Hansard, 1959-07-16

2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Promissory Oaths Ordinance (Chapter 58 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Mr Speaker.

May I have the Certificate?

Mr Speaker, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of this Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for Members? Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, hon. Members, who know the Promissory Oaths Ordinance, that is Cap. 58 of the Revised Edition, would have seen in that Ordinance the form of the Minister's oath. The Minister's oath in that Ordinance is subscribed before the Governor or the Deputy Governor or the Officer Administering the Government of the Colony of Singapore, and no doubt hon. Members will agree that the form of that oath needs to be corrected in the light of the constitutional changes that have been made. The new form of oaths is set out in the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council in the First Schedule to that Order in Council. It is the purpose of the Bill now before the House to substitute this new form of oaths, which is shown in the First Schedule of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, for that form of oaths which is prescribed under the existing Ordinance; the Bill sets out to do that. The Bill also provides that the promissory oaths shall be taken by Parliamentary Secretaries. Now if you will look at the form of oaths that is shown in the First Schedule to the (Constitution) Order in Council, you will see quite clearly that oaths can only be taken by a Minister or an Assistant Minister. In view of that fact, we have also had to provide in the Bill before the House that these oaths in their present form can also be taken by Parliamentary Secretaries, Sir. I would refer Members to the text of the Bill itself, particularly to clause 3 of the Bill, where it is stated that "The Prime Minister and every other Minister and every Parliamentary Secretary shall before entering on the duties of his office take the Oath of Allegiance and the appropriate oath for the due execution of his office: ". Then follows the proviso that "a Parliamentary Secretary who has been appointed and has entered on the duties of his office before the 15th day of July, 1959, shall take the Oath of Allegiance and the appropriate oath for the due execution of his office as soon as may be after that date." It was quite impossible for the Parliamentary Secretaries to take the oath that is shown in the Schedule to the Order in Council until the Bill has been introduced to provide for that, and the Bill so provides for that contingency.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Byrne]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Local Government Ordinance, 1957 (No. 24 of 1957)". Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

After the conclusion of the proceedings on the Control of Rent (Amendment) Bill.

So be it.

Mr Speaker, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Local Government (Amendment No. 2) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Yes. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7 until 8 p.m.

I second the motion.

Question 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 until 8 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 7, at its rising today this Assembly do stand adjourned to Friday, the 17th of July, 1959, at 2.30 p.m.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 7, at its rising today this Assembly do stand adjourned to Friday, the 17th of July, 1959, at 2.30 p.m.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [15th July, 1959], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 2.50 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, at the end of the Assembly sitting yesterday, I explained the motion that was before us. Regarding the criticism of the Opposition, I feel that it was not criticism which was constructive but quite the reverse. As we see it. Mr Speaker, the object of Government in transferring the functions of the City Council to the Minister for National Development is mainly to ease the administration and to enable better services to be provided for the public. But yesterday, we heard the Opposition wasting our time on the talk of whether it was democratic or not of Government to take over the functions of the City Council. I feel that our criticism of this matter should be logical and realistic. The Opposition should understand the whole purpose of the Government exercise, which is to put it simply, to make it easier for the proper implementation and also for the benefit of the public. We, on this side, have explained what difficulties a member of the public has to face if he wants to, say, build a house. The complications involved are known to many. The Government, by taking over the functions of the City Council, hopes to remove these difficulties and hopes to have matters affecting the public dealt with most speedily. We have assured the employees of the City Council and the Rural Board that they will not be dismissed from service as a result of this take-over. There is no justification whatsoever for any sense of insecurity of employment. All we want is a more efficient administration for the benefit of all. This matter had been dealt with at length and I feel that it is now time for the Minister for National Development to make his final reply. Mr Ong Eng Guan rose -

In reply?

In reply. Mr Speaker, whether it is fate or whether it is just a mere coincidence, the fact is that wherever the Member for Farrer Park has been or has gone to, it has been my strange and unpleasant task to follow him wherever he is. The Member for Farrer Park was in the City Council for nearly ten years and we see the mess he left for us to clean up. Mr Speaker, the Member for Farrer Park was also in the Singapore Improvement Trust and we are now doing the cleaning up. We have chosen the S.I.T. building as the headquarters for the Ministry of National Development, because we believe that at present it is the most filthy and the most corrupt institution in Singapore, and we are going there to clean it up as expeditiously as possible. Mr Speaker, the process of cleaning up has started. The S.I.T. building in the past has been famous or has been notorious for two reasons. One is that there have been many suicides, romantic affairs and financial problems. There have been many suicides from that building, but to the people of Singapore, the famous S.I.T. building in Upper Pickering Street is noted not for its suicides but for the filth and the corruption which the small nine-storey building can contain. The process of cleaning up the small building has started. Immediately I was appointed the Manager of the S.I.T., I called for the file of one of the most important persons in the S.I.T. - Mr Firshman. He was-

Order. I was just wondering how the Minister's remarks could be related to the present Bill, which is the City Council (Suspension and Transfer of Functions) Bill. The Minister, of course, will have other opportunities of criticising the S.I.T. At the moment, we are on the Second Reading of the City Council (Suspension and Transfer of Functions) Bill.

Mr Speaker, I was replying to a pertinent remark made by the Member for Farrer Park that he hoped it would not be the last of us as regards the S.I.T. building. Now, we are confident that, as with the City Council and the City Hall, the S.I.T. building will be the second step in the right direction of achieving a social revolution. As I mentioned, we are proceeding along those steps. As I have said, one person scooted the day his file was asked for. He knew that the P.A.P. means business and we are confident, Mr Speaker, that the S.I.T. building will not be the last of the P.A.P., or the last of our Ministry, as the Member for Farrer Park has envisaged, but it will only be one step which will bring us further to our goal of a social revolution, Mr Speaker, the policy of rationalisation and streamlining of the machinery of government in Singapore has been laid down in our policy speech which was approved by the electorate on 30th May, 1959. May I repeat here certain extracts from the P.A.P.'s policy statement: "One of the important decisions we will take for the welfare of the people of Singapore, should the P.A.P. be returned as the government, is the immediate re-organisation of the present unwieldy, inefficient, expensive and wasteful system of government. The advantages of the re-organisation of the administration of the State of Singapore by having only one Central authority for this Island State are briefly as follows:-

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Ong Eng Guan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.22 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I move "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker and Members of the House, I should like to draw your attention to section 28 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council where it is provided that- "The Yang di-Pertuan Negara, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, may, by instrument under the public seal, appoint Assistant Ministers from among the Members of the Assembly to assist Ministers in the discharge of their duties and functions". Mr Speaker, the Government has decided that, in accordance with the practice in advanced democracies like the - United Kingdom and Ceylon, Parliamentary Secretaries be appointed to assist Ministers in the discharge of their duties and functions. It is not proposed to recommend to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara the appointment of any Assistant Minister under section 28 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council. Under the Ministers of the Crown Act in the United Kingdom, there is provision for the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries. There is a Parliamentary Under-Secretary when the Minister is a Minister of State and a Parliamentary Secretary when the Minister is not a Minister of State, and there is provision in that Act for the appointment of 27 such Parliamentary Secretaries. The same position obtains in the Constitution of the Government of Ceylon. Under the Ceylon Order in Council, there is provision for the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries, and such appointments cannot exceed the number of Ministers who are appointed. You will see, Mr Speaker and Members of the House, that our Bill provides that the Parliamentary Secretary will be appointed by the Prime Minister or by a Minister, and will perform such functions as may be specified in his letter of appointment. To that extent we depart from the provision of section 28 where the appointment of Assistant Minister is by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on the advice of the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker and Members of the House, there is a provision in that part of the Order in Council dealing with the Legislative Assembly wherein it is stated that the seat of a Member shall become vacant if he is appointed to or to act in any public office to which there is any remuneration or allowance attached. The Order in Council also provides in its definition section that for the purposes of the Order in Council the holders of the office of Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Minister, Assistant Minister or Member of the Assembly shall not be considered as public officers by reason of the fact that the incumbents of these offices are in receipt of any remuneration or allowances (including a pension or other like allowance). There is also provision in the definition section of the Order in Council to enable the local legislature to provide that an office shall not be a public office for the purposes of that Part of the Order in Council dealing with the Legislative Assembly, and if the local legislature so provides that, any such provision shall have effect accordingly as if that provision of that law were enacted therein. The Bill therefore, Mr Speaker, provides that the holder of the office of Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Minister, Parliamentary Secretary or Member of the Assembly shall not be deemed to be the holder of a public office for the purposes of Part V of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, that is, the Part which deals with the constitution of the Legislative Assembly, by reason of the fact that he is in receipt of any remuneration or allowance in respect of his tenure of office. As Parliamentary Secretaries have already been appointed, it is necessary to have the Ordinance enacted as soon as possible, and to give it retrospective effect to the 8th day of June, 1959, the date when the Government took office. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Byrne]. Bill considered in Committee.

