Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, That this House deplores the payment of Malayanisation Compensation terms to any Malayan officer who had been given and had accepted promotion on account of Malayanisation. Yesterday morning, Sir, the Chief Secretary gave us an account of what must be one of the most sorry episodes that ever took place after the publication of the Malayanisation terms. I would like to preface the strong remarks that I wish to make on this subject by stating my Party policy with regard to the public service generally. I know that there is a certain amount of concern over the welfare and well-being of the public service as a result of expected political changes. I would like to remind them, first, that it is their duty as civil servants to be politically neutral in carrying out the orders of the Government in power, and that they enjoy a special position under the new constitution with their basic salaries guaranteed; but that corresponding to these special provisions for their benefit, they have to shoulder special responsibilities. First, I would like to read what I stated last Sunday with regard to our policy on labour and trade unions. We have a special provision entitled "Special Duties of the Civil Service" which I stated on behalf of my Party: "At this point, we would like to emphasise the special duties of workers in the public service like the Government, the Government agencies, the Singapore Telephone Board and semi-Government agencies like the Singapore Improvement Trust. We support the right to a fair wage and good conditions of employment, holidays, leave, medical benefits and good terms for retirement. We support the principle of collective bargaining between unions of workers in these categories and the Government or these statutory Boards, but we expect and will enforce high standards of service and courtesy to the public and equally high standards of efficiency and discipline in these services. It is the business of the P.A.P. Government after it has been elected by the people into office to implement its policy and no civil servant has the right to oppose or block or hinder our policy. Apart from these few special observations, a P.A.P. Government will treat its workers and the unions as a good employer and as the people's trustees." Mr Speaker, Sir, as a result of the deliberate distortion and propaganda carried on by the English language Press for the specific purpose of trying to demoralise our English-speaking supporters, the public service thinks, rightly or wrongly, that the P.A.P. is against them because they, being members of a privileged class, will be destroyed in a non-privileged society. I would like to remind the civil service that it is our duty, if and when we form the Government, to abide by the rules of the game, and the rules are laid down in the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, which safeguards their basic interests. I would like to say this: that their interests having been safeguarded, it is their duty to exert themselves to the best of their ability on behalf of the people whose taxes help to pay their emoluments and ensure their peaceful and happy retirement. Yesterday I asked a question to which I received a reply which was silent on several matters. My motion is in general terms, and I am asking this House to join with me in stating something which is a matter of general policy. It is my view that any Malayan officer who has accepted promotion as a Malayan on account of the Malayanisation scheme is automatically disentitled, whatever the Secretary of State and the special provisions that are written into the abolition terms can say to the contrary. I do not know if there are any other members of the public service who hope to follow the example of this august official who will retire with a sum of money the total of which we have not been informed, but I would like to state here and now that nobody has the right, if he has accepted promotion on account of Malayanisation, to say, "Ah, but I am really not a Malayan. I would like compensation like the white man." The Chief Secretary said yesterday, in regard to this particular officer, that he made representations to the Secretary of State in 1957 - he did not say at what particular time in 1957 - under section 18 of Ordinance No. 43 of 1956. The Chief Secretary said: "The Secretary of State after considering these representations expressed himself satisfied that he had reasonable grounds for anxiety regarding the future of his career in the public service." I would like to know from the Chief Secretary when the Secretary of State expressed himself satisfied that this officer had reasonable grounds for anxiety. I would also like to know what advice the Singapore Government tendered to the Secretary of State in regard to this particular application. When I first came to know that moves were being made to retire this officer, I warned the Chief Minister that this is a political issue and not just a civil service matter. When an officer gets promotion and then says, "I am going to scoot with a bagful of notes" - it is the duty of the Government to prevent that from happening. I want to know from the Chief Minister what advice his Council of Ministers tendered to the Secretary of State, for the Secretary of State does not act on these matters without advice. The Chief Secretary went on to say that the officer, having become entitled, gave five months' notice in November 1958 of his intention to retire under section 3 of the Ordinance. Sir, I want to know these facts. What is the compensation to be in terms of dollars? What would have been the position of the officer had there been no Malayanisation scheme? When in 1957 did he apply