Hansard, 1959-07-17

"to amend the Factories Ordinance, 1958 (No. 41 of 1958)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Thursday, 13th August, 1959, and to be printed.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): 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 Monday, the 20th 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 Monday, the 20th of July, 1959, at 2.30 p.m.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [16th July, 1959], '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." '-(The Deputy Prime Minister). Question again proposed. 2.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday when the House adjourned, I was referring to an important factor which could be and should be one of those which would form the basis for the creation of a climate of confidence which the Government proposes to build up. I was referring, Sir, to the Han Raya Haji message of the Hon. the Prime Minister. He said: "So long as we remember that all religions preach goodwill and love for one's fellow-men, then with tolerance we can live happily together in peace and prosperity." Sir, for this country in particular, we need to remember and not only to remember, but to practise it. The Hon. the Prime Minister once stated that he feared that the greatest danger for this country is from communal hatred. We cannot expect to dispel this fear unless we replace it with something more constructive. I am glad that he had stated these three qualities as being necessary - that we should have goodwill, love and tolerance. I for one, Sir, may disagree with my friends on the Government benches, but it does not mean that because I disagree with them therefore I should entertain any feelings of ill-will towards them. Sir, I propose to touch next on economic expansion and refer to the statement which says: "It has been their declared policy, clearly enunciated during the election campaign, to give private enterprise, both of local and overseas origin, all the encouragement and assistance they need...". Sir, this was very encouraging and if the Government will implement this policy, it will help to build up a climate of confidence. But, Sir, as a Member of the Opposition, I have to point out that there are certain statements made and certain indications which make people wonder whether the pendulum is not swinging from the Colonial laissez-faire policy to one of excessive state control and interference. Statements have been made that Government proposes to control all community centres, all boys' clubs and very likely all trade unions. The two do not seem to agree. If we are going to encourage private enterprise in one field, the same principle applies; it means that we have to encourage private enterprise also in the field of social welfare projects. Sir, I put it to the Government that they should reconsider this and if they really want to encourage private enterprise, then they should modify their policy so that where private enterprise has been abused and the people have suffered, then I for one would agree that the State must interfere. Sir, the problem of unemployment has been touched upon very briefly in a short paragraph. We would have liked, Sir, for the Ministers representing the Government to elucidate their policy. Then the Opposition could really help to point out where there are points to be reconsidered. But since we do not know what is beyond the speech, Sir, we can only conjecture. The problem of unemployment is very closely connected with the problem of national development. It is stated here: "One of the gravest and most pressing problems facing the Government of Singapore today is housing." Sir, we wholeheartedly agree. Housing can have a great effect on the unemployment problem. We know that the population increase in Singapore is such that, to cope with just the annual increase, we should build at least 10,000 housing units a year. The Singapore Improvement Trust has been able to build up to a maximum rate of only about 4,000 houses a year. With maybe increased energy and greater expenditure of money the number could be increased. But with the backlog of the years since 1945 or 1941, with arrears of housing to be made good, we know that private enterprise must be encouraged to step in. Here, Sir, we find that there are two very discouraging features. If an estate developer wants to build 200 houses, he is now called upon to make a deposit for water and light even before he has started building operations for the whole of the 200 houses. Worked out at $1,500 per unit or $1,000 per unit, it comes to $200,000. This means that the developer must first deposit $200,000 with the Government or the City Council. Sir, this discourages the developer naturally. Why should he put in $200,000 even before he starts building, when he feels that the climate is still uncertain? I have a constructive suggestion to make, Sir. That is, if the deposit is reduced and payment made in stages for 20 or 50 houses at a time, that will encourage estate developers to invest their capital. Then again, Sir, this is on behalf of those many workers who want to own small houses of their own. They are scared because there are reports that the assessment will be raised. In certain countries, Sir, to stimulate housing, the Government exempted owners of houses or builders of houses from paying assessment for a period of time. Sir, I put forward these suggestions in order that the housing industry might be encouraged to develop further and that unemployment would be helped. At the moment, with the housing industry more or less at a standstill except for those who can afford it, the result is that many masons, carpenters, lorry drivers and so down the line, are unemployed. Sir, I come now to a subject in which I am naturally and specially interested. That is education. I have been informed, Sir, that the Education Minister was a teacher before he went into the field of insurance. I take it that with that background he can see a problem from its different angles. I am glad, Sir, that the policy is to accept the recommendations of the All-Party Committee Report on Chinese Education released in 1955. In that Report, Sir, it was stated that a great deal of the educational development in this country had been due to private enterprise or public spirited merchants and others who had formed committees of management and started their own schools in villages without any encouragement from the then Colonial Government. In the same way, in regard to English education, various missions had established schools whereas the Government was interested in only just a few schools, leaving the main task to private bodies. Sir, we are glad that after the war, the Government decided that it should play a more important part and invest more money on the education of its future citizens. This development has been all to the good. Now that the Government has been taking more and more interest, it is natural, I suppose, that when people pay more money, they want to have more control, because they pay the piper. At the same time, Sir, for the sake of encouraging competition and initiative, we feel that private enterprise must be encouraged and that these Boards of Management which are controlling the Chinese schools should continue with the least possible interference and Boards of Governors be formed for Government as well as aided schools which do not as yet have Boards of Governors whereby there will be maintained the liaison between school and home to which the All-Party Committee Report on Chinese Education has referred. Sir, there are two questions at the moment which are in the minds of parents as well as educationists. I remember, Sir, six years ago, because of the problem of limited accommodation, the then Director of Education said that there must be introduced in Singapore the same system of Secondary Entrance Examination as in England. That is known as the Eleven-plus Examination. But he did not recommend the full implementation of what exists in England. He recommended the examination to exclude certain students and not to classify all the students. He said to me that only a quarter at the most of the students in the primary schools should go into the secondary schools. Sir, in England, they have the Eleven-plus Examination as a classifying examination. Those who are fit for the grammar type of education go into a grammar school; others into technical schools and others again into modern schools. But here at the age of Eleven-plus, Twelve-plus or Thirteen-plus, thousands were dismissed and were told that they could not get into the secondary schools. We educationists believe, Sir, that at the Primary VI level, the boys and girls coming out of the schools - whether English, Chinese, Malay or Tamil vernacular schools - are only half-baked products, and half-baked products can become serious liabilities in the life of the country. One of the reasons why we have so many juvenile delinquents is that these boys and girls come out from the schools without sufficient education to be employed, and so they employ themselves in their own way to the detriment of the interests of the country. Therefore, some of us suggested to the Government that if they wanted to have an elimination examination, it should be at the Form III level, or at the seventh year level, when they would have at least enough education to make use of whatever they had learned to good purpose and be employable. Sir, we were told that it could not be done. The schools were given an ultimatum. Either we toed the line or the grant would be withdrawn. So, Sir, we had to toe the line. Sad to say, thousands of children had to leave school. Sir, that was a policy which was short-sighted. The previous Minister for Education realised it too late and tried to reverse the policy. But it was too late, Sir. We tell the truth and we believe, Sir, that the Minister for Education today will not take it amiss just because I am on this side of the House and because in politics sometimes we take the attitude that if that is said by somebody from the other side, it must be bad. We hope that it will not come to that. Whatever is good that comes from the other side, we admit it as good. If there is something we have to criticise, we have to criticise because we are the Opposition. So, Sir, we suggest, if the Minister for Education has not made up his mind yet, that the examination which is now known as the Government Secondary Schools Entrance Examination should be turned into a classifying examination or, if it must be an elimination examination, then it should be at a level so that our students come out at the age of 14 or Fourteen-plus when it will not be against the Trade Union Ordinance to employ them. Sir, there is also the problem of the six-day week. Even before this was introduced, many teachers had been doing a six-day duty freely. An hon. Member: More work for less pay!

Some of them who teach in Sunday schools have had to do a seven-day week. But let us also look at it from the point of view of the students. When we say that a student does a five-day week, we must not think only of the school hours. A Form V pupil seems to have to do only, say, five hours a day, but he must do homework which entails labour for three or four hours at the minimum. Some of them do five hours' work a day after school hours and, if we take it in that light, a Form V pupil has to put in five hours in the school and four hours at home - nine hours a day. With a five-day week, it works up to 45 hours a week - it already exceeds, I believe, the limit set down by the Trade Union Ordinance. So if we make it a six-day week- An hon. Member: Cruelty!

- well, the children should form a trade union of their own! They could turn to their parents and say, "Look, parents, you come home on Saturday after a 5½ day week. What is the meaning of making us do a six-day week?" So I suggest that, except for special circumstances, the six-day week in interpretation should be a 5½ day week. Sir, I come now to the last topic. I wish to touch on Home Affairs. It is stated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech: "The future of Singapore lies ultimately in re-uniting with the Federation of Malaya as a state in an independent country. It is the Government's intention during its term of office to create and bring about conditions favourable to an early re-unification with the Federation." Sir, we on this side of the House wholeheartedly support that objective, but we realise that there are fears, one of which is the fear of the Malays. Sir, we share with them the anxiety and we believe that this anxiety can only be removed if we implement - (I am glad, Sir, that the Hon. the Prime Minister is here) - the basis which he mentioned in his Hari Raya Haji message that with goodwill, love and tolerance, we can bring about a new Malayan nation. We can bring about conditions that will help to link us up with the Federation. Sir, my hope is that this may come about in my lifetime and your lifetime and that there will emerge a Malayan nation when, although multi-lingual, multi-racial, multi-national or multi many other things, we shall be united in one loyalty to this country. We have already an example in the world in the case of Switzerland, and we hope that the national pattern there can be repeated here. Then we shall see in this part of the world Singapore and Malaya becoming one as the Switzerland of Asia. 2.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I listened attentively to the speech of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister when he moved the motion which is now being debated. He struck a very sober note and showed his keen awareness of the heavy responsibilities that lie in the task ahead. I was ready to applaud and pay tribute to his statesmanlike speech. I was even prepared to overlook the exaggerated claim which he has made for his Party. Towards the end of his speech, Sir, however, something crept in which struck a discordant note and this has spoilt the good effect of the earlier part of his speech, and has forced upon me, Sir, to change somewhat the tone of my speech.

You change too easily. That is the trouble.

On taking office, Sir, the Hon. the Prime Minister issued a call to the nation that in the task ahead each and everyone of us has a part to play and that each and everyone of us should work together in this nation building. I was indeed stirred by this call and I then called on the Hon. the Prime Minister and offered the Government our co-operation in this nation building. I was stirred because Singapore is ours, ours to cherish and to nurture. And in the Prime Minister's call lies the essence of sinking our differences for the common good. I therefore cannot understand why, in the light of that call, the Leader of the House should have felt it necessary to end his fine speech by casting aspersions on the previous government. Such dissipation of his energy, Sir, cannot be said to be contributing to the task ahead. I cannot allow these allegations to pass unchallenged. During our period of office, we did all we could within the limitations of the Rendel Constitution for the welfare of the people of Singapore. And even the Deputy Prime Minister did touch on these limitations under the Rendel Constitution. We have improved living conditions; we have provided better social amenities; we have raised the standard of living. We have, and not the P.A.P. as barefacedly claimed by the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister, led the people towards this new self-governing Constitution. We have introduced multi-lingualism into this Assembly about which the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister has crowed so much. We have opened the gates of Singapore to more than 300,000 new citizens.

Thinking they would vote for you!

We have -

Order.

Sir, I thought a change of place would bring about greater responsibility in the Hon. the Prime Minister. Sir, with the interruptions, what is the use of continuing in this strain? Records will show what we have done. Let the P.A.P. Government chalk up the record of their achievements during their period of stewardship. Time will tell and I sincerely hope, I repeat, I sincerely hope that they will be able to do better under a self-governing and, of course, a better Constitution. To me the welfare of the people of Singapore is paramount; political leaders and political parties are just in the scheme of things.

They are not like the Labour Front!

Order-

It is all right. I am used to it.

Order. I think this debate is one of quite a serious nature, and perhaps hon. Members ought to remember the Standing Order which does say that when a Member is speaking, there should not be any unseemly interruptions. Perhaps hon. Members on the Government side will allow Members of the Opposition to be heard in silence.

