Hansard, 1961-01-11

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: Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten) from 1st to 31st January, 1961. Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang), Minister for Health - from 29th December, 1960, to 31st January, 1961. Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi)- 11th January, 1961.

I have to report that I have been informed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that, on the days stated, he assented to the following Bills:- 31st December, 1960. Appropriation Bill. 10th January, 1961. (i) Property Tax Bill; (ii) Immigration (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Pineapple Industry (Amendment) Bill; (iv) Private Lotteries (Amendment) Bill: (v) Rubber Estates Assessment (Amendment) Bill; (vi) Income Tax (Amendment No. 2) Bill.

I have to inform honourable Members that on the 29th day of December, 1960, I duly sent a letter to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara reporting the vacancy in the Assembly created by the resignation of the Member for Hong Lim earlier on that day. I received a reply of the same date from His Excellency acknowledging receipt of the message transmitted to him in my letter.

2.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a few days ago a handful of desperadoes, from the basest of motives, managed to create among the Malay public an atmosphere of fear and tension with a view to precipitating clashes between Malays and Chinese on 6th January. But for the speedy action taken by the Government with the active assistance of members of the Muslim Advisory Board, Malay P.A.P. Assemblymen, U.M.N.O. leaders and Malay religious leaders, 6th January might have turned out to be a day of terror and mourning for many of us. If the vast majority of the non-Malay public was unaware of the mood of tension and fear that had been built up among the Malays, it was because the Government, with the help of Malay leaders, succeeded in preventing these anxieties from spreading among the non-Malays as well. Now that the danger has passed, we feel it our duty to tell the people of Singapore about how a handful of desperadoes plotted death for Malays and Chinese alike. The plot began on 14th December, 1960, with a meeting in Changi of a body calling itself the Angkatan Revolusi Tentera Islam Singapura or A.R.T.I.S. for short. The leader of this group was a man called Abdul Ghani Bin Hassan. It is worthwhile noting that he had been sentenced in 1949 to six years' imprisonment for robbery (though he only served three years). He was sentenced again in 1951 for two years for theft. The meeting was ostensibly called to discuss Malay rights, but a pamphlet distributed at the meeting made it clear that A.R.T.I.S. had more sinister motives - to provoke shedding of blood. Let me, Sir, quote a few passages from this inflammatory pamphlet: `This pamphlet is directed to my own race, the Malays, who are now fighting to realise their aspirations and rights - Singapore's independence that is untamed. Like the uncontrollable elements of the weather in the high seas, to be followed later by a calm, so will our fighting spirit finally emerge triumphant.' It goes on to say: `History teaches us that the aims and aspirations for the race and country are achieved through the sacrifice of lives and property.' What is reprehensible about this pamphlet is not that it protests against the real or imagined grievances of the Malays. There is room in a democratic country for protest over grievances, whether real or imagined. But what is dangerous and unforgivable is the incitement to violence and hatred. Anyone, whether Malay or Chinese or Indian, who, in a multi-racial society, glorifies violence and preaches hatred and uses them as political fuel inevitably prepares the ground for racial carnage. `Fortunately these exhortations to violence alarmed many of the Malays who were present at the meeting and they did not therefore respond to the appeals of leaders of A.R.T.I.S. So nothing happened for a few days after this meeting. Then on Christmas Day, rumours began circulating to the effect that Malays would assemble on 6th January to protest against the P.A.P. Government's alleged neglect of Malay interests and alleged favouring of Chinese. These and other rumours gained circulation very rapidly among the Malays. One of the rumours was that the Malays would march to the Istana Negara and that any attempt by Government to stop the procession would be answered by rioting. The Malays were also told to prepare for an alleged attack on them by Chinese on 6th January, which was a Friday. By 28th December, a new rumour was added - that a Malay member of the Singapore Work Brigade had been murdered. This was a complete lie but the fabricators of this and other rumours were deliberately out to create an atmosphere of panic among the Malays. So on 31st December, the Police raided a house at Fernhill Road and seized a quantity of stencilled posters. The posters were inflammatory in language and talked of violence and revolution if Singapore were not returned to the Malays. These anti-Government posters were scheduled to appear on 3rd January, as a prelude to racial disturbances. The posters were issued under the name of A.R.T.I.S. and so on the morning of 1st January, the Police arrested its president, Abdul Ghani. Under interrogation, he made a number of useful disclosures and admitted that he had a hand in preparing the posters. He also revealed plans by A.R.T.I.S. for engineering armed violence. By 3rd January, there was widespread fear, largely induced by false rumours spread by the plotters, of racial disturbances in Malay areas. In between spreading these vicious and dangerous rumours calculated to bring about the loss of Malay as well as Chinese lives, the plotters decided to make some money out of the anxiety they had caused to their own people. So one of the plotters contacted a bomoh. While spreading rumours about impending racial clash, the plotter also informed his victims that "invulnerability" charms and shirts could be bought for a price from the bomoh. The bomoh is said to have done well selling invulnerability charms and shirts for as much as $15 apiece. Three Malays wearing these shirts were found in the house and detained by the Police but the bomoh unfortunately vanished before the Police appeared. A number of these plotters toured various kampongs spreading false rumours that fighting had broken out between Chinese and Malays and that the Malays should stand in readiness for 6th January when widespread racial clashes were to be expected. On the morning of 5th January, the Police seized copies of a Malay magazine just before they were to be distributed. This magazine carried an editorial unjustly accusing the Government of provoking and hurting the feelings of Singapore Muslims. It was also learnt that the proprietor of the magazine had intentions of making a statement on the subject at Sultan Mosque after mid-day prayers on 6th January. Sir, it is not suggested that the proprietor was in any way connected with the A.R.T.I.S. group. The appearance of this editorial may have been sheer coincidence. But in view of the prevailing air of tension among the Malays and in view of the fact that according to rumours Sultan Mosque had been selected by the plotters as the spot to spark off clashes, it became necessary for the Government to prevent circulation of the magazine and request the proprietor not to make a statement at the mosque. Also on the morning of 6th January, the Police discovered in an unoccupied hut, seven jungle green uniforms with shoulder badges bearing a white crescent and star on a green background. The Police also discovered four flags with Arabic inscriptions. By 4th and 5th January, rumours about an impending racial clash on 6th January had gained wide currency among the Malay public. Fortunately, the non-Malay public knew little or nothing about these rumours or else the air of tension and. anxiety might have spread to the non-Malays as well and thus created an extremely ugly situation. Sir, it may be asked, why then did 6th January pass off peacefully? For one thing, the Police acted swiftly. They arrested a number of the plotters. To date, 15 persons have been detained in connection with A.R.T.I.S. This organisation was fortunately not large or influential and these timely arrests put it out of action. Another important factor was the wholehearted assistance given by Malay religious, civic and political leaders in helping to combat the vicious rumours that the plotters had deliberately spread. Representatives of the Muslim Advisory Board, Malay P.A.P. Assemblymen and leaders of U.M.N.O. issued warnings telling their brother - Malays not to heed the mischievous lies of the plotters. These warnings were broadcast over the Malay section of Radio Singapore throughout the night of 5th January and 6th January morning. The Government also sent out field units equipped with loudspeakers to broadcast the messages of Malay leaders in Malay areas. Malay leaders also approached leaders of mosques requesting them to be on the look-out for mischief makers and to counter dangerous rumours. This assistance by Malay religious and political leaders did a great deal to neutralise the mischief created by the plotters. Another reason was that these rumours, though they created anxiety among the Malays, roused no Malay animosity against the non-Malays, in particular, against the Chinese. The fear was not that the Chinese would attack the Malays, as the plotters had said they would, but that the plotters would stage a small incident which might panic people into racial clash. It was to prevent such an accidental sparking off of racial clashes that the Government thought it prudent not to draw the attention of the non-Malay public to what was happening. A sudden announcement about it a few days before 6th January might have alarmed the non-Malay public who, by and large, were unaware of the rumours and fears circulating among large numbers of Malays. An island-wide mood of anxiety and fear could have provided the plotters with greater opportunities to start trouble. Perhaps the most important reason was that the Malays, though anxious, behaved sensibly by not saying or doing anything to provoke conflict. This as much as anything else ensured that 6th January passed off without incident. Now that A.R.T.I.S. has been broken up and the mood of anxiety and fear has subsided, it is as well to reflect calmly on what had taken place and why it took place. The first thing to note is that a handful of desperadoes, without any following or influence, were able to inculcate in hundreds of people a dangerous mood of anxiety. We should frankly recognise the reasons for this. The Malays are deeply conscious of the fact that they are a minority in Singapore. This minority complex feeds on the fact that there is economic distress among the Malays. Of course, the truth is that economic distress is not confined only to Malays. If there are poor and unemployed Malays, there are many poor and unemployed Chinese, Indians, and other non-Malays as well. It is not a question of solving just Malay poverty or Chinese poverty or Indian poverty, but poverty in general. It is economically impossible, in a complex society like ours, to solve poverty in terms of this or that race. However, the unsophisticated Malay, like the unsophisticated Chinese or Indian, does not understand the complex nature of the problem of poverty. There is no doubt that the racialist plotters tried to work on the economic discontents of the Malays, in particular, unemployed Malay youths. Their propaganda claimed that the Government was favouring the Chinese at the expense of the Malays. This was completely false, but same unemployed Malay youths may be ready to believe such false and dangerous propaganda. The Government's attempts to solve the Nanyang University issue was again deliberately, distorted by the plotters to mean that the Government was favouring Chinese education by offering equal financial aid to Nanyang; that it favoured Chinese when it offered to take Nanyang graduates into Government service. All these are, of course, completely distorted and mischievous interpretations of Government's actions and intentions, but we should not be blind to the possible effect such propaganda can have on unemployed Malays or on a minority community in a society which has not yet learnt to think and act nationally. In such a political atmosphere it is necessary for all of us - Malays, Chinese and Indians - not to say and do things which might create fears and suspicions, which reckless opportunists and plotters can exploit with a view to sparking off racial conflict. We must never forget how in a multi-racial society there is always the danger of racial explosion being sparked off by even trivial acts of stupidity and miscalculation, in addition to deliberate acts of provocation. It is timely to draw attention to the lunatics in the non-Malay world who are saying and doing stupid things which could, if unfettered, explode in racial violence. There are non-Malays who, in the name of revolution or culture or education, are saying and doing things which, whether they intend it or not, are increasing the anxiety of the Malay minority and thus making them ready prey for reckless Malay demagogues like those who organised A.R.T.I.S. Let me, Sir, give an illustration of this sort of lunancy. Yesterday, that is Tuesday, the Government banned a locally produced Chinese book called, "Wind and Rain in Rubber Estates". It is a long poem purporting to deal with the life of Chinese rubber tappers in the Federation. It is a well written and, for the most part, a sensitive piece of literature written with great feeling. However, Sir, for all its poetic language and feeling the intent of the poem is not unlike that of the