Hansard, 1956-04-04

I have received two messages from His Excellency the Governor in connection with Bills which have been passed by the Assembly. Both are addressed to me. This is the first message, dated 16th March, 1956: "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: - ". There follows a list of ten Bills which will be circulated with the Official Report. The message ends - "I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, (Sd.) R. B. BLACK, Governor." Following is the list of Bills: -

I have to inform the Assembly that I granted permission to be absent from the Assembly to the following Members: Mr G. A. P. Sutherland - for four days from 4th May, 1956; Mr Lee Choon Eng - for thirteen days from 13th March, 1956; Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim - for six weeks from 12th April, 1956; Mr M. P. D. Nair - for one week from 7th April, 1956.

I have to inform hon. Members that, on the advice of the Medical Officer in charge of Officials, the Clerk of the Assembly, Mr Donough, asked to be allowed to proceed on retirement leave on the 1st of April last, and that his request has, with great regret, been granted by His Excellency the Governor. I need not say that His Excellency's regret is shared by me and, I am sure, by hon. Members. Mr Donough joined the Government in the General Clerical Service on the 10th of April, 1922. On the 1st of February, 1941, he was appointed an officer of the Straits Settlements Civil Service and on the 21st of October, 1949, an officer of the Colonial Administrative Service. After about 19 years in the General Clerical Service and before he became attached to the Legislature, Mr Donough served as: Chief Administrative Officer, Department of Supply, Malaya. Private Secretary to Secretary for Economic Affairs, Singapore. Deputy Superintendent of Census, Malaya (Headquarter), Ipoh. On the 1st of March, 1948, he became the Clerk of then Advisory Council and on the 1st of April, 1948, the Clerk of Councils, Singapore. The latter post was abolished and a new appointment of Clerk of the Legislative Council was created with effect from the 1st of December, 1951. Mr Donough filled that post and became the first Clerk of this Legislative Assembly during the early part last year. Mr Donough, on his retirement, has thus served this country for a period of some 34 years. My association with Mr Donough has been of a very short duration - just over a year - but during that short period I have become aware of, his sterling quality as a loyal, capable and completely efficient officer, who has never hesitated to give of his utmost under any circumstances. His grasp of the intricacies of Parliamentary practice and procedure is second to none, and his retirement is indeed a great loss to this Assembly and to this country. I trust that now that he has been relieved of the anxieties and stresses of his post, Mr Donough will soon recover his health, and that he and Mrs. Donough will enjoy a happy and contented retirement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to associate the Government Benches with the expressions of regret and appreciation which you have just made - regret, Sir, that the heavy pressure of duties during the past year has taken so grievous a toll on so conscientious an officer. We who have known him, we - and this refers to everyone of us - who have benefited by his assistance, his guidance and his courtesy, feel a greater regret at the loss of a very able and a very efficient officer. I would like to hope, Sir, that not only will he be fully recovered during the next few months of his leave, but that Singapore may yet benefit from his services in other departments. Sir, on behalf of all the Members on the Government Benches, I would like to express to Mr Donough our sincere good wishes on his retirement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on this occasion the Opposition Benches would also like to express regret over the retirement of a very able officer. Indeed, Sir, Mr Donough has proved to everyone here that he is capable and that he will render aid to all Assemblymen, irrespective of whether they are on the Government Benches or on the Opposition Benches. He has shown that he is able to take on work which should indeed have been done by more people, and we have seen that his Office has been run very efficiently. Furthermore, his deep understanding of Parliamentary procedure has been of great help to all. We would like to express also our wishes for his happy retirement and quick recovery.

Sir, I also would like, if I may, to pay tribute; and, speaking perhaps for once as a civil servant rather than as a Member of this House, I should like to say, Sir, that to me Mr Donough was an outstanding example of the finest type of civil servant. He was conscientious, a master of his subject, efficient, and completely loyal to the principles of his service and quite unsparing of himself in his thoroughness and in his sense of duty. It was by these qualities that, as you have said, Sir, he won his promotion from the Clerical Service to the Administrative Service and, finally, to the very responsible post of Clerk of this Assembly. During the past three years, Sir, particularly in the two years preceding the constitution of this Assembly, I saw a great deal of Mr Donough and of his work, and I cannot speak too highly of it. He was never satisfied, Sir, unless everything was done properly and efficiently, and, as you have said, he had a detailed knowledge of Parliamentary procedure which was of great benefit to everyone of us in this House and in the previous Legislative Council; and he had, what is more, Sir, an intense loyalty to the principles and traditions; of Parliamentary government. He was, quite rightly, most jealous of the rights of Members of the Legislature and of the independence of the Legislature from the Executive, and he defended both of those principles quite fearlessly. He was always respectful and yet dignified, but he was insistent on anything he held to be right; and both this Assembly, Sir, and the previous Legislative Councils owe him a great debt of gratitude for his knowledge and his wisdom, and we shall sorely miss his guidance in the future. I fully share the regrets that have been expressed that his keen sense of responsibility and his refusal to spare himself in the service of this Assembly have overtaxed his health so that he now has to give up this work to which he was so devoted and in which he so excelled. I know I can speak, Sir, on behalf of my officials, both in this House and throughout the public service, in associating ourselves with the tributes that have been paid to one of our colleagues. It is with real regret that we lose one who was an example to us and a friend, and we join, Sir, most sincerely in wishing Mr Donough good health and happiness in his retirement, and I hope that he will see the fruits of his labours in the future conduct of this Assembly.

asked the Chief Minister if he will state whether an appointment of Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry will be made in the immediate future.

The answer is No, Sir. I have no such appointment in mind at present.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a surprise! Perhaps the Chief Minister would like to inform us of the duration of time when his "No" will apply.

That is not a question.

asked the Chief Minister whether he will make a full statement on what the Government delegation intends to ask for at the London Conference.

Yes, Sir, as full as I can in the present circumstances, and that will occur during the debate on the motion in my name.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does that mean that the Chief Minister will make a statement in this debate on such matters as the future of the public service, internal security and citizenship?

If it please you, Sir, not on the public service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may we enquire from the Chief Minister why he cannot make a statement on the future of the public service?

May I suggest to the hon. Member, Sir, that he contain his patience till the debate and ask the questions he seeks then?

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Chief Minister give an indication whether the question of the protection of the minorities in this country will also be touched upon in the debate?

The hon. Member is aware that he is free to raise any aspects touching upon the motion. Certainly the question of minorities is one of them.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether an Industrial Development Corporation is now in process of being set up; and whether he will make a statement detailing the economic policy of the Government.

Sir, discussions with the Government of the Federation of Malaya and various financial institutions for a large scale Industrial Finance Corporation are still proceeding. The Singapore Government is considering, however, taking direct action through an organisation under my Ministry to stimulate and assist industrial development not requiring major capital assistance, and I hope that concrete proposals will be placed before this Assembly at an early date. The Government's economic policy was announced to this House in His Excellency's Address at the inaugural meeting on 22nd April of last year. This policy has been consistently pursued. I would also refer the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) to the detailed reply given by my friend and colleague the Chief Minister (then concurrently the Minister for Commerce and Industry) to the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) on trade and industry contained in the Official Report of the Assembly, Vol. 1, No. 6 of 29th June, 1955.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to me that that policy has brought nothing tangible to Singapore, and we would like to know, too, whether he will give an indication that the policy has indeed been stepped up to get more industries going.

Sir, my answer is that the Government is encouraging the industrialisation of Singapore as much as possible, and beyond that, if the hon. Member wishes to have details of what we are doing, I would like to invite him to come over and see me and I will give him that information, because it is too lengthy to be given in an oral reply like this.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he will make a statement on the result of the investigations into the causes of the incidents which took place at the Kallang Mass Rally.

Yes, Sir,Investigations into the causes of the disorder at the Kallang Mass Rally have not yet been completed, but so far there is no evidence of any premeditated plan for interference with the rally or to create disorder. The causes of the incidents appear to be four. First, the collapse of the platform and the consequent disorganisation of the arrangements. Second, the angry frustration of a section of the crowd who were thus denied the speeches they had come to hear. Thirdly, a heavy shower of rain which caused part of the crowd to break into the terminal building; and, fourthly, the potential hostility to the police of a certain section of the crowd. The police had been apprehensive before the rally that any incident might set off serious disorders. The collapse of the platform before the speeches started disorganised the arrangements and disrupted the loudspeaker system, and the rally then divided into two groups - one group round the platform and one group in front of the terminal building. Around the platform there was a state of disorder. There were shouts to beat up the police on duty and some of the crowd began to pick up missiles to throw at the police. Political leaders there tried to quieten the crowd and songs, such as "Unity is strength", were sung. After about half an hour the crowd round the platform moved over to the terminal building to hear the speeches, but owing to the breakdown of the loudspeakers, they could not do so. At four minutes past six the Parliamentary delegation and most of the political leaders left. A large section of the crowd did not realise that the meeting was over and continued to shout and make a lot of noise. About this time it began to rain and most of the crowd started to move off; but about 3,000 remained, singing and shouting. There was also some dancing. A section of this crowd sought shelter from the rain in the terminal building, breaking through the doors. As they were disorderly and were doing damage, the police ejected them from the building and a police cordon was posted outside the building. The; singing and dancing continued and it became clear that this crowd of about 3,000 was excited and dissatisfied and demanding to hear their leaders speak. The police on duty were jeered and taunted by youths in the crowd and three spaces were cleared for dancing. At about 6.40 p.m. the chanting became more excited and a number of youths were seen working up their companions, lobbing pieces of wood, poles and banners at the police who remained steady at their posts. Suddenly a section of this crowd picked up stones from a heap of rubble and threw them at the police and at the building. The stone-throwers were mainly youths and the stoning was started by a small group whose numbers quickly increased to about 300 or more. The police then moved forward with batons, using their raincoats as shields against the stones, and for about 15 minutes the crowd alternately fell back before the police and advanced again throwing stones, until finally they were dispersed. Another group of several hundred attacked the police field post and the St. John Ambulance post with bottles and stones. They also were dispersed by the police and the whole area was finally cleared at five minutes past seven. 20 police officers suffered minor injuries and 15 members of the public were treated for injuries, all of them minor except one, who was admitted to the hospital with cut in the head. One police van, some police radio equipment and a St. John ambulance were damaged and most of the windows in the terminal building were smashed. Eight persons have been arrested and charged with rioting. The police had been apprehensive of disorder because of slighting references made to the police at several P.A.P. meetings and because of the campaign in the Press by a large group of so-called Chinese cultural associations and students during the previous two weeks protesting against police refusals to issue licences for the performance of songs and dances of Communist meaning. These organisations held a further protest meeting at the Badminton Hall immediately prior to the mass rally. After it, at about 4 p.m., some 4,000 to 5,000 youths from that meeting marched in an orderly and disciplined manner to the rally. They carried a large banner depicting the Communist dove of peace. When they encountered police officers on duty, there was organised shouting of Merdeka. Their attitude was one of contempt for the police and very markedly different from the friendly and cheerful mood of the vast majority of the crowd. I cannot emphasise too strongly, Sir, the danger to law and order in Singapore of deliberately fostering ill-will and ridicule of the police who have to maintain and restore order. Should the authority of the police be undermined, then any incident can lead to serious riots. On this occasion we were fortunate that the vast majority of the crowd were good tempered and orderly and behaved like decent citizens, and the disorderly few never got out of hand. I should like to commend the restraint and discipline of the police on duty at Kallang and the services rendered by the St. John Ambulance men on duty amidst the disorders; and I wish to acknowledge fully, Sir the efforts made by several political leaders, including Members of this House, to calm down the crowd and get them to disperse.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Chief Secretary aware, from his police information, that at several P.A.P. rallies, far from making slighting references to the police we had, in fact, on one particular occasion especially, indicated that with Merdeka they ought to get more wages?

Sir, my information was slightly different. 'My' information was that at several P.A.P. meetings a number of speakers made derisive remarks about the police, including the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who raised a hoot of laughter from the crowd by his reference to putting up the pay of the police "when we get into power".

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Chief Secretary saying that anything was said at any of these rallies which was unlawful?

I am not prejudicing, Sir, the lawfulness or unlawfulness of what was said. What I am saying is that the speeches were derisory of the police.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Chief Secretary saying that any peech made by any political leader which does not praise the police is derisive?

It is a matter of opinion.

Certainly not.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Government has accepted the recommendations of the Malayanisation Commission to Malayanise the police force in three years.

The recommendations of the Commission are still under consideration by the Government.

Is the Chief Secretary aware, Sir, that the next few years of transition are vital ones to Singapore, and is it not essential that men of the highest experience be retained in the police force during this period?

I have no hesitation, Sir, in giving an assurance that the Members of the Government will fully bear in mind their responsibility for the efficient administration of this territory.

asked the Chief Secretary when it is proposed to hold the City Council elections.

