Hansard, 1956-02-08

Mr William Allmond Codrington Goode, Chief Secretary, took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance. (Governor's Deputy's Assent to Bills Passed) MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR'S DEPUTY

On the 29th of November, 1955, I received a message from the Governor's Deputy in connection with Bills which have been passed by the Assembly. This is the message: "Sir, I have the honour to inform you that in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, I have this day assented to the Bills intituled: -

I have to inform the Assembly that I granted permission to be absent from the Assembly to the following Members: Mr M. P. D. Nair - six weeks, commencing from the 29th of November, 1955. Mr R. Jumabhoy - seven weeks, from the 7th of December, 1955. Mr Wong Foo Nam - 20 days, from the 19th of December, 1955. Mr A. R. Lazarous - one month, from the 9th of January, 1956.

asked the Chief Minister what information he has on the subject of the creation of a naval base at Labuan.

Sir, my information is that there is no foundation for the report that Her Majesty's Government intends to create a naval base at Labuan.

Can the Chief Secretary inform us whether any work of that nature has been started at Labuan at all?

Whether there is work in Labuan or not, Sir, I am not aware. There is no foundation for the report that Her Majesty's Government are intending to create a naval base there.

asked the Chief Minister whether he will make a statement giving details of his discussion in London with the Secretary of State for the Colonies and of his visit to Commonwealth countries en route.

Yes, Sir. I will be making a statement after Question Time. I would like to assure the hon. Member that I am not seeking to avoid supplementaries. It is a long statement, Sir, and it is inappropriate to make it at this juncture. May I have your permission, Sir, to explain that, should the hon. Member or any other Member of this Assembly seek to elucidate any aspect of that statement, he is at liberty to ask me any questions after I have made the statement?

I might inform hon. Members that that is permissible at any time. Whenever a Minister makes a statement, questions may be asked to elucidate anything that might arise out of that statement.

asked the Chief Minister whether he is satisfied that it is in the interests of the country for 3 Assistant Ministers to be members of the City Council in addition to their ministerial duties; and whether he will state the policy of the Government in this matter.

If it please you, Sir, Government considers that the posts of the Ministers and Assistant Ministers are full-time occupations, but that Ministers - and this includes Assistant Ministers - should not be precluded from giving of their time to public service outside their normal duties. The work of the City Council, Sir, is work in the service of the public, but I personally consider it inadvisable that City Councillors should be Members of this Assembly, let alone Ministers or Assistant Ministers. Members are conscious of the fact that we have inherited this position of City Councillors together with the Rendel Commission's recommendations about that body; that Government has rejected those recommendations; and that we have repeatedly had to extend for short periods the life of the City Council. It seemed to us unreasonable, Sir, to deprive the people of their elected representatives who are Members of the Assembly, and some of whom are Assistant Ministers who are also on the City Council, without the possibility of by-elections, Sir, because no one would stand for a by-election for just a matter of 3 or 4 or 5 months; but we have before us the McNeice Report on local government and the matter will now be, we hope, shortly regularised by legislation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Hon. Chief Minister aware that one of the Assistant Ministers is a nominated Member of the City Council and could quite easily be replaced?

I am indeed, Sir, and my answer to that is this: that it does seem inappropriate to remove one man and to nominate somebody for just a short period of 4 or 5 months.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does not the Chief Minister agree that this position was envisaged as early as April last year when he decided to abandon the Rendel Report on local government, and that the period would have been one and a half years?

No, Sir, because there was then no question of the Members becoming Assistant Ministers. I would like to add this: that as regards the Assemblymen themselves, Government has not taken a decision. I am merely expressing a personal opinion and it cannot be said that there is really any great strain on the work that they have to do if they have to serve both bodies. My personal objection is that it is my desire to see the maximum possible number of people partaking in the democratic process.

Is this personal opinion referred to by the Chief Minister supported by those who are Members of this Assembly and of the City Council?

I am sorry I cannot understand the question.

Can the Chief Minister tell us whether his personal opinion is supported by those Members of this Assembly who are also Members of the City Council?

Unfortunately, Sir, much as I would like to, I cannot penetrate the hon. Member's mind and read what his views are.

Has the Chief Minister not enquired from them?

asked the Chief Minister if he will state whether the views expressed by the Assistant Ministers in the City Council are also the views of the Government.

Sir, it is important for this House to draw a distinction between the Assistant Ministers in the discharge of their duties as such in Government and the same persons as City Councillors. Government has never sought, does not seek and will never seek to control the conduct of the Assistant Ministers or any other City Councillors in the discharge of their duties to the City Council.

Is it not important, Sir, for Members of the Government, whether they be in the Assembly or in the City Council, to express the same line of policies?

The same policies, Sir, are not necessarily right and the circumstances are not normally the same.

Are we to understand from the Chief Minister's reply that the Labour Front has no consistent policy for local and national government?

As usual, Sir, my hon. and learned Friend understands wrongly.

Is it not a fact that the Labour Front City Councillors have approved the conversion of the Geylang Serai trade fair into an amusement park and that the Labour Front Government have refused it on Police grounds? Mr M. P. D. Nair rose -

Point of order?

Point of order, Sir. I think reading a supplementary question is out of order.

Whose side are you on?

I did not notice that the hon. Member was reading.

Is it not a question of policy in this matter?

The matter has not come up to Government level, Sir. If there has been a refusal, I am unaware of it.

asked the Chief Minister whether he will give details of any rules which have been framed by which Assistant Ministers are required to relinquish their interests in business and professional activities during their term of office.

Sir, I am happy to inform the hon. Member that a complete code governing the conduct of Ministers was published and laid before the Legislative Council in 1954 as Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 88 of 1954. No doubt the hon. Member would find it easy to seek access thereto.

Am I to understand from the Hon. the Chief Minister that the code of conduct for Ministers is also applicable to Assistant Ministers throughout?

The answer is in the affirmative, Sir.

asked the Chief Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Chief Minister of the Federation of Malaya on the subject of Union with the Federation; and whether he will further state what are the Government's intentions regarding such a union.

Yes. Sir, it had been my intention - and I have made it public - to make a full statement to this Assembly on this matter in connection with various interviews that some of my colleagues and I have had with the Chief Minister of the Federation and some of his colleagues on an informal basis. I would add, Sir, that I have reason now to believe that it would be highly inadvisable to make any statement at this juncture and until I have had a further opportunity, with some of my colleagues, to see the Chief Minister of the Federation on his return. I would ask this House, which is aware that I have always dealt with it fully and frankly, to give me its indulgence and to be patient for just one month. This is a matter that is very vital to the welfare of Singapore and I say, Sir, do not let us try to deal with it at this precise moment when it is still in the balance.

What is in the balance, Sir?

It may well be, Sir, that as a result of the forthcoming discussions, there may be other decisions arrived at than have already been arrived at. I do know, Sir, that there is a desire on the part of the Federation that this matter should not be preceded with today.

asked the Chief Minister if he will state how far the Government has progressed towards the definition of a Singapore citizen; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir, my hon. Friend is aware that a Bill has been drafted embodying the views of the Labour Front Members of the Government on this question of granting citizenship rights to our domiciled non-British communities. This Bill has been fully discussed with our colleagues of the Alliance. It has also been discussed with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In view of the considerations which I shall indicate in my statement on my London trip, this Bill is not being proceeded with temporarily, and if hon. Members wish supplementaries, may I respectfully suggest that they reserve them till after they have heard me on the reason why we are postponing consideration?

asked the Chief Minister if he will state what is the Government's definition of (a) a Malayan and (b) an expatriate.

If it please you, Sir, pending consideration of the Report of the Malayanisation Commission, the Government has in the past ten months proceeded on the basis that expatriates are those who are receiving or should receive expatriate allowance.

Does not the Chief Minister feel that the person most qualified to answer that question is the Member for Tanglin himself?

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry in view of the shortage of veterinary officers to cope with the needs of the farmers, whether he will take immediate steps to increase appreciably the staff of the Veterinary Department.

If it please you, Sir, I fear it is a long reply, because I believe in giving full information. May I respectfully suggest that sometimes, unless there is special reason to the contrary, it would be helpful to the Assembly and save its time if questions could normally be put down for written answers? However, here is my answer to the hon. Member's question: Yes, Sir. The Government is fully aware of the urgent need to expand the veterinary services available to farmers, and, as you will see, active steps have in fact been taken and are being taken at the moment to increase that staff. Increases in the staff of the Veterinary Department were approved in the 1956 Estimates last November. Four junior officers are being now recruited. They will have a van and will be able to operate as a mobile unit from village to village. A new post of storekeeper is also being filled. We are taking steps to recruit a team of 24 farmers - I hope this will appeal to hon. Members - who will be trained by the Department in poultry inoculation work. These farmers will be used full-time with departmental staff for only two days a week and they will be paid for that work. The rest of the week will be spent by them on their own farms. The idea, Sir, is to seek to bring to the farmers a full understanding of these processes. In addition, Sir, arrangements are being made to recruit eight temporary inoculators and two van drivers and to equip them with transport. These services will be used to help the existing staff to combat the recent outbreak of swine fever in the northern part of the island. The following steps have been taken to strengthen the senior staff. Two assistant veterinary officers are studying overseas for qualifications which will enable them to be appointed to veterinary officer posts in 1959. Three veterinary scholarships have been awarded for study abroad to students of whom two should return in 1957 and one in 1959. Four further veterinary scholarships will be awarded this year for study abroad, and the recipients are expected to return in 1961.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is it because the Chief Minister finds these arduous but constructive duties as Minister for Commerce and Industry difficult that he has decided to ask to be relieved from his duties as Minister

It is a different question.

It is most improper!

When will the scheme as envisaged by the Minister for Commerce and Industry start? Can he name a date?

You mean the 24 farmers?

Yes.

They are being recruited now. They have to undergo training. I think, for a few weeks in the Department, Sir, so that they will know how to give these inoculations. I really have not got the exact date, but I know that we are proceeding very actively with this scheme. I understand the farmers are very keen on it.

There seems to be a shortage of senior veterinary officers, and whilst some of them are being sent overseas for training, is the Minister for Commerce and Industry taking any immediate steps to see that there must be officers to help out during the period in between?

Therein, Sir lies the fact that I have to give a long oral reply. I will be very glad to hand this statement to my hon. Friend. [Indicating.] It is true that I have not read it out verbatim, but I think he can get the facts. Sir.

I think the method to be adopted in matters like this is, if a statement is inordinately long or contains figures, for the Minister to beg leave for that statement or those figures to be published in our Hansard. Mr Marshall, if you say that that is your wish, then all you have to do is to hand in your statement to the Clerk and it will be done.

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. If I may then, for the information of this House, repeat what perhaps the others have not also heard? We are recruiting now eight temporary inoculators full-time. We see no possibility of recruiting immediately senior officers, but we are recruiting four junior officers.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether the visit of the Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry to India in December last was an official visit sponsored by the Government; and what were the results of the visit.

Yes, Sir. My colleague the Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry accompanied me to New Delhi where we were the guests of the Government of India. He assisted me in my various discussions with the Prime Minister and other Ministerial colleagues in India, and after our interview with the Indian Minister for Commerce he carried on alone the discussions with the officials of that Ministry on the question of the grant of Commonwealth preference duties on exports of produce from Singapore. This is a matter, Sir, on which we have made repeated representations, and I have reason to believe that now with a fuller picture before them the Indian Government is reconsidering this request.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry how many new industries were started and how many persons have been given employment in these new industries in the period April to December, 1954.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry how many new industries were started and how many persons have been given employment in these new industries in the period April to December, 1955.

Sir, may I answer this question and the one following, No. 12, at the same time? Mr Speaker indicated assent.

I would inform the hon. Member that exact figures are not available. We do wish to give this House as much information as we can. We have made strenuous efforts to trace these figures but there is no compulsion for them to be given to Government. So far all we can trace is that between April and December 1954 there were 12 new factories established, employing 400 men. For the same period, Sir, in 1955 there were seven new factories employing 370 persons. But I will repeat: those are minimum figures. They are not exact.

Is the Minister aware that the falling-off of these industries is a serious matter and will he state what steps he will take to remedy this defect?

I find it more than a little surprising, Sir, to be told that the falling-off of employment from 400 people in 1954 to 370 new people in 1955 is a serious matter. But I do say, Sir, that it is a serious matter that we seek to give opportunity for more employment for our people. I will accept it if put on that basis. The hon. Member is fully aware of the steps that this Government is taking at the present moment in seeking the establishment of an Industrial Development Corporation on a Pan-Malayan basis as one of the steps to increase employment.