Mr Speaker, when the standstill Budget was debated in this House last year, the leader of the P.A.P. did not criticise the budget as was his wont to do in previous years. In fact, he was, to say the least, quietly taking it from the man known as the Member for Changi, who has now retired from this Chamber. Sir, there was no indication from him that the P.A.P. was thinking about pay cuts. Indeed when the P.A.P. Mayor was introducing the City Council Budget, there was no mention made of any pay cuts, and if I remember rightly, there was mention of a surplus. Where then is the justification for pay cuts of City Council employees? And to add to the injustice, these pay cuts were hurriedly and arbitrarily imposed, flagrantly ignoring the accepted principle of negotiation. Coming now, Sir, to the pay cuts of Government employees. The P.A.P., as I said earlier, did not give any indication during the Budget debate last year that it would be desirable in the interests of economy to introduce cuts in the variable allowance. Nor did they at any time during their election campaign give such an indication. As soon as they got into the saddle, their economic expert, through some expert computation, declared that there was a threatened deficit of $14 million. Surely, Sir, the economic expert, who has been a civil servant for many years, knows full well that for the past few years there has been a surplus at the end of each year despite the budgetted deficit. I am not challenging the wisdom of the Government to introduce economies in the administration. In fact, I support it. Nor am I challenging the Government's right to introduce pay cuts, but I do want to protest against the manner in which they have gone about their business. To say the least, Sir, it is most undemocratic. At this point, the Member for Cairnhill took off his glasses and polished it.

Excuse me, Sir, for polishing my glasses. I want to have a better view of hon. Members on the other side of the House.

Order. That action and that phrase may well be said to be intimidating, although I am sure there are robust people on the Government Benches. But I must remind the hon. Member for Cairnhill that he is addressing the Chair, and if he has polished his glasses to look at the Speaker, then, of course, he is completely in order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my view of your honourable self has not been clouded, but my view of the Members on the other side has been clouded by the change in colour of some of its Members. Ah! now I have got them in the proper perspective. The Hon. the Minister for Labour and Law, the Hon. the Minister for Finance, who is not here at the moment and his seat is therefore unoccupied, and the Hon. the Deputy Speaker, who is I believe still the Secretary-General of the Trades Union Congress, and of course, the Hon. the Prime Minister - these men, Sir, these honourable men first won their way into the political field through championing the Government servants. These champions, I am sorry, I mean these ex-champions, brought into being the Council of Joint Action. They fought hard and they fought bitterly against the then Government and won their way into the hearts of trade unionists in Singapore. They even won their way into my heart! Those were indeed the days, Sir! The Council of Joint Action was a Council of Joint Action, and woe to the Government if it had dared to take the line that the glorious P.A.P. Government is now taking. Those were indeed the days. Today, Sir, we see a complete change, a complete change. The Government servants formed a Council of Joint Action to protect their interests against dictatorial employers, and what did one of the fathers, not here at the moment, of the original Council of Joint Action say? The P.A.P. Government does not recognise the Council of Joint Action. Do I hear applause? No. No applause.

That would be out of order, of course.

Therefore, the verdict is indeed a shameful verdict. To introduce pay cuts arbitrarily without even giving one month's notice to monthly-rated employees is. I maintain, contrary to law. The Government, as employers, cannot change-

On a point of information, Sir.

If the hon. Member will give way.

I am still speaking, Sir. The Hon. the Prime Minister will have a right to speak in due course, and I do not think the Hon. the Prime Minister would want to be further informed as he is already so well informed. The Government, Sir, as employers, cannot change the terms of contract of its employees without due notice. They cannot change a monthly contract without giving one month's due notice.

Is that what you got your LL.D. for?

Will the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Law look into this matter? I remember when I was the Minister for Labour and Welfare, it had been brought to my attention, many a time, by P.A.P. trade union leaders that such and such employers were most undemocratic, most dictatorial, because they had not given the employees due notice. Times have changed. Times indeed have changed. Sir, the Staff side claimed that there had been no negotiations on these pay cuts. The Government refuted this. From Press reports and from personal experience of trade union negotiations, I maintain that there had been no negotiations in the proper sense. Only two meetings were held, and these on successive days. Surely, Sir, in a matter of this grave nature, the representatives of the Staff side would have had to consult their trade unions before they could speak with authority. And the law requires that there should be proper notice being given for such meetings of trade unions to be held. The Minister for Finance claims that any delay in reaching agreement would be to the disadvantage of the Government. Surely, with his experience of trade union negotiations, what was required at the initial meetings was to agree on an operative date and this, I understand, the Staff side was prepared to do. After the operative date had been agreed upon, any delay through negotiations in reaching agreement on the quantum would have had no material effect. Oh, no! This is not to be. The Government means business. The Staff side has to take it because their champions, or rather their ex-champions, say so! The Government cannot be pressured into retreating. These are their words, Sir, their own words, "The Government cannot be pressured into retreating". But who is exercising pressure on whom in this case? I ask this House - who is exercising pressure on whom? The previous Government, Sir, the much-maligned Lim Yew Hock Government, had an agreement with the Staff side that in cases where no agreement could be reached through negotiations, the matter could go to arbitration at the request of either side. I am surprised that the Staff side did not try to get out of this pressure by demanding - oh, no, they should not demand - by requesting that the matter should go to arbitration. The Government, Sir, in the words of the Minister for Finance, cannot be pressured, and so even if the Staff side had requested arbitration, the Government might have said that it had scrapped the agreement reached between the Staff side and the previous Government. Perhaps I am doing the P.A.P. an injustice. Perhaps they will agree to refer the matter to arbitration, and I would like their answer to this. I cannot help but keep on recalling to my mind the words of the Minister for Finance - that the Government cannot be pressured into retreating. Judging from his speech during the debate on the City Council (Suspension and Transfer of Functions) Bill two days ago, the Minister for Finance is doubtless less concerned with the observance of the democratic institution of arbitration tribunals. He is more concerned with the substance, and the substance in this case is the Government's decision to introduce pay cuts. The Government could not care less about the method of achieving this substance. To them the method adopted by them is democratic, and if the poor Opposition have the temerity to say that such a method is undemocratic and dictatorial, they would stand up and remind us, maybe with grins spreading all over their faces: "We have 43 members, and what about you - just 8." That is the substance of democracy. So, Sir, I do not think they would worry about arbitration at all. So obviously the answer to my suggestion of referring the matter to arbitration is going to be no. How then are they going to reconcile this stand if they were to say "No" with their policy on industrial relations? I quote from the Hansard, Volume 11 No. 1, column 9: "...the channel for the solution of industrial disputes is direct negotiations between employer and Union, then conciliation through the Ministry of Labour and Law, and only finally the Court of Labour." Sir, this Court of Labour is to have powers to enforce its awards. On the one hand, they say what they mean - column 9, and, on the other hand, in the treatment of their own employees, they do not mean what they say. They are indeed an honest Government! God help us.

Order. There is, of course, a direct implication that the Government is a dishonest Government. Therefore that expression must be withdrawn.

Sir, I will, therefore, not call on God at all. I withdraw.

Am I right in saying that I heard the hon. Member saying that "the Government is indeed an honest Government"? There is a direct implication, of course, that the Government is dishonest, and therefore it is parliamentarily wrong.

I am sorry, Sir, that I cannot even say that they are an honest Government, because of the form in which I used it.

An apology is not enough. I want a withdrawal of that statement which implies that the Government is dishonest, and the hon. Member knows that an implication of that nature is highly unparliamentary.

I beg to withdraw, Sir, and tender due apologies. Thank you. If the previous Government had taken this arbitrary and dictatorial stand, not only would the Council of Joint Action be reformed by their trusted champions (now ex-champions) but they would be most vociferous in their clamour for justice. Not only would this happen, Sir, but outside P.A.P. unions would be organising protest meetings pledging their full support to their brothers in distress to fight to the bitter end. How dare the Lim Yew Hock Government strike a death blow at the accepted practice of trade unions negotiations, and so on and so forth. But what do we see today? The very life of the trade union movement is at stake. It is not the question of pay cuts at all. It is the negation of the right of trade unions to proper negotiations. What do we see today? All quiet on the trade union front! Even the Trades Union Congress, whose Secretary-General is the Hon, the Deputy Speaker, is deadly silent. The P.A.P. trade union leaders, the much-proclaimed champions of the workers of Singapore, have conveniently forgotten their training and their upbringing. There is a deathly silence. The P.A.P. Government must indeed be a wonderful government for the workers. The Government, do you not know, is going to build a Trade Union House. Yes, the Government is going to build a Trade Union House, and P.A.P. trade union leaders will no doubt have first claim to occupation of this House to live in as.... marionettes! Sir, I hope and pray that this arbitrary and dictatorial action of the Government does not put ideas into the heads of private employers. They too are finding their profits dwindling and their employees are fearful that a similar fate may overtake them. Sir, before I get off this subject I want to reiterate that I am not opposing the wisdom of Government to impose pay cuts. I am not opposing that at all. What I oppose, and oppose most vehemently, is the unilateral and arbitrary imposition of such cuts and the deadly blow to the right of trade unions to proper negotiations, which right they have enjoyed so far. The P.A.P. Government claims that "by and large, the immediate prospects for economic expansion are good." They are so good, Sir, that local capital has run away and is still running away to the Federation. Foreign capital is thinking twice about coming to Singapore. There is a better climate and there are bigger consumer potentialities just across the causeway, and so foreign capital is going there. "The [P.A.P.] Government has in the few brief weeks of office received numerous enquiries from foreign and local firms who want to set up new factories in Singapore." So they say. But have they? The Minister for Finance has chosen to be silent so far and we have not been told of the facts and figures. I venture, Sir, to say that the P.A.P. Government has inherited most if not all of these enquiries from the previous Government. The Government further claims that "the Party in power enjoys the reputation of honouring its public pronouncements." What about the famous pronouncement of the Party Chairman who stated that the P.A.P. City Councillors would remain in office to serve, as he said, the proletariat, and the P.A.P. honoured this public pronouncement by allowing their City Councillors to resign the City Council, and, to give cover to this failure to honour their public pronouncement, the City Council is now scrapped. If I remember rightly, Sir, during their election campaign, the P.A.P. leaders issued a threat to private capital to the extent that if private capital co-operated with a P.A.P. Government they would exist for twenty years or more, but if they did not co-operate with a P.A.P. Government they could not exist beyond five years, or words to that effect. If my memory is wrong, I am sure the Government will tell me that it is wrong. If it is not wrong, Sir, what do they mean by that? Do they mean what they said, or do they now say that they do not mean what they said when they said what they meant? What a reputation! Sir, I was indeed tickled when I heard this passage in the Speech. I quote (Hansard, Volume 11, No. 1, column 8):- "At the same time we must remember that a chronic state of industrial unrest means the wrecking of our economy, and if our economy is damaged then workers, employers and the country as a whole will suffer." Sir, during the past four years when I was in office, industrial unrest was the order of the day among P.A.P. trade unions. I am glad that the P.A.P. has learnt the error of their ways and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to them for this change of heart for the better. And now about trade unions. The Government has said that it will cancel splinter and yellow unions. The Minister for Labour and Law has chosen to be silent so far and I therefore do not have the benefit of his definition. The hon. Member for Thomson in his speech yesterday said something about the undesirability of having so many registered unions whose membership is small, it may be that he was speaking for the Government and was trying to help out the Minister for Labour and Law. But he too had given no clear definition. Perhaps, what he was trying to imply was that there should not have been so many unions registered by the previous government. When I was Minister for Labour and Welfare, Sir, I had thought of this, and if I had carried out what I thought the P.A.P. would not have had so many of their unions registered.

Order. It is a technical point which has occurred to me. I think I am correct in saying that there is a Bill which will be debated in this House on the question of splinter or yellow unions. Can I have confirmation of this from the Minister for Labour and Law?

I so confirm.

In that case, I must draw the attention of the hon. Member to Standing Order 35. If the hon. Member has the Standing Order, perhaps he would like to read it. It says: "It shall be out of order to anticipate an order of the day by discussion on a motion or amendment dealing with the subject matter of a Bill or other order of the day on a day prior to that appointed for the consideration of that order." So there is in this particular case an order of the day, namely, the Second Reading of the relevant Bill, and perhaps the hon. Member would like to reserve his comments on that particular point until we come to discuss the relevant Bill.

With respect, Sir, I did not touch on the principle of the Bill at all. I was just saying that there was no definition. This arises as a result of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's address. I was trying to reply to what the hon. Member for Thomson said yesterday, when he brought out all those relevancies as to the number of trade unions, and the strength of trade unions. All these discussions are not in regard to yellow or splinter unions at all. It is the question of the previous Government having registered so many trade unions, whose membership is more. I feel that I should have the right to reply.

Order. Of course, I am not trying to stop the hon. Member from mentioning these matters in passing. What I am trying to stop the hon. Member from doing is to discuss this subject, in other words, enter into a debate on the subject; because a debate can properly be held when we come to the Second Reading of the relevant Bill.

