Hansard, 1961-12-21

Honourable Members will recollect that on the 4th day of December, 1961, I read to this House a reply dated the 30th November, 1961, received by the, Clerk from the Commissioner of Police, Singapore, in relation to the resolution of the Assembly agreed to on the 29th November, 1961, regarding the matter of privilege reported to the Assembly by the Leader of the House affecting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. The Commissioner of Police stated then that he had ordered an immediate investigation and would be submitting the results to the State Advocate-General as soon as possible. A further letter dated the 19th December, 1961, has been received by the Clerk from the Commissioner of Police. It reads as follows : - 'Dear Sir. Assembly Resolution of 29th November, 1961. Further to my letter of 30th November. 1961, I regret to inform you that although detailed investigations have been carried out, it has not proved possible to deal with the culprits according to the law because of lack of evidence of identification. Yours faithfully, (signed) A. E. G. BLADES, Commissioner of Police, Singapore.'

Yesterday the Member for Farrer Park, during the course of the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech, alleged that the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court had failed to furnish an Annual Report as required by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, and invited me to consider whether such failure could be considered to be an affront to this Assembly. Section 83 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1960, reads as follows:- 'Annual 83. The President shall, once in each year, furnish to reports the Minister for presentation to the Legislative Assembly a report on the working of the provisions of this Ordinance relating to the Court, to arbitration and to the registration of collective agreements and of any other provisions of the Ordinance in relation to which he considers it appropriate to report, and in particular the extent to which the objects of the Ordinance have been achieved and any considerations or circumstances which have prevented or hindered the achievement of those objects.'. The Ordinance does not make it an offence if the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court fails to furnish to the Minister the Report. It is clear, however, that the President is under a direct statutory obligation to comply with the provisions of the Ordinance. Nevertheless any failure by hint to do so, of itself, cannot, in my view, he considered to be an affront to this Assembly. It seems to me that the obligation is an obligation on the part of the President to furnish the Report to the Minister, and it is the Minister in turn who is under a responsibility to this Assembly to ensure that the Report is received and presented to this Assembly. In other words, it is the Minister who in the first instance is answerable to the As sembly for the default, if any, of the President. If, however, the Minister or any other Member has satisfied himself that there has been a default on the part of the President which, in the Minister's or the Member's view, would warrant the intervention of this Assembly, it is open to the Minister or the Member to move for an Order in the matter and for this Assembly to make the Order if it so thinks fit. I am bound to say, however, that it is doubtful whether any such Order could be effective under our present Privileges Ordinance. It is certainly intended that such an Order would be effective under the provisions of the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill which has recently been committed to a Select Committee.

2.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand from the Leader of the House that with the agreement of Opposition Members, the House at the end of the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech will adjourn to a further sitting next month, may I take this opportunity to say that the Government is prepared to appoint a Commission of Inquiry in accordance with the spirit of the motion tabled by the Member for Anson and the Member for Joo Chiat which reads as follows 'That this Assembly calls upon the Government to recommend the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the Government's Education Policy, its content and administration in all fields other than vocational and technical education, and to make recommendations.'. However, on the 19th of December, the Member of Anson wrote further to me suggesting an amendment to the motion by adding the following words: 'including the six-day week and political activities and machinations in primary and secondary schools, the extent thereof and the persons and organisations responsible therefor.'. I wish to state, Sir, that Government is prepared to extend the scope of the terms of reference of the proposed Commission of Inquiry to include the six-day week and to investigate into political activities and machinations in schools. But as Government has already agreed to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the recent examination boycott as proposed by the Member for Anson, the political machinations behind the boycott would be dealt with under this Commission. In view of Government's intention to appoint a Commission of Inquiry along the general lines proposed by the Member for Anson, the exact terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry will, however, be announced later. My former statement to the Member for Farrer Park during the recent debate on the 1962 Estimates, indicating the early announcement of a revised version of the six-day week for primary schools in 1962, will therefore have to be put in to cold storage and not implemented until the Commission of Inquiry to be set up has completed its findings.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that I am indebted to the Minister for taking this question out of the political field? I would like to enquire, Sir, whether it would not be appropriate to have just one Commission instead of two, as I gather he has in mind, and the one Commission can then make an interim report on the political activities and machinations including the troubles in the Chinese middle schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is most desirable that the two issues be kept separate and I think it is essential to go deeper into the examination boycott.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept that and I would enquire at this stage whether it would be appropriate to withdraw item 4 from the Order Paper.

There is provision in the Standing Order, which I think the Clerk will indicate to the hon. Member, as to how that should be done.

Order read for resumption of adjourn ed 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.".'.-(Deputy Prime Minister). Question again proposed. 2.41 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now continue from where I left off yesterday. Yesterday, I talked about certain allegations made by Members of the Opposition and I will deal with some of them. During the course of debate on the Yang di- Pertuan Negara's speech, the Opposition Members, especially those in the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Hong Lim, made certain allegations and accusations which were not quite artistic. They tried to draw a picture of a dragon which was not realistic and certain parts of the picture had to be painted over by other artistic painters. The picture drawn by them was incorrect and very poor indeed. Before we talk about poverty, we have to take the economic situation in Singapore into consideration. If we are faced with an economic situation which cannot meet our requirements, then we will have to look for other avenues to help us tide over it. In recent months, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have not tried to help us with improving our economic position. On the other hand, they accuse us of having put our economy in a predicament. Because the people are poor, they are unable to buy goods. This contributes to the poor market and products are not easily sold. The blame for some of these things should, to a great extent, be put on the shoulders of the Barisan Sosialis. When merger with the Federation of Malaya is achieved, our products will have a larger market, and this will help to improve our economic situation. This is one of the steps towards this aim. But the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have been trying hard to hinder this move towards merger.

Order. I have indicated already that there can be no reference to merger which will excite a debate. The hon. Member is just doing that when he says the Barisan Sosialis are trying to hinder merger. He must not touch on merger in that strain.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was only mentioning it in passing. I will now continue with another part.

I indicated to the Member for Toa Payoh yesterday that merger must not be referred to in that strain even in passing.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, now let me reply to the Barisan Sosialis accusations regarding certain situations in the rural areas. They mentioned street lights, water, electricity supplies. On these questions my colleagues already replied yesterday. The Minister for National Development also replied. But I would give a further reply to certain points raised. In the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, it is clearly stated that we will build more agricultural stations next year, and will send more agricultural officers and veterinary officers to carry out services in the rural areas in this respect. Let me give an example. We will increase medical services and veterinary services. The services rendered to chickens in the past have been super seded. We are using scientific methods to treat chickens and other domestic animals and reduce their fatality. On the other hand, we are increasing the production of chickens and other domestic animals. This will help the farmers to a certain extent. We will also introduce many kinds of scientific methods to enable the farmers to use these methods to improve their agricultural work and to compete with old methods. There is proof to show that agricultural products have been increased this year. In the past our market was a consumers' market, but nowadays we are able to export our agricultural produce. This is concrete proof of the achievements by the Government. Mr Speaker, just now I have been talking about the rearing of chickens. Now I will mention the feeding of pigs in Singapore. These past few years we have been importing pigs of good strain from Europe and America and these have been sold at one-tenth the original cost. This also is to help the farmers in their production. In agricultural experiment situations the chickens hatched every month are sold to the farmers at very low prices. In all these fields we have been trying to help the farmers increase their produce by the aid of scientific methods. We will show them how to achieve artificial breeding of domestic animals. This will also help them to a great extent. I will now talk about fisheries. On this question, in order to increase their production and reduce their costs, we have been teaching them how to use new fishing boats and fishing implements and we have been supplying certain fishing implements to them. We have conducted for them courses in fishery. In the coming year we will establish more of such schools teaching these courses along the east coast. This is to increase the technique of the fishermen in order to enable them to make a living and be able to compete with others in the business of catching fish. We have also established a mobile motor service station which is to help repair fishing boats on request. Certain officers will proceed to the place where such services are required to repair their motor boats. As to the question of fishermen on certain islands, we have this year already carried out a scheme of distributing goats to them. My colleague will give details of this scheme later on. Mr Speaker, Sir, besides agriculture and fishery, we have been providing tractors to the farmers to help increase their production and to reduce labour hands and thus reduce their cost of production. This service has been well received by the farmers. We have also established a mobile teaching institution to teach the farmers how to take care of their lands and how to carry out agricultural and other activities. The aim is to help the farmers increase their production and reduce their cost of production and in this way help them generally. Mr Speaker, Sir, if all these measures are not directed at helping the farmers in the rural areas, then I cannot understand what can be construed as helping the farmers. I believe everybody will agree with me, that the lot of the farmers cannot be improved just by shouting a few slogans. The Members of the Barisan Sosialis have claimed themselves to be revolutionaries. If they are really concerned with the livelihood of the farmers, then let them do something to help the economic development of Singapore and not hamper it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will talk about the shortage of arable land, which the Opposition Members have been talking about during these few days. The Gov ernment has already taken steps this year to reclaim lands in the Sungei Poyang area. This project will be completed at the beginning of next year. After completion the land can be put to three uses. First, the land reclaimed can be used to grow vegetables. Secondly, the land reclaimed can be used for fish ponds to increase production. Thirdly, certain lands can provide prawn ponds. All these will help to increase the agricultural products for the needs of Singapore. In this way we will be helping the farmers in their livelihood. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the debate, I can come to this conclusion. For the record, I will point out to this House that in the modern political arena, there are two ways in which you take part in political activities. One is where the activities are carried out in accordance with constitutional means to improve the lot of the people, and with the consent of the people. This has been our policy all along. The second way is to create political trouble and damage the economic position of Singapore behind the scenes, thereby hampering the livelihood of the people, to arouse their dissatisfaction, and to urge or excite them to seize political power. This way is adopted by the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to avoid this tragedy occurring in Singapore, I hope the policy statement by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can be realised and that Singapore will merge with the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the important question in Singapore today, the question that is in everybody's mind, is the question of unemployment. The Government have indicated that they hoped to ease the unemployment problem through industrial expansion, But we are told, Sir, in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara this is Hansard, Vol. 15, col. 13: 'Before, however, any significant improvement in the economic and industrial expansion can take place, there must be brought about a situation of political certainty and stability, within which it will be possible for long-term investment of capital to be planned with confidence.' Sir, His Excellency says, "must be brought about". That indicates that it does not exist today. Sir, may I refer you to an earlier Hansard, Vol. 11, No. 1 of 1st July, 1959, in col. 7. It says here 'The political stability which is a pre-requisite for expansion and which has been lacking for so long, has been achieved by the election with an overwhelming majority of a Government whose declared policies are clear-cut and unambiguous.' It says that in 1959, Sir, this stability has been achieved. Again in 1960, Sir, - I refer you to Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 1, col. 5 - it says here in line 9: '... Singapore has enjoyed greater political and economic stability than it has known during the last 15 years.' Sir, we were told in 1959 that stability had been achieved. In 1960 we were enjoying greater stability than was ever known in 15 years. In 1961 we are told that we must go and find that stability; "bring it about". May I ask what has happened to the stability that has already been achieved? Sir, I doubt whether what has been lost can be regained, because when the Government had a powerful majority of 43 against 8, they lost the stability that was already there. Now with a weak 26, it is not likely and not easy that they could regain the stability they have, lost. The trouble is this. There can be no political stability where there is political corruption. Sir, non-P.A.P. citizens have chosen non-P.A.P. members to represent them in certain constituencies. They have indicated in no uncertain terms that they have rejected a P.A.P. candidate. They do not want a P.A.P. candidate to represent them. They want somebody else. And what happens? They have a right, Sir - political franchise - to choose whom they like. The Government, if they recognise political franchise, if they claim that Singapore has political franchise, must recognise the representative that has been chosen by the people. But not the P.A.P. Government, Sir. They force their representatives on the people. In divisions where the electorate have chosen other than the P.A.P. representatives, they have been forced to accept the leadership from P.A.P. Assemblymen or defeated candidates. Sir, I hope you will allow me to quote one more example, Sir, to substantiate my accusation that there is political corruption. When the school at Guillemard was built with public funds, [Laughter] - the Minister laughs; he knows what this is all about because he is guilty of it - that school was built. What happened? When the people went there they did not see the leader that they had chosen. They did not see the person they chose as their representative, but a P.A.P. Assemblyman from a neighbouring constituency was brought into that constituency to act as leader and representative of the people to open that school. Sir, the electorate have indicated whom they want as their leader. Why must they be forced to accept a neighbouring leader to come and lead them? Why must the leader that they have chosen be brushed aside? Sir, I take it this is an attempt to confuse the public into thinking that the P.A.P. Assemblyman is their leader and to make them get used to the idea that the P.A.P. Assemblyman, the P.A.P., is their leader. [Laughter] Sir, the Minister laughs. I tell him this. I have won Mountbatten in a clean fight in the last election, and if the P.A.P. wants Mountbatten, let them fight it in a clean fight in the next election and not rob me of the constituency.

