Hansard, 1961-12-20

I have to report to Honourable Members that I received information from His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that, on the 19th day of December, 1961, he assented to the following Bills:-

32 p.m

"to provide for the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties where goods have been dumped or are about to be dumped in Singapore or are being or have been imported into Singapore under subsidy", presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr S. Ramaswamy) (for the Minister for Finance); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Monday, 15th January, 1962, and to be printed.

"to provide for the winding up of the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Fund", presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr S. Ramaswamy) (for the Minister for Finance); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Monday, 15th January, 1962, and to be printed.

"to repeal the 1946 Rehabilitation Loan Appropriation Ordinance, 1947 (No. 41 of 1947) and to provide for matters incidental thereto", presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr S. Ramaswamy) (for the Minister for Finance); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Monday, 15th January, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Stamp Ordinance (Chapter 170 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr S. Ramaswamy) (for the Minister for Finance); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Monday, 15th January, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Rubber Dealers Ordinance (Chapter 199 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr S. Ramaswamy) (for the Minister for Finance); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Monday, 15th January, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Civil Law Ordinance (Chapter 24 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr S. Ramaswamy) (for the Minister for Finance); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Monday, 15th January, 1962, and to be printed.

Order read for resumption of adjourned debate on Question [19th December, 1961], 'That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to:- "We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present session of this Assembly.".'.-(The Deputy Prime Minister). Question again proposed. 2.39 p.m.

Has the Member for Bras Basah completed her speech?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to continue from where I left off yesterday. Yesterday, the Member for Stamford made certain allegations in regard to women's problems. I would like to ask her whether what she said came really from her heart. She should not have made such allegations because she knows full well that women's problems cannot be solved in a very short space of time and that they are related to the general problems of our society. A division in the Left-wing camp is not in anybody's interest and it can only be favourable to the British colonial rulers who can then prolong their colonial rule and influence here, because we know they are rather cunning and wish to preserve their prestige and position here, and they will adopt all means to achieve this objective. Therefore, we should be careful to see that we are not fooled by them. I wish to tell them that if they dare dream of resuming their good old times here, we will unite together and struggle against them. I also appeal to Members of the Barisan Sosialis not to smear the P.A.P. and accuse it of working in collusion with the British colonialists. If they see any mistakes and defects in us, then they should point them out so as to enable us to rectify them in the interest and happiness of the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is our hope.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bras Basah says that the P.A.P. has been against colonial rule. But we have found that the leadership of the P.A.P. are not the type who does such things. Outwardly they want to show that they are anti-colonial fighters but, in fact, they are closely associated with the colonialists. I know this because I was with them for more than two years. From what I saw of them and from their words and actions, I came to know them well. They only preach without putting into effect what they say, That is why today they are in such a sad position. If the leadership want to obtain freedom and rights for the people of Singapore from the colonialists, we will support them in this struggle. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to touch on the many broadcasts that the Prime Minister has put over Radio Singapore. It appears that Radio Singapore has now become a propaganda instrument of the P.A.P. Today the leadership of the P.A.P. do not dare face the people to explain their policies on merger and on other aspects. They have to hide now behind radio forums to tell, their stories. But the people have lost faith in them. Whenever the Prime Minister is heard over the Radio, the people switch off their radios or they tune in to other radio stations to listen to other programmes. In his several broadcasts over Radio Singapore, the Prime Minister told the people certain stories, but the people lost interest in them. So his broadcasts have had no effect on the people because they found many contradictions in them. In his second talk he said that many of the Communists are from the Chinese-educated. His intention was to smear the Chinese-educated and to get the Malay-educated, the English-educated or the Indian-educated to be suspicious of the Chinese-educated. This is very irresponsible. Why did the Prime Minister say in his twelve talks that there are also Communists in the English-educated -

Order. We are now debating the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and the Government's policy as contained in that speech. We are certainly not debating any broadcasts made by the Prime Minister. If the hon. Member can indicate which part of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech has particular reference to these broadcasts, then I will let him continue. If he cannot, then, of course, he is completely irrelevant,

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I did touch on the Prime Minister's broadcasts over Radio Singapore. It is because Radio Singapore is under the control of the Ministry of Culture. However, Radio Singapore should serve the purpose of the people and not the purpose of a political Party. That is why I feel it necessary to point out that the PAP, has been using Radio Singapore for its own interests. And that is why I touched on it just now.

Order. Up to that point, the hon. Member is perfectly in order. But if he debates the details of those broadcasts, then he is out of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government has been saying that it is a pro-labour Government. It has been telling this to people everywhere. Let us see whether it is correct. The Government told us that it cancelled the registration of four trade union federations because it was the decision of the Internal Security Council. But lately I have found out that this is not correct because the decision to cancel the registration of the four trade union federations was not from the Internal Security Council but from the Government itself. It is only because the Government was afraid of the growing strength of the workers, and that the trade union movement would be a danger to their political position and power that they took such a decision Recently the Government resorted to action against the workers. This kind of act is not different from what the colonialists did in the past. Let me give some examples. For instance, the strike at Robinson's. When it took place the Government used the police against the workers. Some of the staff of the People's Association protested against certain of their members being sacked. They staged a strike. They protested against the unreasonable action by the authorities concerned, and against the People's Association engaging new workers. For these two reasons, they went on strike. But the P.A.P. Government warned them that if they were not loyal to the P.A.P. Government, then they would be sacked. This is not correct because the People's Association has its own constitution and is main tained by public funds, and much of these funds comes from -

Point of order. The Member seems to be reading like a parrot!

The Member seems to be referring to his notes rather too much. But if he is going into the details of the People's Association strike, then again he is out of order for two reasons. The first is that that does not cover the general debate on Government policy, and, secondly, I think we have had an assurance that there is going to be a Commission of Inquiry into the People's Association. It is perhaps too premature for the Members to raise these points.

(In Mandarin): I was only referring to the fact that the People's Association was established by the public through elections by this Assembly. Therefore, it is a public organisation. The P.A.P. has no right to make use of this organisation for its own purposes. That is why I mention the strike there. It is necessary for me to point out the cause of this strike and to show that though the Government has claimed to be pro-labour, it is, in fact, not so.

Order. As I have indicated, we are now on Government policy. The hon. Member is perfectly correct when he mentions the People's Association in the context, as he alleges, that it is being used by the Government. But when he goes into details as to why there was a strike - or a so-called strike - and why the police were used, then I think he is going far away from the debate which is permitted on this Address. We are only dealing with Government policy.

(In Mandarin): Because the Ministers of the P.A.P. have denied that there has been any strike in the People's Association, that is why I have to point out that in the report from the Ministry of Labour it is clearly stated that the strike at the People's Association has not been resolved. I will ask the Minister to explain whether or not there has been a strike at the People's Association. Mr Speaker, Sir, the anti-labour policy of the P.A.P. Government is becoming clearer day by day. This can be seen from its actions and attitude toward several strikes recently. The Public Daily-Rated Employees' Unions Federation truly represents the workers in Government departments. Then why will the Government not recognise it and claim that only A.U.P.E. can represent these workers? By this, can the Government promote industrial peace and give any benefit to the workers? The strike by the Public Daily-Rated Employees' Unions Federation and its consequences, which caused much inconvenience to the people, should be borne by the Government. The Government, on the one hand, says that it is pro-labour but, on the other hand, it engages new workers to replace the workers on strike and has been helping the employers who are doing such things. The Government also used the police and military personnel to deal with the strikers, and used the police to beat up the workers. Are all these things what a pro-labour Government can do? During the strike we could see military personnel stationed at every street corner as though they were taking precautions against an enemy.

Point of order. Is all this really relevant to the motion?

I take it the hon. Member is indicating that the Government policy in using police against strikers is not a policy to be advocated. He cannot, of course, go into details.

(In Mandarin): And to stop traffic and people from crossing the roads. Is this the behaviour of the so-called pro-labour Government? Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government professes that it adopts the policy of equal treatment for all streams of education, but in the past two years have they received the same equal treatment? How many Malay schools, Chinese schools, and Indian schools have been opened by the Government? The Government has not only not promoted vernacular education and has also obstructed its growth. Let me cite one example to show this. Recently in Pasir Panjang at the 4th m.s. Labrador School was opened by the Government. This school originally was a Tamil school and the playing field also belonged to this Tamil school. But now this site is being occupied by an English school. On one side of the road, the land is being used by an English school, and on the other side the land has been used for building a hall for an English school. Are these examples of equal treatment for all streams of education? In such a small area as Pasir Panjang, the Government has opened five English Schools but there is only one Indian school. Moreover, this Indian school was not built by the Government. It was built by the Indians who live there. It is an aided Indian School. There is only one Chinese school there. This Chinese School is not a Government Chinese School. It is an aided school. There is only one Malay school there. Therefore, from this we can see that the so-called equal treatment for all streams of education means giving aid to English schools only. Mr Speaker, Sir, in May this year, there was unfortunately a big fire at Bukit Ho Swee. In this fire, tens of thousands of people lost their homes and their property. At that time the people of Singapore demonstrated their co-operative spirit and their love of mankind by giving whatever they had to the victims in order to relieve them. Now after half a year the problems of these fire victims are still not settled. Who should bear this responsibility? I believe everyone will be able to answer that. The Government should be held responsible for not solving the problems of the fire victims. The Government has not carried out its pledge to help the fire victims. What the Prime Minister and the Minister for National Development pledged to the victims has not been carried out. Mr Speaker, the Government has departed from its policy of helping the fire victims. In the first P.A.P. pamphlet, on page 6, the first line states it very clearly. Many of the victims of the Kampong Tiong Bahru fire will tell you that they are very eager to have a piece of land so that they can engage in their secondary production. Mr Speaker, Sir, what the P.A.P. has said has all been forgotten by it. It is true that it is very difficult to give every fire victim a piece of land. But has the Government seriously studied the housing problem of the fire victims of the Bukit Ho Swee fire? The answer is no. Every fire victim will tell you that the house rent is very high. The fire victims cannot afford to pay it. Most of the houses are of the expensive type and the rental is high. People who belong to the lower income group cannot afford to pay this high rental. When the fire occurred, these fire victims were forced by the Government to move into the new flats. The house rent is as follows - $40 for a one-room flat, and $55 for a two-room flat.

Order. I think the hon. Member must have been here when we discussed details of this nature during the debate on the Estimates. I do not think he should go over all these details again to make his point. But in making his point, he can say that a debate on this matter took place during the Estimates, and that he does not wish to go into details again. We cannot have repetitions of this nature.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the purpose of the record, I hope I can touch in detail on the plight of the fire victims. I would like to know whether you, Mr Speaker, Sir, will allow me to do so.

It will be, I think, completely full of details when we publish our Hansard. I think the hon. Member will find that those details will be found in Hansard. Those details are already on record.