manifesto of the A.R.T.I.S. group which I quoted earlier. Like the A.R.T.I.S. manifesto, this poem glorifies violence and inspires hatred. It endorses hatred and violence as justifiable political fuels and bases for political action. The eventual result of poems like this must be to build up an atmosphere of fear and hatred to be consummated in racial violence. The poem after recounting the hardship and exploitation of rubber workers, which is a legitimate theme for any poem, then goes on to describe the deliberate shooting of a pregnant Chinese woman tapper by Security Forces during the Emergency. Sir, let me quote a few extracts to show how the poem exploits hatred with a view to inciting people to revolutionary violence. I quote, Sir. One passage reads like this: `The rubber workers Lift the companion covered in blood. Oh! She is a pregnant woman. The blood-spattered body The soaked clothing Have been torn into shreds. The rain and the dark red blood mingling Flow like a spring. Oh! A pitiful woman.' Then the poem goes on to describe the plight of her children, left uncared for as a result of the killing. The poem then says this: `The hearts of rubber workers can no longer be calm. Sorrow, hatred fill their hearts. In the gloomy sky Blows the angry wind The gloomy rubber estate is filled with thick mist Oh, how gloomy and cold is the great earth!' Then towards the end of the poem, the clarion call is sounded for revolutionary violence. This is how the passage reads - after the pregnant woman has been murdered, the tappers carry the body for viewing by the other estate tappers: `They open wide both eyes, They hold tightly their tapping knives. O, the tapping knives! As if they flashed the light of hatred. O, eyes! As if arrows of vengeance follow the sound of rubber-buckets. The sound of rubber buckets Is no longer a fearful sound. The sound of rubber buckets Compels them to run to The road of life and death. They carry the flashing knives Ready to fight Oh, ready to fight... They run over many slopes Stepping on the bloodstained little path. They run towards the terrible sound of rubber-buckets. They run towards the path of battle!' Incidentally, Sir, the "sound of rubber buckets" is the poetic symbol for rifle fire. The poem then goes on to describe how the enraged rubber tappers, armed with tapping knives, rush to join the armed Communist forces presumably engaging the Security Forces who had killed the woman tapper. The existence of this dangerous and mischievous poem came to the notice of Government when students of a Chinese school applied for permission to dramatise this poem for performance at a concert to be held on the 27th of last month. The student organisers submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs a synopsis of this poem which was deliberately misleading. The synopsis merely said, and I quote from the synopsis, that the item "eulogises the mountains and rivers of the motherland, particularly the sturdy robust rubber plantations.... This work also describes the life of rubber tappers who keep company with rubber estates while running on the plain wielding their tapping knives.... They use their tapping knives to allow that snow-white latex to flow slowly...." You can see Sir, from the extracts of the poem that I have read that the synopsis was completely and deliberately misleading. And because this was a completely misleading account of the poem, the Government in all good faith was deceived into approving this mischievous play or poem. The true nature of the poem came to light when, just four days before the concert, the organisers submitted to the school principal galley proofs of the programme to be sold at the concert. The programme was almost wholly devoted to long comments on the play. Thousands of copies of the programme had been printed for sale without the approval of the principal.. When the Government's attention was drawn to the real nature of this poetic drama and the programme, it told the organisers that they could not perform the drama or distribute the programme. They were told that if they had not deceived the Government by providing a completely misleading account of the poem-drama, they need not have incurred the expense and labour of rehearsing this item and printing the special programme. On the day of the concert, that is, 27th December, the organisers announced to the assembled audience that because of Government action the announced play could not be performed. Some undesirable and irresponsible elements exploited the situation by suggesting that the Government had been unreasonable, that it was stifling the free development of culture and repressing creative expression by local artists. So hundreds of people present at the concert left with the impression that the Government had unreasonably repressed progressive Chinese culture. Let us consider what would have been the effect on our relations with the Federation Government and on all right-thinking people had poems of this sort advocating revolutionary violence and hatred and praising the violence of the Malayan Communist Party been allowed to be performed for the edification of school children and a Chinese audience. And what would have been the effect on our Malay brothers who fear Communism and who are from time to time told by Malay communalists that Chinese are working for the victory of Chinese Communism. Moreover, though the poem was ostensibly revolutionary in intent, its presentation was such as to excite racial animosity among less sophisticated people. The woman tapper who was killed was a Chinese. A large majority of members of the Security Forces are Malays. The effect of this poem and poems of a similar nature would have been, wittingly or unwittingly, to gradually bring the two major races to the brink of racial conflict. We do not know who were the reckless adventurers who prevailed upon these misguided student organisers to stage this inflammatory play. What would have been the consequences had these adventurers succeeded in getting this play performed at Badminton Hall on the night of 27th December? The result would have been that on 27th December the feelings of hundreds of unsuspecting Chinese would have been worked up at the Badminton Hall even as on the same night racialists toured Malay areas trying to work up fear and hatred against the Chinese. One group would have worked up sympathy for violence and hatred in the name of revolution, while the other would have worked up similar emotions in the name of racialism. Each by different routes would have reached the same goal - that is, racial conflict. This must be the inevitable outcome in Malaya of political action based on glorification of violence and hatred. The Government has repeatedly warned that in a multi-racial society all efforts to direct politics on the basis of revolutionary violence and hatred must eventually lead to racial conflict. In essence, this poem repeats the clarion call made by the plotters of A.R.T.I.S. Let me repeat the message of A.R.T.I.S. to contrast with the message put forward by the poem. The A.R.T.I.S. manifesto says- "Like the uncontrollable elements of the weather in the high seas to be followed later by calm so will our fighting spirit finally emerge triumphant for the Malay race in Singapore and mark as a final seal to our struggle". Or: "History teaches us that the aims and aspirations of race and country are achieved through the sacrifice of lives and property." There is both the same glorification of violence and appeal to hatred in both the poem and the A.R.T.I.S. manifesto. One makes the clarion call, as I said, Sir, in the name of Communism, and the other in the name of racialism. But in a Malayan situation the end-result of these two sorts of lunacy would be racial carnage. It is the ordinary people who, by and large, are the victims in such racial conflicts. We call upon all peoples - Malays, Chinese, Indians - all loyal and patriotic Malayans to resist these two lunacies. To allow ourselves to come under the influence of either of the two lunatic groups is to open wide the gates to the horrors of racial civil war. The events I have described earlier should remind all right-thinking citizens of how easy it is for a handful of irresponsible men to bring this city to the brink of racial tension just by spreading unfounded rumours. It needs but a spark to set off the explosion. Our advice is: Do not listen to rumours which speak of impending racial conflicts. They are false rumours started by irresponsible elements who do not care about the welfare of any race. All that these dangerous men hope for is to make a few dollars or advance their personal glory out of the slaughter of innocent people. By repeating such rumours people would only be playing into the hands of irresponsible elements. People would be unwittingly helping to create the atmosphere of tension and fear which these dangerous men want. If people hear such rumours of racial clashes or stories calculated to foment hatred between races they should not pass them on. They should tell the police about it, or their Assemblymen or community leaders, so that action can be taken in time to nip in the bud such dangerous plots. But most of all, let us remember that we live in a mixed community where old suspicions and fears have not been completely eradicated. As long as this is the case, the danger of communalism exists. It is like a wild and hungry beast pacing impatiently behind the bars of a cage. We who bear no hatred against races and creeds intend that this wild beast remains locked in its cage so that eventually it will waste away and die. But if any lunatic tries to unlock the cage and let the beast loose, then we should stop the lunatic before he gets anywhere near the cage. The price of racial peace, Sir, is eternal vigilance - vigilance against the lunatics who think they can make use of this wild beast of communalism. The truth is that it will destroy the lunatic as well as the innocent people. We must, therefore, never allow ourselves to be fooled by the lunatics out to let loose the wild beast of racialism. All our hopes of a happy and prosperous Malaya depend upon our being able to preserve the harmonious relations that have existed between the races for generations. If that peace should be shattered, wittingly or unwittingly, then that would be the beginning of decades of horror and carnage. That is why this Government has never ceased to reiterate the urgency of creating a Malayan nationalism and outlook at the earliest possible moment. Without this sense of Malayan identity, our many races remain exposed at any time to the blandishments of reckless racialists. Though a sense of responsibility and fear of the terrible consequences of racial conflict have inhibited the vast majority of people from saying or doing anything calculated to spark off racial conflagration, we would like to warn the people of Singapore against a minority of reckless lunatics who want to see a clash between the races, in particular, the Malays and Chinese. That is why we want to tell the people of Singapore about the activities of this reckless minority so that they may be on guard against these dangerous and despicable men and not be taken in by their lies and deceit. The majority of us, because we are by nature peaceful and law-abiding, may refuse to believe that anything could happen to disrupt the harmonious relations which have existed for generations between the various races. But as recent events have shown, it is possible for a handful of evil and reckless adventurers to create, almost overnight, an atmosphere of fear and anxiety which could lead to racial carnage. 3.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the statement by the Minister for Culture should be a reminder to us all of the delicate nature of the communal problem. For the Government, trying to solve the communal problem, is like walking on a knife's edge. In its efforts to develop a Malayan outlook and Malayan loyalty, it has to meet the subtle and underground propaganda of the Chinese chauvinist, the Indian communalist and the Malay racialist. If it tries to assist the Malays, the Chinese chauvinist depicts such action as pro-Malay and anti-Chinese. Any action to help the Chinese is presented by Malay racialists as pro-Chinese and so on. But this Government is not pro-Chinese, pro-Malay or pro any particular race. It is first and last pro-Malayan. And a pro-Malayan policy, as it becomes more effective, will meet with the hostility of all communalists who have a political vested interest in racialism. In an effort to combat the growth of a Malayan outlook the communalists may, with increasing recklessness, try to fan the flames of racialism. We are prepared to deal with such elements. We will deal with them firmly and vigorously as we did with the organisers of A.R.T.I.S. and with those who tried to perform a mischievous play at the Badminton Hall. The A.R.T.I.S. plot was smashed and the people of Singapore were spared the terror of racial riots because of the vigilance and determination of our police force. Our police have proved that they are ready to deal with any plot by any race to disturb racial harmony. In dealing with the A.R.T.I.S. plotters, the police had an extremely difficult and delicate task to perform. Most of the plotting was in secret. To have taken action too soon would have resulted in our not knowing the extent and ramifications of the plot. Secondly, the police had to take action without unduly alarming the non-Malay population who, for the most part, were unaware of what was going on. As it turned out, the police carried out their operation smoothly and effectively. In view of the tragedy communal conflict could bring to all races, let me state here, quite categorically, that the Government will not hesitate to act swiftly to detain and neutralise plotters out to create racial strife.

