Hansard, 1960-08-05

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi) - 5th August, 1960. Mr Yong Nyuk Lin (Geylang West), Minister for Education - from 11th August to 2nd September, 1960.

Order read for resumption of adjourned debate on Question [4th August, 1960], '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 Prime Minister). Question again proposed. 2.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I said yesterday that the 16 Hong Lim resolutions were concocted not to save the country but the flagging political fortunes of the Member for Hong Lim. A clue to the whole thing can be found in the Member's speech yesterday. He quoted the Prime Minister's speech in the Assembly in April 1958. The Prime Minister in that speech said that the attention of the people of Singapore was focused on the City Council and that it had captured the hearts and minds of the workers. The day when the Member for Hong Lim was the Mayor of the City Council was the golden age of Singapore politics, for the simple reason that he was the number one bossman. Sir, I do not deny that the P.A.P. City Council captured the hearts and minds of the workers of Singapore. Nor can I deny that the Member for Hong Lim did some good work. But, at the risk of earning his displeasure, I will say - and so do the other P.A.P. Councillors all but one of whom today are P.A.P. Assemblymen on this side of the House - that the former Mayor likes to think that all the credit should go to him. He forgot that it was the Party and not the Mayor or Mr Ong Eng Guan as an individual who won the hearts and minds of the workers. It was this delusion that what the people fell for was his personality which had led him to the present impasse. He wanted people to treat him as a superman, a Tarzan and a Flash Gordon all rolled into one. Therefore, when he was on strained to work as a member of the team in the Cabinet he found the whole thing distasteful. It was inevitable that he should clash with Cabinet colleagues who refused to treat him as a superman. He disliked having to do things which helped to build up the reputation of the Party as a whole. What he enjoyed most was building up a myth of the invincible superman single-handedly fighting against desperate odds. So, Sir, he started first with intrigues within the Cabinet, trying to play one colleague against another. He employed the now familiar technique of 'I, good man. You, good man. But he, bad man.'

