make me sit up, and I think that a complete revolution of ideas is necessary in the case of our admirable P.W.D. architects - I am casting no aspersions on them, Sir, they are friends of mine and I have great admiration for them. They have done excellent work. I do not agree in those respects with the hon. Member who says "Hear, hear!" and keeps on interrupting me. But still, in the interest of the country, and because of the financial stringency that we are facing, I am determined to see that for every cent we spend, we shall get at least double the accommodation. Question proposed.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Surely, getting more for every cent we spend than what we ordinarily get depends also upon people in the contracting business, does it not?

I would like to remind the Member for Paya Lebar that that building is now being used as a hostel for the students of the university. They are vacating it. There is accommodation there at present for 90 students, and when the work of conversion is completed, there will be accommodation for 150 nurses. Now it is urgently necessary to provide residential accommodation for staff nurses and the building is to be so altered as to provide for dining rooms and so forth - they are not there now, but they all have to be provided for. I am not a financial expert nor an architect nor - in reply to the Member for Tanjong Pagar - am I a contractor, but it must be visualised that this has to be properly built and suitable for the nurses. The Member for Paya Lebar has paid his esteem and regard for the architects of the Public Works Department, and I am sure that, since he knows them so well, they will not put a much higher estimate than is necessary for the purpose for which the building is now going to be renovated.

Sir, there is no question at all about the over-estimating. The only thing is I am trying to make it clear that the whole design has been done on a style which we cannot possibly afford today, and there must be a change in the concept of building for our civil servants.

Mr Chairman, Sir, this matter of building costs is one which has been thought of very early in the life of this Government, and I have indicated the date on which a file has been opened, and what action has been taken since. I will repeat the action, which is that at the very highest level a body is being set up with representatives of the Government architects, the City Council architects, the S.I.T., and people engaged in private practice. It does take a little time to get them all together because they have bodies which have to meet and elect a particular person to serve on that body and that is not operating yet, but I hope it will be operating very shortly. We have in operation two working parties - one in respect of costs for educational buildings and one in respect of costs for medical buildings - and they are examining in detail both the general principles of building and also particular points such as the quality of finishes and so on which are the things on which you can probably save most. Of course, we have also increased the powers of the Public Works Department Standing Committee under which it can now refuse to accept items which it considers extravagant. If a Minister thinks he must have some item, then he will have to bring it to me, and if I say "I am afraid you cannot have it", then he will have to go to the Council of Ministers and he will have to make out a case for the item which he considers necessary but which the Public Works Department Standing Committee considers excessive. However, this can only operate with regard to the future unless you are going to try and pull down the buildings you have in the interests of economy, or tear up the plans or destroy the preparations already made. Therefore, it is not much use referring to the past. You must look to the future, and I can only assure hon. Members that these bodies are operating and will operate. I do not think there is much use going on about extravagance until you see whether their operations do, in fact, produce the economy and austerity which we are seeking to establish as the standard for all public buildings.

Sir, my complaint is that, on the whole, the Ministers have not been able so far to bring their will to bear upon the officers who have been carrying on their work in the usual pre-election days.

Hear, hear! Fortify the P.A.P.!

Order, please. We have had order up to now.

Sir, in the case of this item under discussion, provision for 150 nurses, we will just make the case very simple so that the man-in-the-street can understand it. Suppose we buy a three-bedroom house, and it is available in many housing estates at about $12,000. So if you are going to provide for 150 nurses, you will buy 25 such houses. You will have two persons to each room, with a dining room and a kitchen all of their own and a little lawn in front, and the whole thing costs just $300,000. Thus you have new buildings, and added on to that you will have free land; whereas here you are pulling down your old hostel, probably tearing it to pieces, and then reconstructing it at the same cost - old building and no increase of land. You are suffering a loss.

Much as one likes the idea of the nurses and their dining rooms and their little lawn so that they can play badminton or have a tea-party, one must remember that the nurses are required at the hospital and not on the lawn in front of their houses. They have to get from the little lawn to the hospital, which takes a certain amount of time and is also going to cost money. If the nurses are going to have their transport paid, you will find that you have put up your recurrent expenditure by a large sum. You can calculate it yourself - if you site your nurses in Serangoon Garden Estate or up in Thomson Road, you will see what the cost would be, assuming, of course, that by that time the transport strikes are over and the nurses are able to get a bus. If not, you can calculate what it would cost to come by pirate taxi or what it would cost you if you provided them all with cars. I do not think, in fact, you can arrive at any permanent saving by dispersing your hospital staff all over the island in remote little building estates.

Sir, I think the Minister for Communications and Works is confusing the issue. He is bringing his class-room theories into this debate. What my learned Friend here means is that he is comparing the costs, not the conveniences.

I am sorry to keep rising in these matters! Surely the Member for Paya Lebar does appreciate that if you are going to have a hospital, it should be sited in the centre of population; land in the centre of population is scarce, and you cannot therefore build a lot of small houses with vacant land around them. In a site where there is no land, you have to build a multi-storey hospital of the type where you can house a lot of people in a small area. The alternative is to build your hospital in some place where there is no population, and, of course, you will still be unhappy because the sick people have to travel a long way to get to the hospital. There is really no simple answer to it. The thing is that you must have your nurses near your hospital as a practical necessity. You may have some living out, of course, but you must have your hospital in a populated area where it serves the population and consequently you must build a multi-storey type of structure normally.

The Minister for Communications and Works is so concerned about his nurses that he cannot think away from his hospital and his nurses. We are asking him to look at it from the point of view of comparative costs of building. For the amount of money spent on conversion here, he can buy 25 or even 30 houses. We are not, of course, saying that he must do it. It can be done in another case. It just happens that the argument arises out of accommodation for nurses, and I must ask him to think of it from the point of view of arithmetic and not nurses.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 13 (2), Staff Quarters, on page 17 of the Development Estimates. I have very little to say on this except that the information given us here is very, very scanty. I see here that half a million dollars has been estimated for the cost of these quarters, but we have not been told how many are to be built. Question proposed.

Mr Chairman, this project includes accommodation for probationer and mental nurses, and does not represent only quarters for the supervisory staff. In any case, Woodbridge Hospital and Trafalgar Home are in the rural area, and it is essential to provide residential accommodation for a third of the staff on the site. This provision, in fact, provides quarters for the male and female nurses at Woodbridge Hospital and for the matrons, sisters and doctors at Trafalgar Home and represents possible construction in 1956.

Sir, I regret to say that I am as vague as before I started.

Mr Chairman, Sir, can the Minister give us some information as to how many people will be staying there? How many nurses or warders or supervisors?

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $7,519,890 for Head D 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

I propose to suspend the sitting till half-past two. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m. Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head D 19 - The sum of $1,680,070 for Head D 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 60 - The sum of $405,470 for Head D 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 21 - The sum of $440,000 for Head D 21ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 61 - The sum of $100,000 for Head D 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 64 -

Head D 64. Mr Lim Koon Teck and Mr John Ede have amendments to the same item. I will call upon Mr Lim Koon Teck.

I beg to move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 1, Quarters for Government Officers, on page 22 of the Development Estimates. Sir, I regret that I shall have to take a little more time than I intended to, and that is because of certain remarks having been made in this House about persons who might be interested in building contracts and, in particular, with reference to the statement by the Hon. the Minister for Health when he said that my interest in building is not my hobby alone and that, in any case, he would not ask me for any help - Mr Braga rose -

Is it on a point of information?

It is. Since the hon. Member takes it like that, I withdraw the facetious remark made - I do not cast any aspersions upon him.

I did not take it in that light, but as I have been speaking so forcefully on this point, I want to assure the House that I have not made any profit out of my low-cost housing ideas. I admit that I have built a hundred odd houses in Singapore. They range from $6,000 to $12,000 and they have been all sold. I have worked on a return of 6 per cent, which is the actual rate that we have to pay the bank for interest. I have also designed low-cost housing which can be built for $3,000 on swamp land, which I believe the Hon. the Chief Minister has seen and admired. I have also during my election days - call it an election stunt if you like - helped to build a five classroom school for $15,000 on swampy land. I hesitated to tell that to any of the Ministers, but now that I have my position clear that I am not making any profit out of this, I can show it to them. Anybody can have my plans and my ideas, but do not ask me to build them as I prefer not to do any low-cost housing. I can now speak with a clear conscience. Sir, here we have an item of $4 millions for quarters for Government officers. It has been revised from an estimate of $3 millions, and I shall have to ask why this increase has been made. I admit that since the introduction of the Provident Fund and the strikes, costs have gone up about 5 per cent but not to the extent of 25 per cent. Now, another point I wish to make is that I do not think it is necessary today to provide housing for Division I or Division II senior officers. I notice in the Estimates that the cost for each of these officers comes to about $45,000 for quarters and about $35,000 for flats. It has come to my knowledge that future senior officers, who undoubtedly due to the Malayanisation scheme will be Malayan officers and who will be using these quarters, would prefer, if possible, to buy their own homes on the hire-purchase system helped by the allowance which they are getting for not having Government quarters, and I think this is a very sensible plan. Why lock up all this capital on something which the Government servants prefer to own themselves? If he buys one house now and pays on instalments, the house will be his in ten years time, and when he retires he will have a roof over his head. What I do maintain is that all the money that can be saved from the quarters for this class of officers should be spent on the lower income group many of whom unfortunately will not be able to buy their own homes, no matter how cheap they are, unless Government is prepared to allow them to buy without payment of interest. Question proposed.

In the 1955 Estimates, Sir, $3 millions was entered as the cost of building quarters for Government officers, and I think the Estimates of that year said $1.55 millions had been spent, another $700,000 had been provided and $500,000 was revoted. In 1956 the cost has been increased to $4 millions and the figure in the "Amount estimated to be spent" column is $2.2 millions. The figure in the "New Provision" column is $1 million, and in the second last column of the Estimates you have $750,000 required to complete. Since the start of the scheme, the following quarters have been built: 10 quarters have been built in Mount Pleasant: 3 blocks of flats have been built in Leonie Hill; that is 30 quarters altogether: 2 more blocks of flats, that is, another 20 quarters, are being constructed at the moment. Of the $1 million provided this year, it is estimated that $750,000 will be required to complete the two blocks of flats which are now under construction. That will leave $250,000 to make a start, as was intended, on a further block of flats for senior officers, there being at present approximately 30 officers on the waiting list for houses. 23 officers are living in rented quarters, the rents being paid from the Rental Vote, and 16 bachelors are without any accommodation at all. Now, that waiting list is the justification for this additional block of flats, which we did envisage. If, however, the result of the Report of the Malayanisation Commission necessitates a revision of our plans, then, of course, we will undertake a revision forthwith. Sir, of the $1 million provision made this year, $750,000, as far as we can estimate, is required to complete work in hand at the moment and the other $250,000 is a possible saving, having regard to the result of the findings of the Malayanisation Commission.