Sir, the Government accepts the basic principles of the Report of the Committee on Local Government and a White Paper will be tabled before the June meeting of the Assembly. I hope that it will be possible to hold elections to the new Councils in December, but this depends on the mechanics of preparing electoral rolls.

Sir, is the Chief Secretary not aware that two months ago the Chief Minister stated that Assistant Ministers would only have to serve three or four more months on the City Council, and will he implement this promise?

I suggest, Sir, that this be addressed to the Chief Minister.

asked the Chief Secretary what steps have been taken by the Government to bring the electoral register up to date.

Sir, the following steps have been taken to bring the electoral register up to date. (1) Approximately 57,000 new voters are being brought on to the roll. (2) Enquiry is being made of all new voters who were recorded as having British nationality but who were born outside the United Kingdom and Colonies, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak, to ascertain their citizenship status. (3) 65,000 changes of addresses have been recorded. (4) A regular check is being made of deaths notified to the Registrar of Births and Deaths and all deaths registered. Deletions are also being made from the electoral roll of persons who surrender their identity cards on departure from Malaya. Approximately 13,000 deletions from the roll have now been made as regards death and departure. (5) The names of persons obtaining registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and naturalised as British subjects are being included in the roll. About 500 persons are affected. (6) The names are also being included on the register of locally domiciled persons serving in the armed services and with the police who are qualified as electors but do not hold identity cards. About 1,000 persons are so involved. (7) The electoral register has been checked for duplication and incorrect identity card numbers and enquiry is being made in each individual case where possible. There are about 450 persons in this category.

Can the Hon. the Chief Secretary enlighten this House as to when this electoral register will be ready?

Yes, Sir. The present programme is to publish the revisions as required by law in September, and then the new roll will be ready, I think, six weeks after that.

Sir, does that mean that if a general election were necessary in the next month or two, there would be no electoral roll available?

Certainly not, Sir. The electoral roll continues in existence. All I am concerned with at the moment is revising it.

asked the Financial Secretary what is the position regarding the establishment of a Central Bank.

Sir, the issues involved in the establishment of Central Banking mechanism in Malaya are at present being investigated by Mr Watson of the Bank of England and Sir Sydney Caine, and their report is expected shortly.

asked the Minister for Education (i) how many new students were admitted to Government primary schools at the beginning of the present school year; (ii) how many students of the age of 7 years who applied were admitted and how many were refused admission; and (iii) how many students of the age of 6 years were admitted.

To the first part of the question, Sir, the number admitted at the beginning of the year was 15,553. To the second part of the question, all the seven-year old children of parents residing in Singapore, for whom application for admission to Government primary schools was made to the Ministry of Education, have been found places. Without further reference to schools, it is not possible to state how many seven-year old children from outside Singapore were admitted and how many refused. This information will be supplied as soon as it is available. To the third part of the question, Sir, it will be necessary to call for returns from schools as to the number of six-year old children who were admitted. This information will also be supplied as soon as it is available.

asked the Minister for Education whether the Government has plans for building more schools on a cheaper basis than that of the Jervois Road Primary School, in respect of the construction of which a tender for $236,700 was recently accepted.

The Government has been investigating and is now drawing up plans for primary school buildings that will be cheaper than those recently built. This new type of primary school will, by accommodating an extra stream, economise on the ground area required and also effect a considerable reduction in cost per classroom and in overhead expenses on staffing. For rural areas, small schools, each costing about half the normal type, are at present proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that the Government has now been in office for a whole year and nothing has yet been done? Can he give an assurance that these new schools will be built as soon as possible?

All new plans need time to work out by the architects in the Public Works Department, together with advice from the Education Ministry. We have not done exactly nothing. We have done a lot, such as finding sites for school buildings.

asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware of the delay, in some cases of three months, in the payment of salaries to the teachers of the Grant-in-Aid and fully aided Chinese schools; whether he is aware that this delay in payment of salaries to these teachers has not only caused hardship, but also created resentment; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.

I am aware that there has been delay in payment of grant-in-aid in respect of salaries of teachers in Chinese aided schools since the beginning of this year, and I am fully aware of the hardships that late payment of salaries to teachers can cause. It would be an exaggeration, however, to say that the delay extends to three months. Changes in school staffs operative from January make the preparation and checking of the new year salary bills a very complicated task. In order to assist schools over the difficult period, all schools have received advances amounting to an average month's salary bill. The great majority have also received money for payment of January salaries. An additional clerk has been appointed to assist in this work, and I can assure the House that there will be no further delay in the future.

asked the Minister for Health whether the Mistri Wing at the General Hospital is now in full operation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Mistri Wing can accommodate 300 beds, but at present only 150 beds are in use on all floors distributed according to the ages of the children. By the end of this year, it is expected that this hospital can be in full operation as more doctors and nurses will be available. It is further hoped to have a further 90 beds by July of this year when we expect a new batch of nurses to qualify at the end of June.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister suggest that although 300 beds are available and 150 are now in operation, there are not enough patients in Singapore to fill the other 150 beds?

No child needing hospitalisation is refused. I am not aware of the number of patients in Singapore.

Is the Minister aware, Sir, of the constant harassing requests from quite a number of children at the Social Welfare Department for admission into hospitals?

If the last speaker had any information of that nature, he should have passed it on to me. I am not aware of any at the moment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a matter of co-ordination between the Ministries.

Will the Minister state why an expensive million-dollar building was constructed without at the same time ensuring that it could be adequately staffed from the beginning?

It must be realised, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is uneconomical to build in stages and total postponement of construction would have denied even the 150 beds available to the sick children today.

Does it not indicate, Sir, that there is no forward planning so as to dovetail construction with staffing?

It is a matter of opinion.

asked the Minister for Health whether he can confirm that there is now no shortage of doctors in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to answer the general question as to whether there is a shortage of doctors in Singapore is a difficult one, but I would say that there is a shortage of doctors in Singapore. The Medical Advisory Council advises me that there are 484 doctors on the medical register, but, measured by international standards, with a population of 1,200,000 in Singapore, we ought to have 1,300 doctors if a full medical cover is to be provided for every citizen.

If there is a shortage of doctors, Sir, what steps is the Minister taking to remedy that?

I am not sure whether the last speaker is not confused. Is he asking me whether there is a shortage of doctors in Singapore or a shortage of doctors in my Ministry?

One has a bearing on the other, Sir, and if there is a shortage of doctors in Singapore, there must evidently be a shortage of doctors in the Ministry, and vice versa.

Hon. Members must ask questions and not make statements.

He should be aware of that, Sir.

Order.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare if he will give details of strikes which remain unsettled.

On the 3rd of April there were still 19 strikes which had not been settled. In some cases the employers claim that they have been able to carry on business as usual with those workers who are not on strike, and in some cases with new workers and with strikers who have since returned. Sir, we have done all we could to bring about an amicable settlement of the 19 strikes that are still left outstanding. Sir, it is undesirable to reveal the state of the present negotiations between both parties. It will not only prejudice future negotiations, but it will reveal the intentions of both parties and this would not help to bring about an amicable settlement of the outstanding strikes.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing the reasons for the delay in the payment of ex-gratia and other allowances to Queenstown families moved into, or about to be moved into, resettlement areas.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not aware that there has been any real delay in the payment of ex-gratia and other allowances to Queenstown families moved or about to be moved into resettlement areas. In view of the representations which were made in regard to the adequacy of the compensation of the first phase of the Queenstown resettlement, a reassessment has been made of the improvements. This has taken some time as a considerable number of improvement things are no longer in evidence on the land. The reassessment has, however, now been completed and revised offers, based on the reassessment, are now being made to persons affected.

Is the Minister not aware that this delay has been going on ever since he took office a year ago, and the falling-off in the rate of building of S.I.T. houses is an extremely serious matter entirely due to Government inaction?

Mr Speaker, Sir, representations with regard to the adequacy of payment were made to me only a few months after my taking office, and not from the very beginning.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether the Working Committee investigating the problems of semi-permanent housing has made its report; and what the Government's intentions are in this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the Working Party on Land Clearance and Resettlement. If so, a report has been submitted to Government and is now under active consideration.

Will the Minister tell us when we shall be able to get the report?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not in a position to say so.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing what progress has been made in respect of the construction of roads in Ama Keng Resettlement Area.

Mr Speaker, Sir, survey of roads in the Ama Keng area is in progress and is expected to be completed soon. It is hoped that the construction work can start later in the year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that, because of the absence of proper roads, the farmers who live inside have got to pass through other farmers' land?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware of such a position, and that is why we are trying our best to complete the roads by the end of this year.

Is the Minister also aware that there is fighting among the farmers?

No, Sir.

Sir, I have to refer to a statement I made to this House last month informing Members that invitations had been issued to Commonwealth countries to send Parliamentary delegations, if they so wished, to acquaint themselves fully on issues which may affect them arising out of our desire for independence within the Commonwealth. We have received a reply from the Government of Ceylon, Sir, informing us that Parliament has been dissolved and is in the process of fresh elections and they are consequently unable to send a delegation until after our departure for the United Kingdom. We have also received replies from New Zealand and South Africa indicating that they will not be sending a delegation at this time. Personal messages have been received from the Prime Minister of India, the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Australian Minister for External Affairs which I have tabled for the information of the House. No reply has so far been received from Pakistan.

"to amend the Hotels Ordinance, 1954 (No. 24 of 1954)", presented by the Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 6th June, 1956, and to be printed.

"to amend the Ports Ordinance (Chapter 149 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 6th June, 1956, and to be printed.

"to make legal aid and advice in the Colony more readily available for persons of limited means, to enable the cost of legal aid or advice granted to persons to be defrayed wholly or partly out of monies provided by the Legislative Assembly and for purposes connected therewith", presented by the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 6th June, 1956, and to be printed.

"to amend the Registration of Deeds Ordinance (Chapter 121 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, 6th June, 1956, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill, Sir, is fully explained in the Explanatory Note attached, and there is little I think I need add. The Bill does two things. It requires the registration of the name of the child within one year from the date of its birth and gives a period of one year in which the name of the child can be changed, as I understand not infrequently happens here. As the law now stands, the name can be registered on payment of a fee for a period of seven years from the date of birth. This has caused a good deal of trouble over the admission of children to schools. When parents come to register their children, they find that the birth certificate either has not got a name on it, or it has the wrong name on it, and they then have to go to the inconvenience and expense of making statutory declarations to get the uncertainty put right. On general grounds as well, it is desirable that the name of the child should be registered as soon as possible after the child has been born. So the Bill requires that the name shall be registered within one year. Provision is, however, made for the Registrar-General in special cases to allow the name to be registered up to seven years. The second main provision of this Bill is that it ends the temporary provision which was made in 1946 extending the period for registration to make up for the loss of time during the period of the Japanese occupation. That temporary provision is no longer required and will be ended when this Bill is enacted. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Committee stage, what day?

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

I second it.

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

Clauses 1 and 2 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 to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill arises from certain recommendations made by the Hawkins Commission on Public Passenger Transport, recommendations concerning the licensing of the routes used by buses. The Commission found that the existing system of licensing procedures followed was unsatisfactory, and in this respect they recommended that there should be a single Licensing Authority for the whole island and that this Authority should not consist of an elected body of members of the public; and they further recommended that, in setting up such a Licensing Authority, due regard must be given to the special position of the Singapore Traction Company under the Singapore Traction Ordinance. This Bill accepts these recommendations and seeks to implement them. It sets up a single Authority and a common system following very closely section 326 of the Municipal Ordinance. I think it may be helpful at this stage if I comment on certain clauses in the Bill. Clause 3 provides that the Authority shall consist of public servants. It is intended at present that we should have three public servants as an immediate and essential step to obtain a single Licensing Authority. Later it would be desirable that we should have an expert - probably a single expert - who, after becoming a public servant, would be appointed as the Licensing Authority. That would be following paragraph 134 (v) of the Hawkins Report, but for the time being we are following paragraph 245 of the report for the interim stage. The House may be interested to know the particular officers we have in mind for the Authority. They would be the President of the City Council, the Chairman of the Rural Board, and the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Communications and Works. This would provide that the interests of the urban and rural areas were adequately represented and that the Ministry concerned with the operation of the Ordinance was also represented. In this connection, I should refer perhaps to one amendment I have to move. It was found after the Bill had been printed that, in fact, the definition of "public servant" would be held not to include the President of the City Council. It seems a highly legal point to me, but in any case we have cleared it up by an amendment which will make it quite clear that he is a public servant for the purposes of this Ordinance. On the general directions in clause 4, certain recommendations are made in the Hawkins Report as to what, for the interim period, would be proper directions. These are found in paragraph 246 of the report. These recommendations would be that the Licensing Authority should not, at this stage, attempt to achieve any major reorganisation of the routes and that it should, for the time being, confine itself to new or extended routes where at present no services are provided. Further, that for the time being, licences should be limited to six months, as they have been in the past. If later we have a single expert serving as the Authority, it will no doubt be appropriate that we should cancel or modify the directions given. Clause 5 (2) follows section 326 of the Municipal Ordinance, and the point about not exceeding one year might be queried by hon. Members who will have noted in the report that it is suggested that if we were to maintain a system of separate ownership for the different bus companies, a period of a year for the licence is insufficient and they should have a longer period so that they would have some security and encouragement to invest fresh capital. I am glad to report, however, that although this Bill and the Hawkins Report have been before the public, there is no sign whatever of any absence of applications by the bus companies to extend their routes. On the contrary, the particular urgency of this Bill arises from the fact that such an enormous number of applications are pending and should not be dealt with under the old system. It is the view of the Government, in agreement with the report, that separate ownerships cannot, as things are, produce an efficient transport system which really meets the needs of the travelling public, and consequently we should not take any action which is likely to perpetuate that system. The proviso to clause 5 (2) may possibly raise a query somewhere, and I might deal with that now. This proviso is necessary because of sections 32 and 63 of the Singapore Traction Ordinance. I do not think I need quote those rather lengthy and complicated sections, but if anybody wants to, he can go into them. But, briefly, where the Singapore Traction Company is referred to in this Bill, both in the proviso to clause 5 (2) and elsewhere, it is because it is necessary that we should recognise that they have a charter and they have to operate under it as long as they have not been taken over. It would be highly contrary to public policy to deprive them of the charter which they have been given by law. I shall be moving one or two other minor amendments, Mr Speaker, in the course of this debate. They are not of any great significance. They are minor consequential and drafting changes. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not quite happy about clause 3. It says here: "The Omnibus Services Licensing Authority shall consist of such persons being public servants not exceeding three in number . It looks as though even one person can be the Authority.