Order. I think the Member for Mountbatten is perhaps getting too excited. It is not too good for this Chamber. It is not too good for the Speaker. But I would suggest to the Members of the Government Front Benches not to deal with these matters with such frivolity and not to sneer at remarks passed by the Opposition Members.

Sorry, Sir, I take it that not only am I robbed of my constituency, but the constituents are robbed of their leader too. The same attempt has been made. It was not an oversight because this has happened more than once. When the Mountbatten community centre was opened, as has been mentioned before, I was not even invited. In Joo Chiat you knew what happened, Sir, It has been mentioned that a defeated candidate was asked to open that centre. How can there be political stability when there is such political corruption? Sir, public funds have been spent not on improving the lot of the people or the State, but to pay P.A.P. cadres, such as Political Secretaries and the People's Association's staff. As I have said before, Sir, the P.A.P. cannot deny this, because the staff have been called upon and told that they either be loyal or be asked to quit. The wishes of the masses have been thoroughly ignored. We know that there are 60,000 unemployed, plus the thousands that will be leaving school each year who will be seeking jobs. It looks as if the P.A.P. is unlikely to regain the political stability sought to be brought about. Then what happens? If the solution of unemployment lies in the expansion of industry, if there is no political stability, and it can not be obtained or regained by the P.A.P., I ask them, Sir, for the 60,000 unemployed and the children who leave school, where do they go from there? Sir, we have been told in the speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 1, col. 23 (31st October, 1961), that: 'The problem that is always uppermost in the deliberations of the Government is that of unemployment. This problem has been partially alleviated . . .'. It says it has been "partially alleviated". I cannot understand how it has been alleviated when in 1958 we find in statistics that there were about 16,000 unemployed; in 1959, it went up more than double, 36,000; and recently, at the end of 1960, I think, in answer to one of my questions, I think the figure 59,000 was given. Sir, from 16,000 it has gone up to 59,000, and we are told that the problem has been alleviated. I remember the P.A.P. did argue that the big number does not mean very much because it was their confidence in the new Government that made them rush to register. The unemployed had always been there, but it was because of their confidence in the new Government that they have come on to the register now. Sir, if you read the Annual Report of the State of Singapore, 1959, page 133, statistics there show that this argument is not very logical unless the unemployed has a funny logic. In 1955, out of 1,381 registrants of unemployment, 368 were given employment, that is about 25 per cent roughly. Then in 1959, out of 3,059 registered, only 313 were given employment, which was less than in 1955. This is only about 10 per cent. Sir, when 25 per cent of those who registered were given employment, the unemployed had no confidence to register, but when only 10 per cent registered, they had all the confidence in the world and 59,000 people rushed to register. Sir, I am sure that is not very logical. But that is the way the Ministers have argued. Then, Sir, there has been a lot of talk about industrial expansion. We have been told in the same Hansard as I have read just now, i.e., Vol. 15, No. 1, col. 23, which says the unemployment problem has been partially alleviated; it goes on to say: '...by the present boom in the building industry and the gradual materialisation of plans for industrialisation.' We are told that plans for industrialisation are materialising and there is a boom in, the building industry. Yet, Sir, if we look in the Malayan statistics, it shows that in the industrial field, manufacturing shows 50,878 employed in 1958 and 42,945 in 1960, both in September, the difference is 7,933, nearly 8,000. 8,000 labourers less employed in manufacturing, but we say that our industry is expanding and the expansion is taking in more unemployed people. We are told that there is a building boom when in the same statistics it shows that in the construction section, there is 3,159 less labourers employed. Sir, we do not know which to believe the statistics or the statement. Anyway, about unemployment, up to June 1959, there was an unemployment relief scheme which gives temporary relief to the unemployed. There was, I think, in 1959 before June 1,165 who were receiving anything between $3 and $5 with two katties of rice and one katty of sugar to take home to their families. This was abolished immediately the P.A.P. came in, and was substituted by the Work Brigade. Sir, what is the Work Brigade? We all know the meaning of "work", but what is a "brigade"? The Oxford Dictionary gives three meanings: Subdivision of army (and its description), uniformed workers and disciplining and occupying boys. Sir, is our Work Brigade an army? Are they workers or are they delinquents that need to be disciplined? The Government have said, in answer to some attempts to form a union, that they are not workers. They cannot form a union because they are not workers. Then are they a subdivision of any army or are they delinquents meant to be disciplined? We all know what they are, Sir. We have seen what they have been used for, because the P.A.P. has turned an unemployment relief scheme into a Work Brigade spending $7 million not, as stated in this report, to expand opportunities for work. It says here: it has been used to build an army to fight the P.A.P. political battle. It has been organised to form a section of workers who will be depending on the P.A.P. Government for survival and must therefore of necessity be loyal to them. So they thought. We knew what happened. To stand on the roads and cheer the P.A.P. whenever they come to this Chamber the first day of Assembly. Sir, in 1959, the P.A.P. came to power with an overwhelming majority - 43 against 8. That shows the people accepted their policies and have given them a full mandate to implement these policies. It shows the people had confidence and trust both in their policies and in the Party. All the people wanted were employment, houses, food and water, peace and stability, personal freedom, good education for their children, a just, honest and sincere government. They were promised these, Sir. But the question is: Have these promises been fulfilled? What is the position today? Today there are very many more unemployed than ever before. Sir, the promise of solution of unemployment has been given, but we find there are more unemployed than ever before. Sir, I say that the misery of unemployment and other miseries that have befallen Singapore have been brought by the P.A.P. due to their neglect of duty to the people and the State, due to their arrogance, their mismanagement and their political corruption. In 2½ years they have spent millions of dollars of public funds; they have used almost every Government department to build up a little P.A.P. empire. The people's welfare has been postponed from year to year. In the Hansard of Vol. 13, No. 1 (20th July 1960), col. 5, we have been told, Sir, that "The first year of office was one of reorganisation, consolidation and preparation. It was taken up largely with clearing the ground and setting the course for the year of construction ....". But, recently, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister, when moving the motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, said that between 1959 and 1961, that is the first year, "We first took over the Government, we had to feel our way." he says the first year was "feeling our way". here it says the first year was planning, the second year construction, which means, first year plan, second year action. Here it says the first year was only "feeling our way", second year was for plans for economic development, and only the second half of 1961 marks the beginning of implementation. Well, I hope, Sir, the calendar will not be moved one year back again; it has already been moved one year back; first year planning, second year implementation, and now we hear first year "feeling our way", second year, planning, third year, implementation. I hope something new will not be invented next year. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Third year - acceleration.