(In Mandarin): The request by the fire victims has not been answered by the Government. The Government has not taken any clear-cut action in dealing with this matter. I hope it will give a very clear-cut answer to all the fire victims' requests, and take practical measures to help them resolve their difficulties. Mr Speaker, the people of Singapore are today facing all kinds of misfortunes. Tens of thousands of people are now in difficulties. For instance, the 25,000 dwellers in Toa Payoh are facing the threat of being evicted. The authorities concerned have not indicated what would be their compensation and their fate in future. There are also a few hundred families along the West Coast Road who have been asked by the Government to remove, because the Government intends to build a road there. Also the farmers living in Kampong Kembangan have suffered from flooding and have incurred a great loss. But the Government has not taken any steps to deal with these matters. The Government, if it is a responsible one, should negotiate and talk with the people concerned. It should discuss with their representatives and the organisations of the people with a view to solving their problems. But the Government is disregarding all this and is leaving the people in the lurch. Yet, on the other hand, the Government is talking about development, serving the people, how to benefit them and to improve their welfare. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government has promised to help the fishermen in various ways, such as helping them to buy motor-boats and fishing equipment and all kinds pf necessities. But I would ask the Government this how many fishermen has it helped? It has also promised to help them organised into co-operative societies. How many such co-operative societies have been formed as a result of help from the Government? Has the livelihood of the fishermen living in Pasir Panjang, Jurong, Katong and Siglap been improved or helped in any way by the Government? Many of them are still semi-unemployed. Why is it that they are in this present predicament? It is because the P.A.P. has increased the tax on petrol so that they have to spend more when buying petrol. Every time they go out to sea to fish, they will have to spend several dollars on petrol, irrespective of whether they can get any catch or not. In fact, they can hardly catch any fish at all. The Malay fishermen are suffering. Their livelihood is in a predicament. I would ask the Government whether it is prepared to help them to buy motor-boats. In fact, the P.A.P. Government has forgotten about this. The Minister for National Development has also forgotten about this. They have forgotten what they have promised in the P.A.P. pamphlet entitled, "The P.A.P. Five-Year Plan." They have entirely disregarded and neglected the poor people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the situation the P.A.P. faced in 1959 and before that was different from the situation which the P.A.P. now faces. Sir, this change in the political scene is quick, but it is expected. Sir, we see the rise and fall of the P.A.P. In 1959 and 1960 we saw how the P.A.P. bullied the Opposition Members of the S.P.A. In 1961, Sir, we see how the P.A.P. Government works hand in hand with the S.P.A. members. Why is it that the political scene outside and inside this Assembly has changed? It is because the P.A.P. Government has changed its political ideology, from Left to Right, and because the P.A.P. Government has no sincerity in carrying out its promises. Sir, the P.A.P. leaders have swallowed all their promises which they put before the people during the general elections. Sir, I shall now comment on certain departments of the Government to show you how the P.A.P. has swallowed its promises. Sir, I come to the questions of profit tax and roads. I would like to bring these matters to the attention of the Government. They concern the lives of the people living in the rural areas. Some of the assessment rates in the rural areas have been increased unreasonably. Their Assemblymen, or the persons affected, have lodged their complaints with the department concerned, but as usual there is no reply. Sir, how can the relationship between the people and the civil servants be improved? The promise of the P.A.P. at first was to serve the poor people, but when they came to form the government, they taxed the poor people first. If the Government wants to construct any new kampong road's, it should bear in mind that the constituencies of the Opposition Party Assemblymen also need new kampong roads. I would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Chairman of the Urban and Rural Services Advisory Council, that the Council has approved a sum of $65,000 to metal the Koh Seck Lim Road in the Bedok Resettlement area. It was unanimously approved by the Council in January this year under the chairmanship of the Member for Upper Serangoon. The present Chairman, the hon. Member for Tampines, and I and some other P.A.P. Assemblymen who are on the Opposite side, were members of the Council. Sir, the work of this Council is very important. Any project approved by this Council must be carried out and work on the project is usually started immediately after the approval of the Council. Now it is already one year and the Government seems to have no intention to metal the Koh Seck Lim Road. Sir, the Bedok Resettlement area is densely populated; many vehicles move along the laterite roads. The place becomes very dusty and you can see a thick layer of dust covering everything, in houses and shops. The Ministers may not believe it, because they have never seen any laterite roads. Sir, this is not the attitude the Government should take because I am on this side. That is why they refuse to metal the road. Sir, during the general elections, the P.A.P. said - and I quote from "Speakers' Notes on Trade Unions": 'As the political status of Singapore changes from that of a Colony to that of a self-governing State, so must the present colonial economy change to that of a national one.' It continued: 'For the past 140 years our colonial economy was based on the export of cheap raw materials to Imperial England and the selling of its expensive manufactured products in the country. This gives employment to the people in England and so loss of capital from Singapore and Malaya.' Sir, this is what the P.A.P. said during the election. Sir, the economic status of Singapore has remained the same under the P.A.P.'s rule for 2½ years, and the situation has turned from had to worse. Today we can see not only Imperial England but also Imperial Japan and Imperial America. Sir, the P.A.P. also said during the last election - Sir, I am quoting from "Speakers' Notes" printed by the P.A.P. Propaganda Committee.

I hope there is no confusion in the mind of any Member. "Speakers' Notes" do not mean the Speaker's notes.

Sir, the title of these Notes says "Speakers' Notes on Trade Unions" and not your notes.

Was that a pamphlet which was published for the use of the public?

No.

Well, then, the hon. Member is completely wrong in quoting from those notes if they are only notes, but he can paraphrase, of course.

Sir, these notes were published for P.A.P. Assemblymen to speak during the general elections. Some hon. Members: Oh!

Give me a copy!

That is probably a very desirable objective. But what I am indicating is that those notes cannot be quoted verbatim in this Assembly. What the hon. Member can do is just to paraphrase. Say this is what the Member was asked to say.

Sir, the P.A.P. said during the election that the right of dismissal should not be absolute. The employer must give just and reasonable grounds before sacking an employee. The P.A.P. has now become the Government and has also become the employer of Government servants. It sacks the staff of the People's Association, parking attendants, school servants, members of the Work Brigade, without giving any reasons. Sir, is it just and reasonable, as the P.A.P. Government calls it? The P.A.P. also said, "We will strengthen the trade unions by legislating for compulsory recognition of unions and cancellation of yellow unions." Sir, where is the legislation? The P.A.P. blamed the S.P.A. and the colonial regime for not taking care of our youth except to educate them to respect the colonial power. It also said that no effort was made to encourage and educate youth to take a serious interest in our social and political problems, for that was the last thing a colonial and reactionary government wanted. In 2½ years of office, has the P.A.P. Government made any change? No. Not the slightest change, Sir. It follows the colonial and S.P.A. style of work. Does the P.A.P. Government encourage our youth to take an interest in political problems, in that when they apply for government jobs they have to be questioned by Government officers which political Parties they join? Is that the way to encourage our youths, when they want to apply for jobs as teachers? Or if they wish to be elected to sit on the school management committee they have to face Government officers and answer in what past political events they have participated? Sir, this is the way to suppress the thinking of our youth and not to encourage it. Sir, the P.A.P. Government is very fond of accusing other people of causing trouble, but it is itself who is making trouble. The P.A.P. Government cannot fulfil its promise made in the last general elections. The P.A.P. Government said - and I quote, Sir, from the notes.

"Speakers' Notes"?

Yes.

Order. I have already indicated that the hon. Member cannot quote from those notes. He can paraphrase them.

Sir, the P.A.P. said, as long as the Government of the Federation continues to ignore the existence of Nanyang University, although 60 per cent of its students are from the Federation, the Singapore Government will have to bear the financial burden of maintaining two Universities, i.e., the University of Singapore and Nanyang University. This is what the P.A.P. promised during the elections and this promise can be fulfilled without difficulty, but the P.A.P. Government does not want to do that. Instead it asks for unreasonable demands from Nanyang University. The Government attempts, in many ways, to interfere with the autonomy of Nan Ta and prevent its progress, because it refuses to give financial aid on the one hand and, on the other hand, it criticises the academic standard of Nan Ta without giving any help. Sir, the problems of recognising Nan Ta degrees and granting financial aid to Nanyang University have been purposely delayed and prolonged. The Government must realise that it has contributed nothing to the construction and expansion of Nanyang University. Therefore, the Government cannot cry for unreasonable demands from this University. Equal treatment will also be judged by the way the Government is going to solve the problems of Nan Ta. The Government must open classes for non-English school students in the Singapore Polytechnic. The other languages should also be used as media of instruction. This is part of the equal treatment, Sir. Sir, the curriculum in the English secondary schools has been designed to dovetail with the Cambridge School Certificate and the Higher School Certificate examinations. These examinations are set by a foreign examination syndicate to suit the educational needs of children elsewhere. The P.A.P. promised to change it. Sir, from the Notes the P.A.P. said that local examination syndicates will be formed to organise and set examinations for both elementary and secondary schools. Two and a half years have gone by and the promise of the P.A.P. has also gone by. The P.A.P. Government has no intention to abolish the Cambridge Examination Syndicate. It is a shame to our country that our examination papers have to be set and corrected by foreigners living thousands of miles away. Sir, we have the men to do the job, and the Government knows it. In criticising the educational policy of the colonial regime the P.A.P. said that thousands who have failed to enter secondary schools are thrown into the street without fitting themselves for any specific employment owing to the general nature of their education. They leave school because, firstly, there is an acute shortage of places in secondary schools and, secondly, because secondary education is not free. They are unable to continue for financial reasons. This is what the P.A.P. said during the election. But the P.A.P. Government is still implementing the colonial educational policy. It makes no attempt to change it. According to what the P.A.P. said above, the P.A.P. would give free education to secondary school students when it came to power, but the P.A.P. gives not free education -

On a point of order. Would the Member for Changi say exactly in which Part it is said that the P.A.P. would grant free secondary education?

That is hardly a point of order. The Minister will be able to reply. Mr Teo Hock Guan.

But the Government does not give free education for secondary education. Instead it has raised the school fees of the secondary schools from $3 to $4. Sir, concerning the teaching of Asian languages, the P.A.P. said: 'There is a falling in the number of hours devoted to the teaching of Asian languages until it is completely left out at Higher School Certificate level. This is ridiculous in an Asian country and especially so when virtually all pupils are Asians whose contacts and experiences are with Asians.' The P.A.P could say very beautiful words when it was not in power. It is now in power, but what does it do? The national language, the Chinese language and the Tamil language are not compulsory subjects in English schools, whereas the English language is a compulsory subject in all schools in Singapore. Sir, in the 1959 All-Party Report on Chinese Education, it recommended the malayanisation of text-books used in schools. In the general election, the P.A.P. accused the former Government of not being able to produce a single book which was malayanised. But the P.A.P. Government also cannot produce a single book in its 2½ years of office. Many aided schools apply for capital grants, but they still cannot get them. This is because the school which applies for a capital grant has not got enough money required by the dollar for dollar regulation. Many schools, especially primary schools, have not got the required sum of money in hand and their applications are therefore rejected. As a result, schools cannot be extended. There is no money to repair classrooms and they have to be closed down. Other minor repairs and the buying of equipment cannot be carried out. I suggest to the Government that the capital grant regulations should be amended so as to lessen the difficulties of the schools when they apply for capital grants. Sir, many school teachers have complained that they are overworked, especially those teaching in the secondary schools.

Including yourself.

No. I am teaching in a primary school. Yes, they overworked. Only the teachers know that because of overwork, the standard of education is affected. Due to overwork, the health of the teachers, the marking of exercises and the teaching of lessons are affected. I hope the Minister for Education will pay attention to the complaints and employ more teachers to settle the problem. Sir, the P.A.P. criticises the colonialists by saying that in colonial days the Chinese schools were left alone to fend for themselves without any government aid. It continues to say that the frustration among the Chinese school students is due to lack of funds, poor salaries for teachers and no outlet for students who pass out from schools. Yes, this is right, it was the P.A.P. which knew the mistakes made by past Governments, but it is also the P.A.P. Government which follows the policy of past Governments. Sir, we know that many schools cannot get capital grants. The allowances of teachers were cut. Chinese school students still cannot get Government jobs because their English is very poor, and many Nanyang University graduates are still unemployed. The Government said that the past colonial educational system would be changed to that of a national system which should also be unified, but to our regret, a paper promise of the P.A.P. is always a paper promise. The Government intends to change the Chinese school educational system into a new system based on the English educational system: that is, from three years of Junior Middle III and three years of Senior Middle III to four years of Lower Secondary and two years of Upper Secondary education. Without consulting the Chinese educational bodies, the Government implemented the policy this year. Unacceptable conditions were laid down without prior consultation. Sir, the Government only consulted them after so much trouble had been created. The Government now says that the school authorities concerned can choose either the 3:3 or 4:2 system. It is an act to split our national system. The Government must realise that it must seek advice from others. If they had done that, there would not have been so much unrest.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Jalan Kayu said in this House yesterday that the Government has done nothing and that there has been no development in the rural areas. May I remind him, Sir, that he was a member of the Urban and Rural Services Advisory Council? He knows very well what the Government has done in the rural areas. Now I would just like to detail some of the work which the Government has carried out. Approximately 20 miles of kampong roads in the rural areas were constructed at an estimated cost of $400,000 during 1961. The roads completed include Jalan Hwi Yoh, Boh Sua Tian Road, Yew Teck Village, the kampong roads at Geylang, the Malay Farm, Koh Sek Lim Road, the end of Jalan Eunos, Ponggol Road, Kampong Loyang, the road to the community centre at Bukit Panjang, Track 11 Lim Chu Kang Road, and West Road. 16,320 feet of roadside drains all over the rural areas at an estimated cost of $90,000 were constructed during this year. Drains at the following places were lined: Yio Chu Kang Road 10 m.s., Sembawang Road 12½ m.s. (Chong Pang Village), Jalan Kayu Post Office, Thomson Road, Airport Road, Changi Road 6¾ m.s., Tampines Road, Ama Keng Village, Lam San, Woodlands and Jurong Road, 9 and 10 m.s. 15 bus shelters were erected at various places at a cost of $17,000. Roadside railings were constructed at the following roads at an approximate cost of $27,000: Mandai Road (Sembawang junction) Sembawang Road near Jalan Ulu Seletar Thomson Road 5-6 m.s. Sembawang Road end Siglap Road 6¼ m.s. Yio Chu Kang Road 5¾ m.s. Upper Bukit Timah Road 8 m.s. Woodlands Road 15¾ m.s. Jurong Road 7¼ m.s. Approximately 16,000 feet of footpaths were constructed at a cost of $103,000. The work includes the covering of open drains at crowded places i.e., the Paya Lebar Police Station, the Lim Tua Tow Road market and Yio Chu Kang Road. Footpaths were also constructed at Jalan Eunos, Paya Lebar Road (mosque), Yio Chu Kang Road 10 m.s., Jalan Kayu, Sembawang Road 13½ m.s., Hillside Drive, Thomson Road, Jurong Road, West Coast Road, Clementi Road and Bukit Timah/Bukit Batok. The hon. Member said that few standpipes and few footpaths were constructed. This is to bluff the people. I have listed all these just to show whether he is bluffing the people or whether the Government is bluffing the people. 87 new standpipes at an estimated cost of $209,500 were installed at various places in the rural areas.

