Hansard, 1956-04-05

Mr Speaker, Sir, as it is not expected that today's business will be completed before the moment of interruption, may I therefore have your assent and the consent of this Assembly to move, That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to tomorrow, 6th April, 1956.

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

Sir, I now formally move, That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to tomorrow, 6th April, 1956.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to tomorrow, 6th April, 1956.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question - [4th April]: 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 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 cooperation 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. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on receiving notice of this motion, I pondered for some time considering what I could and should say which might be a useful and constructive contribution to what ought to be and must be an important debate. On the one hand, it would be easy and, no doubt, to many, emotionally satisfying to shout Merdeka in happy concurrence and then to sit down. On the other hand, it would be easy and cheap to dismiss this motion as a piece of eyewash because the All-Party delegation has, in fact, already given its approval to what is before us. Neither course seems to me satisfactory or helpful, for, in taking a historic decision - and indeed, it will be a historic decision for Singapore - it is as well to remember what, in fact, we are doing. In assessing the position of Singapore today, hovering as it does on the brink of self-government, my thoughts go back to the India of ten years ago, because, by a curious coincidence, I lived in India for the last ten years of the great country's life as a dependent territory, just as I have spent a similar period in Singapore, and several points of comparison occur to me between the India of 1946 and the Singapore of today, poised, both of them, on the eve of achieving independence. The first is that, whereas Britain was about to cede to the Indian peoples a vast country which had been theirs for hundreds of years before the British appeared on the scene, in the case of Singapore Her Majesty's Government is about to cede a territory for which all the communities, including the British, have had, one might say, a more or less equal share in building up. Or to put it another way: whereas nobody could seriously question that India belonged and always had belonged to the Indians as the indigenous race, there could be some legitimate argument on that score regarding Singapore. Secondly, that whereas India was and is a vast sub-continent measuring thousands of square miles, Singapore is a small island of 220 square miles or thereabouts which one perhaps might compare with Bombay Island in point of size and population, though it is a place of far greater strategic importance to the free world than is apparent from its size. Thirdly, that whereas India had considerable experience of democratic rule and of elected or partially elected provincial and local governments, in some cases going back decades before 1946, Singapore has had little, indeed insufficient, experience of this sort. Fourthly, that whereas India had just emerged from the Second World War in which its army had fought victoriously and with the greatest distinction, and in which it had been geared industrially to contribute immensely to the war effort, thereby having in her hands adequate strength to maintain internal security, Singapore, for various reasons, is by no means so fortunate. And, fifthly - and this is a point of similarity as much as of difference - whereas the problems of communal bitterness and strife were, to some extent, solved by the division of the country into Hindustan and Pakistan, no such solution is possible in a multi-racial Singapore which, though relatively peaceful today, is nevertheless dominated in numbers by the Chinese.

What is wrong with that?

I make these points for one single over-riding reason in order to make this plea - that we go forward to implement this motion, represented as we in this House are of all the major communities and voted into this House by all those communities, in all humility, conscious of the immense responsibilities we are asking to be allowed to undertake and of the considerable risks we are facing. It is an old truism that the people's character is formed by the land and the climate in which it lives. This is true of people like the English, who are what they are from their geographical position as islanders and from their rigorous climate. It is true of people like the Indians; but it is not true of the people of Singapore who have still to assimilate this land and this climate and to call it their own; in other words, to call themselves Malayans. Therein lie the risks and the responsibilities. We are seeking to govern, by ourselves, a territory for which the people as a whole have not yet and cannot have the deepest loyalties, and thus a territory which, because of its handy size, might so easily be seized by a dictator or by another form of colonial rule. Because of all these factors, which I have stated, the more thoughtful people on this island, on the one hand, deplore the emotionalism and the intemperate language which has been recklessly indulged in recent weeks, and, on the other hand, fear that the ceding to Her Majesty's Government of control over external defence is insufficient security and consider that the problem of internal security has not been squarely faced. Let me say this about emotional and intemperate language. Anybody who read the Congress-owned Delhi newspaper, the Hindustan Times, during the war years, would consider that some of the Members of this House had still a lot to learn regarding the art of vituperation, but I do not say that in exoneration. In a small almost parochial place like Singapore, we cannot afford inflammatory speeches. If you shout abuse in Bombay, by the time it gets to Nagpur, it sounds a little hollow, and in Calcutta, it seems merely silly. What Manchester roars today will sound like a still small voice in London tomorrow? But a Marshall thunderbolt, dropped out of the apple tree, will reverberate round the island -

Even to Tanglin?

- to be savoured in the clubs and in the coffee-shops till it sounds more heroic, or more despicable according to one's reactions, than it really is, and in a small island like Singapore, it encourages hatred and passion with no safety valves. On the question of internal security, it should be clear from what I have said that much calm thinking is needed. In this motion, we agree that we are not strong enough to defend ourselves against external aggression. But what about the Trojan Horse, the enemy within our gates? Admittedly we are not strong enough to defend our shores, but have we sufficient resources in time of riot and civil commotion, such as we have seen in 1950, in 1955, and been reminded of by the recent Kallang disturbance? At the moment, we must be honest enough to face the fact that we have not got the strength, and it seems to me that there are only three ways of overcoming this problem and of ensuring that the people of this land can go about their business knowing that their lives and property will be fully protected. The first possibility is to strengthen and enlarge the police force very considerably, making it more of an armed force than it is at present, but recognising that control of the police must remain with the Council of Ministers, as it does now. The second is that we raise and maintain our own locally recruited defence forces. The third is that we agree to safeguards whereby we can call upon British or other Commonwealth forces in the event of grave public disorder. The first possibility - a more heavily armed police force - I reject. In the hands of the wrong government, the police force could become a weapon of oppression, and Singapore a police State. Even today the police are being subjected to undesirable political pressure. That does not mean that I am against strengthening the police force on the lines along which it has been developed. It is essential that everything is done to build up and maintain the morale and esprit de corps of our police force at the highest levels. They must be incorruptible and must have such a high reputation that members of all communities will be proud to be policemen. No modern state can survive without a police force of the best standards, but, nevertheless, we must stop short of turning it into a military force. The second - that of raising our own defence forces - is the ideal to aim at, but it is folly to suppose that it can be done overnight or that the money can be found immediately to pay for it. The Hon. the Chief Minister has stated that the Government is attempting to raise a Singapore battalion by April 1957. This is as unrealistic as so many of the present Government's pronouncements. A normal infantry battalion consists of about 800 men, of whom 600 bayonets are for effective strength and 200 to man and maintain the vehicles to transport them and so on. In the event of island-wide disturbance, a single battalion would soon be swallowed up and lost. Experts naturally differ, but I think that the expert opinion given to me, which states that five battalions would be needed as an adequate protective force, making up a mixed brigade of infantry, armoured cars, signals, engineers and so on, should be heeded. How otherwise would the island be adequately protected in an emergency; the power-station and the water supply maintained and manned; the petrol supply to essential vehicles ensured; and the petrol dumps guarded and so on? I am not exaggerating when I say that one modern battalion costs £1 million to equip, and five battalions will therefore cost us something like $50 millions - money which we have not got, quite apart from the fact that it will take a number of years to raise and train and officer this force of 4,000 men to the proper pitch of efficiency. And if it will cost $50 millions to equip, what will it cost to maintain from year to year? This therefore has to be rejected as an immediate solution, and indeed the Government has already ruled it out by cutting down on defence in the 1956 Estimates. The P.A.P. may pooh-pooh these details as alarmist and bellicose, but the hon. Members opposite know very well that the Communist menace is such that we must be strong in our determination to defend ourselves and have the weapons to do it with. Thus, one turns to the third possibility, negotiation with Her Majesty's Government of safeguards whereby we can call upon British or other Commonwealth forces in the event of grave public disorder. That, for the time being, is the only solution until we can build up our own resources or until a link with the Federation changes the perspective. The Liberal-Socialists see no alternative to this as a practical solution and will in no circumstances accept anything less. If a Defence Council, consisting of Service chiefs and others on the one hand and of the Chief Minister and one or two colleagues on the other, is acceptable to the Federation, we see no reason why it cannot be acceptable here because, for one thing, the Federation and Singapore, let it not be forgotten, are fighting the same enemy - Communism. Let us remember that Merdeka means not only freedom from British rule, it means freedom to rule democratically. It also means freedom from intimidation and oppression, and the first freedom is of no value whatever without the other freedoms. One of the most difficult periods in a country's history is when it emerges from being ruled by a foreign power and stirs itself to take over charge of its own destiny. Once that movement has gathered momentum, let no one try to stand in its way, because it cannot be withstood. And because it is a difficult period, when tempers can fly and hateful things can be said, let us in this Assembly remember that if we can keep cool heads and reasonable words, we shall be setting an example which the country can follow. I wish the All-Party delegation success in its mission and may come back from London with an independent status granted which is worthy of the desires and the dignity of our people, and at the same time which, when granted, we can protect and make flourish to the greater glory of this island and to the admiration of the free world.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I confess that I am a little reluctant to make a speech on this motion, but having, as it were, been spotlighted by the Chief Minister yesterday, I suppose I must say something, if only in my own defence. I must however take some comfort from the fact that I have over the past year acquired some promotion in this House, though not through intrinsic merit. In one of the early debates in this House, we were reminded by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) that nominated Members spoke only for themselves. So I represented nobody. Then from the lips of the Chief Minister I became the "Member for Tanglin Club" - a phoney constituency - so that, I suppose, must have been demotion. However, the appellation resulted in the House for months afterwards being treated to some fine examples of what Mr H. W. Fowler calls "worn-out humour". Then, by inference, I had some connection with the notorious and peripatetic Colonel Blimp! But now I find myself, according to the Chief Minister, "the representative of British capital interests"! I did not know I was that. I wish there was a night school that I could go to learn just what I am! But certainly that is better, though quite honestly, Sir, I do not think the cap fits. It is true that in a speech I made in this House on 22nd July, 1955, I said that I thought I might claim to speak for the British expatriate community, although I had no mandate from them to do so. My claim, Sir, may have been unjustified, and therefore I should like clearly to state that on this occasion I am speaking merely as an independent Member of the House and I would ask the House not to regard me as the mouthpiece of any community. If my views happen to coincide with some of those of my compatriots, that is all to the good - or to the bad, depending on how you look at it. For the most part, I find this motion quite unexceptional, couched as it is in very wide terms, and I was cheered, as I am sure many British people who read it must have been cheered, to read the reference to "close and friendly cooperation with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth territories". I listened with very great interest indeed to the Chief Minister's speech yesterday and again found myself at one with him on a great many points. On others, I would differ but did not consider any useful purpose would be served by a non-Party Member giving his views on such matters as internal security. Nevertheless, I wish I were as certain as the Chief Minister that in the future an independent Singapore would have a viable economy. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to offer outright opposition to this motion, and accordingly I would like to explain the apparent inconsistency of having on 22nd July, 1955, said No to a motion calling for immediate self-government and my present attitude. I am afraid it does not mean that I have been wholly converted or that my views have utterly changed. In a speech made by the Chief Minister in this House on 9th February of this year, he said: "We have seen in a solemn moment the expression of our deepest feelings, a single - Member Party - Mr Sutherland - standing up and saying that, on behalf of the English expatriate community, he deplored our desire for immediate self-government, and he voted against it and is working against it." The last five words are my italics. I do not understand what the Chief Minister meant by saying that I was working against self-government, but I can assure him that outside of this House I have no connection whatsoever with politics. I have been lobbied and attempts have been made to drag me into the political net, but I have always turned a deaf ear to those who importuned me. But let us examine the words of the Chief Minister - "the expression of our deepest feelings" - in its relation to "our desire for immediate self-government". It must be remembered that on 22nd July, 1955, there was no motion on the Order Paper for immediate self-government. The relevant motion referred to the determination of the people to end colonialism. It was the counter move of the then Progressive Party calling for immediate independence, which I thought very little of then, and the passing months have not changed my views; it was this gambit that forced the Chief Minister to move an amendment calling on Her Majesty's Government for the transfer of power for self-government immediately. Now be it noted that there was nothing in this amendment to define self-government as such. In my opinion, it was a trifle inchoate, yet because I did not say Aye to the motion, I came in for some contumelious criticism from all Parties. That, I suppose, is all part of the cut and thrust of debate and I doubt if, at that time, many Asian Members of this House would really have expected me pusillanimously to yield to the majority and vote for a motion that I obviously did not believe in at the time. Sir, I suggest that the present is a far more solemn moment and would say that I am not incapable of understanding the aspirations of the locally born and indeed in these matters my ap- proach, I think, is quite objective and I cannot, nor indeed, I am sure, would Members expect me to work myself up into a passion over them. Neither do I wish, through sheer recalcitrance like the Russians at Lake Success or Geneva, to say No on every possible occasion. The record will, in point of fact, show that only on one occasion have I voted against the Government. No, Sir, if it is indeed the wish of the people of Singapore that they should be self-governing now, -

What do you think?