Sir, is it not serious that there were more people finding new employment in 1954 than in 1955?

We cannot have a debate at Question Time.

asked the Chief Secretary what food, in detail, is provided at present for European and Asian prisoners in the Prisons of Singapore.

Sir, diet scales for prisoners of different races in the Singapore Prisons were published in full detail in Supplement No. 8 of the Government Gazette dated 27th January, 1950, as Gazette Notification No. S 20. This Notification is still in force.

Would the Hon. the Chief Secretary enlighten this House as to the cost of food supplied to the Asian and European prisoners respectively?

Yes. The approximate cost for the European/Eurasian diet is $1.20 a day and that for the Asian is 75 cents.

Would the Hon. the Chief Secretary explain why there is such a big difference between the cost of the food supplied?

The difference arises, Sir, from the different nature of the food consumed.

Could we find out from the Chief Secretary what is the cause of the different nature of the food consumed?

The cause of the different nature of the food, Sir, arises from the different habits of the people concerned.

Could we find out the cause of these different habits?

asked the Chief Secretary if he will state the earliest date when the whole of Assembly House will be placed under the jurisdiction of the Speaker.

I regret I am not able to give any date.

Would the Chief Secretary not agree that there is a danger, as long as the Chief Minister meets the people in this building, that the public at large may confuse this Assembly with part of the meet-the-people circus? [Interruption.]

If I am asked to express my opinion, it is "No".

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Chief Secretary tell us if any effort at all is being made to remove all the unlawful occupants of this building - unlawful in the sense that these people should never have been allowed to remain or to enter this building after Mr Speaker took office?

P.A.P. definition of law!

I assume, Sir, that the hon. Member is referring in his usual courteous terms to my friend and leader the Chief Minister. As far as I am concerned, Sir, he is not an unlawful occupant of this building and I am making no effort at all to get him out.

Does the Chief Secretary now admit that, when he said to the Assembly sometime last year, in answer to my question, that he was making attempts to provide other accommodation for the Chief Minister and his P.R.O., that that was a statement of untruth?

I would refer the hon. Member, Sir, to the reply that I did give, which was that we were engaged in surveying our accommodation and planning for the future. I have not departed from that at all.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding the compulsory retirement age of officers of the Public Service.

Sir, it has been decided that future entrants to the civil service should normally be required to retire at 60 years of age, with provision for retirement at 55 years in individual cases at the option of the officer or at the option of the Government. In order that the terms and conditions of service of serving officers should not be affected, the normal age of retirement for serving officers remains at 55, and I hope to introduce a Bill into this House shortly to give effect to these principles.

Is it not a fact, Sir, that the retirement age was extended to 60 recently and then after that it was rescinded?

Yes.

In view of the fact that we are going on with Malayanisation, there would be a definite shortage of experienced officers and would that not affect the smooth running of this Malayanisation scheme?

I would rather not prejudice the Report of the Malayanisation Commission.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Goh Tong Liang - 16. To ask the Minister for Communications and Works whether the Government intends to make public the report of the Commission on Public Transport.

Mr Goh Tong Liang.

Sir, the Public Transport Commission's report has been brought to the notice of the public, and I withdraw my question.

I have called the question. You cannot withdraw it. Would the Minister for Communications and Works like to answer? Mr Francis Thomas indicated dissent.

No answer.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works whether the Working Party set up to consider the building costs of schools has made its report; and whether he will give details of the conclusions arrived at.

The question is in two parts, Mr Speaker. The answer to the First part is "No". Therefore the second part does not arise.

asked the Minister for Education whether teachers for Government Schools are being recruited from Hong Kong; and whether he will give full particulars regarding the methods of recruitment.

One of the purposes of my visit to Hong Kong was to find out if there were experienced and reliable teachers in Chinese there who might be available for service in Singapore. About 60 teachers were interviewed of whom eight were selected for further consideration if local suitable candidates cannot be found. All appointments are made by the Governor on the advice of the Public Services Commission.

asked the Minister for Education whether a Malay secondary school is scheduled to be built in 1956.

Government is in the process of building a number of new secondary schools this year, and it is possible that one of these may be set aside as a Malay secondary school.

Sir, will the Minister indicate what are the extent of the possibilities?

I do not understand the question.

The Minister said that it was possible that one of these secondary schools would be a Malay secondary school. What are the probabilities?

The probabilities lie within two factors. As soon as the buildings are completed, one of them may be set aside as a Malay secondary school. When the number of classes in the Malay secondary schools increases, they will be housed in this new Malay secondary school.

Could the Minister define what is a Malay school?

It is a different question.

The Hon. the Minister for Education mentioned that the probabilities lie between two factors. Is there not another factor - the fact that, as he said, he may not be able to get a sufficient number of teachers?

For one Malay secondary school I am able to find enough teachers for the time being but not for a long period or for any more secondary schools.

If that were so, Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister for Education tell us why he has been having trouble with some Malay students, because they claimed they wanted to be taught in Malay?

It is a different question.

asked the Minister for Education if he will make a statement on the special courses to be arranged for students who were unable to gain admission to Government secondary schools this year.

To meet the needs of those who have been unable to gain admission to secondary schools, plans are being made for evening classes to be held in various Government secondary school buildings. In the first instance, instruction will be given in the following subjects: English, Mathematics, Commercial Arithmetic, Elementary Book-keeping and Commercial Geography. Later, classes will be arranged, if possible, to provide teaching in Mandarin and Malay. As the Department already provides technical and commercial subjects for the older students at the Junior Trade School and Raffles Institution, these classes will be restricted to boys and girls of secondary school age who are not at present attending any secondary school. The aim of the classes is to prepare pupils for examination by the Royal Society of Arts. If they are a success and if the resources of the Department are adequate, the Government will consider extending the scope of the courses. At present a survey is being made of the demand for courses of this kind and of the staff available for teaching. When this survey has been completed, more definite information about the courses will be made available.

Sir, will the Minister state why these classes cannot be held in the afternoons? Is he not aware that it is not advisable for students to be at a loose end throughout the day?

Steps are being taken to house these students in the evenings because there are no primary school buildings available. They are all occupied in the afternoon, and the secondary schools cannot be used in the afternoon. That will deprive secondary school students of their other activities in the afternoon.

Has the Minister considered the possibility of using Radio Malaya for broadcasts to these students in the afternoons, thus reducing the number of qualified teachers required?

Broadcasts are being made now, Sir.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare if he will state the number of unemployed registered during each of the months of July to December, 1954, and 1955.

Sir, there is no registration in Singapore of unemployed persons as such. The Government employment exchanges register any persons who seek assistance in finding employment. Registration for this purpose is entirely voluntary. Most of the persons who seek assistance through the exchanges are undoubtedly in need of employment, but some who are in employment and merely wish to change their jobs use the exchanges, and it is therefore not possible in all cases to distinguish between them. The number of persons registered for the first time at Government employment exchanges during the months July to December, 1954, and 1955 were as follows: July 1954 2,069 July 1955 1,246 August 1954 1,593 August 1955 1,472 September 1954 1,639 September 1955 1,281 October 1954 1,437 October 1955 1,221 November 1954 1,708 November 1955 1,302 December 1954 1,731 December 1955 1,479 Counts of persons, Sir, who register at Government employment exchanges and known to be actively seeking employment assistance have been made at regular intervals with the following result: July 1954 figures not available July 1955 5,581 August 1954 figures not available August 1955 5,249 September 1954 5,301 September 1955 4,928 October 1954 5,147 October 1955 4,738 November 1954 5,397 November 1955 5,033 December 1954 5,484 December 1955 4,686 As registration for employment at Government employment exchanges is entirely voluntary, the number of persons on the live register at any time does not depend solely on the number of unemployed in Singapore. For example, it has been found from experience that probably transport difficulties have caused many persons, believed to be still unemployed, to let their registrations lapse. When the exchanges have a few vacancies to offer, some persons who are unemployed cease to renew their registrations and the count of the persons on the live register falls. Similarly, when the word goes round that the exchanges have vacancies to offer, people rush to renew their registrations and the count goes up.

Will the Minister agree that the figures given are not in any way comparable with the real situation and that the actual situation of unemployment greatly exceeds that?

The actual figure for unemployment does exceed that, Sir, but not greatly, as stressed by the Member for Serangoon.

How does the Hon. the Minister for Labour know, if he has carried out no survey?

Has the Minister any objections in making registration of unemployed compulsory?

It is a different question.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare what step the Government is taking to cope with the unemployment situation.

Sir, Government has taken and will continue to take all possible opportunities to stimulate new employment and to train workers for more skilled jobs. It has under consideration various medium and long-term measures for improving the employment potential of Singapore. The encouragement of new industries and the development of vocational training, both through academic institutions such as the Polytechnic and Ministry of Labour training centres, are being worked out with the other Ministries concerned. To relieve distress, the Social Welfare Department continues to operate the Public Assistance Scheme whilst more comprehensive schemes for providing unemployment benefits are being studied. I am not aware of anything to indicate that the unemployment situation has materially deteriorated since March last year. On the contrary, improved standards of living, as evidenced by an estimated rise of 15 per cent in the average earnings of manual workers during 1955, have undoubtedly increased consumer demands and so helped to reduce employment.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare if he will state the number of man-days lost because of strikes in the period April to December, 1955, and the corresponding figure for 1954.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are no separate figures for strikes, but the figures for man-days lost in all industrial disputes, including lock-outs as well as strikes, are as follows: April to December, 1955 ... 944,913 man-days lost. April to December, 1954 ... 129,408 man-days lost.

How does the Minister arrive at such figures?

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing what steps the Government have taken or intend to take, in view of the protest by S.I.T. tenants, regarding the increase of water rates charged by the Singapore Improvement Trust.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the fixing of water meter charges is a matter within the discretion of the Singapore Improvement Trust, which is a statutory body set up by the Singapore Improvement Ordinance. Government has no intention, and indeed no power, to interfere with the Trust in the exercise of its statutory function. Government has, however, urged the Trust to expedite the conversion to individual metering of those premises which have been installed with block meters.

Can the Minister tell us what is the result of the urge from the Government to the S.I.T.?

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to a Press release which was broadcast from Radio Malaya, the indications are that all the Trust flats which are now installed with block meters will be serviced with individual meters in about a year and a half's time.

Sir, can the Minister say why an agreement reached between the City Council and the Trust in August 1954 was not implemented for the conversion of such meters, and why should it take another one and a half years to complete the conversion?

Mr Speaker, Sir that is a matter for the City Council.

Is the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing aware that the water rate charged by the Singapore Improvement Trust is really unfair and ridiculous?

It is a matter of opinion.

Sir, can the Minister confirm a report that 6,000 meters have been ordered from the United Kingdom for the conversion?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not in a position to confirm the report.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing the names of the S.I.T. Estates serviced by block water-meters, and the number of flats or units in each of the Estates.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing the average monthly figures for 1955 of water consumption in each of the Estates serviced by block water-meters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to answer Questions Nos. 25 and 26 at the same time because they deserve a similar reply. Mr Speaker indicated assent.

My answer to the hon. Member is this, Sir, that I have asked the Manager of the Singapore Improvement Trust to let the hon. Member have the detailed information he seeks.

Can the Minister give a written statement to the Clerk so that it could be published together with this question?

May I ask, Sir, whether the hon. Member would like the publication to be made in the Hansard of this Assembly?

Sir, the Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry said earlier that a written statement could be handed to the Clerk for publication. Would that apply in this case?

On a point of clarification, Sir. I was wondering whether you could indicate to the Assembly whether we could publish matters relating to the day to day affairs of such statutory bodies like the Singapore Improvement Trust and the City Council within the pages of our Hansard?

Clearly, of course, the answer is No, but if those statements produced in answer to questions are adopted by the Minister or a Member as his own, then those statements could be published.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing what steps the Government have taken to reduce the rentals of S.I.T. houses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of reduction of rentals of S.I.T. houses is closely connected with the reduction of interest on S.I.T. loans. Government has given its fullest consideration to the matter, and I am happy to state that, subject to the approval of this Assembly, Government has decided that as from the 1st of April this year all interest on loans to the Singapore Improvement Trust will be reduced to two per cent. The Trust will be asked to submit a scheme to indicate the manner in which this saving can be utilised. This will mean a saving of approximately $1,200,000 this year and greater savings thereafter.

What would that mean in terms of lowering of rent?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just mentioned that we will ask the Trust to submit a scheme and, subject to our receiving it, I am not in a position to say how this will affect the reduction of rentals of the present Improvement Trust flats.