3.28 p.m. Clause 1 -

Hon. Members will notice a manuscript addition in line 5. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main purpose of this Bill is to make temporary provisions to suspend for a period of six months those sections of the Control of Rent Ordinance which operate to the detriment of legal farmers and other legal tenants. Mr Speaker, with the present law as it is, we have found that many unscrupulous building societies or landlords have acquired acres and acres of agricultural land at a very low nominal price. There are hundreds of families of farmers who have paid their rents sometimes for two or three generations. These building societies, or in some eases unscrupulous persons, buy over the land at an average of a few hundred dollars an acre, and get the S.I.T. and the City Council to approve their building plans. So long as the plans are in order, the S.I.T. and the City Council will have to pass them. These unscrupulous contractors will take such building plans, engage lawyers, go to the court and seek the eviction of the farmers who, in certain cases, to my personal knowledge, have been staying on the land as legal tenants for three generations. In the course of eviction, no compensation is ever given. Neither is there the humane consideration to provide alternative sites. When the Government evicts people from the land in order to develop the land for the benefit of the nation and the public at large, compensation is normally given, and more often suitable alternative sites are offered. But this is not the case with these unscrupulous societies and other persons. Now, Mr Speaker, it is the intention of Government to introduce at an early date new legislation to assist farmers and householders, but definitely not illegal squatters of land. The idea of the new legislation is to assist legal farmers and legal householders to obtain compensation, or the offer of a suitable alternative site, when evicted from land required for so-called development purposes. Pending the introduction of such legislation which will take some time to draft, it is considered necessary and desirable to make temporary provisions to suspend for a period of six months paragraphs (i) and (k) of section 15, subsection (1) of the Control of Rent Ordinance. Mr Speaker, this Bill is a short and simple one. Sub-clause (2) of clause 1 provides for the Ordinance to remain in force for a period of six months only. Clause 3 provides for the deletion of paragraphs (i) and (k) of section 15, subsection (1) . In other words, these two paragraphs will have no effect for six months. Clause 4 is merely consequential. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Ong Eng Guan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main purpose of this Bill is to speed up the procedure for dealing with unauthorised structures. Mr Speaker, as Members of this House are aware, during the past few months, particularly during the time when the P.A.P. was not in the City Council or during the time of the Tang Peng Yeu-Vasagar regime, unauthorised houses were springing up in thousands in all parts of the Island. Most of these unauthorised houses are being built by unscrupulous building contractors, who build them at a cost of $1,000 to $1,500 each and sell them at a price of about $4,000 each. In some of these cases, permission from the landlord, whether it is private land or State land, has never been obtained and the purchaser of such unauthorised structure finds himself or herself overnight that he or she is in possession of an illegal hut, squatting on land to which he or she has no title. Eventually, the hut will have to be demolished. The present procedure dealing with unauthorised structures requires the City Council or the local authority first to serve a notice on the owner requiring him to demolish an unauthorised building, and if he does not do so, a summons has to be taken out in the Court. Eventually, by the time a mandatory order for eviction is obtained from the Magistrate's Court, several months would have lapsed, by which time the building would have been occupied and action to demolish would result normally in great hardships to the occupiers. These unauthorised structures do not conform to any standards of hygiene, health requirements and fire hazard requirements. They are built mostly from flimsy materials, from timber and planks which the timber mills are not able to sell in the open market, and which are sold to them on credit at a very low cost. They are very serious fire hazards. In most cases the building of these unauthorised huts is undertaken in conjunction with secret societies. It is known that during the last few months, most of the racketeers have been backed by unscrupulous politicians and secret societies. The amendments now proposed will enable immediate action to be taken against unauthorised structures, by imposing a daily fine of $50 against offenders as well as permitting a local authority to enter the premises to demolish as well as to execute any work ordered by the Court. Further, a penalty is now laid down for anyone who sells or enters into an agreement to sell an unauthorised building. In such a case, the offender is liable to a term of imprisonment of not less than six months or more than a year, and in addition a fine not exceeding $5,000. Any person who erects an unauthorised building and sells it subsequently, is liable also to the same imprisonment and fine. In addition, the injured party, that is the purchaser, may be given a refund of the purchase money as well as compensation, if so ordered by the Court. It has been provided in the new section 170A that in any prosecution under this section, the sanction of the Minister shall be required and there is, therefore, the safeguard that every case will be considered and only the racketeer will be charged in Court. The opportunity is also taken to make an amendment to section 117 of the Ordinance to require a person who is aggrieved by an annual value fixed on his property to pay the assessment due before his appeal can be dealt with by the High Court. This provision existed in the Municipal Ordinance but was inadvertently omitted from the Local Government Ordinance and, because of this omission, the City Council has reported that millions of dollars are being tied up with consequential loss of interest. Now, Mr Speaker, there are two important amendments in this Bill before the House. One is to take strong and firm action - merciless and unequivocal action - against the building racketeers who have built houses in the past and who are still building houses. These are the persons who are mainly responsible for such disasters like the Lorong 3 fire and the Kampong Tiong Bahru fire. The second amendment is to bring the process of appeal to the High Court in assessment cases in line with appeals to the High Court on income tax cases. A person who is aggrieved in his assessment should pay, first of all, the assessment before he can lodge his appeal to the High Court, because we have found from our fifteen months' experience in the City Council that it is cheaper for every property owner to lodge an appeal to the High Court, whether he or she is aggrieved or not aggrieved. Thus the amount of money he can earn from interest rates is much more than he would have to pay to his lawyers. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.47 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no objection to the policy of this Bill, if it is used mainly against racketeers. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, we should consider the views of the population, especially in the rural areas where about 6,000 to 7,000 houses have been erected and which could be classified, according to this Bill, as illegal. I would advise the Government to follow the practice of the City Council and the previous Government whereby owners whose houses are a year old should not be touched but should be given the opportunity to get numbers for their houses so that they could be properly assessed. Mr Speaker, to implement this new law, the Government should look at it from the financial point of view as well, as has been explained by the Minister for Finance. From that point of view, I think the Government itself could not erect houses for the benefit of the whole population of Singapore when we see that annually no less than 40,000 children are born. This means that Government will have to build no less than 8,000 houses annually. These are my views for the Government to consider. I repeat once again that I agree with the policy of this Bill if its main purpose is to combat those racketeers who erect houses for exploitation. 3.51 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in clause 3 (1), on page 1, lines 15 to 17 are the words "is about to be erected or is in course of erection". Again in clause 3 (2) on page 2, lines 5 and 6 are the words "is being erected or is about to be erected". Then in the Explanatory Statement, it is stated: "...it is desirable that the local authorities should be enabled to control effectively or demolish speedily all unauthorised buildings...". If this word "all" applies to the category of buildings specified in the Bill, then I for one heartily support it because lawbreakers should not be condoned. Unauthorised houses which do not meet the minimum requirements of the Government are or will be in future a menace to health and safety. But if this word "all" literally means "all" and includes those houses that have been built, let us say, a couple of years ago, then I would like to say this. When the P.A.P. won the majority in the City Council, they had the reputation of being a Party that worked for the poor. I would like to refer you again to the Explanatory Statement, Sir, which goes on to explain that this Bill is intended "to prevent innocent people from being victimised". Sir, there are people already victimised. As I said, when the P.A.P. won the majority in the City Council because of their reputation of helping the poor and working for the poor, there was a very strong rumour that if the poor people tried to improve themselves by building houses for themselves, the P.A.P. City Council would not prosecute them. I am not condoning the ignorance of the illiterate, but because they were ignorant and because they were illiterate they depended on this rumour and many of them built houses for themselves at that time. I am not referring to those that have just sprung up. At that time, there were many who built their houses because they were confident and had faith that the P.A.P. was going to support the poor and would help them. What is their plight today? If the word "all" literally means "all", and those who have been victimised either by purchasing these houses from unscrupulous opportunists or, having depended on those rumours and having faith in the P.A.P., have built those houses and lived in them for a couple of years, and today find that they will he thrown out in the streets if this Bill is passed - many of them with 8 or 10 children and many of them with fathers and grand-fathers and what have you to a family of 16 to 20 - what will be their plight? They have been victimised by the opportunists. Are they now going to suffer at the hands of the Government? If the Government lives up to its promise to prevent innocent people from being victimised, I think the word "all" should not include the category I have described. Moreover, in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and also in the manifesto of the P.A.P. "The Tasks Ahead", it is promised that: "The Government is pledged to make an all-out effort to ease the housing problem," and that "the Government will ensure that the welfare and interest of the rural dwellers are adequately looked after." I have decided not to raise any objection and not to make any amendment because I am very much aware of the 8 against 43, but I do appeal to the Government, based on their pledges and their assurances to the illiterate and to the ignorant who had unknowingly placed themselves in this plight, that the word "all" should not include those who have already been victimised.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, referring to this Bill just now, the hon. Member opposite made certain comments which indicated her attitude towards it. Talking about this Bill, I want to say a few words. The previous Government, in demonstrating their functions, pretended to be merciful. They thought that we are too radical. If we analyse the position very carefully, I feel that the previous Government was without plan or organisation. They left us a lot of bitterness to face and to solve. They should realise that the P.A.P. policy is to bring about a socialistic society. If we want to produce a just society for the people, we must start doing so from now. We must not make our younger generation face the conditions of living in attap houses. We do not want our Government in the future to demolish these houses. I think this Bill is correct, because you can realise at present and also previously in Singapore there have been many unscrupulous contractors. They will seize every opportunity to make a profit out of this business. What have we seen? We have seen that there is an increased number of persons who have been victimised by these racketeers. Since this is so, then we will see that there will be more drastic and stronger action against them, if we really want to improve the conditions of work and the livelihood of the people. A simple case can be taken. At present there is no Ordinance whereby action can be taken against the racketeers in this island. They do not care about the dangers placed on a person who want to rent a house from them. They also do not care how a person will fare on a rainy day. He can stay in this house for one or two months, but what about one or two years? Can the house stand for one or two years? The dweller will thus be victimised living under such a roof. Therefore, I think this Bill is really a good Bill. It can help the Government to improve the present situation. Such is the situation created by the unscrupulous racketeers who are engaged in this manner. There are many people who think we are crude. I have received complaints from many people because their houses were demolished. But I would rather accept their complaints today than see their generations forever living in those illegal attap huts. 4.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, not only does this Bill seek to enact new provisions but it also proposes to repeal the present section 170 of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957. It is, Mr Speaker, by virtue of this section 170 that the local authority, wherever it may be situate, has power to take action against unauthorised buildings, be they about to be commenced, or in course of construction, or be they completed and in occupation. What this Bill seeks to enact is to take away completely the present provisions of section 170 and to enact in substitution therefor the proposed clause 170. It seems to me, Mr Speaker - perhaps the Hon. the Minister for National Development will explain - that under the proposed new clause unauthorised buildings have been restricted in scope to those which are about to be erected or in the course of erection. It seems to have left out of the category of unauthorised erections those buildings which have been completed and are in occupation. Whether it is the intention of Government to do this, it is not for me to say but for the Minister himself. It would appear from his Explanatory Statement that he hopes, by the repeal and by the re-enactment of the proposed clause 170, to take in all unauthorised buildings. Mr Speaker, may I with respect suggest to the Hon. the Minister that his proposed enactment does not achieve that purpose?

Mr Speaker, there seems to be some ambiguity or a conflict of intentions as indicated by the terms of the Bill and the Explanatory Statement. I believe, Sir, that we on this side of the House are in favour of anything to prevent the exploitation of the poor by the building of unauthorised houses and selling them to the victims. If that is to be made clear, Sir, then that Explanatory Statement must be amended. Otherwise it means that the intention of this Bill is to demolish speedily all unauthorised buildings including those already in existence.

I think the hon. Member should know that the Explanatory Statement is never part of the Bill. It is just an explanatory statement and cannot form part of the Bill when it becomes an Ordinance. Perhaps the Minister for Law will confirm this.