Thank you, Sir, I was just saying that in reply to the, shall we say, implication that the previous Government had registered so many trade unions whose membership is small. I would like to say that I did think at that time of not registering all the unions which made applications to the Registrar. But because I felt that the Government must give trade unions a proper run, there should be no restrictions placed on their registration nor on their legitimate activities. Sir, coming back to the speech of the Member for Thomson. It is obvious to me, Sir, that the hon. Member for Thomson had not searched his conscience when he accused the previous Government of having done nothing for the workers of Singapore and of being anti-trade unions. Sir, perhaps he has forgotten how the S.T.C. strike was solved and how the Malayan Airways strike was solved and how the Harbour Board strike was solved. I mentioned these strikes only because their leaders are now Members of this Assembly. In the Member for Thomson's speech yesterday, Sir, there was a hint of warning to me to be careful about my trade union activities. This is typical, Sir, of the P.A.P. trade union leaders. This is what they call the substance of democracy. The hon. Member also accused the previous Government of having done nothing to ameliorate the working conditions of workers in Singapore. Is he trying to say that the Labour Code, the Shop Assistants Ordinance, the Clerical Workers Ordinance, the Factories Ordinance are P.A.P. legislation? During our time, Sir, as records will show, we improved the standard of living of the workers of Singapore, whereas the P.A.P. Government called on the workers of Singapore to accept a lower standard of living. Sir, the P.A.P.'s idea of solving industrial disputes is exactly what we did in the previous Government. The only difference is that while we had provided arbitration tribunals, we did not make these compulsory. We did not have compulsory arbitration. I admit, because the trade unions during our time did not support it; because they believed, and I agreed with them, that a militant trade union can achieve more by direct action. As a trade unionist, Sir, I must register my vigorous protest against the Government's intention of having a Trades Union Congress with executive powers. This is a move in the wrong direction and a misconception of the purpose and role of a T.U.C. This sounds like turning the T.U.C. into a machine to be used for political ends - and the sop, a Trade Union House. Sir, I am glad that the P.A.P. Government is continuing to implement the plans which the previous government introduced for the relief of the unemployed, but I must say that it is most cruel on its part so suddenly to withdraw the issue of the ration of two katis of rice and one kati of sugar. We did not go round, Sir, like the P.A.P., telling the people that we are a government for the poor. An hon. Member: You are wrong!

We just looked after the poor and gave the poor their due. We have improved their living standard. And when introducing this scheme we gave to unemployed, $3 a day, two katis of rice and a kati of sugar for a day's work. The P.A.P. Government, immediately on taking office, took away the two katis of rice and the one kati of sugar. Maybe they have a different meaning in their own dictionary. We fleeced the poor! We gave them what we felt was fair for them to live on. And the P.A.P. Government has taken it away. And they claim that they are the Government for the poor! Sir, unemployment has grown since the P.A.P. came into power and it is still growing. And to the hon. Ministers on the other side of the House, unemployment is a joke to them. To us it is a serious matter.

You are unemployed!

Sir, not only has unemployment grown, but there is now greater under-employment. The hawkers are earning less, the taxi-drivers are earning less, the farmers are earning less, and there are many other types of workers who are earning less-

Like the Opposition Members! [Laughter].

Sir, it is indeed a matter for regret that the Government should feel this is an occasion to laugh, when the Opposition tries to point out to the Government the serious nature of the problem that faces them today. All these people, Sir, are earning less and the vicious circle goes round and round. All these have been brought about by a feeling of uncertainty, a feeling of insecurity and a foreboding of greater hardship to come. Sir, there is an almost complete cessation of building and the reason has already been advanced by the Member for Tanglin. This cessation of building has brought about hardship to the allied industries - brickmaking, sawmilling, furniture making, and so on. Sir, in spite of what the Government may feel, we in the Opposition will keep a watchful eye on how the Government is solving this growing unemployment problem. We will co-operate to the full in any measure that is good. We feel strongly, Sir, that the withdrawal of the issue of rations is not in the interests of the poor and we would urge upon the Government - and I would plead with the Government - that the issue of these rations be restored. Sir, I now refer to Hansard Vol. 11, No. 1, col. 11. I quote: "Rural people will also be encouraged to build kampong roads and assist in carrying out kampong drainage schemes. The building materials in all instances will be provided by Government." Sir, while this kind of encouragement is a very good thing during normal times, we feel that the building of kampong roads and the carrying out of kampong drainage schemes should be among the projects for the Government to provide relief work. We hope the Government will do this. Sir, again in col. 10 of Hansard under the heading "National Development" I see these words: "...re-organise the various subordinate organs under the Ministry to eliminate duplication of functions and wasteful expenditure.". Sir, I would remind the Government of what their Party leaders said during the election campaign. They said that this proposed reorganisation would not be to the detriment of City Council employees, that is to say, they would not lose their jobs. I am surprised that they should have said this when they knew full well that they could not honour it. For how could they? Or maybe they have a different meaning to the words "to eliminate duplication of functions and wasteful expenditure"? This is another instance, Sir, of how the P.A.P. are going to enjoy the reputation of honouring their public pronouncements. Sir, during the debate on the City Council (Suspension and Transfer of Functions) Bill, I reminded the Government that during the election campaign, the P.A.P. had stated that it would create an autonomous Board to take over public utilities. I received no reply during that debate and I hope I will receive a reply now. Sir, yesterday, the Member for Changi was waxing eloquent on his charge that the previous government had let down Chinese education. This goes to show how little he knows of the subject. He had conveniently overlooked that it was the previous government which appointed the 1955 All-Party Committee on Chinese Education and that the education policy had been brought into line with the recommendations of that Committee. Even the P.A.P. Government now clearly says that it accepts the Report of this Committee. Furthermore, it was due to the previous government that Chinese schools had been given their due place in the education system as a result of which considerable improvements have taken place in Chinese schools. And the hon. Member seems to have forgotten that because of the strong and successful stand of the previous government on multilingualism, it had been made possible for him and his fellow members to contest the general elections and get elected to this Assembly and, for the first time, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, Mandarin, Malay and Tamil are heard in this Chamber. Sir, in conclusion, speaking generally on the Speech, I do not see much difference in the P.A.P. policy at all, apart from certain aspects such as making Malay the national language, the creation of a Ministry of Culture, and so on. Most of what is in the Speech is a continuation of what the previous government has been doing. Of course, I do admit it - and admit it here - that the difference is in the approach to the problems. The P.A.P. claims that it has a more dynamic and a more realistic approach and it claims that it can deliver the goods. I would like to end my speech, Sir, by wishing them the very best of luck in their endeavours in the task ahead. 3.48 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Government, returned with the overwhelming support of the people and responsible to them, considers that its paramount duty is to provide its citizens with the best education that it can afford to give. Education is the largest single head of expenditure, costing $63½ million or nearly a quarter of the Budget, and we should get full value for this money. Capital development costs another $8.2 million. The past colonial educational system must be changed so that our citizens will have a purpose in life; be proud of being citizens of a new State, be loyal to it and be so trained in our schools that they can be quickly employed and help build up an industrialised society. They must be taught to use their hands with their brains. "White-collar" mentality belongs to the colonial past. New education begins. The Government's education policy is based on three main principles. Firstly, the acceptance of the 1955 All Party Report on Chinese Education of the last Assembly provides for equal treatment in respect of the four streams of education: English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil in the order in which the number of pupils are to be found in our schools. In view of the previous emphasis on English education by past Governments, this Government will, in order to bring about parity of treatment, pay much greater attention to Chinese, Malay and Tamil schools in the years ahead until such time as the appropriate balance is reached. It is necessary to add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it does not mean that English education will be curtailed or suppressed. It is simply a change in emphasis; to restore justice and thus bring about the desired equality of status of education with Asian languages as the media of instruction. Secondly, the acceptance of Malay as the national language by this Government implies that the Ministry of Education will have to translate this into a living reality. This brings about yet another change in emphasis in the educational system as known in the past. According to the All-Party Committee Report, it aimed at bi-lingual education for primary schools and bi-lingual education for secondary schools. To non-Malays, it will now mean that the Malay language will assume its importance next to their own mother tongue. It will become the second and not the third language for non-Malays: but as there are only 400 Malay teachers or 4 per cent of teachers looking after 16,000 pupils in 69 Malay schools and a few classes in English schools, the first task of this Government is to produce a sufficient number of teachers in order to be able to teach Malay as a regular subject in schools. With this in view, a special two-year course in Malay was inaugurated three weeks ago at the Teachers. Training College and whilst it was originally intended to start off with a first enrolment of 1,080 teachers, owing to the great enthusiasm and response from qualified teachers, the first batch of qualified teachers now studying Malay, Mr Speaker, is l,560 - made up of 1,088 teachers from English schools, 440 from Chinese schools, 26 from teachers teaching English in Malay schools, and 6 from Tamil schools.. The second enrolment of 1,000 will take place in January 1960, and a further 1,000 in July 1960. The standard aimed at is the Government Standard II Examination and teachers should begin to take this examination in December 1960, after which they will receive a special professional course of training to teach Malay in schools, so that by the middle of 1961, the first batch of teachers will graduate and we shall be in the happy position of being able to provide a few teachers in every Singapore school, whatever its media of instruction, to teach Malay as a regular subject. However, until we have sufficient teachers able to teach Malay as a regular subject in schools, it shall remain an optional subject. One of the most gratifying experiences to date, Mr Speaker, has been the immediate and spontaneous response to the study of Malay from all quarters. Requests for syllabuses have been received by the Ministry from the University of Malaya, the Singapore Council of Adult Education, commercial firms and individuals. It has been decided to give the fullest publicity to the syllabus in the Press and the Ministry will be pleased to assist all interested parties in their efforts to make Malay the national language grow and flourish; and it is the intention of the Ministry to make it possible for those now doing private study to take the Government examination if they so desire. Thirdly, there will be a revision in the curriculum in schools in order that emphasis will be on practical subjects like mathematics and science and in the study of the various languages of Singapore. It is not intended to scrap subjects like history or geography, if only to give a good general and rounding-off in education. However, it is only natural that in the awards for bursaries and scholarships there will be a bias towards those who will take subjects which are considered desirable by the Government. Now, I would like to answer the Member for Tanglin in his approach towards the six-day week. It has been felt by many parents that their children have been rushed in their school work and had to make up with long hours of home-work at home. With this partly in mind and the fact that the curriculum in schools does not give enough emphasis to the study of languages, this Government has decided on the six-day week so that the pupils may spend more time in schools. Automatic promotion in primary schools, which has been going on for the past eight years, is to be stopped owing to deterioration in the standards, both of the pupils' work and the work of the teachers. Another reason for stopping automatic promotion in primary schools is to allay the unnecessary fear, amounting to hysteria, arising out of the weeding out of thousands of children, mentioned by the Member for Tanglin, after the common entrance examination for secondary schools in the English medium. With the disposal of automatic promotion in primary schools, this common entrance examination will be just another examination along the line. When the proposed Education Advisory Council is appointed, in which the four streams of education will be adequately represented, renewed work on the revision of syllabuses and the Malayanisation of text-books will be started in earnest, and it is the aim of the Education Ministry to see that Malayanised text-books will be in use by 1961. I have lots of complaints from parents regarding the cost of education in our schools - frequent changes of text-books, yearly and so forth. That is why it has been necessary for me to state that for 1960 there shall be no change in text-books, and that they can continue to use text-books for 1959, if that is possible. In anticipation of the remarks by the Member for Tanglin regarding secondary education and its great demand, the Government has decided that all secondary schools should also be on a two-session basis from 1960. Since it is Government's policy to provide more vocational and technical education, consideration will be given for the conversion of some of these secondary schools for vocational and technical secondary education. And now I shall deal with the Member for Cairnhill who, it is to be remembered, was the last Minister for Education in the last Government, and now warms a chair on the opposite side of this House. In 1956 there was a fanfare of trumpets when two so-called secondary technical schools were built, namely, Tanjong Katong and Queenstown secondary technical schools. To my horror, I have discovered that these so-called technical secondary schools are just ordinary grammar schools. As from today, these two schools will be known as Tanjong Katong Secondary School and Queenstown Secondary School, not secondary technical schools. This action of mine, I hope, will not be called into question by my two colleagues, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Culture, who are the guardians of our morals. By this act, I am tearing away the proverbial fig-leaf from the last Minister for Education, as I wish to show him up, naked and ashamed. It was my unfortunate distinction to have been called to order by you, Mr Speaker, on the very first day of this Assembly; and yesterday I also had the doubtful pleasure of being called to order again. I shall try very hard, Mr Speaker, not to be called to order a third time, and not to let it go down on record that a certain Minister had been called to order every day of an Assembly sitting. So I shall, in the true parliamentary democratic style, state that this term "technical" attached to the two schools was a terminological inexactitude. Parliamentary democracy is so long-winded, and I am a man of little words. I have joined the People's Action Party because of the action it produces, not verbal diarrhoea, which we have come across from certain politicians. Conscious of the needs to educate as many of the citizens as possible and to make good the neglect of the past, this Government has decided to launch out on a mass literacy and education campaign. Although it would appear that every child who requires an education is being catered for, with 321,000 pupils in our primary and secondary schools, this is far from the truth. There are many who are unable to be in our schools because of over-age, poverty, or ignorance. Already more than 50,000 pupils have registered for entry into Primary 1 for 1960. There is also a large section of our adult population, some of whom work during the day and others who are unemployed unfortunately, who attend night classes to better themselves with further education. The Singapore Council for Adult Education alone has an enrolment of 14,000. It is the intention of the Education Ministry to reorganise and to expand this work, so that those desiring education will be given proper syllabuses and receive instruction from qualified instructors. Night sessions can be properly staffed instead of being manned by part-time instructors with indifferent syllabuses or text-books. At present most school buildings at night are dark and empty. It is the aim of this Ministry to have as many of its school buildings as possible aglow and active, so that they will become true beacons of light to those who desire to seek knowledge and to leave the darkness of illiteracy. Now, it will be asked how the Ministry expects to carry out this ambitious programme of a two-session basis for elementary and secondary schools, and at the same time attempt to bring about a mass literacy and education campaign for the first time in the history of this country. Will it entail a further increase to the already weighty Education budget? The Ministry happily does not think that such a step is necessary, because our recent survey revealed that maximum use has not been made of the available school buildings and staff, both administrative and teaching. At present, in English primary school buildings alone, by working on a two-session basis, there will be at least 850 classrooms available for pupils next year. Each classroom normally holds 40 pupils. At present, most schools have a separate principal for each session. There is a case of one principal looking after a 17-classroom school with 11 empty classes - i.e. only six classes in session. There is no reason why one principal cannot look after a school with two sessions, with a slight adjustment to working hours. It is clear that we can do more to meet the needs of education, if we organise all available facilities both in buildings, equipment and manpower. Therefore, as from 1960 every teacher in Government and Aided schools will be required to put in, as a part of ordinary duty and not for payment as overtime work, a maximum of an extra one-half session. The teacher who normally teaches in a morning session may be posted to do an extra half-session in the afternoon, or an extra half-session at night, and vice-versa. Night session classes will begin from 7 to 10 p.m. Having been a school-master, as the hon. Member for Tanglin stated earlier this afternoon, I can assure Members of the House that the extra half-session required of teachers will not cause teachers to do more hours than office workers, of course, after taking into account their free periods during school hours. There are many reasons for deciding on this bold move, only possible from a P.A.P. Government, and it is hoped that the 10,000 teachers in service will respond to this call with proper spirit and enthusiasm, and thus fulfil their important role as nation builders. Firstly, the Education bill at 25 per cent of the Budget is already high, and it is inconceivable that the public would agree to an increase when other urgent demands for social services, such as easing of unemployment and housing will have to be met as well. Secondly, as also remarked by the hon. Member for Tanglin, those who are conscientious teachers are already doing such extra hours voluntarily unsung and unknown, for example, going back to school for sports duties, library work, extra curricula work, and laboratory work. Of course, I do not include work in Sunday schools. This new ruling therefore recognizes such good work and distributes work evenly amongst the staff. Thirdly, the extra half-session does not necessarily mean teaching duties alone. It includes extra curricula work mentioned just now. It will also include committee work on educational bodies approved of by the Ministry, because the Ministry expects much more of such committee work in its implementation of the new programme. Fourthly, as a result of this extra half-session work, a large pool of teachers will be available for posting elsewhere, not outside of Singapore, of course. It will then be possible for greater intermingling of teachers in the various streams of education, and immediately bring about an improvement in the standard of language teaching; for example, Chinese school teachers will immediately improve the standard of teaching of Chinese in English schools and vice versa. This will also be a big step forward in breaking down the walls of segregation between the different streams of education. Fifthly, at present, physical education is not given a proper place in the curriculum because of shortage of teachers looking after this aspect of work. Games are also not as well organised owing to lack of teachers taking an active interest in extra curricula activities. It is important to emphasise that education is not just book learning. All aspects of development of the growing human body and mind come within the scope of education, and it is the aim of the Ministry of Education to raise a happy, strong and healthy population under its educational programme. Turning to higher education, it should be mentioned that the report of the Prescott Commission on Nanyang University will be published shortly. It should also be remembered that this Commission was initiated by the Nanyang University, and that the members of this Commission were also proposed by them and approved of by the past Government. When the Prescott Report is published, this Government will take active steps to discuss the future of Nanyang University and its graduates with responsible Chinese educational bodies. The Government will also encourage the closest co-operation between Nanyang University and the University of Malaya, as it is in the interest of Singapore that the two institutions of higher learning should work in close harmony. Finally, Mr Speaker, let us recollect that before the P.A.P. took office in the Government, its educational policy was appropriately called the spring source of the nation. This Government recognizes that the children of Singapore are the spring source of our nation. If we take good care of it, the spring will develop into a stream which will nourish an oasis; if we neglect it, the spring will be lost in the sands of the desert. 4.20 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking on the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, most of the Members on the Government side stressed its aims for the improvement of Singapore, but did not stress definite plans for this improvement. In his speech, the Deputy Prime Minister reminded us of his Party's victory in the elections and that it has formed the Government, as though it is only the P.A.P. which is truly working hard in the interests of the people of Singapore. They forget that their success today is through the efforts of all political Parties in Singapore and particularly of the Members of the past Assembly, which have resulted in the Constitution under which we now have self-government. I have to mention these matters because of the attitude of the Government in this Assembly that Opposition Members are trying to hinder the efforts which it is making for the good of the people of Singapore. We have reiterated several times in the debate that the duties of the Opposition are to make constructive criticism and to give co-operation to the Government in carrying out any programme which is good for the people of Singapore. I think it is undemocratic if the attitude is that the Opposition cannot voice its opinions or criticise the Government. Such an attitude shows how far the Government is from the desire to consolidate the various peoples of Singapore. It should be remembered, Mr Speaker, that we have often said that the P.A.P. has been successful in forming the Government by the votes of only 54 per cent of the people, and that there are 46 per cent of the electorate who still do not have faith in the P.A.P. Government and do not support its policy. If the P.A.P. Government works for the benefit of the people irrespective of whether they like the P.A.P. or not, the Government can consolidate and unite the people of Singapore today. I would like to say that the way the Government is carrying out its work, without careful thought, such as cutting the pay of Government employees, is not good. This is a step which has given rise to a feeling of unrest among the employees because they feel as though the Government is now taking revenge on those who are mainly from the English-educated class. I am of this opinion because I often read in the newspapers that the P.A.P. leaders have stated that the main body of the educated people did not vote for the P.A.P. - meaning, most of the Government employees. So not long after the P.A.P. held the reins of Government, it took action to cut the pay of Government employees. This appears to be in implementation of what has been stated in the papers. This will surely create the feeling that whatever is said by the P.A.P. it will put into practice. So, Mr Speaker, I hope that the step carried out to cut the pay of Government employees is not one of revenge. I feel that I have to speak on this matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, because the step which has been taken is, first of all, taken in a hurry. Secondly, the Government has stated, as mentioned in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, that the cuts in pay have been imposed on those who are most able to afford them. What surprises me is that the opinion of the Government seems to be that Government employees belong to that class of people who are most able to bear pay-cuts. I believe that in Singapore, Government officials are not all living a very easy life because they have duties towards their families and their earnings are, as acknowledged by the Government, just sufficient, and commensurate with their responsibilities in Government service. Among the points which concern the efforts of Government and which attract my attention is the method of bringing the people together as one nation. But I believe these efforts will take considerable time and energy. The effort to consolidate the views of these people who have different languages, different cultures and different religions is one which, as I have stated earlier, will take a long time and a lot of energy to carry out. Therefore, if it is true that the Government wishes to carry out what it has stated, steps should be taken from now to consolidate and bring together these people who are of various races in Singapore. Sir, one of the steps which probably the Government has not seen fit to take is the effort to raise the standard of living of the Malays in Singapore so that they could live on the same level as that which has been achieved by other communities. I say this, Sir, not because I wish to raise the question of communalism. This, I myself know, is dangerous. But what I would like to say is: Can we bring together all these races if there are communities which are still living in conditions far below those of the other communities? I do not wish to say here, nor do I wish to demand the right, but what I wish to draw the attention of this Assembly to is that we today are progressing under the constitution of a self-governing State of Singapore. How did we go about to shape this constitution? At the time when this constitution was formulated, we almost met with, I do not say, a deadlock, but I could say, a course that could be very difficult to follow. We are glad today that we have reached a successful conclusion in framing this constitution. In this constitution there is one chapter - in fact in its preamble - where it is mentioned that the Government will be responsible for safe-guarding the special position of the Malays, for supporting, fostering and promoting their interests in all fields. But I see, in the efforts of the Government to carry out all the requirements as contained in this constitution, no mention at all about this. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a matter which makes us feel very concerned, especially on the part of my Party which has fought very hard to bring about the inclusion of all this, in the constitution. I do not know whether the present Government is now going ahead with another constitution. But if this is a matter which has been done unintentionally, then I urge that this matter be put right. In this connection, I would like to say something about the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara-