More than the Mayor ever did!

Mr Speaker. Sir, $209,500 has been spent on just a "few" standpipes! The Member for Jalan Kayu thinks that these standpipes are made of bamboo! But the stand-pipes installed by the Government are made of steel. You have been lazy in your kampong, in your constituency -

Order. The Speaker's kampong is Kampong Whitley. I am quite satisfied with it.

I mean that the Member for Jalan Kayu is too lazy to come out and see what the Government has done. Instead he comes to this House to crow. The estimated cost of the 87 new standpipes, including the laying of 4" mains at the following places, is as follows: $ Jalan Puay Poon, Changi Road 33,750 Jalan Teban off Tampines Road 6,500 Joo Koon School area at Jurong Road 17¾ m.s 7,000 The laying of a 9" main at the new link road from West Coast Road to Jurong Road has been approved. A sum of $35,000 was paid to the City Council for the supply of water by wagons to various parts of the rural areas during the dry spell. Can the Member then say, "Just a few standpipes!" It would then mean just a few drops of water carried by wagons to the rural areas. He is a wonderful man, something like a whale which can carry plenty of water! He is speaking rubbish in this House. I am not telling lies. I have brought out the facts to prove whether I am telling the truth or lies.

Order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary knows that the word "lies" is unparliamentary, but since he has used it of himself, I cannot rule it to be unparliamentary. But he must not use that word in relation to another Member.

Mr Speaker, Sir, he said untrue things. I say that they are not lies but they are not true. Sir, the laying of a 9" main from West Coast Road to Jurong Road has been approved. This is just a correction. I am sorry, Mr Speaker, as I overlooked it when I was talking to you. Work on the electrification of various kampongs in the rural areas is well in hand. The electricity supply at Kampong Chai Chee, Bulim, Lam San and Keat Hong Villages is being made available through a subsidy given by Government. The Government is spending a lot of money on these villages, and yet they said, "Nothing has been done." Work in other villages such as Andrews Avenue, Jalan Kaki Bukit,. Holy Innocents' Lane, West Coast Road (7½ m.s. to 8 m.s.). Gulega Road, Florence Road, and Lorong Low Koon is almost complete. 327 public street lights were installed in the rural areas. The following streets were lighted this year: Sennett Road, Paya Lebar Crescent, Upper Changi Road, Airport Road, Jalan Alsagoff, Somapah Road. Sembawang Road, Woodlands Road, Bukit Timah Road, Bukit Panjang Village, Chua Chu Kang Road (Nam San and Tengah). 372 kampong street lights were installed at various places, including Geylang Serai, Jalan Kaki Bukit, Jalan Batek, Jalan Tebu, Jalan Penggaga, Jalan Bayam, Jalan Ubi, Sembawang New Village at 12½ m.s., Sun Wah Chee Drive, Kampong Tengah, Lorong Marzuki to Jalan Sentosa, and Holy Innocents' Lane. In 1961 approval for the supply of electricity to kampongs in the rural areas was given to Jalan Sempadan and Kampong Siglap, Hill view Avenue, Soon Hock Road (Thomson), Lam San Village, Florence Road, and Gulega Road. Yesterday the Member for Jalan Kayu mentioned that during the Lim Yew Hock regime chemicals for animals were given free to the rural people, and now this Government withdraws these chemicals from the market. I have never heard of these chemicals being given free to the rural people ever since the last Legislative Assembly when I was an Assemblyman. I do not know where he got all this information. He said they could get the chemicals from the shops but the Government withdraws supplies of these chemicals. We have not done such a thing. He is a farmer, his father is a farmer, and he should know very well that during the Lim Yew Hock Government there were a few inoculators. Those who wanted to have their chicks inoculated just reported to the Fullerton Building. At that time it was under a certain Ministry - Agriculture or something like that. I once brought a farmer there and asked one of the officers to send an inoculator to such and such a place to inoculate about 1,000 chicks. He said, all right, and noted down the name and address. And so the chicks were inoculated. But two weeks later, half the chicks died. So I made inquiries as to how half of them could have died after inoculation. Instead of saving the chickens, it killed the chickens! I found that most of these inoculators were corrupted. They said they gave the right amount of chemicals to inoculate the chickens. "And we have an appointment to inoculate 1,000 more chickens at night!"

Order. All these little details are perhaps very interesting if the hon. Member is debating the Lim Yew Hock Government's policy. We are now debating the P.A.P. Government's policy. He should concentrate on the P.A.P. Government's policy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to compare. If there is no comparison, how can you prove whether the P.A.P. Government is really doing things for the people? I say this because of the blackmarket. They got to cut half of them for the blackmarket and get $25 in the night.

Order. I have tried to indicate that that is completely irrelevant. Let us come back to the Government policy as indicated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the present P.A.P. Government, we have appointed more inoculators to inoculate these birds in the kampongs.

In the daytime!

In the former days the farmers were not too happy about rearing chicks. At the most, they only reared about 500 or 600. They were frightened that these birds would get the disease and die. So the P.A.P. Government now appointed more inoculators to inoculate these birds to save them and help the farmers. So now I can see in the kampongs that 90 per cent of these chicks reach the egg-laying age, and as a result eggs are plentiful in the market. During this P.A.P. Government, therefore, these farmers produce more eggs and some are exported to neighbouring countries. The Member for Jalan Kayu says that the cost of fowl feeding is $15 to $16 a pickul. My son is keeping 400 fowls at the back of my house. He is making $250 a month, and he feeds the fowls for only two hours a day. The Member also mentions the sale of eggs by the farmers. At 7 cents each the farmer loses at 8 cents each he just about covers his cost. I believe that eggs were not sold below 8 cents after the war. If an egg is sold at 8 cents, you can make at least 80 cents a month from one hen. So from 400 fowls you make over $300 a month. Sir, we are not saying that we do not provide facilities for the farmers and are not looking after their interests. We do. We are still helping them. Whenever there is a complaint, we always look into it. I remember once the Member for Punggol came to see me about a complaint that a house was in two feet of water. We went to see the proper officials. We are not like the Member for Jalan Kayu who just talks but never does anything. I mention this just to prove that he comes here only to say things which are not true, such as "Well, the P.A.P. does not keep its promises." It is wrong. He also mentions the structures of chicken runs, pig sties, and all sorts of things. What does he know about them? He is an Assemblyman and he should know the building by-laws governing these structures. He says, "Oh, this Government gives a lot of trouble. It is a very difficult to build a chicken run or a pig sty." If a farmer does not know where to go, he should tell him to go to the building surveyor and get a permit. If the people have any difficulties, he should go up to them and help them. Does he want to say, "Well, if you want to build a chicken run or a pig sty, you can do it without a permit."? That land may be Government land or private land. Mr Speaker, Sir, suppose you own a piece and one day you find that somebody has built a house in your compound. When you ask him, he says, "Oh, I can put up a house anywhere I like." That is not the policy. Because if it is, you will find the hawkers building cubicles in the back lanes! Therefore, it cannot be said that we are not helping the people. We have to educate them to help them. "This is right and that is wrong." You have to go through the proper channels to get things done. Let me say one more thing. If there are no building laws, I will advise him to go and see his brother who is very good at doing things applying for permits for the people. His brother is doing these things and yet he, as an Assemblyman, does not know how to get these things done. I wonder why. I think he should answer my question. "It is very hard to get a permit to put up a house on Government land. Have to go to the Land Office." Well, what does he expect? The land officer, when he gets an application, will say, "All right. We will go and see the place." The applicant should write to the Land Office or the Commissioner of Lands and say, "Well, I want to enlarge my house because my two sons are grown up and I want to have two more rooms." Naturally the Commissioner will say, "All right. Now, what sort of building are you going to enlarge?" I have handled these problems. Once I was present in the Land Office. The Commissioner said to the applicant, "Can you give some reasons why you wish to enlarge your house?" And he will approve if the reasons are good. It is not difficult. Once these people put up a chicken run on Government land. Then they got a notice to pull it down or be fined. So they came up to me and said, "Why? This is an agricultural area. The Commissioner of Lands says this building was put up without a permit and should be pulled down." I am explaining all these things to Members of Opposition. Now I want to reply to the Member for Changi. He mentioned some resolution having been passed about repairing roads, but that after one year nothing had been done. He too was on the Advisory Council. The Member for Upper Serangoon was the ex-Chairman. And now he is asking. Asking for what? They had to pass it and the Chairman passed it. So many things have to be done. It is not only Changi Road -

Order. The hon. Member is getting a bit excited. If he addresses the Chair, he will probably not get so excited.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not very excited. I am really annoyed. Members of the Barisan Sosialis come here and say all sorts of things which are untrue. I am the oldest man in this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have mentioned this so many times. Make constructive criticism and not destructive criticism. They just come here and talk and instigate during the Budget debate. So many Members talk about compensation. Yesterday the Member for Jalan Kayu talked about compensation again. He said instead of $1 we must pay $3. How many times -

On a point of explanation, Sir.

Point of explanation. Mr Goh Chew Chua resumed his seat.

I just want to know why Koh Seck Lim Road is not tarred. That is all. Do not talk so much.

Order. The Member for Changi must not instruct the Member as to how long he can talk, or whether he should talk so much. I must ask him to withdraw that expression, "Do not talk so much."

I withdraw, Sir.

You are asking me why I do not tar the road?

Order. I would advise the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary not to get too angry because he is old. He should always remember that there is a sympathetic Chair. The Chair will have a sympathetic ear for what the Member has to say.

Thank you, Sir, for your advice. Such an old man has to bow to you, so young a Speaker, as Chairman ! I am not very excited, as I said just now. These young people just come here and waste the time of the Assembly. They now ask me why I do not tar the road. The engineers will tar the roads. As I have mentioned just now, they have not only Changi Road to attend to. These things have to be attended to in the proper order. Last month the road engineers gave me a full list of what roads are to be repaired and resurfaced. So we must see which road needs priority. Do not say, "The roads in my constituency should be attended to first." Mr Speaker, I tell you that the Member for Changi is always asking for work to be done for his own constituency.

That is my duty.

It is your duty, but you are too greedy.

Order. I do not think there is much excuse for the Parliamentary Secretary, because he was looking at the Speaker when he said, "You are too greedy." I do net think the Speaker is at all greedy. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could now come to his point and conclude his speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has left the Party only a few months. Every month we have a meeting. Why do you not say that the Government should attend to my road first and give it priority? You just say top priority and the Government will do it. He is a man who asks so much for his constituency. I have asked for some standpipes for my constituency, and the Committee has approved them. He has got the cheek to ask me, "These pipes have been passed. Let me construct my pipes and you stop your pipes."

Order. I think I must bring the Parliamentary Secretary back to the debate which is on Government policy. I think he has touched sufficiently on details to illustrate the Govern ment's policy.

