Mr Speaker, I beg leave for a few seconds to get the relevant section. Mr Speaker, this is what the Prime Minister said: "This man, whom they detested and despised to the point of conspiring to oust him in August 1957, they now find a useful lever for pushing the P.A.P. into what they hope would be a more malleable and plastic position." I have to clarify this because these are hard words used against another Member. What I was trying to say is that the movement in August 1957 was not a movement against anybody. The Secretary-General managed to retain his seat, because I heard recently that he gave several hundreds of admission cards to non-Party members to go to the Badminton Hall to vote him in. It was not enough. And I believe the ballot papers were not properly counted. I bear no grudge against anybody because I was out. The Secretary-General pleaded with Tann Wee Tiong and myself to come back to the Central later so that he could have enough men for his "front" to fill up the 12 seats. This is all the clarification I wanted to make. Mr Speaker, in the Government's policy speech nothing has been said about the social revolution. The Prime Minister said in cols. 83-5 of Hansard, Vol. 3, No. 2 of 22nd April, 1958: "Sir, I said, not as an idle boast, that the P.A.P. will win the elections if they were held tomorrow, or next year, short of something catastrophic happening or something very foolish that we do. And we will win them, apart from the question of having a better organisation and having better personnel, because the other Parties do not attempt to understand the meaning of a social revolution." Social revolution! "Have they not ceased to wonder why in the last four months the Government was Just swept aside and the attention of the people of Singapore was focused on the City Council? Why? Because it had captured the hearts and minds of the workers.... For the first time they begin to understand that these magnificent institutions like the City Council, which they had viewed as institutions of bureaucracy and petty oppression could be turned into public institutions for their protection, welfare and benefit. Albeit, they needed some colourful gesture like throwing out the mace to drive the lesson home. But that is the lesson the Labour Front must learn if they want to know what is going on, and have a chance to compete at all. The Labour Front leader in the City Council said - as it was reported in the last few days and with a great deal of silent praise from the English language press - "Oh well, let's have the Mayor of Penang here but let's have none of this nonsense about, `Down with colonialism and all that,'" because obviously by implication, his Party is not in favour of it. For the first time, the City Council is going to mean something to the people." The Prime Minister continues: "If we - this year or next year - we are prepared for it any time, - cannot do the same transmutation for the institutions of Government and make, them become symbols of the people's rights and privileges instead of symbols of colonial bureaucracy and oppression, then at the end of our five-year term of office, we will be out on our heels and deserve to perish.". The Prime Minister continues on: "When in pursuit of a social revolution, never pay the slightest attention to the present English language press. Praise from them means destruction. Decide what you have to do, decide what is right and press on. The more they howl against you, the more you can be certain that you are on the right track.". But, this is what we now hear in the policy speech. "It would no doubt have, been advantageous, before an election, to have come forward with lavish promises of independence and socialism." Mr Speaker, the socialists do not expect socialism during the P.A.P.'s present regime. Socialism is not the issue. But what has the Government done during the past year? Almost nothing, except to pass a multitude of laws, none of which touches on the basic economic fabric of our existing society, but mostly laws which are meant to consolidate the power of the present regime. Mr Speaker, we do not like to talk about social revolution before the elections, and do another thing after the elections. We stand for the P.A.P. as the people have understood it, and on which they have pinned their hopes, and for which they have voted the P.A.P. into power. It cannot be denied that the present institutions of Government are still being looked upon by the people as symbols of colonial bureaucracy and oppression. We stand for what the Prime Minister said in April 1958: "For the first time they begin to understand that these magnificent institutions like the City Council, which they had viewed as institutions of bureaucracy and petty oppression could be turned into public institutions for their protection, welfare and benefit.". Mr Speaker, Sir, we believe that the Government departments and other public institutions can be transformed, as the City Council has been transformed, into symbols for the people's well-being. According to the policy speech, the second year is to be a year of construction - the so-called decisive year. We hope this is so. We hope it will be a year of construction. More than seven months of 1960 have passed, but the construction projects contained in the 1960 Budget still remain largely untouched. In many cases, plans have not even been initiated. The construction projects in