"to consolidate the law relating to the suppression of common gaming houses, public gaming and public lotteries", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 22nd February, 1961, and to be printed.

Resolved, "That at its rising this day, this Assembly do stand adjourned to 22nd February, 1961."-[The Deputy Prime Minister-Dr Toh Chin Chye.]

Order for Second Reading read. 3.18 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Agricultural Leases Bill (No. 121) and the Control of Rent (Amendment No. 3) Bill (No. 122), which make substantive changes in the law and have been drafted in accordance with the People's Action Party's announced programme, are before the House. It is our intention to refer these two Bills to Select Committees to enable the provisions to be carefully considered in the light of representations from rural organisations and other affected bodies. It will no doubt be some time before these Bills are enacted, and it is therefore necessary to extend the temporary protection against eviction which expires on 23rd January, 1961, in cases where paragraphs (i) and (k) of section 15 (1) of the Control of Rent Ordinance apply, until such time as the Control of Rent (Amendment No. 3) Bill, 1960, becomes law. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

3.20 p.m. Clause 1- Amendments made in page 1, line 5, to leave out "No. 4" and in page 1, line 9, to leave out "3" and insert "2".- (Mr Ong Chang Sam).

The figure "1960" where it occurs will be altered to read "1961" as a matter of course. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation to proceed with the Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill has been drafted in pursuance of the People's Action Party's programme on Rural Development as outlined in "The Tasks Ahead", Part 2, page 33. Therein we stated: `We shall take the requisite powers to grant long term leases to squatter farmers on lands which they now occupy and on farming lands which are either uncultivated or which are being cultivated on a mere maintenance basis with a view to future speculation. Under these arrangements rents due on such leases which farmers can afford will be paid to the owners and it shall be made a condition that no such lands may be alienated to persons other than farmers. The position of all agricultural lands at present in the occupation of squatter farmers which have been zoned in the Master Plan as sites for satellite towns or potential industrial estates will be reviewed and the fullest consideration will be given to the representation of the members of the farming community before any decisions are made as to the future use to which such lands shall be put.' Sir, this Bill recognises the position of farmers in our society and aims at giving them a greater security of tenure, and helping them to make the best use of our available agricultural land. By providing these necessary preconditions of certainty and stability, a more intensive and scientific cultivation of agricultural land will result. This Bill creates statutory rights of an exceptional character and directly interferes with the ordinary rights of private ownership of property by giving special treatment to farmers. However, such inroads into the original concept of the sanctity of private ownership of property are inevitable in our society. The State has to reconcile - in this particular case - the competing needs of different sections of the community between farmers and landowners, and between the competing demands for growing foodstuffs, or for industrial, housing and other purposes in the uses of land. It is our intention to refer both this Bill and the complementary Control of Rent (Amendment No. 3) Bill to a Select Committee for careful study, and to enable the people, particularly landlords and farmers who are affected, an opportunity to make representations on them. With land to meet our requirements strictly limited, it is essential that all available land be put to the most economic use. The Master Plan has set aside approximately 18.5 per cent of the total area of the Island for agricultural purposes. A total area of approximately 38.8 square miles out of a total of 209.5 square miles (not counting the areas subject to tidal waters) is zoned off as "agricultural" in the Master Plan. The 1958 Revised Land Use Survey showed that out of this area of 38.8 square miles, approximately only half (about 19.4 square miles) was being used for agriculture. It is clear therefore that not all the lands set aside for agriculture have been put to full and intensive use. Encouragement and assistance by way of granting security of tenure as well as by active assistance by the Primary Production Department in technical and scientific advice can improve the position of our farmers and increase the supply of pigs, poultry and vegetables for the people as a whole. These two Bills, the Control of Rent (Amendment No. 3) Bill, which I shall be moving after this Bill, together with this one, will provide a positive protection for farmers which was lacking hitherto. In a way, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Agricultural Leases Bill is a logical follow-up to the intentions of the Master Plan, as it seeks to provide the farmers within the agricultural zone the necessary security of tenure to encourage efficient farming. Farmers will now be eligible for leases up to 12 years and can go ahead and plan for farming improvements, secure in the knowledge that they have complete security for the period of the leases, provided they fulfil their normal obligations as lessees. The landlord, on the other hand, will be able to obtain an economic rent subject to a maximum over the present rents for the lease which he will be required to grant to the farmers. This Bill will benefit farmers primarily within the areas zoned as "agricultural" in the Master Plan. However, the definition of "agricultural land" is being widened to include "lands designated by the Minister by notification in the Gazette as agricultural land". It will thereby be possible to extend the benefits of long leases to farmers in those areas of good agricultural land which are not at present zoned as "agricultural" in the Master Plan for there are pockets of good agricultural land, for example, in the Potong Pasir and the Braddell Road farms at present zoned as "green belt" areas in the Master Plan. We are prepared to consider designating such lands as "agricultural" for the purposes of this Ordinance. By the definitions of "farmers" and "tenancy", the benefits of leases will also be extended to bona fide farmers who have been occupying and using agricultural land for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the coming into operation of the Bill, provided such farmer has tendered to the landlord rent in respect of the land, whether or not such tender has been accepted by the landlord. This is a departure from the normal theory of freedom of contract and the House will appreciate that it is a necessary departure aimed at achieving certain economic objectives. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for a lease of not more than 12 years to be granted to the tenant farmer at his request at an economic rent to be agreed between the tenant and the landlord. The lease would make provision for all the matters set out in the Schedule to the Bill. If no agreement can be reached between the landlord and the tenant on the terms of the lease, the tenant may refer the matter for arbitration under the Bill. Sir, we have put the figure at 12 years. It may well be, after hearing representations from all parties concerned in the Select Committee, that the number of years may be increased to 15, or even slightly more. But we have to weigh the competing interests between the present and future user. If, for instance, we were to tie up the land to a hypothetical 30 years of agricultural use and a lease is granted, it may well be that long before the 30 years, the development of industry in the island would have so progressed as to make it uneconomic for the land to be allowed to be used as a poultry farm. Therefore, we have to weigh the balance between, on the one hand, the present certainty for as long as it can conceivably be planned and, on the other hand, without necessarily tying up the future to a point where we may have cause to regret our having mortgaged the future so far in advance. Sir, clause 4 provides for a restriction on letting or leasing of agricultural land to any person for other than agricultural purposes without the express written permission of the Commissioner of Lands. This is an important limitation. Also, in further pursuance of the objectives of the Master Plan, it achieves two targets. First, a farmer can only transfer the lease to another farmer. Second, a landlord who has land in an agricultural zone and who is paying assessment on it has two alternatives: either to develop the land as an agricultural piece of land for farming within the definition of the Bill, or to let it out for farming. Provision is made in clause 7 for a Panel of Arbitrators from which an Arbitrator would be nominated to deal with a particular case. It is envisaged that the Arbitrator will be assisted by officials from a section to be set up in the Land Office to administer the two Ordinances. The Arbitrator will, after hearing both parties, decide on the terms of the lease. Mr Speaker, Sir, I did mention during the Second Reading of the Control of Rent (Amendment No. 2) Bill that the original intention of putting it before the Rent Conciliation Board was then being considered and it was thought unwieldy because it would, in the initial phase, completely inundate the Rent Conciliation Board as it had not the machinery that would be adequate to deal with and adjudicate between parties in this sort of cases. Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill provide an informal procedure for arbitration under the Bill. Clause 11 provides for rules to be made to carry out the purposes of the Bill. Clause 12 expressly provides that the Bill shall not apply to the Crown and safeguards the rights and powers of the State under the Land Acquisition Ordinance. This is a necessary proviso because. even in the agricultural zone, land shall be required for schools, clinics, parks, installation of electricity units, community centres, and so on. It also provides that the provisions of Parts III and IIIA of the Control of Rent Ordinance will apply to agricultural land comprised in any lease executed under the provisions of this Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.38 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the government machinery of a country is in the hands of those who protect capitalism, they always think of ways and means to pass legislation beneficial to the rich. When they are affected by the tide of anti-exploitation revolution started by the progressive countries, they will pretentiously pass legislation for the so-called protection of labour and welfare in which there are many defects. This is just to bluff the people in another form. They never put the legislation into practice, but they just bluff the people. In the past, although the various strata of our people were under the protection of some legislation, only the farmers had no protection. Therefore, the farmers were doubly oppressed and were left to prosper or die by themselves. Often in the past, they were oppressed by the immoral landlords on the pretext that they wanted to beautify this city. Our existing legislation was passed in days gone by. Therefore, the Judges usually granted the applications of landlords for the possession of land, thus affecting the farmers. But since the P.A.P. Government took office, we have passed temporary legislation to protect the interest of the farmers. At the moment, there are still some unscrupulous landlords who want to make use of the loopholes in the law to intimidate the farmers and to destroy their agricultural land and houses. Therefore, I must warn those unscrupulous landlords that if they still want to make use of mean tactics to disturb the peace of our country, our Government will take legal measures to deal with them. Mr Speaker, Sir, our agriculture here is quite developed when compared with that of other areas in South-East Asia. Our agricultural products are being sold to the Federation of Malaya and other places. Therefore, the farmers have a place in the economic position of our society. Before it took office, the P.A.P. laid great stress on agriculture and they made promises in this respect to pass legislation to protect the farmers in order that they can live in security and peace to develop their agriculture to the best of their ability. Therefore, after this Bill was read the First time, all the rural people and organisations have expressed their support for it. They welcome this Bill because it specifically provides for their protection and tenure of lease so that they feel that they can have security in earning their livelihood through agriculture. The land available for agriculture in Singapore is limited, apart from the agricultural lands designated in the Singapore Master Plan. Some people might misunderstand the provisions of this Bill. They might think that whenever there is a dispute, the law will provide for some unfavourable measures detrimental to their interest. This depends on what the Government attitude is. If the Government is for the interest of the capitalists, then, of course, the farmers will be affected. The Bills passed by the previous Government on labour and so on, did not have any practical effect. But the P.A.P. Government represent the people and we are working in their interest. Therefore, the Agricultural Leases Bill is a manifestation of our policy and this Bill can be said to be for the good of the farmers, to protect them and to give hem security of tenure. Sir, I strongly support this Bill. 3.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this House feel it an honour to discuss today the Agricultural Leases Bill. The people of Singapore can now see that the P.A.P. Government is fulfilling its election promises. I believe that hon. Members here and all the people outside the House will strongly support this Bill and will feel glad about it. Past legislation detrimental to the people has been and will be swept out by new legislation. This achievement must be attributed to the people's Government because the people have entrusted this duty to the P.A.P. Government, and the Government have peacefully carried out their task. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Prime Minister mentioned what the P.A.P. promised the people during the elections. Under the Master Plan, in regard to those areas where farmers live which are not designated under the Master Plan, the Government will take proper steps to declare those areas as agricultural lands so as to enable the farmers living there to have the protection of the law. We fully understand that up to now the arable lands which are available for agriculture are limited. The Government have the duty to take care of those valuable lands and put them to better use. Those lands classified as good for the interests of the country and for specific uses will not be declared agricultural lands, unless construction thereon is beneficial to the people as a whole, such as building hospitals schools, markets, and so on. Otherwise, these lands will not be acquired to the detriment of the farmers. Some people may think that the word "agriculture" means only vegetable-growing. It is clearly provided in the Bill that the word "agriculture" includes horticulture, floriculture, rubber, coconut and fruit planting, dairy farming, livestock and poultry breeding and rearing, market and nursery gardening, the use of land as fish-ponds and prawn-ponds, and the use of land for other purposes of agriculture. The Bill will protect the present users of agricultural land. This is very important. Without these strict provisions, this Bill will lose its original intent and purpose. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many industries useful to farmers. They were taken to task by some landlords in past legislation. For instance, after the farmers had cultivated the land for a time, the landlord would make use of the old law to drive them out. Some farmers had just started their agricultural work and some landlords thought that they had some bad habits and they tried to drive them out and rob them of their cultivated land for their own use. Therefore, in the past the people were in fear when they carried out their agricultural work because the landlords wanted to take back their land unreasonably. The present Bill will rectify the defects in the old law and try to protect the farmers in this respect. Our Prime Minister has just now clearly explained certain aspects of the Bill. The Government recognise that statutory tenure of lease is very important to enable the people to carry out their agricultural plans without fear. Clause 3 of the Bill provides that the period of lease for agricultural land will be up to a maximum of 12 years. At the same time, both the landlord and the tenants will agree on an economic rent. If both sides could not agree to that, then the tenant can ask that the issue be put up to an arbitrator to consider. The Bill also provides: `(a) two hundred per centum of the annual rent thereof paid during the year 1960, in respect of the first five years; (b) fifty per centum of the annual rent thereof paid during the first five years, in respect of the second five years; and (c) fifty per centum of the annual rent thereof paid during the second five years, in respect of the remaining two years.' These are the rentals provided in the Bill. For instance, if a farmer in 1960 pays a rental of $24, then when the Bill comes into effect, the rental for the first five years should not be over $48, and during the second five years, the rent should not exceed $72, and for the last two years, it should not exceed $108. Mr Speaker, Sir, we think that the maximum of the rent payable is necessary. Without this provision, the landlords will increase the rent and the tenants will not be able to bear this. As to the rent to be paid by the tenant, it is to be that agreed between him and the landlord at an economic rate. The arbitrator will also take into consideration the relevant facts to consider the proper rent to be fixed. We believe that through negotiations, the result achieved will be beneficial to both sides. The Government believes that both sides can co-operate and understand the purpose of Government's intention. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that clause 3 (4) of this Bill will not be made use of in future. But if some landlords despise the meaning of the provisions of the Bill, then the Government will have no alternative but to use this provision to deal with them. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government fully understands that in order to improve the livelihood of the farmers, the matter does not depend only on one side. It does not depend on this Agricultural Leases Bill alone. It must also depend on other bases which will help to bring about improvements, namely, the Primary Production Division and others. They have to pay careful attention to these problems. We believe that Government will take immediate necessary steps to protect the livelihood of the farmers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. -[The Prime Minister].