There are one or two points that might be usefully added to the excellent summary of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. In view of the expectation of Malayanisation, these new quarters are being built with provision for three bedrooms on the grounds that when local officers inhabit them, they are very likely to have more dependants because the senior expatriate officer tends to have his children overseas or his wife overseas and does not have the same need for bedrooms as a man who may possibly have his father and his mother or other relatives, or perhaps a larger family than expatriate officers manage to achieve. The point raised about people owning their own quarters or houses is an interesting one, but I would point out that there is no absolute impossibility for a man to own a flat. In fact, this question is under consideration and if in the future the officers say, "We would like to own our accommodation instead of just living in it, so that when we retire we can continue to live in the same flat", I have no doubt that this Assembly could discuss it and make it possible for people to buy a flat in a block if they want to. There is also this point, that if you are going to scatter your Government servants all over the island in privately-owned houses, you do by that reduce the amount of available sites for the non-Government builders and the private citizen. It is highly desirable to economise on space as much as possible because ordinary citizens cannot get together into a kongsi and build a block of flats. When one man buys one house, the State buildings will cover lots of extra ground, for each is in effect one section of a flat building and it is lying on the ground instead of being on a fourth storey. A private citizen has to work on that basis. The Government has the financial resources and the planning ability to provide multi-storeyed buildings in which a lot of people can get accommodation, and there is a definite economic advantage to the territory as a whole if you can reduce the pressure on building sites by having multi-storeyed accommodation.

Mr Chairman, Sir, in view of the fact that the points I have raised are now being considered by Government I withdraw my amendment.

Has the hon. Member the leave of the Assembly to withdraw this amendment? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr John Ede - To reduce by $500,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of sub-head 1, Quarters for Government Officers, on page 22 of the Development Estimates.

Mr John Ede, are you proposing to move?

I do not propose to proceed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move an amendment, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 2, Improvements to Crown Lands, on page 22 of the Development Estimates. Sir, my real reason for having brought up this motion is because there is one word at the head of the accounts which I could not understand. That word is "Development". I take it that by "improvements", it means the making of an already good thing look better? In the sixty years of my life, I have covered almost every piece of Crown land in my and the surrounding districts. I have so far never come across any work done which can be called an improvement to any Crown land. I wonder what is there to be improved on any Crown land. If I am not mistaken, I think every piece of Crown land is being rented out and if improvement is needed on the Crown land, that should be the responsibility of the tenant or the licensee. Why should Government "carry the baby"? So I would like the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works to give the House an explanation. Question proposed.

I rise, Mr Chairman, Sir, with my face extremely red to confess that, by a slip rather similar to that by which the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) earlier yesterday confused an Executive Engineer with an Electrical Engineer, I confused earlier today "Improvements to Crown Lands" with "Minor Works Unforeseen" and I am afraid I gave to the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) the answer which should now have been given to the Member for Changi -

You have not done your homework!

It was purely a matter of inattention. I was looking at a different item under that Head and I did not listen to his opening remark. If he wants the information which I should have given him if I had been on the spot, he is very welcome to it. It was, in fact, I think, given by my friend the Hon. the Financial Secretary. This improvement to Crown lands - as I have actually said before and I will repeat it again - is preparation of Crown lands whether for building or other purposes on swampy areas like Kolam Ayer. I have mentioned this morning that we have there a large civil defence area and some of the ground is still swampy and not, in fact, serviceable until it has been filled up. Well, this provision will enable us to fill it up. Also you have to fill up areas where you want time for the earth to settle. You do not build immediately you fill. You have got to let it consolidate and then you will have another look at it to see if you want to put in some more perhaps. Before the building programme can start, you may have to fill up for a considerable period beforehand in order to make sure that your earth has consolidated before you put in anything on top. It is not for large schemes but for comparatively small works where there are no appropriate funds elsewhere. I can go on with more detail if you like. In Bukit Panjang such a case has occurred. I do not think I need expatiate on this. If the hon. Member would let me know the particular areas that he has in mind, we can see if they are ones that merit improvement at this stage.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think that explanation is quite all right for me. I have all the time been thinking of Crown lands which are leased on Temporary Occupation Licence. Sir, I therefore beg to withdraw that amendment.

Has the hon. Member the leave of the Assembly to withdraw the amendment? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, To reduce by $200,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 9, Improvements to Secretariat Building, on page 22 of the Development Estimates. Sir, it is proposed to spend $200,000 on repairs to the Secretariat building. I quite agree that we should upkeep our public buildings in a manner that would reflect the dignity of Singapore, but instead of spending such a huge sum on an old building just to give it a facelift, I think it is better that we spend this amount to build one or two schools. We are told that we are very short of schools, and to build schools we must have sufficient funds. I understand that Government has a plan to build a new Secretariat along the Esplanade. If that is so, I think it is very unwise to spend $200,000 to repair the present building. I would suggest to the Hon. the Financial Secretary to scrutinise this item once again, give priority to the building of schools and to hold up this item for some time. Question proposed.

I expect that my colleague the Hon. the Chief Secretary or the Hon. the Financial Secretary may speak to this one, but I would like to correct the impression that it is a facelift. There is a mezzanine floor to be put in to expand the accommodation and make things easier and more spacious, and at the same time improve the running of the Secretariat by adding to the amount of space available.

I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend has said.

But could I know, if my information is correct, whether the Government has a plan to build a new Secretariat along the Esplanade?

Not so far as I am aware, Sir.

Nor I.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, we now come to a very small item of $15,000 for lighting and I move, To reduce by $15,000 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 12, Street Lighting, Goodwood Hill, on page 22 of the Development Estimates. Sir, earlier on during the Second Reading of this Bill, the Hon. the Financial Secretary indicated to us that this development is necessary because we are now trying to change over from gas lighting to electric lighting. I am of the opinion, Sir, that this area is one occupied mainly by the upper bracket of the civil service. I am also of the opinion that the people involved are not many. In fact, I think they are fewer than in other areas that have similar claims, so that if we think that we are going to give such amenities to people in the higher bracket, then we must also think of people who are in the lower bracket. They are more numerous in number and such sums of money will be put to better use when many people share it. The operative word now is not just "services" but "service to the largest number of people involved". Now, if the Government is informing the House that it is because we are to change the lighting from gas to electricity, then I think that can wait because it is not necessary. In fact, if you take away one service by turning off the gas supply, then must you immediately turn on the electrical supply? Any improvement to street lighting should be considered also in the light of traffic accidents. That area, I believe, is not a main thoroughfare. You do not have many cars getting in and out. Again, that area is not a place whereby people go on foot or on bicycle late at night, and, as far as I know, whatever transport they use would be cars of their own, and if not cars of their own, at least taxis. Now, I suggest you shift to another area - I think you can find another area - where you will probably find more people on foot or on bicycle late at night and where the traffic is heavier. Then, in that case, that claim for improvement would be more justified. I would like to hear further what the Government have to say on this point. Question proposed.

Government has an obligation to provide street lighting in the areas where Government quarters are. At present, Goodwood Hill is lit by gas. We have received notice from the City Council that the gas supply will be removed by the end of this year. By arrangement with the City Council, however, we have agreed with them that the gas supply will remain in being until such time as we can replace it and until such time as we can put money in the Estimates to replace it with electricity. That is the reason for this vote. To leave Goodwood Hill unlit, we would be failing in responsibility in respect of areas in which Government quarters are situated.

Sir, I remember, too, that there is another area which is probably lighted by gas - McNair Road. Am I correct? If I am correct, then I would like an explanation of why that one is not torn up and electricity supplied.

I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question, Sir. I take it that this matter is conditioned by the planning of the City Council.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 15, Electric Cookers and Water Heaters for Quarters in Government Institutions, on page 22 of the Development Estimates. Sir, in the first instance, I do not see that any money was voted for this item for this year's Estimates and I presume that this is a new scheme for the purchase of electrical appliances for quarters in Government institutions. If that is so, I would suggest that it would be far more to the advantage of the Government to have these appliances hired from the City Council. From my own practical experience, I feel that it is far more economical to hire such appliances rather than purchase them, and I will quote an example. The minimum price for an electric fan would cost $120. It would cost another $40 for the installation of this fan, which makes a total value of $160. The maximum life of this fan would, I presume, be ten years, which makes $160 divided by ten which is $16 per year. Now, I have worked it out on this $16 that it would be cheaper to hire a fan from the City Council because it would cost only $1, whereas it costs roughly $1.50 for the purchase of this fan. Apart from the money saved, I think it is a good gesture on the part of the Government to co-operate and support the City Council to help them push their appliances so that more could be used by consumers. I must make it clear that I am not speaking here as a City Councillor, because I have no interest in the City Council at all except as a Member of the City Council. I am speaking here in the interests of economy so that Government can save more money. Question proposed.

I could not agree more with the remarks of the hon. Member. They seem to me to be right on the beam, but unfortunately he himself and the other personalities of the City Council are the persons to blame. The fact is that the Government buys electric current at bulk rates from the City Council. The rate, I think, is six cents per unit as against 17½ cents that the public pay. Consequently, the City Council says, "I am selling this in bulk to you and I am not going to give you any service with it. If you want meters for individual houses, you have to buy your own meters. If you want to have fans, you have to provide your own fans." They will not, in fact, rent us their fans or their cookers or their refrigerators or whatever it is that we want to rent. They refuse to let us have them, and I wish that the hon. Member could convince them - it is now rather too late, I am afraid. That is the situation, that these appliances are not being bought to donate to Government quarters. They will be treated in the same way as the City Council appliances are. They will be hired out to the occupants and the money, in fact, will be recoverable. It is, in short, a commercial transaction which the Government is carrying out on a small scale as compared to the big scale in which the City Council operates the same provisions. I hope that adequately deals with the point.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think the answer is satisfactory to me but I am really surprised that the City Council has ever turned down Government's application for the hire of fans or any other electrical appliances. As far as I know, the City Council is trying to encourage people to hire such appliances. As an example, I quote the recent Trade Fair in the Happy World where the City Council demonstrated a number of electrical appliances. They even put on staff to demonstrate, to encourage and to show people that it is far more economical to hire appliances, and it is therefore a real surprise not only to me but, I am sure, to many other City Councillors who are sitting in this House that the City Council have turned down Government's application for the hire of their appliances.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lee Choon Eng - To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 16, Flood Alleviation Scheme, Bedok, on page 22 of the Development Estimates.