Order. I have had occasion in this debate to remind hon. Members of Standing Order 46 (1) which reads: "The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose." All these details of the personal conduct of the Member for Hong Lim appear to me to be completely out of order, unless, of course, they are brought forward on a substantive motion. I would also like to remind hon. Members that we are on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and Standing Order 13 (2) states, inter alia: "Debate thereon that is, on the speech shall be confined to the policy of the Government as outlined in the speech and on amendments (if any) moved by Members...". As I have said before, there may be some bearing on the general state of affairs in Singapore anent the personal conduct of the Member for Hong Lim. But if the Minister embarks on details of the nature he has enunciated, then I think he is out of order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I myself am not interested in the personal conduct of the Member for Hong Lim, but what I want to point out is the action that he took as a member of the Government within the Government to divert the policies of the Government and subvert the Government. Sir, I shall try to avoid bringing in details and I shall only outline the general technique that was adopted by him. Sir, as I said, at first he began by trying to play one Cabinet colleague against the other. When this failed, he then turned on to the Parliamentary Secretaries, trying to win them over with childish inaccuracies, that the Party might cheat them of their pay, that their telephones were being tapped by the secret police, and so on. This got him nowhere. Then he turned to the Assemblymen. That also got him nowhere except for the two who obviously decided to follow him to the other side of the House. But he never tried to convince the Government of the correctness of his stand on the 16 resolutions except to bring them up in this Assembly and which he offers as a panacea for all our troubles. In fact, his intrigues were never based on the merits or otherwise of the 16 resolutions which have now become a major topic with him. They were based purely on the exploitation of the baser side of human nature, like fear, cupidity and jealousy, all of which were testified to by statements signed by Assemblymen on this side of the House. Of course, he has claimed that these statements were extracted from the Assemblymen by force and intimidation. The Assemblymen concerned are here and it is up to him to challenge any Member on this side of the House to get up and say that he signed these statements by the Party under duress. Sir, having failed to make any headway inside the Government among the Cabinet members, Parliamentary Secretaries and Assemblymen, his next target was the party conference of cadres, Assemblymen and branch secretaries held in June. Obviously, a different technique was called for. So he brought in the 16 resolutions in order to get support. Here too, Sir, he lost out and again he explained away his defeat by claiming that those who voted for his expulsion did so because the place, was surrounded by secret police armed with guns. The hundred or so members who were present there knew very well that there were no guns and no secret police. But he was not interested in trying to win over people who obviously had lost any respect they might have had for him. So it has now come to a point where he alleged yesterday that the Cabinet, the Parliamentary Secretaries and the Assemblymen on this side of the House are no longer revolutionary, that they are led by colonial-minded leaders, that they have betrayed the principles of the P.A.P., that this Government is run by the famous trio - Blades, Thomson and Meadows - and that the P.A.P. have achieved nothing during the past year except, of course, the Ministry of National Development. The wonder of it is that if he really believes in what he says now, then how is it that he managed to stay in such a reactionary Government for one year? And he would have stayed on had not the Government decided to precipitate matters by asking him to leave. Or is it suggested that the P.A.P. has been reactionary only since June - about two months ago - when he was ejected from the Government and from the Party. In his speech yesterday, he claimed that he could not see any difference between the policies of the present Government and what he described as the Lim Yew Hock Government. Also to sustain his claim that the P.A.P. is no longer revolutionary, he quoted extensively from the 1954 P.A.P. Manifesto. Sir, it is good to know that the Member for Hong Lim draws spiritual sustenance and inspiration from a document drafted long before he entered the Party by people who are still in the Party. He also quoted extensively and approvingly speeches made by the Prime Minister. It is strange that the Member for Hong Lim should find spiritual nourishment for his anti-colonial spirit from the speeches of a man he now describes as pro-colonialist. Equally noticeable, Sir, is that the Member for Hong Lim at no time quoted any speeches by himself to sustain his anti-colonial flame. I do not think that this was due to any modesty on his part. The sad truth is that there is little relevant material worth quoting from his writings or his speeches. The Member for Hong Lim was one of our leading slogan shouters, slogans generally provided for him by the Party, but he has contributed little to the theory and practice of anti-colonialism. He has been telling us in the last few days how he is going to fight colonialism; but during the last four years - and during the one year he was in the Government - he has never contributed anything by way of any theoretical article to show how best we can fight colonialism. The only major contribution was an article to the P.A.P.'s Fourth Anniversary Souvenir publication, and the only notable thing about this article is its title. It reads "Since I became first Mayor of Singapore". The other contributions to the souvenir dealt with such topics as "Preparing Ourselves", "The New Phase after Merdeka", "Our Economic Future", "The National Approach to the Problem of Education", and so on. As against such weighty and adult topics, the Member for Hong Lim's contribution was on the subject dearest to his heart - himself. All the four years of struggle of the P.A.P. was not worth noting. What was worth noting by the world at large was "Since I became first Mayor of Singapore". From his point of view, the history of Singapore falls into two periods - before Eng Guan, and after Eng Guan. His resentment against his Party and his colleagues in the Government springs from his belief that they have refused steadfastly to accept him as a man of destiny and a superman. So today he accuses the Government of being reactionary, of being run by pro-colonial leaders, and of being stooges of the famous trio - Blades, Meadows, and Thomson. But I think there is one man who thinks otherwise. I intend to call him to testify on our behalf. I know that next to God, this man is held in high esteem by the Member for Hong Lim. That person is no other than the former Minister for National Development. I know for a fact that the Member for Hong Lim will not dismiss the former Minister for National Development as a stooge of the Prime Minister nor as a pro-colonialist, nor as a man who can be intimidated into saying things he does not want to say. I am referring to the speech made by the former Minister for National Development in this House on 21st July, 1959, [Hansard], Vol. 11, No. 6. This was said in the course of a debate on the address of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. I am quite sure that as far as the Member for Hong Lim is concerned, there can be no higher authority on any matter. In his speech made yesterday and the day before, the Member for Hong Lim contended that in stressing the limits under which the present Government had to work, we were talking like the Progressive Party and the Lim Yew Hock Government. Yet this is what the former Minister for National Development had to say on 21st July, 1959, Hansard, col. 347, 4th paragraph: "Mr Speaker, we understand the limitations of the present Constitution, which do restrain the political power of the elected representatives of the people. We do understand those limitations. We do understand that the elected Government has to work within certain defined powers and that there are curbs and restrictions on those powers and functions which a normal fully elected Government is supposed to exercise." Was the former Minister for National Development talking like the Lim Yew Hock Government when he said this? Was he saying these things in order to fool the people of Singapore into accepting what the Member for Hong Lim now brands as a pro-colonial constitution? Yesterday, the Member for Hong Lim argued that the present Constitution is unsatisfactory because the British, to quote him, "still exercise control politically and economically and that these controls are more far-reaching in consequence than the control they exercised under the 1953 Constitution." Yet here is what the former Minister for National Development had to say on this subject, at col. 347: "Mr Speaker, we also understand that within the island state of Singapore, we also have limitations on our economy, limitations which even a magician turned Minister for Finance cannot solve. I do not envy my colleague, the Minister for Finance, for his heavy tasks. But we the P.A.P., understanding those very limitations, have come up today and accepted the responsibilities of Government because there is no choice left to the people." This confession places the former Minister for National Development in an awkward spot. From what had been said by the Member for Hong Lim, it could only mean that the former Minister for National Development assumed power and office under a constitution which he knew gave colonialism a tighter grip on the Island's economy. I wish, Sir, that the former Minister for National Development were here to defend himself against the smear that he is a colonial stooge. I am sure he would have dealt with the Member for Hong Lim in a language that would constrain you to call him to order. But fortunately the former Minister for National Development is not here. Again, Sir, yesterday the Member for Hong Lim described the Minister for Finance as belonging to the pro-colonial faction of the Government. And yet the former Minister for National Development expressed high regard for the Minister for Finance. In fact, he said that he understood the limitations on our economy which "even a magician turned Minister for Finance cannot solve." And he also said. "I do not envy my colleague, the Minister for Finance." And he went on to say that he could not understand why Members of the Opposition had spent so many days debating and yet were not able to contribute any constructive ideas to the running of the Government machinery but just to attack the Government, especially the Minister for Finance. The Member for Hong Lim also suggested that we were supporters of colonialism if we continued to work under the present Constitution. Yet the former Minister for National Development, after outlining the limitations of the present Constitution, said we would be shirking our duty if we failed to work the present Constitution. I quote col. 347: "The masses cannot get what they want - even the basic necessities which any modern Government should be able to provide. And it is the task of the P.A.P. Government, knowing the political and the economic limitations of the present situation, to come up and accept the responsibility of this Government, as we did so in the City Council. When we were in the City Council, our powers were as limited within the framework of the Constitution as our powers now in the present Government are limited within the present framework of the new Constitution. But we will be taking a wrong move if we refuse to accept the responsibility of Government." Sir, I am not trying to create bad blood between the former Minister for National Development and the Member for Hong Lim, because I know a bond of mutual admiration exists between them. But the point that needs to be clarified is whether the former Minister for National Development was or was not deceiving the people knowingly by saying things which he did not believe to be true. The Member for Hong Lim now contends that this Constitution is a fraud and that we should now reopen talks with a view to liquidating the remnants of colonialism, that is, fight for the independence of Singapore. Yet the former Minister for National Development suggested, in that same speech, the course to be followed in order to gain independence for Singapore. I quote col. 348: "Our way is the way of ultimate independence through merger with the Federation, and before that is achieved we have to accept whatever limitations are imposed on this Government by the so-called new Constitution - limitations imposed on us in this island State with no raw materials. In the short-term policy - that is, the providing of the basic necessities of life to the 14 million people of this island - and in our long-term policy of attainment of reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, one thing is paramount and that is, Mr Speaker, the unity of all the communities and the races in Malaya." That was the strategy that the former Minister for National Development advocated was necessary to achieve independence for Singapore. So, I do not know whether the former Minister would therefore be described as being pro-colonialist or pro-Meadows, Thomson, Blades, or a stooge, if he continued to talk in the fashion that we are talking today. Now, it may be that the Member for Hong Lim might - one never knows how he behaves - decide to attack the former Minister for National Development in this fashion, If he has such intentions, may I draw the attention of the Member for Hong Lim to another far-sighted remark made by the former Minister for National Development: the former Minister knew that there would be opportunity for demagogues - and not very bright demagogues at that - to exploit the limitations that the present Constitution imposes. Any petty demagogue, the former Minister for National Development knew, could try to embarrass the Government by taking ultra Left lines. For all I know, he might have had people like the Member for Hong Lim in mind when he made the following observations (col. 348): "Because of the limitations of the Constitution, the role of the Opposition is even much more important than ever. The role of the Opposition is to provide constructive criticism to the Government and not just to attack the Government in all its policies. We have heard speeches from the Opposition Benches and I have not even heard for one single moment any Opposition speaker give any constructive ideas. Perhaps the hon. Members in the Opposition are not capable of doing it. Then what they should do is not to speak too long." We have been listening to the 16 resolutions which the Member for Hong Lim and his comrades have been offering the nation for the last two months. Not so long ago, the Member for Hong Lim held a public lecture on "How to Fight Colonialism". None of the speakers put forward any concrete measures on how to fight colonialism. Not one of the speakers was able to put forward as effective a strategy as that put forward by the P.A.P. and endorsed by the former . Minister for National Development. For example, one of the resolutions asked that the Singapore Government should reopen talks with the United Kingdom with a view to revising the Constitution. What we are not told, however, is in what way the Constitution should be revised; If what is asked for is that we should have complete independence, then the former Minister for National Development agreed that it was not practicable for two reasons. First. having regard to the power situation in this part of the world, the British would not agree to such a proposition in any case. Secondly, independence for a small island like Singapore would be a phoney independence. Economically, politically and militarily, even an independent Singapore cannot withstand outside pressures. These are not new arguments. They were thrashed out publicly in the Tanjong Pagar by-election and in public speeches by P.A.P. leaders, in articles and editorials in the Party publications long before the elections. The contention then was that we had no choice but to accept what we described as three-quarters Merdeka, and it was first propounded in the Petir, our Party publication, as far back as May, 1956, three years before the general elections. I have looked through the past issues of Petir for contributions by the Member for Hong Lim for any dissenting opinion from him; and for a man who now poses as the leading theoretician of anti-colonialism in Singapore, together with the Member for Aljunied, there appear to have been no more than one or two articles in all these four years from him. Nor did he ever raise any objections with any of his Party colleagues during the three years discussion took place about what should be the strategy we should adopt in the particular situation obtaining in Singapore. The choice as we saw it then, and as we see it now, is that we either accepted power under conditions of qualified independence, or left colonialism to carry on through Right-wing forces who would have wiped out not only the Leftwing adventurers but the non-Communist Left as well. That is the choice still, and the Member for Hong Lim, apart from slogans, has not produced one cogent argument or constructive suggestion as to how and why the anti-colonial fight could be carried out by other means. Another of the 16 resolutions demands that we should hold talks with the Federation Government for merger. Fine. But how does he propose that we should do it? Do we summon the Federation leaders and say, "The time has now come to talk of merger, because the Member for Hong Lim says so."? Or do we send an ultimatum to the Federation leaders telling them that either they start talks on merger or else the Member for Hong Lim will invade their territory with his liberation army? The Member for Hong Lim knows that we have done everything we can do to get the Federation interested in merger. He also knows that merger will not come simply by demanding it.. He knows that it is a long delicate process of convincing the people of the Federation, in particular the Malays, that they have nothing to fear from merger and everything to gain as a result. The Member for Hong Lim knows all this, because when he was still in the Party he was convinced that our strategy was the best strategy to gain eventual independence for Singapore. The Member for Hong Lim, by bringing forward resolutions which he knows to be impracticable, is doing so in order to offer his services to the Left-wing adventurers who used to twist his tail once upon a time. In his speech yesterday, he said that he bore no ill-will towards the Left-wing adventurers who tried to oust him from the Party. He did not take this Christian attitude of forgiving his enemies at the time when he was smarting under defeat. He was all for fixing them. But now that he has no longer any following within the P.A.P., he offers his services to these adventurers because, in his present plight, he cannot afford to be choosey. As the Prime Minister said the day before what the Left-wing adventurers want is an atmosphere of tension and uncertainty, and that is why the Member for Hong Lim comes forward with resolutions which he knows are impracticable and foolish. But that is the price he has to pay for the support of the adventurers who he thinks would reinstate him into the superman that he thinks he should be. And the Left-wing adventurers have a different reason for wanting the Member for Hong Lim to raise these phoney issues. The P.A.P. is a non-Communist socialist Party, and it is necessary for Left-wing adventurers, who are not as clear-headed and as realistic as they should be, to show that a non-Communist socialist Party cannot satisfy the needs of the masses for a better life. They fear probably that the P.A.P. might show the masses that a non-Communist, socialist democracy can work in Singapore, and in Malaya eventually. So it is necessary to take action now to prevent the P.A.P. from succeeding in its experiment, and in order to do that, it is necessary to revive tension and uncertainty to make sure that no economic and stable political development takes place. So that they can say, "There you are. Non-Communist socialism cannot work." Another reason is perhaps that by reviving tension and uncertainty, they hope to drive the P.A.P. into the arms of either the Right-wing, and thus discrediting itself in the eyes of the masses or, they hope, into the arms of the Left-wing adventurers, who have been increasingly disturbed by the fact that the P.A.P., during the last one year, has not accepted any control from them, and has chosen to act independently in the interest of the P.A.P. and nobody else. And that is a situation which they are not prepared to tolerate. What they want is to create tension to force us into their arms so that they can manipulate the P.A.P. to serve their own interest. Whatever happens, they can be sure that the P.A.P. has no intention of becoming dependent either on the Right or Left-wing adventurers, and the Member for Hong Lim would be better advised to tell his manipulators so. Sir, the Member for Hong Lim also complains that the Government was intimidating the Press, and, as a result, his speeches and those of his comrades got only 500 words, and that of Mr George Thomson, he complains, got 2,500 words. It is true that the Government discussed the matter of Ong Eng Guan with the representatives of the local Press. We explained to the Press representatives the nature of the game that the Member for Hong Lim was playing, and that was to whip up tension and agitation by circulating fabricated stories, inaccuracies which he hoped would provide fuel to inflame passions, and, therefore, create a situation in which it could be said that the whole of Singapore has risen in support of the 16 resolutions. He knew that he was not putting forward his point of view or stating his case, but he was quite prepared to use the newspapers to create a situation which could lead to public disorder. There was no intimidation. I explained these things to the Press. In fact, one of the newspapers informed us that they had already decided, after the first Press conference by the Member for Hong Lim - to quote the words of the editor concerned - "to cut out any drivel". They agreed, and we also agreed with them, that if he said anything worthwhile, anything new, anything which was legitimate, they would print it, but that they would keep a look-out for any material which they knew to be either fabricated or calculated to inflame passions, and then they would, of their own accord, cut down stories of that nature. For example, the Member for Hong Lim can fabricate news. Let me give a few instances. He made the charge that at the Party conference last June, the place was surrounded by secret police armed with guns. Again he charged that Assemblymen had been intimidated personally by the Prime Minister into denouncing him and his action. In fact, I think the day before yesterday, he even said that an article under my name in the Petir of 14th July was really not written by me but by the Prime Minister. Well, Sir, for something like 15 years I have earned my living by writing for newspapers, and, that being so, I think I am quite capable of writing my own speeches. In fact, that particular article was only a reproduction of a speech I made before 150 Party members, and it was also made impromptu. There was no written script. Secondly, the Prime Minister was not at that meeting, because he happened to be away from Singapore on that day. The Member for Hong Lim knows all that. But he fabricated this story purely in the hope of convincing the people outside that the Minister for Culture is really a pro-Ong Eng Guan man, but that he has been made to say things, he has had his arms twisted by the Prime Minister, who wrote his articles and his speeches. In fact, yesterday, the Member for Hong Lim reached new heights of recklessness by repeating inaccurate statements about Indonesian soldiers invading Singapore. He also tried to exploit the issue of Nanyang University, which he knows is a delicate and highly emotional issue. I would say that the Member for Hong Lim has politically reached the point of no return, and I have no doubt that in the coming month, his remarks will reach new heights of recklessness on the basis of "after me the deluge". Again, the Member for Hong Lim raised the issue of the two journalists recently detained. He doubted whether they were really K.M.T. agents. He claimed that they were arrested because they attended his Press conference. Let me briefly give the background of these two journalists. Wong Chin Sen, one of the detained journalists, had long worked for K.M.T. papers. In 1956 he was sent for studies in Taiwan and attended a K.M.T. school for cadres on political service, taking what they call a post-graduate course for overseas graduates. This included, Mr Wong admitted, living in a military camp and being taught military drill and discipline. In 1955 he was one of the four K.M.T. personalities behind the organisation of an anti-Communist movement among Rightist students of the Chung Cheng High School. The purpose was to recruit young people to go to Taiwan for higher education, which also included K.M.T. indoctrination and, no doubt, military training as well. The other journalist, Loke Peng Lum, had also been long associated with K.M.T. organisations which we regard as subversive organisations, because their purpose is to encourage local citizens to be loyal to the Taiwan Government. Mr Loke also worked for K.M.T. papers and admitted to being a K.M.T. member. He was trained in the Central Military Academy in Hung Chiang. So this is the record of the K.M.T. activities that these two journalists had pursued. Prior to their arrest, they were working for the Tiger Press which, since its inception, has consistently published stories which, more often than not, were fabricated and completely false, with the intention of creating dissatisfaction against the present Government. This is not surprising for two reasons. First, the proprietor of the concern had instructed the journalists that he wanted anti-P.A.P. stories - stories which would discredit the P.A.P. Secondly, because many of the staff of the Tiger Press consist of journalists who had to get away from Singapore as a result of Government's action against mosquito and yellow publications. So, K.M.T. journalists, graduates of yellow newspapers, a proprietor who has given instructions that all he is interested in are anti-P.A.P. stories - all these three elements conspired together not to publish news but to fabricate stories. We ignored these mischievous stories for a while. In fact, we drew the attention of the managing editor of the paper that while we did not care two hoots whether they criticised us or not, we would not tolerate fabricated stories prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In fact, very often, they published stories which were calculated to rouse communal prejudices and hatred. For example, they had a story when there was a controversy over the Nanyang University issue;. claiming that the Prime Minister had decided to boycott the Nanyang University convocation. The intent was to arouse suspicion among the people in Singapore that the present Government and the Party had suddenly become adherents of anti-Chinese culture and anti-Nanyang University. And at a time when feelings could be aroused, this paper continued to publish completely fabricated stories. They admitted they were fabricated and, in fact, the two journalists confessed that they knew that what they and the Tiger Press were doing was such as to invite trouble for themselves from the Government. So, Sir, when the Ong Eng Guan affair came into prominence, the Tiger Press, with the aid of these two journalists, published irresponsible and false stories which could have led to serious disturbances. The K.M.T., like their counterparts, the Left-wing adventurers, were interested in fishing in troubled waters - not only fishing but to stir up the water as well. For example, during the excitement over the Ong Eng Guan affair, the Tiger Press published a story from their Singapore correspondent saying that Lim Ching Siong had been put under house arrest. The story was completely false. The journalist concerned knew it was false, but there was no doubt what the purpose was. They felt that in the tension created by the controversy over the Ong Eng Guan issue, a story like this could create dismay and agitation among the followers of Mr Lim Ching Siong, and possibly could lead to disturbances which would suit the purpose of the K.M.T. It was because of these sustained, mischievous stories calculated to incite people and possibly threaten public order that we decided to take action against the two journalists long before the Ong Eng Guan affair came into prominence. It is true that we thought that the two journalists, having regard to their past record, would not have hesitated one moment to fabricate further stories which could have led to disturbances and possibly far more serious consequences. It was for that reason that we decided to take in the two journalists and detain them. Perhaps, it is not surprising that the Member for Hong Lim should now find himself in a position where he has not only to fall back on the support of K.M.T. agents but to defend them as well. Sir, yesterday and the day before yesterday, the Member for Hong Lim challenged the Government to say what were the mistakes it had made during the past year. If it is any consolation to the Member for Hong Lim, let us say that the biggest mistake was the Member for Hong Lim. The biggest mistake we made was appointing the Member for Hong Lim to the important post of Minister for National Development. The Opposition also know this. That is why some of the more awkward questions they have directed at the Government very often concerned the work of the Ministry of National Development. The Ministry, under the former Minister for National Development, we admit, constituted our Achilles heel. The former Minister spent so much time plotting against his colleagues that he had little time or energy left to carry on the more important but less exciting tasks of building houses for the people and providing the architects and technicians to build schools, roads and hospitals.. After all the oratory and thunder about social revolution during the past year, the Minister for National Development claims that he has built no more than 124 units. Sir, this was simply because the former Minister had reorganised his Ministry so thoroughly that when you pressed the button, the wheels did not turn. He had malayanised his Ministry so completely that there were not enough architects and technicians to carry out Government plans of reconstruction. However, Sir, we are not evading responsibility for what he did. The mistakes that the Member for Hong Lim made we will accept as the mistakes of the Government. In fact, Sir, until he raised this challenge, we had not decided publicly to pin responsibility for the blunders in the Ministry of National Development on him, but since he has challenged us, we shall say that he was the biggest mistake of all. That was one of the reasons we had to remove him from the Government; to isolate him, to deprive him of his powers gradually, because we knew that if he had been allowed to go on as he did, then the Ministry would have collapsed. The Government projects and plans would have been brought to nothing. All we could have done then was to ask the Minister for National Development to go out personally and put up houses, bus shelters and standpipes, which I am quite sure he would have attempted to do. In fact, it was this knowledge on the part of the Minister for National Development that his Ministry's plans of reorganisation and Malayanisation policy were gradually coming to naught which prompted him to call the whole thing off and declare the Constitution unworkable. It is far nicer, he thinks, to make meaningless speeches about anti-colonialism. It does not at present need great ability to sit down and write speeches - perhaps have speeches written for him by others - but it needs a little more ability to sit down quietly and put in hard constructive work. Sir, the Member for Hong Lim has now embarked on a new career. But this time, this man would probably meet with more than verbal censure if he should show the kind of loyalty he has shown to his former colleagues and Party to which he owes such prestige and respect as he may still enjoy among the people. Also now that he has gone to the side of the Opposition, may I also add the warning that since he has failed to subvert the Government on this side of the House, it is possible that there would be more dissension within the ranks of the Opposition? Anyway, Sir, I wish the Member for Hong Lim success in his new career of adventurism. May his Left-wing adventurers have mercy on his soul when they decide they have had enough of him. 3.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Prime Minister's motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his policy speech last month. As a member of the P.A.P., I am proud of its record of work in the past. Mr Speaker, Sir, in spite of the strong criticisms made by hon. Members on the opposite side, the people have clearly seen how the Government has solved many of the difficult problems left by the Lim Yew Hock Government, and how we have fulfilled our Party's promises to them. The prosperity and stability of this State in the past one year will surely win the confidence of the masses. If we can only have a more secure environment, we can bring about greater prosperity and happiness to the people. The P.A.P. has always been a Party which has the courage to face reality. It is because of this fact that we called a meeting to discuss the work done in the past one year. We will continue to make further improvements and effect timely rectification of our past mistakes, so that we will be more efficient in our tasks in the coming year. Hence, in the policy speech, we have boldly admitted our few mistakes and shortcomings in the past one year. We are not like the old Lim Yew Hock Government which concealed their foul deeds. When they could no longer do so, they became corrupted, and their organisation collapsed. It is not a habit of the P.A.P. to make false promises. The policy handbook published by us at the time of the General Elections is our guide. Our general policy on women has been firm and realistic. The past one year has been of great significance to them. Under the guidance of the Government, the women's movement in Singapore has made favourable progress. The humiliations and tragedies suffered by women have disappeared for good with the collapse of the old government. In order that they might enjoy legal protection and basic human rights, the Minister for Labour and Law recently introduced the Women's Charter which will usher in a new era for women. In accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Charter, we shall make amendments to the Charter. To protect the interests of girls and women, the Government has also taken firm steps to deal with people who live on the earnings of prostitutes. The women and girls' section of the Ministry of Labour has cooperated with the Police anti-vice squad in making surprise raids on hotels. Preventive measures have also been instituted. All hotels used for immoral purposes were ordered to close business and the proprietors concerned were punished. The service provided for the settlement of family disputes is even more comprehensive. Female magistrates will be appointed to deal with cases of maintenance allowance. A female magistrate has already been appointed to deal with juvenile delinquency. Regarding Government's policy on housing, there is a statement in our booklet on our Five-Year Plan which reads as follows: `It is important we should build low-cost housing units so that housing would be within the means of the poorer classes of the public. At the same time, housing units will have to be designed to suit the needs of the people employed in various occupations.' Owing to the administrative mess in the various sections of .the S.I.T. under the old Government, much time was spent in reorganising the administrative work during the past one year. Today, under the positive direction, of the P.A.P Government, many housing :schemes are in progress. When the Housing Board was established, it estimated that for the next 10 years at least 14,000 units of houses should be built annually in order to solve the housing problem. However, owing to the defective organisation of the S.I.T. in the Urn Yew Hock era, there was only an annual output of over 1,000 units of houses. That is why there is still a housing shortage in Singapore. I must point out that the P.A.P. Government is one which looks after the interests of the poor. The Housing Development Board has plans to build en masse low-cost houses to meet the needs of the workers. A housing project is included in the Five-Year Development Plan. Under this project, it is estimated that a total of 52,000 units or an annual average of over 10,000 units will be built in Queenstown, MacPherson Road, Kampong Tiong Bahru, Alexandra Road, Kallang and Toa Payoh. In short, the Government, taking into consideration the economic situation in the State will press on with its tasks ahead. The Members on the opposite side want to confuse the people. They only know how to shout a lot of slogans or suggest many impracticable plans. We must take into consideration the limitations within which to achieve our objectives. The shouting of a few slogans will not be of benefit to the people. Our stand is firm. We are determined to strive for the completion of the Five-Year Plan and to struggle for the building of an independent, democratic, non-Communist and united Malaya. 3.44 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me on behalf of the people of Choa Chu Kang express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech delivered on 20th July, 1960, at the opening of the second session of this Assembly. I have made a thorough study of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's policy speech which dispassionately reviews the Government's achievements during the past year and which sets out the future construction plans and the Bills to be introduced. The great achievements of the past 14 months should be attributed to the understanding and co-operation of the people and the correct guidance of the Government. We should not be complacent with these achievements, because we have still a long way to reach our goal. However, these achievements will stimulate us to further efforts in order to, fulfill the mission bestowed on us by the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be inappropriate if there is only praise without admitting our mistakes. During the past 14 months, we did make some mistakes, but they have been rectified. Moreover, this Government will make use of the past experience gained to pave the way for nation building and it will adopt a realistic approach to deal with the affairs of the State. Mr Speaker, Sir, though Singapore is a tiny island dependent on its entrepot trade, a lot of its people live on farming and poultry breeding in the rural areas. This section of the people do not live in peace and happiness, as they are supposed to be. They work day and night on the farms and yet, due to the high cost of fertilizers and the unreasonable prices offered by the purchasers of their crops, they are unable to pay their debts from the proceeds. Superficially they have farms full of green vegetables but, as a matter of fact, they are all the time facing the embarrassing situation of whether to pay their bills, thereby getting a new supply of fertilizers, or to keep the money for the livelihood and go without the fertilizers. Further, if the landowners irrationally reclaim the land, they have to face yet another grievous problem. Although there is a group of farmers whose incomes may not be below the subsistence level, they number only a few. Mr Speaker, Sir, as a result of the combined effort of the labour of the people and the research work of the Veterinary Department, the production of chickens, ducks and pigs is increasing with the times and the poultry strains are being constantly improved. Therefore, our poultry quality is not inferior to that of advanced countries. Our production of eggs not only meets the demands of the island's population but it can also be exported to neighbouring countries. Unfortunately, the local production of eggs has been recently handicapped by the imposition of a tariff by the Federation of Malaya and our own free trade policy. Consequently in the face of this keen competition, the producers' incomes have been much reduced. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 1, paragraph 4 of col. 11 and paragraph 1 of col. 13, you will see that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has expressed the intention of the Government. Here after, this Government will pay attention to internal influences, and it will introduce mechanical techniques and provide medical facilities in order that the farmers and poultry rearers can increase their production and raise their standard of living. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you have been to the rural areas, you will easily find out the unbalanced development between rural and urban areas. In view of this, a Rural Services Advisory Council has been set up to adjust the unbalanced development, that is to say, to look after the forgotten interests in those areas, and to provide services of all kinds. This Council has been carrying on its work smoothly for a year - supplying electricity to densely populated areas, erecting street lamps, laying water mains and installing standpipes in water-shortage areas, constructing proper .drainage systems in low-lying and swampy areas, paving pedestrian side-paths to roads where school-children cross, or where traffic is heavy, building public roads and agricultural roads to facilitate traffic of vehicles and villagers, constructing bus-stop sheds for the convenience of the residents, repairing damaged roads to prevent accidents, and also building children's playgrounds, roofing urban drainage, improving back-lanes, etc. The Council is paying special regard to areas neglected by the past government and is giving priority to these areas to provide all the necessary services; whereas the plans for areas specially favoured by the previous government are temporarily laid off, while their funds are allotted to other areas badly needing improvement. Hon. Members here can clearly see that the Government has not changed from its previous policy or deviated from its election promises, and that the Council will exert more efforts to serve areas needing priority. Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to increase social services for the 60,000 babies born every year, Government must expand school, hospital and housing facilities. In achieving this, we have to utilise more and more lands. Contrasting the limited land available and the unlimited increase in the population, it is evident that in future some arable lands will be acquired by Government for social purposes. Thus the land holdings will be reduced, unless Government build more and more skyscrapers at present. The people must look for some other outlets for their families' surplus labour. This situation is already taking place. The families of workers in urban areas are increasing and the children after leaving school have to look for jobs. If I am not mistaken, there are at least 30,000 children leaving school every year, of whom only a small number go for further study. The rest enter the labour field, thus increasing the existing figure of 48,000 unemployed. Mr Speaker, I believe you and the Members of this House understand the work of the Government. Any government has to face the problems of unemployment, whatever its political system is. The question is whether the government will assuage and solve the problem or let the situation deteriorate. Mr Speaker, Sir, being a responsible government, we have to find a solution and the best solution is to industrialise. If we fail to industrialise the whole State, then the government will in consequence succumb to the pressure of the unemployed, despite its tremendous capabilities. The P.A.P. Government never shouts empty slogans; during the past 14 months, over $100 million capital has been invested in this country. This investment is a concrete proof of our realistic approach and our attainments. On the other hand, the Government is taking further positive action by providing 2,438½ acres of land in Jurong. Can anyone simply say that this Government does not shoulder its responsibilities? Can anyone allege that this Government has not done anything to solve the problem of unemployment? I think the Member for Mountbatten is still hibernating - sitting in the yard and looking at the sky. Mr Speaker, Sir, now that the politicians, economists and those concerned unanimously recognize the importance of industrialisation, I do not intend to touch on the problems of a Common Market, raw materials and technicians. But I would like to say something relevant to the relationship between employers and employees. If there happens to be industrial unrest and no solution can be found during the industrialization stage then the industrialization plan will be handicapped. Of course, industrial peace must not be maintained at the great expense of either party, but it can be maintained through negotiations between workers and employers, their mutual understanding and cooperation and the impartiality and rationality on the part of the Government. Perhaps in performing this function we may come across frustration and difficulties, but if all parties concerned can, use the medium of negotiation in the, interests of the country, I cannot see why industrial peace cannot be maintained. Members of this House will be happy to see that a Labour Advisory Council will be set up consisting of representatives of both the employers and Government. Its functions have been elaborated on by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in his policy speech. I firmly believe that industrial schemes and the maintenance of industrial peace will be much benefited from a comprehensive study and joint discussions. I am here congratulating in advance their successful performance. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this age of scientific inventions and the rapid growth of industries, scientific and technical training and the raising of the cultural level among the workers and farmers are indispensable in order to carry out industrial expansion. This Government has devoted much of its efforts to the development of the Polytechnic and other technical institutions in order to train and provide more technicians for the industries. The elimination of illiteracy is a great and difficult task, and should be shouldered by every section of the community. Since the introduction of the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa Bill in this House, the Board has been set up this year and action has been taken to carry out the programme. Iii his speech on "The Problem of Adult Education" over Radio Singapore last night, the President of the Council, Mr C. V. Devan Nair, clearly described the purposes and the activities of the Board. Excuse me now for quoting an extract from his speech for the benefit of hon. Members so that they can better understand its significance. The third paragraph of his speech reads: `The success of a democratic society depends on the participation of its citizens in its democratic activities. In our society, the social, political, cultural and economical behaviour of the majority of our people will decide our direction and objectives we are heading for. We must bear in mind blind thought will create blind action, which in turn will bring about regrettable consequences. On the other hand, correct thought will bring about wise action, as a result of which we will be able to head for our significant and understandable objectives.'