Order. It is a point which I think the hon. Member may well raise in Committee.

I think for the Authority to consist of three persons will be -

Order, please. Perhaps the hon. Member misunderstood me. Will he please wait until we have reached the Committee stage?

Mr Speaker, Sir, previously the licensing authority for omnibuses was in the hands of the City Council and the Rural Board. During that period we have many bus routes coming into operation, and, according to my observations, we find that some of the bus routes are confined to the city area whereas others are mainly in rural districts. The difficulty encountered by the rural people to come down town is indeed immense. Take the case of a person coming down from the R.A.F. base at Seletar to Tanjong Pagar. He will find that he has to change buses twice. Now we hope that all these difficulties will be overcome by the setting up of a single Authority which will take over the functions exercised previously by the City Council and the Rural Board. I personally believe that any services provided should work for the benefit of large numbers of people instead of for the benefit of companies, and I hope that when this Bill comes into operation, the Licensing Authority will bear in mind this fact - that it is to license buses not for the convenience or profit of the companies but for the convenience of the people using them. It would be interesting, Sir, to know why the powers vested in the hands of the City Council and the Rural Board previously should be transferred to a single Licensing Authority, and why a larger number of people should not be more preferable on this board. I will raise this question again when it comes up during the Committee stage and will propose an amendment to this effect. We feel, in fact, that it would be better to have more people on such a board to determine the routes of buses. We feel that not only should the people at the top of the public service be given a voice to determine the routes of buses, because they have good judgment, but also people who know the rural folks or town folks who are using the buses should also be given a voice. They are the people who are going to use the buses. They are the people who know the difficulties or the inconvenience encountered, and not people who ride to and from their offices in cars. This should be borne in mind, and that is why I feel that to have three persons to serve as the Licensing Authority is not enough. Again, Sir, today we are coming to a stage where we are asking for equality for all. We are not fighting for any one section of the public. If a certain law is applicable to A, it must be equally applicable to B and to C and to other people. We find that, because of the old system, we have preferential treatment for one company and another kind of treatment for another company. I feel that that is wrong and that, if this Assembly is fighting for equality and shouting at the top of its voice that it is fighting for equality, then even in small matters we should also fight for equality. Sir, we have here a company that has been given a charter, a company that is taxed at a fixed percentage. This company will be able to go ahead with expansion feeling very secure that it will recoup its capital. If this company has trouble with its workers, or if its buses get out of order, it need not lose money on that account. On the other hand, the other bus companies have to take out a licence for each of their buses; and whether the bus runs for 30 days in a month or one day in a month, the companies have still to pay the same licence fees. If there is a strike, which may or may not be their fault, they may lose, because the bus companies will still have to pay their fees. I certainly feel, Sir, that in an instance like this, if we cannot remove the special preferential treatment given to one company, it should be possible for us to move the other way round and allow the other bus companies to enjoy equal advantages. Is that not equality? Is that not what we are fighting for? When that charter or when that preferential treatment has been removed by nationalisation, then let us subject all the bus companies to the same level of taxation. Again, Sir, licensing as envisaged in this Bill on the basis of half a year or one year is not conducive to the expansion of the bus companies, if I am to invest some money in a project, I must be reasonably sure that it will help me to go on until at least my bus is out of order or condemned; but if I have to buy a new bus at great cost and after half a year find that the licence has been suspended, then I may not want to put in as much money into the business as I would like to. I ask you, Sir, when a situation like this develops, who suffers? It is not the Government, but it is the people who will not be provided with such facilities. It is the people who live far away in rural areas who will not be able to get their buses as frequently as they should get. I believe such a matter should be looked into very carefully and the period of licensing extended.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is not a great deal I wish to say on this Bill except this. I assume that, as the Government has accepted the recommendations of the Transport Commission in so far as it has agreed to set up a Licensing Authority at the transition stage, it has also accepted the recommendation to nationalise the transport system in accordance with the Labour Front platform. That being so, I consider that the Minister should tell us more clearly what the next steps are which the Government proposes to take. It is unreasonable to keep the bus companies in suspense in this matter. It means that they are unable or unwilling to plan improvements in their services, and this means that the unfortunate travelling public will suffer. This House and the travelling public have a right to know what the precise intentions of Government are. Will the Minister tell us whether or not the Government proposes to carry out its election promises?' On the assumption that it intends to do so, we consider that the next step to take is to appoint as soon as possible a transport and traffic expert who will have to undertake the task of nationalisation.

Order. Can the hon. Member indicate how that is relevant to the Bill?

He expects a by-election!

Order.

Mr Speaker, I was talking about the traffic expert to whom the Minister himself referred.

The question is, can the hon. Member indicate how that is relevant to the Bill?

I was going on to explain, Sir, that I thought that the sooner this expert gets down to work, the better it would be, for he should be a member of the Licensing Authority from the start so that he could direct operations from the transition stage. I hope that we can have an assurance from the Minister that this key man is being looked for now, and that he will be a man of considerable practical experience in public transport matters. Mr Francis Thomas rose -

Mr Thomas, in reply?

Yes, Sir. Some interesting points were raised, Mr Speaker, in this debate. We had a very fervent address to open with - that the Authority must serve the people - but it was rather confused. I do not think that the hon. Member quite grasped what it is all about, but he spoke with great enthusiasm for the rights of the people and I fully share his sentiments. I have no doubt at all that the Authority will serve the people to the greatest degree that they can be served in the existing circumstances where an inefficient past system and the very naturally competitive claims of bus companies have created what is, in fact, a very bad system where services cannot run efficiently and where the public suffers. The hon. Member was concerned about equality of treatment for the companies, and, of course, equality is a very desirable thing; but I am afraid that if you have a millionaire and you cannot tax him, it is not practical policy that we must make everybody into millionaires, which is broadly what he was suggesting. If the Singapore Traction Company has special privileges by charter, the hon. Member's solution is that we should give all other companies equal privileges and then proceed to nationalise them! A delightful thought, that having given them extra privileges we then pay them for the privileges we have given them, and thus charge the unhappy tax-payer a further large sum of money for conceding what we should not have conceded at all! I am afraid that this is not a very wise financial policy and one which I certainly could not advocate. He was also anxious that six months is the practice and that a year is the maximum under clause 5 (2) for the grant of a licence, and that this might prevent people from putting fresh capital into seeking to expand new routes. He is living in a happy state of ignorance. If he had referred to his own Party Members in the City Council, they could have informed him that there are no less than 63 applications now outstanding for consideration by the City Council. With this Bill already published and if he regards 63 applications under the shadow of nationalisation as intimidating the capitalists, I can assure him that they are not so easily intimidated. There is no sign at present of a drying-up of the desire of the companies to expand their services. Therefore, that particular scare on his part, I can assure him, is quite unnecessary. He need have no apprehensions as to the present situation. The companies are only too anxious to obtain more routes in order, no doubt, to reap the benefit in due course. The Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede asked that we should state our policy. This is a favourite request which comes up again and again. I can bring out our little green booklet which says that we will nationalise the public passenger transport system, but I think I might usefully say a few words about policy in general since the Opposition are anxious for it. Nationalisation is our policy and for the purposes of this industry, that means that we must use public ownership to bring industry under public control.

Order. I suggest that the Minister confine himself to the Bill.

Very well, Mr Speaker, I have no particular desire to elaborate on our policy. It can be dealt with later, but not in this debate. But if a question is put down, we can certainly provide for it. I think there is nothing else, Mr Speaker, for me to answer in reply except to say that the need for an expert to deal with the situation is very fully realised. Nobody supposes that a body of three public officers will, by the mere fact of being appointed, become immediately traffic experts. All I can say is that they will undoubtedly be far more efficient than the very large body of popularly elected people who have been dealing with the situation in the past. The point that the larger the number of people dealing with traffic routes the better is a fantastic misunderstanding of the situation. The damage to the transport system of Singapore, the whole muddle and confusion that now exist have arisen because there has been this large number of heads all representing people of different areas and all with confused views. The result has been serious inefficiency in the transport system, because there has not been a proper means of exercising control over the licensing. I do not wish to express opinions about it, but it is perfectly clear that the transport map of Singapore at present is a mess, and as long as you continue to have the present system, you will merely get more and more into a mess. Very radical steps will be needed to get the mess cleared up and to provide a satisfactory system for the future, but those steps cannot be taken immediately. They have to be prepared for and provided for. But what we can do is to set up a Licensing Authority which will ensure at least that the situation does not further deteriorate and that we do maintain as much of reason and wisdom in the allocation of routes as is possible. Mr Speaker, 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.

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

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Mr Chairman, I wish to move, At page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "Omnibus" with a capital "O" and insert "omnibus" with a small "o". This is a printer's error which should be corrected.

We will deal with that, as a typographical error.

I also wish to move, At page 1, lines 16 and 17, and at page 2, line 1, to leave out the words 'and includes an "omnibus" within the meaning of the Singapore Traction Ordinance'. This is, in fact, otiose and unnecessary and the meaning is not affected by the omission, and it is therefore desirable to have it out.

Question, "That the word proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I have to move a consequential amendment to that, At page 2, line 2, to leave out the word "that" and insert the words "the Singapore Traction". This is necessary as the previous reference to the Ordinance has gone out, and we have to make it clear what Ordinance we are referring to.

Question, "That the word proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I have to move a further amendment, At page 2, line 7, after the word "Colony", to insert the Words "and shall be deemed to include the President of the City Council".

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

Sir, I have to inform you that the Governor's consent in respect of sub- clauses (1) to (4) inclusive has been signified.

Thank you.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, At page 2, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words "such persons being public servants not exceeding three in number as may", and insert "five persons of whom three shall be public servants to". Amendment handed in.

The amendment is in order.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I have heard the Minister in charge of this Bill state that the present chaotic conditions of licensing are due to many heads with confused views representing too many people, but I believe that that is not the case. I personally feel that the chaos is due to people who, though they are dealing with licensing, know nothing about what is best for the people. I have heard that the three Government servants to be appointed are the President of the City Council, the Chairman of the Rural Board, and the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Communications and Works. They are all fine men, Sir, but I think that they all ride in cars and that whatever news they have about the convenience of using buses is only second-hand. They do not have first-hand experience, and I believe that if we leave licensing to such people alone, you might have fair licensing but you will not have efficient licensing. You may have services to which bus owners might agree, but I doubt whether these people will come to the question of making them convenient for the people using them. These three public servants must be assisted. That is the reason why I propose that amendment. We may have three good men, but let two other persons who know the difficulties of the travelling public come in and assist them. It will also give people who are outside Government service a chance to voice their opinions. I do not say that we must have people coming from political ranks. I would say no to that. They must not be people connected with politics. If my amendment is accepted, the Government is still free to appoint whom they think fit, and I feel that two more knowledgeable heads would be better than three heads who do not know anything about the conditions of the travelling public. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Sir, the hon. Member moving this amendment stated that he objected to the present Licensing Authority, which rests with the City Council and the Rural Board, because he did not think they knew enough about the condition of the people who use buses. He objects to the proposed Licensing Authority of three officials on the same ground. As I understood him he wishes that the new Authority should consist of three officials assisted by two people who presumably ride in buses. They are to be people who are not connected with politics. I should like to ask the mover of the motion how he thinks that the Government is going to choose, out of this city of many thousands of people who use buses, two people who will be in a position to give solid and considered advice covering the bus services throughout the island.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Government is always 'passing the buck' to the Opposition! The Government has always been trying to make use of the Opposition to solve their problems for them! An hon. Member: Really?