I do so confirm it. 4.07 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, yesterday we saw a lot of democratic forces. Today, we see there are still some people who fight for the poor people. If we continue to search their minds, we know they do not work on behalf of the poor people or speak for the poor people. We know before that there were many unauthorised contractors. They built a lot of unauthorised houses and within a week they sold all these houses to the poor people. They could earn a lot of money, and the poor were victimised. We know the victims were the poor people. Not only this, these houses are insanitary and are dangerous because they catch fire easily. These houses are unauthorised, insanitary, and very bad for the poor people. Today, we are going to amend this Ordinance. The intention is to protect the poor and not to protect the capitalists or the racketeers. Today the Opposition speak again for the people, but really they do not. The contractors, within a year, built many houses and paid only one assessment for all. How could they build so many houses? Because the officers of the previous Government intrigued together. Now, in order to avoid future happenings of this kind by the racketeers, we have proposed this Bill. Therefore, I agree with the Government in proposing this Bill. 4.12 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, what some Opposition Members said just now showed that at present they realised that the building of these unauthorised houses had developed into a serious situation. At the same time, we also know from their speeches that the past Government had failed completely in solving the problems of housing for the people. According to a speech of the Opposition, if they know that unauthorised houses are illegal, they should uphold our Bill. If as the Member for Mountbatten has said they are for the poor people, then when their Party was in power, why did their Government not propose this Bill against the illegal contractors? Why should they wait until we are in the government and then say they too are against the racketeers? From this, we can see that that is hypocrisy. When we were in the City Council-

There has been some difficulty about the interpretation, and it occurs to me that I am perhaps a little late. But the hon. Minister was accusing the Member for Mountbatten of being a hypocrite, or of hypocrisy. Now, if that is so, I think the Hon. Minister knows that that word has been over-ruled in this House and he ought to withdraw it. I did not hear the Hon. Minister through the interpreter - I did not hear him withdraw the expression that the, Member for Mountbatten is a hypocrite.

(In Mandarin): -shedding crocodile tears, and not hypocrisy.

Let us have the withdrawal of that expression first and then we can deal with "crocodile tears".

Mr Speaker, just now I did not use the word "hypocrite". What I used was the phrase "shedding crocodile tears".

That expression is in order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, when we were in the City Council we faced this serious problem. We proposed to the Government that we wanted this power, that we could use this power against the illegal racketeers. But we failed. At that time the attitude of the Government was for these racketeers and not against them. They were not for the victimised people. We propose this Bill in order to deal with the racketeers and to stop their illegal building of houses and development, in order to avoid something like the Lorong 3 fire or the Kampong Bahru fire, because the illegal builders of houses use a kind of material which is liable to catch fire, for example, attap, and at the same time they build without plans of any kind and the houses are not sanitary. The purpose of our present Bill is against the illegal racketeers and not against the poor people. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I uphold this proposal. 4.21 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, this Bill is very good because, since I am with the Minister for National Development, I have experience regarding illegal houses in this island. I feel, from the explanation given by the ex-Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, that there are thousands of illegal houses erected in Singapore. I dare say that if those people were affected by this Bill, they had been the victims of the previous Government which had purposely kept quiet regarding this matter. Personally, I feel that the existence of these illegal houses was because of many reasons. First, it is because of the weakness of the previous Government in controlling their officers from corruption and activities. For example, when a person asked for a licence to erect a house, there were officers who delayed this for months and for years. This not only happened in Singapore but also in the Southern Islands when I visited the islands a few weeks ago. This delay was due to the delay in giving corruption money to the officers. If money was paid early, the permit would come out early. But those who could not afford to give money and who did not want to give money to those said officers, were forced to erect illegal houses. The Member for Geylang Serai said earlier that there were thousands of illegal houses in Singapore. This means that the previous Government knew of the existence of illegal houses in Singapore before. But they did not take any action, because there were certain people in the previous Government who, because they had to protect their own political interest, just kept quiet though the offence was clear before their eyes. Mr Speaker, I would like to say that if we do not take positive action in this matter, I feel that there would be many more illegal houses, which having just been erected, they would say were erected a long time ago. For example, I was told by my friends who had observed the erection of these illegal houses that they would get their materials ready at the places; they got ready the roofs and walls and everything, and when the sun set about ten of them would work to erect the houses which would be completed in a matter of a few hours, and that very night they moved in with their children. By tomorrow a new house would be seen in that area. When the officers came to examine, they would say that these houses had been erected many years ago, and that they were just doing the renovations to the houses. If we want to create a Singapore that is peaceful, happy and just, we may be forced to introduce laws which in the beginning would seem drastic. For example, take a small child who has a boil. If the father were afraid to operate on the boil for fear of the child crying, then I feel the child would get worse. What he should do is to cut out the boil and allow the pus to come out. When the child got well, he would think how lucky he was that his father had cut out the boil, for otherwise he would have lost the hand. 4.26 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, regarding this Bill concerning unauthorised houses in Singapore, a number of Opposition Members have stated clearly that they are not opposing this Bill in its entirety. It seems to me that a number of people who have spoken from the Government side are still bringing up the old story of what had happened in the past. I said yesterday that we are now facing the period in front of us. We should face this with full realisation, a full sense of responsibility of building this Singapore and to bring about a Government in Singapore that is strong and just. We should accept views that are meant to be constructive. Concerning houses that have already been erected, this is a problem which is affected by the Bill when it is enacted. For instance, we know that most of the houses which have been erected are most of them huts or terrace houses with a number of rooms which have no numbers and are rented out to various families. We know the mistake. But this is a matter that has happened and it is a matter that we must face, and if we take the action to demolish these houses, it will be the responsibility of the Government to place these people in areas which are safe. So we hope that the Government, if they must take action, the action will be just, and without favour to any Party. Wherever the houses are found to be erected the law should apply. To those who are renting these houses, they must be given an assurance that they would get proper treatment from the Government. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, it seems there have been a lot of misunderstanding or possibly distortions in the purpose of this Bill. The main purpose of this Bill is to declare open war on the building racketeers. It has nothing to do with the houses which have been built by farmers or other persons who are in need of homes due to the short-sighted and wrong policy of previous Governments in not building enough S.I.T. houses for their accommodation. Section 170 (1), as amended, says, clearly that "Where the Minister is satisfied that a building is about to be erected or is in course of erection". That is the main purpose of the Bill. Mr Speaker, because of the ineptitude of past administrations and because perhaps of the recent events so-called politicians have contacts with these building racketeers. Past Governments had never taken a stand against these building racketeers, although the erstwhile colleague of the Member for Tanglin, Mr Lim Koon Teck, had always repeated in this Assembly that the Government should take strong action against unauthorised structures. Because of the ineptitude of past Governments, we have in the past year a big fire in Kampong Tiong Bahru; a big fire in Lorong 3, Geylang; and in the past two months another big fire in Kampong Tiong Bahru. Three weeks ago, another big fire nearly broke out near the Kallang Gasworks. On Sunday last, many persons came to see me from Kampong Amber which the Member for Mountbatten represents. They were very afraid because in the past few weeks six cases of fire have broken out. I am sure the Member for Mountbatten realises the position of the Government if Kampong Amber is burnt out. The purpose of this Bill is not to take action against the existing structures which have been built in Kampong Amber. It is to take action against new unauthorised structures. The Local Government Ordinance in itself will be sufficient to deal with those structures which have existed. They will go with the normal process of the old laws. As I have said just now, the purpose of this amendment of section 170 is to declare open war on the building racketeers and we are very confident that from now onwards, when this Bill becomes law, no more such racketeers will ever exist in Singapore. They will have to close down their business and perhaps, because of that, many persons will have their incomes decreased. The penalties which will be enforced against these building racketeers will be very substantial and very high. On conviction they might have to pay a fine not exceeding $50 a day for every house they build. Mr Speaker, if we have this Bill, or if the previous Government had got the courage to enact such a Bill, today there would not be 300 to 500 houses in the course of being erected - some of them have been built in Geylang. They would have to pay $15,000 to $20,000 a day for the houses they are building, and on top of that they might have to go to prison for a minimum period of six months or a maximum period of 12 months. Mr Speaker, we believe that fines are not sufficient for the building racketeers, who are in general being backed by secret societies. We feel that the most important weapon against these building racketeers is to put them in jail and to fix a minimum period during which they will have free food and rice and accommodation supplied by Government. Mr Speaker, if previous administrations had been more far-sighted or had worked harder or had reduced inefficiency and corruption, thus making more money for the purpose of building more S.I.T. houses, we would not have been saddled today with this problem of dealing with unauthorised structures on the one hand, and trying to build more houses on the other. The P.A.P. Government understands that to stamp out these building racketeers is not enough, so long as a market exists for these unauthorised structures; and so long as there are innocent victims, these racketeers could still flourish. We believe that, on the more positive side, we could increase the building of S.I.T. houses which in the past 10 years has been at a very shamefully low figure. The fundamental and lasting remedy against unauthorised structures is to build more S.I.T. low-cost houses. The previous Governments and the previous S.I.T. had never tried to build low-cost housing and in great quantities because if they did so, the possibility of corruption would have been reduced. We are determined to remedy the situation.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Ong Eng Guan]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 -

Hon. Members will notice in page 4, line 15, the deletion of three words. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed. [Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr G. Kandasamy) in the Chair]

4.43 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 61, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection:- Dr Toh Chin Chye (Member for Rochore) Mr Ong Eng Guan (Member for Hong Lim) Mr Lee Khoon Choy (Member for Bukit Panjang) Tun Lim Yew Hock (Member for Cairnhill) Inche Mohamed Ali Bin Alwi (Member for Kampong Kembangan). Sir, in moving this motion, I would like to refute the charges which were made yesterday by the Opposition benchers that we tend to be dictatorial and that, because we have 43 Members on our side and the Opposition have only eight, we would be in a position to swallow the Members from the opposite benches. This proposal which I am putting forward shows that the P.A.P. Government, can be generous and can be liberal. According to Standing Orders, the Committee of Selection should be formed from Members of the Government and also to include a Member from the Opposition, so that, in proportion really, we should have four Members on the Government bench and one from the Opposition side. But I would like to say, in all earnestness and seriousness, Mr Speaker, that we do not wish to take advantage of the strong position which we are in. We do believe that the essence of a democratic government is that Bills and laws are moved in this Legislature and that not only Members on the Government side, but Members from the Opposition side, have also a say in the passage of Bills and other motions. That being so, Mr Speaker, we have today included in this motion that there be three Members from the Government side and two Members from the Opposition side who will form this Committee of Selection.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 61, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection:- Dr Toh Chin Chye (Member for Rochore) Mr Ong Eng Guan (Member for Hong Lim) Mr Lee Khoon Choy (Member for Bukit Panjang) Tun Lim Yew Hock (Member for Cairnhill) Inche Mohamed Ali Bin Alwi (Member for Kampong Kembangan).