Thank you for your advice, Sir. I come back again. The Member for Jalan Kayu mentioned that not enough facilities have been given to the rural farmers or the rural folks. He talked about some of the people at the 11th m.s. Yio Chu Kang Road who had been given notice to quit. There were about 300 families altogether. I have mentioned compensation so many times during the Budget debate. I say they know very well that land in Singapore is limited. The Government has given them land. When Government asks them to quit, it gives them alternative accommodation elsewhere. It gives them compensation, and if they refuse to accept it, the Government gives them a house and put up a proper road, water service and other facilities. Some of them claim for more compensation. This is State money and we the Government are the guardians of public funds. We must see that they are spent in a proper way. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member also mentioned that there is a lot of land in the Federation. It is because we in Singapore are short of land that we seek merger with the Federation. We are trying to get people to go to the Federation. There is a lot of land there. They can get a lease from the Government and go there to cultivate the land. 4.00 p.m.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, if the P.A.P. Government had followed the footsteps of the P.A.P. in the City Council during their 14 months in office, they would not have been reduced to a majority of just one today. The captain of the ship has not been piloting his vessel along the proper course. And so it has hit the rocks. Today it is about to flounder. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Government claim to be a Government of the people, but it appears to be just self-praise. They have promised to do good to the people, but these promises have not been carried out. That is why we fought the Govern ment with the weapon of the 16 Hong Lim resolutions and exposed the mistakes of the Government. We who represent the United People's Party are consistent and disciplined. We do not change with the wind. This Government do not appear to show any sympathy for the working class. When the P.A.P. was in charge of the City Council, the City Council of its own accord raised the workers' pay by 40 cents a day and the salary of the poorly paid staff by $10 a month. But have this Government done anything like that today? They have not done so. The Government must treat women teachers better. But fair treatment has not been meted out to them. Women teachers do the same work as men teachers, and, therefore, they must be given the same terms of service. It is quite easy to attack the Government and say that it is discredited. It needs little courage to attack the Government. But we have always offered constructive criticisms. We have not criticised for the sake of criticising. To light against a tyrannous government in the early days, courage and strength were needed. Tan Gah Keng was the first man to fight against the appointment of Thomson, Blades and Meadows. But he was betrayed by the people whom he trusted, and he suffered for the courage of his convictions. On the day he was arrested, he had only two torn shirts. The Government should release him unconditionally from prison. Mr Speaker, Sir, what good have the people received from this Government? Very little indeed. When the P.A.P. was in charge of the City Council, three or four children's creches were constructed. But this Government have built none. They have built community centres. But how many of them are functioning today? If these community centres are used as children's creches, the people will get some benefit from such a change. If the Government want to do some good to the hawkers, I would suggest that their licence fees should be reduced. A committee should be set up to consider the position. The licence fees today were fixed at a time when there were only a few hawkers. But the number of hawkers has increased many times and, therefore, if a committee is set up to review the position, it will be able to examine whether these licence fees can be reduced. Perhaps, as a result of such a procedure, the hawkers may have more confidence in this Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one more point I wish to make. I urge the Government to look into the welfare of the poor trisha riders. Many of them are old; some of them are sick; and if they lose this means of livelihood, they will have no other means. The former Minister for Labour, the present Minister for Health, announced at one time that he was going to build a home for the aged, for those who cannot work. But his promise has just remained a promise. It has only been a paper plan. The Government should also reorganise the transport system of Singapore. The bus transport system is not up to modern standards. There is a lot of overcrowding in the buses. Many places are not served by bus transport. An improvement of the bus services will also better the working conditions of bus workers. The taxi drivers are today struggling for a living. The Government promised, some years ago, that a million-dollar scheme would be devised to help the taxi drivers, but this has also remained just a promise. When the P.A.P. ran the City Council, words were always follow ed by action, and the people learnt to have faith in the P.A.P. City Council rather than in the current Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, taxi drivers are now required to pay very high rates of fines for any offences they commit. This is something the Government must now reexamine. I wish to say a few words too on the S.I.T. flats. The Government promised to construct low-cost housing, but up to now, I have not heard of any really low-cost housing having been constructed. 4.22 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the 16th of October, we have been debating in this House. We can see clearly from the Government's policy statement that it is empty, without any substance in it. A great part of it is related to the question of merger, which we have been debating for many days. This year's policy statement is very different from 1959 or 1960. In 1959, the Government's policy statement was published in a booklet entitled "Towards A More Just Society". In 1960, the policy statement was published in a pamphlet entitled "The Year of Construction". But this year, the Government have not given any title to their policy statement. The Government should point out what is the emphasis on this year's policy statement so as to let the people know it. They have only said that the Government Labour Exchange has secured jobs for 1,400 unemployed. It is regrettable that in the year of construction the people who were given jobs numbered only 1,400. The year of con struction should actually be discounted, because it has been proved that it is not the year of construction. What is this year to be? What kind of year is this? I will give it a name. A mad year or a year of betrayal. A year of the sell-out. Just now I heard our friend opposite us talking very happily. I refer to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister. He gave the number of drains and roads which the Government have built over the past year. He seemed to be very satisfied with this so-called "grand" achievement. We can say the Govern ment have made no achievements at all besides this. The achievement is a very minor one. He said that he was the Chairman of the Urban and Rural Services Advisory Council and that during his term he did certain things. What he can say is only these minor things which the Government can claim to have achieved. But the suggestions of this Advisory Council have to be put up to another higher authority comprising three persons. But this year the organisation is different. The Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned the building of a few bus-waiting sheds and he seems to be very satisfied. We can see clearly what the P.A.P. have done by comparing what they have done with what is stated in the P.A.P.'s small pamphlet issued at the time of the general elections in 1959. Most of the people of Singapore are in the working class. So the P.A.P. Government want to make use of these people to achieve their own ends. In May 1959 at the Geylang Serai P.A.P. mass rally, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, namely, the present Prime Minister, read out the P.A.P.'s policy on labour. It is in the small pamphlet Book 3, in the Chinese version. In the third paragraph he says that the P.A.P. has been a workers' movement and has always received the support of the workers. The P.A.P. Government is a government on the workers' side. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government have been in office for about 2½ years. The leadership of the P.A.P. have forgotten what they promised before. During the first few months of its office, the P.A.P. Government did help in some ways. They abolished a number of yellow unions. This helped, to some extent, the development of healthy trade union ism in Singapore. But soon afterwards when the P.A.P. Government saw the increasing strength of the working class who had consolidated themselves, they resorted to other tactics, such as cancelling the registration of certain trade unions and doing some things which were contrary to the interests of the workers. Later on, when there were strikes, the P.A.P. Government resorted to the same tactics as those employed by the Lim Yew Hock Government. They ordered the police to take action against unarmed workers who were then prosecuted in court. At that time, the Government put up signboards and posters to say that they were protecting the labourers but, on the other hand, they resorted to police action against them. Nowadays, they do not, even have these signboards. Their so-called pro-workers' policy has been exposed. The people can see clearly now that they are trying to sell dog's meat by showing a sheep's head. Their true colours are now exposed. They have now allowed yellow trade unions to create suspicion and to disturb the friendly relations existing among the workers and to smear the right type of trade union executives as pro-Communists or Communists. They seem to think that by allowing all these activities, they can preserve their present political position and power. But they should recall the same events that took place during the term of the Lim Yew Hock Government. The past Government was a failure and now the P.A.P. Government are treading the same path.

Order. May I remind the hon. Member that he is repeating the same theme which has been repeated by Barisan Sosialis speaker after Barisan Sosialis speaker? I have already stated that I am going to be very strict about repetitions and I ask all Members of the Barisan Sosialis to get together so that they do not repeat what every Member of their Party says in this House. We have had this theme time and time again. It is becoming tedious. Mr Lin You Eng.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I only mention these things and I do not want to go into details. From what I have said, we can see what the P.A.P. Government have done. The P.A.P. are acting contrary to what they have promised in their small pamphlets issued some time ago.

Order. The Member is, of course, entitled to say what he wants to say. But if Member after Member from the same Party says the same thing, then it becomes tedious. The Barisan Sosialis should have a spokesman to say one thing which is not repeated by the other Members.

(In Mandarin): The smearing of trade union executives and officers will, of course, be viewed with favour by foreign capitalists and foreign compradores. But this will not lead the Government to any good end. In the third book of the Chinese version of the P.A.P.'s pamphlets, on page 16, entitled "The Unification of the Trade Union Movement", there is a passage which goes like this. The P.A.P.'s task is to see that there must be a coherent or unified union organisation and that the laws relating to trade unions and labour are to be revised. In 1960, an 1st May (Labour Day), at Jalan Besar, the then Minister for Labour and Law said to the workers there - I am quoting from the Sin Chew Jit Poh, page 2: 'If there is no true central organisation to represent all the workers, the whole trade union movement will be useless. This is some thing that the workers themselves will have to pay attention to and work with the Government in this respect.' Mr Speaker, Sir, this organisation is the same as the old one. But we can see from the speeches of the Minister that the P.A.P. are only paying lip service to the workers when they say that they want to protect the workers' interest by forming a central trade union organisation. Their motive is to control all the trade unions and to make use of them for their own purpose. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture was also the Secretary-General of the T.U.C. and it was through him that the P.A.P. wanted to control 'the trade union movement in Singapore.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

(In Mandarin): No. It was through this person that the P.A.P. wanted to control the trade union movement in Singapore. It was absurd on the part of the Government to use a person for that purpose. The P.A.P. thought that the labour classes in Singapore were so foolish as to believe that one particular person could control thousands of workers. The P.A.P. discarded their stand on anti-colonialism and wanted to make use of the Member for Kampong Kapor, namely, the Parliamen tary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, to control the trade union organisations. Those who had the workers' interest at heart were opposed to the Government's tactics of making use of the T.U.C. to attain their political aims. When the ex-Secretary-General of the T.U.C., namely the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, could not attain the aims, he asked the then Minister for Labour to dissolve the T.U.C. This kind of action -

Order. I have already indicated that we are debating the policy of the Government in relation to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, and I do not want a debate on details. The hon. Member is going into details. That is just wasting the time of the Assembly.

(In Mandarin): I mention this in passing only as an example. The P.A.P. Government are not interested in the welfare of the workers or in strengthening the trade union movement. But what they are interested in is attaining their political aims. After the T.U.C. was dissolved, 82 trade union organisations held a conference and passed a resolution.

Order. I have indicated that I do not want any debate on details. What Government policy is the hon. Member attacking? Let us have it.

(In Mandarin): I have said just now that the policy of the Government is empty and weak and that it is contrary to the pledges they gave to the people before the elections. They talk of fighting for the interest of the workers, but in this policy statement there is no mention of any safeguards for the workers. In one year the Government could only find jobs for 1,400 people. This shows the labour policy of the P.A.P. is only meant to deceive the people. These 82 trade union organisations passed a resolution to condemn the Government's act to dissolve the Trade Union Congress.

Order. I do not think the House is interested in what resolution was passed. I think all that the House might be interested in is that a trade union or a Trade Union Congress or whatever the name was of 82 unions was formed, and the allegation is that the Government refuses to recognise it. That is all there is to it. That is perhaps an attack on the Government policy in not recognising this trade union. But we do not want to know how many meetings they had and what resolutions they passed.

(In Mandarin): In that case, I am not going to mention this matter to the House. Mr Speaker, Sir, we can see that the P.A.P. Government have lost the faith of the people of Singapore. How are they going to retrieve their position? Through Mr Devan Nair, the Government are going to form their puppet trade union organisation. Now the Government make use of Mr Devan Nair to sabotage the trade union movement.

Order. I propose now to suspend until 5.30 p.m. to enable the hon. Member perhaps to revise his speech, and to convey to other Members of the Barisan Sosialis that I do not want any repetition. I do not want any details debated. All I am interested in and,' I think, all that the Assembly is interested in is a debate on the Government's general policy. I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.49 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will try to make my speech short. I know we have been debating in this House for about one month. Everybody is tired. Of course, I pay respect to your office, and all the people of Singapore also respect your office.

I think I had better make myself very clearly understood. The Speaker, as the Speaker, can never get tired. He is not supposed to get tired. All he has to do is to regulate the debate in such a way that the Standing Orders are not disobeyed. We are now debating what is called a policy speech, and the Standing Order, which is Standing Order 13, paragraph (2) , states 'Debate [that is on the speech] thereon shall be confined to the policy of the Government as outlined in the speech ...'. Therefore, we are debating a policy, that is, a general policy. What I have been trying to indicate to the hon. Member is that he is going into details, and that is not permitted in this particular debate. If he is interested in any particular issue where he wants to mention these details, he has to give notice of a motion, and when that motion is debated, then he can bring up all those details. That is the first point. The second point is that there is an other Standing Order, that is Standing Order 54 - I have quoted this Standing Order many times before - which says: 'The Speaker or the Chairman, after having drawn attention to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.' The point I am trying to make is that there has been repetition, and Members of the same Party should never repeat arguments which have been advanced by their co-members, because if they do so, the repetition might become tedious and the Chair might be compelled to act under that Standing Order. I might say that I, as Speaker, am very reluctant to do that. That is why I have been trying to indicate to Members that so long as they talk on the general policy of the Government in this particular debate and do not repeat themselves, and do not go into details, they will have every sympathy from the Chair.