Will the Member give the name and date of that paper?

(In Mandarin): Nanyang Siang Pau, page 2. Mr Speaker, Sir, this long-term campaign for eliminating illiteracy will teach the people their duties to the society and, furthermore, raise their cultural level in order' that they can better master their work in industrialization and other aspects. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the last two days, the Member for Hong Lim has kept on boasting about his ointment in his old tune accompanied by a broken Chinese violin. He boasted extravagantly about his sacred ointment and his dental technique. But he was crazy; he forgot that an intelligent audience was aware what sort of ointment he was publicising. Of course, people can understand that a dentist graduated from a dental college with complete equipment is more efficient than a quack dentist with only a simple tool and that the qualified dentist is more able to extract teeth without causing pain and even substitute a new set of teeth. Yet the quack dentist still blows his trumpet and beats his drum all over the place. Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. is no magician playing tricks to deceive the people. We will never boast to the people that we can make Singapore as big as Malaya at a glance. Nor will we boast that we can make Singapore full of large factories overnight. We are not capable of those tricks. Mr Speaker, Sir, those who have closely watched the conditions in our country and also the hon. Members here all know that, now in Singapore, if there is no industrialization or if industrialization fails, what conditions Singapore will face and what kind of serious test parliamentary democracy will face; and developing thereafter, what kind of a position will emerge? Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government is reforming our society with reason, dispassion and a realistic attitude, and also in accordance with the mission entrusted to us by the people. The responsibility of the Government, on the one hand, is to see that the people will get a just and reasonable share of their labour and enjoy good social services. On the other hand, the Government must maintain industrial peace, and assuage the wave of increasing unemployment so as to maintain social order. These are our principles and objectives. No force of whatever kind can shake or deviate us from our belief. Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Prime Minister's motion. 4.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion before the House. I just want to deal with certain matters raised by the Member for Hong Lim. The Member for Hong Lim during his speech told the House that the present Government did not malayanise but was doing the reverse thing. What did he mean by that? Does he want to malayanise the Government departments as he did during his regime in the City Council, and while he was in control of the departments of the Ministry of National Development? If we were to follow his advice, we would have been left with no architects and no engineers to build houses and carry out our programme. It is no secret that he planted his friends who studied with him in Australia and friends from Batu Pahat in key posts. A salesman who had no qualifications or experience was appointed as Deputy Chief Administrative Officer in the City Council. Another of his men was appointed to look after the health of one and a half million people. This gentleman closed the incinerator which caused rubbish to pile up and flies to breed. The assessment on houses was raised without considering the after effects. 400 S.I.T. houses were put up for sale without consultation or without the approval of the Cabinet. Had there been a qualified and efficient civil servant who knew his duties, he would have advised the Member for Hong Lim against such moves. Is this the kind of Malayanisation the Member wants us to put through? The Member for Hong Lim spoke about Mr Thomson. He alleged that Mr Thomson brainwashed the Assemblymen. It is true that Mr Thomson gave the Assemblymen two lectures on the Singapore Constitution, but he never gave us any lecture on socialism, as alleged by the Member for Aljunied in his speech at the Badminton Hall The Member for Mountbatten also attended these lectures. She will testify whether Mr Thomson ever gave us any lecture on socialism. Then it was alleged in this Assembly by the Member for Hong Lim that Mr Thomson wrote speeches for Assemblymen. From the speech I am making, all of us here can see for themselves whether this speech is written by a lecturer of the calibre of Mr Thomson. Regarding the allegation by the Member for Mountbatten that she was not invited to the visits by Assemblymen to the various police stations, all I can say is that it is not true. I received the circular in which I saw the names of Opposition Members. Of course, the Opposition Members would have received these circulars but they might have decided not to attend. Then again, propaganda was made by the Member for Hong Lim yesterday and the day before yesterday that the Organising Secretary of the Tanjong Pagar Branch was shouting "Merdeka" outside the City Hall steps when we, the P.A.P. Assemblymen, marched towards the Assembly House two weeks ago when the Yang di-Pertuan Negara opened this Session. The records of this House will show, and also many members of the public who sat on the public gallery also can testify, that this gentleman, the Organising Secretary of the Tanjong Pagar Branch, was sitting in the public gallery of this House on that day and not outside this House or outside the City Hall steps. From what I have said, I think there is no need for me to tell this House that the Member for Hong Lim is trying to out-do Herr Goebbels. 4.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, no one can doubt that the policy speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is a historical document. It is a detailed policy directed towards the urgent needs of the people of Singapore at the present stage. It meets the interests of the masses. This policy speech very eloquently shows the realistic attitude of the Government - standing on firm ground - in the tackling of major national problems. Past Governments had never been able to produce such a far-sighted and optimistic plan for work. The Lim Yew Hock Government was only a transitional caretaker Government which lived out its time, like the monk who peels his daily round of bells for so long as he is a monk. Its policy was just a patched assortment of a few plans. How could it be compared with that of the P.A.P. Government, which has been worked out after careful consideration? The Member for Hong Lim has said that our policy is the same as that of the Lim Yew Hock Government. This obviously shows that he is pointing at a deer and saying that it is a horse, and confusing the distinction between what is black and what is white. He is trying to sell some cheap propaganda. The characteristic feature of our policy statement is that we shall lay on the small island of Singapore a foundation for the initial stage of industrialisation. We all know that the one-million-over population of Singapore eagerly hope to live in peaceful and secure surroundings. People want the Government to solve for them the problem of unemployment, to find for them homes in which they can live, and to create more places in schools for their children to study. A Government which can satisfy these three basic needs is a successful Government. What must we do before we can achieve these aims? According to our understanding, only by maintaining the entrepot status of Singapore and free enterprise on the one hand, and accelerating industrialisation on the other can we hope to solve the problems confronting us. This concept does not come about only today. This is also not my personal idea. This concept was stated earlier in the P.A.P.'s Five-Year Plan election outlines, and was enthusiastically supported by the people. Therefore, the most outstanding question in our policy speech debate today is how to solve the problems of our daily life through industrialisation, thus changing Singapore into a secure, peaceful and prosperous society. This has always been our declared policy which has not increased or decreased a bit. That we have changed our policy and not kept our promises could only be uttered by lunatics and maniacs. Of course, we hope that such a man will go to the Woodbridge Hospital. The factual problems of livelihood are complicated and require us to work hard to solve them. How can the solution be based only by shouting one or two anti-colonial slogans? Maybe there are people who fancy this. Then, they must be revolutionaries who are floating in the air. 4.20 p.m.