4.46 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That the Standing Orders Committee to be appointed under paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 61 do consider and report on any amendments to the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly which the Committee may deem necessary.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Standing Orders Committee to be appointed under paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 61 do consider and report on any amendments to the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly which the Committee may deem necessary.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly orders that the Commissioner of Police do take care that during the present session of this House the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in the passages leading to this House, and that there be no annoyance therein and thereabouts; and that the Clerk of this Assembly do communicate this order to the Commissioner aforesaid.

I rise to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly orders that the Commissioner of Police do take care that during the present session of this House the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in the passages leading to this House, and that there be no annoyance therein and thereabouts; and that the Clerk of this Assembly do communicate this order to the Commissioner aforesaid.

4.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (7) of section 30 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, resolves that the remuneration of the State Advocate-General shall be $2,075 a month. Mr Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to section 30 (7) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council which provides: "The State Advocate-General shall be paid such remuneration and allowances as may from time to time be determined by the Assembly, and such remuneration and allowances shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund." As Members of the House know, the State Advocate-General has very wide powers conferred on him by the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council in relation to the institution, conduct and control of criminal proceedings and, in the exercise of these powers, the State Advocate-General is not subject to the direction or control of any other person. In addition, he is the Government's chief legal adviser and is in charge of all proceedings brought against the Government or by the Government against the subject. The conduct of civil proceedings in which the Government is involved or interested is undertaken by him and the law officers under him and his Department are also responsible for the preparation and vetting of legislation, including subsidiary legislation. In addition, he has been appointed Permanent Secretary for all departments dealing with legal matters and in this capacity he assists the Minister for Law in all matters relating to the legal departments, the Courts, the Department of the Official Assignee and Public Trustee, the Registry of Trade Marks, Business Names and Companies, the Registry of Marriages and the Registry of Muslim Marriages. It is the view of the present Government that the State Advocate-General should be given a status and a remuneration above that of the Puisne Judges but below that of the Chief Justice. It is therefore proposed that his remuneration should be $2,075 a month, which is the same as the basic salary of the former Attorney-General. For the information of Members, I would like to state that the remuneration of a Puisne Judge is $1,950 a month while that of the Chief Justice is $2,375 a month. Now, in this matter, Mr Speaker - although I have had very hard things to say in other places about the colonial regime and colonial precedents - in this post I think I am nevertheless happy to recommend to the House that it should adopt a good colonial precedent in this case and that precedent is that the person occupying the position of the State Advocate-General should be placed on the same footing as the colonial officers who occupied the august position of Attorney-General under other regimes, and I do recommend that the remuneration of our State Advocate-General should be on a par.

I second the motion. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the sum involved is $2,075, I do not wonder why the Minister for Law says that that is a good colonial precedent which should be followed. Be that as it may, I have no quarrel with the sum involved, but the Hon. the Minister for Law did say that this salary is fixed in relation to the very high office that this person holds by being the State Advocate-General. It is one of the most important positions in our State. He is in charge and in control of all criminal proceedings and it is part and parcel of his office that in the initiation, prosecution and conduct of these proceedings he is completely impartial and never looks behind his shoulder. I have no doubt in my own mind that the present occupant of this post will do his duty in a manner that this high office merits. But there is one thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to bring to the attention of the House, and if I do not do so, I think I will be failing in my duty. I regret that Government should have considered it necessary to appoint this person to this post only to the end of next year. They may have reasons for doing it.

Order. As far as I can see, the motion merely asks the Assembly to resolve that the remuneration of the State Advocate-General, whoever he may be, shall be $2,075 a month. So I would suggest that any comment or any debate on who has been appointed and for what period is perhaps a little far away from the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I felt that as the post was a temporary one, perhaps the salary was a little higher than normal. 4.57 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I myself feel that $2,075 a month for a highly qualified legal man is not much. I am sure there are many professional men who have not seen fit to dedicate themselves to public service and whose integrity, intelligence and professional capacity are very much lower than those of certain holders of high offices in the State. But we have considered it fit in the interest of the nation that they should man those posts and accept much lower scales of pay than they would get if they were to go out on their own. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that the Member for Farrer Park gets more in his own legal practice.

I am a good lawyer! 5.00 p.m.

I would like to correct the impression which was given by the hon. Member for Farrer Park that this appointment is to be temporary. I would refer him to section 30, subsection (4) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, where it is provided that: "The State Advocate-General may be appointed for a specified period and, if he was so appointed, shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (6) of this section, vacate his office (without prejudice to his eligibility for re-appointment) at the expiration of that period, but, subject as aforesaid, shall otherwise hold office until he attains the age of fifty-five years." In this case it was thought proper that the appointment should, in the first instance, be made for eighteen months, with a view to a confirmation of the appointment at the expiration of that period. Sir, I would like to make it very clear to Members that it is not intended than this is to be a purely temporary appointment, but there is an implied promise that if the officer discharges his duties to the satisfaction of the Government, that appointment will be confirmed and he will then continue to hold his office, in the words of the Order in Council, until he attains the age of fifty-five years.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (7) of section 30 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, resolves that the remuneration of the State Advocate-General shall be $2,075 a month.

Is it the general desire that we should suspend for tea? Hon. Members indicated assent.

I therefore suspend this Assembly until 5.35 p.m. I will take the Chair again at 5.35 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.03 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

5.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (3) of section 37 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, resolves that the allowance of the Deputy Speaker shall be $500 a month.

I second the motion. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (3) of section 37 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, resolves that the allowance of the Deputy Speaker shall be $500 a month.

5.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present session of this Assembly.