(In Mandarin): Now I will try to shorten my speech. When the P.A.P. came to power, their message had given hope that the Government would bring some benefit to the people, especially since they had suffered from the oppression of the colonial rulers. The people were attracted by the P.A.P.'s promises. The P.A.P. promised to carry out certain policies. The unification of the trade union movement was carried out by the P.A.P. Government in the form of the establishment of the Trade Union Congress. But this was dissolved a few months later. The recent strike by the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation gives ample proof that the Government are making use of one trade union to defeat another trade union. At every street corner people have been talking about this. They have been criticising the Government. But the Government do not pay any attention to that. The Government only delay it. In the end many people were affected by the strike. From this event, we can see that the present P.A.P. Government are not concerned with the livelihood and the safety of the people. What the P.A.P. Government are interested in is to make use of the trade disputes to smear certain trade unions in order to strengthen the pro-Government trade unions. This we can see clearly from the recent trade disputes and strikes. We can see that the P.A.P. Government will undoubtedly resort to using the police to tackle the workers, even with the backing of the military force. On the 4th of May this year, when the People's Association was inaugurated - I am quoting from the Nanyang Siang Pair of 6th of May - the Prime Minister is reported to have said as follows: 'The record of the Work Brigade will be of more value than any certificate issued by any school.' Mr Speaker, Sir, after the Prime Minister had said such things at the inaugural ceremony of the Work Brigade, its members were very elated and hopeful. Now the present wages for the members are $1.50 a day. Everybody hoped that after working for some time in the Work Brigade, he would get a certificate which would help him to get other employment. But they have been working in the Work Brigade for about two years. The P.A.P. Government have never fulfilled their promises. Yesterday I read in the newspapers that the Government sent the police to lay siege to the Work Brigade camps. The police were used to encircle the camps where the Work Brigade members were stationed. According to Mr Ng, the Director of the Work Brigade, the paper reported thus: 'One boy said that he regretted very much that the Government should resort to using the police and military personnel to take action against the strikers of the Work Brigade and several of them were assaulted.' The Government sent out the police to encircle the Work Brigade camps and to round up the members and assault them. How can the Government explain away this kind of act? The incident at the Work Brigade camps is true. It can be seen from the statement issued by both sides. We can see that the Work Brigade members wanted to form a trade union. The P.A.P. Government's signboard shows that the Government are pro-labour. Why is it that the Government do not carry out actions in keeping with their professed pro-labour policy? Why is it that in the end Government resorted to using the police to tackle the striking workers? Is this not a kind of political suicide for the P.A.P. Government? The P.A.P. Government should know that suppressing the people and restricting their freedom of speech and assembly can only preserve their position and .power for a very short time. But when they face the people again after the current series of actions taken by them, they will have lost the trust of the people and they will collapse. I have already mentioned that when they collapse, some of them will be just like Mr Chew Swee Kee who went to Ipoh - Madam Hoe Puay Choo rose -

On a point of order?

(In Mandarin): Yes. The Member for Moulmein accuses us of being like Chew Swee Kee. He is smearing us. Is he making an accusation that we have been dishonest and corrupt?

Accusations have been moving from one side of the House to the other side. I think the hon. Lady should think a bit of the accusation which she herself levelled at, I think, the Member for Stamford yesterday.

(In Mandarin): Just now I did not say that the P.A.P. Government were corrupt. She has distorted what I said. I only said that I regret very much to see such a policy statement for this year. I want only to show that the title of this policy statement can be a year of the sell-out. 5.48 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, referring to the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, I do not wish to speak at length except to put forward several points which could not be dealt with when we debated the Budget. I am completely surprised at the Barisan Sosialis who, I feel, should be grateful to the P.A.P. who have given them an opportunity to be successful, and when they have that opportunity, they will be able to use it to bury the P.A.P. Far from wanting to defend the P.A.P. in the interests of the people of Singapore, I wish to say that normally when U.M.N.O. Members speak, they are charged with communalism. But it appears that today the P.A.P. Government, if their attitude is not of a communalist nature, should be sympathetic towards people whom it is the business of the Minister for Home Affairs to detain. Mr Speaker, we should not forget the A.R.T.I.S. incident. When the A.R.T.I.S. affair came out into the open, the Hon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister sought the co-operation of U.M.N.O. to wipe out A.R.T.I.S. We did give our wholehearted support for the sake of the country. But now, Mr Speaker, when accusations are hurled by the Government in this Assembly that there are Communist groups who are infiltrating into all organisations in Singapore, I am puzzled why such elements are allowed to go free. Is it the belief of the Government that such people are not dangerous, are not a menace? I still remember that yesterday the Hon, the Minister for Education mentioned that a former terrorist Communist still took an active part in terrorist activities and he was found to be active in Kam pong Kembangan. If it is within the knowledge of the Government that there are terrorist Communists, why must these people be allowed to go free? Why must we give them the opportunity to create trouble, the object of which is to topple the P.A.P. Government? So it is a very important matter. With the State machinery at our disposal - the Special Branch, which the Barisan Sosialis fear most - why must we refrain from taking action? I am sure this Government will wait for the time until merger is achieved. So, Mr Speaker, that is the main battle-line. Sometimes we get confused about the terms "pro-Communist" and "anti-Communist". So I hope the Government will continue to struggle as a non-Communist Government, and, by using all the State machinery at their disposal, get rid of the Communists. Mr Speaker, before I touch on the various Government departments which will be put under the control of the Central Government in Kuala Lumpur, I take this opportunity to offer my heart-felt congratulations to the police in particular who have rendered special service not only in looking after the Opposition but also in looking after the Members of the Government by providing security officers as bodyguards. We will not forget their good services, and I trust they will continue to render excellent services and protect and safeguard Singapore from this undesirable threat, that is the threat of Communism. Coming back to the Police Force, Mr Speaker, in view of the fact that time is pressing on, I hope the Minister for Home Affairs will consider carefully the appeals which we have submitted in this Assembly in connection with the interests of members of the Police Force. Let us show our appreciation of the Police Force before they are transferred to the Kuala Lumpur Office. At least among the gazetted officers, it is proper that equal representations exist among the various communities that live in Singapore. Since an Assistant Commissioner of Police retired, until today there has been no replacement from the community which I represent. So I hope, Mr Speaker, this matter will be given due consideration. I further plead with the Government on another matter which perhaps the Minister himself knows, and that is the Guard and Escort Unit. We have discussed this matter sometime back. But up till today, however, their rates of pay are not commensurate with those of the other, members of the regular Police Force. Mr Speaker, a bullet aimed at a member of the Guard and Escort Unit cannot prevent that bullet from piercing his body, so -

Order. I think I have explained how this debate should go, and that is we should debate on the general policy of the Government and not on details. I think the hon. Member is now going into details. He is pinpointing certain units and complaining that their pay is not sufficient. This is not the time to air those grievances. If the Member wishes to air those grievances, there are other ways, such as seeking the right to speak on the adjournment, or moving a motion. Now we are on the Government's general policy.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I have covered enough ground, I think. Now I come to the Ministry of Culture. Because the Minister for Culture is not in the House, I hope the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture will give consideration to my views in this Assembly. Mr Speaker, this matter is also connected with the Ministry of Education and I hope the Minister for Education will pay heed too. Mr Speaker, I am directed by U.M.N.O. to submit to this Assembly a question relating to education and culture. Why is it that national language teachers are recruited from Indonesia and not from Kuala Lumpur? On Culture particularly, Mr Speaker, could the Minister for Culture explain - and perhaps the people of Singapore desire to know - what is happening to the fate of the Aneka Ragam? Another point, Mr Speaker, could the Minister, in the interests of national unity, promote the national language in Singapore? I think the development of the national language, which is in progress now, is far from satisfactory. It is not getting the support of the people of Singapore. I hope the Government will implement the national language policy by conducting a language week or a language month in Singapore so that not only will the national language be accepted by all the people of Singapore, but also that it will be the sole official language in Malaysia. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that we, as Members of the Assembly, ought not to criticise culture - but if I wish to poke fun at the Government, I will say that they love to play golf and this also applies to the leadership of U.M.N.O. who also enjoys playing golf! I hope the Government will have a game of golf with the Barisan Sosialis so that a culture can be evolved which can unite all the Members of this Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, mention has been made that a big sum of money has been spent and that much effort has been put into housing. I wish to convey to the Minister concerned that the houses being built at present are meant for a particular section of the population of Singapore. It should be the policy of the Government to allocate building sites in the Malay settlements. Up to now, the allocation of these sites has not been completed and a decision on this is long overdue. I would like to remind the House that I am not asking for an extension of such settlements, but that the allocation of these sites should be expedited for a certain section of the community who are still waiting for sites. On this subject, 1 ask that there should be an investigation to find out whether it is true that staff members - whether in the Government or not - who have paid their $25 deposit are unable to get it back even though they have not been allocated building sites. I have received reports from a number of applicants who say that they have been cheated -

Order. There again I think the hon. Member is deviating from the debate. These are grievances which he can either pose to the Minister direct or ventilate - if he has not already ventilated them in the debate on the Estimates - in an adjournment speech. We are now on general policies.

(In Malay): Finally, I wish to convey to the Government and I think the Government know the position - that U.M.N.O. has complained many times that the building of community centres has not been carried out satisfactorily. In addition, it has become the policy of the Government to install lighting facilities and to repair roads in the kampongs of the rural areas; and in order not to save money, I hope the Government will consider a scheme whereby red earth should not be used for kampong roads, as it is not satisfactory when it rains. This is a matter which merits attention. It has been re ported not only to me but also to other rural representatives. Such roads will not benefit the poor residents from the health point of view. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Government will consider the points I have submitted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the curtain on Act 111 of this drama slowly goes up and as the third Session of this Assembly unfolds itself, we see the Government Benchers in a sad and melancholy state. We can see the absence of Members' on the Government Benches - even during the time when Government Members made their speeches. Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech is nothing but a collection of empty promises which have been repeated year after year. The people do not believe in these promises any more. As we read through the speech, it is like reading through the last testament of a Government which once commanded a huge majority in this Chamber but which has now been reduced to such a state that it requires the acrobatic talents of a circus performer -

Order. I do not think I can allow the hon. Member to continue in that strain.

Mr Speaker, Sir, their majority now is so small that we feel sorry for this Government. Sir, why has this Government failed? This Government has failed because primarily it has ignored the people's interests which it has sought to protect and defend. This Government has failed because it has ignored and forgotten its election promises. This Government has failed because it had been brought about by the common people, but when it came into office, it forgot all about them. Sir, may I ask the Government this: have the workers of this country benefited from the P.A.P. Government? Have the taxi-drivers, the trisha-riders and hawkers benefited from this Government? Have the farmers and the shopkeepers benefited from the Government? No, Sir. Have the industrialists or the businessmen benefited from this Government? No, Sir. The persons who have benefited from this Government are only a small privileged few who do not play a very significant part in building our society. I would say that many of the Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretaries have benefited from this Government. Sir, not long after the Government was formed, we could see quite clearly the road it was taking. We saw it clearly and we fought against it. In those days, Sir, it was a hard, tortuous and lonely battle. Some of those who fought in the early days are still exiled from this coun try, while others are still languishing in goals. Sir, it required real courage and conviction in those early days - as early as August 1959 - to fight this once all-powerful Government. Of course, after the Hong Lim by-election, the situation was quite different. We fought this Government tooth and nail and we never surrendered the principles in which we believe. Sir, after fighting for nearly ten months, we put up all our points in the Hong Lim resolutions which embodied all what the people of Singapore wanted. This was vindicated later in the Hong Lim by-election and we are here today with a fresh mandate to speak on behalf of the people. Sir, what we have said previously in the P.A.P. itself, in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speeches, and in the Budget debates in this Assembly has now all proved to be absolutely true. Events have proved what we have said in speeches in this Assembly, in the Party conferences and in the Hong Lim byelection to be true, and many people who once disagreed with us have now come round to the same point of view. Sir, the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara contains nothing, because the Government is now not very keen on carrying on an efficient administration and doing constructive work for the people. It is just waiting for so-called merger talks to come about and save them. Nothing has been done during the past 2½ years to solve the unemployment problem. What has happened to the common commodity market talks? We have heard many times about the Government's industrialisation policy, and it was only recently that the Government pushed forward the Jurong scheme. The scheme is good. We support it in principle. But, Sir, the Government should have done much better. Unless the common commodity market talks succeed, it will be very difficult to have a successful industrialisation scheme. What has, the Government done to stop unemployment? We now know that there are many juvenile delinquents and petty thieves and robbers. The Government was very happy to announce that the number of kidnapping cases had been reduced. But, Sir, perhaps this is because the big businessmen have bodyguards now, or it is because of the Kidnapping Bill. But, on the other hand, we now know for sure that crime and juvenile delinquency are on the increase. This is due to the Government's lack of solution or partial solution to the unemployment problem. Sir, what has the Government done to, alleviate the sufferings of the farmers? What has the Government done to give an offer of security of tenure to the farmers? Sir, some years ago we prepared a scheme to bring electricity to the kampongs. As far as I know, nothing substantial has been done. We had already built an adequate number of standpipes for the kampong folks. We were going to carry through with the electricity scheme. But, Sir, unfortunately we could not do it because the City Council was taken back by the Prime Minister. What has the Government done to build agricultural roads? The Government has said that it has completed 21 new roads. Sir, 21 new agricultural roads is a very small figure when compared the number of roads required in the kampongs of Singapore. If proper leadership had been given to those who were prepared to build roads among the kampong people; if the special squad had not been disbanded and had been allowed to carry out its work, today we would have had not only 21 roads, Sir, but I can guarantee that we would have had at least ten times more - 210 new agricultural roads. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Government was formed, we wanted to carry on the P.A.P.'s work which was started in the City Council. In June, July and August 1959, within less than three months of the new Government coming into office, we succeeded in mobilising tens of thousands of volunteers to help in the construction of the State. We filled almost all available empty lands in the country with parks and children's playgrounds. We built a few hundred standpipes in the course of one or two months. Needless to say, there were numerous other construction works. But, Sir, when the Prime Minister saw that we were delivering the goods to the people, that we were meeting the demands of the people, he was anxious that we must not carry on. Therefore, around September, he decided that a stop must be put to all these. In October he took back the City Council and other departments. Since then, Sir, what has the Government constructed? Not one new clinic, except the conversion of an old community centre into a clinic, and the completion of a clinic in the Yio Chu Kang area started by the former Government. This Government has not constructed one new clinic. This Govern ment has not started one creche. This Government did not start any new school until we fought for it.