- I am not going to attempt to put my little spoke in their wheel. After all, in free countries, people usually get the government they deserve. For my own part, I should have thought that for sensible, free people - and the people of Singapore are free, in spite of those who talk of a century of slavery - the question was not one of desire for self-government but fitness for self-government. All this talk about primordial urges and psychiatric reasons for rebellion - a favourite line of the hon. and learned Member for Tanjong Pagar - should surely, at least to some extent, be discounted? Surely the leaders of the people could persuade them to restrain their urges for just a little longer. Last July a government which had been in office for only a few months demanded immediate self-government. How could this have been the expression of the deepest feelings of the people? I do not know whether or no those who then demanded immediate independence and immediate self-government had a mandate from their electorate to do so. I should have thought not, but I know that another school of thought is of the opinion that the elected Members of the people have carte blanche to act as they please according to their views. Be that as it may, was it so very unreasonable to challenge their fitness to govern themselves when they had had little or no experience and had not been subjected to any corroding test? At that time a very considerable measure of self-government had already been granted and had not been given a fair trial. Goaded by his opponents, the Chief Minister took a line which some people, including me, believed was not in the best interests of Singapore. Did not the Chief Minister very recently say that twelve months ago he and his Ministers knew nothing about self-government? He said it at a time when he was praising the men around him. I submit, Sir, that if he did not know anything about government twelve months ago, he could not have known a great deal about it eight months ago. I think I could guess fairly accurately when the people of Singapore first began to desire self-government. But when, I wonder, did they "graduate" to self-governing status? Was it in 1900, 1939, 1946, or was it just last year? Is there a faint possibility that the proponents of immediate self-government could be wrong and that a further period of tutelage is necessary? Would the British Government gain so very much were it to postpone the granting of self-government for a relatively short period? Could they not be acting in the very best interests of the people and not, as has been suggested, be making a last ditch stand in their own interests? Sir, the point may be academic and these questions rhetorical, for if it is simply a question of kicking out the colonial power now, the people will demand it, however complicated the issue may be, involving as it does the future of this great trading post which also happens to be a Gibraltar for the defence of the free peoples of South-East Asia. I have been reassured to hear the Chief Minister saying on a recent occasion that he does not want to kick the British into the sea. But what of his Yanko dancing opponents of the future? He might find that he himself needed swimming lessons. Sir, I read recently the following in the Chinese Press, in translation, of course: "Britain should understand that since it is impossible to restore the pre-war system of colonialism, she might as well generously and immediately promise the people of this country independence. Moreover, our claim is only for independence in the first stage. In effect, it is only complete internal self-government with external defence and external relations still remaining in the hands of Britain." I think, Sir, that perhaps for "promise" we should read "grant" for I can hardly believe that a promise would satisfy those who are crying for independence. For the rest, the writer need not worry. Britain understands the position very well The problem, of course, is when, in the best interests of the people, should the transfer of power be made. Sir, I am every bit as anti-Communist as the Chief Minister, and I can comprehend fully what he is driving at in his argument that any putting of the clock back would be disastrous. I wish I had heard all that the seconder of the motion said in his speech so that I could correlate it to the Chief Minister's, but unfortunately he spoke over the microphone most of the time and a great deal of what he said was lost to me, in spite of my proximity. I know that another member of the P.A.P., according to the vernacular Press, said at a recent rally that they should be friendly with the British. If that was sincerely said, I am mighty glad to hear it. Sir, I note that certain Chinese newspapers now refer to the "colonialists" (and the term does not only include expatriates) as if they were a formidable section of the community opposed to immediate self-rule. What do these colonialists feel? I do not know, Sir, precisely, but I do know that it is utter rubbish to talk about them as traitors. One thing emerges quite clearly from the Merdeka campaign, and that is, that there are very many people in this island not in favour of immediate self-government. For all I know, the numbers may run into hundreds of thousands. Sir, what of the overseas British in Singapore? Heaven forbid that I should speak for them again, but this is the position as I see it. The British community here is not keen on the British Government relinquishing its authority immediately, but it looks as if they must take a chance and do so. A point frequently forgotten by the present Government is that the local British community have, up to last year, been associated with every step towards self-government.

Oh, come, come!

The overseas British here - I am not speaking of the Government officials - are part of the whole that is Singapore. They have been here since the time of Raffles and have a local as well as a national outlook. They have not in the past hesitated to criticise the Colonial Office if it were sought to introduce measures which might prove unpopular.

To capital.

Quite naturally, in view of the events of the past year, some of them have doubts as to the efficiency of self-government tomorrow, while others are alarmed at the speed at which changes are taking place. Why? Because they are convinced that for Singapore to maintain its position as a trading centre second to none in South-East Asia, it must have security and stability. In that connection, Mr Speaker, I am sure that all sections of the business community would welcome an assurance from the Government that, in not requiring guidance from the United Kingdom Government in matters of trade and commerce, no thought has been taken of leaving the Sterling area. The Member for Tanjong Pagar said yesterday that so much had happened in the last year that he felt as if decades, instead of months, had passed, or words to that effect. How true! The passing of time, however, has not lessened his hostility to the colonial power, but the Chief Minister, I was glad to note, was much more moderate in his views. I did not feel quite so badly as I did on previous occasions when I found myself murmuring to myself - "Truly the sins of the fathers are visited on the children unto the third and fourth generations" - and thank God I have not got any!

Confession is good for the soul!

Sir, I am on record in the local Hansard as having said on several occasions that I was not opposed to self-government when the country was ready for it, and I can assure the Chief Minister that I associate myself with the views of those business men who have written to him when they say, "We will co-operate with the Government on the basis of whatever decision may be reached in the London talks." I will indeed, Sir, wholeheartedly. I regret that I have neither the wit nor the competence to deal adequately with all that was said in the two speeches yesterday; but in conclusion I would express my regret that I cannot say Aye to this motion, involving, as it does, radical alterations to the constitution under which I was appointed a nominated Member of this Assembly, and I think, therefore, that the correct and proper course for me to take is to abstain.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the one responsible for starting the Merdeka bail rolling in this House - a move or a gamble in which the hon. Mr Sutherland has not forgiven me and may yet cancel my overdraft at his bank, I and my Party want to make it clear what we stand for. In the main, we agree with what the Chief Minister said yesterday except on the question of internal security. We particularly agree with him when he said that provision must be made to look after the minority interests. Indeed, it is the duty of every government and every political Party to look after small sections of the people who may not have adequate representation in this House. We are glad also to see the stand of the Member for Tanjong Pagar when he seconded the motion. He made it quite clear that he was doing so not because of choice, but because it could be used for something else - as a stepping - stone to something bigger and better. We know what he stands for and what he wants. His aim now is to down British colonialism. When that bogey is finished, another one will be created, and so on, until this form of government will be changed by another so-called democratic government of his, which, I am quite sure, is unknown in the free world today. We realise that you can put back the hands of a clock, but you cannot put back the march of time. The pace has been set for colonies in Asia and Africa to be independent, and we have to follow; and the pace has been quickened by the very successful mission of the Federation to London a few months ago. Luckily for us we do not have to fight, nor indeed, threaten or shout for independence. We have been invited by the Government of the United Kingdom to a conference this month to discuss in a friendly manner our request to be master of our own fate in the light of a year's working of the present constitution. This invitation we have accepted, and it is for us now to examine our assets and liabilities accrued during the year. Frankly, I must admit the balance sheet is not a very encouraging one. We have passed legislation for improving the working conditions of a section of the people, but on the other hand, we have had nearly 300 strikes, one riot, one near riot, and an increase in crime, particularly that organised by gangsters, such as extortion and kidnapping.

What is your worry?

Well, they came from your area!

And they are directed at the Progressives!

Order, please.

The tempo of public business, due to uncertainty in the future of this service, has slowed down considerably. There has been no increase in the number of factories, but unemployment is increasing. What happened at the Kallang Rally on Sunday, 18th March, has caused great concern, not only in the minds of people like ourselves in this Assembly, but also of the small people who frequent the coffee-shops and hawkers' stalls-except, of course, those who shout Merdeka with clenched fists and turned the rally into a riot, the only provocation being, from what I could see, a few songs, a few dances, and a few drops of rain. If such disorder can happen when the Party concerned had a hand in organising the rally and the leaders did try their best to quieten the crowd, what could not happen at uncontrolled gatherings? The Chief Minister has tried to make this incident a minor one. It was a minor one only because of the magnificent manner in which the police handled the situation - with firmness and with restraint. There is talk in the coffee-shops that, under such circumstances, only hooligans and gangsters would benefit from Merdeka - a Merdeka conceived in hatred, bred in strikes, and ruled by mobs and gangsters. Many people have expressed the same opinion in the Press. They are beginning to realise that the cost of independence is a heavy one, and independence for Singapore, a trading centre producing only a small percentage of our daily food and daily requirements, will be an illusory one without absolute security. We live by trade and trade can be diverted without the slightest difficulty. Without security, we shall never get the capital to finance our new industries. Indeed, many industrial firms are marking time until the political atmosphere is cleared and some are even considering closing down. Without trade and industry, we shall have poverty, misery and chaos. In spite of this, I have not changed my mind, but I maintain that we can only have Merdeka with certain safeguards until such time as we have gained sufficient strength to guard not only against external forces, but against subversion and threat to our internal security. In the motion before the House today, we are offering, by agreement, to entrust our external defence to the United Kingdom. When we ask the United Kingdom to look after our external defence, I do not see how we can possibly say that she can have no say in our internal defence. What is there to defend against externally when there is nothing to defend internally? We do not agree with the Chief Minister when he said that it would be a mockery if we were to get independence but did not get exclusive control of our internal security. For today internal and external security is inextricably bound together. There is no clear demarcation between external and internal defence when the threat to our system of democratic government is by subversion, like white ants eating into the very foundation of a structure and you can only find out when it has collapsed - like that which happened on that memorable Sunday when the platform collapsed under the very feet of the Chief Minister and the crowd got out of control and over-ran it.

He survived it!

We must approach the Merdeka conference with soberness and without bitterness in our hearts, and with only one objective in view - the welfare of our beloved Singapore. We are but a small country in this world, which is growing smaller every day because of rapid means of communication. No nation today can truly say that it can be independent of others and stand by itself, for even great nations have entered into alliances and pacts and allowed the use of naval and air bases in their territories by their allies in times of war and peace. If this happened two or three decades ago, such nations would be called vassal states. If it is true of great nations, it must apply with much more force to a small one like ours. With whom, then, shall we stand when we get our independence? Naturally with the country which, in spite of accusations of exploitation and colonialism, has been largely responsible for the Singapore as we know her today and who is prepared to offer us a partnership in the Commonwealth of Nations if we are able to look after ourselves. The Liberal-Socialists are confident that, with a proper approach and in a spirit of good faith, reasonableness and trust, we shall achieve Merdeka, a Merdeka in which we can all live happily and in peace, although we belong to so many different races and creeds, for "what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" What shall it profit a country if it shall gain its independence but lose its security - external or internal?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion before this Assembly. This motion requires no clarification and should be understood by all Parties concerned. We want Merdeka and we are fit for it. But, Sir, I wonder if I may touch upon an aspect of this motion which has brought about some misgivings amongst some sections of the community. I refer, Sir, to the unbecoming activities of a small group of people who have, during the course of the last few days, attempted to bring about discord amongst the people of Singapore over the question of Merdeka. As one of the leaders of the Malay community and head of the United Malay National Organisation in Singapore, I and my Party would like to dissociate ourselves completely from this disgusting and retrogressive movement. Fortunately, Sir, those who are at the head of this anti-Merdeka movement do not command the following -

Point of order, Sir. The Minister is reading his speech.

I am afraid I have not quite noticed that the Minister is reading. He has probably been referring to his notes a little too frequently.