Anyway, if we can help, we will. Probably the two people might be chosen from the - An hon. Member: Opposition?

- ranks of the J.P.'s many of whom are still using buses, and J.P.'s are the people who are already trusted by Government, and the Government's choice will be narrowed down considerably.

Who chose the J.P.'s?

I do not think we can accept this amendment, Sir. It is one which has previously been considered and I have, in fact, had one or two letters from members of the public to say that they thought there might be a case for putting members of the public on this Authority. I would like to point out the extremely invidious and unpleasant position any such man would have to occupy. There is considerable money to be made out of securing a new route, and consequently a burden of coffee-shop talk does attach itself to the people who have the duty of allocating routes. It would be extremely hard on anybody not a public servant to have to bear that weight of contention when he says, "I think we should give this route and we should not give that." He has to make a choice - "I have to give it to this company and not to that company." These are painful and difficult decisions and it is an unnecessary burden to impose. To find some men to carry that burden seems to me to be unnecessary. The hon. Member envisages that these two men will be able to voice the opinions of the public, but, in fact, the public have every facility for voicing their opinions either in this Assembly or elsewhere or in the newspapers or by direct representations to the Minister dealing with transport. There is no special advantage in having their representations directly on the Authority itself. Their representations can reach the Authority quite successfully. If we put two people on, who will each necessarily reside in some particular district, to them will attach the suspicion that they are more interested in their own district than in other districts. It would expose them again to the question of doubt. These are the sort of disadvantages which would follow without any corresponding advantages in getting, in fact, any better advice than is available anyhow, and which would be fully taken into account by the various responsible and senior officers who are envisaged for the interim period as the Licensing Authority. I would remind the hon. Member that the suggestion of a public body of members of the Authority not being officers of the Government was dismissed by the Hawkins Report. Sir, I should have said in my opening speech that we have the Highways Coordination Committee already set up which has already been consulted about bus routes and bus matters and, in fact, it has expressed the greatest concern at the possibility of some of the applications now pending being granted, because it thought it might lead to a very serious deterioration in the traffic situation. This Highways Co-ordination Committee will be available and will be used for consultative purposes by the Licensing Authority when it is dealing with the problems of specific routes and whether they should be granted or not. The Highways Co-ordination Committee includes the City Council, the Rural Board, the planners of the S.I.T., the Registrar of Vehicles' Office, the Public Works Department and the Police, and thus covers effectively the wisdom of this country, such as it is, in dealing with matters of transport and road communications. I therefore regretfully say this amendment is not acceptable to the Government.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and negatived. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 -

I have to inform you, Sir, that His Excellency the Governor has given his consent for clauses 5 (2) and (3). Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 -

I have to inform you, Sir, that His Excellency the Governor has given his consent to the House to proceed with clause 11(1) (b). Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 -

Sir, I have to move, At page 5, line 39, after the word "granted", to insert the words "to the Company". This would make it clear that it is in respect of licences granted to the Traction Company and not to all companies.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, with Amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

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

I second it.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I have the consent of His Excellency the Governor, which is required under Standing Order 33 (1) (b), to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, Sir, and the regulations under it as contained in the Second Schedule deal with a very complicated and technical matter, namely, the provisions governing the awards of pensions and gratuities to members of the public service. Very detailed notes have been added to the Bill. These notes draw attention to and they explain all changes which have been made to the present law. The first and main object of this Bill, Sir, is to consolidate and bring up to date our pensions law which is now 27 years old and has been amended and needs consolidating and revising. The second main purpose of this Bill is to provide one uniform scheme of pensions and gratuities for all members of the public service of Singapore and that will do away with the invidious distinction which previously existed between those members of the public service who were on what was known as the Singapore Establishment and whose pensions and gratuities were governed by the Singapore Pensions Ordinance, and the other set of officers in the public service here who used to be on what was known as the Malayan Establishment and were on a separate series of pension regulations. In making this consolidating Bill, we have extended to all officers in the public service the pension factor of one six-hundredth (1/600th) instead of one seven-hundred-and-twentieth (1/720th)-1/600th being the factor which previously was applied to officers on the Malayan Establishment only. A number of other comparatively minor changes have been made in the Bill. They are improvements to bring the law into line with modern practice and, as Members will see from the Comparative Table printed at the very end of the Bill, we have, to a great extent, followed the legislation which was enacted in the Federation in 1951. There is one change which perhaps I should mention at this stage which is peculiar to Singapore in the sense that we are not in line with the Federation on it; and that is that we have made a change in what is known as the normal age for compulsory retirement. That at present is 55 and in this Bill, clause 9 (a) changes that for officers joining the service after this Bill has been enacted whose normal age for compulsory retirement will be 60. We have made this change, Sir, to take account of the fact that the general age of the population here has become higher than it used to be, and with the expansion of the public service we feel that the Government can no longer afford to allow officers to retire at an age when they are still capable of giving further good service to the public. The change, as I have said, will only be applied to officers joining the service after this Bill comes into force. The Bill has been under consideration for a long time and has been discussed in great detail in the Civil Service Joint Council, and the Staff Side of that Council have accepted the Bill and the regulations as they are printed, subject only to one reservation. That reservation is that the Staff Side reserve the right at a later date to make representations asking for an option to retire to be given to officers at 45, whereas now it is 50. The Staff Side are not, at the moment, pressing that point but they wish to be free to raise it later should they so decide, and in the meanwhile they do not wish the enacting of this Bill to be delayed on that account. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we note the statement of the Hon. the Chief Secretary that the Staff Side of the Civil Service has accepted the Bill with the reservation that they can make representations as to the optional age of retirement. I wish to place on record the point of view of my Party that, with rapid Malayanisation of the civil service, it becomes more and more imperative that experienced local officers should stay in the service for a much longer time than they were previously allowed. But at the same time it may be in the interest of the country as a whole if the recommendations of the Committee on the Age of Retirement, which were published on 19th September, 1952, were given careful consideration, and enacted in an amendment to this Bill. This Committee's Report at page 7 says: "(a) that an officer be allowed to retire on pension, and that the Government be allowed to require him so to retire, when, or after, he reaches the age of 45, or completes 20 years in the public service, whichever is the later; provided that at the age of 50 it should be possible for him to retire or be retired irrespective of length of service; (b) that, subject to the provisions of paragraph (c) below, the age of 55 shall continue to be the age at which Government officers will normally retire;". Mr Speaker, Sir, we are in agreement with the principles set out in clause 9 of the Bill that the normal age of retirement henceforth for officers who join the service after the passing of this Bill be raised to 60. It may seem inconsistent that we should support the recommendation contained in the Committee's Report that there should be an optional age of retirement for serving officers of 45 or after 20 years' service, whichever is the later. But one must consider the problem historically. Sometime before the war the Government first, I think, in the 1930's began to recruit local officers in the civil service. It meant, in effect, that the most capable, the best educated and those with the greatest capacity to contribute to the political development of this country joined the civil service. By British traditions, the civil service is neutral. It is there - the bureaucratic machinery that politicians can mount and operate. But in the Federation of Malaya they discovered very early on that, unless this rule was relaxed, it meant that a large number of capable men would be debarred from giving a much bigger contribution by having a hand in the shaping of the political future of the country. When this Committee made this recommendation, I feel that such considerations must have weighed on its mind. It is an open secret that there are many serving officers, both in the Federation and in Singapore, who are men who could contribute more to the political development of this country than the host of politicians that have so far presented themselves before the electorate of this country. We therefore wish to place on record our hope that in the not too distant future, after further discussions and consultations between the Government and the Staff Side Council, an amendment to this Bill, when it is passed, will be put before this House incorporating the main recommendations of this Committee. Mr Goode rose -

Mr Chief Secretary, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have indicated, the question of introducing an optional retirement at an earlier age is not prejudiced by the passing of this Bill, except in so far as it will be necessary to make an amendment to the law in order to bring it about. I am somewhat flattered, I think, by the suggestion that the People's Action Party is going to have to come to the Government service in order to get some people of better calibre into its ranks; but, at the same time, we will, of course, have to weigh up against the advantage that I know that would have for the body politic the disadvantage that it might have if we lost too many of the key, good, efficient men in the public service in order to strengthen the political Parties.

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

Committee stage, what day?

6th June, Sir.