If there is such a reduction, would that affect buildings previously built?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it may well be that part of such savings may go towards the reduction of rentals of the cheapest houses.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing to state the reasons for the delay in moving families from the Beach Road area to Tanjong Rhu and to give details of the terms of resettlement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the clearance of this area is an operation of considerable magnitude involving the re-accommodation of 815 families and 180 businesses and small industries. During 1955, 609 families were re-housed in the Guillemard Housing Estate which has been specially allocated for this purpose. The resettlement of the businesses and light industries presented a difficult problem and after consultation with the associations representing the undertakings, it was decided that the most suitable area for this purpose was Tanjong Rhu. Before this area could be used, it was necessary to fill it, drain it and provide it with access roads. Financial approval to proceed with these works was obtained in March 1955. Filling was completed during the year and the main access road was ready for use by the end of the year. It had been anticipated that the businesses concerned would move to Tanjong Rhu as soon as the sites were ready. This did not prove to be the case, amongst other reasons, owing to the differences amongst the members of the associations themselves on the question of allocation of sites. Experience has shown that it is always a very difficult matter to remove from the land people who have been in occupation, even though on a Temporary Occupation Licence, for very many years. It is now expected that the clearance scheme will be completed immediately after the Chinese New Year holidays. As for the terms of resettlement, sites are being offered, in the first instance, on Temporary Occupation Licences, rentals being fixed at four per cent per annum of the value of the land, with an additional charge of $20 per lineal foot of sea or road frontage. It is a condition of the licence that the land should only be used for firewood and charcoal stores, boat-builders extra.

Is the Minister aware that considerable dissatisfaction has arisen over the allocation of sites for businesses, and can he give an assurance that all these differences will be settled as soon as possible?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a different question.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether he will make a statement on the claims of the Attap Dwellers' Association that it negotiated terms with the previous Government for the resettlement of Queenstown tenants and that more recently it agreed to fresh compromise terms with the present Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Attap Dwellers' Association represented many of the persons whom it was necessary to remove for the S.I.T. development schemes at Queenstown, and it was accordingly consulted by the Land Office in regard to the general terms of the resettlement scheme which it was proposing to recommend to Government, and in regard to the land at Jurong to which it was intended to be applied. After consultation and general acceptance by the Association, the scheme was then referred to and approved by the previous Government with certain modifications. The Attap Dwellers' Association has more recently made further representations in connection with the modifications of the original scheme, and a variation in the terms offered has been made by this Government, as an interim measure, increasing the minimum compensation payable to $1,000.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether he is aware that there are no proper arrangements in resettlement areas to assist the new settlers in their various difficulties; and what steps will be taken to remedy the situation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I am aware, proper arrangements to assist the settlers in resettlement areas are being made. These include assessment of the value of improvements owned by the settlers and the payment of ex-gratia compensation based on the assessment, payment of transport, subsistence and other allowances, and the allocation of suitably prepared sites with proper roads, drains and stand-pipes. The resettlement section of the Land Office comprises the Collector of Land Revenue, an engineer, a surveyor and several bailiffs who all pay periodical visits to these resettlement areas. It is understood that the Collector visits these areas three or four times a week when circumstances require.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing if he will state what the policy of the Government is with regard to the provision of standpipes in rural areas.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the provision of standpipes in the rural areas is the responsibility of the Rural Board, but I understand the policy is to install them wherever there is a need for safe drinking water and water mains are within reasonable distance. Priority is, of course, given according to the number of people in each area.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your indulgence to advise the Assembly of certain aspects of matters which transpired during the journey which I indicated to the Assembly at the last sitting which may affect the welfare of the people of Singapore? Sir, the official purpose of our journey was to arrange with the Colonial Office for a date for a constitutional conference at which we are to seek a fresh constitution for Singapore and to prepare a tentative agenda. I have the pleasure to inform hon. Members that it has now been agreed by the Colonial Office that the constitutional conference will commence on the 23rd of April next and provision is made for its continuance for two to three weeks. The tentative agenda, Sir, includes the following items: (1) Definition of internal self-government. I wish to make it very clear, Sir, that the phrase "internal self-government" was used in correspondence with the Colonial Office long before I arrived in England, but when I was in London I indicated to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that, as a result of my discussions with the statesmen of India and Ceylon, I had gained a wider understanding of our problems and our role, and I desired it to be clearly understood that the phrase "internal self-government", although used for convenience, should not be deemed in any way to limit the nature or the status of the constitution which Singapore may seek at the April talks. Without in any way committing Her Majesty's Government to expression of views on any aspects of the issues involved in my statement, the Colonial Secretary agreed completely that the term "internal self-government" is used for purposes of convenience and is not intended in any way to limit the nature of our proposals or the consideration to be given to them at the constitutional conference. (2) A date for the introduction of internal self-government. This was agreed to on the understanding that Her Majesty's Government was in no way committed in advance to the principle that a date should be given, but that the whole issue would be freely discussed at the conference. (3) The question of the structure of the Assembly. (4) The question of the future of the Public Service. (5) The question of external relations and external defence. Sir, during our later discussions a sixth item was added - and that is, citizenship, on which I have more to say later on. It was also agreed that both the Colonial Office and the Government of Singapore may add any matters to this agenda until the date of the conference. Apart from the constitutional conference, Sir, my colleagues and I sought certain immediate concessions. The first was multi-lingualism. We requested that the provision in the Singapore Order in Council that English is the only official language of the Assembly should be deleted. The Secretary of State for the Colonies warned us of the practical difficulties involved but finally agreed that the Assembly should have the right, as soon as possible, to decide for itself the question of its own procedure, including the question of the languages to be used in the Assembly. He indicated his readiness to recommend an amendment to the Order in Council to delete Section 55 completely. Item two, Sir, was the question of national servicemen and control. The Secretary of State conceded that it was only right and proper that national servicemen, comprising citizens of Singapore, raised by Singapore and paid for by Singapore, should be under the control of the people's representatives and not, as heretofore, under the exclusive control of His Excellency the Governor. I am happy to inform hon. Members that this agreement has now been fully enforced by the Singapore Colony Order in Council dated 2nd February, 1956, which passes control of national servicemen from the Governor to the Governor in Council. Sir, prior to my departure, I had received certain complaints from local service officers that they had only right of access to the Chief Secretary, and that if they were dissatisfied with the Chief Secretary's decision, they had absolutely no right of access to the Chief Minister. I consider that an untenable position, and I am happy to report that the Secretary of State for the Colonies appreciates the situation and has accepted our representations that civil service staff associations should have the right of approach to the Chief Minister, through the Chief Secretary, on matters affecting general conditions of service and public policy relating to the public service. This rule is now in force. The Colonial Secretary further agreed to recommend an amendment to the Order in Council to increase the number of appointed Ministers from six to seven, so as to allow the Chief Minister to be Minister without Portfolio, to concentrate in this formative period on questions of co-ordination and orientation of policy, and to deal with the vital issues now before us arising out of our desire for independence. One other matter, Sir, which was not given publicity at the time and which has since been finalised is the agreement with the Colonial Secretary to recommend that Section 25 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council be amended by deleting the words "Ex-officio", so that in future the Chief Minister is enabled to preside at meetings of the Council of Ministers in the absence of the Governor, the Deputy Governor, or the Officer Administering the Government. Sir, I am more than delighted to know that the only contribution that the hon. Member who represents the P.A.P. can make to the achievement of my mission is a sneer. An important matter that was raised during the talks concerned the question of citizenship for Singapore. It was represented by me and some of my colleagues to the Secretary of State that, in the light of the comments he made in Singapore, it was vital that we should know whether the Citizenship Bill which the Labour Front Ministers had prepared, of which he was given a copy, would, if passed, be disallowed under the provisions of the Royal Letters of Instruction, Section 7 (1) -

1 (1).

I do not take corrections from the hon. Member, Sir. My friend and colleague the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) made it clear that he opposed the Bill, that his colleagues and considerable sections of the population drawn along racial lines were opposed to the question of two types of citizenship - one, a Singapore citizen, and the other a British national. In the course of the discussion that ensued, Sir, it was made quite clear by my hon. Friend on his own behalf and on behalf of U.M.N.O., and he assured me that we would have the support of the people he had in mind who objected to the Citizenship Bill, that if at the constitutional conference in April Singapore did achieve the status of an independent territory within the Commonwealth and could then create a single Singapore citizenship, he and his colleagues would fully support a Bill to provide for a single Singapore citizenship, comprising all true Malayans, both the British subjects domiciled in Singapore and the long domiciled aliens in Singapore, subject only to the conditions of an oath of loyalty and an oath abjuring any other national loyalty. Sir, in these circumstances, and particularly realising during the course of the discussion that I was placing the Secretary of State for the Colonies in a very invidious position of indicating whether he would waive in advance the rights of Her Majesty in Council in respect of legislation coming under the provisions of Section 7 (1) of the Royal Letters of Instruction, and rather than embark upon a Bill which would divide Singapore, I decided that it would be preferable to wait for a matter of six months until the results of the constitutional conference were known, because this is an issue which unquestionably would rouse, and has in a mild way already threatened to rouse, some racial emotions. It is in these circumstances, Sir, and knowing the people of this country and the forbearing patience of the domiciled races who have for years and years and years sought to attain their legitimate aspiration of full citizenship in this country, knowing their reasonableness, I felt that they themselves would prefer to wait these six months rather than anticipate what may be a full victory for all without racial divisions and without racial antagonisms. Sir, it is in these circumstances and with the solemn assurance of my colleague the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing that I did propose at that juncture - a proposal, Sir, for which I take responsibility - that this item be adjourned to the April meeting. I would like to add, Sir, that in our discussions and negotiations with the Colonial Office, which lasted between the 10th and the 16th of December, the atmosphere was both cordial and friendly, and there did seem to be a genuine desire on the part of the Colonial Office to seek to understand sympathetically and to meet our very modest and legitimate requests. The keynote, Sir, of the whole talks was one of reasonableness and that goes for both sides. Apart from the talks with the Colonial Office, I had interviews with the Treasury and the Bank of England officials, who indicated their willingness to support Singapore in any legitimate proposals it had for enlarging trade with Indonesia. I spoke particularly of Indonesia's request for additional hard currency allocation in respect of re-exports from Singapore of imports of Indonesian produce. I must confess, Sir, that I met with a reception which gives me every hope that this will be fully met. Both the Bank of England and the Treasury indicated that they would be happy to send observers to cooperate with us in the Pan-Malayan/Indonesian Ministerial trade talks which we expect soon to take place. Sir, though the British Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, was ill in bed, I did wish to see him on one matter and he had the extreme courtesy to receive me and to assure me that he would give every sympathetic consideration to my suggestion that an all-Party parliamentary delegation should be sent to Singapore prior to the April talks. My anxiety there is this, Sir. I do not wish British Members of Parliament or the British people to feel that they are getting a one-sided picture of Singapore from those who are its Ministers and therefore are special pleaders. I want them to realise that what they have heard from us is the truth. I want them to send their own men - independent investigators - and I want that they should have every opportunity to discover the truth of our desires, our abilities, and the modesty, reasonableness and justness of our aspirations.

Sounds very reasonable!

I would like, Sir, to express the appreciation of my colleagues and myself, with which I hope hon. Members opposite, including the leader of the P.A.P., will wish to be associated, to the British Government for the hospitality and the courtesy shown to us during our stay in England. I have to inform hon. Members that on the 15th of December the Secretary of State for the Colonies and Her Majesty's Minister of Works, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, presented to us, as representatives of the Singapore Government, in the presence of a gathering which comprised the Chairman and Secretary of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, a stone which was part of the fabric of the Palace of Westminster. It is more than a hundred years old, Sir, and is in the form of an elaborately carved Tudor Rose. It was salvaged from the damage of the Victoria Tower in Westminster Palace, inflicted by the air-raids during the last war. Prior to my departure for England, I did mention to hon. Members on both sides of the House the possibility of the offer of this stone. May I say, Sir, that I did appreciate the fact that all Members on the Opposition Benches, as well as on the Government Benches, rose above their natural anti-colonial feeling and appreciated this gesture for a genuine act of friendship and courtesy that it is. I accepted the stone with appreciation and I hope, Sir, to have the pleasure of handing it to you on an occasion that you may arrange, so that you will receive it on behalf of the Members of the Assembly and make arrangements for its permanent incorporation in the fabric of this building. I know that all hon. Members will wish to join us in our thanks to the British Government for this symbolic gesture of friendship and unity between the two Assemblies of Westminster and Singapore in the traditions of the democratic process. Sir, I come to one other aspect of our visit to England - our main task as we saw it - and that was to make the British people conscious of the truth of our position and the reasonableness of our aspirations, and to create, in anticipation, an atmosphere of goodwill for our forthcoming April conference. The Information Officer in Malaya House, Mr John Batten, and Mr S. C. Lim of Radio Malaya, whom I took with me as Public Press Liaison Officer, did magnificent work in preparing a most intensive programme of daily talks, meetings, broadcasts and television interviews. I understand it is estimated that almost every Member of the House of Commons heard us at some time or another; that some seven million televiewers heard and saw us; and that the radio audience was far larger. In so far as letters received and Press reports indicated, the reaction was very, very sympathetic. We were received with real interest and with friendliness. The British Labour Party, Sir, and the Fabian Society made us feel very much at home, but to my mind perhaps the outstanding incident of that visit to London, Sir, was a very large meeting of the Conservative Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Conservative Commonwealth Association which I attended and which I addressed. I realised the fact that they were seasoned politicians and that the only way to deal with them in the short time I had was to indulge in the blunt truth. I addressed them, Sir, with very considerable frankness. I think I would like to report to this House - it took me by surprise and I hope it gives hon. Members the same pleasure as it gave me - that speaker after speaker from that responsible Conservative organisation rose up and emphatically rejected the doctrine of the "nobility of colonialism" with which we have been plagued. They said, "Mr Marshall, Colonel Blimp does not live here any more."