Fortunately, Sir, those men do not receive the support of the majority of the people of Singapore, as some quarters would have it. I would, however, like to thank the Hon. the Chief Minister for having brought up the question of minorities with regard to the constitution. I believe, Sir, this is a very wise move, as, in drawing up constitutions, it is absolutely necessary for safeguards to be embodied in them; more so when we realise that the minority, to which I belong, in Singapore are the indigenous people of this region. The Malays, Sir, are not only a minority in Singapore, but they are also the indigenous people and they are also an economic class by themselves. There is very little difference between the Malays in Singapore and the Malays in Malacca and Penang. Their economic position, their cultural position and their political position are about the same, that is to say, they are the most backward when compared to other races living in these three territories, and yet these are the very three territories which first had contact with Western civilisation. I must say it is not a credit to the colonial powers who have been running these territories for the last few centuries. There is, however, one other aspect in the Chief Minister's speech which should require some consideration, and that is the question of citizenship. This, Sir, is a very delicate problem, but, given goodwill on all sides, I do not see why we should not solve this problem in the interests of the people of Singapore.

Sir, the people of Singapore call for Merdeka.

How about Seletar?

The motion submitted to this Assembly by the Chief Minister is the most innovatory of all. Here is a challenge through which the people of Singapore express their wishes and aspirations to the Government of the United Kingdom and the world. There is no longer any suspicion in the minds of everybody, either in Singapore or outside, that the people and its elected representatives have any doubts that they are ready for independence. What remains to be seen now is the sincerity of the British people and their Government in implementing their oft-repeated promise of independence to the people. Singapore, Sir, had its first election to the Legislative Council in 1948. In 1951 there was another election to the Legislative Council, this time with an increased number of elected Members. In 1955 a general election took place as a result of the Rendel Constitution Commission, on the recommendation of which this Assembly has been constituted. In the field of local government also, Singapore had its first election to the City Council in 1948. Since then there have been elections every year and it has been proved beyond all doubt that there is a responsible local government in Singapore today. The future of lo, cal government in Singapore is very bright. We all know that the Government is likely to accept the Report of the McNeice Commission and therein lies the essence of democracy in Singapore. Sir, the Rendel Constitution was accepted by the people of Singapore under protest in the hope that at the earliest date it would be modified. The time has now come for a constitution focused towards independence. Apart from a desire for a constitution focused towards independence, we have a moral claim to it, because, with the attainment of independence in the Federation, we are left as the only non-self-governing territory in Asia. This situation is not in the mutual interests of Britain and Singapore. There is a strong feeling among the people of the Commonwealth countries that Singapore should be granted independence, especially so in the interests of world peace and security. The potentialities of easing world tension and the prospects of stabilising world peace are greater if Singapore -

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member is reading his speech. [Interruption.]

We have been reminded, hon. Members, that this is a solemn moment and I take it that it is because of this that hon. Members have been very careful of what they are saying and have therefore been referring to their notes rather frequently. Perhaps they can try not to refer to their notes so frequently.

Thank you, Sir.

People who live in glass-houses -

Order, order.

Sir, I have said that if Singapore attains self-government and is allowed to govern herself, the prospects of world peace and security will increase; and this is particularly so if she is given the opportunity of being an equal partner within the British Commonwealth. There has been much discussion in regard to the internal security and defence of Singapore. We are aware, Sir, that in freeing ourselves from colonial rule our people have greater responsibilities and more important duties. I have no doubt that the people of Singapore will sustain themselves in their new role. The independence formula suggested by the Chief Minister has placed upon the people the responsibility of maintaining internal security and internal defence. Sir, this is not a problem peculiar to Singapore. It is probably a problem that faces any country attaining self-government. There may be elements now who appear to jeopardise the internal security of the country, but with the achievement of independence and the control of internal security changing hands to a government of the people by the people and responsible to the people, the problem of internal security should not be detrimental to the interests of the people. On the contrary, all the antagonism now existing towards the police force will vanish when once the control of the police passes into the hands of an elected Minister. The police will then be regarded as closer friends of the people. One might think that I am very optimistic in making this statement, Sir, but I am guided by the history of other nations which have attained independence. The question of our defence has been dealt with by the Chief Minister. It can be hoped that added responsibility vested with a popularly elected government will pave the way for a strong defence force in Singapore. Until such time as we have a Singapore army, I believe our soul force should serve against any internal disorder. We Asians believe a great deal in the soul force and non-violence. It is true also, Sir, that in some quarters fears have been expressed as regards the future of the minority communities. These may be just or may be unjust. We have in Singapore today a population of which approximately 85 per cent is Chinese. It may be impossible for any other community to outbid them in number. In a democracy the majority shall rule, but it should have due regard to the interests and welfare of the minorities. The Chinese, as I see it, can make or mar the future history of this country, but in all sincerity I believe that wise counsels will prevail in the body politic of this country in the interests of all. Sir, much has been said about our being an equal partner within the British Commonwealth. As I see it, Sir, with the achievement of independence, being a member of the British Commonwealth has an added advantage to Singapore. Speakers suggested yesterday that countries like India, Ceylon and Pakistan had chosen to become equal partners within the British Commonwealth. When I was in Australia last December, Sir, many people told me this - that the people of Australia desired Singapore to attain independence. What next? They felt that in justice and fairness to the British Government, Singapore should remain as an equal partner within the British Commonwealth. It may be desirable, at the outset, to be an equal partner within the British Commonwealth because our neighbours like India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Australia and New Zealand are all members of the British Commonwealth. We will not lose anything at all by this. Sir, while associating myself with all the sentiments expressed by the Chief Minister, I wish the Merdeka mission which is leaving for London will come back with a victorious decision which can be hailed by the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like, if I can, to focus attention on what seem to me some of the true objectives of Merdeka. Merdeka in itself is only the opening of a door through which we can pass into the unknown, and it is important, I think, that we should realise this and look beyond the door even before we pass through it. We have in this debate concentrated considerably on the dangers of Merdeka. One of the dangers particularly mentioned has been Communism. I have spoken my mind about Communism before in this Assembly and I should like to expand my attitude towards it. I am anti-Communist. I do not like Communism, but I do not think that in itself, as a system of philosophic theory or as a system of economic practice, it has today any commanding attraction for people. It has the attraction of great achievements. The investment programme under Communism in Russia has been enormous and the rate of economic development has been tremendous. The result is that people see something there which they would like to emulate, but that is simply a question of technique, a question of deliberate political practice and economic practice. It is not a matter of the essential theory of Communism. Although Communism has made considerable contributions to human progress, both by its achievements and by its follies and errors, it is today an out-of-date system. It can be compared to the industrial revolution in Victorian England. It carries a great burden of accumulation of past practice which it finds it difficult to disown. It is doing its best at present to get away from its own past and to compete with the Colombo Plan which is a very laudable objective perhaps; but I think it rather diminishes the sense of menace. Now what is menacing in Singapore are the general historical facts. We have a great port and any reading of history will show that a great port and trading centre is the place where new ideas are continually coming in, where there is a continual intellectual ferment, and where people can fairly rapidly change their ideas and their attitudes. We have also in Singapore an enormous percentage of very youthful people, and we are also living in times of very rapid change. Any study of sociology will make it clear that in these circumstances you can reasonably expect to have a situation which could explode if a match were to be applied in the right place. No doubt Communism is one of the numerous matches which could be applied and which could cause an explosion in Singapore. That is the menace of Communism. It is not in itself, but in the fact that it might precipitate trouble which is there potentially anyhow. Perhaps I could illustrate some of the dangers from the speeches made yesterday in this House by a very able and distinguished Member - the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew). I am rather happy that he is not in the House - his enthusiasm for Merdeka does not extend to listening to speeches on Merdeka by other Members - because I am afraid that if he heard what I have to say, it might hurt his feelings. It might be a good thing for him, but I do not like to hurt people's feelings, although I am convinced that what I have to say is useful and deserves wider attention. I would not waste my time, Mr Speaker, or your time, on the Member for Tanjong Pagar if he was just an isolated individual; but he is not. He typifies, to my mind, very much of what is best and also what is most explosive in Singapore. He has obviously great potentialities for good, but he could also bring disaster.

He needs principles.

I listened yesterday to two very lengthy speeches by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I listened with admiration for his ability but with a continual sense of frustration and regret for the fact that his whole approach to the problem was so very trivial and superficial. I would like to deal with three particular aspects that struck me as I listened to him - three things that were outstanding in what he had to say and which seemed to me to be typical of quite a large section of the younger generation in Singapore - and the younger generation is liable to be the master generation and therefore they do deserve our attention when we are dealing with Merdeka. The first thing about him was his excessive timidity with regard to his Merdeka colleagues. He reminded me of a young girl attending her first dance and looking nervously around and blushing because she is convinced that every man who comes near her is going to make improper advances! He seemed to fear that if he once let himself get into the virile embraces of the Labour Front he would lose his political virginity and perhaps be cast out from the bosom of his happy family. That sort of distrust and suspicion and nervousness is terribly infectious. When a man of standing and repute and powers of leadership allows himself that feeling that he cannot safely put his hand out just for a while to co-operate; that he has got to hedge and qualify it and give notice that it is only a very temporary measure; it does tend to build up a feeling of emotional insecurity, and that is a real danger in Singapore today and I shall refer to it again later on. Besides a certain timidity in his approach to his Merdeka colleagues, it seemed to me also that there was a serious timidity in his general political thought. He struck out - I have never yet heard him strike out anything at all which is new. He looks always backwards and not forwards. I am not referring to his summaries of world history in which he indulged yesterday and which, to my mind, were very superficial and very inaccurate. He quite failed to see the true course of progress, the changing forces in the British Empire which dated from the last century - a century when the investment programme decreased - and not from the Second World War. I am not referring to his historical outlook but to the sort of things that he wishes to put before the public. He gave us yesterday what I presume was an intentional preview of the two main vote-winning planks of his Party's next electoral programme - and they were Merdeka and Malayanisation. Those are no longer aspirations of the future. They are here and now. They are in our hands. They are practical jobs to be done in a businesslike way and I have no doubt that they will be done in a businesslike way, and we can start to look much further ahead than that. I remember once in 1942 seeing a Japanese soldier with his rifle and a bayonet at the end of it; he was dancing around and threatening an unarmed prisoner who had already surrendered. This little Japanese, I am sure, was not driven by any malicious or sadistic impulse. He just quite failed to adjust to the changed situation. He could not think of anything else to do. He saw before him a man who had been his enemy and so he kept bouncing about him and waving his bayonet under the impression that he was still engaged in a fight. I am afraid that the Member for Tanjong Pagar has tended to proceed rather on those lines too. He barks like a puppy at the heels of a departing colonialism instead of standing up like a man to face his problems which will come with the end of colonialism. You can win elections perhaps on an out-of-date political platform, but you cannot serve the needs of the people. You cannot build for the future. The third significant thing which we heard yesterday from the Member for Tanjong Pagar's very forceful rhetoric was something to this effect, - he was speaking about power - I think I have got roughly what he said: "Power is not a thing to be bargained for or accepted, but a thing to be fought for and seized!" All right, it is a point of view if you like it, and if you like fighting better than amicable discussion; but whether it is a right or a wrong point of view, it is certainly an incomplete point of view, because power is not a prize to be won, it is an instrument to be used. It is not an end in itself, it is a means of service. You can use power like you use a badminton racket - to have a pleasurable and, no doubt, healthy (in its way) display of your skill, your athletic prowess, in batting the shuttle quite fruitlessly through the air; or you can use power like a changkol, getting down to earth patiently and humbly and seriously and steadily cultivating good seed and eradicating the weeds. Anybody, any political Party, any politician who is seeking power in Singapore must see it as a changkol and not as a badminton racket, because on the use of power when it is obtained will depend the future.

Pick and shovel!