I think it is a convenient time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at 2.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 11.58 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's permission for this motion to be proceeded with. I will read, Sir, a few passages from the Washington Declaration: "We are conscious that in this year of 1956, there still rages the age-old struggle between those who believe that man has his origin and his destiny in God and those who treat man as if he were designed merely to serve a State machine. Hence, we deem it useful to declare again certain truths and aims upon which we are united and which we are persuaded are supported by all free nations. Because of our belief that the State should exist for the benefit of the individual and not the individual for the benefit of the State, we uphold the basic right of peoples to governments of their own choice. These beliefs of ours are far more than theory or doctrine. They have been translated into the actual conduct of our policy both domestic and foreign. We are parties to the Atlantic Charter, the United Nations Charter, the Potomac Charter, and the Pacific Charter. In them we have, with other friends, dedicated ourselves to the goal of self-government and independence of all countries whose people desire and are capable of sustaining an independent existence. During the past 10 and more years 600 million men and women in nearly a score of lands have, with our support and assistance, attained nationhood. Many millions more are being helped surely and steadily toward self-government. Thus, the reality and effectiveness of what we have done is a proof of our sincerity. Further, we know that political independence cannot alone assure men and nations full opportunity to pursue happiness and to fulfil their highest destiny. There is, likewise, need for economic sustenance and growth. This, too, we have helped to provide. We seek to develop with others a large volume of mutually beneficial trade. Likewise we seek, through technical assistance, the Colombo Plan and other programmes we support, to help economic progress in the less developed countries and to raise the living standards of their peoples. In these programmes we have not sought nor desired extension of either economic or political power. The purpose is not to dilute but to enrich and secure their freedom. While resolutely pursuing these aims, which are the products of our faith in God and in the peoples of the earth, we shall eagerly grasp any genuine opportunity to free mankind of the pall of fear and insecurity which now obscures what can and should be a glorious future. DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER ANTHONY EDEN." It is in these sonorous terms, Sir, that two great leaders of the free world have shown their understanding of the cry of subjugated people for freedom and have promised their unselfish aid and support - moral and material. In the context of this Declaration, Sir, Singapore's struggle is but part of a world pattern accepted as natural, as healthy and even as praiseworthy. There is therefore no need to explain why we want independence and no need to explain to these statesmen why we want freedom, but the Prime Minister and the President have made it clear that their support and assistance is conditional on two factors. The first is that the people desire an independent existence. Sir, prior to Merdeka Week, I freely admit that I was genuinely alarmed at assertions made in very responsible quarters that the people of Singapore wanted to pursue their normal vocations and were not interested in political advance and that the call of Merdeka came from a strident minority of intellectuals. It seemed to me, Sir, that such a view could have very dangerous repercussions for Singapore. It then seemed to me that it was vital that we should impress upon all observers who could influence the Colonial Office of the truth, and this had to be done before the 23rd. We have seen in other parts of the world and we see today the tragic cost of wisdom after the event. We wanted none of this wisdom after the event and I would like to say for myself, Sir, I am deeply grateful to all Parties in this House, and to the majority of the Press, for recognising the peril and awakening the people of Singapore to the dangers. Despite a sectional campaign of vilification, distortion and sometimes plain filth, the deep swell of the people's wish came through the smokescreen clearly and firmly and I am glad to say that I have not since heard any single responsible person deny that the great majority of the people of Singapore actively desire an end to colonial rule. Sir, that first condition of the Washington Declaration can therefore be taken to be admittedly satisfied. The second condition is that the people are capable of sustaining an independent existence. In the Colonial Office, this is transformed into that famous three-word question before which every colonial delegation trembles. The question is, "Are you viable?" That means merely, Sir, "Are you capable of surviving economically without any special external economic assistance?" and the answer for Singapore is "Definitely, yes!" It is true, Sir, we receive assistance, for which we are grateful, from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. We receive some assistance from the Colombo Plan. They are helpful but they are not essential to our economy. We go to London, Sir, to seek the gift of our freedom. We go to seek no gift of money, either in subsidy or in interest free loan or under any other name whatsoever. Singapore financially undertakes to stand on its own feet. The second condition of the Washington Declaration, signed but two months ago by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, is therefore fulfilled and we can now truthfully say to the United Kingdom Government, "Singapore is a ripe opportunity for the exercise of those noble, humanitarian principles embodied in the Washington Declaration. Help us to our feet." Now, Sir, the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) says, "What is this freedom?" It is independence we seek. That is absolute. It is independence within the British Commonwealth, and that is no qualification of the absolute as the Prime Minister of India has so clearly demonstrated. Why do we want to be within the Commonwealth? Sir, the Commonwealth is a United Nations within the United Nations - a more flexible instrument for co-operation because there is no constitution; a more efficient instrument because the close day-to-day relations of the individual members make for a practical partnership. The over-emphasis on European interests is progressively disappearing and the concept of the Commonwealth is emerging as the most powerful instrument for peace and freedom in the world of today. Furthermore, let us remember, we who survive by virtue of our trading activities, that our trade is appreciably within the Commonwealth. Singapore is prepared to contribute in full measure to the defence requirements of the Commonwealth. Singapore would welcome an equal opportunity to contribute to the Commonwealth's policies Singapore, Sir, would be proud to be a partner with the other independent States within this association known as the Commonwealth. Having reached this formula, Sir, of independence within the Commonwealth as the framework of our own desires, we must look at the vital interests of other territories in this area. We do recognise that Singapore is a very important fort in the defence strategy of the Commonwealth and its allied nations of the free world. This is known, and quite erroneously, as the problem of the external defence of Singapore. I say quite erroneously, Sir, because it has nothing whatever to do with the defence of Singapore as such. The primary factor is the defence of the other members of the Commonwealth and the allied nations from Singapore and not the defence of Singapore. Now, Sir, having clarified this concept of external defence, the question does arise: should Singapore concede to the Commonwealth the right to use this island as a fort? We are realists - I hope all of us - and, as realists, we first face the brutal facts and the outstanding one is that we could not refuse it even if we wanted to. As a reasonable people, we face realities and accept them. This is the reality we must face: that Singapore is vital to the free world strategy to a point that makes it unreasonable and impractical to refuse its use as a fort. In these circumstances, I understand all Parties are agreed that we should allow the Commonwealth through the United Kingdom the fullest facilities for their defence needs. Sir, I would like to add this for myself, for some Members on the Government Benches and I trust for some Members on the Opposition Benches. There are other reasons both moral and material which support this decision. There are those of us, and of them I am one, who believe with all our hearts that the institution of parliamentary democracy is the finest political institution for the full development of the people. We believe it is an institution worth fighting and worth dying for. We believe Singapore should take its place shoulder to shoulder with the other States of the Commonwealth and the free world in any armed struggle to defend the ideals of freedom and parliamentary democracy. We also believe that Singapore should shoulder the obligations as well as the privileges of its unique geographical position and finally, Sir, it may seem sordid but it is an important point, I would remind Members of the House that one-sixth of our labour force is employed by the armed forces and the contribution of the armed forces to our economy is quite considerable. Therefore, Sir, whether we approach this problem as practical men only or whether we approach it as practical and moral men, the answer is the same. We are all agreed that concurrently with independence, we will give all necessary control for United Kingdom defence commitments. This agreement I understand all Parties are prepared to undertake to honour. Now, Sir, external defence is to some extent affected by external relations and by internal security. In the realm of external relations, we seek for Singapore the right of full relations with other States both within and without the Commonwealth - the right to appoint ambassadors and High Commissioners, in fact, the full right of an independent territory - and we are agreed that where action in the realm of external affairs affects the external defence commitments of the United Kingdom, we shall act in consultation with Her Majesty's Government. Sir, let there be no misunderstanding on that. In matters of peace and war, in all major matters which affect the external defence commitments of the Commonwealth, we are prepared to agree to accept the advice of Her Majesty's Government and to follow it. The other question, Sir, which has been actively occupying our minds is the question of internal security and especially two aspects of it. The first aspect is: to what extent the Government of Singapore which wants inde- pendence can be said to be able to maintain internal security with its own forces. Now, Sir, since the war, we have had a really delightful arrangement with the Federation. By this arrangement, the Federation raises all the military forces necessary for Malaya's defence purposes and Singapore raises all the naval forces necessary for the defence of the coast of Malaya. I trust that I need not remind Members of this House that Malaya includes Singapore. Sir, this arrangement has worked exclusively for the benefit of the Federation. The Federation has a Federation Regiment which is being used only in the Federation and we on our part are spending many millions of dollars every year on a Navy employing 84 per cent Federation subjects whose operational duties are almost wholly in Federation waters for Federation purposes. We receive no payment at all for these services. It can therefore be seen that we have no regular army units. We have a part-time trained Singapore Military Force. We have a particularly costly Navy beyond our immediate needs and of little value for internal security purposes and we have a well-trained Police Force of some six thousand persons. I am advised, Sir, and this I am prepared to believe, that this is inadequate for the maintenance of order in the event of an organised and maliciously directed major outburst of violence. In the light of this advice, the Government is proceeding apace with the establishment of an operational Singapore Battalion by the 1st of April, 1957; and let me say this, Sir, I am told that even that may be difficult. We would be quite ready to raise two Battalions if that were possible within the time. Even with that additional Battalion, which is expected to be operational in April, 1957, we are advised that it would be a matter of prudence for us to enter into arrangements whereby the Government of Singapore can call upon Her Majesty's Forces for assistance in the event of our Forces being inadequate for the restoration of internal security. We are very ready to enter into any arrangement of that character, but it seems that there is a possibility that the United Kingdom may not be prepared to give military assistance in the event of complete breakdown of internal security unless it has some control over the normal conduct of internal security in this area. Frankly, Sir, our view of the matter is very simple. To cede any control over internal security is to make a mockery of independence. We are or we are not free and if Her Majesty's Government insists on control over our internal security Forces, the Labour Front will be no party to any agreement that may be arrived at. The other facet of this question, Sir, is that the Armed Forces may well desire some form of guarantee that the external defence installations and the arrangements for external defence efficacy would not be prejudiced by a serious deterioration of the internal security position. Sir, this question is under very active consideration by Members of this House forming the All-Party Delegation and by our Constitutional Adviser and I can say that we are hopeful that some acceptable formula can be arrived at. I do wish it understood, Sir, that the people of Singapore go to this Constitutional Conference in a spirit of utmost reasonableness prepared to seek what is just for all parties and not only what is right for us. I have outlined, Sir, broadly, the framework of our aspirations worked out with full consideration for the interests of the United Kingdom as we know it, for it must be understood that apart from an abortive attempt made from Switzerland for a better understanding of Colonial Office attitude on some of the issues, I have not been in touch with the Colonial Office either directly or indirectly and when we do meet in London, we must anticipate that there will be a contribution of ideas from the Colonial Office which may materially affect our thinking on the approach to the problem of protecting United Kingdom interests within the framework of our desire for an end to colonial rule. In essence, Sir, the answer to the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) is that we seek full legislative autonomy and equality in status with other independent members of the Commonwealth. We seek an end to Official Members of the Council, an end to Official and Nominated Members of the Assembly and an end to all the Governor's veto powers. In fact, Sir, under the type of constitution we envisage, there will be no Governor. Her Majesty's representative will have only the decorative and necessary functions associated with the monarchy under parliamentary rule. Sir, there is one other aspect of our talks in London on which I wish to touch. It is a matter that has been hovering like a small but persistent cloud on the political horizon since first we took office. I refer to the citizenship question. I think the House is aware that the Labour Front considers that there can be no true democracy unless there is an honourable solution of the citizenship problem. It is our hope that the issue of citizenship will be solved by the creation of a single Singapore nationality by the Singapore Independent Act which we seek from the United Kingdom to establish our freedom. The House is aware of the firm assurances of my hon. Friend the leader of the Alliance that he would support provisions for a single Singapore citizenship. Nevertheless, Sir, there does exist the possibility that the provision for citizenship will be manoeuvred out of the main constitutional talks and should that occur, Sir, I give the House this assurance: that the Labour Front Ministers as Ministers of the Singapore Government will press in London and, later, in Singapore, for a clear and early finalisation of this issue whatever the political cost. Sir, perhaps it will be appropriate at this juncture to deal with some of the objections and with some of the arguments we have heard advanced against the fulfilment of our aspirations. We who are here are Malayans and it may well be that these objections will not find voice or sufficient expression of a stridency which they do find outside, but I think it is important that the people of Malaya should know what the objections are and that the people of Singapore should know what the answers are. The first one I will take, Sir, is one that is beloved of Colonel Blimp. It goes something like this: "Singapore was a swamp with a few malarial fisherfolk. We bought it. We paid for it. We own it. With our brains and capital, we made it one of the greatest ports in the world and if you do not like it, you can take a running jump to the land of your forefathers." Sir, the principal element in the growth of Singapore is its geographical position at a time of increasing trade between East and West, and not even Blimp has suggested that the colonial power should take credit for Singapore being where it is or for the opening up of trade between West and East. The second main element of Singapore's growth is the amazing adaptability, mercantile acumen and vitality of our people and here, Sir, it would be dishonest not to concede, and we concede freely, that British administrative traditions, British commercial acumen and British capital played a key role in the commercial development of this port; but to seek to hog the whole credit is a shameless perversion of the truth - the truth of magnificent co-operative effort between the various races, both Eastern and Western, resident in this island for more than a century. Sir, even if this were not so, even if it were not that Singapore's prosperity is due to no single race but to practical and harmonious partnership between different races, and even if one could accept the legalistic concept that Singapore is owned by the United Kingdom, I would remind Members that one can own land but one does not own human beings. Colonialism may have been adequate at a time when all were equally transients. Today when we have more than a million domiciled inhabitants, it is utterly untenable. Colonialism in such circumstances, Sir, corrupts the ruler and warps the ruled. Having referred to Blimp, Sir, I think it would be appropriate to take cognizance, by way of contrast, of a group of responsible British mercantile men who have written to me and agreed to the publication of their letter indicating that they consider the interests of British capital and British community in Singapore are identical with the interests of the people of Singapore. This is the first gesture of goodwill and understanding on the part of this very important community and I welcome it as one welcomes the first flowers of Spring; for let this be clearly understood: the British community may be transients; British capital is not transient. British capital has played a vital role in the development of Singapore and it has a vital role to play in the future development of Singapore. We need the activities of British capital and British capital needs the outlet of facilities of Singapore. We can both benefit, and benefit richly, if there is statesmanlike acceptance of the realities and genuine desire for friendly and honest co-operation. Sir, may I take the opportunity of expressing the hope that today at least Mr Sutherland, who has been appointed to represent British capital in this Assembly, will be equal to his opportunity and will be adequate to interpret this new spirit infusing the British community when he approaches the issues involved in this motion? Another objection, Sir, which we have heard is that Singapore is too small to be an independent territory. Researches of our constitutional advisers, Sir, have proved that Singapore will learn, when our memorandum to the Secretary of State is published, that Singapore can proudly take its place as an elder brother to many of the independent States who are members of the United Nations today, older in the status of population and income. Still another objection, Sir, is that the true destiny of Singapore is as part of the concept of the great Malayan nation and that we should not seek independence - an independence without meaning - outside that concept. I think this House is aware that the people and the Government of Singapore have since last August repeatedly shown their realisation that only unity between the Federation and Singapore can bring into being a truly great Malayan nation and that without such unity, there is grave danger to the very survival of both entities. I would like to make this clear, Sir. We have both officially and informally repeatedly suggested to the Government of the Federation that urgent consideration should be given to the question of a merger so necessary for the healthy growth of both units, but consideration has been as repeatedly postponed first on the ground that Singapore as a strategic base would never achieve independence and could only be a drag on the Federation which was seeking its own independence and now, Sir, on the ground that the issue would delay and complicate the recommendations of the Commission on the Federation's future constitution. We, who represent the people of Singapore in this House, are deeply conscious of the elemental truth that neither territory can go far along separate ways and that in unity we have the potential of a nation of strength and stature. Also as practical men, we say we cannot await the pleasure of the Federation before we seek an end to colonial rule. Our desire for a merger is concurrent but subordinate to our desire for freedom from colonialism. One does not conflict with the other and if we do achieve independence, we shall still be hoping that the Federation will be equal to the rich opportunities which today's circumstances offer. An objection of more substance, Sir, that seems to find an echo amongst some of our people is that Singapore is pursuing the goal of independence at far too rapid a pace. I do appreciate the courtesy of our opponents in not reminding the Labour Front that our Four Year Programme calls for self-government within four years but we, Sir, who never seek to shirk the truth, are conscious of that and being conscious we say in all sincerity, "Today, we know, delay could be, would be, fatal." Since coming to office, Sir, we have learned that the problem of Communism is of a far graver and more pressing character than we understood as citizens, that Communism is utilising the mask of nationalism in order to gain support and through this technique is endangering the very existence of the people of this island. We have learned that you cannot ask a subject people to assist the