Where has he gone to?

He is in Singapore. This responsible group of Conservatives, Sir, expressed earnest sympathy for our aspirations. I will confess that these sentiments were unexpected. I started off by telling them that I understood that they were the bottleneck to the attainment of our aspirations, but I do say this: Having heard them and having spoken to them in private, I do believe them and I am hoping that the constitutional talks next April will prove that they were not merely polite but that they were genuine and sincere. Frankly, Sir, nowhere in London did I meet with that antagonism and that petty-fogging objection to our aspiration for independence which we traditionally meet in Singapore. I could wish - and I say this in all earnestness - that the warm sympathy shown by the normal decent Englishman in England for our constitutional aspirations could be reflected in some small measure by his compatriot in this country. That would contribute very materially to the general welfare, stability and harmony essential to our progress. Independence we will have, or chaos! It is a question of choice of sides. Whilst in London, Sir, one of the most delightful experiences was meeting the Malayan students in Malaya Hall. It was a really enjoyable gathering and I hope that hon. Members who will be going with us to the constitutional conference in April will have the privilege of meeting them, and I know they will have the same thrill and pride in those sturdy, enthusiastic and happy people who are the students of Malaya in England. Sir, I now come to our journey through the Commonwealth nations - no less important an aspect. In fact, I consider it perhaps the most vital part of our travels. In Colombo, Sir, I was the guest of Sir John Kotelawala, the Prime Minister of Ceylon, and had the privilege of meeting the Governor-General, Sir Oliver Gooniteleke, one of the doughty warriors of independence of Ceylon. Yes, it is easy to sneer, we who walk in their footsteps, who do not know the struggle which they went through for years, and who now seek to tell us so and to obtain, with ease sitting in our arm-chairs, that which they sweated through generations to obtain. It is easy to sneer. I do not. The Prime Minister of Ceylon, Sir, asked me to express to the people of Singapore the best wishes and the sincere and active sympathy of the people of Ceylon for our constitutional aspirations. The Government of Ceylon further indicated that, should we require any assistance, they would be glad to accommodate us, whether in the realm of expert Tamil educationists to meet our vernacular education requirements or in the way of advice on our Central Bank or our Industrial Development Corporation, which subjects I discussed in a very fruitful interview with their Finance Minister. In the two days that I spent in Colombo, Sir, I went some distance to inspect the work of a Mr Middleton of the United Nations Technical Assistance Administration, an expert who has dedicated his life to bringing low-cost housing to Asian countries. I confess, Sir, that I was impressed by his work. I am no technician, but the figures he gave and which I passed on to my colleague the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing are impressive. Arrangements have been made to ask for Mr Middleton to be loaned to us by the United Nations, and it may well be that he will be here, Sir, at latest by the end of this year. In Bombay, Sir, I was the guest of the Governor-General and had the pleasure of meeting that very remarkable person, the Chief Minister of Bombay Presidency, and his colleagues. In New Delhi my colleague the Hon. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy and I were the guests of the President of India. During our four days' stay in New Delhi we had the privilege of meeting the President, the Prime Minister, Mr Nehru, and several of his Cabinet colleagues. On the 6th of December, 1955, Mr Nehru, that dynamic leader of Asian independence, gave to the Singapore Press for the Singapore people a message. I know, Sir, that it has been fully publicized, but for the pleasure, I hope, of Members in this Assembly and for the record, I would like to repeat two small parts. In one, he said: "I am sure that the problem of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya will be dealt with more adequately when the people there have the sensation of freedom and have to shoulder the responsibilities that follow it. I wish therefore all success to the people of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya in their march to freedom." And further, Sir, just one more passage: "We carried through our struggle for freedom over many long years in India, but did it through peaceful methods. We are firm believers in these methods not only because they yield results but also because they do not leave trails of conflict and bitterness behind them and they help build a united nation. The dominant urges in Asian countries, as well as in African countries, are nationalism and social advance. Both are essential. Nationalism leads to political freedom. In view, however, of the backwardness of many Asian countries, the question of social advance and betterment of the people generally is one of vital importance." One tangible result, Sir - since hon. Members love tangible results - of our visit to India is the assurance received from the Government of India that they would be glad to help us, whether under the Colombo Plan or otherwise, by way of technical assistance whenever we should require it and whenever they are in a position to do so. I am happy to report to you, Sir, and to hon. Members that information has been received from that good friend of Singapore, the Commissioner for India in Singapore, that the Indian Government is making available to the Singapore Government their most senior official on government organisation and methods in order to investigate and make recommendations on the best means for a most efficient and economic civil service organisation. The officer in question, Sir, is Mr S.B. Bapat, Establishment Officer and Director of Organisation and Methods and Vigilance Department of the Government of India. In Pakistan my colleagues the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Local Government and I were the guests of the Governor-General, and met the Prime Minister, Mr Choudhri Mohamed Ali, and his Cabinet colleagues. I am happy to inform this House that the Prime Minister of Pakistan asked me to express to the people of Singapore his sympathy for our aspirations, which he considered to be perfectly natural. He also assured me that the Government of Pakistan would be glad to assist us in the way of study facilities for our students in any of the specialised subjects which they have. Sir, it was a stirring journey of which the most important achievements are intangible but nevertheless vital to our future welfare. The Press and public reaction in England was most favourable and created an atmosphere which I believe augurs well for the constitutional conference next April. The friendship of the peoples of India, of Pakistan and of Ceylon for Singapore found public expression and it is very heartening, Sir, to be conscious of the fact that these great Asian nations are eager to welcome Singapore amongst the great family of independent Asian countries. It is my humble hope that Singapore can look to these new-found friends to support her in her desire to be an equal, independent member of the Commonwealth. The bitterness of racial domination and racial exploitation which they have suffered as colonies is a matter of recent memory to them. They remember, though they do not hate, in the true spirit of their immortal Gandhi. They have forgiven. Their friendship for Singapore, I honestly believe to be absolutely sincere and absolutely disinterested. Speaking for myself, I look to them from the depths of their experience to champion the cause of Singapore in its efforts to obtain independence and to champion that cause at the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers next June. We, Sir, have not made any official approaches. We have not asked for any commitments, nor have we received any commitments. You are conscious, I hope - I am very conscious, very - that under the Rendel Constitution the question of our relationships with not only foreign countries but even members of the Commonwealth is in the portfolio of the Chief Secretary and the reserved power of His Excellency. It is the present constitution. That is not democracy which is what we are seeking. My appointed colleagues and I, Sir, intend, however, to seek the permission of our official colleagues and His Excellency to approach all Commonwealth countries, not only those great Asian nations with whom we have established relations of warm friendship, but also European countries. I would like to approach them directly as soon as we are ready with memoranda of a precise nature on the subject of Singapore's aspiration. If we are to succeed in being an equal independent member of the Commonwealth, the other members of the Commonwealth are entitled to be consulted, because they are affected. I hope that they will be fully consulted before the April conference so that there will be no unnecessary delay should they wish to make their positions clear in the relevant quarters. Sir, in this connection I would like to say this. Our approach to these Commonwealth countries must await the formation of the all-Party delegation which I promised to this Assembly in gratitude for the wonderful support we received at the time of the constitutional crisis. It must await an agreement - or at least a recognition of any disagreement - by that delegation on the broad basis of our representations. I will say this. Two constitutional advisers have already been appointed. There will be no delay on that side, and we hope shortly to appoint a leader who is a man of considerable eminence as a constitution maker. Sir, may I take this opportunity to express the warm appreciation of the Government of Singapore, with which I hope all Members in this Assembly will associate themselves, to the Governments of India, Pakistan and Ceylon and their very helpful representatives in Singapore for the considerable courtesy, and the warm and friendly hospitality which they showed to Singapore's representatives out of love for Singapore, although we were nothing but shadow Ministers of a colonial Government?

Hear, hear!

I always face the truth! Sir, I would also like to express the appreciation of my colleagues and myself and the Government of Singapore to the British Foreign Office for the courtesy, the assistance and the hospitality which we received from the representatives of the United Kingdom in every single city at which we touched and in which we stayed. I do apologise, Sir that I have to take up further time in this Assembly. I have a statement to make on our Baling talks. I would like to make it today unless hon. Members prefer to have it tomorrow.

It is up to you, Mr Chief Minister.

Very well, Sir,I shall proceed and make myself -

Could we -

Order. The Chief Minister has not given way yet. The Chief Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it might be more convenient for the Opposition if we could clarify the Chief Minister's statement on his pilgrimage to London before we move on to another subject.

- pilgrimage to our neighbours and visit to London. Sir, I am indebted to my hon. Friend. I have completely forgotten that aspect of it. Of course, they are entitled to ask supplementaries and certainly they will have the opportunity.

Sir, is the Chief Minister prepared to enlighten this House by saying what he meant when he and his Government used the terms 'dominion status', 'complete self-government', and 'internal self-government and independence' in relation to Singapore?

Sir, that is not an appropriate question for discussion here. I would like to say this very briefly. In Singapore, as a result of the initiative of U.M.N.O., led by my friend and colleague the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, a meeting was called of all political Parties in Singapore - those represented in this House, those not represented, and even those not yet formed - and we all agreed upon what we sought. The phrase used was 'internal self-government' which means a fully-elected legislature in control of all government machinery other than defence and foreign affairs. Sir, during my 'pilgrimage', as my hon. Friend the leader of the P.A.P. has so justly put it, I learned to look at it from an oppositive angle. In London I merely put it in this fashion - that for myself I would not be prepared now to seek that status which still remains colonial, but that I would rather a more positive approach be taken - independence within the Commonwealth, subject to concessions in external defence and external affairs. I am happy to say, Sir, that I have my colleagues of the Labour Front completely with me and I have a mandate from my Party. I am also happy to report that my friend and colleague the leader of the Alliance has indicated his full support for this approach. The exact details I would like to work out in private at this all-Party conference and in consultation with the constitutional adviser whom, if we find it necessary, we could ask to come down to Singapore before our departure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Minister's statement has raised various questions in our minds. Will the Chief Minister allow a debate on the statement that he has just made instead of our only asking questions?

Sir, I can see no purpose in a debate, but naturally hon. Members are at liberty to place a motion before the House and I can assure them that they will find no obstruction from me. But I do not think they ought to ask for the initiative from me. I can see nothing controversial. It may well be that they do.

Can the Chief Minister clarify a report in the local Press not long ago that he preferred dominion status for this Colony?

Order, order. Hon. Members must remember that questions at this stage must only be directed to the statement in order to elucidate certain matters which have been raised in the statement itself, and we cannot have any debate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, did not the Chief Minister realise that, if he wanted to lead an unanimous all-Party delegation, the introduction of something new like dominion status, and speaking for himself to the world Press in London, was perhaps not the best approach to the problem?

Sir, the Chief Minister has just said that he had discussions about internal self-government with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which subject will be on the agenda of the coming conference, that is, if the Opposition agrees to that. What is the difference between the self-government which the elected Members of this Assembly passed unanimously and his internal self-government? Is there any difference?

Sir, I would like to make my position clear to hon. Members. I did not discuss with the Secretary of State what this Assembly would seek. I had to tell him what was in my mind so as to avoid having the constitutional conference pinned down to discussing internal self-government. I wanted to make it clear that that phrase did not limit us, and in order to explain why, I told him what was my personal view: that there was no question of discussion or obtaining views. As regards the second part of the question of the Member for Telok Ayer, Sir, there is this distinction: the internal self-government which we were considering to seek still left us a colonial status and still left us a Governor with reserved powers - it is a negative position. We are still a colony. I want an end to colonialism. It is a positive approach to the problem - independence within the Commonwealth. You are a free territory, and freely and voluntarily you make an agreement ceding aspects of defence and foreign affairs. That is the difference.