Order. I think the Hon, the Deputy Prime Minister was reading the Address. The motion includes the first line.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to:- "We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present session of this Assembly." Sir, it is not usual to begin when the curtain rises with an epilogue, but I would like to quote the conclusion to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech delivered at the last sitting of this Assembly. In this, he said: "I was the last of the British Governors of Singapore. It is not as Governor and Commander-in-Chief that I deliver this address on behalf of the first elected Government of the people of Singapore." Sir, precisely in those few sentences the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has very neatly summed up the change of conditions - the change from 1955 to 1959. In 1955 the People's Action Party contested the General Elections. But it was never our intention at that time that we should be returned with a majority to form a government under the Rendel Constitution. We knew precisely what were the pitfalls and the handicaps in the Rendel Constitution. In the last government, the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary, the Attorney-General and above all the Governor, were colonial officials. Power, therefore, lay in the hands of these colonial officials, and not so much in the hands of those who became Ministers under the Rendel Constitution, although some pretence was made that the Chief Minister and his colleagues held the reins of power. We realised their disabilities of forming a government under these conditions and, therefore, we put only four candidates in the 1955 Elections. In 1959 conditions have now changed. The P.A.P. has led the people of Singapore to obtain a new Constitution which provides for complete control of internal self-government in Singapore. It is now time for us to change our policy, for us to take hold of the reins of government and use our powers wisely to advance the cause and our objects which were stated in our Party manifesto. So it was that two months ago, on 30th May, the People's Action Party was returned by the people of Singapore with an overwhelming majority, which a well-known churchman said, "was an earthquake to shake our conscience". But it would be foolish for us to believe that with the change of the Constitution, we shall also adopt the ritual and the regalia of the past without modifying them. Just as an English daffodil cannot thrive in our tropical climate, it will be foolish for us to believe that the pomp and circumstances of British State functions, the undiluted forms of uninhibited liberalism of the West, of Hyde Park corner, can flourish in our political environment without undergoing certain modifications. We subscribe to parliamentary democratic rule. But it does not necessarily mean that, in doing so, we shall adopt the forms which are known in the West. With the pending retirement of the present Yang di-Pertuan Negara, so also will there be a change in our symbols. The flag of Singapore and the crest of Singapore today have still a trace of colonialism. When our own Malayan-born Yang di-Pertuan Negara assumes authority in a few months' time, we shall have a new flag for the new State of Singapore, and also a new National Anthem. These symbols are important, psychologically, in that they draw the loyalty of the population towards certain beliefs, towards the country. But it is not enough that we should reside or dwell in the light of these symbols. We must come down to the reality that the success of the future of the country must be dependent upon action, upon our own honest labours, upon hard work, for no country can flourish merely on symbols alone. In the past, the Colonial Government had stood aloof from the people they ruled. But the People's Action Party has during the past five years been close to the masses. They have grown out of the roots, and now that we are in Government, it will be our intention that we who come out of the masses shall go back to the masses. It is in keeping with this belief of ours that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara last month shed his uniform, his Colonial plumes and regalia with which a Colonial Governor usually adorns himself. The change of attire of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara also signifies the change in attitude of the Government. The People's Action Party has a positive ideology. We believe that our ills, the ills of our society, can only besolved on the basis of a socialist ideology, and it is because we have a political belief, we therefore have a principle, and having a principle, we have the ability to lay down a line of action by which we hope to advance our cause and the progress of our society. We have, during the last two months, during the election campaigning, produced policy statements all of which have been embodied in two pamphlets called "The Tasks Ahead". These tasks outline the plans which we hope to execute in the next five years when we are in power. The tasks ahead have included the problems of women, education, labour, trade unions and social security, economic policies, housing, rural development, health, reorganisation of Government administrative organs, including absorption of the City Council departments into Government Ministries, and nation building. These tasks ahead have formed the basis for the speech which the Yang di-Pertuan Negara delivered at the opening session of this Assembly. There are two basic general problems which we face. First is one of nation building. Second, the conversion of our existing economy from a non-productive one to a productive one. With regard to nation building, we realise that that is a task which is not possible to be solved within the short space of two years or five years. We know that the task must necessarily be a continuous one, but it is our intention and our object that within ten years the basis will have firmly been laid for nation building. We are all aware that our society is complicated by the fact that there are present different races and different cultures. Because of different cultures we are also handicapped by the presence of a multitude of tongues. Nonetheless, our faith is that despite this diversity in the constitution of our society we can weld the different elements together into one nation. And today this session of the Assembly is historical because, for the first time in the history of Legislative Assemblies, not only in Singapore but also in Malaya, we have four tongues spoken. We are proud that multilingualism has come into this Assembly, and it will stay. In this way we have opened Government not to a privileged few, not to those who were educated only in the language of a Colonial master but we have opened Government to the masses. We heard yesterday and today speeches made in Chinese, Malay and English, and it is our desire that multi-lingualism will make its effect felt in this Assembly not because of the fact that one language is different from the other and therefore it is a novelty to listen to another language which is different from what we have been used to, but because by allowing our Members in this House to use the tongue they are accustomed to we also feel the reactions and the emotions from the ground. Our economy has during the past hundred years been based almost entirely on an entrepot economy. Our population has outgrown the ability of such an economy to support us. It is therefore of great importance that we should take steps to industralise our economy, and make it a productive one, in this way we hope that some of the ills which we see in our society will be solved. I said just now, Sir, that the P.A.P. is a socialist Party, and therefore, we have a socialist programme. We must, however, recognise certain facts and conditions which are imposed upon us. We recognise that our little island of Singapore has no natural resources, and that our entrepot economy has remained static, that there is pressure of population on the island and that we also have the complexity of a multi-racial society and the special problems which they pose. The conditions, therefore, to realise a completely socialist society are not present. But nonetheless, it is our intention to do our utmost within these five years so that at the end of this period we will have firmly laid the basis for a future socialist society, and it is also our intention that during these five years, what is more important is that existing feudalistic and conservative attitudes must be changed to a progressive socialist outlook. Socialism is not just merely a change in the ownership of property. For us who are faced with the task of forming a nation, socialism also includes the fostering of an attitude and an outlook towards a Malayan nation. On the details of the Yang-di-Pertuan Negara's speech, I will not deal with them because my colleagues will capably dispose of them in the course of this debate. However, I would like to say this: that in 1955, the Labour Front which contested the general elections never really planned to win the elections. Neither did they expect to win the elections. It must have been the greatest surprise of the lives of those in the Labour Front when they found that they were in the majority, and having never calculated or planned what to do if they should form the Government, the Labour Front were faced with the situation that they had to scrape together their members from here and there to form a body which they could call a Government. The Labour Front had a vague political ideology. But the ideology was never strong, and therefore the principles were never strong. Having no principles they had no plans of what they would do when they formed the Government. The Labour Front Government was like a ship sailing in the Pacific Ocean, without a compass and without a pair of oars. They are like those who first ventured out into the Straits of Johore at Changi in a little rowing boat in the hope of having a gay time in their lives, and it must have been the greatest surprise to them when they found the boat had drifted into the Pacific Ocean. But the Pacific Ocean is not that pacific. It is notorious for its typhoons! Poor devils! They had never really understood the currents of our political life, and it was therefore not unexpected that the Labour Front Coalition Government, and latterly the S.P.A. Coalition Government, capsized in the stormy seas of Singapore politics. The S.P.A. Coalition Government lost the general elections not simply because the P.A.P. captured the City Council. The people of Singapore were wise during the last four years, that those whom they voted into power should honour their word and should execute what they had promised to the electorate. The last Government forgot what they said in 1955. Their word was not honoured. The lesson for those who believe in democracy is that a Government can be changed by the electorate if it fails to fulfil the wishes of the electorate. That is the basic principle of democracy, and that is the reason why today we have Members in this House changing seats. We in the P.A.P. have calculated the odds. We know the heavy responsibilities we will face. We are aware of the pitfalls and whirlpools of the political scene. We have therefore faced the electorate prepared. Our compass is a five-year plan to which we have given considerable thought. It will be our intention that at the end of these five years we shall fulfil and we hope even over-fulfil a five-year plan in certain sectors. 6.01 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion. I must point out to this House that everything in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech is consistent with the promises the P.A.P. has made to the people. We mean what we say and say what we mean. The people know this. This is why we have a P.A.P. Government today. During the next five years we will give further proof that we are a consistent Party. What we promised before the elections, we will make sincere efforts to carry out during the next five years. I should like to call the special attention of this House to that part of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which deals with national development. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara has promised that the Government will ensure that the welfare and interests of the rural dwellers are adequately looked after. There are three reasons for this. (1) A large proportion of our population live in the rural areas and the P.A.P. is interested in serving all the people, not merely one section of the people. (2) Our farmers and fishermen in the rural areas have been exploited by middlemen in the past. They are still being exploited. Our farmers today depend on the credit of middlemen to provide them with imported fertilisers and feeding stuffs. In return for this credit they pay higher prices and receive reduced prices for the products of their industry. This situation must end. The P.A.P. Government has plans to organise and assist farmers, producers' co-operatives and marketing co-operatives. This will help to break the grip of the middlemen on our farming community. It will also ensure a fair return for the products of our farmers. We shall have fishermen's producers' co-operatives and fish marketing co-operatives in a similar way, Sir, for the same purpose. If our fishermen and market gardeners can be helped to increase their production by modern methods, it will do three things. It will increase their own earning power; it will also strengthen the economy of Singapore; finally, it will mean more and cheaper poultry, eggs, pigs, and vegetables for our people and also a much greater surplus for export. The P.A.P. Government has another purpose in view. This is steadily to remove the disparity in the amenities of life between urban and rural areas. This means that we must and will take steps to do the following things:-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech at the beginning of the session. In his speech, we clearly understand that our Government is to build an independent non-Communist Malaya. This is our purpose. For our bright future in this difficult and dim environment, we struggled very hard with the people of Singapore for this purpose. As a result, on the 30th of May, the people of Singapore by peaceful means freed themselves from Colonial rule. Together with the people of Singapore, we formed the Government. This is the Government of the various peoples. We have to work to implement our plans. We know that what we do will be to care for the welfare of all the people and be responsible for them. I have just said that we want to bring about a society where there is no exploitation. Therefore, our Government must look closely after those who have been exploited and forgotten by the previous Government, such as the fishermen and labourers. Of course, we must also look after the interests and benefit of other people. These farmers and fishermen and labourers do not get a fair return for their labour. In the case of housing and health, they do not receive regard from the Government. Regarding the supplying of electricity, the cleaning of the drains, the fitting of the water-pipes and the building of the bridges, it will be up to the present Government to do it. We must try our best to bring all this about under these economic conditions. We sincerely hope that those hardworking and good people will give us their closest co-operation and trust. Only with this can we fulfil our tasks. Regarding those who are against giving benefit to the people we will persuade them to believe in us. At the same time, we hope that those who worry for nothing will realise the aim of the Government and participate in our work. They will work harder and co-operate with us to help our new nation. 6.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, as one directly connected with trade unions and the day- to-day problems of workers, I wish to make a few remarks on one aspect of the Government's policy as contained in the speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, namely, that which relates to workers and their organisations. The Government's guiding principle in industrial relations, as has been stated, is industrial peace with justice. Industrial peace, of course, does not mean the same as what our predecessors certained it to be. In the past era, Government merely interpreted industrial peace to be "law and order", and therefore every effort was made to check and crush the workers' agitations for improved wages and conditions of work. Obviously, there was no justice done, because the Government, being excessively keen and enthusiastic to maintain law and order - if need be by thuggish means - had for the convenience of rich employers, quite comfortably ignored to revise certain laws which were not in the interests or in favour of the workers. This ultimately led to warfare on the industrial front. The unions that were strong and well-organised, with sufficient funds to maintain a prolonged struggle, received to some extent what they wanted; but the unions with poor organisations became the underdogs and were left at the mercy of merciless and ruthless employers. No effort was made to strengthen the trade union movement on the whole and the individual unions which, although they had legitimate demands, were unsuccessful because of weak and poor organisations. The Government was indifferent to the principle of collective bargaining and, on the contrary, fostered yellow and splinter unions which further weakened the workers' movement. Today, Mr Speaker, Sir, what do we have? There are 218 trade unions of workers many of which are empty ghost unions. It is not very necessary to state how ridiculous the situation is. In an island of about 1� million people, with about 32 per cent of the population economically active, we have 218 employee trade unions. There are two unions - if not more - claiming to represent workers of one industry in quite a few cases, and if we examine their membership records, we shall find one with less than ten members and the other with more than 5,000 members. It was not that the Government was unaware of splinter unions, as has been proved in the past. For example, in the Harbour Board there are about five unions with a total membership of about 500 and one large union with more than 7,000 members. Yet the former Government refused to take the necessary action to make this large union the only voice of the Harbour Board workers. Besides this type, there are numerous small unions managed by thugs and hoodlums which had been set up by employers with specific functions to break militant unions. At the moment, out of the 218 unions, about 100 have less than 250 members each. About 85 unions have between 250 and 1,000 members. In other words, about 185 unions out of a total of 218 have each a membership of 1,000. Today, the workers are fed up with this sort of affairs and in the trade union field, the trends are for a unified trade union movement. Unity is the call among the workers, as it was in the past, but this time the difference is that we have a Government which is not impotent or sterile but determined to carry out the declared policy with the purpose of strengthening the trade unions and unifying the working class movement in order to ensure a more active, a more widespread and, on the whole, a more militant participation of workers' organisations in the struggle to establish a fair and just society in which man will not exploit man. The Government is fully aware of the need to establish and maintain industrial peace but this will certainly not be like the wild cry of the past for "law and order". Industrial peace can only be maintained if there is justice for the workers, and the most practical way in which there can be lasting industrial peace is to have an independent Court of Labour which will not be deterred by the pomp and the power of money of the employers, whose findings and recommendations will be binding on both the unions and the employers, and which will have the force of law. The Government has stated clearly that it will cancel the registration of yellow and splinter unions. There may be some across the Floor who may become vociferous about democratic liberties and freedom of association and the rest of it. Those crushed on the 30th of May by the will and determination of the working class will attempt to champion the cause of anti-unionists and hoodlum leaders of these unions who do not even represent a sizeable proportion of the workers. Let these people not forget that the P.A.P. won a decisive victory at the elections and more than 50 per cent of the electorate voted in favour of this Government. The electorate were fully aware of our policies and they supported us because they supported our policies. And let there be no doubt that the P.A.P. will fulfil its obligations to the people by enforcing its declared policies. To pretend and fake as heroes of the working class will result in greater demoralisation than 30th May in time to come.

If nobody wishes to speak, I will put the Question.

On a point of information, Sir. The mover of the motion said that his colleagues will elucidate on the particular Ministries. So we are waiting for them to elucidate or do they want us to help them to elucidate?