I am sorry for that interruption. There was some difficulty with the interpretation.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in the debate on the transfer of power to the Ministry of National Development, I have drawn the attention of the Government to-

Order. I wonder if the Leader of the House would agree that we adjourn for half-an-hour for tea?

I so agree, Sir.

Order. I will take this Chair again at 5.15 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.45 p.m. until 5.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.15 p.m.

Debate resumed.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, continuing with my speech, the Member for Anson stated that I work in order to get a name. I would like to emphasise that I have a mandate from the inhabitants of the Southern Islands to convey to this House matters concerning improvement of their living conditions. When I mentioned that the efforts of the Ministry of National Development in relation to the Southern Islands are carried out without any communication to me, this does not mean that I am objecting to the efforts made by the Ministry of National Development. What I hope is that I will be in a position to participate and help the Government in solving the problems of the people in the Southern Islands. I know that we are here not to improve any particular ward but we are here specifically for the interest of the people of Singapore as a whole. From what I can gather, the Southern Islands is a ward which is very backward compared to other areas at present in Singapore. I fear that a casual survey conducted by the Minister for National Development will not bring about an improvement in the living conditions of the people there. There are two things which I find important there: firstly, the education of the people in the Southern Islands is lagging far behind compared with the education of the people in other wards in Singapore; secondly, many facilities on the islands are inadequate. The Government, as I have read in the newspapers, make a hue and cry about this and that - for instance, to help the fishermen by providing them with fishing equipment or gear. I feel that such assistance alone will not have its desired effect on the future generations of the inhabitants there. The reason why I say this is that despite the Government's efforts to provide equipment or fishing gear for the fishermen there, many capitalists or financiers have stepped in and undertaken to provide the required equipment. Because they are unable to overcome oppression by the capitalists, although they are in possession of adequate equipment which can result in good catches, their income is still far from adequate. It is imperative for the Government to provide several co-operative societies which can look after and control their income and their earnings. As it is at present, although there are co-operative societies, these societies have not been functioning. They are lacking in guidance, in the true sense of the word, from the authorities concerned. Therefore, I state that it is imperative for the Government to improve such a state of affairs. There is another point which I have discovered in the speech by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. There is an absence on the part of the Government to mention steps or efforts to deter Communist subversion among the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, with the Government side saying that the Government is a non-Communist Government but is not taking steps to prevent Communist infiltration among the people. I fear that this absence to mention steps to deter Communist subversion will be a serious threat in the future. We have seen how States which failed to take steps to prevent Communist infiltration have resulted in chaos and trouble in those States. Consequently, several lives were lost as a result of Communist activities. Therefore, before such matters eventuate, it is necessary for the Government to stress the steps to be taken in order to prevent Communist infiltration in the island of Singapore. In concluding my speech, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to remind that, in our efforts to bring about unity among the people of Singapore, serious attention must be paid to bringing about parity in the livelihood of the people of Singapore with particular reference to the Malays who, I would unhesitatingly say, are far lagging behind in all walks of life. 5.27 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, at the outset, I thank the Yang di-Pertuan Negara who delivered his speech on policies which embody the substance which has become the basis for this Government to formulate its Five-Year Plan in order to establish a prosperous society. What is more pleasing is that the Malay language, which was previously mentioned by the ex-Minister for Education of Singapore as being a language fit only for those who wished to become peons, or policemen, etc., is today being written down in the history of Singapore because the Yang di-Pertuan Negara of Singapore delivered his speech in Malay, which is accepted as the national language by the present Government, and this cannot be denied by anyone. In fact, the previous Government did not have the courage to fight for the Malay language and to claim it as the sole national language of this country. Mr Speaker, Sir, I again emphasise, on this question of a national language, if we view especially the Government's education policy which has been drawn up and which can be implemented, it clearly shows that the objectives of the present Government will not remain in theory only but will be put into practice, and it will be shown that the Malay language is being fought for and being implemented as the sole national language on this island and on the same footing as it is in the Federation of Malaya. If we are going to analyse the points one by one contained in the speech made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, I think that will take a long time, because analysing the plan takes as much time as putting into practice the Five-Year plan of this Government. But I wish to clarify here certain matters in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, which have caused dissatisfaction on the part of the Opposition Members. Firstly, the Member for Mountbatten expressed her fears over the measures taken by the Government in cutting allowances. I feel this measure of cutting allowances is a very bold step taken by the Government in the interests of our State, which is faced with the problem of finance. This courageous step should be accepted with calmness and goodwill by all concerned, because, in actual fact, the allowances that have been cut contribute towards the finances of the State which is facing financial difficulty. This contribution prevents the loss of the islands off Singapore, as we have seen in the past the sale of Christmas Island, but the Government led by the P.A.P. will not go begging for money in order to fill its coffers. The Member for Geylang Serai expressed his fears because the Deputy Prime Minister who moved the motion did not mention any matters except that of the policy of the P.A.P. This cannot be denied because before we gained self-government the speech by the Governor was made by himself, but this time the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara was prepared by the Cabinet of the governing Party, and therefore coincides with the policy of the Party that is governing the State. Discussing the abolition of the City Council in the previous session, the Member said we do not give opportunities for the people to administer the State, which will result in the emergence of many leaders; but we should remember that this matter has already been finalised. There is no need for me to raise this matter again in this Assembly, as it is a waste of time. If there exist many more bodies, they will only delay the functions of the Government. The main question that aroused the fear of the Member for Geylang Serai is nationalism. What kind of nationalism shall we form? And what is the basis? Is it Malay? That, briefly, is the cause of the fear expressed by the Opposition Member, the Member for Geylang Serai. I feel it is not an easy matter to unite the races of so many diversified religions and colour, but it is equally impossible for a father or a mother to produce children of the same size, the same black hair. Therefore, in a State with a multi-racial population, the basis for the consolidation of the people is the feeling of undivided allegiance to that State, and it is this policy that has become the basis for the struggle of the P.A.P. in its fight to establish a Malayan nation on this island. Concerning the fears of the said Member when he mentioned a society which he referred to as Malayan, but non-Communist, it should not be stated that Malaya is separated from Singapore. What should be stated is a socialist, non-Communist Malaya. It is clear that the P.A.P., which holds the reins of government now, is fighting for the merger of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Therefore, if we do not mention a Malayan society, it follows that we allow the British colonialists to split Singapore and Malaya. As a Member of the Government said yesterday, the Member for Tanglin expressed his fears and doubts about the relationship of the new State that it is without a captain. I think only people who have not been on board a ship do not know who is the captain and who are the crew. Also, because of shortage of funds, the Member accused this Government of slaughtering their own staff first and robbing the property of others in order to help someone else. I say that if we take money from the right pocket and put it into the left pocket, it is not stealing. And if a ship wishes to make a safe journey, the holds of the ship should be well balanced. If it is heavy on one side, it will be difficult for the captain to navigate. For that reason and in fact it is true, there are many people living on a high level and there are also many people living on a low level. I was born in an attap hut and I am still living in an attap hut, without electricity and without pipe water; and I know the difficulties of the people. Therefore, the reduction of income of the higher class in order to build up the coffers of the lower income group is not robbing, but merely to put right the imbalance. If we are carrying two tins of water, and if one tin is empty, do not fill the empty tin with stones. That is stupid. But divide the water equally in each tin so that there will be a proper balance. Also, with regard to the cutting of allowances, the Member for Tanglin said that there are many parents who have complained, and asked their children to economise. This shows that they can still economise. The poor people cannot economise any longer. If we draw the sarong up, we cannot conceal the lower part, and if we conceal the lower part, the upper part will be seen. Therefore, to put the whole thing right, this matter should be carefully considered. I think that is better than to expose the whole body. Mr Speaker, in his speech, the Member for Tanglin mentioned that thousands of students had been dismissed from school. I think it is not for me to reply, because this incident did not take place during the time of the present Government, but it took place when the past Government was in power. Finally, because I have visited the Southern Islands, it is proper that I give a clarification concerning the remarks made by the Member for the Southern Islands, who has expressed his doubts as to the work carried out by the Ministry of National Development. The Member for the Southern Islands said that the projects of the present Government, mentioned by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in his speech, are according to their conception, not for the people. I am completely surprised because they know that this Government is a P.A.P. Government. Every government must follow its outlined policy. It is impossible for the P.A.P. Government, which holds the reins of government now, to follow the policy of the Labour Front, or for that matter that of any other Party. They must remember that every programme launched by the Government, especially the P.A.P. Government, was approved by the people on 30th May last. Concerning his allegation that, in the view of the Government, the Opposition is merely a hindrance, it is not true to say that the Opposition is here to hinder. If we allow Opposition Members to speak for four days consecutively, then time is lost. There is no doubt about that. But we give an opportunity to the Opposition Members to think further - whether they think along the lines of the policy of the P.A.P. This is not robbing, which has been misunderstood. But in the interests of the people of Singapore, they can give constructive criticisms. But if they criticise for the sake of the outside group and not for the people of Singapore, we will defend our policy. This does not mean that we are undemocratic. On this matter the Member for the Southern Islands and also other Members of the Opposition have stated that the P.A.P. victory represented only 54 per cent of the electorate - 54 per cent only of the electorate voted for the P.A.P. in the elections. They say that this means that there is still a balance of 46 per cent who did not vote. They forget that the 46 per cent is divided amongst various political Parties represented by the Opposition. On the average, more than half of these Parties voted for the present Government. Concerning the steps to cut the allowance of Government employees, which they alleged was taken in revenge because they did not vote for P.A.P., I think there are some Members who are taking this opportunity to inflame the feelings of those people who are dissatisfied, and who oppose the programme of the Government. But if we consider this carefully, the cut in the allowances does not damage the economy of their domestic life at home. I myself have lived on $80 a month with seven or eight dependants, and, including myself, nine people. It is not a headache to me. If these people suffer a reduction of $250 - some only $20 - I do not think it will be a burden to them. It is necessary that the people who can afford it should contribute if they really love the State which is facing financial difficulty. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are people who mention that the consolidation of the various races of Singapore into one people will take a long time. We admit that. Therefore we do not admit that when the P.A.P. Government is in power, we can tomorrow evolve one nation in Singapore. So we must mention a Malayan nation, and this is being practised in the Federation of Malaya. Here I would like to say that in the headline news appearing on the front page of today's paper, the Utusan Melayu, dated Friday, 17th July, the Tunku said not to use communal sentiments. This means that the leaders in the Federation of Malaya are fully aware of the dangers which will arise in a State comprising a plural society. The P.A.P. Government is constantly aware of this and vehemently opposes any element or group which tries to inflame communal feelings in the State of Singapore. This, I think, is in line with the attitude of the Federation Government which is led by Dato Abdul Razak. Mr Speaker, on this issue there are people who put forward the question whether we can bring about this unity, this one nation, if there is a section of the people who are very much backward? I would like to emphasise that in a socialist society, there is no class distinction. Therefore, if we say that we are going to fight for the poor people, the livelihood of the poor will be brought up to a par with the middle class. If the livelihood is low we will raise it up to the same level of the middle class, so that the livelihood of all the people of Singapore will be on a par. If there is a community which is lagging behind, then we say that we are going to raise the standard of living of the people who are oppressed. We will try to uplift the livelihood of these people to the same level. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for the Southern Islands has said that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara did not mention in his speech the special rights of the Malays. On this matter, permit me to speak in the debate, as I see there is a debate on the amendment moved by the Member for Kampong Kembangan. I would like to emphasise that this Government is based on the present constitution in which the special rights of the Malays are mentioned. This is in the preamble of the constitution. Therefore, if the running of the government is based on this Constitution, it means that the P.A.P. Government respects and will put into effect the special rights of the Malays as embodied in the preamble of the constitution. But we do not wish to take pride in saying that we are going to fight for the rights of the Malays. We wish to show it by deeds. If we are going to fight only in theory but not in practice, that is deceiving the people. Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. Government has been formed a few months, and I have been appointed to take office in the Ministry of National Development. As far as I know, among the people of Singapore who are the most depressed are the inhabitants of the Southern Islands. In the main, they comprise Malays. Therefore, I have been given the task of making an investigation and rendering all possible assistance to them. But my efforts seem to have caused dissatisfaction to the Member for the Southern Islands because he was not invited to accompany the team which visited one island after another in the course of its work. Therefore, I feel, Mr Speaker, that it is necessary that I should stress that my visit was not in my capacity as the Member for Bukit Timah, to investigate someone else's area but my visit was made in my capacity as the representative of the Primary Production Department. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Development, I wished to investigate to get first-hand information. Therefore my visit to the Islands came under my official capacity. If every investigation made by the Government has to be notified to the Member concerned, I am afraid that the Government administration would not run smoothly. It may be that even notice servers, if they wanted to serve notices, would be obliged to inform the Member of the division concerned. It is very difficult for the Government to run a State or a country like this. So, on this issue, I would like to clarify that the P.A.P. Government is always giving priority to the most backward places with a view to helping them first. Mr Speaker, it has been admitted by the Member for the Southern Islands that the backward areas require education and attention to be given to the livelihood of the people. It is not my intention to make a full report of my visit and what I did there. But for the information of the Member for the Southern Islands, I would like to say that all these difficulties and all the backwardness are the results of the past Colonial government. They must have forgotten this section of the people who live in the Southern Islands. This is clear. I wish to draw the attention of this House to the efforts of the past Government. There was in the year 1957 a vote for the development of the Southern Islands amounting to $80,000, but in 1958 the vote was reduced to $60,000, and in 1959 it was further reduced to $45,000. From the point of view of people who think like children, this means that if the vote is less, then the area is very well developed. But this is to the contrary. This is most regrettable because it showed that the officers from the Ministry responsible for the management of the Southern Islands did not know how to make use of the sum voted. I repeat that in 1957, out of a vote of $80,000, only more than $8,000 was spent; in 1958, out of $60,000, only more than $12,000 was spent. The balance went to the Government. It means that the people of the Southern Islands did not receive any help at all. This year, out of the $45,000 voted until the 12th of April, only $175 has been spent. This clearly shows that the past Government had the money but they did not know how to use it. For that reason we hurriedly went to the Southern Islands without a permit from the Member for the Southern Islands because I know the conditions there are very backward, and if we are to wait for permission from each division, it is possible that the Government cannot function smoothly. Concerning education, I know what conditions will exist in the Southern Islands, if no positive step is taken by the Government. I think as to the fate and destiny of the people in the Southern Islands, their children will be bequeathed with a much more depressed state of life than that which their forefathers experienced. The re-orientation programme which was carried out last year was not implemented in the Southern Islands because of a shortage of teachers. Therefore, they only receive Malay education today. On this matter also, the programme of the Malay Education Council, which was accepted by the Government in 1957, has not been carried out to the full in the Southern Islands. So much so that there is no teacher to teach the subject of English or religion, the Government having failed to send teachers to teach these subjects there. Apart from that, I wish to emphasise, on the state of the Southern Islanders, that if there is no effort to resettle them or improve conditions, I think they will face a bleak future because the Islands will shrink through erosion and the fishing grounds will become very limited. This will result in hardship for the people, and their children will have no further opportunity for education. On some of the islands there is a school with 30 pupils, but consider how we are going to educate 30 pupils up to Standard VII with only two, three or seven teachers. If we do not find new ways and means, the people will face hardship in future. Similarly with the livelihood of the people. We are not a Party which likes to boast, as alleged by the Member for Southern Islands who said that it was far from the truth that we were going to help the fishermen in the Southern Islands. However, we did visit them, made investigations and would render any help that is required by them. But the Member for Southern Islands was not even aware that I was in the Southern Islands! It would only be a fuss to publicise, say, a visit there on such and such a date by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development, or by a party from the Primary Production Department. We make our visits quietly, get the results, and then announce them. Similarly, on the establishment of co-operative societies or on the question of capitalists who have oppressed the fishermen, we already know the position and have a plan which will be carried out in the not too distant future, and which the Member for the Southern Islands will then know. In the meantime, I would like to say to the Member for the Southern Islands, who has expressed doubts because he had no opportunity of being with the party, that on the co-operation which he has promised we of the Government say. `Thank you', and I am prepared to accept complaints from Opposition Members for submission to my Minister. If the suggestions are good, we will willingly accept them. However, we cannot inform the Member for the Southern Islands of all our efforts because, as a Government, we are responsible to all the people, and if the Member for the Southern Islands wishes to be similarly responsible, the best way is for him to cross the Floor. We are responsible as a Government, not the Opposition Members. The Member for the Southern Islands has expressed regrets that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech did not touch on the suppression of Communist ideologies in Singapore. Copies of the speech have been sent to Members, and I think people who say there is no mention of the Communists in the speech must be asleep when the speech was being read, or have not yet read it. Page 12 of the copy we sent to every Member concerns subversive activities and indicates the policy of the P.A.P. Government. The Member for the Southern Islands need not therefore touch on this subject because the P.A.P. has already taken a firm stand on Communist infiltration. 6.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, we have indeed in this House a very strange Opposition, and that is an Opposition which cannot decide on its attitude to the recent cuts which Government has had to impose in the variable allowances of its officials. We have had from one of the SPA representatives in the Opposition, that is, from the Member for Mountbatten, a bouquet, and that was very strange indeed, coming as it did from a Member of the Opposition. She said that she had no objection to the principle underlining the cuts in variable allowances. In fact, she complimented the Government for the fair way in which it had distributed these cuts in variable allowances. Well, there was good reason for what she had to say. She was doubtless aware that when these cuts were imposed, they were imposed from the top. It was the Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretaries who bore the greatest proportions of the salary cuts. I need not labour this point, but I think it is common knowledge that there are Ministers in the present Government today, who are carrying out the portfolios of two Ministers in the past regime for less than half the money which one drew. The Member for Mountbatten had only one criticism to make. She said that she felt that a month's notice should have been given to the Staff side so that the persons concerned would be able to make their budget adjustments to lessen the shock from a sudden cut in these variable allowances. Now there was another Member of the SPA, the hon. Member for Tanglin - all the Members of this House know he is a great believer in moral rearmament, but nevertheless, though he has his strong convictions, he realises that being a headmaster he would also be affected by the rather sudden reduction in emoluments, that after working so hard to get a seat in this Legislative Assembly, which is worth $500, he finds that, in fact, after having lost $400, he will be to the good only by $100. That did not square with his beliefs which were inspired by moral rearmament, Sir. Now, the hon. Member for Tanglin shouted in this House that he had heard whispers of rumours that the cuts were inspired by spite, and he expressed the hope that this was not true. Now, Mr Speaker, we have also heard what the former Chief Minister - he is the present Member for Cairnhill - had to say about these salary cuts this afternoon. He carried the charges very much further. He pointed an accusing hand at me personally, at my colleague, the Minister for Finance, and at the Deputy Speaker, and charged that, with duplicity, we had wormed our way into the confidence of Government servants, we had got into their associations, we had climbed over their backs to political power, and only then we face him here in this Assembly on the Government side. He said that we were behaving in a crude and irresponsible way in our dealings with the Civil Service with whom we had been closely associated in the past. We were meting out to them the sort of treatment which we had never expected from our Colonial masters at a time when we were united with the Staff side in a common opposition to the Colonial masters, Sir. Now, is that a fair charge to make? I can assure the ex-Chief Minister, the Member for Cairnhill, that there are no grounds for these charges. What was the position in the civil service as I knew it? It is true that the Minister for Finance, the Deputy Speaker and myself were closely associated with the government servants' unions and staff associations in pressing for better conditions of service in the past. It is true that we were very closely associated with them; but for the past two or three years before we left the government service we were not in any way associated with the staff associations and unions. So there is no truth whatsoever in the suggestion that we climbed on their backs to political power. I can say that I was closely associated with the Staff side of the Civil Service Council, but I can remember no occasion when any of us brought any political considerations into the work that we were doing. I can assure the Member for Cairnhill that had we done so we would have broken our esprit de corps. There would have been no team spirit among ourselves and there would have been no hope of our achieving the things that we were able to achieve for our colleagues in the government service. Now, Mr Speaker, and Members of the House, I do not think I need say or need maintain that any consideration should be given to the accusation that the leaders of the present Government were inspired by spite when they found it necessary to reduce the variable allowances of serving officers in the civil service. The whole of the people of Singapore know that this Government's policies are not based on personal vendettas but are based on programmes submitted to the electorate and which are approved by the electorate. The leaders of the Government are well known for their anti-colonial attitude. When power has passed into our hands, do we deal ruthlessly with the expatriate officers? No, we are prepared to negotiate cuts in variable allowances with their associations in the same way as we were prepared to negotiate with the Staff side of the Whitley Council. What the Member for Cairnhill overlooked to mention just now were the considerations which had led the present Government to reduce the variable allowances of its serving officers. He has said not, a word about the depletion of the past reserves, built up by former Governments over many years, by the spendthrift Government of the past. He has not told anybody here that large sums of money - sums amounting to $400,000 - were spent by the last Government in joy-rides round the world at the taxpayers' expense. He has not said anything about the alarming growth of expenditure on personal emoluments in relation to total expenditure and in relation to Government income in the post-war years. The ex-Chief Minister, the Member for Cairnhill, would doubtless have at least once looked at the present state of the Estimates. If he did take the trouble to look at page 378 of the Estimates, which his own Government had approved, he would have seen there listed and itemized, department by department, the expenditure of the various departments which were then under his charge. He would have found that under Personal Emoluments, the total expenditure was $115 million for 1959. The estimated total expenditure for 1959 was $268 million. For Other Charges Annually Recurrent, more than $118 million; for Special Expenditure, more than $35 million. If he had taken the trouble to go through the Estimates, he would have found that the total expenditure on Personal Emoluments alone was 42.82 per cent of the total expenditure on the public service. Now, the actual expenditure on salaries is very much more than 42.82 per cent because, as everybody knows, under the item for Other Charges Annually Recurrent are to be found a lot of items relating to the salaries of Government servants, so that it would be fair to say that out of the total expenditure of $268 million, more than 57 per cent has been expended on the Personal Emoluments of Government officers. I am informed that in a highly industrialised country like the United Kingdom, the total expenditure on Government services does not amount to more than 15 per cent of the Government revenue. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected by the Minister for Finance when it comes to his turn to speak. Now, I will deal with the charges that were made by the Opposition that the Government did not put its proposals to the Staff Side of the Whitley Council. I would say, Mr Speaker, that there is no truth whatsoever in that charge. I know it as a fact that my colleague the Minister for Finance did put the Government's proposals to the Staff Side of the Whitley Council. Now, what did the Staff Side say? It had no mandate to negotiate. It must wait until its constituent bodies held general meetings in a month's time before it could negotiate. It wanted an indefinite postponement. It did not want genuine negotiations with Government. My colleague the Minister for Finance has already said publicly that agreement to this would have meant expenditure and a loss to the Treasury of more than $1 million a month. Now, Mr Speaker, and Members of the House, we have published our Five-Year programme. We need to find the money to finance that programme. We have to find it first by putting our own house in order, by pruning unnecessary expenditure and reducing the cost of government. That is the function of all reputable governments - governments that do not spend the taxpayers' money to the extent of about $400,000 a year on personal jaunts. Is it true that there was a unilateral imposition of these cuts? Now, Mr Speaker, and Members of this House, I have been closely associated with the Whitley system and I know that the essence of the system is that both sides should always be ready at all times to enter into negotiations resulting in binding agreements. What did the Staff Side mean when it said that it had no mandate to discuss? When I discussed the constitution of the Staff Side with the former colonial Government, I made it plain to that Government that we on the Staff Side would never accept the position that we would be treated as a mere consultative body. We pressed it home to them that we wanted to be treated as a genuine Staff Side that could always conclude binding agreements with its employers - the former Government. It was explained to us by the Government that the Official Side could not conclude any such agreement with us because the officials who met us were at most representatives of the Government whom they served, and the constitutional position was that they could never be sure whether the monies that would have to be found to honour the agreement which the officials made with us would be voted by the Government in power. The old colonial Government did nevertheless give us an undertaking that, as far as possible, agreements made by the Official Side would be constitutionally honoured by the Government of the day. Did the Staff Side make any counter proposals? Did it suggest to the Government that it should, in the words of the Member for Mountbatten, be given a month's notice to make Budget adjustments to lessen the shock? It did nothing of the sort. It tried to shirk its responsibility by passing the matter over to its constituent bodies. Now, Mr Speaker, and Members of the House, I know the Minister for Finance quite well. He is a very hardheaded, practical man, and will never allow himself to be taken for a ride by anybody, much less by the Staff Side of the present Whitley Council. Now, why did the Staff Side want to "pass the buck" to its constituent bodies? The Staff Side knows that there are 31 unions and staff associations in its organisation, and it also knows that only 6,000 represented by the unions out of the total number of more than 25,000 employees are affected by the salary cuts - only 6,000 out of the total number of more than 25,000 are affected in any way by the salary cuts. The Staff Side knew this and also knew that it would be difficult, in view of this, to get unanimity from its constituent members to oppose the Government proposals. After a genuine attempt at negotiations and when it was clear to the Minister for Finance that the Staff Side did not intend to have any negotiations, he was forced to issue a directive that the cuts would be imposed with effect from 1st July. Is there any breach of trade union practice? Show me! Now, let me refer to what the Staff Side did in the last year of the Lim Yew Hock regime. On the grounds that the Lim Yew Hock Government was reorganising the Government services including the teaching service, normal trained teachers who formed the bulk of the teaching service were asked to agree to a reduction in their basic pay scales. Their maximum and minimum and incremental steps in the pay scales were to be lower than they were then, and new normal class recruits were to be recruited on even lower basic pay scales. The same thing was done in respect of the nurses. Did the Staff Side make this an issue when the former Government was fiddling about with their pay scales and not their mere variable allowances? When I was on leave prior to retirement, I associated myself with the normal-trained teachers in resisting the Lim Yew Hock Government plan on the grounds that if there were to be sacrifices, it would be more equitable to place the burden on those in the higher income bracket than on those in the lower in-come group who might very well be unequal to the burden. What did the former Chief Minister do? He got the Chief Secretary, his subordinate, to warn me twice in writing that, as I was being paid a salary when on leave prior to retirement, I should not get myself involved in such matters. Then again, the Staff Side representatives came to see me when I was on leave prior to retirement, and asked me whether they could get the firm of Lee and Lee to represent them in arbitration proceedings in respect of a claim for overtime against the Lim Yew Hock Government. I had been associated with the Staff Side in negotiating a new structure for overtime with the previous colonial Government which would have cost the Lim Yew Hock Government millions of dollars to implement. What did the Staff Side do when the previous Government refused to implement the new structure for overtime on the grounds that it was too costly? And we can even give credit to the Lim Yew Hock Government that it was quite alive to what the Staff Side had in mind. They asked me and Lee Kuan Yew to represent them at arbitration proceedings, which our Prime Minister refused to agree to. There had never been a bleat against the former Government for refusing to implement the new overtime structure for the civil service, despite the fact that it had received the support of officials who represented the Lim Yew Hock Government in that discussion.