Order for Second Reading read. 3.55 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommnedation to proceed with this Bill, and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Control of Rent Ordinance was originally designed to impose controls on landlords in order to prevent the full effect of a shortage of land and housing arising from the last war from falling completely on the shoulders of tenants. The Ordinance imposed restrictions on increases of rent that could be charged for premises and also gave the tenants protection from eviction. From time to time, the Ordinance has been amended, and as it stood in 1959, the Ordinance enabled an order for the recovery of possession of any premises to be given inter alia in cases falling with the provisions of paragraphs (i) and (k) of section 15 (1) of the Ordinance. They enumerated two sets of circumstances. First, where the premises consisted of a building or buildings of a temporary character and the site is required by the landlord for the erection of a building or buildings of a permanent character; and the second set of circumstances, where the landlord of any premises intends to demolish the same for the purpose of rebuilding on the site, and the Court is satisfied that such demolition is necessary in the interests of public health or town improvement. Sir, until this Bill, fortunes have been made at the Bar in arguing the intricacies on the meaning of "town improvement and public health", and many a landlord has been able to reacquire possession of his land. But I think it weighs heavily on the conscience of many an advocate acting on behalf of landlords that the provisions of paragraphs (i) and (k) of section 15 (1) of the Control of Rent Ordinance have operated harshly against tenants, who have suffered to be removed without compensation in the interests of an abstract ideal embraced in the phrase "public health and town improvement". Again, the Ordinance as it stood did not give protection, where land was being cultivated but where no buildings which can constitute "premises" as defined in the Ordinance existed on the plot of land. This worked adversely against farmers who, though in occupation of and in cultivation of land, nevertheless were not protected by the Ordinance because they did not have their homes on the holdings they cultivated. This Bill seeks to redress the position. Sir, it is inevitable that development which is beneficial to the community as a whole must proceed. But at the same time, a balance has to be struck between this and the other important aspect, that of the occupiers who are usually economically in the lower income brackets. This amending Bill seeks in a fair and equitable manner to maintain the balance, on the one hand, development of land by owners of land and, on the other, the interests of the tenants who have to be sacrificed by being evicted from the land in order that the land can be developed. Sir, the Bill extends the protection of the Control of Rent Ordinance to agricultural land which includes houses and other buildings built thereon, whether before or after the 7th day of September, 1947. The rent of agricultural land will then be subject to the control of the Rent Conciliation Board. The Bill in Part IIIA provides that no order or judgment for the recovery of possession of any agricultural land or of any premises comprised in a tenancy shall be made or given under section 15 (1) (i) or (k) unless the landlord has obtained the prior written consent of the Commissioner of Lands. The Commissioner of Lands may require the landlord to satisfy him that the development proposed is in the interests of town and country planning, and that the eviction is therefore desirable. He may also require the landlord to deposit with him a sum of money recommended by the Panel of Assessors as a fair compensation to the tenant. If an Order of Court for recovery of possession is made, this sum will be paid over to the tenant. If no Order is made, the sum will be refunded to the landlord. Mr Speaker, Sir, this proviso requiring the consent of the Commissioner of Lands before any action can proceed for the recovery of possession of agricultural land is complementary to the clause in the sister Bill, which prevents the transfer of agricultural land from one person to another person other than for the same agricultural purposes. Where land which is being used for agricultural purposes is sought to be recovered to be developed other than for agricultural purposes, then the Commissioner must first be satisfied that it is imperative in the interest of public health or town improvement or town planning. In this way, added protection is given to tenants who are not desirous of obtaining long leases for various reasons, either because they do not wish to be burdened with a long lease, or because they may fear the adjustment in rent which is allowable under the Agricultural Leases Bill to approximate more closely an economic rent if a long lease is sought for. This impediment in the power of any landlord in recovering possession of his land gives some measure of protection to the month-to-month tenant farmer who may wish to continue as a month-to-month tenant farmer rather than acquire a twelve-year lease. Sir, all farmers or other tenants (including, in this case, any person who has occupied and used any premises whether built after 7th September, 1947, or not for a period of not less than three years prior to 1st January, 1961) will now be able to get compensation if required to move in the interests of town planning and public health. This is a move made to make recovery of possession of land by private owners more approximate to what happens when the Government recovers Crown property. Section 26B [clause 5] of the Bill provides for the manner of the appointment of a Panel of Assessors and section 26c for rules to be made to give effect to the provisions of this part of the Ordinance. The Control of Rent (Amendment No. 4) Ordinance will be repealed. The provision of paragraphs (i) and (k) of section 15 (1) of the Control of Rent Ordinance will come into force again. The Panel of Assessors will consist of not less than three persons and will assess the quantum of compensation that should be required in each case. They would be guided by the Government Rates of Compensation* which are applicable in the case of Government clearances. Copies of these Government rates of compensation have been distributed for the use of the Members of this Assembly. *Copy placed in the Assembly Library. In short, what the two Bills will contrive to do is that squatters in the agricultural zone or such other areas, which, although not designated as agricultural zone in the Master Plan, are so designated by the Minister, will be entitled to complete protection by either asking for a long lease; or if he chooses to stay as a month-to-month tenant, to be prevented from eviction unless the Commissioner of Lands decides that the owner can commence proceedings for recovery, because it is necessary in the interest of public health or town planning. Those squatters who are outside the agricultural zone, or such areas which will be designated as agricultural zone, will not have the same privileges as tenant farmers like the squatters you have in the city area. They will have to go, in the first instance. New buildings will have to go up in the congested areas of the town. But in asking them to go, private landlords will be asked to observe the minimum standards which the Government itself offers to all squatters who are asked to move from Crown land. Here again, instead of referring the matter to the Rent Conciliation Board, we have decided to set up a Panel of Assessors in the hope that thereby a more expeditious method of assessing compensation payable would be devised. Sir, it is our intention to refer this Bill also to a Select Committee for proper scrutiny of its provisions and its effect and side effects on existing interests, either on the landlord or the tenant or the squatter. Question proposed. 4.07 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if this Bill is restricted to the city area, I will not oppose it. But this Bill concerns the whole rural area. In respect of this Bill, I wish to request the Government to pay attention and give due and careful consideration. Outwardly looking, it is the Government which has extended its facilities and establishments to the rural areas. In fact, it is not so. If we carefully study the consequences of this Bill, it is not difficult for us to see that this Bill possesses many harmful effects which will injure the welfare of the people. And the people who will really receive the blessings will be the landlord. The Nanyang Siang Pau published the contents of this Bill on 22nd December. For example, the landlord, under the Control of Rent Bill, if he wants to apply for getting back any agricultural land or any house, should get the permission of the Commissioner of Lands beforehand. The Commissioner of Lands, however, has absolute power over the request of the landlord. Before he agrees to the request of the landlord, the latter must observe the following. First, regarding the asking back of the agricultural land, the landlord must prove that it is for the sake of the development of the city, or for construction plans. Taking all these matters into consideration, if approval cannot be given, the landlord will suffer a great loss. Secondly, the landlord will be instructed to pay a deposit. The amount according to the opinion of the Commissioner of Lands is meant for the compensation of the tenants, for the Court may have instructed the landlord to get back his agricultural land or house. We all know that under the Singapore Master Plan, many rural areas are listed as housing development areas. These areas are densely populated by attap-hut squatters who have lived in these places and obtained their food from these places for tens of years. Although their lives are hard, they are happy for they commit themselves to heaven. Although in some places the villagers have been oppressed by the landlords, yet they have co-operated and formed their united organisations to negotiate with the landlords. In most cases, the danger has been averted and now there is peace. In recent years, many landlords have attempted Mr Lee Teck Him (Tiong Bahru) rose -

Is it a point of order? Will the Member first indicate whether he is rising on a point of order or elucidation?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the hon. Member was not addressing the Speaker.

I do not know which way the hon. Member was looking. But he seemed to be looking in my direction. I take it he was speaking to the Speaker. Mr Ng Teng Kian.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, although I look at my manuscript, this draft has been drafted by me. It does not mean that somebody has written it for me.

Order. I think the Member for Punggol is now indicating what the point of order is. The point of order seems to be that perhaps the hon. Member was reading his speech. But I have not noticed anything out of the ordinary. Perhaps the Member can carry on. Please continue.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, now the landlords are backed by the Government and protected by the law. It is believed that these landlords will take advantage of the passing of this Bill to pursue their activities on a wide scale. If only they can get the approval of the planning section, after submitting their plans, and pay some compensation to the tenants which will satisfy the Minister, they can chase out these unfortunate attap squatters. The governing party sympathizes with these few landlords who were unable to increase their wealth in time. But thousands of villagers will become homeless and unemployed as a result of the loss of their agricultural lands and houses. I wonder why this situation will not attract the Government's sympathy. I really cannot understand why the so-called Government for the working masses will adopt this sort of attitude and policy. Regarding the compensation mentioned in this Bill, it is not clearly stated. For example, the Bill provides that the Minister will appoint three assessors. When the Court approves the request of the landlord, they have to suggest to the Commissioner of Lands what is reasonable compensation for the tenant. But the Commissioner is not bound by their consideration, findings or suggestions. After all, what is reasonable and what is unreasonable? I think there should be a standard and a reasonable provision. Does it mean that the fate of these unfortunate squatters has to be controlled by the authorities? According to the way of compensation in the past, for a wooden house with concrete floor the compensation was one dollar per square foot; for the other type of earth floor, it was eighty cents per square foot. Each of these attap houses mostly occupies over 1,000 square feet. If it is based upon the standard of compensation in the past, then the most they will get is about $1,000 or a little more. Moreover, the squatters live together with their parents, brothers and sisters. How can this little compensation do anything for a family of more than ten people? Even if they can rent an S.I.T. flat, how long can they carry on paying rents? I believe that the passing of this Bill will greatly harm the attap squatters in the rural areas. 4.18 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to say now is very simple. Just now, when the Member for Punggol was making his speech, I was wondering whether he was not following the footsteps of the former Member for Hong Lim, because his speech was full of distortions. Mr Speaker, Sir, these two Bills clearly show that they will provide protection for the farmers in the rural areas. But from the Member for Punggol's viewpoint, the purposes of these two Bills are to bring harm and suffering to those oppressed people living in attap huts in the rural areas. If he wants to pursue this course of distortion, then the Government will simply refute it. But that is not good enough. I will, however, do my best to explain to him in simple Mandarin the meaning contained in these two Bills. Firstly, when he was a P.A.P. candidate for the last election, 1� years ago, the Member had proposed to the rural people our Five-Year Plan. If he had not read or seen it for himself, he could have gathered it from the other Assemblymen that we had promised certain things in our plan for the rural areas. The P.A.P. Government wants to help the farmers in the rural areas by putting them in a secure position. They fully understand that many landlords have made use of the laws prevailing then to drive out the tenants of the land. Therefore, we have thought of a method to let farmers have a secure long-term lease. We hope these two Bills can put our farmers under very favourable conditions so that there will be a chance for them to develop agriculture for the good of the country. How can they achieve this purpose? First, all those landlords who have been unscrupulously making use of the laws to drive out their tenants will be prohibited from doing so. The landlord must first get approval from the Land Office. He must let us see clearly why he wants to drive out the tenants from his land. If, for instance, a farmer does not like a long-term lease, he can still carry on as usual, by paying monthly rents for the land and so on. This is the first method of protection provided by the Government. The second method of protection is this. If a tenant wishes to have a long-term lease, he wants his boss to give him 12 years' secure position. If the boss does not agree to that, he will have to put up his case to the Land Office for a reasonable decision. So these two Bills are clearly for the protection of the rural farmers. But the Member for Punggol says that they are bringing harm and suffering to the farmers and are oppressing them. I hope he will bring out his proof in this Assembly to show how these Bills will bring about suffering and harm to the farmers. If he cannot substantiate this, he can make investigations. Lastly, I hope it will be best for the Member for Punggol not to occupy the seat over there, because that seat has a very bad significance. The Member formerly occupying that seat spread all sorts of lies. I hope the Member for Punggol will not pursue the same course.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Before the Prime Minister moves, is it his intention that this Bill should be committed to the same Select Committee that will consider the Agricultural Leases Bill?