Sir, may I ask this question arising out of the statement which the Hon. the Chief Minister has just made? Suppose a delegation goes to London and if they discuss self-government or dominion status or independence, will they refuse to discuss those questions that have not been set down?

That is something that arises in the future.

Would this new type of a nation, which becomes free and then voluntarily becomes part-slave by surrendering a vital part of its independence, be entitled to send a representative to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference?

I think there has been too much debate. I will not allow that question.

While I realise, Sir, that the question might invite personal annihilation, I should like the Chief Minister perhaps to elucidate what he meant by saying that Colonel Blimp is no longer in England but is indeed in Singapore.

There is a delightful English proverb that says: Where the cap fits, wear it!

The Chief Minister in his statement stated that there was an all-Party conference on the definition of internal self-government. Would he not confirm that that conference was called just to define what is internal self-government and that the chairman of that conference did signify that it had nothing to do with the December London mission?

No, Sir. It was quite clearly emphasised repeatedly that the purpose of that meeting was to clarify what was intended by this Assembly in the use of the term 'self-government' at the time we passed that wonderful motion during the constitutional crisis.

I deny this!

But that motion used the words 'immediate self-government'. Who introduced, and when, the words 'internal self-government'?

I cannot allow any further questions.

If it pleases you, Sir.

If it please you, Sir, on the question of our visit to Baling, today sees the end of the five months' amnesty offer to members of the Communist Party which we made in conjunction with the Federation and which we, in conjunction with the Federation, are withdrawing now. Sir, we gave notice of this decision on the 31st of December last and the reason for it is tied up with our talks in Baling on the 28th and 29th of December, when the Chief Minister of the Federation and I, as his guest, and Dato Sir Cheng-lock Tan met the Secretary-General of the Malayan Communist Party and two of his colleagues. Sir, the House may wish to know some of the details, some of which are known and some of which were not published. I will be very brief. The Communist representatives sought strenuously to obtain recognition of the Malayan Communist Party. This was firmly rejected, but I must confess that on the evening of the first day I gathered the impression that they seemed to be prepared to accept the statement of the Chief Minister of the Federation that he would not recognise the M.C.P. but that he would permit members of the Malayan Communist Party, who, after a loyalty check, were freed and allowed to rejoin their families, freely to join any political Party or to form their own political Party so long as that political Party was not Communist. However, that was a mistaken impression, and the next morning we learned that there was no question whatsoever but that the Malayan Communist Party was not prepared to accept the term of the amnesty which required a loyalty check of those who surrendered. The Communist representatives did indicate, Sir, that an appreciable number of their people may wish to be repatriated to China and the Tunku and I agreed that we would not insist on the investigation of those who would be leaving the country under official supervision. The Chief Minister of the Federation, Sir, went even further in his sincere desire to put an end to this regime of violence which is causing unnecessary suffering to the people. He said to them that if a majority of their leaders and a large number of their followers were prepared to opt for repatriation to China, then he might reconsider the question of limiting investigation by requiring of the remainder, who stayed in Malaya, an investigation which amounted to periodical visits to the police for report. The answer from the representatives of the Communists was that to report to the police was to imply surrender. "We will never surrender!" Sir, the Communist representatives had the grace to say openly that, despite their Freedom News and their underground propaganda, they did realise that neither the Tunku nor I was a British stooge, a running dog, or, what you may call it, - [Interruption.]

Order.

You see, Sir, how close my hon. Friend is - [Interruption.]

Order.

They did admit freely - they had the grace to admit - that the Tunku and I represented the elected government of the people. They did admit, surprisingly, that their activities of violence were causing suffering to the people. They seemed inclined to admit, Sir, that we may be achieving independence - only may - by democratic processes, but they could not answer the question why, in those circumstances, they were continuing the struggle. They said, "We will not discuss that now." Sir, during the discussions at the second session on the 29th, it seemed as though the Communist representatives were prepared to cease their activities of violence unconditionally in the near future. Chen Tian, who was the interpreter, said: "As soon as you obtain...". Then it was clarified. He said he would not even wait for Singapore. He was quite prepared not to wait for Singapore, in case the Tunku thought that Singapore might be slower. He said: "As soon as the Federation obtains complete control of internal security and local armed forces, we will end hostilities, lay down our arms and disband our forces." Sir, that seems to be rather important. It is true it gave no hope for today but it gave hope for tomorrow and it was unconditional surrender. So I asked him to repeat it. I wrote it down verbatim, and in order that there should be no question about its accuracy, I sent that paper across and I said: "Chin Peng, you read English. Is this it?" It then transpired that there was no question of unconditional surrender and they added: "This does not amount to acceptance of the amnesty terms." However, we promised that that would go to the Press. It went to the Press as emanating from the Communist Party. Then, Sir, we went down to what they meant. They meant the same as they mean now. They meant that even if the Tunku obtains independence, before they would cease their activities of violence, they would expect recognition of the Malayan Communist Party, no loyalty check, no detention, unconditional amnesty, complete freedom, and facilities for those who wished to go overseas. Then, Sir, one more thing transpired which rocked even the placid Tunku - and quite surprisingly. They said: "Of course, when we speak of laying down arms, it does not mean to surrender the arms to the Government. That is in the amnesty terms which just say 'Lay down arms'. To 'lay down arms' means to cease activities of violence. But we expect, when we are free, to have the right to retain our arms." Said the Tunku: "So you can start shooting me when next you disagree with me?" He made it quite clear that there would be never any question at all of the right to retain arms by those free to rejoin society. Sir, I did try to bring the question round to a clarification of a possible time-limit of loyalty checks and of conditions that might be acceptable in respect of the loyalty checks. That was what they objected to, but they would not discuss the question in detail, nor would they seek conditions which might be acceptable. They said flatly - the words were: "I have no authority to accept amnesty terms which include a loyalty check." I did plead, Sir, that hatred and violence produces nothing constructive. I appealed to them to think of the welfare of the people as a whole - more than seven million. I asked them not to set the question of face, pride and the mild humiliation of their small group in the path of the welfare of the people which they pretended to seek. I seemed to be talking to deaf ears. The reply I got was: "We have said we have no authority whatever to accept loyalty investigations." Sir, in so far as Singapore is concerned, the representatives made it quite clear that they were in complete control of the Communist Party and Communist sympathisers in Singapore. Before the meeting ended, Sir, and with the concurrence of the Chief Minister of the Federation, I stated that if they would sink their pride and the matter of mild humiliation in the name of the welfare of the people, if they could see their way to a change of heart, the Tunku and I would be prepared to meet them again. I must inform this House that I went to these talks believing that there was an element amongst those in the jungle who were genuine, frustrated nationalists; believing that we might reach them because we are about to achieve independence through the democratic process and we need all honest citizens, all sincere nationalists, to pull together at this period; believing that some of them might respond to an appeal to their decent instincts not to hamper the economic and political advance of the people of the country by their activities of violence. Maybe I was flattering myself, Sir - it looks as though I was, but I did hope to persuade some of them. I would like to say this: I have come away from this meeting - and I do not say this for propaganda purposes in respect of those who are not here to defend themselves, but because I think it is my duty that the people of this country should know of this, whatever some hon. Members opposite may think; I want them to know, those who believe in me will believe I am speaking the truth, Sir - I have come away from this meeting believing with all my heart and absolutely convinced in my own mind that neither the independence of these territories nor the welfare of the people matters in the slightest to the Malayan Communist Party. They do not care a hoot! All they want is to obtain control of the country. All they want is the expansion of their own imperialist Communism and their own foreign ideology. They have more contempt for the people than Colonel Blimp! I would like to say this, Sir. There we have an appeal to the Members of the Assembly, to the responsible Press and to the people. I am satisfied that the Malayan Communist Party and their sympathisers will only cease their activities of brutality against the people and against their governments, against their economic and political welfare, by means of violence, only when the Malayan Communist Party is convinced that it is losing the sympathy of the people by continuation of these foul tactics. It is for the people and for the Press of this country to make it clear that under the democratic process we are achieving freedom and prosperity, and we want none of the brutality which is the hallmark of the Communist Party. You can smile, Sir. We will not tolerate - and I do not care what Press it is - the violence and intimidation which is being perpetrated upon the people of this country by those who call themselves Communists. In this connection and in fairness to my outburst against that person sitting in the Strangers' Gallery, I would like to say this: I was very pleased to read editorials in the Chinese Press condemning, in the strongest terms, the recent grenade outrage against innocent members of a force that seeks to protect the peace of the people. I say let us have more of those editorials. Let us have open, public, spontaneous expressions of the disgust of the people at this Communist regime of brutality. That is the only way, Sir, if we are ever to have an end to Communist violence. At the conclusion of the Baling talks, Sir, the Chief Minister of the Federation indicated to the Communist representatives that since they, in the name of the Malayan Communist Party, rejected the amnesty terms, he could see no further purpose in continuing them and he asked them whether they concurred, and in those circumstances, Sir, the Chief Minister and I agreed that the amnesty terms should be withdrawn after reasonable notice. The Chief Minister fixed the date after informing the Government of Singapore, and the date is today - five months after its inauguration. May I, Sir, take this opportunity to express, on behalf of the Government and, I hope, the people of Singapore, our appreciation and thanks to the Chief Minister and the Government of the Federation for their courtesy in inviting us to be represented at these talks, and for the hospitality and excellent arrangements they made for the comfort of my assistants and myself.

Was the Hon. the Chief Minister present at these talks as a guest?

Sir, I do not understand these constant jibes. The hon. Member is fully aware that I was present at these talks as the guest of the Chief Minister of the Federation on his invitation. That has been repeatedly said here. It is simple single-syllable English.

Was it proper for a guest to have done so much talking at these talks?

Order, that is not a proper question. Mr Chew Swee Kee, I believe you have a statement to make?

Yes, Sir. I have only a short statement to make, Sir, and that is in regard to the All-Party Committee Report on Chinese Education. As all Members know, the Report has been published as Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 9 of 1956. Hon. Members will remember that in May last year, a Committee was appointed with the consent of this Assembly to go into the question of Chinese education. This Committee, comprising Members of all political Parties in this Assembly, sat under my chairmanship on twenty occasions, not including the visits, of course, to the schools. I am glad to report to this Assembly today that the Report itself in its final form is ready and presented for the information of all hon. Members of this Assembly as well as the public. Before I go any further, I would like to thank publicly, as I have done in the Report, those who took part in the deliberations, those who gave evidence and those who sent in memoranda. I wish also to thank personally our Secretary, Mr L. C. Goh, who was responsible for documentation of all the memoranda submitted to the Committee and other detailed information obtained from various sources. The main recommendations in summarised form are found at pages 47 to 50 of the Report. It is a matter of gratification to know that the Report is an unanimous one and it is hoped that the House will give it the blessing that it deserves. It is possible that a Government White Paper on education policy, based on the Report, will be tabled before the House. As the Report touches on questions of grave importance and implications, full opportunity will be made available for Members to debate on the subject at a later date.

Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members of this House will doubtless want me to give them a statement on the recent floods which occurred on Friday and Saturday, the 27th and 28th of January. I am happy to be able to say that the floods this year were not so widespread or serious as in 1954. In all, about 7 inches of rain was recorded at the Meteorological Station, Singapore Airport, but 5 inches in most other places, on the two days, the 27th and 28th of January. According to records, storms such as these are not unusual at this time of the year. The Bedok resettlement and Ulu Bedok areas suffered most, and as the water rose in these areas it was found necessary on the night of Friday the 27th and the following day to evacuate some 62 families, totalling 330 adults and children. The Social Welfare Department established a relief centre at the Bedok Boys' School on Friday night, the 27th of January, where the evacuated flood victims were accommodated and given hot meals for a period of four to five days. In all, 3,600 hot meals and snacks were provided, while Government officers and voluntary officers gave medical and other assistance. In other areas, such as Lorong Tai Seng, Geylang Serai, Jalan Eunos, Tampenis Road and one or two other small isolated areas, minor flooding took place but no families from any of these areas were evacuated, and damage was small. In view of the fact that Bedok is a resettlement area for squatters from Paya Lebar who were resettled there when work began on the Singapore Airport, Government accepted a special responsibility towards them. Government has also decided to accept a special responsibility towards the families at Ulu Bedok where the flooding this year was largely due to new drainage construction works in the vicinity. These works, I understand, will be completed soon and it is hoped that no flood damage will occur there again in the future. As regards the other areas where only minor flooding took place, Government must regard these minor elemental disturbances as the normal hazards of farming life. Concerning Government's special attitude to the Bedok resettlement area and the Ulu Bedok area, assessment teams completed on Wednesday, 1st February, their investigation of losses sustained and, based on the findings, Government has subsequently authorised relief and rehabilitation payments to flood victims amounting to $43,001. This amount was paid out by the Social Welfare Department on Monday afternoon and on Tuesday morning, the 6th and 7th of February. Meanwhile, drainage constructional work, which has been in operation since the second half of November last year, is going forward and it is not expected that the Bedok resettlement area will, in the future, suffer flood damage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take this opportunity of paying my tribute to the Police Force and the Public Works Department -

Order, please.