It is purely coincidental, Mr Speaker, Sir, that our Party badge is called a changkol. It had not occurred to me until this moment. Now the Member for Tanjong Pagar has never yet given, by what I can recollect, any sign at all of having seriously thought about the use of power when he has got it, or about the use of Merdeka when Singapore, please God, has got that. Occasionally he has offered us various apparently off-the-cuff suggestions and they were highly unsatisfactory suggestions. I recollect once he interjected into a debate saying that if he got into power he would dismiss the Judges and get new ones. I am sure he was speaking thoughtlessly. He did not mean anything. He was just saying something in order to interrupt and it was not to be taken seriously. But it is irresponsible for a man of his importance to throw out that sort of comment, that he would dismiss the Judges - just like that! It is not a thing that any leading politician should say. Again in a prepared speech at one time he tried to deal with the proper defence policy for Singapore, and his policy, in summary, was that "we should spend every cent we have got and we should mortgage the future up to the hilt." I commented on it at the time and said that it was an extraordinarily silly thing to say - if that is Parliamentary language, Mr Speaker! I am sure again he did not really mean it. He had not thought about it. He was just striking an attitude, saying something that was superficially effective, but it was said before a crowded gallery. It was said in the presence of the representatives of the world Press and he apparently was quite casual and quite careless as to the effect which it might have on the good repute and stability of Singapore. He did not seem to be concerned with anything beyond making what was in its way a forceful statement, but clearly one which, if anyone attempted to carry it out, or if anyone thought he could carry it out, would be most damaging to the future of this territory. I have enlarged on this because, Mr Speaker, failure to envisage the use of power before you have got it can be extremely dangerous. Singapore cannot assume power, assume control of its own affairs, and assume Merdeka lightly and irresponsibly. I would not have spent so much time on these aspects of the Member for Tanjong Pagar if timidity, a lack of forethought and a lack of a serious long-term purpose were peculiar to himself; but unfortunately these are faults into which all human beings, and especially all politicians, can too easily fall or too easily be led. They are thoughts which are dangerous at any time anywhere and they are particularly dangerous in Singapore today. I have already referred to the difficulties and the dangers. I should like to say and to stress that it rests with us - those who are now present in this Assembly and those who have left it for the time being - whether we turn our difficulties and dangers into opportunities and achievements. We can do it, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have no doubt at all that we can overcome the difficulties, and in the difficulties there is the potentiality of great prosperity and great happiness; but we shall not do it easily and we shall not do it unless we set ourselves to purify ourselves from our weaknesses and our defects. We have got to hold with courage to a wise national purpose. We can achieve nothing if we allow ourselves to be dominated by a senseless fear of our fellow Singaporeans. Nor can we achieve anything if we are dominated by the equally senseless consequences of senseless fear, and that is the vain conceit that our own person, our own Party, our own community or class contains in itself all that is wise and all that is trustworthy and all that is worth while. It is not so. I disagree with many people, but I always recognise in them that they have some good intentions and that they have some wisdom; and we must all recognise that. No doubt we shall often profoundly disagree. We shall criticise each other. We shall attack each other, and it is right that that should happen because it is part of the natural basis of democracy. But beneath all that criticism and attack on the Party system there does lie an absolutely fundamental sense of national brotherhood, a sense of mutual trust in each other's good intentions. We have got to hold fast to the faith that our political opponents are trying to do what is right, even when we are convinced, in fact, that they are doing what is wrong. We have got to accept that, at bottom, they too are seeking the welfare of Singapore, and not its destruction. Any politician or Party or community which tries to separate itself from the sense of national brotherhood and to retire into suspicion and distrust and self-conceit is blind to the challenge of Merdeka. Besides its essential basis of national unity and good faith, we have got, as I have said before, to look most seriously and most purposefully to the future. We do want to stop nagging about the past. Only harm can come from people who would go on rubbing at old sores, weeping over old wounds, and grumbling about what happened to their grandfather in 1900 or their father in 1930, or about the promotion they did not get in 1948, or the opportunities that were denied them in 1954. Those are past. Whether they are bad or good, never mind, because they are past, and we do need to look to the future. To carry a bagful of bitter memories in our hands is a poor way to approach the glorious dawn of the future. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Assembly with all its defects and its weaknesses yet has the duty of guiding Singapore at a most critical and important time, and that is a thought that should make us all humble. On our wisdom and our good purposes depend the lives and happiness of more than a million souls, and depend also many more unborn whose future and whose fate will be decided by what we do. In the past I have worked and now I give my voice in support of Merdeka, because I believe that Singapore needs the opportunity to carry the burden of its own responsibility. Our city at present struggles under a great weight of poverty, waste, muddle, inefficiency, corruption, sickness and suffering. These are all natural ills which are accumulated in all human societies and under which human societies collapse unless they can make a new start and shake off the ills and reconstruct themselves. That is a task that calls for courage and wisdom. Merdeka to me is the opening of a new era and a new life. In freedom we can face the efforts of reconstructing our society. We can endure the sacrifices which will undoubtedly be called for if we are to provide properly for the future. We can make our city clean and healthy and happy, and we can stand straight in the glorious sunlight and breathe deeply the sweet air of freedom. It is with profound hope, Mr Speaker, and with profound humility that we should all give our voices in support of our Merdeka mission.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion. Since all men are born equal, it is not proper nor is it tolerable for anyone or any nation to hold sway over another. Independence is our birthright, and in demanding the right for self-determination, we ask for nothing more or less than what was agreed upon by the leaders of the two great democracies - Britain and America. Colonialism is dead and has no place under present-day conditions. It is no use kicking a dead horse. But I share the concern expressed yesterday by the Member for Tanjong Pagar that the consequences of failure to obtain independence by the date agreed upon will be dreadful to contemplate. Opponents of Merdeka were not slow to make capital out of the disturbances at Kallang and to point out that Singapore is not yet ready to govern itself. I say that an impartial analysis of the causes and effect of the disturbances will prove that it had nothing to do with the desire for Merdeka. I am aware also of the feeble attempts made by the stooges of colonialism to discredit the desire of the people for independence. But to that I say, let the spirit of Merdeka never be modified nor subjugated. It is our firm desire that we should be able to choose our own form of government and to take our rightful place among the free nations of the world. To those who claim that we are anti-British, the answer can be found in the second part of the motion where we seek to affirm our faith in Britain and our desire to remain a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations after gaining independence. I may venture to say that we are not ungrateful to Britain for raising Singapore to its present state of prosperity and commercial importance, and there is no reason why our friendship towards Britain should not continue after Singapore has attained its status as a free nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has expressed on many occasions the desire to have independence. Indeed I view the problem in this light - all men are born free. This principle has been recognised by every free nation in the world, and even by other nations which may not have such a concept. If that is a principle that is recognised by all, then indeed we need not fight for it. It is our birthright. It is right that we should receive it. There is no one in this world who should say to us, "You are not free. You are not fit." But it is up to us to pronounce our own judgment. Today Singapore is under the control of Britain. I think of the problem like this. The freedom that is the right of this country is only kept in custody by Britain. I compare it with a bank. I compare it with an inheritance that was left to us by our forefathers in the bank. The bank acts only as a trustee, and as soon as the child is of age, as soon as he is able to take over his own affairs, then he has every right to ask the bank to give him that sum of money. But whether he should want to have the whole sum, or half the sum, or part of the sum, the decision should come from him alone. However, I do not deny that such trustees have a great deal of experience. They have some wisdom and they can advise the person who is going to draw out the money. On the other hand, if you are to draw out that money and it is going to be given away to you on demand, because it is your right, then we should exercise caution. We, or the person who is drawing out the money, when we take that money out of the bank, should be certain that there are no highway robbers or somebody who might stick us up and rob us of that money. The freedom that is ours, the freedom that we are going to get, the freedom I know that must be given to us must be safeguarded. It is no use -

How?

I will come to that. It is no use -

He is a schoolmaster!

Order, order.

- going all out to ask for freedom only to lose it the next day. You may be impatient to know what is in my mind but I hope -

My God!

Order.

- after one whole day of talk about Merdeka, you will have a little bit more patience. If you are impatient, you have lost one good quality. In Singapore there are a number of people who are afraid of freedom. I would say that they are afraid of it not because they do not want it. They are afraid that when Merdeka comes along they will lose their job; there will be no security; business might be bad, and so on and so forth. But may I give an assurance to people who think in this trend that if we have independence and it is in the hands of a democratic government strong enough to look after the interests of all, strong enough to have security, then there is no chance of these people losing their jobs, or their business suffering: and if we can give such guarantees to the people of this island who cry out for no independence now, then I think we will win them over. Another section of the people who are afraid of Merdeka are the minorities. They are afraid that they will be swamped when independence comes. Of course, if we happen to be amongst the majority races like myself, we may not, generally speaking, be able to see their point of view, but I do see that clearly. I have this to say. At the present moment, when we are still not independent, have we got safeguards for these minorities? Are they contented? If we have our independence, what safeguards do we want for them? I believe that every single person who claims loyalty to this land must have equal rights with anybody else and he must also have equal responsibility. I do not believe that since they are the minority groups they must be placed on a pedestal and be given special privileges. I believe that if we continue in this trend of racial harmony - and it has been the case with Singapore for a very long time - we will have no such fears. Today we have the majority as well as the minority races in Singapore. The elections conducted last year brought in the elected representatives sitting in this House now. It shows that Singapore is not racial-minded. The people chose the best men. The minorities should not therefore be afraid of Merdeka. However, I would like to assure the minority groups that our Party - the Liberal-Socialists - will guard their interests too, and prevent any law enacted which is especially disadvantageous to them. We will see that they are placed on a par with everybody else, on a par with regard to privileges as well as responsibilities. Throughout the whole of last year and this year, we have heard many shouts of Merdeka. We have gone to many election rallies. We have gone to many other rallies after that, and we have heard people explaining to the crowds as to what Merdeka means. I am a little disturbed by the meaning or Merdeka that has been given to quite a section of the people. It has been said by some leaders shouting Merdeka that as soon as Singapore gets its independence, the hawkers will be able to sell right in the centre of the road; the police will not be allowed to arrest them.

What leaders? The Progressives?

Order.

We have heard another section telling the crowd, "Look at the C.I.D. there. Why are the people inside there locked up? When Merdeka comes along, the police will have no right to arrest them. They will all be out!" We have also heard that many other things will happen. We can do whatever we like when we have Merdeka. To the business people an assurance has been given that taxes will be reduced.

Not by the Labour Front.

Yes, not by the Labour Front, but the news has been circulating. I mix with the people. I know them.

You sit in coffee-shops all the time?

Order, order.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar knows only one section of the people, and I know their views. They are not too good views. But I would like the people to know that when freedom comes to Singapore, law and order will still have to be maintained; the police will still have to do their work; taxation will still have to go on, and, in effect, -

We have still got to eat!

- and, in effect, we might be faced with heavier taxation to run the country, but we have to weigh -

On a point of information, Sir.

Has the hon. Member given way?

No. But we have to weigh the pros and cons of it. It is worth while to have all these extra responsibilities, more taxation, more work, and even perhaps we have to sacrifice our lives to defend this country? Weighed against freedom, is it worth while? I say it is worth while!

Hurrah!

I am here to correct the views that have been passed on to the people of Singapore - not anything else. Those have been the wrong views. If we had given them the correct views, probably we might have been spared that Kallang incident. When Merdeka comes to Singapore, we can have many types of government under the name of democracy. I witnessed one form of democracy that was practised during the occupation of Singapore. They called it the "Co-prosperity Sphere".

"Spear".

During that time we had no riots. We had no disorders. The country was indeed very peaceful. Thefts and robberies were few. Today we have a bit of rioting and quite a number of acts of thuggery. But during the time of the occupation, the police were strong and it was difficult for one to express one's opinions openly in the public. We were living in a police state. Under democracy, if there is meddling with the police, if the police is subjected to the whims and fancies of the ruling Party, we will come to that state; and if we come to that state, we will lose what we are fighting for today. Everyone of us will lose our personal freedom, the freedom of the individual. We want safeguards on that. We want to see that we have Merdeka and yet every person in Singapore must be allowed freely to express his views without fear. The Press must be given the freedom to criticise the views of all leaders, as it is doing today. That freedom must be retained, and the individual must be given every opportunity and every chance to know that if he acts within the law, he is not afraid of anybody in Singapore, even the Chief Minister.

Nobody is afraid of the Chief Minister.

I hope they respect him.

Amen!