Yes, Sir, that will be convenient.

Will the Prime Minister move accordingly? Bill accordingly committed to the Select Committee appointed to consider the Agricultural Leases Bill. -[The Prime Minister].

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Question proposed.

4.27 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the by-election for the electoral division of Hong Lim will be the first election since this Government was formed 20 months ago. When will this election be held is in everybody's mind. The people do not accept the reasons given by the Government for the delay; or is the Government scared to hold the by-election? Every person in Singapore waits most anxiously for the by election to come. The people of Singapore know very well the events which preceded the resignation of the former Member for Hong Lim. An hon. Member: They were all lies.

We are aware of the many attempts, since the 16 Hong Lim resolutions, to silence Mr Ong Eng Guan. It was wrong for the Government to deny the electorate of Hong Lim their voice in this Assembly. It is also wrong to use tactics to delay this by-election, it is the inherentright of the people of Hong Lim to decide on their elected representative. The people of Hong Lim shall decide whether they want Ong Eng Guan or not. No others should decide. It is my belief that the people of Hong Lim will definitely fight against the acts of oppression and tyranny against their elected representative. They shall also decide whether their elected representative should be subject to third degree. They shall also cast their verdict on this Government. May I ask - would there be more attempts to silence and smear Mr Ong Eng Guan before the battle of Hong Lim begins? If there are, I can say that such attempts shall not succeed. The people of Singapore now know full well the true nature of this Government. The by-election for Hong Lim would essentially be a fight waged by the people of Hong Lim against the oppressive policies and the acts of tyranny and arrogance of this Government.

You are not from Hong Lim.

In this fight in Hong Lim, the odds will be against Mr Ong Eng Guan. The Government has the whole machinery of the State behind it. I ask - would there be a greater degree of control of the Press? Would Mr Ong Eng Guan be allowed radio time? Would Mr Ong be allowed equal opportunities in the use of Hong Lim Green and other parks in Hong Lim?

Will he repeat in Hong Lim what he said here?

Order.

When Mr Ong applied for the use of Hong Lim Green last time to explain to his electorate about the 16 resolutions, it was rejected, not once, but three times. There are many other doubts in my mind, but Mr Speaker. Sir, the people are with Ong Eng Guan.

Sir, on a point of information.

No, Sir, It is wrong to delay the by-election. In 1957, when Mr David Marshall resigned from the Assembly, the former Government held the by-election without unnecessary delay. [Interruption].

Order.

In 1958, the Kallang by-election was also held immediately after the resignation of a City Councillor. But contrary to accepted democratic practice, this Government wants to delay the holding of the Hong Lim by-election. Why? There must be reasons. The people know them. One of them is that the Government is not prepared to be defeated in Hong Lim, as it was not prepared to be defeated in Tanjong Pagar. We remember that the Prime Minister dared not accept Mr Ong's challenge to resign.

Will you resign from Aljunied?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister was afraid. Anyway, he has my full sympathy. Mr Speaker, Sir, two weeks have now passed. The people of Singapore demand that the by-election for Hong Lim should be held immediately and without delay. All delaying tactics or smears or other undemocratic practices would be of no avail. Let the people of Hong Lim make their decision. 4.32 p.m.

Mi. Speaker, Sir, the Member for Aljunied has mentioned quite a lot of things. But let me first say that it is not unexpected that the hon. Member should talk of an immediate by-election today. He has, just like the Member for Hong Lim, tried to throw out smokescreens and lay red herrings across the path of everything. And now today he is asking if there is going to be a by-election. Everybody knows that there is going to be a by-election.

Go ahead then.

Nobody can stop it. It is in the law. It must come. The only point we would like to ask the Member for Aljunied is, why this unseemly haste? Is there any reason why he wants it immediately? Or is it because he is afraid-

The people demand it.

that before that by-election takes place, some very unpleasant truths will be divulged? First of all, Sir, we would like to trace the events which led to the present vacancy in the constituency of Hong Lim. Let us ask first the question: why did Mr Ong Eng Guan resign from the seat for Hong Lim? Has the Member for Aljunied made any attempt to answer that question? Did he say, "Mr Ong Eng Guan resigned because he needed a new mandate from the people."? Or did he say that Mr Ong Eng Guan resigned to tell the people of Hong Lim the truth about himself and the P.A.P.? Or did he say that Mr Ong Eng Guan resigned so that he could escape from being exposed as a purveyor of falsehoods in this Assembly? Mr Speaker, Sir, the records speak for themselves. They have been indelibly imprinted in the annals of this historic session of the Singapore Legislative Assembly. Let me recapitulate the salient facts. During the course of the 1961 Budget debate, the then Member for Hong Lim repeatedly made certain allegations and insinuations about the integrity of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law. Despite the then Member for Hong Lim being called a rogue and a liar both inside and outside this House by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law, he never dared to take up the challenge to repeat outside this House what he had said under cover of privilege inside the House. The Leader of the House thereupon moved that this House condemn the Member for Hong Lim for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people in that he repeatedly used the privilege of this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly; After the Deputy Prime Minister had put his case before the House, the then Member for Hong Lim pleaded for time to prepare his case and answer. The Deputy Prime Minister then graciously said - I quote from the unrevised transcript of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly on 19th December, 1960, page 25, line 4: `Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, it is not the intention of the House to prevent the Member for Hong Lim from speaking in this Chamber; neither is it our intention not to give him time to seek advice on his motion. As he so decides, I will move, Mr Speaker, that this Assembly do now adjourn to Friday, 23rd December.' And so, Mr Speaker, the scene shifted to Friday, 23rd December. After your ruling about the admissibility of the motion of the Deputy Prime Minister had been thoroughly debated by all the legal luminaries of this Chamber, if I remember correctly, the then Member for Hong Lim was given a chance to reply to the motion which suggested to him alternatives of either withdrawing unreservedly his unfounded allegations against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law and apologising to this Assembly for his dishonourable conduct or repeating outside the Assembly when challenged the charges he made inside the Assembly. The then Member for Hong Lim - and I quote from the unrevised transcript of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly on 23rd December, 1960, page 44: `Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to substantiate all the things I have said.' Then there followed an interjection from Mr Speaker which reads: `Mr Speaker: So do I take it then that the Member for Hong Lim does not wish to withdraw his allegations; he does not wish to give any explanation of them, and his desire is to try and substantiate the allegations he made in this Assembly? Is that the course the Member for Hong Lim is taking?' And the reply was: `Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes, Mr Speaker, I have nothing to apologise.' However, Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Ong Eng Guan could not substantiate his allegations on 23rd December and he again asked for time to prepare his case. The debate therefore was again adjourned to 29th December, 1960, to give time to the then Member for Hong Lim to marshal all his facts so that he could substantiate the allegations he made against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law. But what happened on 29th December, 1960? Did we sit in Committee and listen to the array of witnesses and facts which the then Member for Hong Lim was supposed to have brought before us to substantiate his allegations against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law? The House on that day was filled to capacity. The gallery was waiting for the self-proclaimed great revolutionary to set off the fireworks. But, Sir, what actually turned out was that there was no great revolutionary. It transpired that he was only a pretender. And instead of fireworks, we found a damp squib. All those brave words about substantiating the allegations came to nothing. Instead Mr Ong Eng Guan ran away by resigning his seat for Hong Lim. He could not and he dared not face the truth. That was actually what happened. He had to run away, and run away from what? From truth, truth which would have exposed Mr Ong Eng Guan as an opportunist, a vilifier and a scandalmonger. Following this, on 29th December, a statement was issued by the P.A.P. Central Executive Committee. Allow me, Sir, to quote the relevant section. It is a short passage:- `He [that is, Mr Ong Eng Guan] has, among many other falsehoods, made grave charges of political corruption against Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr K. M. Byrne. It is his duty now to tell the truth either at a mass meeting in Hong Lim repeating all his lies or, if he is afraid to meet the people, then to repeat these charges before a Commission of Inquiry which will be open to the public and reported by the Press. When the Commission has made a thorough investigation of the truth and made its report, it will be published to the whole of the people and then Mr Ong Eng Guan can come down to Hong Lim and repeat his allegations. The by-election will be held as soon as possible and we hope to meet Mr Ong Eng Guan in Hong Lim and expose him to be the dirty liar and covertly scoundrel that he has already been publicly called. We are confident that when the people of Hong Lim know the truth, they will pass judgment on him in a manner which deserves a coward and a rogue.' And now the Member for Aljunied thinks we should have an immediate by-election. Of course, he quotes quite a number of other things. He is asking whether there is any control of the Press, whether he is going to be given radio time, and whether there is going to be a voice for Hong Lim, and rights of the people, almost suggesting that we might employ third-degree tactics on people who might stand for election. All these do not need a reply. They have been adequately replied time and time again in this House by Members of the Government. It is always good to talk of going back to the people, but does he really mean it? If that was true, then Mr Ong Eng Guan should have resigned earlier when he was first challenged by the Prime Minister. Why did he resign only when he was left to face the music, when the Speaker had laid down the proper procedure to followed, and when Mr Ong Eng Guan realised that evidence had to be given on oath in Committee and he could not make more false speeches from his seat in the Assembly where all the speeches are privileged? Does this not show that he could not face the truth? Is not this anxiety to have an early by-election merely a masquerade to run away from the truth? Now, the hon. Member for Aljunied thinks we should hurry the by-election so that the people of Hong Lim and the people of the whole of Singapore may be deceived. Again we ask: why this unseemly haste? Is it not right and proper that all the facts be revealed to the people? Why must the vision of the people be besmogged with smokescreens emitted from Mr Ong Eng Guan? Let the people of the whole of Singapore, not just the people of Hong Lim, know the whole truth first. Then after knowing the truth, let the people of Hong Lim decide as to who should be their representative in the Assembly. And now we may ask: how did the Opposition react to all this? Mr Speaker, Sir, let us have a clear view of the issue before us. Grave allegations have been made against two of the Ministers, and yet the Opposition in this Assembly, and especially the Member for Cairnhill, -