Mr Chairman, Sir, in view of the fact that I have read in the Press that a dam is now to be constructed in the Bedok area and that the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Thomas) has confirmed that this is part of the scheme, I beg leave to withdraw this item.

The hon. Member is not proposing the amendment?

No, Sir. The sum of $5,603,000 for Head D 64 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 56 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lim Koon Teck - To reduce by $10 the sum to be allotted in respect of item 2, Community Centres, on page 23 of the Development Estimates.

Mr Chairman, Sir, in view of the fact that a Committee has been set up and that there is an assurance that the cost of building will come down and the expenditure that we may have to incur will be used for more houses and more Community Centres, I do not propose to go on with this amendment. Question proposed, That the sum of $130,050 for Head D 56 stand part of the Schedule.

Mr Chairman, Sir, when I look at development under Social Welfare, I am always interested. Under that Head, I look at item 6 - Youth Holiday Camps. The estimated cost I can see here is $200,000 but the total allocated is $10. I would like an assurance from Government that Youth Holiday Camps are important. So far as Singapore is concerned, we can only boast of: 1. The Tanah Merah Youth Camp. 2. The Lim Chu Kang Boy Scouts Camp. If, however, you consider the number of boys and girls who would like to go out camping but who do not belong to any organised movement, then you can see that the need is very real. I consider that, for the health of the coming generation, for developing a sense of co-operation amongst them and developing their ability to organise things themselves, youth camps should be dotted all over Singapore and where you can, by the sea, so that it will serve as an added amenity to youth. On item 2 - Community Centres - we are budgeting for three at $450,000 and a token vote of $10 is put down. Community centres, I believe, would be helpful to a community that is well-welded together, but from what I can see of so many centres, a great deal more work has to be done. A start must be made to develop community consciousness amongst groups of people staying in specified areas. Usually, the centres built by Government are far away from such habitations and people do not find it convenient to make use of them. I would like the Government rather to consider the feasibility not of building centres all on its own but of making small grants of, say, between $10,000 and $20,000 to assist communities to build their own centres. In that manner, when a community works for the building of that centre, I believe they will be proud of it and they will run it even more efficiently.

Mr Chairman, Sir, at yesterday's sitting I gave an assurance to the Member for Serangoon that youth welfare is in the fore in the Government's programme. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member in connection with community centres, I have this to say, Sir. There are at present in existence thirteen children social centres, some of which are developing on the lines of community centres. Three community centres have been built under Social Welfare Department votes -

Order, order. The time has elapsed.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $130,050 for Head D 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 63 - The sum of $1,854,630 for Head D 63 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 43 - The sum of $225,010 for Head D 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 65 - The sum of $3,656,196 for Head D 65 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning back to the First Schedule, the Question is, That the First Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill. There will be a consequential amendment to the totals.

Question put, and agreed to. First Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Second Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 1 -

Turning to the Bill itself, the Question is, That clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Sir, I beg to move, That clause 2 be amended as follows: "A sum not exceeding two hundred and twenty-eight million five hundred and seventeen thousand and six hundred and seventy-five dollars shall be and the same is hereby charged upon the revenues and other funds of this Colony for the period from the 1st January to the 31st of December, 1956, the said sum so charged may be expended as specified in the First Schedule hereto." I also suggest, Sir, that the marginal note be changed to "$228,517,675". That is consequential.

Question, "That the words 'two hundred and twenty-eight million four hundred and ninety-four thousand and eight hundred and thirty', proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the words 'two hundred and twenty-eight million five hundred and seventeen thousand and six hundred and seventy-five', proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

The word "and" appears to have been left out in line 11. Would the Minister like that inserted?

Yes, Sir, I move, To insert in line 11 the word "and" after the figure "1956,".

Question, "That the word 'and' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Committee stage has been concluded, Sir. May I have permission to report back to the House?

Will the Minister move, please?

Sir, I move, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the Assembly." Question proposed.

Mr Chairman, Sir, we have had four somewhat gruelling days, perhaps to be expected in the first Budget of an elected Assembly, but I would like to say, Sir, and I think I speak on behalf of all Members of this Assembly, that we do appreciate very much your calm and skilful handling of the position during these four days. I would like to place on record, Sir, this appreciation and I think it has been fully earned.

I am very grateful for the kind words, Mr Chief Minister.

Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the Assembly", put, and agreed to. Bill reported, with Amendments.

Mr Hart, will you now move the Third Reading?

Sir, I move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time."

I second the motion, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. An hon. Member: No! Division, Sir.