Order. I think the expression "the Lim Yew Hock Government" is getting a little tedious, and perhaps the hon. Member would rather say "the former Government".

My apologies and my respects to you, Mr Speaker. I should say, "the Member for Cairnhill's former Government".

Order. I think perhaps that even is a bit long-winded, shall we say?

My apologies, Mr Speaker. Then again, the Staff Side representatives came to Lee and Lee with a proposal that it wanted to enlist the support of Lee Kuan Yew and myself to help them to get all or a greater proportion of the variable allowances incorporated in their basic pay. When the former Government told them that it was afraid to play, did they press the matter further? No, because they knew this was an unreasonable proposal which would never receive any public support. Mr Speaker and Members of the House, I am not mentioning all this with any malicious motives to vilify my former colleagues in the civil service, but I am mentioning this to show that there is no truth in the charge made against the present Government by the Staff side and by the Members of the Opposition that Government has unilaterally imposed cuts in variable allowances without consultation with the unions, which is a breach of trade union practice. Rather the facts would suggest that the Staff side, representing only about a third of the Government employees affected, did not at any stage want negotiations following cuts in the variable allowances. Now what has the Staff side been doing? They have smashed the Whitley machinery which we had taken years to build up, and have inaugurated a new organization which they termed the Council of Joint Action. The Staff side itself does not think that the Whitley machinery is a good-enough forum for collective bargaining in the civil service. It has said that it has taken the step to form a Council of Joint Action to bring it home to Government that it must follow accepted trade union practice in its dealings with the Staff side. This is the crowning act of stupidity by those who are behind this move.

Order. May I just interrupt for a moment? I think the hon. Member has been using an expression which I have noted here, "Mr Speaker and Members of the House". Of course, the hon. Member knows the Standing Orders which say that a Member desiring to speak shall rise and address his observations to the Chair only and the Members indirectly.

Mr Speaker, I must apologise because I am not used to parliamentary traditions here.