Sir, I want to give some -

Order. I take it that the hon. Member is leading to a question?

Yes.

You are. I am sorry.

Sir, let me make a good beginning and then I will come to the attack! The Public Works Department, the Social Welfare Department and the Police Force answered my call immediately to start rescue work. However, morning tea was not served to the refugees until the next day at two o'clock. The Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works is the one I wish to attack, because I remember that in July I raised a question urging the Hon. the Minister for Communications -

On a point of order, Sir. Is it proper for a Liberal-Socialist to make overtures to the Labour Front-Alliance on this Floor on this particular occasion? [Interruption.]

Order. A point of order has been raised. I cannot find any point of order in that and I therefore make no ruling. Mr Lim Cher Kheng, please continue. The Chief Minister rose -

Is it on a point of order, Mr Chief Minister?

Point of order, Sir. I would ask, Sir, whether there is no means of disciplining a person who consistently transgresses the rules of procedure of this House in order to indulge in political jibes and political sneers and political smears.

Order, please. The Standing Orders are quite adequate in that respect.

I hope he will be disciplined.

Order. Mr Lim Cher Kheng.

Fascist tendency!

Thank you, Sir. Exactly what I want to point out is that the political manoeuvres on this -

Order. If the hon. Member is not going to ask a question, then he is completely out of order. Will he come to the question?

I am sorry, Sir. I would like to comment on the Government survey team which went round assessing the needs of the flood victims. I have been informed that many flood victims have been left out of consideration, especially the fire-stove makers and the flower growers. Also I wish the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works would speed up the work of flood prevention and no more accuse the -

Order. The hon. Member is apparently not asking a question. If he asks a question, he is in order. If he does not ask a question, he is out of order.

One question has been asked.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour and Welfare referred to flooding in one passage of his statement as "the normal hazards of farming life". I wonder if he would enlighten us further as to what he considers to be these "normal hazards"?

I have said "minor flooding", Sir. The Member for Changi, when he referred to the work of the assessment team of the Social Welfare Department, -

Does the hon. Member want to refer to that?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. Member can make a statement on that.

He drew attention to the fact that, according to him, there were some victims who had been left out. If the Member will submit the facts to me, I will have them investigated. The time being then past 12 noon of the clock, and there being no other Member wishing to speak -

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend the sitting. The sitting is therefore suspended to half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.18 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today is a great day for the Federation and I would ask leave of you, Sir, and of the hon. Members to waive Standing Orders in order to move, That this Assembly resolves that Mr Speaker do convey to the Chief Minister of the Federation on behalf of the Assembly and the people of Singapore our sincere congratulations on the success of his Merdeka Mission and the certain prospect that soon our brothers across the Straits will be an independent people within the Commonwealth of Nations.

Has the Chief Minister the assent of the Assembly? Hon. Members indicated assent.

If it please you, Sir, and in view of your ruling, I have the honour to inform you that I have the consent of His Excellency the Governor to move this motion. Sir, it is true that we have not got before us the full communique and the full details of the particulars of the success of the Federation Merdeka Mission, and perhaps in the normal course, we should have waited for another day until we were conscious of its full implications before we expressed our congratulations and our joy; but, Sir, today, if I may bring in a personal aspect, is the birthday of Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Chief Minister of the Federation. Sir, as one newspaper has already put it, he is the chief architect of a new nationhood in the world family of independent nations. I have personally known him for six years and during those six years, I have known him as a tireless worker with quiet wisdom in the single-minded thoughts of the freedom of his country. That his country is now on the verge of freedom is, in no small measure, due to him and I trust this Assembly will understand when I say that it is appropriate that these congratulations should have a personal aspect - congratulations not only to the people of the Federation but to the Tunku - and it is for this reason that I anticipate and seek that we should send these congratulations to him on this day, which has personal significance for him as well as great significance for our brothers and neighbours. Sir, there is enough information from reliable Press sources to indicate that he is happy with the achievements of this Mission; that, in fact, there is every likelihood that our brothers across the Straits will achieve freedom next year. Sir, this is the triumph of a sincere man and of a people who have the sense to recognise his ability and his sincerity - a people who gave him unstinting support. There is no P.A.P. in the Federation. There have been, Sir, and there are matters of irritation, matters of difference between Singapore and the Federation. Probably there will be for quite some time. In what family are brothers in absolute and complete harmony? Basically, Sir, we in Singapore are at one with the Federation and its people. Their troubles are our troubles, their welfare our welfare, and their joy our joy. We feel for them - I feel for them - more than a matter of respect, something that goes deeper than affection, and on this great and thrilling day for the Federation, all irritations and all differences are swept aside and I know we will all join together to tell the Federation and its great leader of our unbounded joy and our unalloyed gladness. In the normal course, Sir, we would be happy to hear of any country that escapes the vulture clutches of colonialism, but when it comes to our brothers and the Federation so near to us, Sir, this is a moment that is deeper than words can express. I therefore ask and I hope that by its unanimity the House can show its feelings, though the words are poor, that you do, in the name of this Assembly and of the people of Singapore, express to the Chief Minister of the Federation and through him to the people of his country our joy, our congratulations and our good wishes. May their freedom come soon! May it mean peace, prosperity and a glorious future! Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this motion. Today, I stand in this Assembly as the representative of the newly formed Liberal-Socialist Party. You will have noticed, Sir, that the Progressive and the Democratic Parties have become one, and today I speak as the leader of this largest group of Assemblymen in the Opposition.

Hurrah!

Certainly, Sir, all Singapore will rejoice at this, save the destructive P.A.P.!

Wait till you get fixed at the next election!

Order, please.

As the Hon. the Chief Minister has said, today is indeed a great day - a day of rejoicing. We, who are living in Asia; we, who have seen many countries being dictated to from foreign lands, are indeed glad that today the Tunku has announced that the Federation of Malaya will soon throw away the shackles of foreign power and domination. Our sister across the Straits is about the nearest land to us, and we know that the two territories are inter-dependent on each other. The Federation is now on its way to freedom. We hope, Sir, that we will be on that same road to independence. We have fought and we will keep on fighting to attain independence. The announcement today gives us courage in this House to keep on fighting and see that we get even greater things. We have always led in such matters of constitutional advances. We hope, Sir, that we will keep that lead and that we will come out as two independent territories. In all probability, Sir, later on, we will have a Confederation of Malaya. I therefore, Sir, feel that it is not only a duty but a joy to support this motion. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a somewhat different occasion from the last one when the Hon. the Chief Minister moved a resolution which was seconded by this side of the House. In times of stress and strain, they look to the P.A.P. for support. In times of joy and rejoicing, they look for fair weather friends, those who, like themselves, enjoy the flesh-pots of life. They look across to the newly-formed Socialists to support this resolution.

Better men -

Order, please.

I hope the Chief Minister of the Federation, when he receives this message, will understand that we wish him, and through him the people of the Federation, every success not only in winning Merdeka but in making it work. But I would refrain from joining the Hon. the Chief Minister in taking a personal line in congratulating Tunku Abdul Rahman - not because I think less highly of him than the Hon. the Chief Minister does, but because I feel that in the fight for freedom it is not individuals, however great, however illustrious, however able, who make the difference. It is the whole movement. It is the spirit which inspires the whole generation. The people of the Federation have shown unequivocably in the last ten years since the British returned to Malaya that they will have none of it. We also notice that on occasions such as this, our new-found Socialist comrades on this side of the House talk of fighting for freedom. They want to lead the fight. I often wonder whom they are thinking of fighting, because they have been so long in this game that I think they have forgotten whom they were fighting against, for what they were fighting, and for whom they were fighting. We have had this morning a glimpse of the old Chief Minister when he told us that he was ashamed of this constitution, that he was but a shadow Minister, and that we must fight and struggle on for independence. I knew that sooner or later he would come back to a complete circle. First he downs it. Then he says, in moments of elation and joy, "I am the Government. We are the Government. We represent you." Then in moments of depression he says, "We are shadow Ministers. Things are not working. Out with colonialism!" Every time they say "Out with colonialism", we are with them; but every time they say "We are the Government", we stand on the side-lines and watch them and ask, "How long will it be before he goes back one complete circle?" One thing about the Federation's Chief Minister - this is perhaps the only personal note I will touch on in referring to that distinguished gentleman - is that he has the great quality of knowing when not to say anything. That is a great advantage, because it saves him the inconvenience of having to deny what was said or what was said wrongly. In spite of all his difficulties, he has succeeded, in a matter of fact way, in bringing home to the people of Malaya and to the Government in Britain that there are two alternatives for the British in Malaya. One, to fight the nationalists and the Communists, in which case there will be, as the Hon. the Chief Minister of Singapore has said, chaos. Two, to take a more sensible approach and say, "This fight is finished, and should have been finished years ago. Let us sort it out. Let us give back to the people of Malaya what has been taken away from them for so long."

What about the Communists?

I am told, Mr Speaker, Sir -

He is a boot-licker!

Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do wish that if the Hon. the Chief Minister wishes to hurt me, he should do so in words that are full of dignity, full of passion -

Commissar!

Sir that has neither dignity nor passion. I could, if he wished, compile a set of words which I think he might find useful whenever he is annoyed with Members on this side of the House.

Teach yourself!

Order, please.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Minister of the Federation and his Government has a gigantic task ahead of them. No one knows better than he himself and his colleagues, how great that task is. He has got to make half independence work in order that he can get full independence, and he has to do it under the most difficult and adverse conditions. But he has this one great advantage. He has an organisation, and it is to that organisation that he owes the great success of his Merdeka Mission. We are confident that he will succeed in his talks and we wish him the very best, for if he fails, then we are not likely to succeed. Those of us who sometimes talk of unity and confederation do not understand that Singapore is the shop-window of Malaya. This is the little place where people come and do their buying and their selling. This is also the little laboratory where the British, the nationalists and the Communists first try out their tactics, because if anything goes wrong, it goes wrong on a small scale. But in the Federation, they go back to have the showdown. So when we say that we want to get closer to the Federation, what we really mean is that we should do away with this mockery of two independent states, two "independent" colonies - one a colony and the other a sui-generis protectorate-cum-colony. But one of the most damaging -

Cum, cum, let us finish!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do wish that the Hon. the Chief Minister would -

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Is the speaker speaking to the motion? Cum, cum!

I have been wondering whether what is being said is relevant, but perhaps the hon. Member will come to the point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was commenting on what my friend the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) had said. He had said that he wanted confederation after the two territories have become independent. The point is that if the two territories become independent separately, they will never get together. The chances of the two territories ever combining after they have both got a vested interest in their own different kinds of independence would make it impossible for any confederation in the near or distant future. So whilst we send the Chief Minister of the Federation our sincere congratulations, we must remind ourselves that now is the time to begin associating more closely with the success of the democratic process in the Federation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I heartily support this motion to wish the Tunku and his colleagues all success.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion before the House. The Member for Serangoon, leader of the newly-formed Liberal-Socialist Party, has already said that he is seconding the motion before the House on behalf of his Party, of which I am one of the members. But I am also sure that the two Labour Members on our side will also join when I am speaking for them -

Join which Party?

Have they gone over?

Order, please.

Will you please allow me to speak, Mr Speaker?

I have called the Assembly to order, Mr Jumabhoy.

The Members of the Labour Front who are on our side, is that quite clear? Sir, while congratulating the Tunku and his people, I must say that the achievement was due to his hold on the people by getting 99 per cent of the elected members on his side. No government on earth can ever refuse such a man his demand for freedom. He has achieved this, and achieved rightly, because he has the whole people's backing behind him -

And so, Mr R. Jumabhoy?

Well, the time might come when the Government, aware of its responsibility and out of respect, feels that it should not be leading or ruling this country with the help of the colonial power -

We will not have to, because of our self-respect.