I have declared, "The Ayes have it." Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion which stands in my name, That this House considers it in the best interests of the country that all political parties in the Assembly should meet the M.C.P. representatives to discuss a peaceful settlement of the Emergency in order to bring peace and constitutional progress. Mr Speaker, Sir, no one, sitting in this Assembly for the last five days, would imagine that there is a revolution going on in Malaya at this very moment, a revolution which has had violent ups and downs for the last eight years. At no time during these eight years, Sir, has a more favourable moment been reached to discuss a peaceful settlement of the Emergency than now. There are three strong forces today in Malaya - Colonialism, Communism, and Nationalism. The first two are supported by armed forces. The British have the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. The Communists have what they call their Malayan People's Liberation Army. Only the nationalists have no armies or other armed might. The British are supported by all those who have made comfortable niches for themselves within the existing colonial system - people who fear a sudden change because it might upset their comfortable homes, their comfortable businesses and their comfortable lives. The Communists have the support of a good number of squatters and labourers, and they have working amongst these masses, men who believe that Communism is the answer to the social and economic ills of the country. But the large mass of the people of this country are nationalists. They have learnt to hate a colonial Malaya because it has degraded them and lost them their self-respect. It has not given them a world in which they can live as self-respecting human beings in a peaceful and happy society, where the wealth of the country is developed for the benefit of the people of the country and not for the benefit of those who, for reasons of military might, have taken political control of this territory. Unlike the Communists, this large group has no fixed, definite ideas of what they want to do with an independent Malaya. They are large amorphous forces. Some believe that the answer lies in a militant Malayan nationalism around which they can rally all the forces in this country - the masses that we have heard spoken of so often even in this Assembly. Most respectable and conservative Members have, all of a sudden, come to realise that it is the masses who will decide whether this country survives, after the period of colonial rule is over, as an independent, democratic Malaya, or as a Communist Malaya. Some favour a broadly-based Socialist Malaya, democratic and tolerant of other political ideals and political ideas, based somewhat on the Indian Nationalist movement which solved the colonial problems in India. For the last eight years, the armed fight against colonialism has been led by the Malayan Communist Party. In that fight, the British have tried to rally the people on what they call the side of law and order. Successive Generals have always said that if only they could get the people to give them information and help, they could squash this Emergency in a matter of months. They have not squashed this Emergency in a matter of eight years. So long as the people feel that this is not their war, that this is a fight, not for them but for colonialism, they will not lift a finger. Even if there were no threat, no intimidation, no reprisals from the Communists, they would still not bestir themselves for one side or the other, because most ordinary people like to play safe. Even in this little Assembly, we see so very often, when decisions are taken, how Members in this Assembly play safe, and most of the people in Malaya are that way inclined. Today, we have reached the crossroads. A phase has passed or is passing. There is a stalemate in this war. The Communists cannot establish their Communist Malaya. The British have declared no fixed and definite policy. They have vaguely referred to their intentions of self-government ultimately within the British Commonwealth. It has not captured anybody's imagination. Nobody has been stirred by these words. The position in the constitutional field is very fluid, more fluid in Singapore than it is in the Federation. The difference, however, is not as great as one would imagine if one just compared the external manifestations in the last few months after the elections. Singapore has gone through a period of stress, turmoil, strikes and lockouts. The Federation has been relatively calm. This may lead some people to believe that conditions in the Federation are completely different from those existing in Singapore. I find it difficult to subscribe to this view, for the simple reason that if the basic discontents were not there, the Malayan Communist Party could not have survived. The basic conditions for discontent have not manifested themselves openly in civil commotion because of military suppression and a more militant armed administration. But, I believe the Federation is by and large in the same position as the Colony of Singapore, with this one difference. The ratio of population between the native races of Singapore and the Federation perhaps makes the balance in the Federation more in favour of slow progress - not revolutionary progress but evolutionary - because, by and large, Tunku Abdul Rahman and large, U.M.N.O. movement have inculcated, or perhaps they have just expressed, the innate inclinations of the Malays for evolutionary progress. The Communists, on the other hand, realise that the internal and international position of the country has changed since Geneva. The theme is peaceful co-existence. Since Bandung, the emphasis in South-East Asia has been peaceful co-existence. No one wants to precipitate a third world war. Everyone wants time to consolidate, perhaps for peace, perhaps for some eventual conflict which might burn up the whole world. That is beyond us and we cannot worry ourselves with that. But it affects the policy of the Malayan Communist Party in Malaya. They cannot completely ignore the fact that the line today throughout the whole world is peaceful co-existence, not the existence of one to the exclusion of the other. In Malaya, with the elections in April in Singapore and in July in the Federation, the constitutional field entered into a new phase. For the first time, there were wide popular elections which has thrown up in its first flush a great deal of wild, irresponsible talk - and this particularly from the business communities - that the country is going to pieces and that the people are not ready for this independence even in an attenuated version and that, in fact, it would only lead to chaos. But it has opened up a phase which the Communists cannot ignore. It means that the constitutional struggle may yield further results. It means that if an armed conflict is persisted in willy-nilly, regardless of the constitutional position and the political parties representing the people constitutionally, a very difficult position may arise for them at a later stage. Hence, at a dramatic moment on May 1st, Labour Day, the first peace offer was made. Sir, to those of us who have not faced this problem as closely and as acutely as I have faced it - and I have faced it because I have not wasted my time talking about footling things and doing the silly things which some political parties which existed in the period of the vacuum between 1948 and 1954 did - it is an enormous problem. Enormous because in Malaya, Communism came before nationalism. Enormous because in those 32 odd years since the Malayan Communist Party established itself in Malaya, it has actively preached its philosophy as an answer to the political, economic and social injustices of which there were plenty, and of which there are still plenty in Malaya. The large mass of the people, although they hate the political injustices, the poverty, the social and economic injustices are ap- prehensive of the rigours and the discipline which a Communist Malaya would impose. But if they are faced with the alternative of a continuation of the colonial system, however streamlined, and a Communist Malaya, which is going to be effective and honest even if it is rigid and disciplined and illiberal, I fear that a large mass of the people, who have not the time to bother about liberal concepts of the freedom of the individual - liberty, freedom from arrest without trial, the right of free speech - because they are too preoccupied with making a living, would choose Communism. For them, it does not matter what it is. Communism, Nationalism, and Fascism mean nothing to the vast masses who are in such a state of poverty that nothing makes any meaning except more food, more clothes, a house and a better life. It is in that perspective, that the problem of the Emergency is not one of shooting and killing a few thousand Communists that I speak on my motion. Our Chief Minister, despite his faults, is not an unintelligent man. In fact, no less a person than the Secretary of State for the Colonies has proclaimed him a highly intelligent individual! And I must be careful not to differ from that opinion. I think he realises today, what he did not realise at the time when he first entered politics, and when he first became the Chief Minister, that the problem is not just a question of passing legislation - 44-hour working week to 42-hour working week to 40-hour working week; fixing a minimum wage; making speeches to trade unions at trade union rallies. The problem is one of convincing the people that a particular way of life can not only bring economic relief but can also introduce into the country a liberal form of human society which we believe we should try to establish in this country. But where I differ from the Hon. the Chief Minister is that he believes that Communism is absolutely evil - he hates it, he hates every aspect of it, and he would fight it. He would support colonialism; he would support capitalism; he would support anything to fight Communism. I do not support that view because I do not believe that it is a simple question of black and white. I have been a bit longer in the political milieu of the country than the Hon. the Chief Minister, and I can claim to be able to understand, perhaps more than he can, the other point of view - the point of view of a man or a group of men in this society completely excluded from the system - bitter and hostile, feeling emotionally hostile enough to engage in violent revolution. When the Hon. the Chief Minister spoke of this lovely island of ours and when the hon. Mr Sutherland was quick to interject and remind us that it is all man-made, I often wondered if they would say it was a lovely island if they had a little shanty of a shack in Trafalgar Street, to which the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has often gone with me. One little room for bedroom, an outdoor kitchen, a communal bathroom. There one lives, eats, sleeps and dies - in filth and in squalor. They work in the Singapore Harbour Board, which supplies them with electricity at night, and sometimes on public holidays in the day-time. When there is no electricity on a public holiday like Deepavali, they look for their elected representative to make representations to get electricity for them. Those are the small mercies they look for out of this constitution. The Minister for Housing and I have been down there together many a time and have looked at the higgledy-piggledy houses, the barracks, the squalor, the slum. We give them our sympathy, we make promises, but nothing has been done and nothing is likely to be done in the coming year. There is no provision for it in the Estimates. And we are asking them to believe in democracy, to believe that the process of putting a mark on a piece of ballot paper within the constitution of this Colony can bring relief. It is because I understand that side of the problem that I do not agree with the Hon. the Chief Minister in his violently anti-Communist stand. I cannot in all honesty say that Communism is a diabolical evil, because I can imagine certain human societies where it was a great relief to have the Communists displace a ruling power. That is another of the very difficult problems we face in this country. To some 600 million Chinese, that philosophy was the answer and is the answer to a decadent, a corrupt and an evil society which has become evil because men have lost their self-respect and lost their values. But I do not believe however that they want to see in Malaya a similar dictatorship of the proletariat or dictatorship of the Communist Party. If I did believe that, then perhaps I would retire from politics and go and plant vegetables, for that would be the most innocuous thing that I would do in a Communist Malaya. But at the same time, as long as the fight in Malaya is a three-cornered one between the British, the Nationalists and the Communists, there is with every passing day, a drift away from an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya. Sometimes people do not believe what I say because they do not want to believe it, because they do not want to be shaken out of their complacency and the comfortable little niches they have made for themselves in this society. It is not possible at any peace talks to take the line that the Hon. the Chief Minister has taken - that if we have Communism in Malaya, then we shall die; that we live because we are part of the free world; that we live because we sell our service to the free world; that if the Communists take over, we will die and we will starve. Therefore, he appeals to their sense of logic and decency, that they should not take over and that they should all pack up and go back to China, and those of them who do not wish to go back to China can be detained in some rehabilitation and corrective training camp. I do not think those who have spent eight years, nine years, sometimes more, as anonymous revolutionaries, giving their lives, dedicating it to a revolution which they believe is the answer to the evils of our society, can be persuaded to believe that it will kill Singapore. I do not think one could reach a settlement with the Malayan Communist Party if one postulates for all time, "You can never take part in the political life of this country. You can never preach your creed. You are forever proscribed." A settlement on that basis can never be reached. I may be wrong, but I do believe that a settlement could be reached in which the immediate object of an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya could be achieved. Mr Speaker, Sir, no one can say for all time that Malaya is to be Communist, anti-Communist, or non-Communist. No one would be foolish enough to do so. The future is determined by many factors beyond our control. There are three factors in this political set-up - political, economic and social. The political urge in postwar Malaya is to get rid of the British; to get rid of foreign rule, in any shape, in any form; to get rid of any reminder, any of the trappings that remind us that we are a subject race, that remind us that the last word is with the British Government, through its government, through its civil servants, not through the people's elected representatives. These were the three urges in India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Indonesia, and Burma. They have satisfied the first urge - the political urge. They have got rid of their foreign master and they are masters in their own homes. They now face the other two urges - economic and social - poverty and the social injustices of their own society. There are Communist parties in every one of these territories. It is because Communism is the product of social and economic circumstances. It is a solution which appeals to those who want a swift and radical change from poverty, from misery, from social injustices. And it has worked. It may yet work in South-East Asia - we do not know. But it will definitely take over if India fails as a democracy, if Burma fails as a democracy, if Indonesia fails as a democracy. People lose faith in political movements and politi- cal philosophies which talk but do not produce results. Then nothing, not S.E.A.T.O. nor the hydrogen bomb can prevent the Indian people, the Indonesian people, freely choosing - as seven odd million Indonesians have already freely chosen - on the ballot paper the hammer and the sickle. For the vast majority of them, Communism does not mean concentration camps, labour camps and all the horrors which the American, and lately the British, Press have been prone to publicize. They understand it through the people who work for Communism, generally sincere people who feel a deep and abiding compassion for their fellow human beings as much as the Hon. the Chief Minister, but with this one difference: they have accepted a dogma. They have accepted a cut and dried solution, a discipline which says that that is the answer and it is the only answer. I have not accepted that answer because I hope that one could have not only all the economic and social benefits which a Communist society can produce, but also the human benefits of spiritual and individual freedom - bourgeois ideas - but ideas and concepts in which I have been indoctrinated and in which I believe. I believe that whether we go Communist or non-Communist in the future depends on whether we can build up a clean, healthy political movement with clean and healthy leaders, men who believe in democracy and social justice and who enter politics because they want to serve and not because they want to loot. If you can find enough such men, honest, able, and prepared to work, you can fight the Communists without guns. If you cannot, then you resort to S.E.A.T.O., to atom bombs and to hydrogen bombs. In Britain, they do not need the hydrogen bomb, nor curfews, nor barbed wires, nor detention camps, because the three conditions for revolution are not there. There is neither the political, the economic, nor the social urge. They do not hate their rulers. They do not feel an acute sense of injustice or of poverty. They do not feel that the system is unfair or unjust. The Hon. the Chief Minister must realise that anti-Communism is an entirely barren philosophy which can produce no results. I do not believe in it. If I have to choose between Communism and anti-Communism, I will choose Communism because the other is a barren, a negative philosophy. If you hate something because you do not like some aspects of it, you can work yourself into a state where anything said or done by the Communists must be wrong and evil. I have taken this point strongly because it is quite likely that my motion may not find favour with this House and only the Hon. the Chief Minister may be present at these talks. He has told us that he is going as the Chief Minister. I had not meant to be facetious or unkind when I asked him what his mandate was. We have a right to know what he proposes to do at these talks, for their outcome will affect us, not just him as the Chief Minister. He might have to resign or he might have to go to London for further consultation. But it will affect each and every one of us in this Assembly and in this country. The two other persons who are going to these miniature summit talks have got definite mandates. Mr Chin Peng represents a definite group. He knows exactly what he is going to the talks for and he is going to bargain for as good conditions as he can possibly get, if he can get them from the Tunku in the Federation. But he knows exactly what he is going for. He is no amateur politician. He is no lawyer turned politician. He has become part of a revolutionary movement - part of a revolution. I know that the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works wants to fight Communism. He does not bother about understanding it. I am interested in understanding it because if you do not understand it, the odds are that you will never be able to fight it. The Tunku has also a definite mandate. He went into the elections on it and won - 800,000 votes - his platform being that if he became Chief Minister, he was going to give an amnesty and settle the Emergency. He has since said that he will go there and explain the amnesty terms and he will also listen to what Mr Chin Peng has to say on behalf of the Malayan Communist Party. Sir, our Chief Minister has said this morning that the Chief Minister of the Federation would not welcome my presence nor the presence of other representatives from this Assembly. I have a great regard, Sir, for the Chief Minister of the Federation. He is a modest, unassuming man who can say, without arrogance, that he represents at least some three million odd people of Malaya. He is a courteous man and I do not believe he would have used the words: "I would not welcome either Lee Kuan Yew or any Members of the Opposition." I should hate to imagine that those were his words and I feel that the Hon. the Chief Minister has done him an injustice when he put that message in that particular form. He of all people understands that this is not a question to be settled by Chief Ministers. This is a question ultimately to be resolved by the people of Malaya, which means, in effect, by those who have influence over large masses of the people of Malaya, by those who, by their work and their devotion to the welfare of the people, have that influence over the masses. I therefore hope that before this debate is over, the Hon. the Chief Minister will tell us what is his mandate for these talks. He has said that he is going there as Chief Minister at the request and invitation of the Chief Minister of the Federation. Surely he cannot expect us to accept such a supercilious - perhaps supercilious is unkind - but such a superficial reply? What is the mandate? What are his terms of reference? What does he propose to do? Mr Speaker, Sir, I have suggested in my resolution that all political Parties should be represented because we in Singapore are in a slightly different position from the Federation. The Tunku in the Federation can safely say to Mr Chin Peng, "I speak for the people of the Federation of Malaya." Fifty-one out of the fifty-two elected represent- tatives are members of the Alliance of which he is the titular and the real head. I do not mean this as a slight to our Chief Minister, but the facts of the position in Singapore must be faced. I do not think the Hon. the Chief Minister can say, from a position of strength to the Malayan Communist Party representative, that he speaks for the people of Singapore. He would be in a much better position if he had with him members from all the political Parties. Then, we together can say, "These are the terms which we feel are fair and just for the settlement of this country and we speak for the people of Singapore." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister took pride in the fact that it was he who suggested, when constitutional matters were to be settled in London, that "It is not a matter for the Labour Front. The Labour Front seeks no benefit from it, no kudos. It is not a matter for the Alliance or the Coalition. It is a national matter, one for all Parties, for all the people of Singapore." And it was he who told the Secretary of State for the Colonies that he would head an All-Party delegation to London to settle an all-Singapore problem which he himself, even if he represents not only the Labour Front but also the Coalition, could not -

Would not.