Order. Of course, I think the Speaker is entitled to assume that the Minister for Law is acquainted with the Standing Orders.

Mr Speaker, there was a need for a Council of Joint Action in the days when there was no Whitley machinery available in the civil service, and it was for this reason that the Council of Joint Action was formed when both the present Minister for Finance and myself had the privilege and the honour to be associated with the Government unions in bringing home to the colonial Government of those times, of which the Member for Tanglin was the most distinguished member, that it was inequitable to grant a family allowance to one section of the civil service and not at the same time to others. If I may digress for a moment, Mr Speaker, I think I see the presence here in this House of the hon. Member for Tanglin. At the time when the question of family allowances was furiously debated, we approached Mr Thio Chan Bee [and pointed at the Member for Tanglin]-

Order-

-the Member for Tanglin-

Order. I am sorry to keep interrupting- At this moment, a Member entered the Chamber.

Order. No Member shall cross the Floor when the Speaker is standing. Will the Member please come in and take his seat? The Member took his seat.

I was saying that possibly in addressing the Chair, if anybody is to be pointed at, I suppose the Speaker ought to be pointed at. The hon. Member should address the Chair.

Mr Speaker, I must apologise for the slight misbehaviour on my part. Mr Speaker, I remember that when we approached the hon. Member for Tanglin to support us in our fight against the colonial Government for denying us family allowances and giving family allowances to the expatriate officers, he assured us that he was completely on our side. I was horrified one morning, when I had to report to my expatriate superior to receive certain instructions, to hear him making arrangements for the hon. Member for Tanglin to go on a very sudden trip to Kuala Lumpur, to enter into an agreement with regard to those family allowances. I understand that the hon. Member for Tanglin and another left Singapore on that occasion, not in an ordinary commercial plane, but in a plane belonging to one of the Services, because he feared that if he were seen around the precincts of the Kallang Airport it would not do him any good. But that, Mr Speaker, is by way of a mere digression.

Mr Speaker, on a point of explanation.

If the Minister will give way. Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister just now was implying that I had done certain things which I never did, that is to say, I supported the claim to family allowances when I promised him that I would oppose it. I did oppose, Sir, but the proceedings were secret and I suppose I cannot divulge what happened in Kuala Lumpur.

In any event, I think all that is completely irrelevant.

Mr Speaker, you yourself played a small but, nevertheless, very significant part in trying to resolve this dispute, with the result that a very senior member of the Board of Inland Revenue in the United Kingdom had to come to Singapore to enunciate a principle which all good employers in Singapore have always known - that payment on account of wages must always be related to the principle of the rate for the job. Mr Speaker, all of us just now heard the Member for Cairnhill claim that he had done a lot for the labour movement in Singapore. He claimed credit for the Shop Assistants Ordinance, for the Labour Ordinance, for the Clerks Employment Ordinance, and what have you. Now, Mr Speaker, in the very short time that I have been in office, I have been astounded to find defects in our labour laws which completely escaped the attention of a former Chief Minister and a former Minister for Labour. I have looked up the Labour Ordinance, and I have particularly noted a section in it which is designed to punish employers for anti-union activities. What do I find? I find that all that the section says is that an employer commits an offence only when at the time of entering into a contract of employment with his employee he places a restriction on that employee against his joining a trade union or against his participating in trade union activities. That is all that the Ordinance says. It does not prevent an employer from dismissing an employee, after he has been engaged, because he joins a trade union or associates himself in trade union activities. The P.A.P. Government, unlike the former Labour Front and the S.P.A. Governments, is genuinely backed by the labour movement in Singapore and is, unlike the former Governments, openly on the side of labour. Go to the Ministry of Labour and Law now. As you come into the entrance you will see a notice board, in the clearest of terms in writing, inviting any representative of any trade union to call in; and if he does so, he will have the right to speak personally to the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Permanent Secretary and the Controller of Labour. Now, employers know that this Government is very loyal to labour and very pro-labour, and because of that they are trying to adopt a get tough attitude with their employees. The legislation which the Member for Cairnhill claims credit for is completely inadequate for the purposes that I have in mind. That section of the law does not enable me to deal with the situation adequately. Powers, however, will be taken under amending Ordinances to enable employers, who impose such conditions on their employees after they have been engaged or dismiss them on their joining a union after engagement, to be adequately punished. We, as a Government, shall see to it that such punishments are adequate for these purposes. Another inadequacy in the labour law which the former Labour Government seems to have overlooked is that section of the law dealing with payments for overtime. The law as it stands enables the employers to apportion the same wages which employees used to receive before statutory overtime was introduced to include a portion representing wages and a portion representing overtime, and in this way a large number of employers have been able to evade the provisions of the law regulating the payment of overtime. Cases have been brought to my notice where before the introduction of the Labour Ordinance employees were receiving as little as $3 a day. When this Ordinance was introduced employers took the opportunity of apportioning that wage into two portions, one portion representing the wage and another portion representing the overtime element, so that the employer said to his employee: "$2.50 is your wage and 50 cents is the overtime which you will receive." Was anything done by the former Government to correct this position? Again, under the present law, if an employee who is daily-rated is paid by the day, he has no wage period for the purposes of these laws and can be dismissed without notice. In addition, because he has no wage period, he is not eligible for many of the benefits under these laws. I can assure the Member for Cairnhill that we shall introduce amending legislation to correct all these defects. Again, what about the apprentices? Apprentices who work long hours without payment of overtime, annual leave, sick pay and other benefits which are provided under the existing laws for adult workmen are not protected by these laws, on the grounds that they do not work under a contract of service. This also we shall put right. Then again, there is the question of contract labour. It is well known that the employment of labour on contract terms leads to the exploitation of man by his fellowman. Cases have been brought to my notice where large factories which own the buildings and machinery in them, which control the processes used in those factories, nevertheless choose to employ labour to work in those factories on contract terms. Was the former Government not aware of all this? It looks as if they did not want to be aware of it. These are only a few instances which I have had time to mention this evening, to show the inadequacies in our existing labour legislation. Is the Member for Cairnhill prepared to say now publicly that he wants to claim the credit for all these Ordinances? Mr Speaker, the Member for Cairnhill just now cast a number of aspersions on the Members of the Government has expressed very grave concern for trade unions. He said, "The Government on the question of their concern for the trade union movement, and has promised to build a Trade Union House costing millions of dollars to assist the movement." He said that it was the same Government which was trying to destroy the trade union movement. He said that if he had had similar designs, he would have closed down many unions when he was in office as Chief Minister. Now, Mr Speaker, I can assure you that we, as a Government, have a real interest in the trade union movement, and the labour movement generally, in Singapore. It will be our first task this session to create conditions of industrial stability without which it will not be possible for us to give effect to our Five-Year plan as announced during the recent election. We are also aware that not only must the trade union and labour movement be placed on a proper footing for industrial stability, but it is also equally important that this movement should be provided with the facilities and amenities whereby its special contribution to the life of the community can be enhanced and manifested. We are determined to correct past neglect on that score. Pending the selection of a suitable site and plans for the erection of a Trade Union House worthy of our new policies in these matters, a spacious Government building within easy reach of the centre of the city is being renovated and redecorated to serve as a temporary trade union house until such time as the permanent structure we have in mind is erected. We are sincere in everything that we say in regard to the labour movement and the trade unions. Mr Speaker, I have prepared delightful things to say here this evening to show the close association between the Member for Cairnhill and unions like the Petty Traders Association, the Singapore Painting and White-washing Workers Union and other such like unions with which hon. Members in the previous Government were closely associated. You have ruled, Mr Speaker, that all this should be reserved till the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill which was tabled two days ago, so that we do not enter into discussion on this matter at this stage.

Order. I did, of course, indicate that any debate oii the relevant Bill at this stage would be out of order, but I did not guarantee that what the hon. Member was going to say would be relevant.

I would not like to take any risks, Sir. Mr Speaker, I think the Member for Mountbatten did make certain charges against the Government for having desires to destroy community associations in Singapore. She referred particularly to the pathetic cases of a few ex-politicians who had spent a lot of time and money in building up their prestige in such community centres to advance their own political interests. I think one of them mentioned recently that he was surprised that, in spite of all the efforts he had put in, others who left the community centres alone were able to get seats in the present Legislative Assembly, whereas he and others were very much disappointed, Sir. Mr Speaker, experience of the Department of Social Welfare has revealed that some politicians make use of community centres for their own political activities and, in one case, a politician had for several years been using a community centre as a centre of operations in order to build up his prestige in that area for the last election. I do not think it will be necessary for me to name that politician. In another case, a politician tried to make use of members of youth clubs in order to help him in his political campaign. But fortunately members of the youth clubs concerned resisted his approach. Mr Speaker, if there should be any political activities in community centres, they are bound to result in friction between the various parties, and activities in the community centres will suffer as a result. For example, in the Upper Serangoon Community Centre when two candidates standing for election in the area used it for political purposes, the community centre remained a dead centre for many years, Sir. Mr Speaker, we have no such designs. It was not necessary for ex-Government servants like the Minister for Finance, the Deputy Speaker and myself to get mixed up with community centres to gain seats in this Legislative Assembly. We were brought here not by such petty considerations. We were brought here by the masses of the people which supported the P.A.P. in its work, both in the former Legislative Assembly and in the City Council. It was that mass support that brought us to this Assembly. So let this serve as a warning to all those who are bleating about the way in which we handle these community centres. By this time they should be aware that the way to get a seat in this Assembly is not by getting themselves involved in the work of these centres but rather in getting for themselves and their policies the support of the masses of the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, I think it is necessary for me to say a few words on the attitude of the present Government towards these community centres. Mr Speaker, Government is alive to the need to foster community living and to enrich the life of our people through healthy, purposeful and constructive activities. The reorganisation of the community and recreation services that are afforded to the, public, especially to the young, will be proceeded with the utmost despatch by this Government and a new spirit will be infused into those responsible for the control of these services so that the centres in which these services are given will more truly reflect the needs and the wishes of the masses of the people. Government is interested in those community development projects which directly assist the economic and living conditions of our people. It is, therefore, hoped to centralise the control of these centres under a single organisation truly representative of the masses of our people, and to afford these centres the facilities and the amenities which will enable them to stimulate the creative, cultural and artistic activities especially of our young people. It is our intention to make these centres the foci of the educational, social, cultural and artistic uplift of our young population. If community centres could be successfully utilised for such purposes and also for the integration of communal groups, this will assist materially towards achieving national consciousness and solidarity. The Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Culture and my Ministry will play their full part in bringing about the reorganisation that the Government has in mind. Let me explain, Mr Speaker, what the aims and objects of community centres should be. Community centres are the media through which the aims and intentions of the Government can be communicated and explained to the people. They are focal points for programmes of activities organised to promote the welfare and recreational needs of our people and involve group participation in social, cultural, health and educational projects on a mass basis. These projects include language classes for adults, music, drama, folk dancing, vocational training for the underprivileged, and recreational activities. These centres also are the basis for the training of future leaders. Let me say here and now, Mr Speaker, that it is not the intention of Government to take over full control of community organisations, as these organisations can still carry on if they succeed in finding their own premises. Government has only taken over its own community centres and intends to run these with staff from the Department of Social Welfare under the control of a single organisation truly representative of the masses of the people. Leaders are not debarred from taking part in the activities in these centres as they are organised for the masses. I hope that that will clarify the Government stand on the question of community centres. Mr Speaker, I have recently been charged with being a dictator because I issued instructions recently that open-air cinema shows and activities in youth clubs and community centres must cease. What were the circumstances which, made it necessary for me to issue those instructions? It is well known that some youth clubs and community centres exist mainly on the proceeds of such cinema shows and a few members of the committee of management year after year monopolise the business as a result of' which members lose interest in the clubs and these community centres. I am informed that some committees of management have not had annual general meetings for years because of the possibility of a change of management and the fear that new members may get control of the cinema show business. Further, the accounts of many clubs are not in order and this is a regular source of conflict between members. These do not contribute towards a healthy development in youth clubs and community centres. Cinema shows are not limited to members of youth clubs and community associations only, as the idea is to get large audiences in order to make the shows pay. The result of this is that gangsters and secret society members have found these a convenient meeting place during open-air cinema shows. The Police could not arrest them as members of an unlawful assembly since they could always give the excuse that they were attending a cinema show. Further, it gives them a chance to demand protection money, not only from the cinema operators but also from the hawkers who are bound to congregate around when there is an open-air cinema show. In a recent case in the Sims Avenue Community Centre, a member of a secret society murdered a member of the staff of the film operator and he was subsequently hanged. Most of the open-air cinemas are operated on a commercial basis for gain so that only popular films likely to draw crowds are exhibited. Since the majority of the audience are boys and girls of school-going age, shows involving fights and gangsters are regularly shown. These exercise a very bad influence on our growing young population. It is the intention of Government to undertake to provide educational and cultural films in youth clubs and community centres to take the place of these commercial films. Mr Speaker, there is one last point which I wish to refer to and that is a reference by the Member for Cairnhill earlier on in his speech that Government has not stated what policies it has for dealing with the question of unemployment. I would inform Members of the Opposition that the Government has plans for the relief of unemployment on both a short-term and a long-term basis and these plans will in the near future be published. The intention is to concentrate on projects employing the maximum number of unskilled or semi-skilled workers and these short-term plans will be closely related to national development. In the formulation of these plans, the need for keeping our young and growing population in gainful employment, so as to reduce the opportunities for and the incidence of anti-social activities in which they might otherwise be engaged, has been constantly kept in view as well as the need for affording immediate relief to those suffering great hardship through prolonged periods of unemployment. I have been taken to task by the Member for Cairnhill for having instructed the discontinuance of sugar and rice rations to all those employed under the unemployment relief scheme which the previous Government had initiated. Mr Speaker, I found when I took office that there were about 1,200 persons employed on these unemployment relief schemes and they were paid at the rate of $3 a day. In addition, they were geting dry rations costing about 80 cents per person. Mr Speaker, I have been very closely associated with workmen in the course of my political activities and I know that there are many workmen in Singapore who are in fact receiving $3 a day as a living wage. The previous Government was paying $3 a day plus rations as relief for unemployment. I considered that if these rations were withdrawn we would be able to save as much as about $1,000 a day and that would enable us to employ another 300 on this unemployment relief work. Is there anything wrong because we did this? Have we done anything wrong because we did that? That is just common sense in dealing with a practical situation. If there are workers who are prepared to work for this wage, was it not right that we should withdraw these rations to enable another 300 to be employed on the proceeds? Surely that cannot be wrong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of explanation. I was said to have-

Order. Will the hon. Member please indicate whether it is a point of personal explanation elucidation?