colonial power to exterminate Communism. We of the Labour Front-Alliance Government have for twelve months been bedevilled in having to divide our energies between the struggle for an end of colonial rule and the struggle against the true enemy of the people - the Communists. In such division of effort, Sir, lies failure. Experience has taught us also that it is in the highest degree unwise to use the Oliver Twist technique of taking a little and being ready to go back for more. That way lies instability, and political instability in this territory is the very meat of Communism and is the very poison, Sir, of our commercial existence. We have been reminded of this by the outgoing President of the Singapore Chamber of Commerce but he did not indicate the way to stability. Maybe the way, and the only way that any honest man can see, was one that was unpalatable to him. We believe, Sir, that stable conditions can only be achieved if there is an end to our struggle with the United Kingdom and if there is an honourable agreement for the foreseeable future guiding our relations. It is only if we can feel, "This is it. This is the end of our struggle", that we can turn round and move forward as a free people united firmly in the will to survive against the leprous forces of this foreign ideology we call Communism. That is the only hope, Sir, to stability and the time is now. There are those who say. "Go slow." Sir, when the embryo in the egg grows to the point of being ready to peck its way through to the free world and fresh air, does it make any sense to say. "Go slow, little chicken. Stay a few more days there. Grow stronger and bigger so that you can better meet the wicked weather of this world"? To go slow in those circumstances would mean death. To stay longer in that egg would mean suffocation. Unless, Sir, the people of Singapore can, in the words of Mr Nehru, "savour the sensation of freedom", the time will be too late to call upon them for that mass dynamic effort to meet the peril that is already within our gates. It is not the bullets of the armed forces that will save us from Communism. It is only the spirit of the people and you can only have that spirit if the people are free. So, Sir, though in our humility we have originally envisaged four years for self-government, we say, "After twelve months' experience, in all sincerity, today is not too soon for independence." In fact, Sir, the brutal truth is that today may be too late. Sir, I have earlier indicated what I consider to have been the very valuable activities of the public-spirited people of Singapore during Merdeka Week. One aspect of Merdeka Week, however, Sir, has brought to light an objection that was till then dormant. The disorderly conduct of a small crowd at the end of the rally of the 18th of March has been so exaggerated, so repeatedly played up in an able Press campaign that it has transformed the incident into fantastic proportions with considerable psychological repercussions. Sections of minority races in Singapore who till then were happy to envisage the possibility of an early end to colonialism have been whipped up to a pitch of fear of possible subjugation by the Chinese people. As one man put it, Sir, "If freedom means the rule of the majority, you are going to replace the arrogance of the Englishman by the arrogance of the Chinese. What do we benefit? We prefer the devil we know to the devil we do not know." Sir, an insidious part of this campaign has been to associate the dangers of Communism with the natural predominance of the Chinese in a democracy. Sir, the minority races are, in fact, somewhat confused as to what they fear. It is a composite picture of fearing what one man called, "Peking Merdeka". Sir, in every democratic country, there are minorities and the protection of minority rights is inherent in the very concept of democracy. Sometimes, such protection is incorporated in a constitution. At other times, it is just understood, Sir. It is part of the very breath of that concept of political institutions we call "parliamentary democracy". For democracy does not merely mean the rule of the majority. It means the rule of the majority taking full consideration of the needs and the interests of all minority races. Merdeka does not mean, Sir, and it can never mean, the replacement of English arrogance by Chinese arrogance, English rule by Chinese rule. Merdeka means the replacement of English rule by our own rule, the rule of the people of Singapore of whom the majority are Chinese, and we can naturally expect that they will be prominent and predominant in shaping the policies of Government. It is very wrong, Sir, to assume that our Chinese fellow- citizens would find the wine of power so heady as to go berserk and seek the destruction of legitimate minority interests. It is wrong not to give our fellow-citizens the credit for the very real virtues which they possess. It is true, Sir, that in the past few months, there has been greater prominence placed on certain unhappy aspects of the activities of small sections of our country's population but let us recognise that, for generations, the Chinese have had a very raw deal. I am of a minority race through centuries, Sir. I can recognise and feel for discriminatory treatment towards minority races and my heart feels and understands the bitterness in the hearts of the Chinese who have for generations received discriminatory minority race treatment in this territory. This is the heritage of decades but when they receive full recognition, full participation in government and when, in fact, they find that they are largely responsible for the conduct of the government, I believe that there will flower not Chinese arrogance but the Chinese virtues of reasonableness and of justice. The Chinese are a vital race and they have a great deal to contribute to the future. We should rather look forward to the flowering of their virtues in common with other races in this territory under the just reign of a parliamentary democracy. Sir, the only argument of any validity which I have heard is that in normal times my analysis of the development of the Chinese community in Singapore might be right but today we are going through an abnormal period of militant Communist expansion rampant in Asia viewing Singapore as the ideal point for further expansion in South-East Asia and, in these conditions, we can expect heavy pressure of indoctrination on local citizens for subversive Communist purposes and that, in these circumstances, we can expect tactics to maintain bitterness, to maintain and sharpen inter-racial antagonism and to prevent consolidation of Chinese loyalty and co-operation to the land. It is argued that Communists are never in the majority when they take power but act as a well-disciplined minority. Their technique is to mislead workers, peasants and students, to work up discontent and chaos and then by surprise action to seek to slit the throat of democracy and take over control and once in control, Sir, that is the end of human liberties; for though one can turn out the Progressive Party - one might even hope to turn out the Labour Front Coalition Government - once a Communist or a Communist-camouflaged Party is in power, there are no more elections and all is tyranny. I will not deny, Sir, that that is the danger. It is a very real danger but it is not a danger which we can escape by refusing to grow. It is not a danger we can escape by remaining a Colony. It is a danger we can overcome only if the people of Singapore can act as a united, intelligent and loyal group, and this includes the Chinese people as well as all minority races. We must act as one to preserve our freedom and the heritage of our children. This is our danger. This is also our opportunity and a wonderful and dynamic opportunity; for in the face of this danger, we must be conscious that we either produce a united people with full co-operation between all races, with full trust between all races and complete loyalty of all races to Singapore, or we perish. If we succeed, Sir, we might well make this small point on the map of the world the centre of a new stabilising force for the whole of Asia. One cannot live, Sir, unless one has faith in life, faith in the future and faith in one's capacity to overcome the myriad dangers that human beings must face. Sir, I hate colonialism. I have lived under it all my life and I hate Communism because I hate colonialism and because Communism is a more vicious and more brutal concept of colonialism. If I thought that independence would bring about the tyranny of Communism in this territory, I would fight Merdeka. I do say, Sir, I believe that it is through Merdeka that there is any hope of reaching safety and I say to the people of Singapore - all races - that we must have faith in ourselves. We must have faith in the future. This is the road of life, Sir, the road of natural growth through freedom with all its dangers and with all its opportunities and the road lies through Merdeka. Sir, I move, That this Assembly affirms, in the name of the people of Singapore, its belief in the principle of "the basic right of peoples to governments of their own choice", as enunciated in the Washington Declaration signed by Sir ANTHONY EDEN, Prime Minister of the the United Kingdom, and President EISENHOWER President of the United States of America, on the 1st of February, 1956; And its belief that the long term welfare of Singapore lies in close and friendly co-operation with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth territories; Therefore the Assembly instructs its All-Party Delegation to the forthcoming Constitutional Talks in London to seek forthwith for Singapore the status of an independent territory within the Commonwealth, and to offer an agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Singapore Government whereby the Government of the United Kingdom would in respect of Singapore exercise control over external defence and give guidance in foreign relations other than trade and commerce.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion which stands in the name of the Chief Minister. In doing so, I hope he will forgive me if I make this introductory observation. There are two parts in this motion: the preamble which itself consists of two parts - the affirmation of the principle enunciated in Washington, and the other, the belief that our future lies with the British Commonwealth - and what I would call the operative part - "Therefore the Assembly instructs its All-Party Delegation to the forthcoming Constitutional Talks in London to seek forthwith for Singapore the status of an independent territory within the Commonwealth, and to offer an agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Singapore Government whereby the Government of the United Kingdom would in respect of Singapore exercise control over external defence and give guidance in foreign relations other than trade and commerce." Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe that my freedom is a matter for argument and that I must justify why I must be free. I am interested to know that Dwight D. Eisenhower and Sir Anthony Eden, Knight of the Garter, have reaffirmed the right of all peoples to self-determination. My approach to the problem and the approach of my Party is a straightforward and practical one. If you confront the British Government with an alternative more unpleasant than the one you ask of them, then the chances are that you will get the less unpleasant alternative. Freedom is the birthright of all peoples everywhere in this world. Because my forefathers migrated for purely selfish economic reasons to what they call the South Seas, a whole generation of some two million Chinese are today left in Malaya with Malaya as their only home and, necessarily thereby, the sole object of their loyalty. The generation that I belong to grew up under British colonial rule. It is always easy to say, "Let us forget the past. After all, that was colonialism. It was a mistake. Now, let us get together and let us be friends." Commendable sentiment, Sir, and one to which I would subscribe if I found that there was sufficient sincerity on the other side. If I believe that the British are no longer interested in either economic, political or military advantages to themselves more than to me, then there would be a basis for friendly, comradely cooperation. That is the problem which faces Britain and the people of Singapore and Malaya. When all the high-sounding words have died down, one has to search one's conscience and say, "Am I happier this way or that way?" Speaking for my Party, I do not think that we have the slightest doubt that we are happier if British control were gone. I would have thought myself that the first part of the preamble would have embarrassed the British Prime Minister. It was only recently that the constitution of British Guiana was suspended. It was said that there, a great error had been made; that, in fact, self-determination is only possible where you have an educated and an enlightened electorate and not where you have largely an uneducated mass of people incapable of thinking for themselves but led by political extremists. I shall come back to that point at a later stage, Sir, As to the second half which reads: "And its belief that the long term welfare of Singapore lies in close and friendly cooperation with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth territories;", I think it is safe to say that no country in Asia or indeed any part of the world, unless it is the United States of America or the Soviet Union, can stand by itself and pursue a completely independent policy. We live in an age where balance of power in the old sense of the word has been modified into balance of regional power groups. The British Commonwealth is such a power group and as long as it is to the interest of countries like India, Pakistan and Ceylon to stay within the British Commonwealth, then it might be to our interest to be part of this co-operative experimental enterprise. Of course, there were the cynics who, when India got her independence and stayed within the Commonwealth, said that it was not without an eye to the large sterling balances then owing by the United Kingdom to the Indian Government. I would like to believe that the Indian leaders honestly and sincerely felt that perhaps the old world concept of narrow, rigid nationalistic boundaries and racialistic approaches should slowly give way to a wider and more liberal, a more humane and satisfying fellowship of all men. The British Commonwealth is perhaps unique in the history of empires in that it did not crumble into dust and break away into its component parts when the centrifugal force broke down. If there had not been World War II, if there had not been the Japanese occupation, a lot of things that we talk about today would not have happened. The old pattern broke down after the end of the Second World War. The astonishing thing is that even though the power which governs by force is gone, a new pattern of that empire, perhaps at this stage an amorphous concept, has somehow emerged. For us in Singapore, or even if we were to add the Federation; for us in Malaya, it is not possible to make any decisive changes in the course of history in South-East Asia. There are bigger, larger and more decisive forces than Malayan nationalism. But one thing is certain. We cannot survive by ourselves in the international world unless we also belong to some group. It may well be that, like Siam, we can play off one side against the other and always trust to the United Nations Security Council to prevent either of the two big power blocs from toppling us on to their side irrevocably. But for the time being, as long as some 300 million Indians find that it is an advantage to remain within the British Commonwealth, there is no reason why seven million Malayans should not continue on a friendly basis the associations of trade and commerce and other cultural activities that have existed for over a hundred years between us and the British. All this, of course, presupposes that after April, we will get a constitutional advance. I hope we will. There are three things that the British Government can do: meet us the whole way, meet us somewhere along the way, or not budge at all. Taking the three alternatives in the reverse order, if they do not budge at all: the Hon. the Chief Minister has already indicated that he does not propose to stay in office. In other words, the British Government must be prepared to revoke the constitution and run Singapore once again as a Crown colony in every sense of the word. The long-term consequences - I would not say the immediate conse- quences, for those can be controlled and contained - of such a policy would be catastrophic to the British. Whether it would be equally catastrophic to Malaya depends upon one's point of view, whether one believes in "revolution" as used by Marxists or whether one believes in revolution as used by Laski. I prefer, not because I am incapable of warlike activities, the evolutionary approach. It is less painful and everybody feels a little bit better about it when it is all over. I do not believe for one moment that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is completely ignorant of the underlying political situation in Malaya and, therefore, I am personally convinced that it would take a lot of other secret considerations before the British Government says, "No, and absolutely no!" As for the other two alternatives, if one were to put them in the balance, the logical conclusion is that the British Government will find it wise to meet us all along the way. To meet us part of the way would just sour any possible political kudos that might be obtained from a graceful withdrawal. I do not think any country in the world can more gracefully withdraw from an already untenable position than the British. I think they understand, and I hope the six prominent gentlemen from the British House of Commons will help the others to understand, that this is almost "an already untenable position". Sir, my Party manifesto says, "We believe in immediate independence." Perhaps the Hon. the Chief Minister will forgive me if I spend a few minutes in explaining to the House why the P.A.P. has apparently departed from this stand. So many things have happened in Singapore since the elections held in March last year that sometimes one feels that one has lived through a decade, not just a year. One thing is fairly certain. No individual political force is in control in Malaya. The British when they put in the Rendel Constitution believed, and they thought they were right in believing, that it would lead to a mild, gradual phasing of the different stages of evolution towards this very desirable state of self-government. Sir, the P.A.P. took the lid off the last elections and out popped the Labour Front. Sir, in this three-cornered fight that is going on in Malaya - the British, the Communists and the Nationalists - the position will not be re-patterned if the British freeze the constitution. It is a simple problem if one approaches it from the local man's point of view. Every time the Communist fights the British, the Nationalist says to himself, "Ah, good, that will weaken him and perhaps I will come in." Every time the Nationalist gives the British one hard knock, the Communist says, "Good show. That will knock him out. Then I will come in." As long as the British are here the common target, the common foe are the British. It is not possible to face the question "What Malaya are we going to have?" The immediate question is, "Can we get rid of the British?" A very eminent old gentleman who was knighted by the British Government and who is still very much alive once told me in an unguarded moment, which might have cost him the revocation of his knighthood if he had been overheard, "I don't like the Communists but every time they beat the British, I say 'Good, I have got a better chance to win now.'" It is the most natural sentiment, the most natural reaction when you are fighting a common foe. When the British fought the Germans, they were great friends with Marshal Stalin and they fought the Germans together. I say that if such a situation goes on much longer, the outcome will be victory to the local force that is more tightly organised to seize power. Eventually a point will be reached where, like the French in Indo China, the Colony is no longer worthwhile, and then they say. "Well, let us call a halt to it" and, as in Indo-China, the Communist Party being the most tightly organised group naturally took the leadership. There have been two patterns of development in South-East Asia since the war. One is the Indian pattern and the other is the Indo-Chinese pattern. In the Indian pattern, you had a nationalist group there leading the fight against the British long before the Indian Communist Party ever came into being. They had the initiative. They had the organisation. They had attracted all the men with the guts and the ability and the desire for freedom. When the time came, they were able to assume power as of right, for power is not a counter to be bargained for and handed over. Power is something to be fought for and won. If you have the wherewithal to take it and to run it, nothing will stop you. The difficulty for Malaya is that, unlike India, there was a Communist movement some thirty years before the first spark of nationalism spread and caught fire. That is the problem which we face today in Malaya, not just in Singapore, though some people in the Federation might wish to believe that the situation in the Federation is something different. It is a situation which is endemic. Sir, my Party believes in an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya: independent, because we want to get rid of the British or anybody else who wants to run this country; democratic, because we want to elect our leaders by popular and free elections; non-Communist, because we want free elections, not a choice on a straight one-Party ticket, and because we do not want to be involved in a fight between two world power blocs and power ideologies. To a certain extent, it might be termed an escapist philosophy. It may be that ultimately one has to choose. The time may come. When it does, perhaps India will have to opt, and when India opts, I think the whole of South-East Asia will opt with her. The destiny of Malaya will be determined more by forces outside Malaya than by forces inside Malaya. No one could have foreseen after the war the tremendous change that would occur when the Imperial powers disappeared from Asia. No one could have foreseen the emergence of a tightly organised and effective China. No one could have believed that within ten years of the end of the war, the British Government would decide that the time had come for a radical change of policy. It took them a long time to decide this. They tried General Templer first. Sir, I may be wrong in my appraisal of the situation. I may be wrong in believing that the British have weighed the situation and have decided that the best way to meet such a situation is to remove themselves from the Malayan political arena. If I am wrong, then I have no choice and then it becomes a straightforward fight between the British versus the rest. But if I am right in my appraisal of the situation, that if the British have decided that in any event they will lose and they would rather lose to those who might carry on the liberal forms of government which the Chief Minister referred to as parliamentary democracy, then, if we can provide that other force, I think British interest -