Would not. Mr Speaker, Sir, I apologise if I have given the Hon. the Chief Minister any indication that I think he is not a person who would respond to the House with the highest of political principles and political motives. But I ask him seriously to consider this motion, not from the point of view of Party advantage - for I seek none in this motion - but from the point of view of the interests of his Government and of the country, that he should go with representatives from the other Parties so that he could then talk from a stronger position. I know there are other political Parties here who are alarmed at the prospect of having to meet a Communist Secretary-General. They want to leave it entirely to Chief Ministers. In fact, I remember the nominal leader of the Progressive Party saying in the Press that if we all went, we would increase the prestige and position of the representative from the Malayan Communist Party. I do not see how one could possibly increase the prestige and reputation of the Malayan Communist Party representative. He is already meeting two Chief Ministers as an equal - the Chief Minister of the Federation and the Chief Minister of Singapore under British rule meet the "Chief Minister" of both Singapore and the Federation under Communist rule. I think we would do much better if we met as leaders of political groups in the Federation and in Singapore, faced with a common problem. Let us not suppose that we can solve this thing by banishing 8,000 people to China. Let us not suppose that we can solve this thing by telling Mr Chin Peng, "If you bring Communism to Malaya, then we shall starve", because he does not believe it. If he did, he would not have fought for so long. He believes that a Communist Malaya is going to be a prosperous and a happy Malaya where he is going to solve all these economic injustices, where all this nonsense of expatriate pay and upgrading and travelling allowances and entertainment allowances will be thrown into the limbo of the 'feudalistic medieval past'. And by God I believe he would in a very short time. And I would cheer him when he does that, because they are parts of the present which I hate, and I would like to see them part of the forgotten past. I therefore move that we record our belief that it is in the best interests of this country if we meet as political leaders to settle a political problem in Malaya. We cannot concede a Communist Malaya at these talks, nor can Mr Chin Peng concede an anti-Communist Malaya at these talks. Even so great and respectable a man as Mr Anthony Eden, Prime Minister of Britain, came on the air over Radio Malaya and said, "We must find a way out." I believe, if we are prepared to work, to remove the economic and social injustices in this country, then we need not be afraid that Malaya will go under. But if we are not prepared to work and if we want to preserve all the privileges and all the inequalities existing today, then, of course, we shall have to go back and put all kinds of prohibitions which will cause the talks to fail. Mr Speaker, Sir, we all want peace in Malaya. We are sick of the Emergency. We are sick of the enormous expense that this struggle has cost us in schools and hospitals, in social services and in development. For the fight to continue, if it can be resolved, would be a folly. That is not to say that one should resolve the fight, in order that we can lose it in some other way. But we could resolve this Emergency and fight, not with guns, but with ideas. It is a battle of convictions, a battle for minds, a battle for a way of life. If you can find the people who can resolve the economic and social injustices of this country better than the Malayan Communist Party can, then you need never be afraid that you cannot build an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya. And it is with that uppermost in our minds that an All-Party delegation should sit down with Mr Chin Peng and discuss the problems which confront us.

I rise to second the motion, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, as an Independent Member, there can be no question of me or any other Independent -

That is a P.A.P. believer!

Order, please.

That is a P.A.P. badge!

Order. We have had order up to now.

It is very often that we have all these unnecessary and childish interruptions from Government Benches.

Carry on, Inche Ahmad.

Particularly when there are lies being said!

Order, please.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. May I ask Members on the Government Benches, particularly those in the high dignity of office, -

I think the hon. Member has not given way.

I am sorry, Sir. Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim resumed his seat.

May I, on a point of order, ask that Members on the opposite Benches, particularly those holding Ministerial office, should not indulge in the sort of ribaldry which will wind up in fisticuffs in this House, like the Japanese Diet?

It is not really a point of order. It is a point of behaviour. Inche Ahmad, please continue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said just now, as an Independent Member, there can be no question of me or any of the other Independents in this House being on the All-Party delegation to the peace talks or any other talks. But it seems to be one of the most important things on which both sides of this House should act jointly. The elections showed conclusively that the people of this country are fed up with the Emergency rules. They are fed up with the restrictions forced on them. They want peace and so they repudiated the Progressives and others who supported a war which can only benefit a colonial power. The first act to end colonialism is to make the peace offer succeed. Should it fail, we would offer the British a justification to continue ruling us. All of us are agreed, and I should say all the Malayans in this House are agreed, that colonialism must be ended. The Hon. the Chief Minister has a unanimous mandate for this. In carrying out this mandate, the London talks are only part of and not the whole thing. The peace talks are also an important part. If the Hon. the Chief Minister thinks that it is important to have an All-Party delegation for the London talks, I think that it is almost equally important to have an All-Party delegation to the peace talks too. Further, Mr Speaker, Sir, the talks involve the future of this country. It is too much of a responsibility to be taken on by the Government with its very small majority. On the issues involved at these peace talks, Sir, the people of this country should talk with one voice. Therefore, it is only right that the delegation to be led by the Hon. the Chief Minister must compose of representatives from both sides of the House. The Government must not forget that, should the talks fail, it will be held responsible by the people of Singapore for having sabotaged the anti-colonial struggle. Therefore, not only in the interest of the people but in the interest of the Labour Front, it is advisable for the Hon. the Chief Minister to lead an All-Party delegation. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that, in the annals of this young Assembly, this is a day which should be banded with black in mourning - in mourning for the fact that we have before us a motion which, if there were Communists in the Assembly, they would not only take no exception to, but they could find not one single word to differ from. It is a motion which you would expect an able Communist to propose. It suggests that, but for a peaceful settlement with the Malayan Communist Party, there could be no constitutional crisis, no constitutional progress -

Progress, yes. We had the crisis already.

Order, please.

Yes -

That is what -

Order, please.

The hon. Member is so full of himself, so fearful of what he might meet that one can appreciate his anxiety to interrupt the speech and the train of thought of those who seek to answer this motion which exalts the Communist Party and their comrade Chin Peng. Sir, I took the opportunity yesterday to draw attention to the composition of this group that calls itself the People's Action Party. I did point out that there was one person, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who was giving an umbrella of respectability, an umbrella of democratic reasonableness to an amorphous organisation whose outside activities can rarely meet the light of day. It is an organisation we have had to mention and deal with in this Assembly in connection with the riots of May last. It is an organisation which produces, apart from the hon. Member who is unquestionably an able, adept political manoeuvrer -

Order, please. I cannot have the word "manoeuvrer" used of a Member of the Assembly.

Indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw it, but I meant no disrespect. Shall we say an able politician who is aware of and has instinct for making a political point? I would say with respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I wish I had to the same extent that quality without in any way derogating from the intellectual integrity that I seek to maintain. Now, this hon. Member, Sir, has seen fit, when he finds himself faced with a fact which bars his way, to pretend that it does not exist and to impute to me a lack of integrity in reporting to this Assembly my conversation with the Chief Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman. Since he wants the exact words, I am quite sure the Tunku has nothing to hide, and though I have not had the opportunity to consult him, I shall inform hon. Members, as far as I can, of the exact phraseology in which he indicated his position. I informed him of the motion before the House and asked him whether he would wish the leaders of the Parties in the Assembly, including the leader of the People's Action Party, to attend this proposed meeting, and his answer was, "I do not want them." Of course, you may doubt me if you wish. It is so easy -

You said "welcome" in the morning.

Well "welcome". He would not welcome your presence. He does not want you. Maybe there is a distinction? [Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir. The hon. Member can make it in his reply, but I would point out something that the hon. Member, in his glorified attempt to save the country, forgot. The Federation is not governed by Singapore. The Federation has its own Government, and much as the Member for Tanjong Pagar would like to ride the white horse to victory in the name of Malaya, Malaya today is led by Tunku Abdul Rahman - not the Member for Tanjong Pagar.

I never suggested I was!