The next type of democracy which we may have will be one where everybody is free. I would like to compare this type of freedom with that in countries like Britain, India and Australia. That type of democracy must come to Singapore. In order to attain that, what must we do? It is important that the police must be independent of the ruling Party to some extent. We must have a strong police force that is able to resist the meddling of politicians. We must have a Legal Department that is going to defend the rights of the individual without fear of the Government. That must be written into the constitution before we can really have a democratic Singapore. About this question of Merdeka again, today we are fighting for political freedom and I know we will get it. But there are also other important freedoms that we must have. We must have economic freedom. We must be able to feed the people on this island. We cannot say that because Singapore is flourishing today, it will keep on flourishing forever. We know, as a matter of fact, that there are a number of factories that have stopped their expansion schemes. We know also that capital has been shifted from this country to other places, and that trade has more or less not been flourishing for quite some time. If this state of affairs does not progress, and our population, on the other hand, keeps on increasing every day, we will be faced with the problem of unemployment. We must have a strong government. We must have a stable government to be able to help the people of Singapore. We must have a government that can negotiate on behalf of the people of Singapore with our neighbouring countries for better trading conditions. We must have a government that is able enough to infuse confidence into everybody in Singapore and make the worker feel that he is safe to work in any factory he likes, and to make the people who have the money to want to come and invest their money in this country and to start new industries. A weak government will never be able to secure for us all that we want, and I always believe that in the matter of a democratic set-up, the power is always vested finally with the people. It is the people who elect the government and the people should be educated further to know how to exercise the very valuable privilege called the vote which will send in people to represent them in the government. The people always deserve the government they elect. It may be a good government. It may be a bad government. We have gone through that a number of times, and I think the people are starting to wake up on this matter. However, on this motion, I would like to assure the House that we, the Liberal-Socialist Party, want independence and we will go to London to negotiate with Her Majesty's Government for a Merdeka that will be acceptable to all in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion before the House. I would like to congratulate the Hon. the Chief Minister on his statesmanlike speech yesterday. He gave very strong reasons why Singapore should have Merdeka now, and he outlined in clear terms what he meant by this. The people of Singapore want Merdeka, not because they want to get rid of the British but because of the human urge to be free of the shackles of colonialism. They want to be able to raise their heads amongst the free people of the world and be better able to discharge their responsibilities. They want to feel that this land of Singapore is theirs to have and to fight for. I have no doubt in my mind, Sir, that this motion will receive the unanimous, support of the Assembly and I hope -

One abstention.

- that the united voice of the representatives of the people of Singapore will bear fruit in London and that the Merdeka Mission will bring back to Singapore the long-cherished goal - Merdeka.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the necessity for independence in Singapore has been so thoroughly stressed by the Hon. the Chief Minister and other able speakers before me on this subject that I think it is rather unnecessary for me to take up more time of this House to elaborate on this subject but I am afraid on matters of such importance, I might be accused by some mischievous persons that I have more enthusiasm for a holiday in London than for working for Merdeka. This motion deserves the whole-hearted support of every right-thinking citizen of Singapore. The few who oppose it are mainly those whose interest is not in Singapore but in Whitehall and those who enjoy special privileges obtained from the colonial masters. They are those who, due to the past educational system, have lost all self-respect and have no confidence in themselves or the people. The Alliance is against the principle of sacrificing the interests of the masses for any privileged class and has every confidence in the ability of our own people to govern ourselves. Therefore, I strongly support this motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion before the House. In his speech yesterday, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister clearly pointed out that Singapore satisfies the two conditions outlined in the Washington Declaration. I have, Sir, on many occasions publicly stated that the speed at which Singapore attains independence is not to be geared to the wish of Whitehall but is to be geared to the will of the people of Singapore, and if it is the will of the people of Singapore to have Merdeka now, there is nothing that Whitehall can do to stop it. Similarly, if the wish of the people is not to have Merdeka immediately, there is nothing that Whitehall can do to force it down our throats. Now, Sir, we who believe in parliamentary democracy maintain that the will of the people should prevail unless one is to make a mockery of democracy, and in the light of the Washington Declaration, Sir, I am stirred by the conviction that the task of the Merdeka Mission in London will not be one of trying to wrest the sceptre of colonialism from Whitehall but rather a task in which both parties sit down in a spirit of comradeship to endeavour to formulate an agreement whereby the two peoples, that is, the people of Singapore and the people of Great Britain, can continue to remain the best of friends within the Commonwealth each respecting the rights of the other. Whether this happy state of affairs in our future relationship with Great Britain can be brought about or not is a matter that is entirely the choice of the Colonial Office. The wording of the motion, Sir, is very clear. The Merdeka Mission is not going to London to fight for independence but to seek what is our inalienable right and in this task, the Mission is instructed to give due weight to our obligations. The approach then is one of facing the realities of the situation and is definitely not anti-British. This approach can only be made by a people who are conscious of their responsibilities and their obligations and I suggest that the Colonial Office should profit by this friendly approach. Here again, Sir, the choice is with the Colonial Office. Sir, one newspaper conducted an anti-Merdeka campaign and it would have the outside world believe that the people of Singapore do not want Merdeka now.

Shame!

This Assembly, Sir, is the proper forum of public opinion and I am sure that when this debate is wound up the voting will be unanimous with the exception, of course, of one Member who says that he will abstain and the vote of this Assembly will portray the will of the people of Singapore. We have been told, Sir, that it is the sincere desire of Her Majesty's Government to see a fusion of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya so that a strong united Malayan nation can emerge. I have, as yet, no cause to doubt this sincerity. Her Majesty's Government has agreed to grant independence to the Federation by August next year and unless Singapore attains nationhood also, the question of fusion will be made more difficult, for how can a colony sit down at a round-table conference as an equal with an independent territory to discuss terms and conditions for a merger? Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister has touched on the fears expressed in some quarters that independence will mean the domination of other races by the Chinese, and he expressed his confidence in the Chinese in that they will play their part as loyal citizens of Singapore. The history of the Chinese in Singapore, Sir, is one that should give no cause for such fears. We now have automatic registration and in almost every electoral division the votes are predominantly Chinese, and if these fears had any foundation, the Member for Stamford, an Indian, the Member for Seletar, another Indian, and the Member for Katong, a Eurasian, would not have been returned.

What about Israel?

Cairnhill.

The Member for Cairnhill, yes, would not have been returned to this Assembly. The Chinese in Singapore do not indulge in communal politics.

You forgot Tanglin..

Order.

And here, Sir, on the front Benches are represented all kinds of races in Singapore. The Communist threat has been touched on by a lot of Members here - by speakers on the other side and on this side - and it is a real and a live one in Singapore. The best answer to this threat is to give Singapore independence, for then the people of Singapore will arise to meet this threat with their heads held high and with their hearts in the fight. It is then a fight for their very existence, and not a fight for the preservation of colonial rule. Sir, the Labour Front sincerely and honestly believe that Merdeka is the only answer to political stability and with political stability will come economic stability. Sir, the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) said something about those people in Singapore who do not describe themselves as Singaporeans but there is one thing I would like to say here and now - that as far back as 1948 when I travelled overseas, I felt proud to put in the hotel register "Malayan" as my nationality and it confused a lot of people, and if we, the Merdeka Mission, were to go to London in April and describe ourselves as Malayans, we will come back as true Malayans. The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Chief Minister, in reply?

In reply, Sir. Sir, I would like to deal with a few of the aspects that have been brought out in the debate. The Member for Tanglin, Sir, asks us to remember that the people of Singapore are not true Malayans. I consider that a libel upon the people of Singapore although it may well be true of new Malayans like the Member for Tanglin, and I reject that as an accurate analysis of the loyalties of the people of Singapore. It may be that the air of Tanglin does not breed single loyalty to this territory - but other parts of Singapore do and the majority of the people of Singapore are loyal Malayans, loyal to Singapore. The Member for Tanglin deplores emotionalism. Sir, he is not the only, he takes the cue from another very distinguished expatriate - it seems it is all right for Winston Churchill to be emotional - he is a great Englishman - but for any Malayan to be emotional is really quite improper and a ghastly and an unpleasant spectacle. I would remind the hon. Member that we Malayans are human beings. We are not a desiccated, dehumanised, subjugated race whatever the efforts of the hon. Member's compatriots in the past, and as human beings, Sir, we are proud of the fact that we have emotions. Let me go back a few thousand years to the time when the hon. Member's ancestors were wearing woad. There was a gentleman by the name of Mencius - you must have heard of him - the great disciple of Confucius and he said once, Sir, that "emotionalism is the greatest moral force for good in the world." Perhaps the hon. Member will remember that. Sir, I had hoped that at least whatever the hon. Member's views were, he would not seek to misinterpret what we did say or what I did say in my address to the Assembly yesterday. At least one thing we can be certain of is that he understands the English language and he has no excuse for misinterpreting. Yesterday, I made it as clear as could be, in the simplest possible syllables, that the external defence of Singapore was a misnomer and that it was not a question of defending Singapore. It was a question of utilising Singapore for the defence of other members of the Commonwealth, including the United Kingdom, but we have the Member for Tanglin saying today, "We agree we are not strong enough to defend ourselves. Therefore, we ask the United Kingdom to defend us." The Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) supports him with, "We agree to entrust external defence to the United Kingdom." We agree to no such thing, Sir. We do not agree that we are not strong enough to meet our own defence. If the question of our own defence only were at issue, we might have made other arrangements. Sir, there are a very large number of independent territories which are members of the United Nations which are smaller in population and in income than Singapore and yet which survive. So would Singapore, Sir, if it had only to seek its own defence. It is important that the Liberal-Socialists should recognise this fact: it is not that we are entrusting our external defence to the United Kingdom; it is that we recognise that we cannot deprive the Commonwealth of the utilisation of Singapore as a port and there are some, including myself, who agree that we should not, that is to say, we are prepared to sacrifice ourselves for the good of the Commonwealth and not for the defence of Singapore. Sir, he has suggested that we have cut our Defence Estimates for 1956. I had thought it was amply clear at the time of the debate that the Estimates were tailored to the maximum extent at which we could spend the money and that none of our plans for expansion of defence had been curtailed.

For a battalion?

The question of a battalion has arisen, Sir, and we are assured that it can be done. It was suggested that it will take three years. There is now a concerted effort being made to produce an operational battalion by April 1957. I am told that it can be done. There is one other aspect, Sir, of the speeches from the Liberal-Socialists to which I must refer with a sense of deep regret. I am in the position, as leader of the All-Party Delegation, of having to maintain unity of front in dealing with the Colonial Office, and that unity of front has to be maintained amongst a very different-minded group of people. It would have been a matter of elementary courtesy, Sir, for the Liberal-Socialists to indicate to the leaders of the other Parties - we have had several meetings of the All-Party Delegation - that they had any specific reservations in respect of internal defence. I consider it damaging and regretful that they should, here, for the first time in an amorphous fashion indicate their so-called reservations on internal security. I asked the leader of the Liberal-Socialists how he wanted to protect this internal security and the Member for Serangoon brushed me off with, "That will come later", as a teacher would, and he never did explain but I gather from the Member for Tanglin that it is the intention of the Liberal-Socialists to insist that the United Kingdom retain at least equal power of control over our internal security as the local Government. Let me say this flatly: If that is so, we go in vain. The Labour Front will not accept any such compromise about internal security. Now we have our disagreement public and I do not know where we go from there. Sir, Mr Sutherland who does not know his status and wants to go to a night school, does not have to. He can write to Sir John Nicoll and he will discover that nominations by the Governor under the Rendel Constitution take the form of following certain specific principles and one of the principles is the appointment of a Member representing British commerce. This was debated in full before the Rendel Commission - the question of representation of the Chambers - and the Chambers were assured that if there was a representation of business, representation would be through nomination. Mr Sutherland is here as a representative of British capital.

You never said it before.

I did not appoint you. I would not.

I can understand that.

Sir, the Labour Front has, at all times, despite the slander, the malicious and vicious attacks to which it has been subjected - this goes back to more than a year on the part of certain British sections - always been deeply convinced that the future welfare of Singapore lies and can only lie within the Commonwealth in close and friendly relations with the United Kingdom. It is with regret that we have watched this proud British community with so many fine members in it, leaderless, covertly hostile, without a single man of stature to give it cohesion, purpose and understanding. Last week, I received a letter from a group of responsible British merchants and so anxious am I that we should seek to wash away this unpleasant antagonism that exists and build a relationship of goodwill and trust that I promptly said to them that I was glad to receive their letter and would they permit publication, which they did. Yesterday, Sir, despite the views that I do hold about the illogical conduct of Mr Sutherland in the past in divisions in this House, I refrained from referring at all to his past conduct. I gave him every possible opportunity and I pleaded for just one act of statesmanship on the part of this community and the capital he represents. I swept the path and laid down the red carpet and blew the fanfare of trumpets and did a statesman come forth? A grey mouse came forth - a blind grey mouse -

Order, please. I appreciate the excitement of the moment but I must rule that the word "mouse" is unparliamentary.

I accept your ruling, Sir, and I apologise. I used the word "blind" in order to emphasise, Sir, this timorous fear and incapacity for deciding which way to go. He will go neither North nor South nor East nor West because he is afraid of action. It is pathetic and if this is the way British capital acts in this Assembly, then I say this, Sir, and I hope it is heard in the headquarters of British capital, that the primary duty of British capital in Singapore today is to come off the pink gin clouds whereon lie their incumbents, or some of them, to come to earth and establish friendly and honest co-operation with the people; and if it is found, as no doubt it will be found, that some of the local incumbents are quite inadequate for this duty of restoring and maintaining goodwill with the people of Singapore, British capital should take early stock of the need for replacing their local incumbents with some of the very fine Englishmen whom we so often meet in England and whom we would welcome in Singapore, not corrupted by the over-pampering of decades of colonial rule. So we will not have unanimity. Let it be so, Sir. A division will be taken and I hope you will allow it, Sir. I hope the voice of the people of Singapore, at least, will be heard - the Malayans for Merdeka and no internal security in the hands of anybody because that is no longer Merdeka. Question put, 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 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 cooperation 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.