the 1960 Budget were meant as a propaganda show-piece. In 1959, there was hardly any construction at all. The $9 million surplus of 1959 which was boasted about in the policy speech is not necessarily wise public finance. The money has come from the various taxes on the poor and the white-collar workers. The $9 million surplus should have been spent on public work projects like the building of roads, houses, and so on, to alleviate the sufferings of the poor and to alleviate the acute problem of unemployment, particularly during this time of trade recession and acute unemployment. The savings from the pay-cuts of the civil servants are not being used for useful construction work which would help the economy but for unnecessary and wasteful expenditure; for instance, like overseas trips, provision of cars and bodyguards for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, $20,000 to beautify and air-condition Sri Temasek and change its marble which is already in tip-top condition, and other wasteful items of expenditure which even the Lim Yew Hock Government did not think it fit and wise to incur. The Government has hardly done any construction work during its one year of office. Most of the projects which the Ministers opened were projects conceived and initiated - and some almost completed - under the Lim Yew Hock Government: the Thomson Road Hospital, the St. Michael's Road Market, the post offices, the micro-wave stations, the St. James Power Station and many other projects. The exceptions were the community centres which cost about $20,000 each. The Public Works Standing Committee, which is under the direct control of the Prime Minister, is in charge of all these construction projects. Mr Speaker, nothing has been mentioned in the policy speech about the funds to finance the proposed construction projects in this "decisive" year of construction. Is this to be dependent to a large extent on British and American aid? The British Government has promised $65 million in grants and loans to finance projects many of which are of military significance and are of no direct benefit to us. What type of aid are we going to obtain from the United States through the World Bank? Mr Speaker, this is very good magic! You do not borrow money from Mr Lee Kong Chian, but you borrow money from the Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation. From what we have studied of other countries, none have survived by being dependent on American aid; as none have survived from praises by the Straits Times. We believe in making an attempt to find the funds from our own people first. I asked the Minister for Finance in August 1959 to allow the S.I.T. to float housing bonds, but this was rejected. We could have mobilised the people to buy these bonds, as we have mobilised them to build various projects. At least we could have made an attempt, Mr Speaker. The unemployment situation is now worse than before. The Lim Yew Hock Government tried to find scapegoats. It blamed the P.A.P. is the present Government going to find scapegoats in similar fashion? Mr Speaker, blame Ong Eng Guan! The people do not expect us to find a complete solution to our unemployment problem, but they expect the Government, in which they had so much faith, at least to make a sincere and determined attempt to alleviate this problem. No honest attempts have been made. Is the Work Brigade an attempt to give jobs to some of the unemployed? No. One of the purposes of the Work Brigade was, as I said yesterday, to shout "Merdeka" outside the Supreme Court building. The Work Brigade and the community centres are to be the "second line of defence" of the present Government when the Party members have melted away, when few people go to the P.A.P. branches, and when they cannot get the voluntary workers to do work at mass meetings. They also want the Work Brigade to appear as "masses" at meetings. In the policy speech there is nothing very new about the activities of the various Government departments. These departments are just linked together like a street directory. Compare it with any of the three policy speeches on the activities of these departments under the Labour Front Government, and you will see little difference. Most of the plans put forward in this policy speech were shaped, planned and initiated by previous Governments. For instance, the chapters on shipping, the Port Authority, civil aviation, postal services, and so on. During the past year, the present Government have not been so much interested in construction and solving the problems pf the unemployed and the building of a better Singapore, as in consolidating their own position and seeking their own ends. The question of housing is a typical example. The S.I.T., after reorganisation in August 1959, planned to build 10,000 units in the first phase. The only two local architects at that time with public housing experience in Malaya were recruited. Schemes of work were ready. Plans and specifications were drawn up. Housing sites and levelling were ready, and in some places piling was completed. The Prime Minister saw them with his own eyes when he visited the Queenstown, Kampong Koo Chye, MacPherson Road and Kampong Tiong Bahru sites on Friday, 16th September, 1959. Tenders were advertised. Arrangements for the laying of water, gas and electricity and storage services were made. The drainage scheme in the MacPherson Road area was completed