The Member for Hong Lim has said that there are many pro-colonial inclinations in our policy speech. But where are the proofs? He cannot bring out any proof. In the past two days, he could not read out a single so-called pro-colonial part. Such doings can only reflect the attitude of the Member for Hong Lim towards others, creating rumours and smearing, giving out cheap propaganda without substantiating it. But let me tell you, the P.A.P. is a Party which has grown in its struggle against colonialism. No one can change its character. No matter how the Member for Hong Lim and his two followers smear, there are still stout anti-colonial fighters in our rank and file. In the statement commemorating the 4th anniversary of our Party, we have said that there should be flexibility in the struggle against colonialism. There are many bends in the way. To be anti-colonialist is not so simple as the Member for Hong Lim thinks, like pushing the white men into the sea. The real task is to restore the sense of personal pride in the people and to heal the sores in our economy which had been exploited by colonialism. Does the Member for Hong Lim think deeply about this problem? Does our rigorous educational work not prove that we have begun destroying the foolish and ignorant situation left over by the colonial rule? Is this not a positive expression? We suggest building an industrialised city. Does this not mean we have begun to eliminate poverty and unemployment left over by the colonial rule? Is this not positive action? What do the Member for Hong Lim and his followers know about anti-colonialism? Today, only frustrated politicians and hooligans still take anti-colonial slogans as their life-saving panacea. Any Ah Mau, Ah Kou [Tom, Dick and Harry] will shout anti-colonial slogans. Even the president of the canine-feline society recently called a meeting to discuss this problem. What is the difference between the ballyhoo by the Member for Hong Lim and that by his good friend, the president of the canine-feline society? We all thought that the Member for Hong Lim would, after six weeks of shouting at his Press conference, have some grand ideas concerning anti-colonialism to be expounded in this House. We were all ready for the attack. We all wished we could kill a tiger as Wu Sung did. But we were terribly disappointed. What we saw was only a pale, sick little cat. What we saw was only the bitterness and dissatisfaction of one who, after abusing his authority, had it stripped off. It is only natural that he would express his anger and dissatisfaction, just like the howling of an Alsatian dog after the extraction of its teeth.

Order. I do not think it is proper for an hon. Member to accuse another Member of the House here and draw similes to a dog. I think that should be withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): In the Chinese language we say "cat and dog". That is Chinese usage. It is nothing serious. "Ah Mau, Ah Kou" [cat and dog] may be said to be equivalent to "Tom, Dick and Harry" in English.

Order. I do not know the Chinese language, but I have the interpretation, and I want an unconditional withdrawal.

(In Mandarin): I have to explain that the so-called expression "cat and dog" in Chinese phraseology means "Tom, Dick and Harry" in English.

I have given a ruling, and I shall insist upon a withdrawal.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because of the difference in the Chinese and English languages, I am obliged to withdraw this phrase. But I have to make it clear that I do not mean that he is a dog or a cat. We heard the Member for Hong Lim speak for two days. What did we get? From where did he derive his inspiration of the anti-colonialistic concept? It is from what the previous Member for Changi, Mr Lim Cher Kheng, had spoken! He quoted some phrases without regard to the context of the past policy statement of the P.A.P. to stuff his empty speech.. His two-day speech only proves to us that his thinking is childish and empty. Therefore, what we heard were smears and unfounded and blind accusations. He said the Government had sent Special Branch agents to intimidate his followers. But when the Minister for Home Affairs yesterday asked him to substantiate his accusation with concrete evidence, he could not. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have no intention to change this House into a scolding party. I do not mean to further strike a fallen dog. As the Member for Hong Lim says -

Again reference has been made to an animal. I wish to make it clear to the Member that he must not make any more references of that nature, and I want the reference made just now withdrawn.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I say a few words?

On a point of order?

On a point of information.

The hon. Member is asking for information?

Yes.

If the Member will give way. Mr Low Por Tuck resumed his seat.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Member for Havelock when he says "Ta lo sui kou", he is using the Chinese idiom and not the literal expression of meaning to hit down a dog? I would appeal to the interpreters to be more careful in their interpretation.

(In Mandarin): May I ask whether the Deputy Speaker wants me to withdraw this term? Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Hong Lim said that we do not have thorough anti-colonial and Malayanisation policies. What he pointed out was that Thomson, Meadows and Blades are not yet sacked. According to his logic, the most ideal anti-colonial work is to sack Thomson, Meadows and Blades and employ people like Owen, Lui Boon Poh, Lui Boon Phor and Low Chye Chuan. These people are either his fellow students in Australia or his neighbours in Batu Pahat. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is anti-colonialism really as simple as that? Will there really be universal peace by the sacking of Thomson, etc.? At his so-called Press meetings and the mass meeting and in this House, the Member for Hong Lim brought up this Mr Owen. When he was a Minister, the Member for Hong Lim called Owen back from Australia to become the Treasurer of the City Council. What great abilities Owen really has, we do not know. But we know one simple fact. Owen was the Member for Hong Lim's classmate when he studied accountancy in Australia. From this, we can see that the thinking of the Member for Hong Lim is very simple. According to his understanding, the so-called Malayanisation means not the substitution of capable local people in place of expatriate officers, but the substitution of Ong Eng Guan's people for expatriate officers. According to his way of thinking, the so-called Malayanisation is only "Ong Eng Guanisation". The technical personnel he employed came from Australia, because the Member for Hong Lim was a student in Australia. The administrative personnel he employed came from Batu Pahat, because that was his home town. While he headed the Ministry of National Development, because of his vigorous "Ong Eng Guanisation" -

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Owen is a qualified Bachelor of Economics.

It is not a point of order but a point of clarification.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now I was saying that when the Member for Hong Lim headed the Ministry of National Development, because of his vigorous "Ong Eng Guanisation" plan, there remained only two Australian-trained architects in his Ministry. All the other British-trained technical personnel had to find other jobs. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us speak frankly and to the point. Did we lead the people in the struggle against colonialism just to enable every member of our families to become a high state official (kuan) in order to make more money? Did the people elect us to form the Government just to see that our families become prosperous? Yet this is what the Member for Hong Lim believes in. In his childish way of thinking, the anti-colonialist movement is only led by him. The other people, though once his comrades, are but puppets of colonialism. Therefore, in this anti-colonialist struggle, he should have the right to install his relatives, friends and classmates in different posts. What have we really done in the past to make him so very angry? We only stopped him from abusing his power to build up his own authority. We only stopped him from using his own classmates and friends to control the different government departments. Because of this, he believes that we are pro-colonialists! In his own eyes, there are no people more capable and less corrupt than his friends and relatives. The story of the big four families spread far and wide during the Chiang Kai-shek era of China to the effect that the posts in the Ministries of Finance and Foreign Affairs were held by members of the same family. Maybe the Member for Hong Lim greatly envies such a one-family rule. Therefore, we can see why he calls the Minister for Finance, who is not his relative, a running dog for the colonialists. The other Ministers and Assemblymen are also not his relatives or his die-hard followers. Therefore, they are called weak and incapable people. What is anti-colonialism? If anti-colonialism means the chasing away of white men from their jobs and replacing them with one's own relatives and friends, then I will be the first one to oppose this kind of anti-colonialism. As to his so-called mass meeting at the Badminton Hall, I would like to refer to page 2 of the 54th issue of Petir dated 23rd July, 1960, criticising the whole affair. The title is "How to fight colonialism". I now quote the article: `Ong Eng Guan gave a lecture last week. There was a big question mark at the end of his talk. The audience who attended the lecture were under the impression that they would be able to hear some interesting things on anti-colonialism, but they were greatly disappointed because a big question mark still remained in their minds. This was because Ong Eng Guan and his few followers had no views to offer on how to fight colonialism except to attack viciously and to distort the personal conduct and private lives of some Party members. Did Ong Eng Guan believe that the struggle against colonialism would be successful only if the "ruling clique" were eliminated? Did he suggest that if the Party were led by him the problem of fighting colonialism would cease to exist? Was the so-called "Save the party and save the country" panacea so simple and efficacious? If he believed in that, then he would be under estimating the forces of colonialism. He would be underestimating the significance of the hard struggle waged by the people of Singapore over a long period of time. There was another question the answer to which the audience anxiously waited to hear: When did Ong Eng Guan and his followers suddenly become the fighters against colonialism? Surely it was not before June 1957 because he was then branded a reactionary and certain people wanted to evict him from the Party, It was the central leadership which came to his rescue to help him to retain his position in the Party. Neither did he become a fighter against colonialism after the Party's victory in the City Council election in December 1957. The Party's achievements in the City Council for the period of 15 months were a result of the people's support for the Party, the hard work and planning of the 13 P.A.P. City Councillors, and their strict adherence to the Party's policies and discipline. Had it not been for the fact that all the P.A.P. City Councillors strictly adhered to the Party's policies and discipline, Ong Eng Guan would have lost his mayoralty long ago, not to speak of his achievements in the City Council. Those people who served as City Councillors are now all in the Party. In one voice, they denounce Ong Eng Guan's anti-party conduct. What has he to say to this? It was absolutely impossible for him to turn into a fighter against colonialism after the May 1959 general elections, as every one knew that what Ong Eng Guan did in the past year as Minister for National Development was to establish his small kingdom -'.

Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member intends to read the whole article. He is only permitted to read extracts of the article that are pertinent to the debate.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I started to read this article, I said that it was a very proper criticism of the Ong Eng Guan affair. Therefore, if I were to single out phrases at random without regard to the context as what the Member for Hong Lim has done, then the passage will lose its meaning. Therefore, I have to read out the whole article.

Order. I cannot allow the Member to quote the whole article as I do not find it relevant to the motion that is before the House. The motion before the House has been read out, and speeches can be made in relation to the political situation. Only the important extracts can be read.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the article is very relevant to what we are discussing today and to the criticisms on the Government made by the Member for Hong Lim. The true meaning of the article would be lost if I were to quote passages at random from it. Therefore. I must read the article. There are only two more paragraphs left.

I do not like the hon. Member to debate with the Deputy Speaker. He will have to confine himself only to reading extracts.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have no right to argue with you, but in order to clarify this issue and at the same time comment on "a dog which has fallen into the water" - his behaviour and his work during the year when he was a Minister - well, I have to speak briefly. I quote: `But, what is the struggle against colonialism? Is it to instigate A to start a smear campaign against B and to incite C to launch an attack against D, and then to scheme in order to get some people to become his faithful followers? Does this amount to a struggle against colonialism? A great revolutionary does not waste his talents and energy on this sort of trifling, meaningless and shameless intrigue. Perhaps Ong Eng Guan posed as the only fighter against colonialism in the Party, but if what he has been doing under cover of anti-colonialism is exposed, it will only reveal his baseness. Under the pretext of eliminating corruption and bribery and reorganising the Singapore Improvement Trust, he sacked a great number of S.I.T. employees without any discrimination. He then filled the vacant posts with his faithful followers. Now, does this constitute the task of fighting colonialism? In order to consolidate his small kingdom and to have more direct control of his employees, he evicted hundreds of S.I.T. tenants from a nine-storey building. Is this also one of the tasks of fighting colonialism? To help his relatives and faithful followers, he asked his schoolmates, their friends and their brothers to take over the high posts in his Ministry, but they were not competent enough. Is this also one of the aspects of the anti-colonialism struggle? All these and other facts have shown that Ong Eng Guan's so-called anti-colonialism struggle was no more than his personal struggle to establish his fame and his own position. The struggle against colonialism is a protracted movement by the masses. The advance does not follow a straight course. There are two aspects to the movement: its revolutionary phase and its phase of construction. It is a cause which needs a long period of time to accomplish -'.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It would appear, Sir, that the hon. Member keeps on reading the whole article in spite of your ruling.