Much as the hon. Member would like to attend the meeting, need I remind those who, having achieved the distinction of being Members of this Assembly, of the normal courtesies of human intercourse? This meeting is being arranged by the Chief Minister of the Federation. It is part of his platform. It is his desire to meet this leader of a small group of terrorists in order to explain the terms of the amnesty. Appreciating that what might take place could affect our own interests, the Chief Minister of the Federation has had the courtesy to invite me, as Chief Minister of Singapore, to be present at these talks. That this Assembly or any Member thereof should at any time seriously consider the question of forcing himself on this meeting as a gate-crasher is, to my mind, something that is beneath the concepts of anyone with any self-respect. I have been asked what is my mandate and what I am to do. Sir, it has been repeatedly stated by the Chief Minister of the Federation that he is going to explain the terms of the amnesty to Chin Peng and that he would be prepared to listen to anything that Chin Peng has to say. It would be informative and helpful that I, as Chief Minister of Singapore, should be present at these talks. I have made it sufficiently clear that I am a junior partner in this venture. I do not anticipate taking either a major or any vital part in the talks between the Tunku and this man, Chin Peng. I can but regret the effort made in this House to seek to impose ourselves upon the hospitality of the Federation in a manner which must deeply embarrass them. The Member for Tanjong Pagar, in a speech whose like I had never hoped to hear in this Assembly glorifying these so-called anti-colonial forces, has suggested summit talks between equal men. There is no such thing, Sir. The leader of a band who has been terrorising the country in parts has been asked to meet the Chief Minister of the Federation at the Chief Minister's convenience. It has been suggested by the Member for Tanjong Pagar that it is for us to go there and have terms that are fair and just for settlement. Sir, if it is the wish of this House to negotiate with Communists for terms that are fair and just for settlement, this House has every right to take its own initiative to make its own arrangements for its own meeting for negotiations with the Communists, but when to every man who can read, to every man who can hear, it has been made abundantly clear by the Chief Minister of the Federation that there is no question of negotiations and for responsible Members of this Assembly to seek to suggest, through this Assembly to the country, that that is all eye-wash and that, in fact, the Chief Minister and I are going to discuss terms fair and just for settlement is, to say the least, to embarrass very seriously our good and close neighbours who are the main, in fact, the principal sufferers from the terrorism of which the Member for Tanjong Pagar calls anti-colonialism. He speaks of the basic conditions of discontent which exist in the Federation and which will find their outlet in the same way that they have in Singapore. I will say this to you, Sir, that in so far as I appreciate the conditions in the Federation, the entire country, free from the equal of people like the Member for Tanjong Pagar, have learnt to respect and revere their Chief Minister, have complete faith in his integrity, in his sincerity, and in his ability to bring to them the political independence which they crave; and there can be no question whatsoever of the people of the Federation seeking to find an outlet for so-called discontent by joining these gentlemen whom the Member for Tanjong Pagar has glorified to the summit of equality with the Governments of the Federation and Singapore. Sir, it has been suggested by the hon. Member that to deny a fair settlement to these anti-colonial forces, as he terms them, is to be a colonial. The Member for Tanjong Pagar is not unread. He is not without knowledge of the fact that perhaps the most vicious colonial power of today is a Communist power - Russia. There is no power which has as many colonies and which controls them more stringently than the people of Moscow. He speaks of the Communists as being anti-colonial forces. They have battled arduously, admittedly. Many of them believe with sincerity in their doctrine, unquestionably. Many of them are dedicated to the cause of Communism. That is perfectly true. But let us recognise this fact: They are not fighting colonialism. They are fighting for Communism which is a worse form of colonialism than the colonialism we have here today. We cannot sufficiently, Sir, recognise that fact. It has been suggested that we have reached a stalemate in a war of equals. I would remind hon. Members that if they are equals, then why the amnesty? If there are true nationalists in the Communist group, they must recognise the fact that since these first few months, there has been set in motion machinery which can, in truth, and, in fact, achieve the nationalism that we all - I believe, the honest and the dishonest - seek; that these Communists who have used the cover of anti-colonialism and nationalism now stand naked in their true colours to a greater extent than even the hon. Member has shown his own colours this afternoon. These Communists recognise the fact that today they are not fighting a colonial power and cannot pretend to. They are not fighting for nationalism because all their bullets and all their arson have not achieved it and, in fact, other forces working peacefully through the democratic process have every legitimate rea- son for believing that the democratic process will, within a matter of a few months, bring concrete and definite evidence of early self-government and independence. Those Communist forces in the jungle, Sir, must be conscious of the fact that to the public, they stand stripped. They stand, Sir, as obviously as anything visible to the human eye as being not anti-colonial but anti-national. These Communist forces are seeking their own form of government and they always will, in the same way that foreign ideology through Communism is seeking the overthrow of the Indian Government, and has sought the overthrow through violent means of the Burmese Government even when Burma was independent. These are not basically nationalist forces. These are the forces that seek the maintenance of only one ideology, and in order to maintain their camouflage, they recognise that now that their activity is being obviously directed against the people's governments, they must come out and cease these activities of violence which have brought no benefit to them, which give them no hope of success whatsoever. Not even the flamboyant imagination of the Member for Tanjong Pagar could conceive of the Communist forces in the Federation achieving victory by violence against the Tunku and the people of the Federation. That is the stalemate in the language of the P.A.P. - a complete and utter loss, a complete and utter failure. An absolute necessity, if they are to achieve anything for their own ideology, is that they should now put down the rifle and take up the poison of internal subversion of which the hon. Member has far closer acquaintance than even I. That is the position, Sir, the so-called stalemate - an absolute failure of the war as it is termed by the hon. Member, an absolute failure of violence by rebels who now wish to come out, allegedly to pursue peaceful vocations, and let us hope that many of them are sincere about it. Why this Government fell in with the views of the Chief Minister of the Federation in the amnesty was just this one argument that there are and there have been in this country men of integrity and sincerity, nationals to the very core, who, sick of the colonialism which tethered them, which degraded them, unable to find an outlet for attack, took to this form of violence as the only means of achieving that end. I do not think that number is very great, unfortunately, because I think that, having gone that way, they soon get caught in the web and they find it too difficult - the weakness of the human spirit and the human flesh - to retract from a position on a point of no return. But there may well be some - and the amnesty is intended for them - but in considering this motion, let us remember a few basic home truths which I shall repeat. Singapore does not govern the Federation. The revolt is in the Federation, not in Singapore. The meeting is arranged by the Chief Minister of the Federation. It is not my meeting or your meeting, Sir, or the meeting of any Member of this Assembly. I may be permitted to attend, and I certainly am, Sir. The Tunku has been indicated as a man who is the soul of courtesy, and he is happy to certain suggestions that I make. But I do appreciate the decisions taken about the venue and about the arrangements. What the Tunku says at the meeting is entirely the decision of the Chief Minister of the Federation at which I have the privilege of being present. That is the true position. Those who vote in favour of this motion vote to be gate-crashers, vote to give honour and glory to a group that has murdered and burnt and destroyed, a group that itself recognises its inability to pursue further a course of action which has brought it and can bring it no victory, and which now seeks to come out of the jungle. Once more, let it be clear that there is no question of negotiation, and this is the Tunku's decision. He has indicated quite clearly that there is no question of negotiation. "I am", he has said repeatedly in public, "going to explain to him the terms of the amnesty and I shall be quite happy to hear what he has to say." Let us get away from this rhetoric, from this effort to seek to control the destiny of the Federation by a small group in Singapore whose sympathies seem to lie elsewhere than in the traditions of this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the future of this country cannot be of greater concern to the colonial officials than to the people of this country. That is why the respected Chief Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman, said a few weeks ago that he found himself in a difficult position. The people wanted peace but the Director of Operations wanted to destroy the Communists by military force, a method which has continuously failed for the last seven years. The people naturally want peace. Continuation of the Emergency cannot be in their interests, for it is only under conditions of peace that democracy has a chance to flourish in Malaya. The people generally are sick and tired of the Emergency. General Bourne and the colonial officials may not be tired. As a matter of fact, colonial officials have come to regard the Emergency, together with all the Emergency powers in their hands, as part of the life in this country. The cry of Communist subversion, the libelling of individuals and Parties as Communists or Communist-inspired, and the danger of detention without trial - all these things help colonialism to kill the enthusiasm of those who hate colonialism and who would replace it with a free, independent and democratic Malaya. In short, the Emergency has acted as a check on the growth and activities of all progressive nationalist forces in this country. As far as the majority of the people are concerned, the Emergency has meant heartless restrictions on basic democratic liberties. It has also meant the expenditure of large sums of money on military campaigns to exterminate the Malayan Communist Party. All these resources and money could have been more profitably used for the social and economic development of this country. The Emergency has wasted human lives and material resources without achieving a single beneficial result. After seven years of warfare with foreign troops and mercenaries of all kinds roaming the country, the Malayan Communist Party still remains with us. If the Emergency in this country was merely a military problem, the military method would have succeeded long ago in exterminating Communism. The armed might of Communism is far less imposing than the armed might of British imperialism. Mr Chin Peng does not have helicopters. Neither does he have security forces - an armed force of 300,000 men with all the weapons of modern warfare. Neither does he have prisons and detention camps where he may detain without trial people suspected of colonial sympathies. It is clear that if the Emergency was purely a military problem of disposing of a few hundred troublemakers, it would have been disposed of long ago by military forces, but unfortunately for General Templer and General Bourne, the Emergency is not a military problem. It has its making in the political, social and economic conditions in the country, conditions which make thousands of people feel that they have no place in a colonial society, and since the Emergency is political in nature, it can only be settled by political means. My Party holds the belief that the real solution to the Emergency is to take a lesson from our great neighbours - India, Burma, Ceylon and Indonesia - who do not exclude their local Communist Parties from the constitutional processes which govern these countries. If our Chief Minister were half as wise as Nehru or Soekarno, there could be an end to the Emergency in this country. My Party feels that the continuation of the Emergency would provide an excuse for the colonial powers to go on denying the Malayan people their democratic rights and the freedom to run their own affairs as they choose. As such, colonial officials are hardly to be entrusted with the direction and control of negotiations with the Malayan Communist Party for a peaceful settlement of this country. Under present arrangements, it must be assumed that the Hon. the Chief Minister is guided solely by the colonial officials in the matter of negotiations with the Malayan Communist Party. The chances are that the colonial officials are not interested in the peaceful settlement of the Emergency. That is why the Hon. the Chief Minister should take the people of the country into his confidence, through their representatives of political parties. After all, it is our country and we have a bigger stake in it than colonial officials and colonial soldiers. The Hon. the Chief Minister would, if he had a sense of responsibility to the people of this country, consult the elected representatives of the people in this Assembly and then seek to plan a peaceful settlement of the Emergency. I firmly warn the elected representatives of the people in this Assembly that if they do not take the responsibility for a peaceful settlement of the Emergency into their own hands, there will be no peaceful settlement. The Malayan people will be condemned to further years of bloodshed and suppressive laws and hopes of democratic and peaceful progress in this country will be destroyed. I ask all self-respecting Malayans in this House to vote for the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I rise to move an amendment to this motion, may I, with your permission, express my great appreciation of the stands taken by the hon. Members on this question and that my sympathies go to them on this account? We have heard the Chief Minister and the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) give full and clear plans on how to end the Emergency. The Hon. the Chief Minister, on the one hand, believes that if he despises or is determined to get rid of Communism, then he must use all his means, even to the extent of allying himself with colonialism, to achieve his aim.

I did not say that.