Rubbish!

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I asked for plans, during the time I was Minister, the Education Ministry said, "No plans." Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Point of order?

Elucidation.

If the Member will give way. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Sir, surely the Member for Hong Lim knows that these are all absolute untruths. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng) rose -

Point of order?

No, Mr Speaker, I just want to ask the Member for Hong Lim this. Just now he has mentioned that we worked during the time of the City Council. Is he including the P.A.P. members as well? I was one of the City Councillors at that time. So he cannot say that only the Member for Hong Lim built the standpipes and bus stands and all that. I think it is nonsense when he said that he did all those things.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I say that, I mean the P.A.P. in the City Council, who included the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs who worked very hard those days for the people. And when we worked, we really worked sincerely and honestly for the people without any conditions. We did not build a small little dispensary and put a bronze plaque on top of it, saying "This dis pensary was opened by Mr, so-and-so, Member for such and such a place."

Point of elucidation. Could the Member for Hong Lim please explain to the House why the outdoor dispensary in Dunearn Road was built?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1958 we had plans to build three clinics in the City Council. In 1959 the City Council built three clinics, and one of the three clinics was in Dunearn Road which was planned by Inche Mohd. Shariff who represented that area then. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Another point of elucidation? If the Member will give way. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Sir, is it not true that the Member for Hong Lim, who was then in the City Council, built this clinic for Inche Shariff in order to curry favour with him in a critical moment when crucial votes were needed in the Council?

No, Mr Speaker, Sir. That was not the case because -

You told me that that was the case.

That is not true because, from the first time I knew the Minister for Finance when he joined the P.A.P., we were not on very good speaking terms and I had never trusted him, Sir. [Interruption].

Order. I cannot have these further interruptions. Please continue with the debate on the Government's policy.

I am much obliged, Sir. We believe in action, deeds, and not words, vague empty promises. Control of the Press, control of the radio and television, could not help a govern ment which does not build its roots among the people. Sir, we see in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech a plan for television. I have no doubt this is going to be another organ of propa ganda for the P.A.P. Government. But is it going to help the P.A.P. to save itself? Sir, I do not think so. The Prime Minister can have 120 television speeches but still that will not save the Government. The Minister for Labour can come to this House and say, "The Member for Hong Lim told some members of the Government last week to expose all the Communists and manoeuvrers." Mr Speaker, Sir, this was said during my absence. I joined the P.A.P. since its inception. We fought and we struggled, and every time we fought on principles. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not treacherous men. We do not believe in exposing comrades or ex-comrades.

You want others to do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance is talking from experience. But, Sir, we have a clean, consistent and honest record. Nobody in this House can prove that we are inconsistent.

You are a liar.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is unparliamentary language.

Order. Will the Member for Hong Lim indicate what word was used? I did not hear it. Will the Member for Hong Lim rise on a point of order then?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard the Minister for Finance calling me a liar.

Order. I do not know whether the Minister for Finance agrees that that is so. He knows that the Chair is very, very strict on that word.

In a discreet undertone, Sir. If he thinks it is out of order, then, in deference to the very sensitive skin of the Member for Hong Lim, I want to -

Order. I will not have all this palaver. The Minister for Finance knows that that word has been over-ruled time and time again. He must apologise to the House and withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw that word and apologise to the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have vindicated our stand completely. We have been called names many times.

Order. We are now debating Government policy. I do not think we are debating the policy of the P.AP. Let us debate Government policy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am coming to that. Despite the fresh mandate we have obtained and despite our past record, we are not content with just resting on our laurels. The fight goes on. We shall build slowly but steadily a political base on which we shall lay the foundation, and henceforth we shall continue with the work which was started in the City Council, but which has since been discontinued by the present Government - an act of betrayal. 6.27 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to deal with two points arising out of His Excellency's speech in this Assembly. The first is the water supply to Singapore and its implications, and the second, is the position with regard to labour relationships in Singapore and the role it plays in industrial peace in Singapore. Sir, in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech (it is in col. 15), His Excellency said: 'Furthermore, an agreement to extract water from the Scudai River in Johore was recently signed and the construction of the Scudai Waterworks will commence at the end of this year. The project is expected to take approximately two years to complete. The first phase of the Scudai Scheme will produce a further 15 million gallons per day.' The Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister, when he moved the motion on the Address of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, again touched upon this particular aspect of the speech and repeated in almost the same words that the Government was going to the Scudai River and that it was hoped that they would bring in water sometime within the next two years. Sir, I have mentioned the Scudai River in this House - I think it was during the Budget debate - and I would like to take this opportunity again, Mr Speaker, Sir, to repeat to the Government that the Scudai River Scheme is a great mistake. It is a mistake which will cost the taxpayers of Singapore $20 million, which money could be utilised to better purpose in other fields of Government expenditure. Sir, the City Council has framed a scheme which will be a permanent scheme in so far as water supplies to Singapore are concerned. That permanent scheme, Sir, is the Johore River Scheme. The only reason why the City Council did not go to the Johore River was that when it did want to go there, the terrorist situation in that region was such that the military would not let the City Council enter that area. So it was that the City Council went to the Tebrau River to provide Singapore with a temporary supply of water until such time as the terrorist situation improved and the Council was allowed to enter Johore River to carry out its scheme. Sir, it was always accepted by the City Council that the Tebrau River scheme was a temporary scheme and that the whole of the scheme and the waterworks at Tehbrau would be abandoned when the Johore River scheme was put into operation. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was aghast when the Government suggested, in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, that they are going to the Scudai River which is an even smaller river than the Tebrau River, and which, like the Tebrau River, is subject to a wet weather flow and a dry weather flow. To ensure an adequate sure and safe supply of water for Singapore, Mr Speaker, one does not - I repeat, one does not - take into consideration the wet weather flow of a river. One always takes into consideration the dry weather flow. If any Authority that provides water to a city were to go to a river for water then the primary consideration would be how much water that river would yield during the dry weather. On that dry weather flow, the safe capacity is determined. Now, we in Singapore got into trouble during the last three or four months during the dry weather. One of the reasons why we got into trouble was that the Tebrau River is a river, subject to a wet weather flow and a dry weather flow. Because of that, water from the Tebrau River was in short supply during the dry weather and there had to be a water shortage. If we go to Scudai, the same thing is going to happen. When Tebrau runs dry, Scudai will run dry. There is no point in having three or four or five or six rivers all subject to a dry weather flow. The same situation will arise again. Therefore, I do urge upon the Government to reconsider this whole scheme of going to the Scudai River and ask them to go straight to the Johore River. The Johore River will ensure Singapore a safe supply of good water. If we do go to the Johore River, then within the next two to three years, the Johore River will be able to supply Singapore with all the water it requires. That river is of such capacity even during dry weather that the water supply to Singapore will be ensured for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years. The second point, Mr Speaker, which I wish to touch upon is in column 22, as reported in Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 1, with regard to labour. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may read: 'The Industrial Relations Ordinance, which came into operation on 15th September, 1960, and under which the Industrial Arbitration Court was set up, has introduced some measure of law and order in the sphere of industrial relations...'. May I repeat that phrase again - 'has introduced some measure of law and order in the sphere of industrial relations'. Then it goes on to state what the Industrial Court did. The last paragraph, Mr Speaker, Sir, which appears in column 23, in reference to the Industrial Arbitration Court, read as follows: 'The Industrial Arbitration Court will continue to play an important part in fulfilling its role that there should be industrial peace with justice.' May I repeat the last phrase again - 'that there should be industrial peace with justice'. The important words are, 'industrial peace with justice'. The Minister for Labour and Law, as he then was, moved the Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill on the 10th of February. He said this - in Vol. 12, No. 3 of Hansard of 10th of February, 1960, in col. 155: 'The Bill has received the very careful con sideration of myself and all my colleagues. We have had the benefit of advice and experience in the planning and in the drafting stage from Australia, where industrial arbitration has been in operation for over sixty years. But [said the Minister], we do not claim that the Bill is perfect and we do not believe that the Ordinance will operate for any great length of time without amendments. We will, of course, watch its operation most carefully and I draw the attention of this Assembly to clause 87 . . .' etc, etc. The point I wish to make is this. The Minister when he introduced this Bill did not claim perfection for the Bill. He said he realised its limitations. He said that after the operation of the Bill for a sufficient period of time, he would introduce in this Assembly the necessary legislation in order to make it, if I may use the phrase, more perfect than it was when he originally moved the Bill. Mr Speaker, in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, there is a provision in the Ordinance, which is mandatory in my view, which states that the President of the Court shall submit to the Assembly every year a report of the working of the Court and its impact upon the State and labour relations. Sir, I myself have not sighted this report. I thought I might have overlooked it, and I rang up the Clerk to the Legislative Assembly and he told me that, as far as the Assembly was concerned, no such report had been received. Whether the President is guilty of an affront to this Assembly in not obeying the provisions contained in the Ordinance is a matter which you yourself will have to decide, and which I ask you to decide at the proper time. But all that the Assembly now knows is that the President of the Court has not fulfilled his statutory obligation and has not reported to the Assembly. I had hoped that such a report would be avail able, because the first report of the Court is a very important document. A lot of people are waiting to see this report, because the prosperity of this island, I venture to suggest, depends on the working of this Court and on the impact it has upon employer/employee relation ship. The Minister said he wished to introduce the rule of law where the rule of the jungle was prevailing. I agreed with him on that. So you will therefore appreciate how anxiously we were waiting for this report from the President which he has not sent us. As the Government says that the Industrial Arbitration Court will continue to play an important part in fulfilling its role of ensuring that there should be industrial peace with justice, I think it is pertinent to inquire whether this Court is, in fact, playing its part in such a way that industrial peace with justice will obtain in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am going to suggest to the Minister for Labour, under whose portfolio the Court comes, that very serious consideration should be given to the set-up of the Industrial Arbitration Court and the manner in which industrial disputes are enabled to reach the Court so that a position is reached in Singapore where this Court will be looked upon with confidence and respect in the same way that our Courts of Law are being looked upon in Singapore. Mr Speaker, in my view, the setup of the Court is wrong. Quite frankly, I must tell the Minister for Labour that the set-up of the Court is such that it cannot inspire confidence, and its per formances during the last 15 or 16 months are such that it cannot inspire confidence. The first point I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Labour to is this. There is the President of the Court who is appointed under the Ordinance with the powers and privileges of a Supreme Court Judge conferred upon Supreme Court Judges by the Constitution. But I understand - and here I am subject to correction - that the President is in fact on a contract for three years. If I am correct in that statement, Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask the Minister for Labour how it is that this officer, who has the status of a High Court Judge, who has all the powers and privileges of a High Court Judge under our Constitution -

Order. The Member for Farrer Park might agree with me when I say that he is going into too much detail. As I have indicated, we are dealing with the general policy of the Government in these matters. These details, if he wishes to press the point, can be raised in some other manner, by a notice of a motion or by a speech on the Adjournment. We are now on the general policy. If he can convince me that that is general policy, I will allow him to continue. But I think he is going into too much detail.

I beg to submit that in so far as His Excellency's speech is concerned, he has pin-pointed the fact that the Industrial Arbitration Court will continue to play an important part in fulfilling its role of ensuring industrial peace with justice. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is committed to industrial peace with justice. The instrument by which industrial peace with justice in Singapore is to be achieved is the Industrial Arbitration Court. Therefore, the Industrial Arbitration Court is a very important adjunct of the Government. I think it is necessary for the House to understand whether the composition of the Court is of such a nature that it could bring about industrial peace with justice. What I, wish to show to the House, Mr Speaker, is that, although the House as a whole has agreed that this is the: best way to do it, the set-up of the Court at the moment is such that if Government entrusts industrial peace to this Court, it must fail.

Order. I think the hon. Member has made his point. The general policy of the Government is to establish an Industrial Arbitration Court so that there should be industrial peace with justice. With that the hon. Member is in perfect agreement. It is only with the details, how the Arbitration Court has been set up, that the Member for Farrer Park disagrees. That is certainly a detail which I think the Member could pursue on some other occasion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not a detail in the sense that I am trying to illustrate a point. Unless these details are brought to the notice of the Minister, it will just be a statement of opinion by me. If I say the Court is not performing the function for which it was instituted, it is merely an expression of my opinion. But to back up that expression of opinion, I thought if I gave a few instances of why the Court cannot be the instrument by which industrial peace with justice can be achieved under the present set-up. I would have made my point. That is all I wish to do Mr Speaker.