That, of course, is not a point on which I can assist. It is up to the Deputy Prime Minister who is also the Leader of the House and perhaps the Government Whip, if they choose to, to whip up their Members. It is not a matter in which I can assist. 6.26 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak on the Government policy as outlined by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, may I first take this opportunity to congratulate the P.A.P. for their success? This may seem strange and unorthodox to some but it is my belief that as this House is a unit comprising the Government and its Opposition, I see no reason whatsoever why the two sides cannot or should not start, function and end amicably and constructively for the good of the State and its people. Much time was spent yesterday and today digging up history, digging up mud to sling at one another and much time was wasted by one Party accusing and the other Party defending itself. That time could be more profitably spent if we could spend it on constructively planning for the State and for the paramount interest of the people of Singapore. I realise that 54 per cent of the electorate in Singapore have voted for P.A.P. - four per cent more than half the electorate. This majority, the Government spared no pains to drive home to the Members of the Opposition. But I feel that we are a bit confused over this matter. We are aware that we are 8 against 43. We are aware that the people have chosen the P.A.P. We are aware that the P.A.P. has published "The Tasks Ahead", and the people who have voted P.A.P. have accepted on principle their manifesto. But it must also be remembered that of those who voted for P.A.P., many have not read "The Tasks Ahead". Assuming that everyone has read and has digested it, "The Tasks Ahead" still does not give in detail the methods by which these principles in the programme are to be carried out. So, in spite of the fact that the people, the majority of the electorate, have voted P.A.P., we cannot but run away with the idea that the programmes, in whatever method introduced, no matter by what means they are carried out, are acceptable and are given a mandate by the electorate. That is why we have to get together and plan constructively, as I said, for the paramount interest of the State. Let us spend our time and energy doing that. Evidently, the 54 per cent, when they voted for the P.A.P., had hoped that when the P.A.P. formed the government, it would voice the opinion of the electorate; it would promote peace, freedom and justice for the people; it would bring about work for the good and prosperity of the State and its people, and improve the standard of living. The Government's determination to wipe out the alleged deficit of $14 million, and the policy of dropping the axe on those whom they think are best able to bear it is, of course, commendable, especially when they have considered it to the extent of dropping the axe on those who are best able to bear it so that it would not cause undue hardship on those who cannot bear it. But to implement those pay cuts, without even one month's notice, certainly will cause severe hardship, and in some cases maybe disaster and misery in the family. This can be avoided if only time is given to the poor employee to balance or adjust his family budget. Furthermore, the fact that these cuts have been implemented without negotiations with the unions has given a sense of insecurity not only to Government employees, but also to employees at large. The meeting that Government had with the trade union leaders can hardly be termed "negotiations", when, I believe, in the words of the Finance Minister - I am not quoting exactly but the gist of it is that Government had decided to decide for the people, because the trade union leaders were not able to make any decisions without referring the matter to their respective trade unions. After all, is not this the essence of democratic trade unionism - to bring it back to the trade unions before the leaders decide? Government has always been regarded as a model employer, and if Government deals with its employees in such a highhanded fashion today, what right will Government have to prevent other employers doing the same tomorrow? No wonder the employees of commercial firms are sharing this sense of insecurity with Government employees. The Finance Minister calls for understanding of the people by the civil servants. I am afraid, to achieve this, Government will have to show this understanding to its civil servants first. As a trade unionist, I had the good fortune of working with many who are now Ministers on the Government bench, and I used to admire them for the untiring effort they put in to protect the right of trade unions and trade unionism. It seems incredible to me now to witness the position of the very trade unionists, who had been protected, standing up now to defend their right against their own leaders who, until very recently, had been their champions in the fight. The Government's intention to wipe out the deficit and to bridge the gap between the different social strata is, of course, plausible. But it must be remembered that the means by which these are being carried out are as important as the end itself. It does not take an economic expert to slash the salary of its employees to meet a deficit. The true worth of an economic expert will be fully appreciated when he meets the deficit by expanding trade and industry. If Singapore were to keep in step with the other countries in the world, this gap will have to be bridged by pulling up those from the bottom to meet the top, and not pull those at the top to the bottom. This will be a retrograde step which should be avoided. The people of Singapore in general and the trade unionists in particular look up to their trade union champions, their economic expert, and their chosen leaders to improve their standard of living and to protect their rights. I am sure they are confident that the noble instinct shown by these leaders in the past will yet prevail. On Community and Recreational Organisations, the Government has decided to take over and to exercise full control over these community organisations and partial control over the recreational organisations. Throughout the world, the stress today is on helping people to help themselves. Volunteers, it has been accepted universally, are the best yardsticks by which to measure community acceptance of social services. The enthusiasm of the citizen volunteers, as board members, as solicitors in Community Fund Drives, or volunteer agency workers, determines the democracy of community services. A community welfare service should be representative of the total community. There should be room for all in order to strengthen community understanding. There should be no discrimination against any group on any grounds whatsoever, be they social, cultural, religious or political. Yet Government has discriminated against a certain group known as politicians. The excuse is that if politicians are allowed to take an active part in community activities, they will exploit the community centres and organisations. This, of course, should be stopped. I agree. But the means of carrying this out are as important as the end, because Government's method of implementing the idea of preventing politicians from exploiting community centres, is leading to Party politics at a higher level and on a bigger scale, because no one will be allowed to run or take part actively in his community activity except the Government. It will all be run by the Government and the Government happens to be the P.A.P. No citizen of a democratic country should be deprived of his civic rights to serve his community. Throughout the world, efforts have been made to encourage civic consciousness and interest in community welfare. At the Ninth Conference of the International Council of Social Welfare held in Tokyo last November, it was unanimously agreed that social workers should approach their political leaders and encourage them to take a more active interest in the welfare of the community, because it was felt that they are the people who can render valuable services to the community. I am sure it is not the intention of the Government to isolate Singapore from the rest of the world by ignoring recommendations which have been unanimously arrived at by them. Moreover, active participation in community centres and organisations helps tremendously to provide leadership training. If the community centres and recreational organisations have not come up to the expectations of the Government, it is up to the Government to provide such training for the citizens, because these citizens are not specially trained to carry out the work; and the way to meet this is to provide training for the volunteers, rather than chuck them out. In the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, it is said that: "it now falls upon this Government to instil in our people of all races the will to be a nation." Sir, I maintain that depriving citizens of leadership training and of the right and freedom of a citizen to serve his community will not help to instil in them the will to be a nation. 6.45 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, we have just heard the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister. In my opinion, it is not based on the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. What he has stated are purely matters which concern the struggle of his own Party and they are not related to the Speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Mr Speaker, I wish to clarify to this Assembly that this self-Government, a democracy through elections, which we have just been given in Singapore, and which we have experienced in Singapore for the last few years, is an administration and a condition that is newly brought about in Asia. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that this democracy is a system of life in Europe which the people have had for more than a thousand years, and which has reached the status that is now obtaining throughout the world. Now I would like to come back to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. It seems to me that in this speech the aim of the Government is to abolish the interest of democracy, that is, to abolish the City Council and the District Councils. That, in my opinion, is not right because we have only just received power through democratic means, and we should give an opportunity to the people of Singapore not only to vote, but also to carry out the powers of Government. Apart from that, in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara I notice a section where it has been stated that the aim of the Government is to shape a Malayan nation. Here I would like the Government to say how it is to carry this out. Are we to shape the new nation based on the indigenous people of Singapore, that is the Malays, or is it to be based on the Chinese people, or the Indian people who are inhabitants staying in Singapore? I feel that if I were to forget my feelings as a Malay, it would be difficult. Likewise for the Chinese and the Indian people, it would be difficult. So here we should ask for clarification on the part of the Government as to how it intends to implement his policy. Apart from that, in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, it is stated that the stand of the P.A.P. Government is to form a society that is non-Communist but socialist in nature. But, on the other hand, this society is not meant for the people of Singapore, but is called a Malayan society. In my opinion, this is hardly correct at all because when we use the word "Malaya" it includes the Federation of Malaya, and if it includes the Federation of Malaya, it means, Mr Speaker, that the Government wishes to take part in the internal affairs of the Federation of Malaya. On the other hand, if the Government wishes to form a society that is non-Communist but socialist in Singapore, there will be no difficulty because it has the power to carry it out. But the Government should not bring in the Federation of Malaya, because Malaya involves the Federation of Malaya. 6.55 p.m.

(In Mandarin): We know our Government since its formation one month ago. Thus our self-Government is one month old. The previous Government was a Colonial Government and a bureaucratic Government. The responsibility now is to change the former Colonial bureaucratic practices. We must have plans and procedures to enable the present Government and the present employees of the Government to serve the people well, especially the poor people, in order to enable them to approach the Government. For this, then the Government employees will be working well for the country and for the people. We know that in order to carry it out well, education is very important. We know that the former education policy was a Colonial and servile one. If the people receive no education or Colonial education then it is difficult for the formation of the country. We should not just educate them for their profession or work. We should educate them so that, on the one hand, they can serve the people and, on the other hand, they can work for their own livelihood. Formerly, the Colonial Government produced a privileged class. This privileged class was the English-educated class. On the other hand, they neglected the interests of the other schools, for example, the Chinese schools, Malay schools and Tamil schools, where talented people may be found. Now our education policy has given equal treatment to all. In future, we will train people of all races who have talent and ability, to make them serve the country well. On the one hand they can earn their livelihood and, on the other hand, they can produce a lot of goods for the country and increase the production of the country. They will be useful economically to the country. The former education policy was to produce clerks and teachers. Now our present education policy is not of that type. At present we have decided to make Malay the national language of this country. That is not to say that we will neglect or overlook the languages of other races. The reason is that there must be one language for the whole nation, and it can be understood by all the people of the country. The Malay language is the most suitable one to be the national language. We must learn our national language, and be loyal to Malaya. Formerly, the Colonial education policy produced a lot of teachers and clerks, and because this education policy contained a tinge of colonialism, it therefore corrupted the thoughts of our youth. At present we have stopped a lot of yellow newspapers and also obscene films. But some people who published these types of papers and films said that the P.A.P. is destroying the freedom of the Press. Actually they themselves have utilised the freedom of the Press to destroy the freedom of others. Everyone wants to be good, but this yellow Press and yellow films purposely lead us to do bad things. Is it not to destroy other people's freedom? No one has absolute freedom - otherwise we have the freedom to kill a person. The servile and colonial education policy was quite successful. What I said just now proves that this education has not failed completely. Why? Because it has produced a lot of people worshipping Western material progress and civilization. Recently we have heard that a lot of teachers and Government officers went to see obscene films. Most of them were English-educated. Therefore the English Colonial education policy proved that it has not failed completely. On the other hand, it produced Rock and Roll dances for our youths. Now our present Government has sacked those teachers, who went to see the obscene pictures. Formerly under the Lim Yew Hock Government, I believe there were teachers who also went to see those obscene films, and they were arrested by the Government but their names were not published. Why? Because-