to be entitled? When was he advised that he was entitled? Sir, when a country moves from a state of tutelage and dependence towards independence, it is the practice in British territories to allow their civil servants to quit the service and enter the political arena. It is a legal and open recognition of the fact that, in a colonial territory, the civil service is not necessarily neutral. Two officers opted to retire and enter the political arena. They were given the opportunity to take part in politics. They were given no compensation terms. They will be candidates at the next elections. If this officer felt that at the next elections a government will come into power which would give him grounds for anxiety as to his future, it was quite open to him to opt out of the service and contest the elections against the Party which he dislikes, or which he thinks will be against his interests. But for him as the Head of the Intelligence organisation of the Government, to scoot with a bagful of notes is the most deplorable episode ever recounted anywhere in the world. A man who was entrusted with the whole business of Intelligence and anti-subversion, turns out to be not a great idealist and a man of convictions and ability to match his duties, but a lout who only wanted to further his own ends. Sir, it is a tribute to my Party, if what the Straits Times said was true, that he quit because he expected the P.A.P. to come in. I will say this, that no officer will be penalised in the service for having carried out his orders, whether they be for or against the benefit of the P.A.P., because we expect the civil service to carry out orders. Therefore, we acknowledge the fact that they must carry out the orders of the present Government or any future Government which follows the P.A.P. In the case of this particular officer, his position is especially entrenched in the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council. The position of the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Director of the Special Branch receives special mention in the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council. I do not know on what grounds the officer can conceivably be anxious when his position is already a built-in one. All I can say is that either he must have done a very treacherous act which he was afraid would be subsequently discovered, or that he was a despicable mercenary, and it was a deliberate and calculated plan to go twice at public expense to England, qualify himself as a barrister-at-law, and then give five months' notice of his intention to retire on full pay at public expense, while he sits in Chambers waiting to be admitted to practise at the Bar and rake in the shekels. Sir, I notice that he is prudent enough to make sure of collecting his compensation terms, because, if I read the Chief Secretary's reply yesterday correctly, his retirement will be effective from next month, that is before the elections. But, as I told the Chief Minister, this is a political issue. No officer is entitled to do this. It is our view that this man should be made to refund the $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 that was spent on him on several trips to Britain. On the first trip that he went for special training as a policeman in order to equip him for his special duties, he enrolled as a member of the Bar. He is an able officer in his particular field, and nobody objects to a police officer acquiring some legal knowledge. Subsequently, he wangled a return trip during which he completed his studies. He then came back, took full advantage of the fact that there was Malayanisation and that vacancies were two for a penny right at the top, and got himself ensconced in a convenient job. Sir, I have nothing against Mr Khaw. I am only sorry that he did a disservice to the whole police force and to the whole of the public service by what he has done. My Party has every intention of resisting this officer in his scheme to get about $100,000 for compensation. I would like to add this in case any other officer thinks of opting out of the service in a similar way, that it is the business of the Government to prevent this. I do not believe that there can be any other such mercenary in the service. For those who stay behind to serve the next Government, I say it is a Government which will play strictly according to the rules, which states what it intends to do, and will do what it has stated. We have carefully considered the position of the public service. We are party to the provisions regarding their future, and we shall abide by those rules. But we expect and will enforce high standards of efficiency, discipline and loyalty to the service, and I am quite sure that they will rise to the special and heavier responsibilities that will fall upon them after the next general elections. But just in case there happens to be some other adventurer wanting to take advantage of a weak and vacillating Government giving the wrong kind of advice to the Secretary of State, I ask the House formally today to join me in saying that we deplore the payment of Malayanisation compensation terms to any Malayan officer who had been given and had accepted promotion on account of Malayanisation. I shall have more to say on this particular officer in my reply, after I have been provided with the information I have sought from the Chief Secretary. But I ask the civil service, particularly those in the higher strata, to remember that their future, and the future of the country, depends upon high standards of integrity and service to the people. That these Malayanisation terms and schemes are avenues for them to serve their people better, and that we expect them so to approach the future. 11.55 a.m.