Order. I thought the Member was going a little further than that. He is going into details of what the Ordinance itself says. I think he started off with the President, and I suppose he could go on with other details as to how the Court now functions. All he need say, I think, is that in his opinion the Court as now set up will not, to use the words of the speech, fulfil its role that there should be industrial peace with justice', because under its present constitution it is not made for it. But if the hon. Member goes into greater detail, then I think I will have to over-rule him.

Sir, I do not wish to pursue the President any more, but I wish to touch upon the Court. The Court consists of the President and two members, one appointed by the employees' side and the other appointed by the employers' side. There are two panels. Under the Ordinance, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a statutory obligation that the Minister must consult the Singapore Trade Union Congress on the appointment of the panel for the employees' side. When this Bill was debated before the House, there was only one Singapore Trade Union Congress to which all trade unions were affiliated. Since the passing of that Ordinance, there are now two general trade unions competing for affiliation of trade unions. Therefore, Mr Speaker, if the Government persists in this Ordinance without amending it, so far as the employees themselves are concerned, they are going to be dissatisfied because, as I understand it, there is another trade union asking for registration - the S.A.T.U. If the provisions relating to the composition of the Court is that only the Singapore Trade Union Congress gets representation, then, so far as the employees who seek affiliation with the other trade union are concerned, Mr Speaker, Sir, they are not going to have much respect for the Court. That is the point I am trying to make to the Government, that these things will have to be looked into again by the Government if they want this Court to function in a way which will give confidence to all the workers in Singapore. The other matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I wish to touch upon is this, that there is in the Ordinance a provision which says that the Court will administer industrial justice according to equity and good conscience. Mr Speaker, in a business community such as ours, where the rule of law prevails and where the business community must know well in advance what is going to happen to them and their business, it is important for them to know that in their relationships with their employees some sort of stability will be provided for them by the law of the land. One of the difficulties which the Singapore business community is now experiencing as a result of this Industrial Arbitration Court is this; that the Court could interpret that particular provision in the Ordinance to mean that the Court can over-ride the general provisions of the law prevailing in Singapore. For instance, Sir, employers must know what are the results of a dismissal, what are the results of a termination of service, what should be the relationship between an employer and an employee in these matters. All these are matters governed by the law and employers and employees regulate their relationship according to the law. What I want to ask the Minister is this. Does he think the Industrial Arbitration Court should give decisions contrary to the general law of the land? For instance, I wish to cite two cases. There was the Kerala Bandu case. The point that went up to the Industrial Arbitration Court was whether the dismissal of a particular employee was justified. The Court held it was justified, but ordered that the employer should pay the employee $2,000. Mr Speaker, Sir, neither in equity nor in law have I heard a court say that a dismissal was justified and then go on to order compensation.

Order. I think perhaps the Member for Farrer Park is now going very, very far away from the ambit of this debate. That is a point he can make if and when he takes the matter further and urges amending legislation. But we are now on general policies and if he goes into details like that, he is going into the detailed workings of this particular Court, which I do not think is correct in this particular debate.

Very well, Sir, so be it. Sir, the Minister himself has promised some amendments to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and when the time comes there will be a number of amendments to this Ordinance from the Opposition. But what I wish to urge upon the Government, Sir, is this. In the matter of industrial relationships, it is important for the Minister to send immediately to the Industrial Arbitration Court those matters which affect the general public at large. We do not wish strikes in institutions of a public character, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am not talking about institutions which are merely private, but about institutions which have a public character and which, if not allowed to function properly, will affect the national economy. In all those cases, I beg of the Minister to use his powers under the Industrial Relations Ordinance and send them up immediately to the Arbitration Court; we have had one or two such instances and we have had complaints that the trade and commerce of this place was adversely affected because it was not possible to get proper banking facilities. Lastly I wish to touch upon the question of the Singapore River. The Minister for Finance has had second thoughts on the Singapore River Scheme. Sir, when I was in the City Council, a Joint Singapore River Working Committee was set up on which there were a number of City Council officials. The City Council itself was interested in the Singapore River not as an artery of trade, but as a river suffering pollution from the surrounding areas. It was from that point of view that the Singapore City Council was interested. So that the cost of the scheme amounting to $2 or $3 millions, is partly for a commercial purpose, and partly for a sanitary purpose. So I beg of the Minister, whatever second thoughts he may have on the industrial or commercial use to which the, river is being put and if he thinks that there is no need to spend money on the scheme from that point of view, I still do urge upon him to consider the sanitary aspect of the Singapore River and get on with that side of the project as quickly as possible, because the Singapore River flows through probably the densest part of the city. 6.53 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Sir, today we are debating the policy statement of the Government read by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on the 31st of October this year. In the first place, I must express my view and regret that the present policy statement of the Government as read by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is not as good as it was last year, as it was stated in last year's speech that that was a year of construction. In the meantime, we cannot see anywhere in this policy statement how much the Government has done in respect of construction and achievements. Mr Speaker; Order. I would suggest that the hon. Member continue his speech and do not have any concern with the interpreters. Just continue his speech as though he is making a speech. I understand the Member has some concern with the interpretation, but I do not think he ought to worry about that.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P.'s so-called Five-Year Plan and Four-Year Plan are very attractive and impressive. They are great promises made by the Government to the people. But from the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, we can see that up to now all they have said has gone with the wind. Mr Speaker, Sir, we can clearly see that in the past few years there have been rapid changes in the political field in Singapore and we can also see the change in the sitting of this House. It is seen clearly that the P.A.P. of today is no longer welcomed by the people. It is only a P.A.P. controlled by a few leaders of the Party. But our clever Prime Minister, for the sake of saving their political lives has done all he can and employed all means to bring about a phoney merger in order to save themselves from political bankruptcy. Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1959, when the P.A.P. was contesting the general election, it made many promises to the people of Singapore, but all these promises have now been forgotten. Because of that, we have the Barisan Sosialis today. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore demand constitutional expansion and progress. They want to have more democratic rights. They want to have a complete and true merger, but -

Order. I have indicated that we cannot debate merger at all. Now the hon. Member is touching on merger. He must not do that.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just touching on it in passing.

I do not think the hon. Member can touch on it even in passing. I think I stopped the Deputy Prime Minister from even mentioning it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to supplement what my colleague the Member for Moulmein has said about the Government resorting to the police and military forces to suppress the workers in Singapore. In the last two days we can see how the Government has made use of the police and the military forces to deal with the Work Brigade in Singapore. I have heard in this House the Minister for Finance saying that the Government is dealing with the Work Brigade, this being the fourth round against the Barisan Sosialis. Now I want to bring up some facts and evidence to prove that those who are playing politics in the Work Brigade are not the Barisan members but the P.A.P. themselves. Now the 1,000-odd Members of the Work Brigade live just like the inmates of a concentration camp. Every move of the members and every word' uttered by them has to be watched carefully. Some P.A.P. members in the Work Brigade try to bully the other members. They leave the camps at any time they like. They do not care for discipline and they do what they like in the camps. They have every opportunity to move about freely. But the Superintendent and the Director of the Work Brigade have done nothing to stop this. We have heard recently from the Minister for National Development that some of the members are to be sent for special disciplinary training. Now I want to bring up some facts to prove that -

Order. I am afraid the hon. Member is going into details once again. He must not do that. We are now on general policies. If he feels strongly about the Work Brigade, I suggest he file a notice of a motion and all these details can then be discussed. There is no Commission of Inquiry on the Work Brigade, is there? Hon. Members: No.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just trying to bring up some notes for the Commission of Inquiry on Political Nepotism. I have now a letter containing a few words written by the Member for Jalan Besar who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the leader of the Paya Lebar Camp.

Order. I think the hon. Member must understand me. I have indicated that this is a debate on general Government policy. Details of the nature the hon. Member wishes to bring to the notice of the Assembly can always be brought to the notice of the Assembly in the proper way - that is by a motion. All we are dealing with now is the general policy of Government. He can attack the general policy of Government in relation to the Work Brigade. By all means, do so. But all these details cannot be ventilated now. Mr Wong.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to have your permission to read just two lines.

Is that a matter of detail in connection with the Work Brigade?

(In Mandarin): Yes.

If it is a matter of detail in connection with the Work Brigade, the hon. Member cannot do so. I have indicated that this is a general debate on policy. A detailed debate on any specific subject can only take place on a separate motion or on some other occasion - we had the occasion which has passed, and that is the discussion in the Committee of Supply - but certainly not in this particular debate which is on general policy.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to say concerns the general policy. In this note it is stated - Comrade Yong Siang.

On a point of order. The hon. Member is not on general policy.

Order. The hon. Member must be warned that if that note is, in fact, related to a detail - and if he reads it - I must rule him completely out of order and I will have to act under Standing Order 55.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Order to get the support of the English-educated, such as the Government servants, the P.A.P. restored the pay cut which was imposed by the Minister for Finance about two years ago. Every year from now onwards, an extra $5 million will have to be paid to the Government servants. We can see clearly that this move of the Government was aimed at getting the support of the Government servants. When the pay cut was imposed, we knew nothing about it because we were not consulted on it at all. At that time, the unions of the civil servants were not consulted. But at the present time, the P.A.P. leadership, which is facing political bankruptcy, is trying to get the support of these civil servants and that is why they restored the pay cut. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that many people who are occupying Crown land in Singapore have to pay an increase in the ground rent, and sometimes this is retrospective. This move is a blow to the poor people of Singapore. The people living in Tiong Bahru and Toa Payoh have to pay increased ground rent and assessment. The ground rent in these areas has increased from $2 to $20. But so far we have not seen the Government taking steps to reduce the ground rent. We know well the intention of the Government as it has only restored the pay cut to the civil servants just to get their votes! Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on the Chinese schools in the rural areas. It is stated in the P.A.P. pamphlet that it is the policy of the Government to revise the curriculum in the rural schools by including horticulture, agriculture and other practical subjects. I want to ask the Minister for Education whether the Government has done this in the course of the last 2½ years. Has the curriculum in the rural schools been revised on the lines indicated in the P.A.P. pamphlet? I believe that all teachers in the rural schools know very well that this has not been done. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chinese schools in the rural areas are still in a difficult position. Although the Government has promised to give aid to school development in the rural areas, it has done very little. For example, the money for repairs and extensions to school buildings has to be raised by the schools concerned. If they can raise about $10,000, the Government will give them an equivalent sum of money, that is about $10,000, in aid. But we must know that the people living in the rural areas are very badly off economically, and it is therefore not possible for them to give more money on education. On the other hand, the plans of school buildings have to be approved by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and the Housing Board, and they are usually approved after a long time. According to regulations set down by the Ministry of Education, a school cannot be erected on land which does not have a 30-year lease. It is difficult for rural schools to have a 30-year lease on the land. So this policy of the Government is indirectly restricting the development of rural schools, thereby depriving the people in the rural areas of additional educational facilities. For example, in my constituency, there are three schools which face this difficulty. One of them is the Hwa Min Primary School. The Board of Directors of this school wrote to me a letter saying that they received a summons because the school building was undergoing some repairs. There is another school, namely Tan Chiang, which applied for an extension 'to the school building but it has not received any approval. So some 100 school pupils will not be able to go to the school next year because of the non-extension to the school building. There is another school, the Peh Tah Primary School, which got an approval from the Lim Yew Hock Government to extend the school buildings, and it hopes that this work can be carried out in a short time. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on flooding in the rural areas. In many rural areas in Singapore, the drains and rivers are not looked after properly by the Government. As a result, the rural people are short of water in the dry season. In the rainy season these areas are flooded because the drains and the rivers are not cleared. So the flooding during the rainy season will cause a great deal of damage to the crops of the farmers. I want to give some examples. One river is in the Thomson area running to Aljunied and then to the Kallang area. As far as this river is concerned, all of us will remember that in 1954 there was great flooding in this area and three persons lost their lives. There is another river, the Whampoa River, which has been neglected by the Government and so it is choked. Whenever there is rain, there is flooding in this area affecting the people living in the neighbourhood. The people living in the neighbourhood of the two areas which I have mentioned have made complaints to the Ministry of National Development, but in the course of some two years nothing has been done about it. So they are facing great difficulties. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has set up the Adult Education Board with the aim of wiping out illiteracy in Singapore. But according to general statistics, there are about 500,000 illiterates in Singapore. This is about one-third of the population in Singapore. I wonder whether the Adult Education Board has done a great deal of work in getting rid of illiteracy in Singapore. I wonder whether it has the co-operation of the peo ple's organisations, the unions and the rural people's organisations and associations in wiping out illiteracy. 7.18 p.m.