Sir, as I have said, they have failed to give employment. The next one is housing. Have they succeeded? As you know, Sir, they built practically nothing the first year. When they were exposed here in answer to some of my questions as to the number of houses built, and when it was found that they had built practically nothing, they conveniently at that time blamed the Member for Hong Lim. But now that they have built some, Sir, what do we find? Rents are terribly high; the people cannot afford the rents; and there are lots of houses vacant. Now, Sir, at a time when thousands are on the waiting list, Government keeps the houses vacant. As high as 18 per cent of the one-room, 16 per cent of the two-room and 6 per cent of the three-room premises are vacant, Sir, In all, it comes to a total of 879 units vacant. There are thousands on the waiting list. Not only are the rents high, but they are so ridiculous that certain portions of those houses are naturally vacant and are not likely to be occupied because where they charge $35 per one-room unit - the kitchen, water closet, washing facilities are communal they charge $20 for a room which only has the W.C. as a communal facility, the rest are self-contained. Naturally, nobody wants to take the $35 type of unit. When I ask why, I was told because it was Mr Ong Eng Guan's plan. Sir, we do not care whose plan it was, but the Government must do something. They must not leave those houses vacant forever and ever and lose not only the rent, but the Housing Board has to pay assessment to the Assessment Department. All that, Sir, is unfair, because it adds to the cost of the house. This paying of assessment is from one Government Department to another. They do not lose. All that is added to the cost of the house and the poor tenant eventually has to pay for the shifting of money from one Government Department to another, which is really unfair. Another factor which adds on to the rent which makes their policy cock-eyed is the paying of property tax on vacant premises. It affects other people badly enough, Sir, but it also affects this Housing Board. It ,pays property tax and, therefore, as I have said, whatever they lose is added on to the cost. I think a lot can be done about housing. Far too many houses are vacant for reasons which could easily be rectified. The other sore point about housing are the unauthorised huts. Instead of nipping it in the bud, as I have suggested right from the beginning, as in the case of those houses that have come up in years past, and to take a very firm control over the future position to see that nobody builds unauthorised huts, this sore has been allowed to fester and fester and fester until now it is almost in unmanageable proportions. The longer they delay, Sir, the more unauthorised huts there will be and the bigger the problem will be and the more difficult the solution. They should handle it sooner, authorise the huts that deserve to be authorised - because having lived there for so many years people have nowhere to go - and then start controlling either by legislation or otherwise to see that no more unauthorised huts go up. Unless they do that, Sir, this sore is going to fester and eventually be fatal, I am afraid. Just now I read to you that the Government has claimed that there is a building boom. But on page 28 of the "Malayan Statistics" of October 1961, we see the lowest number of units built in 1960. Sir, in 1958, it was 437; in 1959, it was 774; in 1960, it was 422; and in 1961 it was 266. In all these cases, the period covered was from January to August. It was the lowest in 1961. Yet we are told that there is a building boom. [Interruption] I agree that the building position has improved, but I would not call it a boom. It would not have improved if the Government had not decided to rectify their detrimental decision on the development charges in respect of water, electricity and other services. In fact, when they rectified that, the building trade began to show a revival. But I say, Sir, that it has not come to a satisfactory position yet because developers now - leaving aside those charges - are hesitating to build because of the stupid decision to charge assessment on vacant houses. I have shown just now how it has affected the tenants; but now it affects the developers too because if a house can be rented at $200 and a developer decides to build 1,000 houses in an estate, he pays assessment at the rate of 36 per cent, which is $72. That means he pays $72,000 every month until his houses are sold. Sir, which developer will not think twice before he starts developing? In fact, the landlords too are hesitating to expand their business here. They would rather go to the Federation or any other place where they do not run the risk of facing bankruptcy from having to pay assessment on vacant houses, if their houses happen to be vacant. While superficially it seems to be capable of bringing in money for the Government, it is destroying the building trade. It is no use blaming the Member for Hong Lim or Members of the Barisan Sosialis for not having done their duty when they were on the other side of the House. Because they were the P.A.P.'s choice and if the P.A.P. leaders do not have the quality of choosing the right men to run their business, whose fault is it, Sir? Another two essentials of life are food and water. Sir, I am sure you will agree with me that any stupid government can supply water during the rainy season. But it is the sign of a good and efficient government which plans ahead or makes adequate arrangements to meet unexpected droughts. On page 14 of Hansard, Volume 15, No. 1, dated 31st October, 1961, it is stated: 'Concerning water supplies, the Tebrau Waterworks in Johore has been recently extended to give an increased supply of 15 million gallons per day. 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 Tebrau extension should meet our ordinary needs until the Scudai Scheme is completed.'. "our ordinary needs", Sir. Does it mean that if there are further droughts next year, we are going to have further water rationing until the Scudai scheme is completed, in the next two years? If the Member for Farrer Park is right - and he should be, having had such experience in the City Council before - that means even after the completion of the Scudai scheme, we might still have water rationing. If they cannot give us employment and houses, at least give us water to drink. What type of a government is this which cannot give us water to drink? An hon. Member: What is beer for?

That is not what beer is for. That is the P.A.P. mentality. The poor cannot afford beer, Sir. Sir, next to water is food. The poor and the rich need food. This Government is a Government that claims to work for the poor. They plan and they work for the poor. They are chiefly concerned with the poor. I was surprised to find in the "Malayan Statistics" that the prices of food which finds its way to the table of the poor have gone up very much and the food that finds its way to the table of the rich and the middle class have gone down.

No, it is impossible.

Yes, definitely, Sir, In the case of fish, it is the rich man who goes for ikan bawal, pomfret, kurau, large prawns, and so on. But the poor people take ikan bilis, selah and tamban. If you look at the statistics, the food that usually goes to the table of the poor has gone up quite a lot in price, by about 18 cents per katty, whereas the food for the rich has gone down by about 20 cents per katty. I will not go into details, but just to show you that the food of the poor is going up. The Government might think that this is a frivolous matter to bring up in this House, but I would like to point out that a small rise in the price of food for the rich is nothing - it would probably mean less hoarding of money; for the middle class, it might mean just cutting out a bit of luxury; but for the poor, Sir, it would mean malnutrition, weaker youth for our next generation. It is no exaggeration, Sir. It would mean less resistance to disease. It would also mean that school children would be affected in their work if they are undernourished. I am not speaking as a woman who understands the difficulties of a housewife with a limited purse, but I am speaking as one who has been the principal of a school right in the heart of Chinatown and has seen little children suffering from malnutrition. As a social worker, I have made a study of it and I have found - without exaggeration - that it does affect the children. If the Government does not want to bother itself with visiting these places and making a study, they just have to read reports from the F.A.O. and E.C.A.F.E. which stress the importance of nutrition. They have also stressed the dangers of malnutrition in the countries of South-East Asia. I do not know why they seem to be very frivolous about this, Sir, whenever we talk about children. When we talked about the Chinese school children the last time, the Prime Minister seemed to be very happy and he laughed over it. The Government Members always laugh when the dangers facing children are pointed out to them. I do not know why, Sir. Probably they are children themselves.

On a point of order. I live in the midst of the poor-

That is not a point of order. The hon. Member knows that. Mrs Seow Peck Leng.

Sir, in the health section of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, we have been told that there are extensions of hospitals, clinics, and so on. I appreciate all this and we need them very badly. But I have this to say on health. No extensions of hospitals or clinics are going to be sufficient if we do not take preventive measures to see that diseases do not spread. I have complained and I am complaining again, but the Minister says, "It is typical of the Member for Mountbatten. She has seen me in my office and she brings up this subject here." Yes, Sir, because I did not get satisfaction. I took the trouble to go and see why the drains were blocked and I travelled up to the sea to see where the boulders were. I then told him. But until today the drains ate just as blocked as on the first day I went to see him.

Order. I think the Member for Mountbatten is probably going into too many details. Let us go into the general policies now.

Sir, if the Minister for Health does not take steps to prevent diseases from spreading, in spite of the building of hospitals and clinics, he might find himself running a risk with disease germs. You just have to look at Raffles Place and see the filth strewn by the hawkers. I am not blaming the hawkers. In fact, I admire them for wanting to earn an honest living and I think the Government should appreciate that and help them by allocating to them a proper place so that there will be no danger to the health of the public in spite of the hawkers earning a living. But, Sir, it is the bad administration - it is not the fault of the hawkers - that is making Raffles Place into what it is. Sir, in conclusion, I would say that the whole trouble with the P.A.P. policy is that it has not been an honest policy. The overall policy clearly aims at eventually controlling all social and recreational groups through the People's Association and the community centres, all workers through the T.U.C. which has now failed, all the unemployed through the Work Brigade, all the effective politicians by giving them good posts of $1,100 a month to do no harm, and all the farmers and rural people through their associations. In this way, Sir, the P.A.P. hope to control the different sections of the whole of the population of Singapore. If this had been achieved, Singapore would have got a one-Party dictatorial government in the next election. Thank God, their scheme has been foiled. Thank God, the public have seen through their strategy and have realised that their standard of living has been going down. On two occasions, thank God, they had the courage to reject the P.A.P. and showed them that they were no longer wanted - at Anson and Hong Lim. The people have now realised that the unprecedented increase in unemployment and trouble in Singapore is the result of lack of stability and lack of confidence in the Government brought about by P.A.P. political corruption. 3.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are debating the major annual Government policy speech a little late. It is now more than 1½ months since this policy speech was delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and the Government can hardly be said to be paying His Excellency much respect by having pushed in all sorts of interjectory motions. It is a pity that the Budget debate had to come before the debate on the main policy speech. The result was that many matters had been touched on rather inadequately because of the time guillotine on the Budget debate. However, Sir, never have we seen any government policy statement so utterly dry and so completely devoid of colour and imagination. One cannot but feel that the Government this year is simply not interested in forwarding any policy at all. Gone are the days when the P.A.P. could put forward policy statements full of imagination and drive that reflected the vigour and dynamism of the earlier days of the P.A.P. In the first year of office, the P.A.P. had called it a year that would lead to a more equal and just society. In the second year the P.A.P. had painted it, as Members have already said, as the year of construction. This year the P.A.P. has not bothered to give it a name, let alone a policy. So what has happened to the P.A.P.? Where have all the imagination, the vigour and the dynamism of the P.A.P. gone to? It looks as though all these qualities have left the P.A.P. with the entire rank and file who walked out of the leadership to form the Barisan Sosialis. What is left of the original P.A.P. is a colourless, uninspiring group of desperate politicians whose sole aim in life is to keep themselves in office. I have said, Sir, that the first year of the P.A.P. might be described as the year of excitement, and the second year as the year of confusion. If the P.A.P. is honest, it will call this year the year of desperation.