Order. I think I heard an allegation that the Member for Cairnhill went to see obscene films. I may be wrong, but if I am right, that, if course, is completely improper. Was there an allegation that the Member for Cairnhill saw obscene films? If there was an allegation of that nature, then, of course, the allegation must be withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): No. (Just now I was giving details about the former Government.) The former Government was very corrupted. How were they corrupted? I give you one example. A teacher told me that he went to the Education Department, and asked a clerk, "Why do you not work seriously?" The clerk replied, "Go and ask Mr Chew Swee Kee." This proves that because the Government was corrupted, therefore the employees were also corrupted. If the Government serves the people well, then the employees of the Government will be working for the people. Our Government has sacked the teachers who saw obscene films. This proves that our Government is different. Our Government is a clean Government. We will work for the people and we will take action against irresponsible people. I believe some teachers play mahjong all day, and gamble and see obscene pictures. I hope those people will pay some attention. If they can work well for the people I think their rice bowls will not be broken and they will not blame the Government for breaking them. To promote a healthy culture, the former Government will say these are subversive activities. But our Government now encourage healthy culture. I think our former Chief Minister will say that we are "a subversive Government". We have to wipe out illiteracy so as to enable all the people to read and write and also to spread education and raise our standard of education. Now these English-educated privileged classes no longer exist. Our Government is to make use of the talented people from all kinds of schools - Chinese, English, Malay and Tamil. If they are useful and able, we want to make use of them. Finally, we have to wipe out the former bureaucrats - the feudalistic, corrupted, Colonial bacteria. By means of this, we can build a happy, independent, free, and democratic socialist country. 7.05 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we the people of Singapore have entered into a new society. From the 140 years' rule of a Colonial Government, there comes an internal self-government elected by one and a half million people. This is an aspect in the history of human society struggling for freedom and emancipation. Although we have not achieved independence, the distance from independence, however, is not very far. Since 140 years ago our predecessors, for the sake of freedom and of being able to live honourably like human beings, had put in much effort and even sacrificed their own lives, and as a result of which, we acquired self-government. But how are we going to treasure this self-governing seed to make it bloom into flower and bear fruit? This is a heavy responsibility for the 1� million people of Singapore. Everybody knows that it is easy to eat fruit but it is difficult to plant it. This is indeed our responsibility and we must not shrink from it. From an old society we enter into a new society; and from a position of the ruled, we step into a self-governing position. In the course of this historical change, people are not ready to adapt their lives and thought to the new environment and they always feel somewhat troubled. Those who were well-treated under the colonial rule, would always yearn for the past, hoping that it would linger on. There are people who were educated under the colonial servile education. These poor people at one time did not know what to do. But thousands of people who were oppressed and who actually participated in the struggle, hope eagerly that they can immediately get rid of the 140 years of colonial rule and fly freely. Even if this means that they have to fare some bitterness, they will accept it willingly. However, it is not altogether easy for us to achieve self-government. The immediate and heavy task in front of us cannot be possibly performed overnight, particularly as the previous Government did not basically look after the interests of the people of Singapore as a whole. They misused and wasted public money and left a deficit of $14 million in our State budget for the new Government to balance. It is because of the interest of the 1� million people and to prevent the public finance from going into a state of bankruptcy that we have no alternative but to take immediate corrective measures to economise. Unfortunately, as the result of the audit and study carried out by the Ministry of Finance, our civil servants are first called upon to bear this responsibility, because the expenditure on the personal emoluments of government employees occupies 50 per cent of the total national revenue. This is an irrational phenomenon. Some irresponsible people may say that if there is a deficit in public finances, the government has just to give an order to increase taxation and the deficit will be wiped out. It is not necessary to reduce the salaries of a small section of the people. This is the most stupid way of talking, just like blind people talking about the sky. We must realize that a country cannot depend on increasing taxation to wipe out its deficit, for it is a negative measure and, at the same time, it appears quite illogical. The reason is very simple: if we "drain the pond to catch fish", we will be finished in no time. Hereafter, our government of 1� million people must not only economise but must also positively open the sources of income to expand and develop our national economy so as to improve the standard of living of our people. In every part of the world, there are good citizens who, for the sake of building their own country, have sacrificed their own interests for the good of the people. There is an old saying in Chinese, "Where skin no longer exists, feather and hair would not survive too." The lesson from this saying can be easily grasped. It is only in an unevenly developed society where you can benefit a small section of the people at the expense of the larger proportion of the population. Now that the people of Singapore control and manage their public finance, they should consider every cent precious to them. If we allow the present position of our administrative expenditure to continue without any check, we definitely will increase taxes. The Colonial government left to us the problem of unemployment. If we do not find ways and means to solve it, then this problem of unemployment will become more and more serious and consequently lead to social unrest and the increase of immoral conduct. This condition will be further worsened by the problems of housing, medical services, social welfare and the education of children. All these require a great amount of money. Where can we get all this money to finance our projects? How many Christmas Islands then can we sell? Even if there are, we will definitely not sell the property of our ancestors like a prodigal just to be despised by our coming generations. From June 5th this year, the public servant and the government are no longer in the position of employee and employer. The relationship between them as employee and employer must naturally follow the Colonial government into oblivion. In its place must be substituted a new relationship of partners who will fare together in happiness and bitterness. We must quickly develop this attitude. Let us not forget our ancestors were the masters of this country. Today we, (including the civil servants) recover again the position of masters. We are members of the elected government. In this big family of ours every member must be responsible for the economy of this family. We are closely related to one another and we must be ready to share in bitterness and in happiness. Our 1� million people must work hard together to build a new Singapore. They are no longer working for the Colonial Government and thereby earning a livelihood. It is time for them to discard the old attitude. Although it is an honour for a mean servant once to become master, but it must be acknowledged that with an empty treasury, a small section of the people will be inevitably asked to make some minor sacrifices. We must bear in mind that in every corner of the world, there is hardly any master who is not responsible for the economy of the family. Therefore we appeal to those people who may face some minor sacrifices on their part. In view of the development of this big family and the happiness of the coming generation, they must accept wholeheartedly the Government's pay-cut measure and, at the same time, cultivate a sense of self-respect so that they will be able to shoulder the responsibility of nation-building in the capacity of master. 7.16 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, and hon. Members, the birth of the State of Singapore under its new Constitution represents a change in the political field, but this political change would have no meaning if the conditions which prevail in our society do not also change. If things were to remain unchanged, then the struggle of the People's Action Party, which is now administering the Government of Singapore, would have been ineffective. The changes which we - that is to say, my Party, the P.A.P. - have planned cater for all sections of the population. And this has been made clear by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in the First Opening Session of this Assembly recently. What are those changes? I think they are known by all Members here: they cover the field of economics, finance, medical facilities, health, national development, culture, internal affairs and others. These changes are not being brought about for the benefit of a particular section of the people, but they are for the benefit of all the people of this country, irrespective of race, religion, colour and ideologies. This is a basic issue which is being pursued by the People's Action Party in a country which is multi-racial in character. This new Government has made Malay the national language of Singapore. This proves to all the people of this island that this Government respects the Malay language, and because of the fact that it is a language used by all the people, its role as the national language will further strengthen the bonds of friendship and relationship among the various races. Similarly, on the question of the policy of the P.A.P. to build a united Malayan nation from among the citizens of Singapore, I was just now embarrassed to hear a Member in this House making speeches, which are most communal in character. The Member for Geylang Serai said. "If I am a Malay, I will feel difficult to change my opinions to change my own self. Likewise a Chinese." He mentioned also that the P.A.P. is non-Communist but Socialist. And he said that he was not opposed to this question of a socialist, non-Communist Singapore, but he did not agree with it because it involved the Federation of Malaya. I wish - unfortunately he is not here - to tell him that the policy of the People's Action Party is non-communal, irrespective of race, religion or colour of skin; that all the people of Singapore are as one people who, according to our long-term policies, will create a Malayan nation, the aim of the People's Action Party being to merge with the Federation of Malaya. It is for these reasons that we use the term "Malayan", and if the Member for Geylang Serai refuses to be called a Malayan, it means clearly that he is still doubtful - he is still in the dark - whether one day Singapore will merge with the Federation of Malaya. But we of the People's Action Party, who have, set out in the belief that Singapore will merge with Malaya, will continue to pursue our aim, although it may take years to achieve. Every member of the People's Action Party is determined to work towards that aim. Does the Member for Geylang Serai know the meaning of the term "Malayan" and the aims of the People's Action Party to create a Malayan society? The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Culture will pursue this aim of creating a Malayan outlook and a Malayan consciousness. This is what we have in mind: that is, to inculcate this attitude in the minds of the people of Singapore, so that they will have a Malayan outlook and not think in terms of other countries. Thus if a man is a Chinese he should not turn to China; and if he is a Jew he should not turn to Israel, and so on. And this is the aim which we will pursue. I myself cannot understand whether the Member for Geylang Serai still wants the Malays to regard themselves as Malays, the Chinese to think in terms of Chinese politics in China, the Indians to think in terms of Indian politics in India and the Jews to think in terms of Israeli politics in Israel. Therefore, we mention specifically a Malayan socialist society, because we have ultimately to merge with the Federation. Singapore and the Federation of Malaya will be one and that is Malaya. Concerning culture - which is also contained in the booklet "Towards a More Just Society" which was read by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara - I, as a Member of this Assembly who is also serving in the Ministry of Culture, wish to make it known to the Member for Geylang Serai that the Ministry of Culture has taken definite steps to quickly alter or remould certain attitudes of the people so that they will all have a Malayan outlook and not be influenced by decadent Western culture which comes in the form of rock and roll. The evil influences of rock and roll dances have been too widespread to be allowed in our society. Yellow films and Frenchy films of half-naked people must be wiped out. And if there are stage shows which perform "Plum Blossom" acts, which were allowed by the previous Government, then we must put a stop to them immediately. Artistes and troupes from Hongkong and Europe were examined by the former Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare. If they were beautiful, they were given permits. This resulted in the struggle against yellow culture - which we aim for - being channelled to undesirable ends. If it has been so diverted, then it, will be difficult for us to redivert it although we will definitely take steps to rectify the wrongs and misdeeds of our predecessors. We must have courage to do this. Although we are opposed by certain quarters, yet we must have courage to carry out the demolition of houses, such as those in the Geylang Serai area where the owners let the houses to the people - the Malays - who subsequently had to go to Court and pay fines of anything from $10 to $100. This is all the fault of the previous Government. But as has been said by the Member for Mountbatten, we should not throw mud at the previous Government. We are not throwing mud. We are pointing out the misdeeds and maladministration of the previous Government. We have to say frankly what has taken place. What we are doing now is the result of what we have been bequeathed with by the previous Government. And as stated by the Deputy Prime Minister, some of them are even more colonial than the colonialists themselves. To come back to culture. If I am not mistaken, there was previously a cultural organisation, an arts or cultural body, to appeal to the former Government, in regard to "yellow" films, rock and roll, which are detrimental to the moral being of our youth and which should be abolished. But not a single step was taken and, thus, here is another proof that the previous Government was negligent. To be more accurate, the Ministers themselves were fond of such like dances, films, and so on.