Division, Sir.

Clear the lobbies. The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, Nil; Abstentions, 4. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Nil Jumat. Ahrnad Bin Ibrahim. Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. Ede, John. Goh Chew Chua. Qoh Tong Liang. Jumabhoy, J. M. Abstentions Lazarous, A. R. Butterfield, C. H. Lee Choon Eng. Goode, W. A. C. Lee Kuan Yew. Hart, T. M. Lim Cher Kheng. Sutherland, G. A. P. Lim Ching Siong. Lim Choon Mong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Marshall, D. S. Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Absent Nair, M. P. D. Jumabhoy,R. Ong Piah Teng. Seah Peng Chuan. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. Resolved, 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 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 cooperation 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.

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, under Standing Order 9 (2). That the order of business be amended to allow motion No. 3 to be taken first and then motion No. 5 and after that motion No. 2.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the order of business be amended to allow motion No. 3 to be taken first and then motion No. 5 and after that motion No. 2.

Sir, I move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection(4) of section 12 of the Military Manoeuvres Ordinance (Chapter 103), resolves that the Raffles Lighthouse Bombing Area Rules, 1956, published as Notification No. S 107 in the Gazette Supplement No. 769 of the 29th March, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 15 of 1956, be approved. Sir, this motion seeks approval of the Rules contained in Sessional Paper No. 15 which has been laid before this Assembly and those Rules in turn arise out of a previous Paper No. 14 which contained a Proclamation declaring a new bombing range in the vicinity of Raffles Lighthouse. That range having been proclaimed, it is now necessary for the Air Officer Commanding, who is the proper authority, to make these Rules for the safety of persons in that area and the approval of this Assembly is required for those Rules. I should perhaps add, Sir, that before proclaiming this new area, we have had very detailed discussions and consideration involving all the departments which are interested. Those are the Rural Board on behalf of the islanders, the Master Attendant, Shipping, Marine Police, Civil Aviation and particularly the Fisheries Department; and the upshot of the discussions is that this area has been agreed as a suitable one for a bombing range and it has been agreed that there will be no inconvenience or danger to people who live or have their livelihood in the vicinity. Accordingly, I ask this Assembly's approval of those Rules.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (4) of section 12 of the Military Manoeuvres Ordinance (Chapter 103), resolves that the Raffles Lighthouse Bombing Area Rules, 1956, published as Notification No. S 107 in the Gazette Supplement No. 769 of the 29th March, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 15 of 1956, be approved.

Sir, I move the motion standing in my name as No. 5 on the Order Paper, That this Assembly, having taken note of the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Assembly Staff, hereby resolves that the following revised salaries be approved with effect from 1st April, 1956: - Clerk of the Legislative Assembly $1,670. Clerk Assistant $630: 680: 715: 750- 35A-1,030/bar/1,100- 40A-1,420. Second Clerk Assistant $560: 630: 660: 690- 30A-930/bar/960- 35A-1,240. Chief Reporter and Editor $820-30A-940. Reporters $730-25A-880. Members of the House will recall that we had laid before us some time ago the Second Report of the Select Committee which was appointed to inquire into the conditions of service and the establishment of the Assembly Staff.

Order, Mr Chief Secretary. Have you signified the Governor's recommendation or consent? I am afraid I did not hear it.

I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am afraid I did omit to do so. I should, Sir, formally convey to this House that I have the consent of His Excellency the Governor as required under Standing Order 33 to proceed with this motion. I apologise for not having started with that. As I was saying, Sir, Members of the House will, I think, be aware that some of the recommendations in that Report have aroused considerable controversy and it has been necessary for the Government to give considerable thought to those recommendations before deciding how far we could in conscience move that they be implemented. The motion that stands in my name this afternoon, Sir, contains the decisions which we have so far made and for which I now seek the approval of this House. Hon. Members will see that we have accepted many of the recommendations, though some have been modified. We have accepted the recommendation that the post of Clerk should be of what is called Superscale status but we have put the appropriate salary at $1,670 and not $1,950 as recommended by the Select Committee. We have accepted in full the recommendation of the designations of the post of Clerk Assistant and Second Clerk Assistant and we have accepted the salaries recommended for those two posts. We have also accepted the new designations of Chief Reporter and Editor and Reporters and we have accepted the salary scales recommended except that we have curtailed the upper limit. The Select Committee recommended that the Chief Reporter's scale should go up to $1,000 and we are proposing that it should stop at $940 and they recommended that the Reporters should go to $940 and we consider that they should stop at $880. There is one further important point that I should mention and that is the motion seeks approval for these new scales and salaries with effect from the 1st of April, 1956. Now, the Report of the Select Committee recommended that the changes should be made from the 1st of April, 1955, in recognition of the additional work and responsibilities undertaken by our staff during that period. That recommendation, Sir, raises a very real difficulty to the Government in that it impinges on the principle of back pay. We have for some time now tried to establish the principle in the Government service that alterations of salary scales should not be made retrospective but should come into force from the date on which they are approved and it is likely to be embarrassing to us and indeed, I think, perhaps to the Assembly if we depart from that principle in the case of our own staff. I am pursuing an alternative suggestion of finding some other way of recognising the services that our staff have rendered to us. That suggestion I should like to leave without prejudice to an ultimate decision. But in the meantime, Sir, it is important that we should get the present salaries of these posts fixed so that we can proceed to appoint the proper officers to the posts, and for that reason, I seek approval today for the new scales to be effective from the beginning of this month, the 1st of April, without prejudice to any subsequent solution we may wish to bring forward to the representations for recognising the work done in the past. Sir, I move accordingly.

Sir, I rise to second the motion and reserve the right to speak at a later stage. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I happened to be on this Committee. It should be noted that in all Select Committees, the Members are chosen in such a manner that there is always a majority of Government Members. In this Committee, I am sure, Sir, you being the Chairman, know a lot of the details. Decisions on such matters were reached usually after voting and the decisions taken at that time were done when there were two Government Members and one on the Opposition. It seems, Sir, that if in a Select Committee, a simple thing as salaries of personnel cannot be agreed upon between Members of the Government Benches themselves, it does show us that the Government is vacillating one way and the other. It has no definite idea as to what is best and what is not as good. This is a clear case of Government indecision! The next point I would like to say is that at that time when the decisions were taken, we were not thinking about personalities but we were thinking only about the work and the responsibilities of the officers, and it was agreed by all present that they were doing a great deal more work than other officers receiving the salaries they were then receiving, so that there was a recommendation that they should be given a higher scale. I do not see what difference there is or how much it will benefit Government and save its money by cutting down the maximum of $940 for Reporters or $1,000 for the Chief Reporter and Editor. Recommendations made by the Select Committee in this case are of no use and if decisions taken at Select Committees can be treated in this manner,. then we might as well do away with Select Committees. We might also say that the Hon. the Chief Secretary be allowed to make his own decisions because in this Report here, hon. Members will notice that the only person who said "No" to these various schemes was just the Hon. the Chief Secretary. Government has always talked about democracy. Government has always talked about rule by the majority. Government is now falling back on such a matter. It is no more the voice of the majority. It is, "Where the majority voices an opinion that suits us, then we will implement that and if it voices an opinion that is not to our liking, we will throw it away and fall back on what you might call red tape colonialism which we will continue to make use of, if it pleases us."

Democracy is not ruled by a Committee.

Sir, I must oppose this motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I, fortunately, was not present at any of the Select Committee meetings which deliberated on this staff matter. That was not because it would have been without any purpose. But I am now in a better position to put my point of view and my Party's point of view. I support the proposal of the Government, which varies from the recommendations of the majority of the Select Committee. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a tendency, and it is interesting to note that the Liberal-Socialists support this tendency, that with independence, everybody grabs something more. That is not the spirit of Merdeka. With Merdeka will come greater responsibilities, harder work, a greater sense of purpose and a sense of endeavour. We must resist this tendency that Merdeka means grabbing the white man's job, grabbing the white man's house, grabbing the white man's car and shaking legs like he used to shake legs before. That is not our idea of Merdeka. I am sure that the Assembly staff will forgive me if I say this, that whilst they are not being handsomely paid, they are adequately remunerated more than they were in the last Council and, as the years go by, if the conditions of work should become more and more onerous as the responsibilities and duties of this Assembly become more and more enlarged, the matter could be reviewed. For the time being, it is fair that the Clerk of the Assembly should get what is known, as the Hon. the Chief Secretary has said, as a superscale post and not the equivalent of a Permanent Secretary's post. The other scales of the Clerk Assistant, the Second Clerk Assistant, the Chief Reporter and Reporters are fairly evenly graded out taking into view that at the top of this pyramid is the Speaker at $3,500 a month.

Perhaps the hon. Member does not know what the Speaker's salary is. It is not $3,500.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg your pardon. I had always believed that it was $3,500 but I am glad to note that the Hon. the Chief Minister is a little niche above that.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, having taken note of the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Assembly Staff, hereby resolves that the following revised salaries be approved with effect from 1st April, 1956: - Clerk of the Legislative Assembly $1,670. Clerk Assistant $630: 680: 715: 750- 35A-1,030/bar/1,100- 40A-1,420. Second Clerk Assistant $560: 630: 660: 690- 30A-930/bar/960- 35A-1,240. Chief Reporter and Editor $820-30A-940. Reporters $730-25A-880.

Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will recall that when the Report of the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education was tabled at the February sitting of this Assembly, I promised that Government would be issuing a White Paper based on that Report. This Paper on the education policy is now in your hands. I must emphasise, however, at the very outset that the first part of the Paper, from paragraphs 1 to 7, furnishes only the background to the whole problem and if one might disagree here and there on questions of assessment or opinion, it is really not worth while to go over old ground again. The Report has had favourable Press notices and a few adverse reactions have been confined to those who have, I am afraid, not quite studied the implications or, having studied them, they have not risen above sectional consideration to higher motives of national interest. In order to have the basic structure for retention of all the four major languages in Singapore equally respected and permitted to be used in debate in our Councils, both local government and central government, we must encourage, to the greatest possible extent, the study of these four languages. By insisting on bilingualism in the primary schools and providing for trilingualism in the post-primary stages of education, the secondary school, Technical School and the Polytechnic, we will have very soon people conversant in at least two of those languages and the problem of finding a common language will, it is confidently hoped, be satisfactorily solved. More important than that, the main objective of such bilingual and trilingual education is the over-riding consideration to build up a Singapore-centred consciousness and a common Malayan loyalty in our schools. As school pupils grow up in watertight compartments, only being taught in the medium of one language, there will not be that sufficient diffusion of the best teaching talent, that breakdown of communal barriers, and that sympathetic understanding and respect of other people's cultures and languages which are necessary factors in building up a common loyalty. The All-Party Committee Report expressed the dangers of the two streams of education proceeding without a common objective and with no provision for intermingling, thus producing youths unsympathetic towards each other and even on occasions antagonistic in their attitudes on matters on which there should be no grounds actually for conflict. The Report has sufficiently stressed the grounds, whether real or fancied, why the Chinese stream feels that past neglect and indifference has contributed towards evoking a sense of discrimination in that stream. The White Paper seeks to implement immediately those sections of the All-Party Committee Report which advocate equal treatment being given to all schools under exactly equal conditions and hon. Members will agree, I am sure, that speedy implementation of those proposals specifically mentioned in paragraph 25 of the Paper will dispel the suspicion and distrust which have hitherto existed on that score. On the question of grant-in-aid for Chinese schools, it is unfortunately not possible, if the general education policy is to be carried out as laid down by the Government, for some schools to receive partial aid and others full aid. Since the main aim of Government is, through its education policy, to build a Malayan nation, it should not support any schools which lack the emphasis on a common Malayan loyalty. Communal schools as such, whilst retaining the content and attributes of the basic cultures, must therefore give way to and become as speedily as possible national schools in the sense of using similar Malayan-centred syllabuses, with textbooks specially written in the various languages for this purpose, providing bilingual tuition in those syllabuses. It is hoped, therefore, that sectional and communal interests will see that this is of vital importance and that they will speedily accept the full aid with the conditions attached thereto. There may be misgivings on the part of certain teachers in vernacular schools, that the new deal will affect them adversely. Let me give a categorical assurance, once and for all, that the recommendations it is proposed to implement will not result in the retrenchment of any teacher. Teachers, in fact, will be needed in ever increasing numbers and there are more vacancies even at present than there are existing teachers to fill them. No teacher will suffer by the proposals put forward. It is quite likely that many chosen teachers of vernacular languages in English schools or of English in vernacular schools will get slightly enhanced rates of pay once qualifications and experience have been properly assessed; and let me assure teachers even on this score, that the assessment will be done with the greatest possible latitude, especially in the case of those with very many years of experience. We can ill afford to lose such teachers in the face of our expanded programmes. Another point which I might stress strongly is the security which teachers in vernacular schools will now enjoy. They will get permanency of tenure, regular increments and an adequate scale of salary and allowances. If a teacher wishes to undergo further professional training, he will be enabled to do so without any cost to himself and he can then attain higher skill or be promoted to a grade more important or carrying better allowances than his former one. I intend to see that bursaries, departmental scholarships and all other educational opportunities be henceforth the same for Government schools or aided schools, including vernacular schools. No more teachers will be forced to supplement their income with other uncongenial part-time occupations. They will not be at the whim of an impecunious management committee where the school is actually a small one and depending on fees alone supplemented by uncertain contributions to pay the salaries of the teachers. If all the Chinese schools accept the full aid offered, there will be immediately an improvement in the staffing position and an easing of the burden of those parents with several children in school at the same time, as fees will be remitted if they are all of the proper ages for the classes they attend. With regard to paragraph 17 of the Paper, it is definitely not intended to prune language syllabuses in such a way as to touch their cultural content. It was stressed in the All-Party Committee Report that nothing would be done to hurt the culture of the Chinese and that includes the Chinese language. Any pruning will be done after full consideration and consultation with the school authorities concerned and after their objections have been carefully weighed, there will be no steam-rollering over these objections. As stated in the All-Party Committee Report, audio-visual aids will be used extensively to make up for deficiencies in language teaching and there will be no shortening of courses at the sacrifice of standards. I wish to remedy an inadvertent reference, in paragraph 37 of the Paper, to the Chinese schools which might give the impression that only these schools are to have a Disciplinary Sub-Committee. It is, of course, Government's intention to treat aided schools and mission schools exactly alike. It is for consideration, therefore, to see what practical measures may be adopted to provide better accommodation and profit by the capital grants under the full aid system for schools in rural areas or in overcrowded urban areas. Generally, the system of such aid will be ap- plied in a sympathetic manner and aid will be more readily given in the case of those schools with poor resources without insisting too much on compliance with too many conditions all at once. As regards the last sentence in paragraph 16, the rate of progress depending on recruitment and retention of high quality staff, my attention is drawn to the possible implication that this might be taken to mean that there will be delay in Malayanisation because of this. I have therefore to correct such a misapprehension. Malayanisation will be carried out as quickly as possible and in the spirit of the Commission's Report if agreed by Government. Lastly, may I stress, in the strongest possible terms, that it is not the Government's intention to do anything to endanger any one culture. Henceforth, not only will the culture of each racial group be respected but positive steps will be taken to associate the various groups in such a way as to enable them to understand and appreciate each other's cultures. Whatever my officials and I can do in the Ministry of Education in close consultation with other Ministries to bring about this cultural enrichment to wider contacts and positive encouragement, hon. Members may rest assured that we will do our utmost. With all these essential drastic reorientations of thought in preparation and in objective, there must be sections and individuals who do not agree with the recommendations made. I can only appeal to these groups of persons to rally round and to forget, in the interest of the nation that is now being built, their own individual preferences. If Singapore is going to emerge as a free living country to be worth living in, it must also be worth sacrificing for. Parents, teachers, community leaders, Government officials and voluntary workers must all work together to make our education policy a success. I may inform the House that the Singapore Chinese Schools Committee Teacher Association had an interview with me the day before on questions touching on the White Paper and the All-Party Committee Report. They touched on several points, one of which is the age limit proposed by the White Paper, and I have given the assurance that evening classes and more adult classes will be provided to give facilities of education to those who are not allowed to go into either the primary or the secondary schools. There is also a fear that the powers of the school management committees, if they come into the full aid scheme, will be wrested from them and vested in Government. I give them my categorical assurance that that is not the intention. They will still have their powers and they will still continue to exercise them, although there are safeguards on the principle that teachers and principals must be protected from impecunious management committees who either dismiss principals or teachers at their whims and fancies. There is also that fear that their qualifications and teaching experience will not be recognised, as only recently, the Ministry of Education announced recognition of only eight Chinese University degrees. I can assure the House that the Ministry is still considering recognising other Universities and when the process of sifting the various University degrees is finalised, I will announce the Universities which will be recognised by my Ministry. Sir, I beg to move the motion that stands in my name, That this House approves the adoption of the Education Policy outlined in the White Paper on Education Policy as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 15 of 1956.

Sir, I rise to second the motion. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, I rise to move, That debate on this motion be adjourned in accordance with Standing Order No. 20. Sir, representations have been made to us from various educational authorities that they have not been able to secure copies of the White Paper from the Government Printer. In fact, I was informed by the local English papers that they received a copy of the White Paper on 30th March and then in between came the Easter Holidays. On Monday, the Chinese copies of the White Paper reached some Chinese newspapers and the first time the public knew of the existence of the White Paper could not have been earlier than the 1st of April in English and later in Chinese. We are living today, Sir, in what we like to call a democratic country where the views of the people are allowed to be ventilated and where the people should know what exactly the Government will want to do for them. We should make known what this House wants to do to the public for a length of time that would enable them to comment in the papers or write to us. If we publish a Paper and then keep it until the last moment before we let it out to the public giving them no chance to comment on it, then there must be one reason or another. One reason probably would be that the Paper is defective.

Shame!

I said may be.

I say shame.

Order, please.

If it is not, it will stand up to the public eye for any comments because any comments in this direction will not be unfavourable.

Make your comment.

We will, later on, when the time comes. If it is not a good document, the public will definitely comment on it. We must be able to take criticism and we must be able to be benefited by criticisms. What is good should be taken in and what is not good we have every right to reject, but if we want to cover up our faults and carry on in this unholy haste -

Order. I think the hon. Member is probably dancing on the fringe of Standing Order 31 (6) which says: "No Member shall impute improper motives to any other Member." The White Paper has been presented by the Minister for Education and, as I say, the hon. Member seems to be dancing on the fringe of that Standing Order.

Thank you for drawing my attention to it, Sir. I always thought that a Paper is presented after the Council of Ministers have given consent to it.

Order. That, of course, I think the hon. Member must realise, will make it worse because the Council of Ministers are all Members of this Assembly.

Well, Sir, today we live in this world where we agree that we will rule democratically, where we say we must not have dictatorship and if we have a Bill rushed through without its being considered properly by every person concerned, especially the people who are affected and who are best versed in it - the educational authorities - then we are not doing our duty. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I rise to support my hon. Friend as seconder. In the last 24 hours, I have also received representations from educationists from different schools complaining that they had not time or opportunity to study the White Paper. There is no denying the truth of these representations. Copies of the White Paper, if available at all, could not have been obtained until the last two days after the Easter Holidays. It stands to reason therefore that the teaching profession has not had adequate chance to express their considered opinions upon it. Now, this is all wrong. The Government is asking the House today to approve a fresh education policy for the country before the education authorities have had a proper chance to examine it. If the Government does not wish to give the impression to the education authorities and to the public at large that they arc trying to steam-roller this White Paper through this House, they should give a chance to persons in the schools and in the education world to express their opinions and that is why we wish to see this motion adjourned until a later date. The Minister for Education had ample opportunity to take out the White Paper earlier than he did and to make available ample copies to study and indeed it was to have been tabled at the March sitting. Why he has chosen this method of sending it to Members of this Assembly without releasing it simultaneously to the Press and public is something for him to explain. The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) has said and as the Hon. the Chief Minister stated only yesterday, we believe, as he believes, in democratic principles and we feel that in this case, there is a possibility of criticism that these democratic principles are being overlooked. Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us get some facts straight. On the 24th of March, that is to say, a fortnight ago, the White Paper was distributed to all Members. The delay in giving it to the Press, Sir, arose out of the fact that we wished to have the Chinese translations available at the same time for the Chinese Press. They were made available to the Press on the 30th of March. So there has been, in fact, an interval of six days We would also remind the Assembly that there has been a nine-man Committee of the Assembly from all Parties engaged in studying this question and in making a Report and that the White Paper is based on it. I would also remind the Assembly that it is the Assembly that governs the country and not associations outside the Assembly and pressure groups. Finally, Sir, I would like to say this: that when I received the request for an adjournment, I tried to find out the reason why, and it may surprise you. Sir, as I am sure it surprises every intelligent and reasonable person, that there should be made a request without any suggestion of criticism. Neither the mover nor the seconder has had a single objection to this White Paper. No major aspect is being objected to. There is nothing that requires further study. Why this excuse, Sir? Is it a desire to mount opposition along the lines of last May? If that is the desire, Sir, we will meet it. It is being camouflaged, Sir. You, as a lawyer, will appreciate this: you cannot go to Court and ask for an adjournment unless there is something substantial in the way of a defence which you wish to be heard at a later date. Here, no single indication has been given on any aspect of the White Paper to which objection can be taken. In fact, we are very proud of this White Paper, Sir. There are three legs, Sir, to our efforts to seek equal justice for all communities. The first is multilingualism. The second is equal facilities for the main basic cultures of this country in our education system. The third which will come is citizenship. We have taken considerable care and given considerable thought as has the nine-man Committee but, Sir, the question is now placed on a basis of democracy - we must give an opportunity to these schools to make representation. You have heard from the Minister that he has, in fact, received these representations. If that is not enough, right, Sir, I accept this motion and I name the date - the 12th of April - for the hearing of this motion. May I ask your guidance, Sir?

Can the Chief Minister explain further?

I would like to ask, Sir, whether I am right in reading Standing Order No. 20 (1) as indicating that Government can accept the motion and can name a date for the adjourned hearing.

I will read the relevant portions of Standing Order 20 (1): "At any time before the conclusion of the consideration of any item of business any Member may move "That the debate be now adjourned" ... and if such motion is agreed to the debate shall be adjourned.The Speaker shall call upon the Member in charge of that item of business to name a day for its resumption and the item shall thereupon become an order of the day for the day so named." It is quite clear, then, that if the motion is accepted by the House, the debate will be adjourned. Then I will call upon the Minister in charge to name the date. He will name a date and I take it that the Minister or a Member of the Council of Ministers will move tomorrow (if the sitting carries on tomorrow) that at its rising the Assembly do adjourn to the date named.

Thank you, Sir.

The motion for adjournment is before the House.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the debate be now adjourned.

Debate to be resumed, what day?

12th April.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly, pursuant to section 174 of the Labour Ordinance, 1955 (No. 40 of 1955) resolves that the Labour (First-Aid Equipment) Regulations, published as Notification No. S 110 in the Gazette Supplement No. 25 of 29th March, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 13 of 1956, be approved. Section 128 of the Labour Ordinance, 1955 (No. 40 of 1955) makes provision for the prescribing of first-aid equipment on every place of employment where twenty-five or more workmen are employed. The purpose of these Regulations is to prescribe such first-aid equipment as is considered to be essential so that this provision in the Ordinance may be enforced by prosecution, if necessary. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate on the benefits of this safety measure which are indeed quite obvious. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to Section 174 of the Labour Ordinance, 1955 (No. 40 of 1955) resolves that the Labour (First-Aid Equipment) Regulations, published as Notification No. S 110 in the Gazette Supplement No. 25 of 29th March, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 13 of 1956, be approved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $2,500,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure and for the service specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 17 of 1956. Sir, a very full explanation of the reasons why we ask for this supplementary vote is given in the Command Paper and there is nothing which I can usefully add to that explanation. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Committee of Supply, what day?

Now, Sir. Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

Schedule Head 57 - The sum of $2,500,000 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning to the motion, the Question is, "That the sum of $2,500,000 stand part of the motion."

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $2,500,000 ordered to stand part of the motion.