You are a desperate chap!

Yes, Sir, a year of desperation and a year of sell-out as well for politicians who have refused to remain faithful to the people who elected them to office. The P.A.P. leaders have now thrown overboard all their carefully planned and thought out election programme. They are only interested in trying to keep afloat their fast sinking ship. Next year, from what the Member for Mountbatten has asked, I doubt if the P.A.P. will still be here then. So there is no need to talk about next year. Sir, minus the parts of the speech touching on merger, there is really nothing in the policy statement that merits serious consideration. They are more like the departmental reports from the various Government Ministries; dry and insipid, and it looks as though the P.A.P. this time has merely taken out pages here and there from the various departmental reports and bound them together as their policy statement. For instance, in col. 15 of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, at the end of the first paragraph, it says: 'Water rationing will be lifted when the rainy season breaks and the reservoirs are filled.' What is there so informative about that little statement? Surely the Government has something more important to say in this annual major policy statement than mere routine matters of Government departments. Many have been led to believe that in Singapore today the water pressure varies not proportionately to the rainfall but inversely to the political pressure on the Government, that is, the greater the political pressure on the Government by the people-

The less the water pressure.

- the less the water pressure. That is right. For all of us. Sir, reviewing the activities of the Government during the last few months, it is perhaps not strictly correct to say that the Government is completely devoid of a policy. For the Ministers have clearly a very determined policy to keep themselves in office.

You can have it.

In fact, this is about the only policy the Government has this year. It is clear that the entire efforts of all the Ministers are concentrated towards this aim. They are so busy playing politics that they have completely forgotten that the purpose of their coming to office was to improve the lot of the people. In fact, Sir, our Prime Minister is hardly ever in Singapore these days. He is hopping everywhere from Singapore to K.L., from K.L. to Singapore, and now to Borneo, and tomorrow I understands he is going to Thailand and play golf. That is what the report says, Sir. And in these moments when our Prime Minister is here in Singapore he is too busy over Radio P.A.P. Sir, it is a pity that on the debate on such an important policy speech of the Government today, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance have to get out of Singapore again. I do not know what they are up to. Is that the only thing they think of - playing politics or playing golf? Sir-

Order. There is too much of this reference to-

Golf.

Order. I might ask the Leader of the House to assist the Chair in keeping order. He is there as Leader of the House for that very purpose. The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion. There has been too much of this reference to the personal conduct of hon. Members. I ask the Member for Queenstown to refrain from making any comments on personal conduct.

Point of order, Sir, Is it in order for a Member to sleep in the Chamber?

I had to rule on that point of order sometime ago. It is perfectly in order for a Member to sleep in the Chamber. He is only out of order when he starts snoring! Dr Lee.

Sir, the Government now appears to have lost their smug arrogance, though basically they still retain their contempt and disregard for the people. It is easier now to get immigration permits for relatives from abroad - thanks to representatives from Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen and branch executives. Various other small favours are now granted with a view to buying votes. Hence, the restoration of paycuts and increase of social welfare benefits for the various unfortunate members of our society. Sir, these concessions are correct and should have been given long ago. Everybody knows that the change in Government policy is motivated not by any sincere intention to relieve the suffering of the people but simply to buy votes. Sir, the people have not forgotten that only a few months ago the Minister for Finance firmly refused the civil service a full restoration of their allowance because of the supposed need for a stringent economic plan. Now when the Government is about to topple, it suddenly has plenty of money to throw around. Sir, either the Government was telling a falsehood a few months ago or it has now decided to abandon all long-term economic policies in order to meet the immediate and urgent need to keep themselves in office. Sir, talking of the Government's attitude towards our civil service brings me to the Government's policy towards the English-educated section of our community. We all know that it has been said - and it has been said several times before, Sir - that the P.A.P. leadership came to power mainly on the vote of the workers and the Chinese-educated section of our community. The greater part of the English-educated, because of the vicious falsehood and smear campaign by the S.P.A. and the Straits Times, was led to believe that when the P.A.P. came to power they would have their properly confiscated, their rice bowl broken and all would be forced to live in communes. Instead of explaining away these genuine fears and misunderstandings towards the socialist movement, the P.A.P. Government, however, thought fit to insult and intimidate the English-educated the moment it came to power. Now that the P.A.P. has lost the support of the workers who brought them to power, its leaders are following the same dirty tactics of the past. They hope to woo the English-educated by smearing and vilifying-

The Barisan.

- this time not the P.A.P., but the Barisan Sosialis. But let me tell the P.A.P. this: that just as the same smears and falsehoods invented by the S.P.A. and the Straits Times against the P.A.P. In 1959 did not stop the people from electing the then P.A.P. to power, so the smears and falsehoods which the P.A.P. is now levelling at the Barisan Sosialis will not shake the determination of the people from supporting Barisan Sosialis in the next general elections.

Order. I hope the Member for Queenstown is not now embarking on an election speech. We are now dealing with Government policy.

I have no such intention, Sir, It is regrettable, anyway, that the P.A.P. has not learnt the lesson of history in Singapore, history in which they themselves have played a prominent part.

On a point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way.

Yes.

As you have just said, Mr Speaker, the Member for Queenstown is departing from the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. Yesterday you gave the Member for Moulmein ten minutes to rectify his speech. Perhaps you could do the same for the Member for Queenstown.

Order. That is not a point of elucidation. The Leader of the House must not take advantage of procedural devices. He is out of order himself. The Member for Queenstown has now assured me that he is not embarking on an election speech. If he does, I will stop him. Dr Lee.

I do not think I need answer that jibe from him. It is not necessary. Sir, never in my reading of socialism have I learnt that socialism can be achieved by insulting and intimidating sections of the people into accepting socialist thinking. Indeed, we must be able to understand why certain sections of our people are apprehensive about socialism. It is our duty as socialists to try and explain away these fears and misunderstandings. Only thus will all the people participate willingly and actively in our sacred task of improving the livelihood of all our people. Insults and intimidation will only drive those who do not understand socialism further away from our movement. We are happy to note, Sir, that today the English-educated worker is becoming more and more politically conscious. The recent strike at Robinson's shows that our English-educated are no longer spineless and soft. Sir, unlike the P.A.P., we the Barisan Sosialis believe that the English-educated will have an extremely important role to play in this socialist movement of our country. Sir, I am English-educated myself. Being a Barisan Sosialis Member I am confident that the English-educated will join us in supporting the cause of the workers. Talking of the rise of the English-educated workers leads me now to comment on the Government's labour policy. It is clear, Sir, that the Government has abandoned its election promises to unify the trade union movement. There is no mention at all of this in the policy statement. Today the Government has clearly divided the workers into two camps, those unions which are sponsored or controlled by the P.A.P., and those which are not prepared to be tied down to the P.A.P. The Government has styled all those workers under P.A.P. control as nationalists and smeared all those who refuse to be under P.A.P. control as pro-Communist. By this the P.A.P. hopes that the workers will be frightened into accepting P.A.P. control. Sir, this is really an insult to the intelligence of the workers, because every worker knows, for example, about A.U.P.E., a Government-sponsored splinter union which featured prominently in the recent Public Daily-Rated Workers strike. Every worker knows that it was the Government's insistence on foisting upon the workers this Government-sponsored union that had sparked off the strike, in spite of all that the Government has said about the evil men behind the scenes. Sir, all this talk of the P.A.P. wanting to spend millions of dollars to build a trade union centre is not going to deceive the people about the anti-worker attitude of the Government today. In the light of the Government's labour policy of divide and rule, this extensive building may well turn out to be a mere white elephant. As regards unemployment, the situation today is just as bad as ever. What have they done about this? The Member for Mountbatten has already asked. The only answer we can hear is, nothing; nothing. Instead, Sir, today the P.A.P. uses the police and armed troops against the workers. We have seen how the City Council workers were bullied by the use of brute military force. We have seen how simple street cleaning was turned into major political operations. There were more troops than black-legs in each operation. Encouraged by this successful use of troops against the City Council workers, the Government is now employing the same tactics against workers in the Work Brigade, workers who were struggling to form a union to seek redress for their grievances. Sir, a few days ago, troops in battle dress and armed with bayonets fixed to rifles launched surprise dawn attacks not on an invading army but on sleeping workers in the Work Brigade camps. This unscrupulous use of brute force in commando dawn attacks and assaults against unarmed and sleeping workers is a provocation of the gravest nature, such that it might well have led to violence and bloodshed. We cannot but admire the workers for their calm and self-restraint in the face of such grave provocation. We admire them for having accepted humiliation with such dignity. Such tactics of the P.A.P. Government are merely attempts to terrorise and intimidate the workers of Singapore, but workers are not so easily terrorised and intimidated these days. Let the P.A.P. Government realise that. It is indeed ironical, Sir, that it should be a Government that was elected to power by the workers of Singapore that is now using troops and the police against the workers.