I am sorry. I did not notice him reading the article. Therefore, I cannot now call him to order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Member for Hong Lim spoke yesterday, other Opposition Members were smiling very happily. They laughed. They thought they had caught P.A.P.'s "ailing leg" and could hit it back as much as they wished. Not only the S.P.A., which is the greatest enemy of the people of Singapore, had this idea. Even those minor political parties like the Workers' Party, Party Ra'ayat, outside this House had the same intention. They wanted to fish in troubled waters and to loot during a fire. They thought this is an opportunity which occurs once in a thousand years. They thought they could unite together to attack the P.A.P. and put it to death. But how childish and foolish such a thought is. True, we have committed errors. We allowed the Member for Hong Lim to abuse his powers to build his own little kingdom. But we have the courage to admit publicly the error and publicly to rectify it. We do not avoid a political storm. We have the courage to let our defects be made known to the people. We do not try to hide our small defects. We discovered there was a tumour in our body, and we had the courage to have it operated on and removed. What is more honest or straightforward than this? The expulsion of the Treasurer of the Party is a temporary setback. But this incident clearly shows that among so many political parties, only the P.A.P. is honest, clean and incorruptible, a straightforward Party which could rectify its mistakes whenever they occur. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the choice confronting us today is whether to improve the livelihood of the people through industrialisation or, as the Member for Hong Lim would do, to follow unprincipled slogan-shouting politicians who do nothing but cause the collapse of the nation's economy. Today, the people are in deep waters and in "hot fire". They are all awaiting the execution of our effective economic measures to solve the livelihood problems. But the Member for Hong Lim and those Left-wing adventurers who are using him just shout empty anti-colonial slogans to confuse the people. Our State is facing a greater problem. What does an insignificant Ong Eng Guan matter? We must not let this incident make us lose our heads. We must stand on solid ground and use realistic measures to deal with our pressing problems. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to quote from today's Sin Chew fit Poh about what the Member for Hong Lim said yesterday: `Yesterday, the Member for Hong Lim said that although six months of this year have already passed, the Government has not carried out any work regarding the 1960 economic development scheme.' Such a man who talks easily to deceive the people cannot endure long. Yesterday I did not have the necessary material in hand and therefore could not clarify the issue. In the 1960 Development Estimates, we have provided $39,900,000. In the first half of the year, work that was already completed amounts to $3,440,000. Work that is expected to finish this year amounts to $26,600,000. From these figures, we know that they amount to over half the total amount provided for in the Development Estimates. From this we dan also disclose the person that deceives the people. Yesterday the Member for Hong Lim also spoke on the housing problem - that he could only build a few houses last year, because the Minister for Finance refused to give him funds for the purpose. At the same time, he said he had correspondence to prove it. But today, I have the opportunity to "beat the dog that has fallen into the water." In July last year at the Cabinet Estimates Committee, documents relating to S.I.T. funds showed that the Minister for Finance made a provision in the 1959 S.I.T. Estimates of $7 million. The remaining money was allowed to be used, for the Minister for Finance had marked the word "allowed". The Minister for Finance had shown in the Estimates that $1 million could be used for land and general development, $2,500,000 for resettlement, which sum the Minister for Finance had marked "Release" meaning he (the Member for Hong Lim) could use the funds. $519,000 for development of Kampong Koo Chye. which was also marked "Release". As to the Kampong Tiong Bahru development scheme, because our former Minister for National Development had many fantasies and many plans and changes, therefore, although the monies were available, the plans were unable to be implemented. There is another good proof of his deceit, In the Straits Times of 13th October, last year, on page 2 - I think I will now speak in English so that it can be clearly understood (in English): `Ong gets $17 million to begin his big plan... Mr Ong Eng Guan said that today the Minister for Finance, Dr Goh Keng Swee, had agreed to the defreezing of $17 million. He added, "Work on the building of houses according to the Singapore Improvement Trust plan will start early next year. Plans for the construction of houses with the $17 million grant are in full swing."' (In Mandarin): From this we can see what he is like. Moreover, yesterday he said he had correspondence to prove that the Minister for Finance refused him the funds. I will give another proof; this is a letter dated 9th November, 1959. This letter was from the Minister for National Development to the Minister for Finance and was signed. In the first paragraph, it says (In English): 'Please refer to your letter of 17th October, 1959, informing -'

Order. I do not think the interpreters can keep up with the speed at which the hon. Member is reading. I would ask him to read slowly so that the interpreters can follow.

(In Mandarin): I only want to show proof by quoting this letter. Here I have a letter personally written by him addressed to the Minister for Finance, dated 9th November, 1959 (In English): `Funds for Housing. Please refer to your letter of 17th October, 1959, informing me that you are prepared in the first instance to make available a total of $15 million for S.I.T. housing for this year and the next.' This clearly discloses the falseness of the charges which the former Minister for National Development made against the Minister f or Finance in regard to the funds allotted to him. Another proof can be seen in the letter dated 17th October, 1959, written by the Minister for Finance to the Minister for National Development. Let us see what the Minister for Finance says here (In English): `We will commence the building programme as early as possible. I am in sympathy with your proposal to get on with the job.' (In Mandarin): That is the first paragraph. Yesterday I did not see the Member for Hong Lim's letter, and therefore I do not know whether it is true or not, and so I could not clarify. But today I have the material and so I can clarify the whole thing. But unfortunately, the Member for Hong Lim is not here. However, his followers can convey to him what I have said.

Order. I think it is a convenient time to suspend. I suspend this sitting until 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Question again proposed. 5.31 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Member for Hong Lim said that the reason why there were very few S.I.T. buildings was that the Minister for Finance did not give him adequate funds. I have proved several points just now. Now I want to mention a few more points regarding the building of houses at Kampong Koo Chye after the big fire. I have a document here which clearly shows why up till now Kampong Koo Chye has not had its buildings completed. It is because the former Minister for National Development was indecisive in this work so that tenders for the building of these houses could not be carried out. The closing date for this particular tender was the 30th October, 1959, in the afternoon at 2 o'clock. This clearly shows that the failure to build houses at Kampong Koo Chye is not because the Minister for Finance did not give the necessary funds, but because the former Minister for National Development did not carry out his duties properly. One day he had one plan, and another day, he had another plan; so that in the end the houses meant to be built at Kampong Koo Chye could not be started. Unfortunately the Member for Hong Lim is not present here today. Otherwise, I can very clearly show him this document here to prove whether the Minister for Finance refused to give him the necessary money or whether he did not build the houses in time. 5.35 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister; a motion of thanks to the speech made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I think today I will be short of material, because many of my colleagues have already given a small "injection" to my former Minister. However, as the Malay proverb says, "The elephant's carcass cannot be covered by a small cover." Because the former Minister is not in this Chamber at this moment, and also because his colleagues are absent, I am obliged to speak to the empty chairs as the audience.

Order. I think the hon. Member is forgetting that he is addressing the Chair, and not an empty "kerusi" (In Malay). The Member must forget the absence of any other Members. He is addressing the Speaker and, through the Speaker, the Members of the Assembly.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Speaker, but I hope that the people concerned will listen so that they will clarify their stand in this Chamber. However, although my speech is addressed to the Speaker, I hope the wind carrying my speech will reach the ears of the persons concerned. Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the speeches made in this Assembly, it is essential for me to explain first to the Member for Mountbatten, who has attacked the Government, particularly on those matters appertaining to the Minister for National Development. According to her, dwelling-houses built in 1959 totalled 821 units only. She is alleged to have said that this demonstrated a failure on the part of the Government, which previously crowed. But at the moment the crowing of the cock could be heard only in the morning. I would like to clarify to the Member for Mountbatten, Mr Speaker, that the cock does not force the hen to lay eggs until the time is ripe, or the hen which lays one egg per day could not be forced to lay two eggs per day, or to operate on the hen with the object of getting more eggs. This would be a failure. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is aware that the housing problem is a major problem, because of the increased population and because of the increased birth rate which, according to our estimate, is 60,000 per year. Then school-leavers from the middle schools, after getting jobs and then getting married, will need houses. The problem which we are facing is housing; the problem which is facing the Minister for Labour and Law is to provide employment; and the problem facing the Minister for Education is to provide proper education. To satisfy the needs of the people, we are compelled to provide at least 14,000 houses each year for the next ten years. We already know, since the S.I.T. started its housing campaign 12 years ago, that they had built 46,918 houses only. This means 3,900 houses per year on the average. It should be remembered that my Government received a mandate from the people during mid-1959. We were therefore obliged to carry on the misdeeds which were bequeathed to us by the previous Government. Concerning the 820 units mentioned by the Member for Mountbatten, this figure represents houses built between June 1959 and 31st January, 1960, under the charge of the former Minister for National Development. However, the Government is fully conscious of its obligations to the people, and a Housing Board was established in February 1960 this year. A feature which was carried out intensively was to review the housing problem in Singapore as a whole. The Board has decided, within its limitations, to try to build houses to meet the needs of the people. During the next Government's five-year period, the Board will provide about 52,842 houses, costing about $230 million. In the five-year programme, these low-cost houses will be constructed in areas such as Queenstown, MacPherson Road, Kampong Tiong Bahru, Alexandra Road, St. Michael's Road, Kallang, Toa Payoh and also in the rural areas. In this year 1960, it has been planned by the Board, apart from carrying on with the old work, that it will construct about 9,000 houses, costing $38 million. Now, 4,700 houses are in the course of construction, and the remainder of the tenders will be out soon. It is expected that in the year 1960, 1,800 houses will be completed, and in the year 1961, a total of approximately 7,000 houses. This is a well thought out plan, and not an illusion; or, as the saying goes, "If the cock does not crow, there will be no daylight." This is in accordance with the plan drawn up by the Housing Development Board, Singapore. Mr Speaker, it is a pity that the Member for Kampong Kembangan is not in this Chamber, so he has not the pleasure of listening to my speech. In his speech, the Member for Kampong Kembangan started off by saying that in the Prime Minister's speech, it was mentioned that there were more dangerous elements than communalistic elements. Mr Speaker, we admit that these two elements are indeed dangerous. Communalism could be exploited by opportunistic leaders to inflame communal feelings between the races. This could again be exploited by a third party to stir up inter-racial conflict. So, Mr Speaker, whether they are contained in the speech made by the Prime Minister or in the remarks by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, both these elements are considered dangerous. Then the Member for Kampong Kembangan asked the Prime Minister to declare his Party stand. If our Party, he says, is openly anti-Communist, then he, on behalf of the organisation he represents, will give it a 100 per cent support. And this, he says, will bring about closer realisation of a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Mr Speaker, the Member for Kampong Kembangan is not following closely the political developments in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. He is also ignorant of the political stand taken by the Party that is in power today. Before the elections, we had clearly defined that we are a non-Communist, socialist and democratic party. This is positive, Mr Speaker, because if we are a party of non-Communists, it does not mean that we are pro-Communists. We are aware that if we are pro-Communists, it means that the M.C.P. will ride on our backs. This was clearly enunciated by my Party before we went to the electorate. And if -

Order. I was wondering if the hon. Member could modulate his voice, because it is somewhat getting on my ear-drums.