I am sorry. On the other hand, we can understand the motive of and the determination shown by the Member for Tanjong Pagar when he moved this motion. It is that if we want to get rid of colonialism, we must use all means, even to allying ourselves with Communism, to attain this objective. Sir, before I came to touch on this subject, a few of my friends said, "Do not touch it! It is high politics! It is very dangerous!" Sir, I cannot bear to think of the sufferings brought about by the eight years of Emergency in the Federation. At least, we in Singapore have been in a better position. I have a strong belief that it is now high time clearly to admit that a military policy to solve a political problem is a failure and that we in this country should try our best to find any means, not merely by the use of military power, to settle this vital issue. Sir, I think it will be recalled that quite often we have heard that the Emergency is going to end, and that the bandits are not more than 5,000 strong. That has been repeated and repeated many a time by generals and commanders and even, if I am not mistaken, by the Rt. Hon. Mr Malcolm MacDonald. But we are still faced with this threat today, and the Malayan Communist Party still remains 5,000 strong, and nobody in this country at this moment can tell us when and how we can end this Emergency. So, it is solely for this reason, which I appreciate, that our courageous Chief Minister is prepared to accept the invitation by the Chief Minister of the Federation, Tunku Abdul Rahman, to take part in the coming peace talks. Sir, since our Chief Minister has clearly stated that he is only just an invited guest, and that he is a junior partner, it is unjustified that this motion should be introduced that the Hon. the Chief Minister should lead an All-Party delegation to the talks with the Malayan Communist Party. My reasons for opposing the motion are two. Firstly, we already know that neither the Hon. the Chief Minister, nor anybody in this country, has any right to interfere with the internal affairs of the Federation Government. Secondly, I will quote an old English proverb: "Too many cooks spoil the broth." We have seen, especially during these five days of debate, how much party differences or party politics have come into play in this Assembly, and we should not be surprised if some enthusiastic Member, on meeting Chin Peng, were to say, "Oh, my brother, my comrade, you are going to become the President of Malaya!" Or there might be someone who would say, "Look, Chin Peng, I am going to ask for more tanks and bombs to drive you entirely out of this country!" Therefore, honestly speaking, I think it is possible to visualise such a situation taking place and I do not think it is wise for the Hon. the Chief Minister to lead a delegation of such diametrically opposite views to meet Chin Peng. So, the amendment that I propose to move reads: "That this House considers it in the best interests of the country that all political parties in the Assembly should be consulted before the Chief Minister goes to meet the M.C.P. representatives to discuss a peaceful settlement of the Emergency in order to bring peace and constitutional progress." Sir, my reason for moving this amendment is that I believe that, despite the many Party differences, -

Order. Can I first have the hon. Member's amendment in writing, please? He can carry on later. Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my reason for moving this amendment is that I believe, since the Hon. the Chief Minister is only a junior partner in these talks, it is much wiser for us that we acquaint the Hon. the Chief Minister with our views on these talks. We can expect all political Parties to express their opinions on these peace talks unless the Hon. the Chief Minister has his own decision to say what is right, not only to Chin Peng but also even to Tunku Abdul Rahman. You know very well that my English is poor. I had better make it very clear by saying that the reason why I press this point is that it is important that the Hon. the Chief Minister, before he goes to see Chin Peng, must have an All-Party mandate on this one question - the recognition of the Malayan Communist Party. I am sure many of us have been told, "Please, for goodness sake, do not touch this controversial issue." Yet, I am the naughtiest boy and I am purposely going to say that I am a fervent and ardent believer in democracy. I think it is an injustice to let any political Party, if it is unarmed, go underground. It sometimes puzzles me, since it does not make much difference because if the Malayan Communist Party put down their arms, they can be compared with our People's Action Party, which is now here! I am of the view that if the Malayan Communist Party can accept a conditional recognition of their Party, why not we try? Of course, many political Parties will have different opinions about that, but at least now the Hon. the Chief Minister can have my view that I am supporting a conditional recognition of the Malayan Communist Party if it will stop its acts of arson, killing and murder.

Can I have a seconder? Mr R. Jumabhoy rose -

Is the hon. Member seconding the amendment?

Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, I stand to support the amendment just moved by the Member for Changi. I support this amendment on the same principle as it stands today. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister must have received this invitation to meet Mr Chin Peng, or must have received some other invitations in India, Pakistan or anywhere else, before the 9th November when he had an elected majority on his side. Sir, the position today is quite different. It is eleven over there and, as such, he cannot talk on behalf of the people of Singapore. Sir, because of this, I think it is his duty, before he does anything, to consult the Opposition who have got more elected Members. I thought the Government would have resigned long ago when this situation arose.

Keep hoping!

I request my friend on my side to allow me to talk! Members on the Government Benches are very nice! They do not disturb! Sir, on the other hand, the Government is still here, even after what took place on 9th November. And how? By the support of a colonial power - the United Kingdom. Sir, in a true democracy anywhere in the world, it is the people who govern the country. Singapore is not in that state today. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister in his address mentioned Communist Russia and so on. I believe I am right in saying, and anybody can correct me if I am wrong, that England, our masters, have recognised Communist Russia. India has, Burma has, and Indonesia has. I do not say that we should recognise Communist Russia. We are not a self-governing country yet. What we shall do will be our business when we are free and self-governing. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister also said that we are not going to sit down on equal terms with Mr Chin Peng to discuss peace. I am not commenting on that but what I do say is this. There are strikes in Singapore and in order to avoid these strikes, do we not sit down with the strikers and discuss: "Why are you doing this? Why cannot you call off the strikes for the betterment of the city and society?" Sir, I remember those days - I am not discussing the pre-war Singapore that has seen 123 years of British rule - but I am just drawing attention to the reoccupation of Singapore in 1945 when I happened to be in the British Military Administration Council and I well remember, Sir, Mr Wu Tien Wang and many others who made very good speeches for the betterment of the city and they were invited to the homes of the then chief of Singapore, Sir Ralph Hone, and others. I do not know what happened later on. Many of them disappeared. I am told that some who are doing this fighting are dissatisfied nationalists. If that is so, would it not be advisable on our part to say, "Look here, brother, why are you doing this? Why are you causing this misery, looting and killing? What is wrong?" It is possible that, by sitting together, we might convince Mr Chin Peng to come over to our side. If he does not, well, the result is clear for both the Governments. Sir, the Bandoeng Conference attended by the Asian powers has accepted the doctrine or the ideal of Panchshila, that is, peaceful co-existence. There have been many conferences attended, amongst others, by England and France, where they have sat down with Communist Russia, and talked in terms of world betterment. If we can achieve something for the good of our own city or the people just by talking, why not? There is nothing wrong about it. Sir, we have been told just now by the Hon. the Chief Minister that he has been invited by the Chief Minister of the Federation to be present at the talks. If he is going there just to attend as an observer, that is his business. I am sure he cannot commit us in whatever talks he has when he is going as an observer or just to be present there. But if he wants to commit Singapore to anything, then it is his duty to see that we, the Opposition, who command the majority of the votes and represent Singapore on this side of the House and not on the Government side, be consulted. Even if the Hon. the Chief Minister goes, though he does not represent Singapore, we do not mind his going provided he consults the Opposition Parties on this side. Now, Sir, there is one more thing which is personal. My friend the Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim) mentioned that he is an Independent and there was some remark made by the Hon. the Chief Minister. Sir, I am an Independent Member myself. I join this one side or the other side if I hold to certain convictions. I have retired from active business since four to five years. The Communists would never accept me if I wanted to be a Communist. I do not think the People's Action Party would accept me in any part. I do not know -

No.

Sir, possibly the Socialists might accept me if I signed proper terms with them, but I do believe in a human society which should remain at peace for their own good and for the good of their own city. Sir, I have great pleasure in seconding the amendment just moved.

Question on the amendment put, and, negatived.

The original Question is now before the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no doubt there are Members of this House who will regard my action in rising to take part in this debate as "intervention", but the constitution being what it is, I have the right and they must hear me out. Now, I should like to make it clear here that I have been an opponent of immediate self-government but not of eventual self-government, but I wish to say that, to me, Sir, this is the most unfortunate motion ever placed before this Assembly, not excluding that made by the Progressive Party on 25th July when they put forward a motion for a new constitution providing for immediate independence. "Unfortunate" is the word I use, Sir, but nothing that emanates from the Member for Tanjong Pagar surprises me. Of course, he has never lost an opportunity at any time to try to explain away the Emergency - in speeches made on May 16th, I think it was, and on dates around that time, he stated: the Emergency, of course, in his opinion, arises from social injustices and economic ills, mal-administration and failure to understand the aims and aspirations of a resurgent nationalism, blunders of stuffed-shirt colonial officials - my gosh, do not let me hear that word! - over a period of eight years, and all the clap-trap of Marble Arch soapbox oratory ad nauseam on every possible occasion, as if there were millions of disaffected citizens in the Federation of Malaya instead of a few thousands. He said there are eight thousand. I read in the newspapers that it is only three thousand. Anyway, it cannot be very many. He says, "Of course, the security forces cannot get on with the business of keeping down the Emergency because they cannot get information." How can they possibly get information from citizens who will have their throats cut immediately if they give it? Now, Sir, the hon. and learned Member is a politician. So normally one would discount what he says. I have sometimes thought that his baiting the Government on the subject of Malayanisation was no more than the carrying out of a directive from his principals, but it seemed to me yesterday in the debate on one of the Heads in the Estimates - Immigration, I think it was Head 56 - that what he is really suffering from is xenophobia. Sir, even this aspect of the hon. and learned Gentleman's approach to the subject is not without ironic connotations in that he himself has an extremely Westernised education and every thought-form he has is Westernised, so that he has to go on beating the anti-colonial drum in order to rally his less articulate followers and, of course, to maintain his leadership, perhaps his ephemeral leadership, of the Party. Sir, the audacity of this motion absolutely astounds me. He is obviously assuming that the Chief Ministers of the respective territories are to meet those jungle heroes for talks - for talks, if you please - to discuss a peaceful settlement of the Emergency. What! As equals! I trust that the Chief Ministers of these territories will treat these canaille like the beaten enemies they are. The members of the People's Action Party - the "Action" part of it seems to me to be to drive the country headlong to perdition - never miss a chance to scream "Merdeka", which, of course, does not mean Merdeka but just plain anti-colonialism. It is obvious. I mean, if every time they say "Merdeka" I say "Colonialism", I will be within my rights - it will be a knight for their bishop! Yet, as the Hon. the Chief Minister has said, roughly in these words, "They are playing straight into the hands of the most insidious form of colonialism that the world has ever known and far outside the reach of their philosophy." Does the Member for Tanjong Pagar really think that Mr Chin Peng is some species of a Robin Hood? To speak utterly plainly, they are no more than the tools of the Moscow-Peking Axis and the hon. Member, when he assured the House - I think it was May 16th - that in their struggle for freedom he would fight anyone, even the Communists, was just deluding himself. In spite of his record, I think that the little, slim Tarzans of the jungle would give him pretty short shrift. How can anyone, Sir, - and this really has not been touched on enough in this debate - who claims to be civilised, condone the bloody and horrible murders, mayhem and foul, masochistic acts by those fiends and then try to excuse them by sophisticated arguments on doubtful premises? No doubt, the proposer of this motion relishes being photographed at whatever will be the place in the ulu with all the Party Members in diminishing precedence behind him. I think this is a scandalous motion, Sir, and I hope it will be heavily defeated. The day may come, you know, when Members of this House will look back nostalgically at the days when they could get up in this Assembly and, under the Royal Coat of Arms, with its "Honi soit qui mal y pense" and its "Dieu et mon droit", twist the lion's tail with impunity and get away with it. I hope, Sir, that the Asian Members of this House know that I do not really represent colonialism, taipans, stuffed shirts, etc., etc. They may think so, but they would be wrong. I am much more liberally-minded than many of them may think, but what I have said this afternoon, I would not, in spite of all the sophistry and the wit of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, cancel half a line.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not feel so strongly, as some other Members do, on the iniquity of the speech by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. There were points, of course, with which I profoundly disagree but by and large it deserves congratulation, I thought. He obviously is a man who reads his Straits Times very thoroughly and carefully and he has a very good memory. As far as I can recollect, pretty well every point that he has made has appeared in the columns of the Straits Times in the last year or two, and he has given an adequate summary of what that respectable newspaper's opinion on this matter is. Apart from those opinions, I do not think he deserves all the reprobations that have been heaped on him, but I would like to correct him before I come to the main body of his motion. I would like to correct him on one or two small points. He has a fascinated interest in me. He can never keep to a speech without some reference to the Minister for Telecommunications and Mines, or the Minister for Transport and Expectations, or whatever extraordinary new variant in my title he manages to invent. But on this occasion, he got me right, though he corrected himself and got wrong again as soon as he could. It was not a mistake but he actually got it right this time and the reason he referred to me was to bring in a remark to the effect, I think, that the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works neither seeks to fight Communism nor even to understand it. I think that is about what he said -