in record time, partly to alleviate the danger of flood to the farmers in the Geylang Serai area, and partly to dry up the MacPherson Road site for the building of S.I.T. flats. But one thing was not forthcoming. The Minister for Finance refused to give the money though he had the money. I have the correspondence to prove it. Instead the Minister for Finance went further and refused to defreeze the funds which were promised to the S.I.T. in the 1959 Budget under the Lim Yew Hock Government: $7 million for the general construction of flats and $4½ million for the building of flats on two fire sites. The present 4,000 units being let out by the Housing Board as described in the policy speech were all planned by these same two architects whom we engaged. Out of these 4,000 units, tenders for 1,968 were advertised before the Housing Board was formed. We could have advertised for more if we had the money. The reason given by the Minister for Finance was fantastic. I did not believe it myself. It was that as little money as possible should be spent in 1959 so that in the 1960 Budget a big sum would be provided which would serve as a good propaganda front to boost up the economy. Mr Speaker, you do not eat today, so that you can have "two" bowls tomorrow! The tens of thousands of applicants for S.I.T. flats have to suffer in this magic show. The purpose of the 1960 Budget, which provides for big construction projects but is never meant to be fulfilled, is to "boost" the economy. My impression was that only a small fraction of the projects would be built. You cannot "boost" economy by bluff. Neither can you consolidate your position by passing laws and building community centres and organising Work Brigade. The masses which turned up in their tens of thousands to support the 16 resolutions at the Badminton Hall rally is a concrete and glaring example of the bitter disappointment of the people. Their hopes and their dreams have been bitterly shattered. The P.A.P. has always stood for honesty and integrity. We believe in telling the people what we think we can and cannot do. We believe in real construction, the way it was done in the City Council. Targets were set. The staff and the masses were mobilised when required, and an all-out effort was made to reach and surpass the targets. One year has been spent, not on construction, and not for the benefit of the masses who have supported the P.A.P. But one whole year has been spent in order to consolidate the power of the present leadership, so that when the masses have made up their minds after some doubts: are these the people who have really betrayed them? Are these the people who have departed from the fundamental aims and policies of the People's Action Party which they have voted in and on which they have pinned their hopes and dreams? - when the masses decide to fight, the Lee Kuan Yew Government will be consolidated for such a fight. How do they consolidate? These are some of the ways: (i) laws to control and regulate trade unions, mass organisations, political parties and societies; (ii) laws to give undue advantage to the present regime in elections; (iii) creation of so-called mass organisations like community centres and Work Brigade to prepare them for the time when the Party members in the branches and the masses have melted away; (iv) television to be immediately installed to take the place of mass rallies, because there will be fewer attendances at the mass rallies. The Prime Minister will be able to speak to the masses through television. Direct and indirect control of the means of propaganda; (v) suitable arrangements to ensure that finance is not lacking; (vi) military exercises, ample bodyguards, security guards and fencing for the houses; (vii) control of the key positions in the Executive, the Judicature and the control of P.A.P. Assemblymen. Mr Speaker, there are three sources of constitutional power in a democracy: the Legislature, the Executive and the Judicature. These sources of State power must be firmly controlled in the hands of men whose loyalty to the present regime and the colonial interests is beyond doubt. The Lee Kuan Yew Government can only maintain control of the Legislature if the P.A.P. Assemblymen do not rebel - like the three of us here, when the struggle between those who stick to P.A.P. policies and those who have betrayed P.A.P. policies begins. From the very early days, they have tried to control the Assemblymen by devious ways; for instance, brainwashing by Mr Thomson, the softening-up process, overseas trips. But the most effective way is the provision of a way of life to these Assemblymen which makes them identify themselves with the status quo and have nothing to benefit by the social revolution. The Executive, which is the second source of constitutional power, must be in the control, of persons whose loyalty to the Prime Minister and his Minister for Finance and what they represent is beyond doubt. That is why we have the Meadows', the Thomsons, and so on, controlling more State power today than in the previous government. The Judicature must also be in safe hands. The story I heard about the non-confirmation of Mr Tan Ah Tah, the Chief Justice, is something which the public will be shocked to know. I quote what the Secretary-General of the P.A.P. said about the Judicature in l956 - Hansard of 5th December, 1956, col. 1082: "The second issue on which the White Paper has