It is not a matter of whether the Hon. the Chief Minister wants me or not. I am in this Assembly by my own right. I do not stand here at his pleasure or anybody's pleasure.

Hear, hear! Fight him!

Sir, before the election I happened to meet Tunku Abdul Rahman in the Federation, and he told me, "Mr Jumabhoy, I will never dare to form a Government unless I have a 75 per cent majority on my side." To the surprise of all, he has got 99 per cent. Who can say No to him? One thing more, Sir. From this platform that I am speaking, I will ask the Tunku a question when he returns. Is it a credit to U.M.N.O. that his Party in Singapore should support this undemocratic Government prevailing over here?

Order, Mr R. Jumabhoy.

Sir, when is this -

Order, Mr Chief Minister.

I consider him to be a - [Interruption.]

I do not - [Interruption.]

Order, order.

Do you allow this word, Sir?

I never heard that word. I want to have order in this Assembly. I have certain powers and I think hon. Members know the powers I have when I am presiding in this Assembly. I will not have unseemly utterances, unseemly words and irrelevant speeches. I pulled the hon. Member up before the Chief Minister because I thought he was perhaps getting a little irrelevant. The motion simply is, That this Assembly resolves that Mr Speaker do convey to the Chief Minister of the Federation our sincere congratulations. That is all. I cannot see how any remarks about other Governments can be relevant, and therefore I ask the hon. Member to stick to the motion and let us get on with our business.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is it creditable for the Hon. the Chief Minister, representing the Government, to use such words to a Member of the Assembly? I did not know, Sir, that you did not hear!

May I answer?

Order, order, let us have some order. I would first like to hear of the word that has been spoken. Will you please repeat that word, Mr R. Jumabhoy?

You had better ask him, Sir.

No, you tell him!

I must have some order in this House. If any hon. Member rises on a point of order, he must first explain his point of order. I will not ask any other Member to explain that point of order. If the Member for Telok Ayer wishes to raise a point of order, let us have it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, continuing with this motion before the House, I have already described what power the Tunku holds over his people and I am glad that with that power he has got everything that he wanted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the first instance, I thought that it was not for me to speak on this motion since the leader of the Government and the leaders of the Opposition have already voiced their agreement with this motion, but because both Members of the Opposition have stated that they are speaking for their Party, I think that it is a good thing to speak as an Independent. I regret, Sir, that this motion has been the subject of very bad remarks coming from both the Government and Opposition Benches. I think, Sir, that Members of the Assembly should always be broad-minded in their remarks.

I must rule that that is completely irrelevant. It does not touch at all on the motion. Let us get on with it.

Sir, I was only suggesting that we should not have adopted a cat and dog policy in this debate. Sir, I fully associate myself with the sentiments expressed on this motion. There is one outstanding thing which I would mention in this debate, and that is that the Federation has achieved self-government in a most orderly manner, without violence and without much difficulty. The Chief Minister of the Federation also has the support not only of all Parties but also of all the people in that territory. We in Singapore look forward to our independence under the guidance of the Hon. the Chief Minister and the delegation which will very shortly be proceeding to the United Kingdom, and I hope that this Assembly will have another opportunity for joyful congratulations when we get our independence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, frankly speaking I had no intention of speaking on this motion, because a motion of this nature will definitely receive the support of every Member of this House, irrespective of what political Party he belongs to. But what prompts me to speak is the remark made by the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) that he was speaking on behalf of the Member for Farrer Park (Mr A. R. Lazarous) and myself. As a matter of fact, the Member for Farrer Park and I have not allied ourselves to any Party yet. Though from the Labour Front and though we have crossed the Floor, we stand as Independents and we take issues independently, according to our own conscience and our own views. This message to the Tunku is the real keynote of this House in that it will indicate to the people of Singapore that, following in the footsteps of the Tunku, we will achieve independence in the near future. On behalf of the Member for Farrer Park and myself, I do wish the Tunku every success and congratulation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Is it the wish of hon. Members that the resolution be recorded nemine contradicente? Hon. Members indicated assent. Resolved, nemine contradicente, - That this Assembly resolves that Mr Speaker do convey to the Chief Minister of the Federation on behalf of the Assembly and the people of Singapore our sincere congratulations on the success of his Merdeka Mission and the certain prospect that soon our brothers across the Straits will be an independent people within the Commonwealth of Nations.

I shall take great pleasure in conveying that message.

"to amend the Apportionment of Rents Ordinance (Chapter 116 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 7th March, 1956, and to be printed.

"for making Final Provision for the Public Service for the year 1954", presented by the Hon. the Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 7th March, 1956, and to be printed.

"to amend the Poisons Ordinance, 1938 (No. 39 of 1938)", presented by the Hon. the Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 7th March, 1956, and to be printed.

"to amend the Income Tax Ordinance, 1947 (No. 39 of 1947)", presented by the Hon. the Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 7th March, 1956, and to be printed.

"to make provision for winding up of the War Damage Fund", presented by the Hon. the Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 7th March, 1956, and to be printed.

"to amend the Nature Reserves Ordinance, 1951 (No. 15 of 1951)", presented by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 7th March, 1956, and to be printed.

"to amend the Cinematograph Films Ordinance, 1953 (No. 25 of 1953)", presented by the Hon. the Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 7th March, 1956, and to be printed.

"to amend the Silver Jubilee Fund (Singapore) Ordinance, 1936 (No. 1 of 1936)", presented by the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 7th March, 1956, and to be printed.

"to provide for the preparation and publication of Annual Supplements to the Revised Edition of the Laws of the Colony", presented by the Hon. the Attorney-General (Mr C. H. Butterfield); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 7th March, 1956, and to be printed.

"to amend the Singapore Improvement Ordinance (Chapter 134)", presented by the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 7th March, 1956, and to be printed.

"to amend the Rubber Shipping and Packing Control Ordinance, 1950 (No. 12 of 1950)", presented by the Hon. the Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 7th March, 1956, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Sale of Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill was published last November and I am sure that hon. Members have had time to examine it in detail. The purpose of the proposed amendments and the reasons for them are described in the explanatory note at the end of the Bill, and there is very little that I need say except that this Bill gives an opportunity to medical officers to take samples of drugs and to protect the public from obnoxious drugs. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the Assembly do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.

I second the motion, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, Sir, with your permission, I would like to go back to clause 1 and move an amendment that "1955" be "1956".

It is a typographical error, is it?

It is a typographical error, Sir.

It is all right. You can make the alteration.

I am much obliged. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

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

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill cuts a very small piece of red tape, which is that much to the good. That is all the speech that it is necessary to make about it. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the Assembly do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.

I second it, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 -

Perhaps at this stage, Sir, I can move that the figure "1955" should be "1956".

Is it a typographical error?

Yes, Sir.

You can make the alteration. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

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

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the consent of the Governor under Standing Order 33 (1) (a) to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It is now, I regret to say, several years since representations were first received on behalf of the Muslim community in Singapore, through the good offices of the Muslim Advisory Board, asking for legislation to remedy the unsatisfactory state of affairs regarding Muslim divorces and the administration of the law of Muslim marriages and divorces. I had hoped, Sir, to get such legislation enacted in the previous Legislative Council but, unfortunately, it could not be got ready in time. In fact, it was only in November last year that this Bill was ready for introduction to this Assembly. The main cause of concern amongst the Muslim community in Singapore is the very high rate of divorce amongst Muslim marriages. Investigations in 1953 revealed a divorce rate of about 60 per cent of the corresponding marriage rate - a very disturbing figure. Muslim marriages and divorces are regulated by the Muslims Ordinance Chapter 57 of our Laws, and as the law stands at present, any one of the twelve Kathis in Singapore, as a Deputy Registrar of Muslim Marriages, can register a marriage or a divorce for any Muslim person who has been resident in Singapore for more than four months. Each of these Kathis also has the power of a civil court to enquire into and adjudicate upon claims for the payment of dowry, maintenance and such matters. These Kathis are appointed by the Governor, but they are not paid. They retain the fees for solemnising marriages and registering divorces, and appeals against their decisions go to the Registrar of Muslim Marriages who is not himself a Muslim. I think, Sir, it is generally admitted amongst the Muslim community here that there has been considerable laxity in the administration of the Muslim law of marriage and divorce. There is some conflict of jurisdiction between the Kathis, and there is a tendency, perhaps not unnatural, for a Kathi to register a divorce rather than to attempt to effect a reconciliation between the parties; nor has there been adequate supervision of the Kathis by the Registrar of Muslim Marriages. It has therefore long been recommended that fresh legislation should be introduced to establish Muslim Courts for the better administration of the Muslim law of marriage and divorce, and the necessary legislation is, 1 hope, provided in this Bill. The Bill repeals the present law - the Muslims Ordinance (Chapter 57) - and, while re-enacting many of its provisions, makes provision in addition for the appointment of, firstly, a Chief Kathi with jurisdiction over the whole of Singapore and certain special powers; and, secondly, for the appointment of a Shariah Court under the Registrar of Muslim Marriages who is himself to be a Muslim, with power to determine issues between Muslims relating to marriage and divorce in connected matters, and with power to hear appeals from the decisions of the Kathi; and, thirdly, it provides for the appointment of an Appeal Board to hear appeals from the Shariah Court. There are certain particular provisions which, I think, perhaps could better be dealt with at the Committee stage. The principles of this Bill, I am assured, are warmly welcomed by the Muslim community and they are recommended by the Muslim Advisory Board. The detailed provisions of the Bill involve a number of points of Muslim law and procedure, and even after all these months of preparatory work and consultation, I am still receiving representations for amendments on points of detail. The Malay translation of the Bill has been published, which I hope will enable persons, who are not able to understand the Bill in the English language and who have experience and expert knowledge in this matter, to study it and I hope that if any one has any further comments to make on the Bill, they can be sent to me as soon as possible; for I am anxious that there should be no further avoidable delay in enacting this piece of legislation which I am sure is for the benefit of the Muslim community. I think the most practical way of finalising the details of the Bill will be to refer it to a Select Committee of this House. This will have one very particular advantage in that the Select Committee will be able to hear evidence from experts should there be any particular point of difficulty on which doubts have to be resolved. I shall therefore at the appropriate stage move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and I very much hope that that Select Committee will be able to report the Bill at our March sitting so that we can proceed with it. Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to congratulate the Muslim Advisory Board in asking the Government to put before this House legislation which is overdue and which is very necessary. I am glad that the Hon. the Chief Secretary has very ably put his points before the House. Sir, I want to speak on the principle of the Bill. As far as the registration of marriages and divorces among Muslims and the establishment of a Shariah Court are concerned, I wonder if any one would want to postpone these for even a single minute, but clause 47 is something very new. The well-known lawyer Mr N. A. Mallal, who is a Muslim by faith, has sent some suggestions to the Muslim Advisory Board. I am glad that the Hon. the Chief Secretary has already announced that this Bill will be committed to a Select Committee for consideration. There is another point also - Muslims of age can make their own will. I hope the Hon. the Chief Secretary might be able to help by pointing out the relevant clause. In this tropical country, Sir, a boy and a girl can reach the age of puberty, say, at the age of 14, 15 or 16 and to allow these minors to make a will is rather not proper -

Clause 46.

Clause 46, thank you. Sir, I hope the Select Committee will also consider this. Coming now to clause 47, Sir, if a Muslim dies intestate, it is quite right that the estate should be administered according to Muslim law. But if a Muslim has left a will - and this is a Colony and not a Muslim state, in which there should be freedom for any individual to make a will in any way he likes - then he should not be interfered with. That freedom should be given to him. That is the main point. Sir, there are other clauses in this Bill, such as the one relating to voluntary settlements, which are governed by the English law. If it is so that certain clauses are to be governed according to English law, why should not clause 47 also be governed according to English law? I am glad, as I have said, that the Bill is to be committed to a Select Committee where full discussion can take place before decisions.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. I wonder if the hon. Member will be good enough to make it clear to me whether his comment on clause 47 was that a Muslim should be allowed to make a will other than in accordance with Muslim law?