(In Malay): It seems that I am following the footsteps of the Member for Kampong Kembangan. Mr Speaker, if we take the stand of being anti- Communist, it automatically means that we will be in the Western bloc which has established an anti-Communist bloc. If we are non-Communists, this means that our stand is firm and one which is fitting and appropriate to the situation obtaining in Singapore. This non-Communist stand taken by the P.A.P. is also similar to that taken by many other socialist countries. This should be a grim reminder to the Member for Kampong Kembangan, so that we will not be ridden on by any group whatsoever. It is not an assurance that if the P.A.P. is genuinely anti-Communist, then his Party will support it wholeheartedly and that will bring about a merger with the Federation of Malaya. We have clearly said that the Malays in the Federation are still apprehensive about the Chinese population in Singapore. If 81 per cent of the population in Singapore comprised Malays, then I think we would have declared our independence on 31st August last. But unfortunately, the population of Singapore comprises more than 80 per cent non-Malays. According to our political analysis it is clear that we are making an all-out effort so that the whole population of Singapore - Indians, Chinese, Malays and others - will show their undivided loyalty to Singapore and demonstrate to the Federation Government that we love Singapore as our motherland. This is the thing that we have been fighting for not only by the People's Action Party, but also by all the people throughout Singapore. What amuses me is the statement that if the Prime Minister of the present P.A.P. Government states clearly that we are anti-Communist, then it is hoped that the Government of the Federation of Malaya will confer on him the title "Tun", like the one that has been conferred on the last Chief Minister of Singapore. P.A.P. members do not aspire to these titles. We are fighting for the benefit of the masses, and we do not expect praises in return. Mr Speaker, when I see the Member for Kampong Kembangan open the Malay annals, it reminds me of my school days, when I learnt about Sang Nila Utama who landed on the fore-shores of Singapore. Mr Speaker, there is no one on the Government side who will deny historical facts. The reality that we are facing now is the most important thing that we should bear in mind. We not only acknowledge the enunciation in the Preamble to the Constitution that the Malays are the indigenous people of Singapore, but we have clearly stated in our election manifesto that the P.A.P., if in power, will fully discharge its obligations and the enunciations in the Constitution. There is no need for the Member for Kampong Kembangan to awaken us any more. Then comes the threat that if any Party changes the Constitution of Singapore "without consulting us", then there will be trouble. The hon. Member went on to say that he would then retire from this Chamber., There is no mention of this in the speech by the Prime Minister, nor is it contained in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Is it just an exhibition to show that "I am really the warrior of my native land"? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Kampong Kembangan then asked for clarification. He is reported to have said that in my Party there are Communists, Leftists and Rightists. Then he asked the Prime Minister, who is the Secretary-General of my Party, to give details as to the number of Communists in my Party. Mr Speaker, members in my Party fight for a non-Communist and socialist Malaya. Just because there are a few incidents in my Party, it does not mean that there are Communists in my Party. For that reason, I say frankly that we allow opportunist members to shout at the top of their voice and say, "I, alone, am a revolutionary and a progressive". We, in the Party, are non-Communists, socialists and democratic. We are a Party based on collective leadership with collective responsibility. We sink or swim together. Mr Speaker, in addition, the Member for Kampong Kembangan pleaded for the special rights of the Malays so that they can be safeguarded and protected. We will say frankly that the Government is fully conscious of this fact. For that reason, the special rights of the Malays are contained in the Party Manifesto. There is no need for the Member for Kampong Kembangan to keep harping on this point, because every member of the Party, be he a Malay, Indian or Chinese, is at all times aware of his obligations to the Malays. For that reason, the Government has given free education to Malay pupils from primary school up to university level. Mr Speaker, there is an old Malay proverb which says that the hand which is asking for something is held low and the hand which is giving it is held up. There is no need for me to go begging. But, Mr Speaker, what should be noted is whether we want a communal organisation or whether we want to mobilise the Malay population into changing their way of thinking and going in for further studies. This is most vital because, although the Government will provide for these facilities, if the Malays themselves do not change their way of thinking, then there is no force on earth that can change the fate of this particular race. I am a follower of Islam, and in the Koran it is stated that God will not change the fate of a nation if that nation does not wish to bring about the change itself. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I urge all the Malays in Singapore to avail themselves of this opportunity offered by the Government, as the results of the 1959 Senior Cambridge Examination showed that only one Malay girl obtained Grade I. This is my appeal to all political organisations to encourage the Malays to change their way of thinking to suit the changing times. It is not enough just to organise a body, hold meetings, pass resolutions, make protestations and demands, and so on. It is most important to exhort the people to change their outlook and way of life. President Soekarno said that a thousand souls will not change the fate of a nation if they are childish in their outlook, lit is most important that all political parties should strive to change the Malay way of thinking. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Kampong Kembangan asked the Prime Minister about the cordial relationship between Singapore and Indonesia, and whether the visit to Indonesia by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development was really for the purpose of raising the educational standard in Singapore or was it just a pleasure trip. The cordial relationship between Singapore and Indonesia exists not because of the efforts of Yaacob bin Mohamed. It exists because Singapore and Indonesia are conscious of the need for further cementing their relationship, whether in the field of education or other fields. For instance, since the P.A.P. came into power, a cultural mission from Indonesia gave an exhibition of Indonesian culture to the people of Singapore. An interchange of cultures between Singapore and Indonesia can contribute towards a better understanding between them. There is, a Malay saying that if you do not see a thing, you will never learn to love it. After we saw the exhibition of Indonesian culture with our own eyes, a mission headed by the Prime Minister left for Indonesia. It resulted in the issuance of a joint statement signed by the Prime Minister of Singapore and the Indonesian Prime Minister, Dr Djuanda, on the close relationship between the two countries. In addition, many educationalists from Indonesia paid a visit to Singapore. We have Pa' Kasur with his famous angklung. All this is good for Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the time Sir Stamford Raffles set foot in Singapore up till now, there have been no Malay middle schools. We do not deny that the standard of education in Singapore is high, but it is not so with Malay education. Even when the coalition Government (at first it was called the Labour Front-U.M.N.O., but later on there was a change to S.P.A.-U.M.N.O.) was in power, not a single Malay middle school was established. The P.A.P. does not wish to hoodwink the masses. It realises that as Malay is `to be the national language, Malay schools should be established. For the purpose of ascertaining whether the national language (Malay) or Indonesian language should be used in Government departments or in schools from the lowest to the highest University level, I was sent to Indonesia under the auspices of the Education Committee, and not in my capacity as a Parliamentary Secretary, to see how the Indonesian language could be used from primary school to University level. A memorandum containing the recommendations has already been submitted to the Minister concerned. My trip to Indonesia was not for the purpose of seeking pleasure. Perhaps the Member for Kampong Kembangan feels that his former colleagues went, abroad to enjoy themselves. What is most amusing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the Member for Kampong Kembangan has said that, as a result of an interview with the former Minister for National Development, some drains were repaired and the burial ground at Teyban was fenced. He also. said that he was disappointed with the present Minister for National Development for not paying any heed to his constituents. This is amusing indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir, because the care of drains is not the problem of the Minister for National Development. It is the problem of the Minister for Health. It is most improper to call for the police when a man breaks his leg, or to send for an ambulance when a man commits a theft. As a Member of this Assembly, the Member for Kampong Kembangan should know where to address his complaints. The care of drains is a matter concerning the Ministry of Health. On the subject of the burial ground at Teyban, if you will permit me, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to present the facts. This subject was brought up by the Singapore Malay Settlement Union. When the P.A.P. took office, I was attached to the Ministry of National Development and was appointed Chairman of the Singapore Malay Settlement Union. I received a letter asking the Ministry to fence the burial ground because of the stray cattle and because the roads inside were used by vehicles. In the company of the Chairman of the Rural Board and the Secretary of the Singapore Malay Settlement Union, I visited the site. Work. was started on 29th September, 1959. On 17th November, the leader of U.M.N.O. in the Malay Settlement called on me and I explained to him that our Ministry was prepared to fence the burial ground at Teyban. Mr Speaker, Sir, one day later, there was a news item in the Utusan Melayu of 18th November stating that the U.M.N.O. Malay Settlement Branch appealed to the Minister for National Development to fence the burial ground as a result of a recent meeting held. Mr Speaker, Sir, this was very strange indeed. A few days later, Inche Osman Ghani, as Secretary of the Malay Settlement, issued a Press statement which appeared in the Berita Harlan dated 20th November, 1959. It stated that the resolution of U.M.N.O. had been conveyed to the former Minister for National Development, and that the work of fencing the burial ground to keep out stray cattle would be undertaken by the Ministry of National Development. He added that his office had received a recent petition from U.M.N.O. Kampong Melayu on this subject. But he pointed out that work had, in point of fact, been planned by the authorities concerned three months prior to the receipt of the resolution. The facts should not be misrepresented. So credit should be given for what we are doing. Mr Speaker, before I speak about my former colleague, the Member for Hong Lim, it would be appropriate for me first to reply to the queries raised by the Member for Geylang Serai, who felt dissatisfied with the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Firstly, in prefacing his speech, the Member for Geylang Semi said in this Chamber it was obvious that the situation in my Party is unhealthy. But actually the boil has been operated upon, and the dirt removed. So the situation in my Party is very healthy indeed, and not unhealthy, as alleged by the Member for Geylang Serai. It is a strange thing, Mr Speaker, that the hon. Member emphasised that the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara was far from satisfactory, because it touched on what would be done, and no mention made of what had already been done. It is customary for people always to think of what is going to happen. What is past is past. Whenever I recollect the past, I shed tears. But a political party which fights for the benefit of the people does not turn back to past events. It looks forward and plans its future, so that mistakes made in the past will not be repeated. The speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara was, therefore, so framed. Secondly, the Member for Geylang Serai said that he could not find the term "non-Communist" in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Mr Speaker, there is no need for a man, in love with a lady, to keep on saying day and night, "I love you, I love you." The mere mention of the P.A.P. makes clear its stand - that it is a non-Communist, socialist, democratic Party. There is no need to repeat our stand. To repeat "I love you, I love you" again and again is an indication of falsehood There is no need for my Party to repeat that it is non-Communist, socialist and democratic, as I said just now. If we take an anti-Communist stand, we will be trapped by the Western bloc. If we are pro-Communist, we will be the tools of the M.C.P. Therefore, the P.A.P. is non-Communist, like the governments of Indonesia, Egypt and India. We know that this non-Communist attitude will develop and flourish in other parts of Asia. Mr Speaker, I do not wish to labour on the special position of the Malays. I have explained this earlier in my speech, but I only wish to touch on the laws of Islam, which are mentioned in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and elaborated on by the Minister for Labour and Law. The Member for Geylang Serai has taken the opportunity to remind the Government not to forget the question of tithe and also wakaf. As I said earlier, the P.A.P. Government is a government that need not be reminded again and again. The P.A.P. Members in this Assembly comprise people who are always conscious of the environments in the society. Members of the P.A.P. see a pitiful sight during the fasting month. Muslim people from outside Singapore receive tithe on the roadside, thus depriving the poor Malays in Singapore of their rights. Our Government is conscious of this, and therefore the Minister for Labour and Law has framed laws concerning the rights of the Islamic people and also tithe and wakaf. I hope these matters will be implemented next year. I am sure it will be a delight to the Member for Geylang Serai when we say to him "Thank you for reminding us." Mr Speaker, the time has now come for me, as a close friend of the former Minister for National Development, and as his Parliamentary Secretary who was very close to him, to touch on this matter. Mr Speaker, at the sittings of this House yesterday and the day before, we witnessed a person who was once a smart orator and a clever politician, one who is highly cultured and sharp-witted; but, all of a sudden, in this Assembly yesterday, he converted himself into a proficient magician. Fortunately, Mr Speaker, he has forgotten to distort the facts Which he himself and his former Party have made regarding its clear and positive stand. Yes, Mr Speaker, in this world, we can find men who pose as, "I alone am a revolutionary. I can go to the ultra left in my own Party." Mr Speaker, this kind of man is a laughing stock of the people. At the commencement of his speech on the 3rd August he said: `We are sitting here on this side because the Prime Minister has forced us to sit here. He has evicted us unconstitutionally and by force.' This phraseology is very amusing in the Malay language. This can be spoken only by those who are desperate and are begging for compassion from this Assembly. Mr Speaker, it is a fact that man can only taste the fruits of his labour from the efforts he puts in. If he plants `tapioca, he will get tapioca And if he sows the seed of disunity in the Party, expulsion will be his harvest. We know the Member for Hong Lim, who was the former Minister for National Development, to be an expert at firing crackers. The crackers which he fired exploded and illuminated the sky so widely that many people gathered at the Badminton Hall to listen to the "hero" of the fire-crackers propounding his thesis on "How to Fight Colonialism". If he were a real revolutionary and fully conscious of his responsibilities, then the people would go there to listen to the Party member who has been expelled. This is how the imagination and minds of the people who attended the Badminton Hall rally could be captured. But what did the people get, Mr Speaker? Not tactics on "How to Fight Colonialism". The orators in the rally explained "How to Fight the Leaders of the P.A.P." and "How to Fight Collective Leadership". That was the thesis propounded to the people. Mr Speaker, it was obvious that the crackers could only emit smoke after they had been fired. Mr Speaker, after the big bang, the smoke vanished and what was left? Ashes from the crackers that were fired.. If such an explosion should leave behind glowing embers, then those embers could inflame the people but the ultimate result is that the ashes which remained were swept away by the road-sweeper. Mr Speaker, the people are conscious of all this, and they are not deceived. They could be deceived but only once. The people could see who are the real revolutionary leaders or otherwise. Mr Speaker, we should not forget that in our struggle against colonialism, there are three categories involved. The first group are those who fight unconstitutionally. This group will not accept compromises from colonialism. They will oppose colonialism until 100 per cent independence is achieved. They are even prepared to sacrifice their lives. This kind of struggle will lead to bloodshed, and we will find thousands of victims, as has happened in Indonesia, if there is no compromise. The Indonesian people chose between death and life. This is the unconstitutional struggle. The second group, Mr Speaker, is the group that fight constitutionally, they demand independence but are prepared to compromise. But they do not forget the demand for 100 per cent independence. In the process, however, they are prepared to sit round the table and negotiate. They are prepared to accept constitutional changes. They are prepared to hold the reins of Government and at the same time, when power is in their hands, they will use this power as a means of voicing the people's stand against colonialism and arousing them to fight against colonialism. They will use that power for the benefit of the people. There is the third group, Mr Speaker, the puppets. They are not fighting for independence, but they accept gifts from the colonialists, and their task is to safeguard the responsibility entrusted to them by the colonial masters. The P.A.P. has analysed the political situation in Singapore from its geographical point of view, and has placed itself in the second category. For that reason, the P.A.P. contested the 1955 elections under the Rendel Constitution with the object of using the power that we would receive to ask for more than that given `by the Rendel Constitution. For that reason, the P.A.P., including the Members on this Bench, went to London to ask for independence, including our strong man, the former Minister for National Development, who fought as a member of the second group mentioned just now, resulting in his being the first elected Mayor, and later on, Minister for National Development. Then the political developments proceeded in Singapore. Mr Speaker, as a very close friend of his, 1 do not say that I am a real revolutionary and that I wish for 100 per cent Merdeka. If I were really fighting for independence unconstitutionally, I would expel myself. But we have had words like "I am a real revolutionary" after he has been expelled from the Party membership and from the Ministry. Mr Speaker, I am greatly surprised because the Member for Hong Lim criticised the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, implying as though there was no more colonialism in Singapore. The Member said that the sense of national pride, as mentioned by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, can only be felt in an independent country. Mr Speaker, Sir, a sense of national pride can also be felt by people, whether they are colonised or semi-colonised, or whether they have achieved independence. With this feeling of national pride there will emerge the feeling of love towards the country and nation. This has happened in Indonesia, which is prepared to die in the struggle against colonialism. But the Member for Hong Lim is no longer a Minister to lead the people. Mr Speaker, I do not know if there are people who have no feeling of national pride and who owe their loyalty to a country outside Singapore. But if they are really loyal to this island State of ours, they should be proud. We are heading for full independence. We should have this sense of pride because we live in a society comprising a multi-racial people. We are now going well ahead. The trouble we now have is the result of the actions of the ex-Minister for National Development. We have no place for such people in our society. It is strange to find the Member for Hong Lim quoting the speech of the Secretary-General of the P.A.P. in which he said that 80,000 British troops had to surrender to the Japanese troops after the water supply for Singapore from Johore had been occupied by the Japanese. Therefore, he says, the Prime Minister of Singapore has asked the people not to fight the British hard, because if we do that, then British troops will ask the Federation Government to stop our water supply at Gunong Pulai and we will then die of thirst. Mr Speaker, are these words spoken by a person who has produced the 16 resolutions, who wants to have discussions with the Federation of Malaya on merger? The Federation Government is an independent government. Is it not contemptible to suggest that British troops can prevail upon the Federation Government to stop the water supply of Singapore, which is in Johore? Mr Speaker, Sir, the independent Federation of Malaya has never been under the sway of British troops. The Member for Hong Lim means to suggest that the Federation of Malaya is not 100 per cent independent now. That is what the ex-Minister for National Development and the present Member for Hong Lim would suggest as being the position regarding the independence of the Federation of Malaya. I feel he has spoken without giving careful thought to what he said. He did so merely to unburden himself.

Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification. Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed resumed his seat.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary, or my ex-Parliamentary Secretary, who has been expelled from four political parties, as he said once, is trying to create misunderstanding about what I said yesterday regarding the water supply from the Federation of Malaya. I think he does not know sufficient English to understand my speech. If this House could produce the tape recording in English, and get a tutor for him in English, I think he should come back and start the whole thing again.

Order. I think the hon. Member, when he gets up for clarification, should clarify and should not launch into a tirade. I do not know whether he wishes to clarify or just remain silent.

Mr Speaker, what I was trying to do is this. It would take me five to ten minutes to clarify what I said yesterday about the relationship between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. However, I need only just reply to what he said.