Sir, I move, "That the motion and Schedule be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $2,500,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure and for the service specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 17 of 1956, put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $2,500,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure and for the service specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 17 of 1956.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $5,390,559 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 18 of 1956. Sir, the reasons why these supplementary votes are required are explained in considerable detail in the Command Paper. The great majority of the items referred to are unforeseen revotes of expenditure approved in 1955. It had been hoped to submit this list of revotes at the February sitting of the Assembly, that being the first opportunity after the Budget sittings in November last year. Unfortunately, certain unexpected difficulties arose which made this impossible. It is hoped that, by the end of this year, all necessary arrangements will have been made for the submission of these revotes either in December or at the first sitting in 1957. This year, where necessary, the old-established practice has been followed and work has been financed by means of advances below the line, pending the approval of the Assembly. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Committee of Supply, what day?

Now, Sir. Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

Schedule

I think hon. Members have received the summary of totals of Supplementary Provision under the heads of expenditure shown in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 18 of 1956. I have received no notice of amendments. Head 3 - The sum of $3,780 for Head 3 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 7 - The sum of $20 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 14 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $1,720 for Head 14 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, I have one point that I wish to ask on this particular item, which is given as item No. 12 in Command Paper No. 18, it being, as I understand it, one of 28 items under the "Schedule of Applications for Supplementary Provision approved under authority delegated by the Legislative Assembly". If I understand it aright, these items are covered by a resolution of the Assembly passed on the 25th of May, 1955, empowering Government to authorise expenditure on new services up to a limit of $10,000 in each case. At the time, if I understood him aright, the Hon. the Financial Secretary gave an undertaking that this delegation of authority by this Assembly to the Government would not be exercised for the creation of new posts. Now, this item under Head 14, Chemistry, may not be very important - the creation of a post of Typist for the Inspectorate in the Department of Chemistry - but unless I am mistaken, it is a violation of the undertaking given. If I am wrong, I am sure my hon. Friend will correct me.

I am grateful to the Member for Tanglin for drawing the attention of the Assembly to this mistake in the drafting of the Command Paper. I did give an assurance that the authority given to the Government by the Assembly last year for the approval of votes under $10,000 would not apply to the creation of new appointments. That is the position and these items are wrongly included in this particular section of the Command Paper.

Will you name the items, Mr Financial Secretary?

Items 10 and 11 -

We have dealt with items 10 and 11. It is too late now to reconsider them.

Items 12, 13, 14, 19 -

Shall we deal with -

I thought I might give information about all the items concerned in reply to the question.

Yes, when we come to the items separately. The position, as I see it, is that these items, although wrongly placed, can be voted either for or against, and if they are voted against, then, of course, it is up to the Government to find some means of rectifying the mistakes.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I think there is no real mistake except, perhaps, in the heads under which these items are presented in pursuance of a resolution approved by the Assembly last year, but the items themselves, to which objections are being taken, are new items in respect of which we seek the approval of the Assembly and on which no expenditure has as yet been incurred.

I am glad the Chief Minister has pointed that out. My impression was that appointments had, in fact, been made.

No, Sir.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I distinctly got that impression myself, because the heading under Command Paper No. 18 says "under authority delegated by the Legislative Assembly", and some of these appointments are with effect from the 1st of March, 1st of January, and so on. Naturally, I am only too glad to accept the assurance of the Hon. the Chief Minister that this is incorrect.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $1,720 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 21 -

Mr Financial Secretary, you have already pointed out items 13 and 14?

Yes.

They come in under that category. The sum of $6,020 for Head 21 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

I will go through the Heads. Then perhaps the Financial Secretary will stop me when I come to those special items. Head 25 - The sum of $6,400 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 29 - The sum of $1,200 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 36 -

Here we have another case of the creation of a post, Sir. As I have said, this item is wrongly included under the head "Schedule of Applications for Supplementary Provision approved under authority delegated by the Legislative Assembly". It should be included in the section of the schedule headed "Schedule of Applications for Supplementary Provision for which the approval of the Legislative Assembly is sought". The sum of $10 for Head 36 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 45 -

Here again, in respect of this Head and the following Head 54, these posts have not yet been approved. The sum of $2,856 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 54 - The sum of $7,780 for Head 54 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 55 -

The same remarks apply, Mr Financial Secretary?

Yes, Sir. The sum of $11,862 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 12 - The sum of $6,026 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 13 - The sum of $390 for Head 13 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 21 - The sum of $70 for Head 21 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 28 - The sum of $2,000 for Head 28 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 29 - The sum of $80 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 30 - The sum of $610 for Head 30 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 31 - The sum of $2,170 for Head 31 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 32 - The sum of $800 for Head 32 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 39 - The sum of $8,300 for Head 39 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 42 - The sum of $725 for Head 42 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 46 - The sum of $281 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 52 - The sum of $105 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 54 - The sum of $4,764 for Head 54 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 55 - The sum of $2,000 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 3 - The sum of $10,000 for Head 3 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 15 - The sum of $12,000 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 19 - The sum of $23,100 for Head 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 19 - The sum of $17,000 for Head D 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 21 - The sum of $15,715 for Head 21 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 27 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $116,000 for Head 27 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, could I seek your guidance at this juncture? We are shortly coming to the moment of interruption and it has occurred to me, Sir, that the House may well wish to finish the work before half-past four, and then I will seek the permission of the House that we do not sit tomorrow but sit on the 12th of April for the purpose of the motion on Education. Is it appropriate to move at this juncture. Sir, that Standing Orders be suspended in order to enable the House to complete the business on the Order Paper?

Of course, the Chief Minister has to obtain the consent of hon. Members.

I was wondering, Sir, since we are in Committee.

I think if an hon. Member will move, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair to enable an hon. Member to move a motion in respect of the adjournment", then it will be in order.

If it please you, Sir, I respectfully move, That the Chairman do leave the Chair of the Committee of Supply and resume the Chair in the Assembly to enable a motion to be moved in respect of the adjournment.

Question put, and agreed to. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do formally ask your permission and that of the House to move two motions, That the proceedings on the business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7, and That, notwithstanding the resolution passed this morning, at its rising at the termination of busine3s this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Thursday, 12th April, 1956.

Have I the assent of hon. Members? Hon. Members indicated assent. Question, That the proceedings on the business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7, put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7. Question, That, notwithstanding the resolution passed this morning, at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Thursday, 12th April, 1956. put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the resolution passed this morning, at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Thursday, 12th April, 1956.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

We were at Head 27.

Mr Chairman, Sir, under Subhead 4 (iv), there is an item of $8,320 for "Visit of an expert to advise on Industrial and Labour Relations". We would like to have information as to who this expert was and how the sum was incurred.

I understand, Sir, that the expert was Mr Dalley who was brought over by the Government to consider questions dealing with industrial and labour relations. His report is being considered by the Government.

Mr Chairman, I understand Mr Dalley is a member of the Colonial Civil Service. What was Mr Dalley's capacity when he was asked to advise?

He is a very experienced trade unionist. He is not a civil servant at all.

I think that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is confusing Mr Dalley with Mr Barlthrop.

Let us have no more confusion.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $116,000 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 29 - The sum of $100,000 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 32 - The sum of $17,500 for Head 32 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 43 - The sum of $101,000 for Head 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 52 - The sum of $35,000 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 56 - The sum of $45,000 for Head 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 61 - The sum of $250,000 for Head 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 12 - The sum of $830 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 16 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $639,033 for Head 16 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, in item 71 under Head 16, I see there is provision for $203,000 apparently in respect of 12 flats for Junior Officers. I seek information as to the nature of "Extension - $133,000" and whether this is for additional flats or an enlargement of those flats. If it is for 12 flats only, then the total expenditure of $433,000 would work out at $36,000 a flat.

I think, Sir, I should say, first of all, that the word "Extension" should not be used here. I discovered its use only when I saw the message in type. The word should be "Supplement" or "Addition". In the 1954 Defence Estimates, there was a block vote for shore accommodation for the Royal Malayan Navy. This block vote was broken up departmentally into various items and a sum allocated to each. A certain latitude to switch funds between items was allowed provided the total provision was not exceeded. In 1955 the block vote was broken down into items and shown on this form in the Estimates. Consequently in asking for revotes, it is necessary to show additions and subtractions which have been made to and from each item in the course of the past year. This, I hope, explains the reasons for the deletions and additions shown in the Defence Service revotes in this schedule. The total cost of the flats is $433,000 or $33,000 more than the original rough estimate under the block vote. It represents the basic cost of the 12 flats constructed as planned.

Sir, once again, I have to protest against the enormous expenditure of $36,000 -

Order. We are now "labouring" under new Standing Orders, and if any hon. Member wishes to debate any detail of this Command Paper, he will have to do that in the Public Accounts or Estimates Committee and not in a Committee of the whole Assembly. Information may be asked for and may be obtained - that is quite in order - but the debate should be along the lines laid down in our new Standing Order 69 (11) which reads: "On any question in the Committee of Supply debate shall be confined to the policy of the service for which the money is to be provided and shall not deal with the details of expenditure, but may refer to the details of revenues or funds for which that service is responsible." Representations as to the cost of flats and so on, I think, can properly be dealt with in the Public Accounts or Estimates Committee.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $639,033 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 20 - The sum of $13,500 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 21 - The sum of $14,907 for Head 21ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 22 - The sum of $25,140 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 24 - The sum of $79,065 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 43 - The sum of $15,220 for Head 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 43 - The sum of $1,895 for Head D 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 45 - The sum of $448,558 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 45 - The sum of $246,540 for Head D 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 52 - The sum of $181,604 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 52 - The sum of $12,303 for Head D 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 60 - The sum of $17,790 for Head 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 61 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $214,500 for Head 61 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, it is a very small point on which I seek enlightenment in the case of item 120 in the Command Paper - "Servicing Truck". I have searched, as far as I can under Head 61, Public Works - Special Expenditure - for this vote of $16,000 in 1955 for a Servicing Truck, but I cannot find it. If the money was voted, why is it not in the Estimates; and if it had not been voted, how could there be a revote in this case?

I am afraid I cannot answer that question specifically, Sir. I can say that it is certain that the money must have been voted. If it does not appear in the Estimates, it must have been voted during the course of the year as a supplementary provision.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $214,500 for Head 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 13 - The sum of $28,000 for Head D 13 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 19 - The sum of $212,990 for Head D 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 21 - The sum of $139,000 for Head D 21 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 29 - The sum of $113,600 for Head D 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 43 - The sum of $20,000 for Head D 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 48 - The sum of $202,300 for Head D 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 50 - The sum of $45,000 for Head D 50ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 52 - The sum of $404,800 for Head D 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 58 - The sum of $539,000 for Head D 58ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 60 - The sum of $46,000 for Head D 60ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 61 - The sum of $145,000 for Head D 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 63 - The sum of $104,500 for Head D 63 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 64 - The sum of $672,100 for Head D 64 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning to the motion, the Question is, "That the sum of $5,390,559 stand part of the motion."

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $5,390,559 ordered to stand part of the motion.

Sir, I move, That the motion and Schedule be reported to the Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question, "That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $5,390,559 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 18 of 1956," put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $5,390,559 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 18 of 1956.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $146,920 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 19 of 1956.

Order. Hon. Members will notice the words in italics on the Order Paper: "(With Mr Speaker's consent, under Standing Order 23, but subject to the general assent of Members present to the dispensation with the requisite five clear days' Notice under Standing Order 69A.)" Have I the general assent of Members present? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Please proceed, Mr Financial Secretary.

Thank you, Sir. This supplementary vote is required to meet the expenses of the All-Party Mission to London under the items of estimated expenditure outlined in the Command Paper. The Party will consist of fourteen Members of the Assembly, including my hon. Friend the Attorney-General. Seven officials will accompany the Party including the Director of Personnel. Members of the Mission will be the guests of Her Majesty's Government while in London and will be paid a subsistence allowance to cover meals and other essential expenses during their stay. Arrangements are being made to lodge the officials, who are accompanying the Mission on duty, in the same block of flats but at the Singapore Government's expense. The officials will also be paid a subsistence allowance to cover essential expenditure. Provision is made for the payment of an outfit allowance to each Member of the Mission and officials who have no suitable warm clothes to wear in Spring in the United Kingdom. Provision has been made for the fees of three lawyers who will advise the Mission on constitutional matters. It is unlikely that actual expenditure on this item will be as much as the estimate. The other items are self-explanatory. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion.

Committee of Supply, what day?

Now, Sir. Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

Schedule Head 11 - The sum of $146,920 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning to the motion, the Question is, "That the sum of $146,920 stand part of the motion."

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $146,920 ordered to stand part of the motion.

Sir, I move, That the motion and Schedule be reported to the Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question, "That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $146,920 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 19 of 1956," put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $146,920 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 19 of 1956.

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

I rise to second the motion.

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