It was.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Second Reading of the Muslims Bill. As hon. Members are aware, this Bill deals with the fate of a particular community. For a long time now - in fact, for decades - Muslim leaders in Singapore have bemoaned the fact that there are no laws in the statute book of this island which are effective enough to deal with the growing complexities of the way of life of the Muslim people. This Bill deals with two main aspects of Islamic law. The first affects the ques- tion of marriages and divorces, and the second deals with the question of inheritance. Although in the past the Muslims of Singapore have been guided by the laws of the Koran, there are no means within the concept of our existing laws by which these Koranic laws could be effectively carried out. As a result, there has been a considerable degree of abuse. One has only to read the statistics of Muslim marriages and divorces in Singapore to realise the magnitude of this problem. The Hon. the Chief Secretary has given us figures for 1953, but I can quote you the latest figures on Muslim marriages and divorces, that is, for the year 1955, where the number of Muslim marriages totalled 2,472, and the number of divorces 1,247. This state of affairs creates other problems as well. Children born out of these marriages are left without one or the other of their parents and invariably without the means of subsistence. The reasons are obvious. Divorces are apparently made so easy when husbands realise that the decisions of the Kathis in respect of alimony and maintenance are not easily enforceable. It is to right these wrongs that this Bill is now before us. I hope Members of the Assembly will give their fullest support to this piece of legislation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I am not rushing in where Muslims fear to tread but I think that, as the Bill is going to a Select Committee, I should draw the attention of Members to something I saw in the London Times the other day which said: "In the Pakistan Constituent Assembly today, Mr Zahiruddin, of the Awami League, proposing that the draft constitution Bill be referred to a select committee, raised a pertinent issue when he was asked who was to decide who was or was not a Muslim." Now, Sir, in the draft Bill here it merely says: "Muslim" means a person who professes the religion of Islam. The article in the London Times goes on to say, Sir: "Mr Zahiruddin quoted from a well known Lahore case where he said that the learned Judge asked eight learned theologians the definition of Muslim, and each one of them gave a different definition. It was, he said, very important for the Constituent Assembly to lay down the definition of a Muslim. There are Sunnis, Shias, Wahabis, and Quadianis and some of them do not recognise the others as Muslim."

That is wrong.

It may be of interest to the Assembly and I offer it to Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Bill now before this Assembly. It is perhaps the first time in the history of Singapore that such a Bill, which affects a section of the community, has been introduced in the Legislature of the island. But this is not a piece of legislation which is unknown in Malaya. Most, if not all, of the Malay States of the Federation of Malaya have on the statute book similar legislation. The Muslims of Singapore are fully aware of the desirability to regularise their mode of conduct, particularly in relation to marriages and divorces, and also the question of inheritance. Sir, I support the Bill in principle.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have great pleasure in rising to support this Bill. During my experience on the Bench as a magistrate, one of the things that gave me the biggest trouble was those unfortunate women who came to me to enforce maintenance orders against their husbands who had left them. In those days before the war, the problem was not as grave as it is today. Divorces then were not at such a high rate, but, all the same, some of the cases really gave me sleepless nights. If my recollection serves me correctly, the only obligation the husband has towards his wife is to support her for 100 days after the date of his talak. I hope, by this Bill, all these practices and misuse will be abolished.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Sir, I move, That the Bill, be committed to a Select committee of this House.

Will you indicate the composition?

Is not that for the Committee of Selection?

I have ruled in the past that the Standing Order dealing with Select Committees does not apply to a Select Committee on Bills. So, if you will move that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr X as Chairman and perhaps five or six Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, then that will meet the case.

I am sorry about it, Sir, but I have not consulted the other side of the House whom we are to put on the Select Committee. Is it in order for me to nominate four Members from my side of the House and leave the other side to put on three?

The method I think to be adopted is the one which I have indicated, and which probably is the method that will be accepted, and that is, name whoever you think should be the Chairman and then leave the selection of the actual Members of the Select Committee to the Committee of Selection.

I beg your pardon, Sir, but I understood you to say that that could not be. I am happy to move that there should be a Select Committee on this Bill under your chairmanship and with such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Without any limit as to number?

No, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee with the Speaker as Chairman and members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the 7th of April, 1955, to the 8th of February, 1956, we have had ten tumultuous, dynamic and fruitful months and during that period, Sir, we have been responsible for measures of which we are very proud and there are many other measures which will shortly come before this Assembly and to which we look forward with pride. Amongst them we will have a new, honest educational structure, free legal aid and advice, an island-wide complete land freeze, nationalisation of transport, an effective system of local authorities and public utilities, and, on the horizon, as soon as the Committees have reported, we hope to have measures before this Assembly for effective Malayanisation to give Malayans their rightful place in the service of their people and effective control of the government machinery. We hope to have further employer/employee legislation and to introduce efficient means of avoiding unnecessary strikes and providing better machinery for mediation without in any way depriving the worker of the ultimate weapon of the strike to be used in extreme cases. Above all, Sir, we are looking forward to measures to impose provisions of basic standards of living to maintain the worker in conditions compatible with the dignity of a human being and with .our financial resources. But of all these measures, Sir, I am proudest of this motion which I have the privilege of moving in this House today, and I move it, Sir, in all humility, not as Chief Minister but as the elected representative of the people of Cairnhill. This is not a Government measure. There will be no Whip, Sir, on our side of the House. Every man in the Labour Front and every one of our colleagues of the Alliance will speak from his heart and according to his conscience. The principle of this measure is one which has guided and which will always guide the conduct of this Government and which, I hope, will guide the conduct of all future governments of the territory of Singapore. In essence, the principle is one of equal justice for all races. Sir, in 1953, when the Rendel Commission was sitting and invited representations, though I had neither political affiliations, nor political ambitions nor thought of any - I was a private citizen - I did take time off to write to that Commission and appeal for recognition of the principle of multi-lingualism. There was then no talk about multilingualism, not a word in the Press. The silver tongue of our friend, Mr Yap Pheng Geck, was otherwise engaged. But to any one, Sir, who sought to look beyond the black pall of colonialism to our problems when we finally are able to live our own lives, the problem was obvious and monumental. We in Singapore are a conglomeration of several fully developed races living in culture-tight compartments under the dead hand of colonialism. All Asian communities suffer equal injustice under that regime, but once colonialism is lifted off our necks and we are able to lift up our heads, where do we seek equal justice? Equal justice for all races we must have, Sir, or else the agony will be worse and certainly no better than that through which we have passed and through which we are passing. Today we live under the domination of one race. What does it benefit us to change masters and live under the domination of a different race? To live fully and to be free, there must be an end to all racial domination, whether European or Asian. It is essential that the foundation be laid whereby all races will be equal partners in the nation. Language, Sir, has been and is an instrument of racial culture. To impose one language on the whole population is to impose the domination of that one race. In this plural society of ours, if we seek justice for all, we must reject mono-lingualism and accept the principle of multi-lingualism. We must, Sir, give equal respect to as many of the major languages as meet the essential needs of the people. I am advised and I believe that Mandarin will satisfy our Chinese people of all dialects. I know that Malay will satisfy our Malays and Indonesians. I believe that Tamil will satisfy our Indian domiciled community, and English will satisfy the Eurasians, the domiciled Europeans, of whom there are a few, and other English-speaking groups. Sir, I am not unconscious that, in this fascinating city of ours, we have many other races and many other languages but like true Singaporeans, they are reasonable and they realise their small numbers and, by virtue of the progressively growing difficulties of additional languages, it would be impossible to give consideration to more than four languages. I ask this Assembly therefore that we should recognise the four principal cultures of this country by accepting as official languages for oral debate the four principal languages. Sir, when the matter was broached to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he sought to draw our attention, in a friendly way, to the many technical difficulties implied in such a procedure, and I freely confessed to him, "Of course, we are going to have difficulties." I anticipate that for many years, Sir, our service for translations will be inadequate to cope with keeping our records in other than one language. I anticipate that when we have Ministers who do not speak English, they will have to have highly qualified personal interpreters, perhaps more than one to each. I anticipate that we will have some difficulty in getting highly trained interpreters who have to do simultaneous interpretation, which is an art, Sir. We will unquestionably lose something of the nuances in debate and I fear that, for the non-English speaking, they are going to lose a lot of the fun of the interruptions of the hon. Member for the P.A.P.

They will still come in any language!

But, Sir, these are minor difficulties and if they were all, I for one would sleep peacefully. But I think that we should recognise there are more than difficulties. There is one danger - a grave danger - involved in multi-lingualism and we should face it. Language has been traditionally the principal unifying factor in the formation of nations. How are we, with equal respect for four parallel cultures and four languages, to form one nation? Are we going to build up four warring groups in a pocket handkerchief area? I am, Sir, all too conscious of the explosive content in linguistic conflict. I think hon. Members are aware that but recently we have watched with anguish the riots which have taken a toll of more than two hundred - week-long riots - in the Presidency of Bombay - where the Chief Minister, by the way, is one of the strongest and one of the most experienced politicians I have ever met - and they rose, Sir, out of linguistic conflict. I am conscious of, and I think other hon. Members are fully aware and watching with concern, the growing tension in Ceylon arising out of linguistic conflict. Is this going to happen here? Are our racial cultures going to develop so selfishly once they are freed from colonial restraint? Are they going to bring destruction instead of construction? That is the danger - a very real danger. Is there any precedent for such an experiment as that which I seek to ask hon. Members to embark on? I have sought to find an analogy, Sir, and the nearest I can find is that in Switzerland where they have four national languages - German, French, Italian and Romanish - and where, despite the diversity of languages and cultures, they have a united nation. It is true that they are racially not as diverse as we are here but there, there is an example of unity despite linguistic and cultural diversity. Can we hope to produce, Sir, men of sober political sense, men of cool judgment who will maintain peace and racial co-operation and harmony, as is done in Switzerland? I say we must have faith. I have faith, Sir. I have lived here since my birth and I have faith in the extraordinary adaptability, the resilience and the friendliness of the people of Singapore. There is one doubt. Neither the Swiss nor any other nation that I know of in similar circumstances had to cope simultaneously with Communist and pro-Communist activities. Here in Singapore we have watched them and it is true that wherever there is any question of disagreement, wherever they can destroy stability, wherever they can seek falsely, maliciously, by extortion or otherwise, to bring disrepute upon established organisations, wherever there are little disagreements racially which we would, in the normal course, if in Switzerland or elsewhere, without these infernal people, have come to a friendly conclusion, these disagreements are tortured and whipped up by their Communists and their friends with one end in view - and that is the destruction of stability, an attempt to keep the country constantly off-balance in the hope that ultimately the accumulation of their carefully planned campaign of bitterness would one day blow up into chaos and give them and their comrades the opportunity of having Commissars. We are conscious that these forces are not without men of intelligence, are unscrupulous, and not themselves ideologically inclined but seeking to ride the band-wagon that they think will lead them to success - self-interest. The sympathizers are the dangers. We have seen the Communist forces and how they work under the cloak of democracy during the time of the Public Security Bill, and we will see more of them. Sir, can we in Singapore with this element constantly trying to keep us off-balance maintain the balance necessary, the racial harmony without which we are destroyed? Singapore is being asked to undertake an experiment no other country has attempted in circumstances without analogy anywhere. But what is the alternative? The alternative, Sir, is to adopt, and perhaps adapt, the existing colonial system and make English, and perhaps Malay, just as a sop, the official languages. Would that work? I have sought, Sir, within my abilities, which I do not pretend are extensive, with some of the experience that I have gained in the last ten months to assess that, and I say that, in my own view, Sir, we could survive with the help of the bayonet and the bullet in those circumstances for about three to four years and thereafter the forces of cultural and racial frustration of the servient communities would explode this island like a burst hand-grenade. Are we to sell, Sir, the possibility - and it is a possibility - of a glori- ous and harmonious future of unity between all races, of the success of this unique experiment in these unique difficult circumstances? Are we to sacrifice them for a few years of uneasy peace and thereafter certain extinction? That would be the act of a coward. I believe we must have the courage to face the tribulations of growth along natural, honest lines. Inter-racial tribulations, let us be frank, I fear there will be, but I believe Singapore will, because Singapore must, produce men of stature, respected leaders of the various races with immense patience, immense tact and unlimited goodwill. Sir, fully conscious, gravely conscious of the dangers inherent in this motion and the grave effect of its alternative, I ask the House to move forward towards an honest era, because the acceptance of this motion is the acceptance of the cornerstone of all legislation for our future - the principle, now and forever, of equal justice for all races.

Order, order. Moment of interruption. Mr Chief Minister, business to be resumed, what day?

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do formally move, That this Assembly do now stand adjourned.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now stand adjourned. Adjourned accordingly at 4.03 p.m. to the 9th of February, 1956.

Wednesday, 8th February, 1956

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether there is in operation or under consideration any scheme to provide farmlands and the necessary facilities for the resettlement of farmers who will be affected by the Master Plan or by any other future Government development project; and whether he will give details.

As the Master Plan has yet to be approved by the Government, it would be premature now to consider any scheme or resettlement that may be necessitated by the Plan. As the Honourable Member is aware, Government has had in operation for some time resettlement schemes for people who have had to be moved from areas required for public development by the Government and will continue to operate such schemes where necessary.