And our interest.

- and, I hope our interest demand that the British remove themselves. Sir, this proviso - "...to offer an agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Singapore Government whereby the Government of the United Kingdom would in respect of Singapore exercise control over external defence and give guidance in foreign relations..." is an euphemistic way of saying that we realise the British will not give us complete independence because then it would mean upsetting international arrangements and international bases in the world defence strategy. Instead of going the whole distance, we therefore go part of the distance towards independence. But I must say this: no self-respecting Nationalist can say that that would be a satisfactory state of affairs for any length of time. I do not know about Oliver Twist. I never liked Charles Dickens. But I do know this. As a step towards independence and to seek common ground with every political Party in this House, we join in this demand that we should have the status of an independent State conceding or offering an agreement whereby we lose control of foreign affairs and defence. This can only be a phase. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. No man can formally postulate that you will be always not quite a full man. There are forces in Asia more powerful than the British. It is my hope that all the Nationalist groups in Singapore and Malaya will be alive to the identity of their common interests and will together, not as an independent Singapore and an independent Federation but together, as one unit, seek, in the not too distant future, that complete nationhood. Either you fight for that, or else you give up the struggle. After April, we will probably have a new constitution. It will probably be one which can be revoked - a revocable constitution - but the change that will take place in the mind of the people of Singapore is an irrevocable one, just as the change that took place with the Rendel Constitution was an irrevocable change. The astonishing thing about political events in Singapore is that very few realise at the time they happen the full significance of the events. The Progressive Party did not know nor did they imagine that when they gave way to adult suffrage and automatic registration, it meant political suicide for a small English educated middle-class-based Party, and I do not think this House, when it agreed to multi-lingualism, really understood that there was a permanent change in the whole concept of government in this country.

Flatter yourself.

Sir, I have a great regard for the agility and versatility of our illustrious Chief Minister. I am quite sure he understands that it is a very significant change, but I think very few have really faced up to the problems which are coming in the year ahead. We are all now together as one united, happy and cohesive delegation and far be it from me to say anything which may in any way break it up - I see the Hon. the Chief Secretary is just waiting for me to say something that will break up the happy unity, but the P.A.P. will not oblige him. We, Sir, have a definite purpose in mind. Our first objective is not just to remove his physical presence in this Chamber but we shall remove him and his friends and colleagues. It is not that we take any personal objection to their presence, but as symbols of European authority and representatives of British interests, they must go. Not only must the symbols go but the substance must also go. That will be the next big fight if in April we take another step forward towards immediate and ultimate independence - immediate, for the P.A.P. according to the manifesto, ultimate, say the Liberal-Socialists. I hope the Liberal-Socialists support this motion as indeed they will have to, even though they have seen fit to allow a minority Opposition Party to second the motion. I hope they will make themselves clear on this point that this is the minimum that we seek in London; that this is the common ground of all political Parties, and from this, there is no withdrawal. When we shout "Merdeka", what we really mean is one more step to Merdeka and what we really want in the end is Merdeka. Question proposed.

We have now reached the moment of interruption. Mr Chief Minister, debate to be resumed, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir. If it please you, Sir, I will move the adjournment.

No, there are other items to be dealt with. Remaining items on the Order Paper read and ordered for the next day.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

I second the motion. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, but for your ruling that a motion congratulating the Chairman and the members of the Malayanisation Commission who signed the majority Report was out of order, I would not have taken this opportunity to speak on the adjournment. You have indicated to me, Sir, that the Malayanisation Commission is a quasi-judicial body. it has not completed its work and until then, you have ruled that, "it is out of order for any Member to move any motion or ask any question which might however indirectly or remotely tend to influence or prejudice the findings of the Commission one way or the other and a congratulatory motion moved in respect of an interim report is in my opinion of that category more especially when it excepts two members of the Commission." Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope you do not intend by that ruling that I should make no reference at all to the contents of the interim Report. The Report has been tabled for the information of Members and I trust I will be in order if I were to make references to the text of parts of the Report.

Order. I take it that the hon. Member's speech is on Malayanisation in connection with the Merdeka Mission?

That is so, Mr Speaker, Sir. I fully understand the line of demarcation you have allowed on this motion on the adjournment, that I can only speak in so far as Malayanisation is connected with the Merdeka Mission. Of course, it does to a certain extent conscribe the limits of the subject that I wish to cover but I shall endeavour to keep within the limits you have laid down. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is common knowledge that the Merdeka Delegation is going to take with it the Secretary of the Malayanisation Commission to advise on matters connected therewith. I think it is also common knowledge that the Director of Personnel (Mr Higham) will also be in London presumably to advise Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies on matters connected with Malayanisation and personnel. What I do not understand is what we are going to discuss with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In the sitting last month of this Assembly, the Hon. the Chief Secretary indicated that he hoped that nothing will be said which will put the scare into European officers. He then stood up and gave them a firm and categorical assurance that until these matters had been discussed in London, there will be no change in the status quo. As far as I can see, the only matter we want discussed and which the Secretary of State for the Colonies can conceivably want to discuss with us on the question of Malayanisation is the subject of abolition terms. Sir, in Colonial Paper 197 of 1946, which is now famous or notorious by the repeated number of times it has been cited by the local Staff Side of the civil service, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies stated: "If progressive advancement along the road to self-government within the framework of the British Commonwealth of Nations is to be a reality, the Public Services of the Colonies must be adapted to local conditions, and must to the greatest possible extent be staffed by local people." As far as I can see, there is no quarrel with the principle of Malayanisation to the greatest possible extent. There are six terms of reference in the Malayanisation Commission set out in the letter of appointment signed by the Hon. the Chief Secretary. It says: "And whereas the Governor in Council has deemed it expedient and in the interests of public welfare that a diligent and full examination and inquiry should forthwith be made into the following matters, namely: 1. The Schemes of Service and the present staffing of all Government Departments and Agencies with a view to recommending measures to ensure the more rapid, systematic and complete Malayanisation of the Public Service; 2. The possibilities of including or expanding degree or diploma courses of study in Public Administration and Social Studies with a view to enabling the Government to draw on a larger field of graduates for the Public Service and for that purpose to consult with all educational authorities; 3. The existing schemes of training including the making of recommendations for the more intensive training of local officers within Government departments and agencies; 4. The abolition terms which might be offered to expatriate officers in the Public Service and the making of recommendations in respect thereof; 5. The Public Services Commission Ordinance, 1949 (No. 55 of 1949) and its operation and to make such recommendations as may be deemed necessary; 6. The question of Pan-Malayan departments in their relationship to the policy of Malayanisation." Six terms of references and not one of them, except No. 4 which is "the abolition terms which might be offered", concerns the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has a right to discuss with the future government of Singapore the question of what its civil servants should be paid off with and by whom. But on the principle of Malayanisation, on the five other matters set out in the instructions from the Governor to the Commission, there is no room for discussion. The Hon. the Chief Minister said on the Budget debate when he pressed the appointments and upgrading of certain Europeans in certain expatriate posts that he was awaiting the Malayanisation Commission's Report. We have the Report now. It has been tabled for over a month. It is an interim Report insofar as it has further reports to make on government agencies but there is no further report on the question of Malayanisation of the government itself. I must say that we are disappointed that there has been no Government policy formulated in any White Paper. This has led to uncertainty as to the extent to which the Report will be accepted by the Government. We then said that the Report was coming and before it was even published, we had a feeling that it might not be a sort of Report which will delight the hearts of those who wanted freedom to come slowly to Malaya. We are happy to see that in this Report in which every political Party had a member or representative who signed the Report, it is suggested, broadly speaking, that we can do away with expatriate staff in about two or three years. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think it is fair to press the Hon. the Chief Minister for a clear declaration of policy. I expect the Hon. the Chief Secretary will answer what is the Government's intention. One thing is clear: if it is the intention of the Colonial Office to make this a bargaining counter, we shall resist. Merdeka or no Merdeka, Malayanisation goes on.

Merdeka comes first.

Merdeka comes first. So much the better, but even without Merdeka, let us take charge of the control room, as this Report puts it. Sir, there are parts of this Report which I think the House would forgive me if I make reference to. The introduction reads: "Self-government would be an empty phrase unless the government is entirely or almost entirely carried out by the people of the country and to have the Public Service staffed by expatriates at the highest levels where policy formulation and execution take place would be derogatory to the dignity of the people of a self-governing country. Therefore, self-government and Malayanisation are closely related, and in order to satisfy this legitimate aspiration complete Malayanisation should as far as possible not lag behind the attainment of self-government. In order to place the subject in its proper setting we should see it in historical perspective. History shows that a group of people can only function as an entity if there is cohesion within the group, and this cohesion does not depend merely on the homogeneity of the population but on the sameness of purpose created by the stimulus of the common geographical and human environment, and can only exist if the people are thrown together to brave the same dangers and share the same fate. There must be no alternative. - "

On a point of information, Sir. Could I hear what the Member is saying?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was reading the introduction to this Malayanisation Commission Report which should be written in gold and put up in the office of the Chief Secretary.