Huh!

-is not interested in pursuing the truth of these allegations. The Member for Cairnhill said, and I quote from the Straits Times of 31st December, 1960: `He [in other words, Mr Ong Eng Guan] is now fighting the battle of the Opposition in the by-election against the Party in power.' Mr Speaker, Sir, all that the Opposition can think of and are interested in is that they should oppose the Government. They are not interested in truth itself. If those allegations were true, then they could bring down the whole Government, in which case it would mean new General Elections for all the constituencies in Singapore instead of just a by-election for Hong Lim. Is it because the Member for Cairnhill and certain other people who have been mentioned in the Press like Mr Marshall, Mrs Leon Soh, the Member for Aljunied, the Member for Punggol, all know that these allegations are baseless and false? And yet they want the people of Hong Lim to vote a new representative on the basis of false allegations and before the truth is placed before them? One irresistible conclusion is that the Opposition has, as somebody has said before, a vested interest in lies and falsehoods, and I hope-

Order. That is a direct reference, of course, to Members of this Assembly - that they have vested interests in lies and falsehoods. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should be a bit more careful with his language, and withdraw that expression.

I withdraw the word "lies".

Order. I want the whole expression withdrawn - "vested interests in "lies and falsehoods" - all of it.

Otherwise there will be a motion moved against him!

I withdraw, Sir. The Deputy Prime Minister has already categorically stated that a by-election will be held as soon as possible after the Inquiry Report has been tabled. It will not be long. We need no further assurance than that. But it is in our interests that before the by-election, we first know the truth. Let us first know the facts that have led to the resignation of Mr Ong Eng Guan and the consequent vacancy in the constituency of Hong Lim. All these are intimately connected with the coming by-election. It is now our duty and our right, not only to ourselves and the people of Hong Lim, but also to the people of the whole of Singapore, to lay bare all the facts to find out whether Mr Ong Eng Guan was telling the truth or merely spreading malicious falsehoods. If they are proved to be lies, then his skin must be thick indeed if he dared to stand before the people of Hong Lim again. As for the Member for Aljunied, I do not think I am letting out a secret when I say that there are some who are of the opinion that there also ought to be a by-election in Aljunied. 4.53 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs just now brought in my name in this controversy, I feel that I should now rise and tell a few salient facts to the Government. First of all, Sir, I must say that the Government has no right to think that this by-election is a fight between Mr Ong Eng Guan and the P.A.P. A by-election has to be held under the law. It should not be delayed because of what the Government thinks: that Mr Ong Eng Guan may stand as a candidate and that the Government have to meet Mr Ong Eng Guan at the polls. A by-election is for all people who care to stand as candidates in that by-election. And the Government should, therefore, not treat this by-election as a fight that they have to carry out against Mr Ong Eng Guan. The previous speaker, Sir, made mention of a statement which we had issued to the Press, and he quoted the Straits Times. I would like to thank him for that quotation, because it strengthens the case of the Opposition - that the Opposition claims that the Press has been muzzled. To this extent, Sir - we sent a statement giving the reasons why we were not contesting the by-election, and that statement had been distorted to mean almost nothing. Let me tell this House how that statement should have read if the Press had been fair to the Opposition. We said that we had no sympathy for Mr Ong Eng Guan - and we still say it here that we have no sympathy for Mr Ong Eng Guan. But we did say this: "that because of the fact that the by-election is going to be a battle between the Opposition and the Party in power which, by reason of its majority, could unjustly use its power to silence the Opposition". Those important words were left out by the Press which, according to the Minister for Culture, is free to publish what it feels should be published. It is so free that it distorts the statement of the Opposition. And we still say that it is quite free to do what it wants. I am not saying that the Government has told the Press not to print it.

What did you say?

Sir, I have said many a time that there is such a thing as suggestive intimidation. And I repeat it here again: suggestive intimidation is more heinous than open intimidation, because open intimidation can be nailed whereas suggestive intimidation can go unchallenged.

You are wrong. You are not being intimidated, are you?

Sir, if the Government had done some intimidation of the Opposition, then we would have been able to nail that. Now, Sir, the fight in Hong Lim. The by-election in Hong Lim must not be taken by the Government to mean that it is a fight between Mr Ong Eng Guan and the P.A.P.

Are you putting up a candidate?

Order.

Sir, the Minister for Culture has yet to learn a little bit of culture! Mr Speaker, Sir, we have said we are not putting up a candidate because we feel that Mr Ong Eng Guan, although we have no sympathy for him, has a fight on his hands against the Party in power; although it is rather ironical that he should have come out of that Party in power to now fight that Party in power! The Minister for Culture, in his address at the Sixth Anniversary meeting of the P.A.P., said that Mr Ong Eng Guan-because we are not putting up a candidate - is being supported by us and therefore he is a Right-wing. Whereas not so long ago he was accused as a Left-wing adventurer. I do not know what he is-Left-wing adventurer or a Right-wing. I do not know.

Nobody knows.

The people always look to the Government to tell the truth. And the truth, six months ago, was that he was a Left-wing adventurer; and the truth, ten nights ago, was he was a Right-wing.

Metamorphosis!

Sir, because of what has been taking place in this Assembly during the last few sittings, the people of Singapore have taken too great an interest in this by-election that is to come. Because so much has been said and so much has been left unsaid, it is the view of the Opposition that there should be no delay whatsoever in the holding of this by-election. We are not concerned with the fact that the Government is very anxious indeed to try and make out a case against the ex-Member for Hong Lim, the ex-Minister for National Development, their ex-Treasurer of the Party, and these three "exes" may in due course be the real axe to chop out the P.A.P.!

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to state, on behalf of my Opposition colleagues, particularly on behalf of U.M.N.O., that on the problem of the ex-Member for Hong Lim, our stand is to know the truth in this controversy between the Government on the one hand and the ex-Member for Hong Lim on the other. We deny categorically that we would like to derive some benefit out of this controversy. I am shocked to hear the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs accusing the Opposition Members of trying to gain an interest in this affair. But as I said earlier on, we believe in the truth. Although we are unable to substantiate the truth, truth will always remain truth. We consider the action of the Government in moving a motion to suspend the services of the ex-Member for Hong Lim as being an act or a motion which would create a precedent in the future in this Assembly whereby freedom of expression -