Order. I think the hon. Member alleged that certain Ministers of the past Government were guilty of viewing improper films. Now he must remember that there are Ministers of the previous Government as Members of the House. Therefore, he must not make allegations of that nature. If there has been an allegation of that nature, he must withdraw it.

(In Malay): If it was not true, I withdraw it.

Order. I do not want any qualified withdrawal. I would like a complete withdrawal.

(In Malay): I withdraw it. Our Government can fittingly be called the People's Government, as it is known that more than half of the people of Singapore voted for the P.A.P. The efficiency of the Ministry of Culture and Members of the Cabinet is seen in the fact that these weaknesses have been overcome, little by little; and there have been changes in radio programmes, the film censorship, and in the work of every single Ministry. But these will take a long time to complete because, as it is said. "Rome was not built in a day." Therefore, every time the Prime Minister speaks, he asks for the support of the people of Singapore, so that we can fulfil the five-year programme of the People's Action Party which has been read by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. In conclusion, let me say that it does not cater for only one section, one race, or any particular group of people, but it caters for all the people of Singapore, for the benefit, welfare, prosperity and happiness of the citizens of our Singapura. 7.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to me that the new State of Singapore is like a new ship, with a new captain and a new crew. Some of us, Sir, are still in doubt as to who is the real captain of the ship. I hope the Government will make it clear to us, because usually the Prime Minister is the captain. But we are told indirectly through the Press that the captain of the ship is the Deputy Prime Minister. An hon. Member: The Malay Press or-

Order.

Sir, earlier we had the impression that the captain and crew could be human robots because they believed in unity with uniformity, and all came into this Chamber dressed in white. But today, Sir, we notice that there are splashes of different colours - grey, dark grey, brown-

Order. I am just wondering how all these personalities and description of the sartorial pleasures of others have anything to do with the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. The hon. Member might even start to comment on my wig!

Sir, I believe this is relevant because in a true democracy we believe in unity with diversity. We are glad, Sir, to see that the Government is quite sensible and quite sensitive to the need for change in changing conditions; and in this Chamber there needs to be a bit more laxity as regards maybe Party discipline. Sir, joking apart, we realise that [Laughter] in the hands of the captain and crew lie the lives, the happiness and the security of one and half million passengers, and that the course of history for the future of Singapore and Malaya will be decided by what happens in the next few years in Singapore. We believe, Sir, that the Opposition, although small in number, have a very important function to fulfil. We believe that if the Ship of State is heading for unseen rocks, hidden dangers-

The passengers will jump out!

-or for stormy weather, it is our duty to draw the attention of the captain and the crew, and it will have to be left to them to decide whether they will steamroller all Opposition (which they can, because of their overwhelming majority) or whether they will be able to weigh things dispassionately, whether there is need for reconsideration, or need for change, or whether they will be capable of reconsidering and changing their policies. In paragraph 1 of the speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, I believe the keynote of the policy of the new Government is that of a more just society. Sir, we of the Opposition believe in that. But more than that, we would like the Government to clarify whether in seeking to achieve a more just society they will strive to bring it about also by just means and methods, and also in a manner which bears the mark of justice and humanity. Sir, in the not too distant past, dictators like Hitler and Mussolini, in the name of justice, invaded other countries and ordered a massacre of millions of inhabitants. Talking of justice, Sir, we are reminded also of the immortal words of Shakespeare in a famous play where he said that "earthly power doth then show like God's, when mercy seasons justice". [Interruption.] We look forward to a policy which will seek to achieve not only a more just society but also by means and methods and in a manner to show to the world that they also are just and humane to all sections of the people. Sir, in paragraph 1 of "Economics and Finance" we are told that the Government will "place the finances of the country on a sound and healthy basis". Then it states that there is a "threatened deficit", I repeat, Sir, "threatened deficit", "of $14 million for 1959". Judging by the past records of past Financial Secretaries, I am surprised that the Minister for Finance is also adopting the same policy by saying that there is a "threatened deficit". Every year from 1947 onwards, it was found that the "threatened deficit" always ended in a surplus. This was due usually to unspent votes and under-estimated items of revenue. Unfortunately, Sir, instead of waiting for the "threatened deficit" to materialise, the Government [Interruption]-

I think the hon. Member is entitled to be heard in silence. I think Members of the Government Benches have been heard in silence.

Unfortunately, Sir, instead of waiting for the "threatened deficit" to materialise, the new Government looked around to find lambs to be slaughtered and the first lambs that they wanted to slaughter were their own employees. No doubt there was the problem of balancing the Budget, but whereas the Minister for Finance is able to ensure a balanced Budget, he has passed some of the problems to probably 6,000 families - passing on worries to probably 30,000 passengers on board. We believe, Sir, that if it is necessary for the deficit to be met, it can be met by spreading that burden on others as well as on their own employees. There is a belief - whether this is true or not the Government will have to clarify - that this step was taken as an act of political revenge. We hope it is not true, because if it is true then the foundations of true democracy will have been undermined.

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

Yes.

Does the Member for Tanglin believe that he is furthering the cause of democracy by spreading unfounded rumours in this House?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the business of the Opposition to draw the attention of the captain and the crew to what is going on and what is being said outside. I have asked them to state whether it is true or not. I am not alleging that it is true. In fact I wish to express the hope that it is not true. Sir, the grievances of the Government trade unions are now well known. There is a feeling of great disappointment and disillusionment among them that their once great champions of the liberty and rights of trade unionism have now been transformed, and that their old champions have begun to adopt the boss mentality of their old Colonial masters. An impossible situation! But this is their feeling, Sir, and it is right that this feeling should be expressed in this Chamber. I would suggest that the good boss should first look after the interest of his own employees, then he will set an example to other bosses as to the way they should treat their own employees. Sir, there is another report: that this is a method by which Government robs Peter to pay Paul, because in Part 1 of the P.A.P.'s Five-Year Plan, page 26, it is stated that millions could be saved by the Government to finance this proposed Development Board by this sort of economy. Sir, I would like -

Order. I would like to inform the hon. Member and other hon. Members that if they are quoting from a document, newspaper or any pamphlet, that document, newspaper or pamphlet should be produced.

Sir, I have the document.

The passage should be read from the document.

Part 1, page 26. Sir, this has become the textbook also of the Opposition Members because we want to be fair and we have got to know what the Government really believes in. May I read, Sir, an extract from the second paragraph at page 26: "By ruthless pruning of Government expenditure, we may be able to add $20 million annually to the Development Board." But instead of pruning Government expenditure, Sir, Government has decided that it should get the $12 million from the pay of its own employees. Sir, this has been expressed to me by some of the Government employees. Supposing the threatened deficit does not turn out to be so serious as has been expected, and the finances of Singapore will after all end up with not such a large deficit as has been stated, will Government consider restoring part of the pay cuts to their employees? This will help to restore the confidence of the employees of Government that they are in the service of a Government which really seeks to build a more just society by means, methods and in a manner which are also just.

On a point of information.

If the Member will give way. Mr Thio Chan Bee resumed his seat.

The hon. Member for Tanglin was quoting at some length from the pamphlet produced by the P.A.P., and in one passage it was said that we intended ruthlessly to prune Government expenditure. Does he not consider the pay of civil servants coming within the category of Government expenditure?

Yes, Sir. But I stress that to achieve a more just society the means and methods should also be just, and the Government employees feel that if there should be a cut, the cut should be so imposed that the burden falls on all members.

On the poor!

On all members in Singapore. They do not say that it should be on the poor, but there are so many others who are much better off than they, on whom the cuts have not been made.

On a point of order.

On a point of order? Yes.

The Member for Tanglin seems to suggest that if the Government finances at the end of the year proved to be a surplus, would there be a -

That does not seem to be a point of order.

I was just going to say that perhaps he is an interested party because, as a member of an aided school, he therefore receives funds from the Government, and whether he is not pleading his own cause.

Order. I think the Minister is rather talking with his tongue in his cheek, because this matter is a matter of Government policy, and it is completely in order for the Member for Tanglin to attack that policy. Can I also draw the attention of hon. Members to a Standing Order which says that Members should not read their speeches? They can refer to notes but they should not read their speeches.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in paragraph 3 of the Speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, the Government stated that the prime task is to build up a climate of confidence under which trade expansion and industrial growth can take place. Sir, we welcome this statement of policy. But we feel that the way things are being done creates an atmosphere of fear in this country; fear in Government offices, fear in the City Council offices, fear in business houses, fear among the workers. Sir, I do not think that an atmosphere of fear is conducive to the creation of a climate of confidence under which trade expansion and industrial growth can take place. I would suggest. Sir, that it is necessary for Government to help remove this fear complex in order that the objective of building up a climate of confidence will be achieved. Sir, there is another fear, and this fear acts like a nuclear chain reaction. This is the economy complex. There is fear that many people cannot balance their budget.

Six thousand!

No, Sir, more than that. So because of that fear they tell their children, members of their families: "We have got to economise, we have got to tighten our belts." But what is the effect of that? Employees in other employment say that if this is a sign of a slump, they also must economise even before their own pay is cut. So they tell all members of their families: "We must all economise. Do not go by taxi, if we can help it. Go by bus, walk or cycle. Do not buy as many things as we did before." Sir, even the Chambers of Commerce are thinking along the same lines. This is bad. When they talk about economising and retrenching, the effects will have to be borne by the poor and by the workers. For a place like Singapore, without any natural resources, a fear complex and an economy complex are bad. An expanding population needs an expanding economy. But when people from the top to the lower strata at this time keep on thinking of spending less, then it does not look too well for Singapore's future. Sir, the Prime Minister in his Han Raya Haji message said: "It serves to remind us that whatever the differences in name and form of various religions, so long as we remember that all religions preach goodwill and love for one's fellowmen, then with tolerance we can live happily together in peace and prosperity."

Order. It is now 8 o'clock. Further consideration, what day?

Tomorrow at 2.30 p.m.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.