Perhaps I can be of some assistance to the Member for Hong Lim. There is a Standing Order - Standing Order 22 - which allows a prepared personal explanation to be made later on. The Standing Order reads: `With the leave of the Speaker or in his absence the Deputy Speaker, a Member may make a personal explanation at the time appointed by Standing Order No. 10 (Order of Business) although there is no question before the House; but no controversial matter may be brought forward nor may debate arise upon the explanation. The terms of the proposed statement shall be submitted in full to the Speaker or in his absence the Deputy Speaker when his leave to make it is sought.' If the hon. Member wishes to take advantage of that Standing Order, he may do so.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am speaking on the question I raised just now based on what I have heard and what I have noted down. I do not know whether anyone will want to deny what was said yesterday. I followed the debate from the beginning through the simultaneous interpretation. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to clarify this point. Mr Speaker, Sir, a lot has been said on the question of merger with the Federation and I think I need not elaborate, but I am interested to know whether the person who says that we should discuss and negotiate with the Federation was motivated by his personal antagonism towards the Minister for Health. In my capacity as Chairman of the Malay Settlements, Singapore, I am in a position to say that a piece of land, which had been gazetted by the previous government as a Malay Settlement, was revoked or cancelled by the ex-Minister for National Development. Mr Speaker, -

On a point of clarification.

If the Member will give way.

Point of order?

Order. It seems to me that there has been quite a lot of misunderstanding of the Member for Hong Lim's speech, as alleged by him. I have already indicated that the Member could make use of Standing Order 22. But perhaps it will be more convenient if he makes use of another Standing Order. That is Standing Order 43, paragraph (4) which says: 'A Member who has spoken to a question may again be heard to offer an explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood; but he shall not introduce any new matter.' So if the hon. Member thinks he has been misunderstood in some material part of his speech, I will permit him, after the Parliamentary Secretary has completed his speech, to make that explanation. At the moment, I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is giving way.

Mr Speaker, -

Is it a point of order?

Yes.

Can I hear the point of order?

Mr Speaker, just now the Parliamentary Secretary referred to his chairmanship of the Malay Settlement Board. I never appointed him to be the Chairman of the Board -

That, of course, is not a point of order at all. Inche Yaacob.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am so shocked that I have temporarily forgotten what I have said just now. But Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a hot-blooded revolutionary. It is true that I have been appointed the Chairman of the Malay Settlements for the island of Singapore. Unfortunately, I have not brought the particular Gazette that is relevant to this matter. If I had known he would raise this point, then I would have had this Gazette ready. The land, which is about 41 acres in area, had been gazetted by the previous Government as a Malay Settlement. But the Gazette Notification was cancelled by the Minister for National Development, the present Member for Hong Lim, without the knowledge of the Chairman of the Malay Settlement, who has been duly gazetted. Mr Speaker, Sir -

I think it now behoves the Chair to be more strict on irrelevancies. I have already indicated that all these details relate to the personal conduct of a Member of this Assembly. Therefore, the only way these details can be raised and debated is by way of a substantive motion. If the hon. Member feels strongly about the point, he must give notice of a substantive motion. Then every detail which it is thought necessary to be brought forward can be brought forward. At the moment, I must remind all hon. Members that we are on Standing Order 13, which says specifically that the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, "shall be confined to the policy of the Government as outlined in the speech and on amendments (if any) moved by Members...". So that in future, I think I must insist that the broad aspects of that policy must be debated.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I shall try to control myself so as to follow the Standing Order. But in my opinion, this matter does have relevancy to the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara as affecting the welfare of the Malays, in an effort to build an independent nation by merging with the Federation of Malaya. I am not a communalist, but in order to make the Member for Hong Lim realise that if he really wants a fighter who wishes to bring about merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, then I would like to remind him that in the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya, there occur over and over again matters concerning the special rights of the Malays. However that may be, Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has regazetted the area I have mentioned just now and work will be carried out in the future. I mention this point not so much to bring up the question of communalism as to point out that this is the way how a person, who considers himself a revolutionary wishing to have discussions with the Federation of Malaya, conducts himself. He has stated that if we can make the Malays in the Federation have confidence in us, then perhaps it would be possible to bring about a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Mr Speaker, I am surprised that the Member for Hong Lim accuses the present Government and his ex-Party of being led by two people, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance. Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear that all this while the Member for Hong Lim had not realised this point. It is only since he has been expelled that he realises it. But we do not wish to be accused that we are followers of the Prime Minister and that we are pro-colonial. For my own self, I have struggled for 14 years against colonialism. At that time, perhaps the Member for Hong Lim was studying in Australia. I am not here to relish the fact that I am a revolutionary, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I want to deny the fact that I am pro-colonial. The P.A.P., as a party that holds and subscribes to the principle of collective leadership, will not accept what has been stated by the Member for Hong Lim. The steps taken by this Government in this House have the backing of all members of the Party. We are all collectively responsible for what has been uttered in the policy speech in this House. Therefore, if only two people in the Party are accused while the others are let off, then I feel that the seed of disunity should not be sown in this House, so long as there are 40 people solidly behind the Government. We are solid and united in our stand. The statement that was issued by the Party, and bearing the 40 signatures of the Members, was not signed at the point of a gun, as alleged. We are not revolutionary members of the Party who only confine ourselves to the four walls of the office without going out to meet the people. Nor do we call upon photographers to come along and -

I think the hon. Member must have regard to the authority of the Chair and not now start going back to details which, in fact, are completely irrelevant.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, some colleagues of mine have said that I, as a Member of the Government, will not run away like a rat when the House is on fire. Sir, I fully support the Prime Minister's motion expressing our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech. But before concluding my speech, however, I would like to speak on Malayan culture, with Malay culture as its basis, in Singapore. This policy has been implemented by the P.A.P. Government. I would like to quote one of the resolutions arrived at by the Permanent Council of Malay Language and Literature at a meeting which was held in Malacca. Any element in Malay culture appropriate to the times should be nurtured and developed. The P.A.P. Government has nurtured and developed Malay culture to the extent that concerts were held by Chinese students in Jurong at which Malay dances were performed. This concept has gained ground in our society. Another resolution was that any foreign element which does not conflict with Malay culture should be studied with the object of evolving a national culture. This means that the Malays have accepted certain elements in the culture of other races. This was one of the resolutions of the Congress, and not the decision of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development. The Governments of the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak should establish cultural departments in cooperation with other similar bodies. In Singapore, we do not have a cultural department but a Ministry of Culture. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no necessity for me to dwell at length on this subject, except to say that the Member for Kampong Kembangan has not made a careful study of Malay culture. There is no need for me to say ten times a day that I love this and I love that. 7.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been accused by the Hon, the Prime Minister of being afflicted with political myopia just because I dared again to raise the issue of the cuts in the variable allowances of Government servants. Perhaps, Sir, the Prime Minister is not aware that, if there is any political myopia among members of the public in Singapore, in Great Britain and other free countries of the world concerning the state of affairs in Singapore, he and his Government alone are responsible for that political myopia. Sir, there was nothing in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to show that the survival of the State of Singapore was at stake. The propaganda machine of the Government has been saying for the last 14 months that everything in Singapore was fine and wonderful.

Which it is.

Everything was under control. Sir, the second paragraph of column 5 of Hansard dated 20th July, 1960 (Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech) reads as follows: 'The correctness of the policy laid down in the Five-Year Plan has been shown by the fact that under the new Government, Singapore has enjoyed greater political and economic stability than it has known during the last 15 years...'. Sir, in the face of that statement, if we Members of the Opposition were to challenge it by means of an amendment to the Address of Thanks, we would very likely be accused of being irresponsible. But on Wednesday in this House the Prime Minister threw a bombshell, and the next day, on the front page of the Straits Times there appeared in big headlines, "Assembly warned: They scattered and went under cover - today they are reorganising and regrouping again - 'RED FORCES GATHERING' - They've built up forces since the election". Sir, how were we to know, having only heard the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, that things in Singapore had changed all of a sudden from one of economic and political stability to one of political instability - to a situation of crisis? Therefore, Members of the Opposition cannot be accused of having been afflicted with political myopia in view of the propaganda appearing day in and day out in the Press and over the Radio that everything in Singapore is fine and wonderful. Sir, the Prime Minister has really brought up a domestic party issue - an internal party struggle - and made it into a national issue, telling the people of Singapore that unless they support him and the ruling clique, Singapore will go down together with them. Sir, the issue does not seem to be so easy as that. If it were, Sir - if we put the national interest before Party interest - and if it is a question of the survival of the State, we would be only too happy to support them, but we do not believe that the issue is so simple and so clear as that. And when we study the Prime Minister's speech carefully, Sir, we find that the issue becomes more confusing. I would like to read, Sir, a paragraph which appeared in the Straits Times of Thursday, 4th August: `The policy of the Communist Party is to unite with all progressive forces - of which the P.A.P. is acknowledged as one - to struggle against the forces of reaction, namely colonialism, imperialism and feudalism.' Sir, the Prime Minister correctly infers that the P.A.P. is one with whom the Communist Party would be glad to unite. This confirms what was said in the White Paper of 1957, that the Party was heavily infiltrated by Communists and, Sir, in the presence of one of our Members and Government Members, the Police have indicated that Communists are to be found in the People's Action Party. The Member for Hong Lim, having more internal knowledge of the P.A.P., has said that there are three groups in the P.A.P.: there are the Right-wingers, the genuine Socialists and the Communists. Sir, in view of that statement, how can the public be now asked to depend upon the People's Action Party to save them in this crisis? Sir, another paragraph in Straits Times reads: 'But, as I see it, the danger is not that the PAP. will deviate from its declared policy, but that these Left-wing adventurers, unable to manipulate the P.A.P. to abandon its non-Communist principles, will begin a fight with a Government which, by their own admission, is progressive.' Sir, it is really an admission that there are certain backseat drivers who have greatly influenced them before, and to whom they are willing to listen up to a point.

What point?

That point, Sir, will be mentioned later by the Prime Minister himself. Sir, many of the people of Singapore before the elections feared that the Prime Minister and his Party were trying to capture power by riding on a tiger, and they feared that one of these days the tiger would show its claws and its fangs. Sir, we prefer -

Cats!

- a situation where the Government of Singapore is not in the hands of a Party that depends on a tiger for its strength. In another paragraph, Sir, it is stated: '"What is worse than the worst that can happen in the immediate future? It is that the Government finds itself out-manoeuvred and out-propagandaed by these Left-wing adventurers, that the P.A.P. will have to take the count in this fight ..."'. This is the sentence which has perplexed a number of people - `"...and the Communists will be counted out for many years..."'. It implies, Sir, that the P.A.P. Government or the Communists will be knocked out. If the P.A.P. does not fall, the Communists will be protected. On the face of it, Sir, that is the meaning. Then it goes on: '"We are not unaware that with the C.P. on one side' of us and the' colonialists on the other - each side will want to pull us to its side."' A wonderful bargaining position, Sir! '"We are also aware that failing this, each of these two contending forces is quite prepared to use us as buffers in their machinations against each other."' A little lower down the column, Sir, appear the following words:- '"But it is the business of the Government to ensure that if a collision has to take place between these Left-wing adventurers and the colonialist imperialists the P.A.P. should let them break their heads on each other. For we are confident that whatever the temporary maneuverings and ups and downs, we as non-Communist party socialists have a historic role to play in the political struggle of Malaya in this crucial stage."' Sir, those are words uttered by the Prime Minister himself and they are worth careful study. If the Communist Party fights the British, the People's Action Party will duck, and say nothing. Sir, the Member for Hong Lim has been accused of being an opportunist. This looks like opportunism on a very high level, so high that many people cannot understand it, so flexible that it does not appear to be straight.

Resilient.

No wonder the Tunku in the Federation is himself confused and unhappy over Singapore under the People's Action Party.

Who told you that?

But the Prime Minister has said that the Federation's policy is anti-Communist -

Therefore?

Order.

- whereas he has to adopt the policy of being just non-Communist. So what chance is there of Singapore ever having a merger with the Federation, if that is the policy of the present Government? Sir, everything was fine and wonderful until the tiger under them began to be restive and to look round. And in their own words, Sir, we may say that the tiger was tempted by what the Member for Hong Lim had to offer. And lo! all of a sudden everything in Singapore now is in a dangerous state. Anybody who brings up the question `of the pay issue is told, "You have got political myopia!" The great danger is that the Left-wing adventurers are being tempted to go towards the Member for Hung Lim. That, Sir, is the P.A.P. version. It is well to ask at this time three questions in order that we may be able to see things more clearly. First, is the People's Action Party a truly free, reliable, democratic, socialist Party, or is it not? At this juncture, Sir, until we see more purging, it is still a Party that is riddled with Communists. It is like a beam, or a pillar, painted outside but in such a state that it cannot guarantee the stability, security and prosperity of Singapore. What has happened? The words that have been uttered bear out what I have said. The second question, Sir, is this: are the people of Singapore being really limited to a narrow choice of just two - either, support the extreme Left Party or section of the P.A.P., or the near-extreme Left faction of the P.A.P.?

Or the S.P.A.

Sir, I am sure the people are wiser than that. They know that the choice before them is not limited to two. They are not going to be given the choice of the devil and the deep sea. That is really what is being presented to them - sugarcoated - so that they will suffer from another kind of political myopia. Sir, we are free men. We have tasted a degree of freedom, and we want more freedom. Today, I say quite plainly, Sir, that we have got less freedom than we had under the British colonial power. We want Merdeka, and more freedom; not less freedom. Sir, maybe people do not behave frankly in front of the Government. If there is any social function, and if members of the Government are there, before the people dare to criticise the Government, they look around. Then, again and again, people have been nudged, "Ssh, don't say that." They only dare to speak freely when they know there are no `hostile ears around. Sir, this is a bad state of affairs. In a truly democratic and free country, people should be allowed to express their opinions. They should be allowed to disagree without any fear of any hostile reaction or repercussion. We are sorry to say, Sir, that even in schools, some boys have dared to say to their teachers, "I will report you to the Ministry." [Laughter] Sir, you will notice that the Government side has adopted an attitude of arrogance and ridicule, thinking thereby they could belittle the issues. These are important fundamental issues in a free democratic country. It is an open secret that the most active section in the Education Ministry is the Complaints Section. We know that there must be complaints; complaints must be listened to and investigated. But when a boy thinks that he can intimidate his teacher `by saying he will report to the Ministry, then discipline is in danger.