Ask the people's democracy!

Sir, I doubt - there are very few Back-benches left anyway - if the P.A.P. Back-benches realise what their Government is doing. I need not say much about Radio Singapore, Sir. It is now completely monopolised by the P.A.P. It is obvious to everybody. What is not so obvious, Sir, is the subtle pressure exerted on the Press in Singapore. We have seen how mounting dissatisfaction amongst the Chinese school students was completely blackout in the Press until the matter blew up and caught the people of Singapore completely by surprise. We are told, for example, again, that many reporters are becoming increasingly frustrated. They find that what they faithfully reported were often not published in the papers. This is particularly so, Sir, I understand, among the reporters of the English Press, who in many instances found their reports completely re-written by the sub-editors to suit the P.A.P. Government policy. We also understand, Sir, that certain newspaper headlines have had to be altered after frantic telephone calls from the Ministry of Culture.

Hear, hear!

I wonder if the people of Singapore know all this. Sir, that little bit on the Ministry of Culture should be enough. But it is pathetic that immediately following the portion on labour, the policy statement should harp on television and the national theatre. We would like to ask the Government: what is the use of tele vision and the national theatre to workers when their basic wants are not satisfied? Let us hope that television will not turn out to be merely an instrument of Government propaganda.

Hear, hear!

Let us hope there will not be another series of twelve television talks.

Thirteen!

Let Radio P.A.P. give fair news reports and not distorted and doctored versions from the P.A.P. propaganda machine. Sir, the rest of the policy statement is really not worth commenting on except a small section on education. We have seen how the recent inept and arrogant handling of the delicate problems of Chinese education nearly plunged Singapore into a blood-bath. The Government's attempt to blame everything on Communist manipulation-

And the Barisan Sosialis.

-does not deceive the people. The Government must be responsible for their mishandling of the recent dispute in the Chinese schools. I do not wish to comment on the merits and demerits of the education policy. We welcome the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into all aspects of the Government education policy, including the English stream of education, as has been promised by the Minister for Education. But I would urge the Government to use this opportunity to allow all teachers in Singapore to air their genuine grievances. The question of a unified service scheme for teachers long promised by the P.A.P. Government has still to be met. Let the Government remember that for the attainment of the best possible education results for our children, a satisfied and contented body of teachers is an essential prerequisite. Let the Government handle this matter with tolerance, understanding and patience and not with the usual arrogance and haughtiness, the outstanding qualifies widely associated with the Ministry of Education today. It is regrettable, Sir, that this year the P.A.P. policy statement completely omitted any mention of its professed policy to help the Malays. We in the Barisan Sosialis believe that the Government must exert greater efforts to help the Malays in Singapore. We congratulate the Government on their having built the first Malay Secondary School in Singapore and a Fisheries Training School for fishermen.

Thank you.

But these, Sir, are not enough. We are sure that the Government can do more if it will but put its mind on the job. Let them not play politics too much. The Government is also pursuing a very dangerous communal policy as regards many things, but especially as regards, as has been evidenced recently, the Work Brigade. Soon after the workers of the Work Brigade had tried to form a trade union, the Government had segregated the Malay workers from the non-Malay workers in the Work Brigade camps. We cannot see why the P.A.P. Government, which is supposed to believe in communal unity and harmony, should want to practise communal segregation. We hope it will not persist in this communal approach because this is merely playing with fire. 4.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech on the question of education, the Government promises to build 19 schools every year. But let us see what has happened in these two years. The P.A.P. Government could only build one Malay secondary school, namely, Sangnila Utama Malay School, and another Chinese School, namely, Whampoa Chinese Secondary School. They could only build four Chinese middle schools namely, River Valley School, Teck Min School and two others. From this we can see that the Government is biased towards English education. The integrated schools have been said to be very successful, according to the policy statement. I doubt this because these integrated schools are mainly English schools. Before these schools were opened, they were chiefly English schools. Later on, because of other reasons, they became integrated schools. Because there were vacant classes and most of the classes were meant for the teaching of English - two-thirds of them for the English stream - the balance was allotted to other vernacular languages. The facilities in all schools are mainly meant for English schools. Other classes for vernacular education are only meant as supplementary classes and the use of these classes will have to depend on from which stream of education the principal comes. Among the students some of them have to express their opinions in the vernacular languages in these integrated schools. Can this be claimed to be successful? Is this policy really conducive to the so-called promoting the mutual understanding among the various language streams? The Government has built about 9 schools - The $3 million spent last time has now been increased to $9 million and it is spent on building a few schools. They have promised to build 19 schools. The sum spent on capital expenditure, i.e., building schools, last time was $3 million; but now it has been reduced to $1 million, one-third of the amount. Most of the schools are English schools and most of the Chinese schools are Government aided schools. From this we can see that the Chinese schools cannot develop smoothly and that is the main reason. On the other hand, it is very difficult to apply for school building funds. Therefore, it has hampered the development of Chinese schools. When a school wants to apply for expansion of the school building, it has to go through the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of National Development. Very often certain officers in these Ministries shift the burden to other Ministries, evading the responsibility in dealing with applications. Thus applications are delayed for several months, sometimes for several years. For instance, the application for the building of Nanyang University and the application relating to school expansion in Chung Cheng High School. These are good examples. The procedure has not been explained by the Government to the schools. So the schools applying for capital grant, because they have not applied in accordance with the regulations, have not been able to get the grant. For instance, Kwong Yong High School could not get any grant. It put the Board of Directors in a difficult position because the Ministry of Health demanded too much of the school without considering its special and economic conditions. The Ministry concerned insisted that the site should be large, the space should be ample, and there should be certain kinds of conditions applicable to sanitary facilities and so on and so forth. How could the applicant school afford to pay so much? When a school building plan is given to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry not only entirely changes it, but very often certain structures already put up have to be added in, such as window, ceilings and so on, thereby putting unnecessary restrictions on the applicant school and causing much trouble to the Board of Directors. The Ministry also insist on the land lease to be 30 years minimum, instead of 30 years. But then the Government, on the other hand, would not grant a lease for 30 years. In this way how can the Government help the development of vernacular schools? I suggest that the Government should establish a special department to deal with these matters so as to enable the applicant schools to facilitate their applications and so that they can approach the relevant quarters and realise their aims early. The Government should provide these facilities and assistance so that the Chinese schools in Singapore can shoulder their responsibility in respect of education in their educational stream. In this way the Government can achieve what they profess to do, namely, to give equal treatment to the four streams of education, including the Chinese stream. We know that in the Ministry of Education there is already established an Examination Syndicate to manage and control matters relating to common examinations in all standards. It is not known when the present examination system, which has been conducting colonial examinations, is to be abolished, and when the Government is going to conduct examinations for secondary schools and higher secondary schools. Everybody knows the Government has been saying that the contents of the textbooks should be based on a Malayan background. But if the Senior Cambridge Examination and the Higher School Certificate Examination are not abolished, then this is not quite correct, because the contents of the textbooks used for these examinations are colonial in nature. The Government says they want to unify the contents of all textbooks in all educational streams, but there are still contents of a colonial nature in the textbooks. How then can the Government achieve the purpose of promoting Malayan culture and achieve a Malayan type of education! About technical education, I am not satisfied with what the Government has done because it has only established technical classes in the secondary schools. They do not have workshops and laboratories. For example, the students in the technical schools have to go to the Tanjong Katong Girls' School to do their experimental work, and the students in Hua Yee School have to go to the Queenstown Secondary School to do their experimental work. This is a waste of time on the part of students and causes great inconvenience to the students. 4.29 p.m.

Without a full technical school, how are we going to train technical personnel? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are about 8,000 graduates from the Chinese secondary schools this year; 5,000 Secondary III graduates and 3,000 Secondary IV graduates. Next year a few will be able to go to the Upper Secondary classes or to the Universities. There is no other employment opportunity for them except to be teachers. How many graduates can be absorbed into the Government service! The Government should open a two-year teacher training course to absorb the graduates from the Chinese secondary schools so that they will not be unemployed. It should also set up a department in the Polytechnic in which the medium of instruction should be Chinese to enable the Chinese school students to receive some technical training. This is the demand of the Chinese parents and the school committee members. I hope the Government will put into practice the demand of the people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Adult Education Board was formed in April 1960. There were about 21,000 students. But in July 1960, there were about 17,400 students. We do not know the number of students in 1961 because the Government has not announced the number. Perhaps the number has been reduced still further. It is said that there are now a few students in certain classes. In order to have enough classes, the teachers in the adult education classes have asked the pupils in the day schools to augment the number in the classes so as to falsify the number of students. As the number of pupils are so few in the classes, the teachers are naturally very slack in their work. How then are we going to wipe out illiteracy if we organise such classes? On the other hand, the Government does not dare to co-operate with the civic organisations and, as a result, these organisations run better classes than those run by the Adult Education Board. This should be reviewed by the Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us review the work done by the Ministry of Culture. It can be summarised in eight words - "It is meant for decoration and show only." Let us see how the Ministry of Culture whitewashes its work. Last year the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in his speech to this House pointed out that in order to stimulate Malayan art and culture the Government would establish a national cultural brigade. When this scheme is implemented, it will provide a fixed venue for cultural activities. This is a very good scheme. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture gave details about the work of this cultural brigade at a meeting last year in the belief that this project would be carried out. He said that if we were to carry out this heavy work, we must absorb talented and hard-working artistes into the cultural brigade and organise a systematic research in art and creative work. He also spoke on the problem of organisation. He said that, on the whole, the cultural brigade would be divided into two groups. One group would consist of those with a higher intellectual ability and they would be entrusted with the compilation of artistic works such as songs, dances and other cultural activities and then, after some research, with the production of Malayan music, drama and dances. The other group would consist of those talented as performers, for example, musicians, dancers, singers and dramatists. These performers would take part in open-air concerts and would assist in the cultural and recreational activities of the community centres. It seemed that the Minister for Culture wanted to gather all the talented people and artistes and give them scope to express their artistic talents. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after a lapse of 14 months now, has the cultural brigade been formed? What songs have been written and what dances have been arranged? How many artistes have been recruited? I can answer these questions for the Minister. The answer is that all these plans have been thrown into the wastepaper basket. Could it be that the Minister for Finance does not approve the expenditure for this project? If it is not so, how can they explain it away? Does it mean that we do not have enough talented artistes in this State? If it is so, then how can one explain the fact that many concerts and many cultural festivals have been successful? Can it be explained on political grounds? If that is so, how is that the Government invited them to give performances? The people of Singapore are perplexed on this question.