The Government was just trying to push matters in the initial stage. The work concerning adult education was quite satisfactory in the rural schools, but later on, especially at the present juncture, adult education classes are in existence only in name because the number of students is dwindling away. Some of the classes had to stop because of the lack of students. Now what has caused all this? The answer is very clear. The Government has not thought carefully about the plans and how to carry out the work to get rid of illiteracy. On the other hand, it has not consulted and got the co-operation of the people's organisations to get rid of illiteracy in Singapore. In November we saw statistics in the newspapers that there were only about 11,000 students in the adult education classes. This number included students and members of the Country People's Association and the Rural Dwellers' Association. Now, I want to make use of the statistics mainly to say that the Gov ernment is not giving assistance to those adult education classes run by the people themselves. As a matter of fact, talking about the equipment, as far as I know, the adult education classes run by the people's organisations have to make use of soap-boxes as desks. As regards the financial position, the classes run by the people's organisation are not very well off because the students studying there do not have to pay very high fees. Yet in spite of this the Government has not given them financial aid or encouragement. As a result of this, it is impossible for them to work in conjunction with the Government to get rid of illiteracy. It is a matter for regret indeed. The Government has not given them any assistance. Instead there is one instance in which the office of the Singapore Country People's Association received a notice from the Government saying that the classroom was not suitable for any adult education course. I feel this policy of the Government is incorrect. It is impossible to get rid of illiteracy without getting the co-operation of the people of Singapore. It is only with the co-operation of the people themselves that such work can be carried out satisfactorily. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to the people who are engaged in agricultural activities, the land area in Singapore is indeed very limited. It is not suitable for large-scale agricultural activities. Even agricultural production, such as the planting of beans, is not possible in this limited area of land. As far as the production of food is concerned, Singapore can produce about 40 per cent of the food for consumption. Agricultural products mainly come from other countries such as the Federation of Malaya. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the former Director of the Primary Production Division, Dr Tham Ah Kow, has said that as a result of the import of vegetables from other countries into Singapore, we have to spend about $50 million a year. The area of arable land is only about 38.9 acres. The actual area of land under cultivation is 19 acres. So we can see that the production of supplementary food still has some room for improvement. There is still some land for the people to carry on expansion work, but we have not seen the P.A.P. Government doing anything to encourage and promote agricultural development in Singapore during its office of about 2½ years. There is no overall plan to encourage food production in Singapore. Neither is there any step taken to encourage or to give an impetus to agricultural activities in Singapore in order to increase food production and to alleviate the unemployment problem. The Government is just trying to sell some pigs and inoculate some chicks, on the face of it. Now this superficial measure cannot basically solve the question of food production, and cannot help the interests of the farmers. Concerning the capital of the farmers and their land and the supply of fertilisers, the Government still has to do a great deal. As far as the production of vegetables in Singapore is concerned, leaf vegetables and root vegetables come to about 570 pikuls per year. According to the 1958 report, there are 11 areas which are mainly concerned with the production of food and vegetables, namely Potong Pasir, Choa Chu Kang, Jurong, Lim Chu Kang, etc. As far as leaf vegetables are concerned, Potong Pasir occupies first place in the production of such vegetables. The daily output is about 20,000 katties, which means that it produces about 12.3 per cent of the supply of vegetables in Singapore. As far as the farmers in Potong Pasir are concerned, they are contributing greatly to the supply of food in Singapore. But the conditions under which they carry out their production are very bad. In the first place, they do not have enough capital. In the second place, fertilisers are very expensive. Then, because of the middlemen, they have to lose some money when they sell their produce. The Government was approached by these people to set up a market for vegetables, but the Ministry concerned has so far done nothing about it, and so the farmers engaged in the production of vegetables are still at the mercy of some private persons who have control over the prices. Mr Deputy Speaker, the arable land of the farmers is quite insecure. This sense of insecurity has dealt a great blow to the farmers in their production. They do not feel secure of the land on which they cultivate. When the Government tabled the Agricultural Leases Bill, the people of Potong Pasir were told that their land would be reserved as agricultural land. But when this Agricultural Leases Bill was brought up, the farmers in the area I have mentioned could only be sure of the land for 12 years. When the time comes, a review has to be taken of the occupation of the land. So the farmers are not very sure about their land. They do not have a long-term plan for their production and for the expansion of their farm-land. As a result of this, directly or indirectly, the production of the farmers is affected. I wonder whether the Government has paid any attention to this state of affairs. I wonder whether it is now taking steps to look after the farmers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch upon the Agricultural Leases Bill.

Is the hon. Member going to touch on the details of the Agricultural Leases Bill, or just make passing remarks? If he is going into details on the Bill, he is completely out of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I know this Bill has not been passed and we cannot discuss it at length now. But the Prime Minister has mentioned some political matters in connection with the Agricultural Leases Bill. He said at that time that this Bill was intended to safeguard the interest of the farmers.

The Agricultural Leases Bill will be debated in this Assembly. The Member will have enough time to reply to the Prime Minister. Will the hon. Member please confine himself to the motion?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at that time the Prime Minister told us that the problem of the farmers would be dealt with by the farmers' organisation or at mass rallies of the farmers themselves. This point was brought up during the Anson by-election shortly before polling day. At that time, in order to suppress dissatisfaction, the P.A.P. leadership told us that the problem of the farmers would be dealt with at mass rallies. But now several months have passed, and I wonder whether the Prime Minister has still the courage to face the farmers and to hold mass rallies. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for National Development said last week during the Budget debate that the rate of compensation was reasonable. That is to say, there was some sort of revision to the rate of compensation. But we can tell him now that the present rate of compensation is based on the old rate made by the old Government in 1956. The policy and the regulations are the same. In the meantime, the so-called revision is nothing but a bluff. There fore, this question of the rate of compensation is very important, because the Government is now setting up a satellite town in the Toa Payoh area which affects many people in this area. The Government is now pushing through its policy of setting up a satellite town in Toa Payoh. I want to bring up some concrete illustrations to show that the Minister for National Development is trying to bluff the people by saying that the revision of the rate of compensation is reasonable. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the Government has announced that it will set up a satellite town in Toa Payoh, this announcement has given rise to great anxiety among the people living there. In the meantime, the livelihood of the people living there is quite insecure. When the Government is developing and trying to carry out the plan of setting up a satellite town, the interests of the people and the property of the people are greatly affected. That is to say, the work and the maintenance of the livelihood of these people are affected. I wonder whether the Government has given much thought to it and given them reasonable compensation. At present the Government is not giving full consideration to the views of the people living in the area, or the representatives or the organisations of the people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I was still with the P.A.P., it was on the 3rd of May this year that I sent a memorandum to the President of the Housing Board in which I touched upon three concrete points regarding the interest of the people affected by the plan of setting up a satellite town. But this memorandum was not given full consideration. The first point I raised was that the rate of compensation was not reasonable and that the Government should revise it so that the people concerned would not suffer too much loss. The second point I raised was that since the Housing Board was increasing the rents in general, it was not proper, and so this move should be reviewed. The policy of increasing rents should now be withdrawn. The third point I raised was that the Housing Board should set up a Committee, including representatives from all concerned, and get the opinions and views of all the people affected in order to solve the problems affecting the interests of the people affected by the resettlement plan. Although later on the Housing Board did set up a consultative committee, it however held only three meetings. At that time, some decisions were made by the Committee, and, as far as I understand, such decisions have been submitted for the consideration of the Minister for National Development. But there were no definite results about this. So you can see that when I was still in the P.A.P. I had given my views, as I should, and it was not correct for the Minister for National Development to say that the dissatisfaction of the people affected has come about as a result of agitation by the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, because at that time there was no such Party as the Barisan Sosialis. Lastly, when he said that it was we who agitated the dissatisfaction of the people, it was really incorrect. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the Government has no reasonable solutions to the problems of the people who have been asked to quit, and if there is no reasonable rate of compensation, then I can tell the Government that if it wants to carry out a long-term plan, it will not get the co-operation of the people. Without such co-operation, it is impossible to carry out its plans. I can say that it will not be easy to ask the people living in Toa Payoh, without reasonable compensation, to move away from their homes. We all know that the people living in the rural areas are a very bad lot. They are very poor. In the Toa Payoh area, the people living there are also poor, as are all other rural people. Some of the people living in the Toa Payoh area are engaged in agricultural activities, some in industrial activities, and some in cottage industries. They all belong to the lower-income group. They are the poor people of Singapore. They have to work very hard to earn a meagre living. Some of them are still struggling for a livelihood, and they are enduring a great deal of suffering. They can only ask the Government to try and alleviate their sufferings in life. They can only ask the Government to improve their lot because they just cannot carry on in such a state of poverty. Before such things are done, they just cannot believe that the Government is for the good of the people. It is a socialist Government that should look after people of this type. As far as the farmers in other areas are concerned, the same also applies. They have to work hard and irrigate their land by sweat and blood. The land is their asset. It is also their lifeline. The people of Toa Payoh area have a special feature which is similar to all rural people living in the world. That is poverty. Poverty is a typical feature of all the rural people in Singapore as well as the people living in the rural areas in the world. Because they are suffering a great deal, they cannot carry on as farmers. They have to work as hawkers and do odd jobs or engage themselves in cottage industries. These are the conditions of the people living in the Toa Payoh area. So the Government, when carrying out the plan of a satellite town, must take into consideration such facts and the background of the people living in this area. I want to give a few illustrations to show that it is unreasonable for the Government to stick to the present rate of compensation. For example, an attap house with plank walls and a cement floor can only bring in about $500 as compensation. Now, when a similar house is to be constructed, it will cost about $2,000. So the people concerned can get only one-quarter of what they have spent. How can you say that this rate of compensation is reasonable? In the meantime, you have the durian and rambutan trees which can bring in only $20 to $30 each tree as compensation. Now, these people have spent years to grow these trees, and yet they can get only $20 to $30 for each tree. How can you say that this compensation is reasonable? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to bring up another point concerning light industries. This again affects the people living in places where satellite towns are to be set up. Some of the people engaged in light industries in the Toa Payoh area are carrying out rattan work. These people number about 5,000. So 5,000 people depend on rattan work for their livelihood. They are part and parcel of the people affected by the satellite plan of the Government. If the Government does not take into account the possibility that these people may be out of jobs, then these people will go bankrupt economically; and if this should happen at all, it will also affect the light industries of Singapore. As far as economic activities in Singapore are concerned, rattan work as a light industry does play an important part. We cannot deny that we do not produce our rattan locally. The rattan comes mainly from Burma, Thailand and Indonesia. But when the rattan has been imported into Singapore, it is processed locally before it is exported to other foreign countries. So this rattan work and processing do play an important part in our economic life. Some people are also engaged in making furniture and other utensils from rattan, but the Government is not giving any assistance to the people so engaged. Although the Minister for Finance has said that he will set up a sort of commission to look into the light industries of Singapore, I wonder when such a commission will be set up by the Government and when the light industries of Singapore will receive the attention and care of the Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I only hope that the Minister for National Development will take into consideration the views of the people regarding the development of the Toa Payoh area, so that the Government's beautiful plan will meet the requirements of the people. 7.52 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have entered the second day of debate an the speech by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. During the course of the debate, Members of the Barisan Sosialis and the United People's Party have levelled many criticisms at the Government without giving, at the same time, constructive suggestions. Such a way is not contributing any help to the formulation of Government policy. Here I wish to point out that Members of the Barisan Sosialis have one common purpose, i.e., to distort facts. They know that at present many things are being undertaken by the Government, yet they want to criticise the Government. Their purpose is to show to the people that they have done something when the Gov ernment's work on a certain project is completed. I believe this kind of tactic cannot achieve its end because we know that since 1959, there has been a popularly elected Government and the condi tions of the people have been raised. If they want to play political tricks in order to fool the people, their actions will not be allowed by the people. If they are really concerned with the interests of the people, I hope they will help the present Government, in other words, to help meet the requirements of the people and not try to hinder the Government when it is trying to carry out all kinds of work. Their present attitude and actions are not doing any good to help the people of Singapore. The Members who have spoken have also touched on the poverty of the people at present. To sum up the cause of this poverty, it is due to economic factors. We should try to understand better that poverty not only exists in the rural areas, but also in other areas too. There are many factors contributing to this, and this situation will lead to two possibilities. One is bright and the other is dim. But without the darker side, without night, we cannot see and we cannot understand the lighter or the brighter side. Without night we cannot know day-time; therefore there are two sides to every thing. For instance, it is true that many people in the rural areas are poor. But in the city areas such conditions are also true. We cannot say that the hawkers, taxi drivers and the rest of them who live in the city areas are rich. In other words, there are also poor people living in the city areas. Therefore, in order to understand the background of our local economy, we have to study Singapore's geography, its environments and the way of living of the people of Singapore. We all know that Singapore had been in the past under colonial rule. Only recently it has achieved internal self-government -

Order. Moment of interruption.

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