been silent is the Supreme Court judgeships, it is an open secret that there has been political wrangling over the appointment of two new judges, dating from the time when the Labour Front Coalition Government was led by the Member for Cairnhill. We now know from the estimates that only one more judgeship is to be created. We wish to make it clear that, whatever this Government says in this White Paper, my Party believes that the principle of the inviolability of the judiciary can only be accepted after we Malayans have decided who shall fill those positions. We do not accept that those whom the colonial Government has appointed as our judges are inviolate, and cannot be removed by this Legislature or this Government. However honest, however good as lawyers they may be, they are part and parcel of the colonial machinery which is unacceptable to any Malayan nationalist. In no territory of the British Commonwealth in South-East Asia were European judges allowed to remain in office when the British imperial power finally departed. The only exception was in Ceylon where a white Chief Justice, who I notice is already a model for the Chief Justice of the Federation of Malaya, was allowed to remain because the Ceylonese Government wanted him to remain. But when that Government decided that he should go, he went. That is a principle which we must first establish before we accept the principle of the inviolability of the judical service. It would be unfair to many distinguished judges if my remarks were to create the impression that I think they were all dishonest and useless instruments of British imperialism. The former Chief Justice of Singapore, for instance, was a man of great learning and balance of judgment, for whom all members of the Bar, whether white or black, had considerable respect. That does not in the slightest way detract from the principle that we cannot accept a white judiciary imposed upon us. We want the principle established that if we want them to quit, then they must go. Then when we appoint our local men, they will be inviolate. They cannot be removed either by the Government or the Legislature except by the most stringent of procedures." Mr Speaker, I just want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to his speech made in 1956. As I have said, the three sources of constitutional power, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judicature, must be in safe hands. By the end of the first year of office, the Lee Kuan Yew government hopes to see itself strongly entrenched with the approaching storm. They know that the betrayal of P.A.P.'s aims and policies cannot be left unchallenged for long by the Party members and the people. This is what the Prime Minister meant when he said that "the first year of office was one of reorganisation, consolidation and preparation." Reorganisation, consolidation and preparation. The Lee Kuan Yew government still considers that the fundamental conflict in our society is one of language and not of economics. He splits Singapore society into the Chinese-speaking and the English-speaking - you will find this in his speech yesterday - he considers the Tamils and the Malays as numerically unimportant in Singapore and not what socialists do: into economic classes. This will serve to explain the attitude towards Nanyang University. They always talk about external influences in Chinese textbooks, for instance. But they never talk about British colonial influences, in text-books used in the English schools and printed by British commercial firms in Singapore. Due to a wrong analysis of the basic contradictions of our society, the Nantah (Nanyang University) problem has resolved itself into a deadlock. Mr Speaker, we do not believe that language separates us. We believe in a united Malayan nation of all races. A society is not divided into the languages that the people speak. Our attitude towards education is this: we stand for real equal treatment in all the four streams of education. We consider the fundamental conflict in our society as an economic problem, and not one of language. We do not deny, that when Malay is made the national language, the present language barriers will be removed. But the conflict in the language barriers is not fundamental. We need a phased programme of targets to be reached in order to make Malay the national language. We believe in Malayanisation of all text-books step by step. We welcome the effort to promote industries in Singapore. But how can we promote industries within the present political context? Industrialisation is in direct conflict with the interests of the colonial power. This is what the Party manifesto said in 1955 about industrialisation: "The need for industrialisation has been stressed even by advocates of colonialism. Yet very little has been done about it, and very little besides the highest exhortations will be done so long as the colonial structure is maintained in Malaya. The colonialists primarily regarded it as an outlet for the manufactured goods of the mother country. The colonial power cannot, therefore, be expected to be enthusiastic about the setting up of local industries which might seriously affect the import of manufactured goods from the mother country." The Party manifesto went on to say: "All the Constitutional concessions granted so far have been particularly careful to protect and perpetuate the basic economic and political interests