You are.

(In Mandarin): But I can answer this question: the Ministry of Culture is only meant for show! Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us go back to the policy speech made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara last year in which he said at column 22 of Hansard dated 20th July, 1960: 'This year will also see the establishment of the Institute for National Language and Culture. The aims and objects of the Institute have already been explained to Members of the Assembly. The Institute, in addition to publishing translations of outstanding works of literature and promoting the growth and spread of the national language, will also encourage original works, literary and scientific, by local writers.'. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is very significant. When tabling the Bill on the Institute for National Language and Culture, the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture said that the P.A.P. would pay great attention to the establishment of this institution. I would like to summarise briefly what he said. He said that the institution would be responsible for the publication of textbooks on the national language for non-Malays and for the publication of simple magazines in the national language and also for radio broadcasts in the national language with Chinese, English and Tamil translations on politics, economics, science and international cultures. This grandiose scheme was described by him in this House on 11th August, 1960. He said that he would bring good news to the people of Singapore on the establishment of the Institute for National Language and Culture. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, through the assistance of the Indonesian Government, Professor Sulamo was recruited by the Singapore Government and he is the Director of the Institute for National Language and Culture. I believe the famous Professor Sulamo will run the Institute well. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have so far not been able to see any publications published by that institute or any textbooks in the national language. Translations of these works are not to be found in the bookshops. Is it because the Minister for Finance did not give money or is it because of the shortage of personnel? It was said that when Prof. Sulamo was appointed, he did not even have typists and cupboards in his office. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the policy speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara last year, the Government boasted about the achievements of the Government's construction work. Not a word was mentioned about the work in the Ministry of Culture. Is it because the revolution has not been successful? If it is so, the Government should tell the people. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the past one year this so-called cultural revolution by the Ministry of Culture was nonsense. There was no system at all. Last year the cultural brigade and the Institute for Language and Culture did not achieve anything. This year they say they will put up television. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara says: 'This medium will prove to be a valuable ally not only for popular education but also for hastening the development of a Malayan culture and consciousness.' In this respect it is true that in the twentieth century when all sciences are very advanced, the establishment of television and the dissemination of knowledge through T.V. will be much more effective than the radio broadcasts and the audience will be able to comprehend better the programmes. The programmes will be more vivid and can be seen on the screen and will be more penetrating and moving to the audience. If it is used to educate the masses and to wipe out illiteracy, television can-

Point of order, Sir. The Member seems to be reading from his speech.

I do not think he is reading, but he is making occasional reference to his notes. If he is reading, then I will rule him out of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government's purpose is not really to make use of T.V. to foster Malayan culture and help bring about a Malayan consciousness, and to build a Malayan nation. But according to the work done last year we can see that the Government intends to suppress the formation of Malayan culture and consciousness. From this we can see that the T.V. plan will not be successful. But when one talks about T.V., it is not so very simple a matter. I think T.V. programmes will be prepared in time unless the P.A.P. Government collapses in the near future; otherwise the Government will not give up the plan to build a T.V. station. If it is so, then the question is not so simple. Let us study it. What is the motive of the Government in promoting mass education? Everybody knows, and the P.A.P. leadership also knows, that the P.A.P. is at present faced with a very difficult situation. It has its back to the wall, because it has betrayed the people and has no courage to face them. It has no courage to express the strength of the people and has lost the support of the people. Therefore, in future there will be no masses appearing at mass rallies or street comer meetings or large-scale meetings. The only people who want to attend will only be a few pickets and it is likely that there will be no pickets at all when they hold any meeting. It will be just like one of those minor political Parties in 1955. It will have to show some kind of films and play some music in order to attract people to attend its meetings. In the past the P.A.P. has been attacking others and accusing them of many faults. Now it is doing the same. It is very difficult for them to explain away this. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, the leadership of the people have now thought out a very cunning way to go round it. They have thought out a T.V. plan. Then in all the community centres, the playgrounds, shops, houses, everywhere, T.V. sets can be set up, and the Government will be able to contact the people through television programmes and to conduct their mass rallies. By that time the Prime Minister can come on to the stage to continue his mystic stories. The people will not only be able to hear the voice of the Prime Minister but will also be able to see him in person. All his acts and gestures can be seen clearly on the screen. This will be of quite good use to the P.A.P. There are two ways in which they could help the P.A.P. First, it will get them out of a situation if they should convene any meeting and nobody at tends. Secondly, perhaps they may still say there are 650,000 citizens attending the P.A.P. mass rally and there is applause all round. They can claim that the people have been supporting them and they can cherish this spirit of Ah Q. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, on the 11th of August this year said something which is quite true. He said, in the past one year-

Point of order, Sir,Is it in order for the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education to keep on referring to the present Parliamentary Secretary for Education as the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture.

If the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education was, the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, and the hon. Member is referring to the ministry of Culture, then he is in the right to say the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture.

Tedious repetition, Sir.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for your guidance. He said in the past year the cultural artistes and cultural organisations had greatly assisted the Ministry of Culture in promoting healthy cultural recreation and cultural work. It is undeniable that the past one year can be said to be the most active year in the history of Singapore, in respect of cultural activities. I agree with what he said, that 1959 was a year in which cultural activities were the most active. Was it the result of active encouragement by the Ministry of Culture? How many cultural organisations did the Ministry of Culture help to carry out their activities? How many cultural workers or artistes did the Ministry of Culture help? What was the attitude of the Ministry of Culture to cultural workers? What was the attitude of the Ministry of Culture towards cultural organisations?

Order. I think the Member is going into too much details about this Ministry of Culture. Perhaps he could bear in mind that we are discussing the policy of the Government, so the Member should confine himself to the policy of the Government and not to details about the Ministry of Culture.

Point of order, Sir. Perhaps you could not understand

Will the Parliamentary Secretary please come to the microphone so that the interpreters could translate what he has to say?

Perhaps you do not have the advantage of understanding Mandarin. I heard the Member repeating the same sentence twice and some times three times.

Although I do not have the advantage of understanding Mandarin, what is spoken by the Member, I believe, is translated into English. I have been listening to him carefully and I cannot find any repetition at all.

Point of order.

No. Mr Leong Keng Seng.

(In Mandarin): I was touching on the policy in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech in relation to culture. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture can have plenty of time later on to debate this.

Order. Will the Member take a long time?

(In Mandarin): Only a little more.

Please continue.

(In Mandarin): I can say that the Ministry of Education left the cultural organisations alone, leaving them to die. The Ministry of Culture did not help cultural workers at all. On the other hand, it misused them. When they were needed, they were asked to take part in programmes and concerts and so on. But when all these things were over, they were forgotten by the Ministry. Mr Deputy Speaker, what is the attitude of the Minister for Culture to local authors and playwrights? I remember the Political Secretary to the Ministry of Culture has encouraged local artistes and playwrights to write more plays and books with a Malayan background and give up feudalistic thought. Rich creative work will have to be written by local playwrights and artistes; such as on the lives of rubber tappers and tin miners. This is a very good subject to write about. If you write a book on the happiness of the rubber tappers and so on, this may have a certain significance. If you write a book on the difficulties and the difficult lives of the rubber tappers and the miners, then a certain meaning may be construed. If you write-

Order. The hon. Member is going into too many details. We are discussing the major policy of the Government. The Member should confine himself to the major policy of the Government as contained in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, but not go into details as to what kind of books should be written.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now briefly sum up. Only a few minutes more. I have been saying that the cultural revolution conducted by the Ministry of Culture has amounted only to this. The Ministry of Culture has only published certain pamphlets on the speeches made by the Ministers and so on. At the quiz forum of Radio Singapore, the Ministry of Culture even pays money in this kind of programme. From this we can see the revolutionary and creative work done by the Ministry of Culture amounts to nothing.

Order. I suspend the sitting for tea now. The sitting will resume at half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Order. Any further speakers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard six Barisan Sosialis- Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock) rose -

Point of order?