Seeks to fight.

"Seeks to fight" comes from without understanding. Very well then. The fact is -

I said -

Order, please.

I shall be quite happy to sit down and let him clarify, Mr Speaker, Sir, if he wishes to do so. I will assume that what he said was that I seek to fight Communism without understanding it. Is that a reasonable summary?

Order, order.

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker?

I do not know. The hon. Member is addressing the Chair. I do not know.

I do apologise, Mr Speaker, Sir. Well, be that as it may, I would like to make my position about Communism clear. I have, in the course of a not inactive life, lived with Communists at one time or another on quite friendly terms. People who are quite good friends of mine have been Communists or fellow-travellers or crypto-Communists and all the other variations of the Communist organisation, and I have no exaggerated horror of the Communist system. It seems to me a very suitable system for a backward country which has got into a mess and for people who are in a general collapse, as Russia was when the Communists got hold of Russia, or as China was when the Kuomintang gave way to the Communists. I do not think that it is a nice system at all, but when people have got into a mess you have to have drastic remedies. You certainly get them with Communism, and they probably will succeed in lifting up the economy of those two countries. They have in Russia succeeded in making very considerable economic progress. They have gone rather backward in agriculture but they have made enormous progress in heavy industry. They have even been able to distribute consumer goods to some extent in Russia and make the standard of living go up a bit, so that I am not excited about Communism. It is rather out of date, to my mind. It is a waning philosophy which is likely to vanish from the world in the next ten or fifteen years -

They do not -

Order, please.

I do not say that the Communist forces in Russia will vanish in ten or fifteen years. I mean that what we might call the apostolic impulse of Communism will vanish - it is my guess, and I make no claims to be a prophet. I do not claim to understand Communism perfectly but I have made some study of it and I think I probably know just as much as the Member for Tanjong Pagar does about it, particularly when he asserts that if Chin Peng got control of Malaya, all these allowances, all this privileged housing, all the differentials in pay would instantly vanish and withal the poor would be lifted up. That just is not the fact, I am afraid, in the history of the other major Communist countries. In Russia, when they came in with Communism, they came in on the slogan of: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." But they very soon saw that meant, of course, that you got what you needed and they very soon realised that that cock would not fight. They abandoned that for the other version which is: "From each according to his ability," (which means you are going to work as hard as I can make you) "and to each according to his work." Thus, the man whose work is recognised by the Communist Party as being valuable receives a country villa plus a town flat, extra rations and coupons and all the comforts and luxuries of life. But the chap whose work is recognised as being not very valuable gets very much less allotted to him; and anybody who does not work at all gets into a perfectly horrible situation - forced labour in the corrective labour camps - and I am afraid, if you had a Communist regime here, you would necessarily follow the same pattern. The idea that you would abolish all inequalities and privileges by establishing Communism here is just most absolute nonsense because there is no reason to suppose that the situation here would be different from any existing elsewhere. However, I only want to make that little point clear because there is so much misunderstanding about the nature of Communism, which is essentially a managerial system by which you take control of the capital assets of the State and develop the capital formation. That is the essential basis of Communism, and profound compassion and so on does not really operate at all. However, I now want to come to the hon. Member's very interesting motion by which he wants representatives of all the Parties to go to meet Chin Peng. I am not going to talk about that in general, because it has been quite sufficiently dealt with by the Hon. the Chief Minister, but there are just one or two practical difficulties about it which I would like to point out. The first one arises from a remark made by the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) earlier in this Budget sitting when he was talking about education. He then said very energetically and with great conviction that anybody - any Chinese, I think - any Malayan or Chinese who had received an English education was thereby cut off from his own people. The Member for Tanjong Pagar winced bitterly at this stab in the back from one of his own back-benchers. He had to admit that he himself had no connection with the people of Malaya and had no claim to represent them because he had received a very lengthy and extremely successful English education, but I do feel that one difficulty is that if the leader of the People's Action Party were to go to meet Chin Peng, his own followers would disown him and say, "We cannot allow this man to claim to be a representative of the people because he is obviously disqualified by the fact that he has got a law degree or whatever degrees he has got." However, that is perhaps a minor point which he can settle with his own internal management of the Party. The greater difficulty comes from something which he himself said when we were talking about the Medical Estimates and he described himself as a mouthpiece. I thought that was an extraordinarily true and accurate description of himself. It was very frank of him to say quite boldly, "I am a mouthpiece." He claimed to be a mouthpiece putting forward the words which other people had prepared for him and he was coming in here to play them over, as it were, like a gramophone which could be carried in here and would deliver the burden which had been put into it. Well, in meeting Chin Peng, it seems to me clear that you need to have leaders to meet a leader. I do not know Chin Peng, unless he is one of my old friends going by his Communist alias, but presumably he is a man of energy and leadership and he would require to meet other people of energy and leadership or he would feel that he is wasting his time. And in the Chief Minister of the Federation, we undoubtedly have a man who has very high qualities of leadership, purpose and drive. I feel that we also have a leader but of a different type, and a very able one indeed, in our Chief Minister of Singapore, a man who has dynamic drive. He is not one who is merely puffed along by the words of others. He himself initiates things and secures support for them because he is so obviously right. He is not just a mere trumpet through which other people blow their hot air. Now, Chin Peng is quite clearly a busy man and we would not send a mouthpiece to talk to him! I must remind this Assembly that the Member for Tanjong Pagar has demonstrated his qualities as a mouthpiece with most extraordinary success during this session. I would not like to estimate how long he has been on his feet and how many words he has poured forth over us, but I do feel that if he did go to discuss things with Chin Peng, the discussions would go on at least as long as Panmunjong, or possibly as long as the Emergency, because the number of words which he would find to use would, I am afraid, extend the discussions beyond all bearable length. The last bit of objection - perhaps a very minor one - is that probably Chin Peng would object to one of the inveterate habits of the leader of the People's Action Party of putting words into his opponent's mouth which his opponent has never said. He is always doing it. He does it again and again but he does not get away with it here because we shoot him down and say: "Well, of course, I never said anything of that sort at all." He then makes his little joke from the front Bench and the matter passes over. But I think that if he sat down seriously with Chin Peng and try to argue with him, he would do the same sort of thing and get into a frightful state of confusion and Chin Peng would not have known what he had said at the end of it all probably. I think he would be intolerably confused and again an awful lot of time would be wasted. These are very minor matters, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not want to lengthen this out at all, but I do feel that they are really practical little objections which should be taken into account when considering this motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think it is necessary to call your attention and the attention of others to the fact that I am one of the few old men in a House so full of young and brilliant men. All we wanted was - The Chief Minister rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order, Sir. It is a point that I regret to take with the hon. Member who has just pointed out that he is an old man, but, Sir, on our side of the House, I feel that most honest men in this Assembly are getting very tired of the impression that certain hon. Members are bringing speeches prepared by others which they read irrespective of what has occurred in this Assembly. I do ask you, Sir, in all earnestness and with respect, to take steps to prevent the recurrence of an extremely unhealthy tradition which emanates from the People's Action Party only - whose Members are completely incapable of asking supplementaries to their own questions, who run to the mother hen for everything, and who come prepared with speeches that they have never written. I do ask, with respect, Sir, that you take -

I have got your point, Mr Chief Minister. The point of order, of course, is that Members must not read their speeches, but I do not think the hon. Member has been given a chance even to start.

In the days when we were growing up, the world was not full of isms. Therefore, unlike many young men here, I probably understand the intensity of the people's demand for peace. That is why I am concerned with who goes to the peace talks. The peace talks, as far as the majority of the people are concerned, do not provide an occasion to prove that one political Party is better than the other. It will be only an occasion to end a wasteful war, a war that seems to be getting nowhere -

Order. You do appear to be reading, Mr Goh Chew Chua.

It is this that must be ended. The blood of the people must not be spilt any more. We must seek a peaceful settlement of our differences with the Communists. It is the foreigners who started this war. Let us have the courage to end it. Only with a peaceful settlement can we destroy the excuses that are being put forward to make this country a police State. Only by reaching a peaceful settlement with the Communists can we push forward quickly with the earnest wish of the people to achieve self-government -

Order, order. Is the hon. Member, in fact, reading? If he says no, he can carry on. If he says yes, he will have to sit down. I must take his word for it.

No, Sir.

Carry on.

That is a P.A.P. truth!

Order, please.

I have seen some of the Labour Front Members who read the speeches which they have prepared, and I see no reason why the Opposition Members cannot prepare their speeches and speak in the Assembly. [Interruption.]

Order, order, please. This is getting completely out of order. Mr Goh Chew Chua, I have asked you whether you were reading a speech. You have assured me you were not reading a speech. So you can continue.

I will stop my speech, Sir.

If no other Member wishes to speak, I will put the Question.

Original Question put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put pursuant to Standing Order 7 (11). Adjourned accordingly at thirty minutes past Five o'clock p.m.