It is a point of elucidation.

If it is elucidation, then I am afraid the hon. Member is late because the Minister has sat down. 7.25 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, concerning the debate on the policy speech today in principle and on the whole, it is not without reluctance on my part to accept the speech but it should be remembered that at the moment when we are faced with the problem of establishing a society and we should know how we are going to implement these policies in a self-governing state. I have carefully examined what has been said and what has been embodied in the papers which have been circulated to all the Members. I offer my congratulations to the Government in its sincere desire to prove that it will implement the policies laid down, particularly that Malay will be made the national language. That is a serious matter for attention which the Malays on this island and I personally support. To revert to what is embodied in the speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, we only want to get clarification particularly from the Government side that we have no desire at all whatsoever to create misunderstanding in our attempt to establish a new society which we think fit. This, I hope, will receive consideration so that everything will be made known to this House, the people in Singapore, and the whole world at large. In connection with the Government's education policy, I would like clarification from the Government as to the true state of affairs. According to my interpretation, I would ask for clarification as to whether the policy of the Government is to put aside the policy of the Malay Education Council. It has been explained that the education policy of the Government is based on three principles. Firstly, the Government accepts the All-Party Report on Chinese Education, 1955. The Report mentioned equal treatment for all the four channels of education: English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil. Secondly, the Government agrees to accept Malay as the national language. The Government will encourage non-Malays to learn and study the Malay language, but in the meantime I hope the Government will clarify the position with regard to encouraging the growth of the Malay language. Thirdly, the syllabus, which apparently will be reviewed, will give priority to practical subjects such as mathematics and science, which are of use to industry to fill the needs of society and priority will also be given to the study of the Malay language. Mr Speaker, and the Hon. the Minister for Education, according to my interpretation of the education policy of the Government, education is of the first importance, and the first principle of the education policy of the Government shows that priority is given to the acceptance of the 1955 All-Party Committee Report on Chinese Education only. That is a Committee formed by the coalition Government four years ago. Mr Speaker, this goes to show indirectly that the present Government perhaps unconsciously adopted such a policy. According to my opinion, it is contrary to the policy of a Party holding the reins of government today, although it mentions that similar treatment is given to all the four languages. Mr Speaker, Sir, if it is true that this Government is to uphold the interests of the masses, it has not mentioned at all or clarified in the speech the acceptance of the Malay education policy of the Malay Education Council, Singapore, a policy which was accepted and carried out by the old Government, and may be carried out by the present Government. What has happened is that the rights of the Malays, or to be more accurate, their special position far from receiving equitable treatment - let alone recognize the status of Malay education - has been neglected or deliberately belittled. This is our concern when we heard the speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara concerning the education policy. I have not the slightest intention of creating things which are undesirable in our struggle for the rights of the Malays. The second principle says "revitalising Malay education itself". The phrase "revitalising itself" as I understand it is not firm, not positive. We cannot use vague or loose phrases, but we should be more firm or positive. The terminology, in my opinion, should be as follows: "will give new spirit in uplifting and the development of the Malay language itself", because the word "revitalising" can be construed to mean that Malay education which was previously vitalised, is now dead, and therefore, this Government tries to revitalise it is this the true intention of this Government, Mr Speaker? This is the fact which should be emphasised to all. The general opinion is clear, that Malay education, about which previously there had been an attempt to bury through a programme of reorientation, has been reestablished by the Malay Education Council. It is the responsibility of this Government, elected by the people, to govern, and time to give new spirit towards uplifting the development of Malay education. Then only can we implement Malay as the national language of our country, in order to meet the needs of a multi-racial society in an industrialised country. Mr Speaker, we now come to the stage where we would like to make a common policy regardless of race. This has become our policy, and I once again extend my congratulations to the policy of the struggle of the P.A.P., which has the courage to make Malay the national language. It can be said that this policy was inspired and backed by my own organisation, the United Malays National Organisation, but I would like to remind the Government that the Malays in particular would take this opportunity to voice our opinions in order to find a healthy and constructive way so that there will be no room for doubt in the future. We have supported the policy to make Malay the national language, and I have also explained the position of the education policy of the present Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, to make the Malay language specially the national language is not an easy thing to accomplish, but could it be accomplished within the period of the five years of this Government or maybe longer? Accordingly, Mr Speaker, the Malays, or my own Party in particular, support the policy of the P.A.P., which is in the government today, in making Malay the national language, but I would like to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that whilst we make Malay the national language, let every Ministry of the Government that exists today help the Malays in their struggle to achieve a higher standard of living, which is part of our struggle to eradicate communalism from our land forever. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Malays, as I have explained just now, always adopt a spirit of compromise; that must not be overlooked. They support, as I said just now, the policy of the P.A.P. to make Malay the national language. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, in my long-term view, if I am wrong I am prepared to accept criticism, what is the policy of this Government in the process of doing what is contained in the Singapore Constitution concerning the position of the Malays, which has been agreed to by the P.A.P during the Rendel Constitution Government. I do not wish to remark unnecessarily but I would explain to this House that if this Government does not provide special privileges for the Malays, they will continue to become taxi drivers, etc, as has been expressed. I heard the explanation just now of the Member for Bukit Timah, "The preparations to shape the new nation are ready." I am prepared to say that the preparations may be ready, but these preparations do not emphatically stress to raise the standard of living of the Malays who are backward and poor; they do not come from the capitalist or the intellectual class and others. I would like to draw the attention of the Government whose policy it is to make Malay the national language. Is this the way to help the Malays today? How many Malays are to be the future graduates of the University of Malaya, as compared to the Nanyang University graduates? Whether the Nanyang University degrees will be recognized by the Government, only time will tell. In my opinion, the policy speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara omitted to mention the special position of the indigenous people of Singapore, that is the Malays, and therefore it has become an important issue which has nothing to do with encouraging the Malay language. This will not help the Malays to compete against the foreigners, if their special positions are not implemented, not to mention communalism.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi resumed his seat.

Does the Member for Kampong Kembangan consider non-Malays in this country to be Bangsa asing? Bangsa asing is the Malay term for "foreigners".

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, concerning the question of a nation which was asked by the Hon. the Prime Minister in reply, I would like to clarify before I continue with my speech. If I have hurt the feelings of the Hon. the Prime Minister, I wish to apologise. I would like to explain that, in my opinion, we are today only in a state of self-government. Just as the Member for Bukit Timah has explained just now, the state of nationhood is absent. Similarly, the Federation of Malaya, which is independent, has not been able to formulate a nationhood. This is in the process of being formed. The language I use is Malay. What I am aiming at are the non-Malays. Mr Speaker, I would like to emphasise that that is my interpretation as to what was asked by the Hon. Prime Minister. I do not for a moment consider that the non-Malays who are domiciled in Singapore are not our brothers. They are our brothers and have the same rights in all matters according to the rules and laws of the country existing today. What I would like to emphasise to this House today is the education policy which I talked about just now. The non-Malays have good experience and qualifications. Many of them are in the University of Malaya and in Nanyang University, and they will graduate with degrees which will be recognised by the Government and, in the case of Nanyang University, have perhaps already been recognised by the Government. Therefore there is no golden opportunity for Malays at all to stand on the same footing. It is left to the Government to clarify the ways and means of attaining this, so that we can move on a par with others, with one aim, one method and with one objective. That is what we are aiming for, because the Malay middle schools have not yet been established. We all understand the inadequacies. The percentage of Malays in the fields of engineering, medicine, and law, as well as others is very small. This too has become an important issue to us. How can the Government's policy help the Malays, so that they can be on a par with others, so that within five years we can create a society with one aim-as I have explained just now-namely, that Singapore will be one hundred per cent free from the Colonial clutches. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's education policy is still a source of concern to my organisation, particularly with regard to Malay children, whose standard of education is very low today. Apart from that, there is another point, Mr Speaker. It is connected with the question of education. Can the Hon. Minister for Education clarify the education policy of the Government with regard to the teaching of religion in Malay schools? Are the teachers who are trained recognised by the Government? The time has now come to leave the question of the education policy. I will now turn to other matters, that is to say, matters concerning culture. On culture, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is mentioned that the Government will give encouragement to existing cultures. "It will help foster the growth of a Malayan culture which while drawing sustenance from the communal cultures now flourishing in Malaya will nevertheless develop its own distinctive characteristics." Mr Speaker, Sir, I myself am still in the dark, in the true sense of the word, regarding the intentions of the present Government. As the Member for Bukit Timah has explained in the debate today, when referring in this House to the news in the Utusan Melayu, that His Excellency Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra did not agree whatsoever on the question of communalism. Therefore, I am still in the dark as to what has been stated, that is, "... communal cultures now flourishing in Malaya will nevertheless develop its own distinctive characteristics." Mr Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the independence achieved by the Federation of Malaya was the result of the co-operation and help given by the non-Malays. There, people of all races united to eradicate and bury colonialism forever. Therefore, how can the Government now say that communal cultures which are now flourishing in Malaya will nevertheless develop their own distinctive characteristics? In my opinion, the Government policy on culture will lead to confusion. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government will elucidate or clarify what real culture is, which has become the basis of the struggle of the Government to establish culture. Apart from that, Mr Speaker, I will move now to another matter which concerns Home Affairs. On this matter I also would like to read for the information of this House. It reads: "The future of Singapore lies ultimately in re-uniting with the Federation of Malaya as a state in an independent country. It is the Government's intention during its term of office to create and bring about conditions favourable to an early re-unification with the Federation. The Government will take firm action to prevent any irresponsible activities by individuals or organisations to negate this paramount interest of the people of Singapore and Malaya. The Government will always consider the views of the Federation Government. In the same way, the Government hopes the Federation Government will understand the hopes and aspirations of the people of Singapore, and the ways in which this Government seeks to fulfil them." Mr Speaker, I would like to add further before I comment: "The basic political situation in Malaya has not changed today. The shooting war waged by the Federation Government and the Malayan Communist Party enters the eleventh year. This Government has stated its position clearly on subversion. "Subversion" is any political activity designed to further the aims and interests not of our own people but of foreign powers. By foreign powers this Government means not just Russia and China, but also America and Formosa, and the Western bloc. The Government will fight and counter subversion be it from the Right or from Left." Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the Government to its policy on home affairs. In principle, it is favourable. But at the first sitting of this Assembly, I remarked that if this Government wish to unite with the Federation of Malaya as a State in an independent country, then there would be many matters which we would have to discuss in this House, matters in which opinions would be contradictory. Yesterday, when we discussed this matter I explained that it was too premature not to have certain legislations which are in existence in the Federation, like City Town and Kampong Councils. Why did I say this? We know that Singapore is only a self-governing State. We have not achieved independence. We have no representatives abroad, no ambassadors abroad, even no consulates in other countries. Therefore we understand the reason why we wish to merge with the Federation which alone can save Singapore from the clutches of Colonialism.

Order. It is now 8 p.m.

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