Yes. There is no quorum. Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present. Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

I think hon. Members will realise this is the second time this Chamber has been treated with such scant respect. It is the job of the Government Whip to see that there is a quorum so that Government business could continue without unnecessary interruption. If there had been an Opposition Whip, it would have been his duty to see the Opposition benches were filled. Mr Yong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard at least 6 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen speak on the question of education in respect of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech for the year 1962. I should like to take this opportunity to answer the main points raised by them as far as possible on education. Firstly, the point raised by the Member for Stamford on Tuesday when discussing the question of women's rights. She referred to cases of certain Chinese married women teachers who paid for substitutes out of their own pocket before they went on maternity leave. It would seem from what she said that the teachers concerned entered into this arrangement voluntarily. I mean it is a matter between the individual teacher and the school authorities. I would like to explain, for the information of all concerned, that married women teachers, whether in Government service or aided schools, are eligible for maternity leave up to a maximum of 60 days upon certification by a doctor. While the married woman teacher's on maternity leave, the school is expected to make internal arrangements to cover her work, but such internal arrangements neither require the teacher to find a substitute nor to pay for the substitute. But when too many women teachers are away on medical leave in the same school or when the absence of any teacher during maternity leave is unnecessarily prolonged, the Director of Education has his discretion to consider and approve the appointment and payment of substitute teachers provided always such appointment is essential for the proper running of the school. It is therefore clear, Sir, from what I have said, that the cases mentioned by the Member for Stamford are not authorised by my Ministry. We cannot interfere with the teachers' desire to enter into any voluntary arrangement with their own school. But I hope I have made it plain that it is unnecessary for married women teachers to make such arrangements as they are entitled to maternity leave without having to find substitutes. Now, coming to the Member for Pasir Panjang, it is quite a change to find him changing from being the vanguard of Chinese education to stand up in defence of Tamil education. The Member for Pasir Panjang referred to the case of the Government having built Labrador School on the playing field of Pasir Panjang Tamil School, thus depriving them of the use of a playing field. I assure him that he has been misinformed - they are always misinformed unfortunately. Although Pasir Panjang Tamil Aided School is occupying State land, Labrador School was built outside the perimeter fence of the Tamil School. Only a small portion of the Tamil school compound was used for constructing an approach road Ro Labrador School. The Tamil school building itself is in a dilapidated condition and provision has been made to offer them accommodation in the new Labrador School building. In addition, the Tamil school pupils are being offered use of the common playing field for Labrador/Batu Berlayer Primary Schools and the Pasir Panjang Secondary Schools. Unfortunately the Member for Changi is not here, but he did raise the matter about Nanyang University. I think it is necessary for me to refer to it somewhat in detail. Members of the Barisan Sosialis follow the regular pattern of lifting sentences out of context from P.A.P. literature or statements and give them a twist and distortion where such interpretation or intention is not intended. The false allegation has been made by the Barisan Sosialis Members that we have failed to uphold our election promise to give financial aid to Nanyang University. The relevant paragraph on Nanyang University in the education policy statement made by us in April 1959, more than 2½ years ago, reads as follows [The Tasks Ahead, Part 2, page 11]: 'The University [i.e. Nanyang University], however, does not officially exist, in the eyes of the Federation government, although 60 per cent of its students are from the Federation. Until there is a change of heart in the Federation, any government grants to the Nanyang University must therefore come solely from the Singapore government. To have two governments support two Universities is obviously easier than for one government to support two Universities. The out look actually would appear to be that if the political separation between Singapore and the Federation continues, then the Singapore government will be faced with the responsibility of supporting the University of Malaya in Singapore and the Nanyang University. Faced already with an education bill amounting to 25 per cent of its budget and an increasing population of young children, the prospects of supporting two universities may well strain the resources of the Singapore government to the limit.' The position today remains unchanged. Nanyang University is not wholly for Singapore students. As stated, the Federation students form about 60 per cent of enrolment in Nanyang. Now, whereas the Federation Government is prepared to reimburse the Singapore Government to the sum of $4 million for Federation students who will attend the University of Singapore next year, it is not prepared to consider the existence of Nanyang University. That is the problem to be resolved. Who is to carry the financial responsibility for 60 per cent of the students in Nanyang who come from the Federation? An hon. Member: Singapore.

According to the Government's policy statement on the 10th of February, 1960, on publication of the Nanyang University Review Committee's Report - I refer to Hansard, Vol. 12, No. 3, col. 143, the bottom paragraph, Sir - it was stated: 'The Singapore Government has no hesitation in accepting its share of these deficits, for the Singapore students in Nanyang University who are estimated at 40 per cent of the total student population.' The Member for Changi talks of Government asking for what he considers unreasonable conditions from Nanyang University. But he does not state what are the unreasonable conditions. What exactly are the conditions, Sir? I refer to col. 143 again, it is at the middle of the column: '...in what manner and under what conditions will the Singapore Government be prepared to support Nanyang University?' The answers are given. I turn, first of all, to col. 146, bottom paragraph, where it states: 'The Singapore Government accepts, in principle, the main recommendations contained in the Gwee Ah Leng Review Committee's Report on Nanyang University.' That is the basis on which the Singapore Government is prepared to give financial aid, thus accepting the main recommendations contained in this Review Committee's Report which calls for reorganisation.. We will come back to paragraph 4 at col. 143: '... the new Government will be prepared to support Nanyang University on the same basis as it does the University of Malaya, provided that there are similar safeguards as to the maintenance of proper academic standards...' There have been accusations that the Government was criticising the standards of Nanyang University. We have accepted the critical findings of the Gwee Ah Leng Review Committee. We have not criticised Nanyang University but we have accepted the recommendations of an expert Committee: '...the maintenance of proper academic standards and proper accounting of public monies.' And just one final paragraph at the bottom of column 145 where we said: 'Nanyang University must therefore be reorganised, academic standards must be raised, and the general policy of Nanyang University must be entrusted to a group of people with high academic reputation and experience to discharge such onerous duties, and adequate checks made on expenditure and accounts.'. I now move on, Sir, to other aspects of criticisms lodged by Members of the Opposition, especially the Barisan Sosialis. The Member for Changi made passing reference as to why, whereas the non-English medium schools have English as a compulsory subject in schools, in English schools the students are not compelled to study Asian languages like Malay, Chinese and Tamil. That is exactly what the Government intends to do. We realise that the English medium schools in the past was unfortunately concentrating far too much on the use of English alone. That is why the English schools have been on a six-day week to give the students more time to learn the Asian languages. But we cannot do it overnight. Even though we have accepted Malay as the national language, there is a paucity of teachers to teach the language. We are not in a position to insist that Malay should be taught compulsorily, otherwise we would have 370,000 children wanting to learn Malay and we have only 600 teachers. There are not enough Malay teachers even to teach in the Malay stream. We have started secondary education in the Malay stream and we find it difficult to get the right teachers. So it is useless asking why we do not make it a compulsory subject. We intend to. But the time must be given to train the teachers to be adequate in such languages. For example, in conducting the Common Primary School Leaving Examination in the four streams, we have a situation where it is possible for students from the Chinese medium schools to take a second language paper other than the language medium of instruction, that is English, but it is not possible to insist on the other language streams to take a second language because in the past there was a rather indifferent attitude towards the study of such second languages. Yet we have indicated that next year a second language paper for the four streams will have what is called a half-unit. We will take it into account for examination purposes, and by 1963, we will have a full unit. First we must give some time for this to come into operation. We are hoping to introduce a regulation whereby we will insist that if a Primary VI student has had three years of continuous learning of a second language, then it will be compulsory for him to take the second language paper. But I think we have made attempts towards remedying a previous defect. Then the Member for Toa Payoh picked out a little sentence - he seems to be a protagonist for farmers in the rural areas - that somewhere in our policy statement we have indicated that the farmers in large rural areas should be given some education to help them in their rural life. He also said that the Government had done nothing about it and that the teachers in the rural schools should know. Well, Sir, we have appointed a Commission of Inquiry into Vocational and Technical Education. The Government just does not go "bang" and introduce things off the cuff. We believe in getting people who are experts in education to sit down, make a close study of the subject and make recommendations, and then Government will give thought to whether the recommendations can or cannot be accepted. Well, this Report has already been tabled and, as I said, a White Paper is forthcoming. There is a recommendation here by the Commission of Inquiry at the top of the paragraph on page 23 which says: 'In the primary schools, syllabuses could be modified to take account of the particular needs of rural children, and of those urban children who will eventually enter careers involving also the use of their hands.'. So we have done something and in the right way - not by just picking out sentences here and there and not being able to follow them through. My former Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Serangoon Gardens, lamented the fact that students from the two Chinese secondary schools, Dunman and Hwa Yi, had to waste a lot of time moving over to the Tanjong Katong and Queenstown secondary schools to pick up some technical secondary education. It is quite a change, Sir, to see the Member, for Serangoon Gardens saying so many things about education. When he was my Parliamentary Secretary, he was well known for his silence. If only he had all these ideas when he was assisting me for the last two years, we could have done something. However, here again, I would refer him to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Vocational and Technical Education. The recommendations are being considered and when the White Paper is published, perhaps I would like to know what he has to say then on the subject. Because of the existence of this Report, we have not pushed forward our plans. After all, there is an expert Report in hand, and we may as well make use of the brains of those who produced the Report before involving the State in expenditure of millions of dollars. It would cost at least $1 million to build a good secondary technical school and to equip it properly. In fact, the Report recommends the Government not to go too fast about it. I come next to the criticism lodged by the Member for Toa Payoh and by my former Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Serangoon Gardens, over the lack of liaison between the Adult Education Board and other organisations like trade unions and so on, and that therefore the Adult Education Board is failing to give that drive to get pupils to burn the midnight oil. In the Constitution of the Adult Education Board, there is provision for two representatives from the trade unions. In fact, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Lim Ching Siong, and one of my colleagues, the Member for Ulu Pandan, serve on the Board but unfortunately Mr Lim Ching Siong is noted for his absence from meetings. So, far from getting co-operation, we got little, if any, co-operation by his lack of attendance. Of course, with the politics that went on and with the dissolution of the T.U.C., they are no longer on the Board. But we do hope that proper representatives of real trade unions and not politicians will come in to support the Government. Criticism again was lodged by the Member for Changi and the Member for Serangoon Gardens about the continuance of the Cambridge Examination in English as something that is colonial. I like to hear the strong anti-colonial fervour of our great anti-colonialists as expressed by Members of the Barisan Sosialis! We have it as an objective in our education policy statement that we should have an Examination Syndicate. It is something to be achieved. But let us not fool ourselves by throwing things to the winds. After all, we are very much tied up with the Federation of Malaya with whom we are to merge, and the Federation Government conducts its public examinations closely with the Cambridge Syndicate. We are also using the Cambridge Syndicate for the conduct of our English medium examinations and many Singapore students, after obtaining the Cambridge School Certificate or the Cambridge Higher School Certificate, will have to find employment in the Federation or seek entry into the new University of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur to take up engineering and agriculture, or to proceed overseas anywhere in the world because they are certificates known to anyone as certificates of recognition to Universities abroad. Now we do not just tear it all up in order to comply with the so-called anti-colonial fervour of the Barisan Sosialis. We will do it if we can be sure that the certificates in the English medium, when we do con duct such examinations locally, will be accepted by the Federation Government as equivalent to the Cambridge School Certificate. This is something which we do not just do overnight. We should have discussions, close liaison; perhaps people in the Federation setting the papers and vice versa, where probably we do the marking on their behalf, and so on. It takes time and, in fact, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis mentioned quite earlier on during the previous debate on merger that hordes of Chinese from the Federation come down to Singapore in order to take the examinations that are conducted in the Chinese medium but regretted the fact that such certificates are not recognised outside the State of Singapore. So let us be clear about this. Let us not say, "Yes, we shall conduct our School Certificate Examination in English in Singapore," and find the sad position that such certificates are not accepted outside Singapore. It is an entirely different picture for examinations conducted in other than the English stream. Nobody is providing for such examinations and it is the duty of the State to conduct such examinations for the Malay medium by 1962 and give it equal recognition with certificates conducted by the Cambridge Syndicate. I think it is time that Members of the Barisan Sosialis should also think a little bit more before they start criticising, that all these are colonial actions and so on; that anything English is colonial. Paper questions on History and Geography are sometimes set by local people on textbooks which have been malayanised. It is a question of keeping certain standards that are world recognised. I come now to the complaints raised by the Member for Changi and the Member for Serangoon Gardens about the so-called stringent regulations for the granting of capital aid to schools. The Member for Serangoon Gardens was my Parliamentary Secretary until a few months ago. He knew that I had in mind the relaxation of the regulations to assist rural schools. Let him and his colleagues not get away with it. They have raised all these points so that they can say the Government was under pressure to concede to them. No, they do not get that credit. Try not to still the thunder from the Government which has been working on this.