Order. The hon. Member is now going back to the motion which has been adjourned sine die. He, of course, cannot do that. He must not now debate a motion which, although it has been adjourned sine die, is still in the possession of the House.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I accept your advice, but what I really wanted to bring home to the Government was this - that the attitude of the Opposition was touched upon. Let me say here that in this matter, the stand of the Opposition is that truth will triumph. Therefore, we sympathise with the statements made by the Member for Aljunied so that an early by-election could be held for the vacant constituency of Hong Lim. 5.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very gratifying to the Government to know that the Opposition are good watch-dogs of democracy, and their anxiety to see that the by-election is held as soon as possible will probably be fulfilled much sooner than they are prepared for. I suspect that all this anxious questioning on the part of the Member for Aljunied was with one aim in view. We, the Government, want to establish a simple question. Before Mr Ong Eng Guan presents himself as a candidate in the by-election, we think that the people of Hong Lim should have the right to know whether they will be asked to vote for a candidate who is proved to be a purveyor of falsehoods, or whether they are going to be asked to vote for a candidate who is obviously a man who speaks the truth. And it is quite right before we can do this. If we are convinced, as we are, that Mr Ong Eng Guan is a purveyor of falsehoods, that he has been using this Assembly to purvey falsehoods and to assassinate characters, then we say that he is not only a menace to himself and his friends but a menace to democracy. Because a very recent case was a gentleman called Senator McCarthy, who used Senate privilege precisely for this purpose, of using lies and falsehoods to assassinate the character of so many innocent people, so much so that at a later period of his political life, responsible newspapers were precisely making the same demand that action should be taken against him to prevent him from using the Senate as a cover to assassinate the character of innocent people, and that if he continued to do so, then he would bring democracy into disrepute and contempt. Not only democracy but Assembly privilege will become a weapon to spread terror among innocent people. So that is exactly what we want to establish: whether Mr Ong Eng Guan is a purveyor of falsehoods. Then let us prove it. If he is not a purveyor of falsehoods, let him go back and let the people of Hong Lim reelect the honest man. But as we believe he is not so, then it is our duty to bring him before a Commission and establish once and for all whether he is an honest or a dishonest man. Therefore, the Opposition knows this. What they are interested in is that Ong Eng Guan has now become a useful tool to fight some other battle. I am quite convinced, as they have taken great care to point out, that they have no sympathy with Mr Ong Eng Guan. But Mr Ong Eng Guan played with the adventurous Left once upon a time. He got nowhere. So now he has decided to use the Opposition to put him into power. And, therefore, Sir, it is necessary, because Mr Ong Eng Guan is politically quite a shrewd man. He knows that too open an embrace by the Right-wing would have been the kiss of death. So we notice that the S.P.A. statement has this invocation. "We have no sympathy with Mr Ong Eng Guan. But we hope that he will fight the battle of the Opposition." To a man for whom you have no sympathy, if you say, "Well, we are going to support him. We are not going to put up a candidate because he is fighting the battle of the Opposition", what is the battle of the Opposition? Is it the right of an elected Assemblyman to use Assembly privilege to tell falsehoods? Is that the right of the Opposition? Again we have Mr David Marshall also will this preface: "We have no sympathy for Mr Ong Eng Guan. But we think that he will fight a heroic battle for democracy." There is the leader of the Singapore Congress who also, I am told, is an animal lover - a sort of fighter for the under-dog - also coming out with the same statement to say that they have no sympathy and so on, but on the other hand, "he is fighting a great battle for democracy." Therefore, I say, Sir, that the Opposition's stand itself simply indicates this. They think they are going to use Mr Ong Eng Guan to have a little battle with the Government. Mr Ong Eng Guan thinks he can use the Opposition to fight his battle. Therefore, though the two sides think that they are fighting a kind of battle where each one thinks that it is getting the better of the other, what simply it all boils down to is this. The Opposition know that they either hang together or hang separately. The other thing is that the Member for Cairnhill alleged that the Government, either by indirect intimidation or otherwise, had pursuaded the newspapers not to publish the magnum opus of the S.P.A. In fact, Sir, that statement was published in the Chinese Press, but to our consternation, it was not published in the English Press. As far as we are concerned, that statement makes it more than ever clear that the S.A.P.-the Right-wing - is now using a bankrupt Left-wing adventurer, or a bankrupt Leftist who tried to play with the Left-wing and who could not get anywhere. Therefore, they have decided to use him for their political ends. You will notice, Sir, that so far the only support that has come to Mr Ong Eng Guan is not from Socialist groups, not from workers and not from trade unions, but from the Right-wing, who once upon a time were claiming that Mr Ong Eng Guan was a menace and so on. Now they are saying that he is becoming a fighter for democracy. Therefore, I say, Sir, in this battle, as far as the P.A.P. is concerned, we regard Mr Ong Eng Guan and the Opposition - as far as U.M.N.O. is concerned, I am quite glad they have not yet made a statement - as having flocked together as the Opposition. As far as we are concerned, we know that Mr Ong Eng Guan is merely a shield, a battering ram to be used by the S.P.A., the Singapore Congress, and the Workers' Party. And in that strain we are prepared to take on all corners at Hong Lim, and if the Member for Aljunied feels that there should be a by-election in Aljunied, then we are prepared to take him on there too.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the Left-wing groups or the trade unionists will support Mr Ong Eng Guan or not one cannot say that today. That will only be known if Mr Ong Eng Guan is allowed to contest the Hong Lim seat. Then, and only then, will that be known. That point really does not interest me this afternoon. What really interests me, Mr Speaker, this afternoon is the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs who, by the nature of his documented speech, gave me the impression that he was speaking for the Government on this matter. He said, "What is the hurry to hold this by-election?" Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government seems to think that the by-election in Hong Lim is a matter between the P.A.P. and Mr Ong Eng Guan, and that it does not concern anybody else. Might I suggest to them and remind them that in this matter the paramount consideration is not the P.A.P. Government, or Mr Ong Eng Guan, but the electorate of Hong Lim? If the Government choose to delay this election because they want to go to the election strengthened, then it is the electorate of Hong Lim that is suffering. The point of representation in the Assembly, Mr Speaker, is this: that no part of the island should be without representation. At the moment, Hong Lim is without representation, and in the democratic concept of parliamentary government, that should not be so. The business of every government is to see that when a vacancy by resignation, death or other cause occurs, a writ of election is expeditiously issued and an election takes place. Listening to the speeches from the Government benches, one gets the idea that this is a private matter between Mr Ong Eng Guan and the P.A.P. in power. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the original motion which led to this resignation, you ruled that this was a matter which concerned the whole House, and we accepted your ruling and we debated that motion on that basis. The subsequent statements of the Government in this Assembly today confirm the impression that some of us might have had, that this is a fight they are continuing against Mr Ong Eng Guan personally, and that they are not concerned with the electorate of Hong Lim. Whether Hong Lim is represented or not does not seem to matter two hoots to the Government. All that they are interested in is to go to the electorate of Hong Lim only when their hand is strengthened. 5.17 p.m.

Sir, I really did not wish to speak on this motion for the adjournment, but I want to dispel any impression which the Member for Farrer Park might have given when he said just now that every part of the island must always at any time be represented in this Chamber. That has not been according to facts. During the period of the previous Government, the Member for Bukit Timah was detained under the P.P.S.O. for several years, and during that period, the electorate of Bukit Timah had no representative in this Chamber. Now, what we wish to say quite clearly is this; that the people of Hong Lim should be given the opportunity to see light. It was not the Government who forced the resignation of Mr Ong Eng Guan. Perhaps the electorate of Hong Lim should even ask - upon what grounds or upon what right had their elected representative in tendering his resignation from this Chamber? If Mr Ong Eng Guan, when he was their representative, were a responsible person, he would have considered not so much his own skin and not so much his own pride, but he should have considered the interests of the people whom he represented. Did he do it? If he had thought more deliberately and carefully, he would not have quitted this Chamber in such a hurry and indecent haste. When we say we will have the by-election, we mean it. At the last sitting of the Assembly, in moving the motion for adjournment of the motion to censure the ex-Member for Hong Lim for his conduct in purveying falsehoods, I said very clearly that we were going to set up a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into the allegations made in this Chamber; that Mr Ong Eng Guan had dared not appear in this Chamber to substantiate what he had said, or to substantiate what he said he would substantiate. It is important that not only the electorate of Hong Lim, but also the public at large, including the public in the Federation, should be given an opportunity to know what is right and what is wrong. If we were really afraid of a by-election, what we could have done was, very simply, not to have any inquiries made either in this Chamber or outside. But, as Members in this House know, a Commission of Inquiry has already been established. It will be sitting next week and we hope that a report will soon be produced by the Commission; and when that has been done, it will be duly tabled in this House, and the by-election will then be held. It is important that at this juncture we should not confuse either the electorate of Hong Lim or the people of Singapore on the issues that are involved. Whether a man who is prepared to be as unscrupulous as to tell lies in this Chamber should be considered worthy of representing a section of the people of Singapore - that is the main issue. We will wait for the findings of the Commission of Inquiry and we certainly hope that this time Mr Ong Eng Guan does not also run away from the Commission of Inquiry as he has run away from this Chamber. 5.27 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what amuses us Members of the Opposition is that when the former Member for Hong Lim was the Minister for National Development on the Government side and used the same tactics which he later used against the Government, there was no protest at all from the Government benches. He accused, if I remember rightly, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park roundly, and I think the Government benches were just amused. But when the Member for Hong Lim came to the Opposition-

Order. I am just wondering how all this has anything to do with the matter we are discussing-the by-elections in Hong Lim? Past conduct of that nature, surely, has nothing to do with the by-election.

Sir, I mention that because an accusation has been made that we are siding with the Member for Hong Lim and using him as a tool; whereas if anything. Sir, by the fact that we had been at the receiving end here for a long time when the Member for Hong Lim was the Minister for National Development, one would expect that we would be against the Member for Hong Lim in the by-election. That is why I wanted to clear the air: that we here were more tolerant, more charitable and more willing to receive and yet give the Government a fight. Now, in the Hong Lim by-election, Sir, instead of having the by-election quickly, the Government apparently is not prepared to take what we before were able to take from him when he was their comrade. I would suggest, Sir, that they should show the same spirit of charitableness and patience as we showed them when the Member for Hong Lim was on their side.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock to Wednesday, 22nd February,1961.