Disappears.

Sir, there is another question. In view of the Federation's attitude towards Communism and non-Communism, can the People's Action Party Government ever be successful in drawing the Federation and Singapore together? Or even bringing the Federation and Singapore into such friendly relationship that we know that their prosperity will also be our prosperity? We are afraid, Sir, that the gulf in the last 12 months has become wider. This bombshell that was thrown into this Chamber last Wednesday is not going to make the gulf narrower. I would say that the Malays are even more frightened. Sir, that is what has been accomplished politically in the last 14 months. Now, we ask the question: which statement is the correct one? The policy statement of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that there is now political and economic stability to a degree not found in the last 15 years, or the statement made here that there is great danger because "Red Forces are Gathering"? I believe, Sir, these were the words of the Hon, the Prime Minister, "they have scattered and went undercover before the last elections when the Lim Yew Hock Government was in power." How is it that in the last 14 months they have been allowed to build up their forces to the point where they now become a real threat to the Government and a danger to the stability of Singapore? Sir, it is for the Government side to answer. Sir, comparing the speeches of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara this year and last year, I notice that the speech delivered last year was characterised by a spirit of super-confidence, great pride and expectation and a certain degree of supercilious arrogance and intolerance. Experience is a great teacher, and after 14 months' experiment in the art of government, they have changed their tone and their tune. This time, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech emphasises at the very start the limitations under which the present Government has to work. The difficulties are quite well known. They claimed that they did not want to be in power under the Rendel Constitution, because their hands would be tied behind their backs and because power would be in the hands of the colonial officials-the Permanent Secretary, the Chief Secretary, the Attorney-General, the Governor. And therefore they wanted to attain power under the present constitution. Under the present Constitution, Sir, they have full control of internal affairs and finance. Therefore, logically, in the last 14 months, they should have been able to give Singapore greater security and greater prosperity. But the visible results achieved so far have been most disappointing. Sir, they may deny it, and their denial will be printed in the Press, and circulated all over the world, but the number of people in Singapore who voted for them and who have been disappointed is increasing. Sir, we in Singapore realise that there are handicaps and limitations. But what we are sad about is the approach taken by the People's Action Party in power. We believe it is not calculated to produce prosperity, security and unity. Sir, they condemn communal hatred and racial hatred. That is very good. But they do not condemn class hatred. They believe in class hatred. And that is the sad part, because Singapore is so situated, with limited resources, that unless and until we all can pull together and work together without any hatred of one another, we will never be able to build together a new nation and a prosperous nation. We will never be able to produce in this small island a nation and a country that can survive in spite of all hindrances and difficulties. Sir, I would like to read again from what they like to call their Bible. In page 16, paragraph 6 of "The Tasks Ahead", their Five-Year Plan, Part I, are the following words: 'One defence against communalism is to stress that if people want to improve their economic lot they must do so by combining on a class and not racial basis.' Sir, I am afraid that is too sectional a foundation or a base on, which to build a new, cohesive and united nation in Malaya. On that policy, Sir, the gulf between us and the Federation will grow ever wider and wider, with, we all know, possibly disastrous consequences. We have to survive. The population is rapidly increasing. We must win back the friendship and confidence of the Federation, North Borneo and Sarawak. Today, Sir, because of our flexible policy, so flexible that it becomes confusing, people from Singapore are not trusted. That is most unfortunate, Sir. On capital investment, the "P.A.P.'s Five-Year Plan", on page 25, paragraph 3 has these words: `The P.A.P. profoundly disagrees that the survival of Singapore depends on foreign capital and foreign capitalists.' And yet, Sir, today, we do not find the Hon. the Minister for Finance here, because he has gone to the U K. and to America, cap in hand, to ask for foreign capital. Sir, Singapore, we know, cannot stand alone. Our economy is such that we must depend on the friendship and co-operation of those outside Singapore, of the Federation, our immediate neighbour, and even of those far away. Sir, we are not saying that the Finance Minister is doing the wrong thing. He is doing the right thing. But that seems, to be contrary to the Five-Year Plan. Sir, we agree in what they said in page 19, paragraph 3 of their "Tasks. Ahead", Part I, under the title "Our Economic Policy". `The main economic problem that faces Singapore today is to provide increasing, opportunities for employment.' And a few lines below: `If a large number of young people looking, for work do not get work and remain unemployed, there can be no peace and stability in this country. Acute social tensions would be generated. The political situation will become explosive.' We wholeheartedly agree, Sir, that that is a very important problem which must be solved. But here we differ with them in the approach to the solution of this problem. We say that they cannot solve this problem of unemployment if class hatred is still the basis of their political philosophy. Why not go a bit further? Why stop only with communal goodwill and racial goodwill? Why not go further, and have genuine goodwill above class? Simply regard ourselves, whether we are employers or employees, on the labour side or on the capital side, as human beings. On that basis only can our economy stand and prosper. Sir, this is being discussed freely among the unemployed. They say that any unemployed person who wants to get employment must join the P.A.P.

Is that so!

Sir, I hope the Minister for Labour and Law will deny that. I have been told reliably that the leaders of the Work Brigade are all P.A.P. members. Sir, that is being freely discussed. If that is not true, the Government should deny it, or invite somebody to scrutinise their background. But that has been discussed freely. The People's Action Party prides itself on being a Party based on principles, not on opportunism. How is it, Sir, that after condemning the English-educated, now they have been praised; now they have been told that their products are more nearly Malayan than others. Well, I am glad that the Party has changed to the point where it can appreciate these things. Of course, some people say that they are opportunists. But let us be generous and say that they have learned to appreciate what they did not appreciate. It is the same with the civil servants. They are supposed to have been spoilt under the previous Government; but now we hear praises that the civil servants are most loyal and capable. I agree with them. Without these trained civil servants, self-government in Singapore very likely would have failed. They provide the smooth machinery, so that regardless of whichever Party is in power, if they are left alone without any fear and any undue political interference, we know that they will do their job loyally and efficiently. Sir, there is one important point which I feel that the Government has overlooked. To the Malays, religion is most important. The Member for Kampong Kembangan has mentioned it again. And the Tunku, when he delivered his message regarding the end of the Emergency, was not ashamed to acknowledge his debt to Providence. He said here, Sir, as reported in the Sunday Times of 31st July, 1960: `I had declared my belief in the Legislative Council three months before I went to Baling. I thank God that my prayers and your prayers have been answered. Therefore, on our Victory Day, second only in importance to the Day of Merdeka, we celebrate with joy and thankfulness to Almighty God, the benevolent and the merciful, for our success. Praise be to God and to those who gave their support in faith and confidence, conscious of their duty to bring an end to the Emergency.' Sir, we were disappointed when we read in "The Tasks Ahead" Part I, on page 12, paragraph 4: `We, of the P.A.P. are not fatalists. As socialists we believe that the people, and not the stars, order human affairs.' Sir, that has given the impression that the Government does not believe that there is any value in religion, and that it believes only in human intelligence and human ability, unaided by a superior wisdom. Sir, we hope events have happened to make them wiser, because on National Day everything was planned well, humanly speaking. The weather forecasts were that it was going to be fine weather and yet it rained and rained and rained, longer than the P.A.P. wise men had expected and planned for. An hon. Member: You did not fix it, did you? You prayed for the rain!

Sir, I hope they have learned a lesson. I would like to quote, Sir, the immortal words of Shakespeare. I say immortal because the members of the' People's Action Party and I will go, but these words will still be remembered and quoted: `There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' An hon. Member: Where does it come from?

Hamlet. An hon. Member: What Act, what Scene?

Order.

Sir, the Member for Mountbatten has challenged the statement that there is political and economic stability today. But I think that challenge need not be answered because the Prime Minister himself has answered it. Under the heading "Finance" in col. 6 of the Hansard, volume 13, No. 1 of 20th July, 1960, it reads: `The atmosphere of uncertainty and hesitation in the field of private investment was replaced by a climate of confidence. Proof of this was the substantial volume of private investment now seeking permission to operate in Singapore. Applications for exemption under the Pioneer Industries Ordinance alone give a total paid-up capital of more than $101 million from 13 major concerns.'. Sir, we are glad that there is this climate of confidence as claimed by the Government. We hope that the climate of confidence will keep on getting better until the flow of capital towards the Federation is turned. But at the moment anybody going to Petaling Jaya will be so impressed that he comes back to Singapore with the thought that part of Singapore's major industries have gone over there. A Federation businessman was telling me that a Japanese organisation, which had planned to build a steel mill here, had, after investigating conditions in the, Federation, changed its mind. I hope, Sir, that the matter will be looked into. Why has this organisation changed its mind? Just to show that the climate of confidence is not as yet good enough, here is what one investor said, "We know that Singapore has got better facilities, but how can we guarantee that the labour situation will continue to be stable? So it is better that we stay in the Federation where people do not stir up class hatred and say that the workers must control the employers or vice-versa." Sir, in the past no doubt many employers exploited the labour situation, but things have changed. So why should the pendulum swing from one extreme to the other? Sir, the Government claims that its-policies and actions are consistent and predictable. I am afraid, Sir, things have happened to show that they are not so predictable as the Government seems to think. Or they are predictable to the point where the people cannot predict. To give you one example, Sir. When students, went abroad on Government bursaries or were awarded scholarships, there was no bond stating that they should come back and serve Government or some quasi-Government organisation for five years. Well, lo and behold, while they were still in foreign countries, they were told they must now sign new bonds. Unless they signed the bonds the bursaries would be discontinued. The same thing has happened to those bursary holders who are in our local University and who have been given bursaries without any strings attached. They were told that they must sign bonds. Sir, when they left their old status to go to the universities on bursaries without any strings attached, surely they did not predict that halfway through their studies they would be made to sign bonds. If a man sails from Singapore for London, he does not expect that halfway, some-where at the port of Aden, he will be told of new conditions which he must accept. otherwise he will be left in the lurch in Aden. He never predicted that. Sir, I hope the Government will think about it and ensure that what they do really is a continuation of what was, undertaken by the previous Government that was predictable. unless, of course there had been something disgraceful or underhand that had happened in connection with the contract. To give you another instance, Sir. When teachers from aided schools were given departmental scholarships to the University of Malaya, they signed bonds, and the bonds stated that after graduation they could serve in any government or aided school. Sir, at the beginning of this year, they were all told that they could not make any choice. They must all go to Government schools. That, Sir, was not predictable. And yet the policy as declared says that this Government follows a consistent and predictable policy. We hope maybe these were slips and we hope that they will be looked into. At least people will believe that whatever undertaking was given would be kept.

On a point of information, Sir?

If the Member will give way.

The Prime Minister will have his turn, Sir.

No, I want to clarify, Sir.

But not at the moment. The Member will not give way.

He is hiding something.

Sir, on the question of recruitment, we are told that Singapore people are paid higher salaries than those in India. Sir, why compare Singapore with India? If you compare Singapore with England or with America, it might be different, or perhaps compare Singapore with the Federation. Let us be realistic. Of course, the Federation is our nearest neighbour. Sir, the Government has wonderful plans for expansion of this and that which will require trained engineers, scientists and doctors. But what is the difference in salary scales and treatment between here and in the Federation? We have to be realistic, Sir. We have to see that the supply depends on the demand, and that the demand also depends on what is paid for the demand. Now we are faced with a situation where we are unable to retain trained and qualified personnel. In one school, at the end of last year, three science graduates resigned and went to the Federation. At the beginning of this year, two science graduates were persuaded to join a school in Singapore. At the end of six months, Sir, one resigned because he was offered a better post in Hong Kong with a salary of $200 more. Most unfortunate for Singapore! One month later, another one said he had been offered he did not apply but he had been offered - a job in the Federation where, instead of getting $650 per month as an Honours graduate here, he is there being paid $1,000 plus free quarters. So naturally, the principal said to him, "Good luck to you." That is why in Singapore `we are suffering. We are not realistic. Sir, the brightest feature in the speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is to be found in col. 5, paragraph 4 of the Hansard, Volume 13, No. 1, of 20th July, 1960, which says: `The Government does not wish to give the impression that there have not been mistakes and shortcomings during the past year. It is aware that some of its measures should have been more carefully planned and expertly executed. In some instances, it moved too fast and without preparing public opinion adequately for the changes. Some of the legislation resulted in inconveniences or misunderstandings which could have been avoided by a little more foresight, a little mere consultation, discussion and a little more explanation.' I would also suggest, Sir, `with a little more -'

Brains!

' - tolerance, a little more goodwill, a little less pressure.' To continue with the quotation, Sir: `But these are errors arising from zeal and impatience to get things done. In the coming year the Government will temper zeal with understanding and its impatience by explaining more to the people the need for certain courses of action.'. Sir, I consider that this is the brightest feature in the whole speech. But it is no use just to admit the errors. The errors must be rectified. The Government says that the next year will be a year of construction. But what is the use of constructing on a foundation that has been cracked? The cracks must be repaired, Sir.

The building will fall down.

Sir, the Minister for Education, who is not here, was a friend of mine even before he entered politics. I find it difficult sometimes to say things in this Chamber because of our friendly relationship. But I am here, Sir, to express the feelings of the members of the public who dare not express these feelings on their own behalf for obvious reasons. They have asked me to raise this question: "Frankly, do you not think that the Government's educational experiments have made most people in Singapore unhappy? They have made teachers unhappy, parents unhappy and also the students unhappy." Sir, no doubt the Government side will sneer again. That is an expression of opinion. If they are still sceptical, Sir, I suggest that they take a referendum of opinion among those categories of people. There is no question, Sir, that the Minister for Education is zealous and sincere, and that he wants to do in four years' time what normally should be done in 10 years. Sir, Rome was not built in a day, and nature has certain laws which must be observed -

Order. Moment of interruption. Resumption of debate on Monday?

On Monday, Sir.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m. to Monday, 8th August, 1960.