I hope the Member will treat me with respect.

Order, please.

It reads on: "If a section of the population (that means the Hon. the Chief Secretary) has the option of returning to their country of origin when faced by some unpleasant challenge, that section constitutes a weakness to the state and can never contribute to the cultural progress of the country. In other words, success in the building of a nation can only be achieved by a group of people if they have no ties of loyalty with the country which they have left - they must burn their boats and give undivided loyalty to the country of their adoption." It then goes on at great length to prove that if you are in receipt of an expatriate allowance, you cannot give undivided loyalty to this country. Sir, if the British Government had carried out a fraction of the pious protestations they made before and after the war with regard to Malayanisation, we would be in a much better position today to run the administrative machinery. When I was a student in the local college here, the prizes that one looked forward to in a colonial Malaya were the two prize appointments a year to the Straits Settlements Civil Service but, unfortunately, they stopped that sometime before the war.

Just in time.

After the war the British said that they wanted to help us to rule ourselves, whereupon in order to do it, they imported large numbers of demobbed European officers to come and help us and fill up all the appointments. Now, we are told that if we want to get rid of them, we have got to pay them handsome grants -

Oh, no. Let us be fair.

Let us be fair and pay them handsomer grants and get rid of them faster. [Interruption.]

Order, please.

I think it is pertinent to note that when the Federation Merdeka Mission went to London, they did not discuss the policy of Malayanisation because that is a purely domestic matter within the jurisdiction of the Federation Government. The Chief Minister rose -

Is it on a point of order?

On a point of information, if you would permit me, Sir.

Yes, if the hon. Member will give way.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall give the Hon. the Chief Minister a full opportunity to reply. On page 176 of the Malayanisation Commission Report, paragraph 16 reads: "We were also fortunate in that we had, during the course of our deliberations, the communique relating to the arrangement between the Federation of Malaya Government and the Secretary of State for the Colonies regarding the future treatment of expatriate officers in the Federation." Paragraph 17 reads: "Briefly there are to be two clearly defined phases. Phase One is the period before 1st July, 1957, when a Public Service Commission with executive powers would be established." It then goes on to Phase Two. But the question of the speed of Malayanisation is a purely domestic matter. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already said that every Party in this Assembly is committed to (a) Merdeka and (b) Malayanisation. Any Party that withdraws from this Report will find itself in a very uncomfortable position in the next election, and there will be a next election if the constitution is not suspended. Of course, if it is, then we shall talk about other things. But if it is not, at some stage or the other, unlike those who write letters to the newspapers anonymously and who do not have to worry about what people other than the editor think of them, we have to face the public. We shall have to tell them that we came here to fight for local rights and we fought for them, and we fought to have the Malayanisation of the Public Service speeded up so that within the next two years we can say that we are in control of all the key positions of the administration. Mr Speaker, Sir, the English educated class that hopes to man the administrative machinery in the immediate future when the white man leaves, I hope, gracefully, can, if given the opportunity, rise up to the situation which confronts this country. We have no time to say, "We must send a man to a Teachers' Training College. He must then take a teacher's diploma. He must have the practical experience." Nor can we say that an administrator must have had seven years' cadetship before he is capable of running a department of the administration. We are going through a revolution in Malaya, although if one were to listen to the goings on in this Assembly, one would not imagine that anybody here knew that there was a revolution going on except the Hon. the Chief Minister.

Why not you?

Sir, I have lived so closely to it that I am conscious of it all the time. I am prepared to say this, that if you do not ride this one, you will sink, and ride it we will; but we are not going to fight for somebody else's benefit. If I have to fight the Communists for this country, I am going to fight it for myself. [Interruption.]

Order, please.

The Hon. the Chief Minister wants me to fight the Communists. That depends upon what the Communists are fighting -

I am asking you.

Answer it.

Order, please.

Yes. I have said that we stand for an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya and if the Communists want to force this country to be Communist, we shall fight them. [Interruption.]

Order, please.

But that does not mean that we can fight them in the way in which the Hon. the Chief Secretary and his predecessors have been fighting them for eight years by -

Twenty-five years.

- direct military force. I am not saying that it is not necessary because if you have no force and you are overwhelmed, there is no time for argument and logic. But that is not good enough. Basically, it is a question of fighting for loyalties. I hope the Hon. the Chief Secretary will not put himself out unduly but if he would try to understand what I have said, he must realise that if you want us to fight for democracy, you must make democracy something worth while to the average man. The average worker does not know the difference and he could not care what the difference is between Communism, Socialism, Liberalism and Conservatism. All he knows is, "Somebody has promised me results which he has not given to me. He is lazy, wastes his time at cocktail parties. He sits and loafs around and nothing is done. But that other, he promised me that he would fight for this and by God, I saw him fight for it." If you cannot deliver those results, then you have had it.

Thank you. I am much obliged.

The tragedy is, of course, as this Report so admirably puts it, that when faced by some unpleasant challenge, that section of the population constitutes a weakness to the state because it will return to the country of its origin. I, Sir, have no other country to return to. I am a Malayan by birth and I have no choice. I am more likely to fight for an independent, democratic, non- Communist Malaya than the Hon. the Chief Secretary can or will ever do.

Good.

When this Assembly reassembles again under the new constitution, we shall look upon these days as the period of the phoney constitution when we had phoney politicians talking phoney political matters.

Does that go for the P.A.P.?

Sir, if there is one Party in this Assembly, or outside this Assembly, that has consistently stated its stand and not shifted from it and has weathered the storm it is the -

Labour Front.

People's Action Party. Merdeka!

Order. First, I must have order in the Gallery to start off with. This is not an Assembly where the hon. Member can clown and shout out slogans, however commendable they may be. I ask the hon. Member to carry on with his speech in modified terms.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall endeavour to modify my terms but I think the spirit of that word "Merdeka" cannot be modified. What I had intended to state before the Hon.the Chief Minister involuntarily provoked such a reply was that we have always said that it is not possible to get the people to fight the Communists for the British. Today, we heard the Hon. the Chief Minister say it for us. [Interruption.] So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we say when we go to London with this Merdeka Mission, we are not going to discuss the rights or wrongs of Malayanisation and the speed at which we will do it. We are going to discuss what the Secretary of State for the Colonies has a right to discuss, namely, abolition terms - what shall we pay them for the misfortune of having made their careers in a country that grew to maturity whilst they were serving. But if there is the slightest suggestion that we will discuss details of Malayanisation policy, I think it is only fair that we should tell the Staff Side which has made all the representations to the Malayanisation Commission that it will be so discussed in order that they can also have their views put to the Colonial Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the Russians have a wonderful tradition of making up that they discovered everything that has ever been discovered by humanity and the P.A.P. is working up a tradition analogous in character of seeking credit for every act of the Labour Front Coalition Government.

God forbid!

Well, you claim to have discovered Malayanisation.

Order. You are addressing the Chair, Mr Chief Minister.

Forgive me, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would remind the House that this Malayanisation Commission was appointed by the Government and that Malayanisation is a policy which was outlined from the Chair by His Excellency the Governor on the 22nd of April, 1955, and that in effect for the first time in Singapore's history, Malayanisation has been a reality from the moment that this Government came into office because there has been no recruitment as from that time except with the consent, full knowledge and full debate of the Council of Ministers in respect of each and every individual case where it has been considered necessary to put up a suggestion that we should take in expatriates. Sir, with this background, this Government had appointed this Commission. It is the confidence that this Government had in the men which has put them where they are. It seems to me as somewhat absurd to suggest that this Government intends to welch on Malayanisation except, of course, in order to give the P.A.P. credit for seeking to act in loco parentis. Sir, on the question of the delay in putting a White Paper before this Assembly after the receipt of the Malayanisation Commission Report, I thought it has been explained fully and I thought that there was no question of ambiguity. The Secretary of State for the Colonies and, in fact, the Colonial Office, at all times, in similar cases, take the view that they have a certain responsibility to the people of the country and the Colonial Office has in the case of the Federation of Malaya, as well, considered it necessary to investigate the sufficiency of the civil service after attainment of independence for the discharge of the normal duties of government. I say, Sir, that this did occur when the Federation Delegation went to England, contrary to the assertion made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, and I know for a fact that it will occur when this Delegation goes up to London: that the issue will have to be considered and the Colonial Office will seek to be satisfied that after independence, there is, in this territory, an adequate civil service for the normal needs of government. I took the liberty of interrupting the Member for Tanjong Pagar when he said, "Merdeka or no Merdeka, Malayanisation comes first" because I think it is important to realise this: to us, at least to us of the Labour Front Coalition Government, Merdeka comes first. It is paramount. All other questions are subordinate. The Staff Association has made its representations to the Commission. The Director of Personnel will not be there in the position of making fresh representations, Sir, and we ourselves will have the Secretary of the Commission to assist us in all matters in connection with the discussion of the aspects of Malayanisation other than abolition which are certain to come up. The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock p.m. and the Debate having continued until the time appointed for the termination of a sitting, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at 4.31 p.m. to the 12th day of April, 1956.

Wednesday, 4th April, 1956

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether he will state (i) the number of families (a) applying for Public Assistance and (b) being granted Public Assistance in each month from May 1955 to February 1956; and (ii) the total amount paid out in Public Assistance in each month from May 1955 to February 1956.

Month No. of new Applications No. of Payments Total Amount Paid for Public Assistance to Applicants out Each Month $ c. 1955 May 582 12,680 394,553 40 June 606 12,709 398,453 60 July 776 13,100 409,169 20 August 626 13,748 418,069 05 September 539 13,733 429,671 25 October 526 13,774 438,107 75 November 613 13,674 442,331 30 December 407 13,953 439,955 50 1956 January 515 14,659 453,883 40 February 430 13,803 448,084 30

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether he will state -

Figures are not available for 30th June and 31st December, 1955 as surveys were not conducted on these dates. The figure for 30th September, 1955 is 117,552. (b) The monthly figures of new applicants for registration for employment at the Government Employment Exchanges for each month from May 1955 to February 1956 are as follows: 1955 May 1,119 June 1,302 July 1,246 August 1,472 September 1,281 October 1,221 November 1,302 December 1,479 1956 January 1,551 February 1,196 (c) The total number of applicants, both new and old, registered for employment at the Government Employment Exchanges, counted on a certain day in the month, for each month from May 1955 to February 1956 is as follows: 1955 May 30th 6,662 June 27th 6,363 July 25th 6,741 August 29th 6,593 September 26th 6,210 October 31st 5,930 November 28th 6,036 December 26th 6,334 1956 January 30th 6,636 February 29th 7,231 A "new" applicant is taken to be one who registers for employment in the current month. An "old" applicant is taken to be one who has registered for employment in the preceding months and whose name is still on the register. (d) The monthly figures of placings in employment by the Exchanges for each month from May 1955 to February 1956 are as follows : - 1955 May 325 June 267 July 432 August 392 September 406 October 488 November 232 December 396 1956 January 375 February 359

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether he will supply the following information regarding the admission from China of wives of Singapore residents : -

It is not possible without very considerable work to give exact figures. The figures which follow are approximate only : -

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether he will give details of how many housing units in each category were completed by the Singapore Improvement Trust in each month of the year 1955; how many in each category were completed or were expected to be completed in each of the first three months of 1956; and how many in each category were expected to be completed in the period April-December 1956.

The Honourable Member's question is not clear, as it is not known what is meant by "in each category". If the Honourable Member will clarify this point I shall let him have the information in due course.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (a) what percentage of the housing units built by the Singapore Improvement Trust in 1955 carried the lowest rent of $30 per month, and what percentage of the housing units expected to be built in 1956 will carry such rentals; (b) how many families are on the waiting list for this category of house, and how they will be accommodated.

The second part of the Honourable Member's question concerns the day - today affairs of the Singapore Improvement Trust and I shall ask the Manager of the Trust to supply the required information direct. As regards the information relating to housing units asked for in the first part of the question, I shall write to the Honourable Member as soon as the figures are available.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether he is aware that the promised installation of electricity supply to Changi Village, 14th milestone, Changi Road has not yet been carried out; and what steps can be taken to solve this immediate need of the people of this area.

It had been expected that the City Council would be able to extend electricity supplies to 14th milestone, Changi, by November last year. I understand, however, that it has not been possible to carry out this project because of difficulties experienced in getting the site chosen for the electricity substation, which must be in the centre of the village for technical reasons. The Commissioner of Lands is giving the City Council every assistance in obtaining the required site.