of the colonial power. The retention of basic colonial interests runs through all Constitutional arrangements. since the reoccupation in 1945." At present, Mr Speaker, Sir, investment policy is concentrated on how to attract foreign investors. We do not reject foreign investors, but concentration should be on how to encourage local businessmen to turn to industries. Local investors should be given more favourable treatment than foreign investors, and not the other way round. The policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara mentioned that: "The Government does not wish to give the impression that there have not been mistakes and shortcomings during the past year." Mr Speaker, this was repeated by the Prime Minister in his speech yesterday [Straits Times of 4th August]: '"Minor mistakes of haste, born out of impatience to put the world right, were committed. They were errors, not of the rashness of the policy to be implemented, but of the intemperate haste in not preparing and carrying the people, and could have been avoided by consultation and discussion."' Mr Speaker, what I gathered from the Prime Minister's address on the policy speech and from a recent Petir editorial is that these mistakes are not on fundamental principles but mistakes of triviality - going a bit too fast on legislation. It means that the Minister for Labour and Law, who, as I have said just now, is another possible scapegoat, has gone ahead with too many pieces of legislation during the past year. It is not so much with the laws themselves as with the speed with which they were passed. Mr Speaker, we are different. We are not worried about these little mistakes of technicalities and form, because no person can avoid these little mistakes in running his Ministry. What we are more concerned with are the mistakes of the content of policy and fundamentals. If we are sincere in rectifying our mistakes, then we rectify mistakes of policy and fundamentals, such as reaffirming the faith of the present Government in the revolutionary manifesto of the P.A.P.; reaffirming the faith in the struggle against colonialism, and all the aims and policies of the P.A.P. before it formed the Government; fighting for the detainees of the Internal Security Council to release them without conditions. I made my stand clear in a meeting on 28th August, 1959. Since then I have not been allowed to speak any more. Re-register the trade unions without conditions. What was said by others yesterday was not, I believe, what happened.. Mr Speaker, in the Straits Times of 25th May, 1960, the Minister for Labour and Law gave reasons for the de-registration of trade unions: "Mr Byrne gave two reasons for the Government's action. He said, `There should be no registration of any federation of trade unions within any of the categories of unions set out under the new Trade Unions Ordinance, 1960, until the Ordinance has become law.'" Mr Speaker, these reasons were later withdrawn and substituted because, if they had persisted, the Trade Unions Ordinance would become law some time or other; perhaps it would not become law in May, but in June, July, August, or even September, and they would then have to restore the unions' registration. So in the meantime they had to think out another reason, a "really good sound" reason - the Internal Security Council, which always comes in useful. Anybody in the trade union movement knows that the two reasons contradict each other. The gambling Bills reversed the P.A.P.'s taxation policy, and is meant to tax the poor and subsidise the rich; not to tax the rich and subsidise the poor. Mr Speaker, there are several types of government. The British capitalist government taxes the rich to subsidise the poor. They follow the Keynesian theory. Our so-called socialist Government taxes the poor to subsidise the rich. Rectify all the mistakes as enumerated in the Hong Lim resolutions. You cannot fight these political issues by intimidation on a scale bigger than that of the Lim Yew Hock government, by suppression and by temptation. For instance, you cannot just ring up the Press after a Badminton Hall rally and order them to black out the speeches made, and after protestations by the Press, allow them to limit the speeches to 500 words. Yesterday I mentioned that Mr Thomson's articles in the Press are not limited to 500 words. In the Nanyang Siang Pau, Mr Thomson wrote an article on the Police Force, propounding his colonial political philosophy, and that article is not less than 2,500 words. The present Government does not ring up the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh and say, "Boys, 500 words for Mr Thomson, and Mr Ong Eng Guan 1,000 words." Spicy words! "For Mr Thomson, you can write any amount of words you like. For Mr Ong Eng Guan, 500 words or 300 words." I wonder what is going to be the directive tonight? I am sure it might be 1,000 or 750 words. At one of our Press conferences one Sunday, there was much bargaining: 300 words, 500 words, 750 words, and later, after much bargaining on the counter, 1,250 words. You cannot win the political battle by detaining a journalist 15 minutes after he had attended my Press conference on his way to cable my Press releases to Kuala Lumpur, so that you can use him to intimidate other journalists. You cannot win the political battle by sending C.I.D. and other people to the houses of Party members. Mr Ong Pang Boon rose -