There is no more thunder, only a squib.

We now come to the question of integrated schools where my former Parliamentary Secretary, the present Member for Serangoon Gardens, again lamented the fact that we are trying to have integrated schools which are only an adjunct to the English schools. Now, according to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, it is the intention of the Government to have more and more of such integrated schools. By that we mean one school building taking in two different language streams. We believe that by bringing together different streams, it is one way to break down communal barriers and communal schools. Since it is our plan to bring multilingualism into our schools, I think it will be possible before long for a happy exchange of teachers to be effected between the two language streams. Let us assume that we are talking of an integrated school in English and Chinese, of which we have about ten by now. The Chinese language teachers could come from a Chinese school and the English language teachers for the Chinese stream could come from the teachers in an English school, That raises the standard of language teaching in both streams, so that they would be fairly good in both Chinese and English. Next month, at the new school to be opened in Jalan Kaki Bukit, we are introducing an integrated school in the English and Malay media. We hope the children who come out of this integrated Malay/English school would be very good both in Malay and English. In the past it has been such that products of Malay schools are generally unfortunately weak in English, but we hope to remedy that situation in course of time. We might even say, Sir, that the integrated school could well become a national school of the future, as the language medium of instruction begins to be more and more in the national language and where all the races would be together in one school building and the correct type for the teacher. I come now to the question of the school building programme where the Member for Serangoon Gardens stated that the Government was only able to establish two secondary schools so far, one, the Whampoa Chinese Secondary School, and the other, the first Malay Secondary School known as the Sang Nila Utama School. He has forgotten, I am afraid, the new secondary school which was opened sometime ago by my colleague, the Member for Tiong Bahru, which is the Queensway Secondary School in the English medium. Sir, it is one thing to say that we want to build 19 schools a year, or maybe 16 or 17 depending upon whether the schools concerned are six storeys instead of three storeys, so that there will be fewer schools but they will take in the same number of pupils; but it is another thing to see the schools really built. So far I think we have been able now to build up to ten new schools, of which three are secondary schools. But I think next month we will have at least three new schools and we will have to open one new school almost every month. So the rate of new buildings will catch up, and we hope that by 1964 there would be no less than 17 new schools. But the way the Member for Serangoon Gardens has put it is that the Government has done nothing for Chinese education. Everything that is being built is for English schools. It is that chauvinistic twang - if it is an English school, therefore, it is colonial and, therefore, this Government is colonial; and so on and so forth. Sir, the only way to prove it is by deeds, by facts. When we came into office in June 1959, the enrolment in Government Chinese schools was as follows: Primary, 2,233 pupils; Secondary, 1,361 pupils, making a total of 3,594 pupils. By June 1960, these are media figures; the Primary enrolment had increased from 2,233 to 5,775. The Secondary enrolment was increased from 1,361 to 5,230. The total enrolment jumped from 3,954, which is just under 4,000, to more than 11,000, i.e. close to a 279 per cent increase. June this year (1961), Primary school enrolment was raised to 7,911; Secondary school enrolment was raised to 6,571; total school enrolment in Government Chinese schools was 14,482, or 365 per cent over the figures before we came into office. Sir, there are more than a hundred thousand students in Chinese aided schools and it is not possible to absorb all of them into Government schools. But if the Government is able to keep up with the school building programme of 19 schools a year, I think perhaps within a decade the majority of all pupils in all streams would be in Government schools and a minority in aided schools, of whatever language stream they may be. Sir, I think I cannot do better in concluding my short address than by referring to my Party's publication, Petir, Issue Vol. 4, No. 1, Saturday, 17th June, 1961, to an article written by Mr S. Woodhull, now the VicePresident of the Barisan Sosialis on "The Two Years of Concrete Progress of the P.A.P.". He had this to say on education. I will just quote the relevant paragraphs. 'Education In The Tasks Ahead we drew attention to the fact that our population was increasing by about 60,000 each year. There was a need, therefore, to provide schools for about the same number of pupils each year. The Ministry of Education has handled this problem of providing education with the greatest zeal.' Another paragraph on the Adult Education Board which Members of the Barisan Sosialis now criticise. He has this to say: 'In September 1959 itself, night classes were launched for 13,000 workers who registered with the Board. Schools and community centres in various parts of the Island are be ing used for the purpose of adult education. Further, 6,000 adults who desire a secondary education have been provided with this oppor tunity. It is only a matter of time before illiteracy will completely be wiped out in our society.' Sir, either Mr S. Woodhull is the most insincere man when he wrote this "Two Years of Concrete Progress of the P.A.P. Government" or the Barisan Sosialis are not people who stick to their word or honour it. 6.13 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the once strong P.A.P. which secured 43 out of 51 seats in the 1959 general elections have now dwindled in number. They are only about-

Order. I might as well warn the hon. Member that I will not allow any repetition. This sentence that he has just delivered has been repeated by every Barisan Sosialis Member who has spoken. Let us get down to the Government policy now.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the phenomenon of the present Session of the Legislative Assembly. Everybody has the same feeling. If they do not give vent to these feelings, they will feel rather unhappy. But let us see. Today, there are a few more left of them. See how many can survive until 1963. They are now hoping. At every street corner in Singapore everybody is doubtful and guessing, and even the P.A.P. Ministers and Assemblymen themselves are guessing and speculating whether they can preserve their present seats until 1963.

Order. All that has been said by the Barisan Sosialis Members. I ask the Member now to carry on with the debate which is confined to the policy of the Government as outlined in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. Mr Low.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a man who in a very short space -of five years and without passing through any major political storms, such a youth, namely the Secretary-General of the P.A.P., has now become the Prime Minister of Singapore, without much merit on his own part. Thus this has made him very arrogant and haughty. He thinks all the people of Singapore are not as good as he is. He has, now forgotten the people who once supported him. He has relegated them to oblivion. The attitude of the leaders of the P.A.P. towards the people is one of enmity. They are now collapsing-

On a point of order. What has all this got to do with the policy speech?

I have already indicated that even if it has got anything to do with the Government's policy, all this has been said time and time again. It is becoming very tedious. I would now like the hon. Member to relate what he has to say to the policy speech and nothing more.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy statement of the Government for the third session deals chiefly with the P.A.P. sell-out type of merger. It also says that it is going to do something for the benefit of the people and to provide them with certain social amenities. But then what achievements have the P.A.P. Government made? The Government's promises made in the policy statements in the previous sessions - have they materialised? Have the Government kept their promises? Nothing has been achieved. The policy statement for this year is very poor indeed in content. There is nothing in it. Everybody is disappointed when reading this policy statement. In the 1959 general elections, Dr Goh Keng Swee, namely, the present Minister for Finance, read out certain policies of the P.A.P. to the people. I quote from the Chinese pamphlet. This is on the economic policy of the P.A.P. It says: 'The objective of the economic policy of the People's Action Party Government will be to obtain for the general masses of the people a happy, full and secure livelihood. Everything which can be done within the limitations of our economy to achieve this will be carried out by the P.A.P. Government.' Mr Speaker, Sir, today, the P.A.P. is holding the reins of government for the third year. The welfare and the wellbeing of the people have not been safeguarded. More people are unemployed. Many graduates of local secondary schools are still unemployed. I shall give a simple example. We read from the newspaper last month that the Ministry of Education wanted to recruit 1,000 teachers from all the language streams as teachers. There were 11,683 applicants. From this it is clear that when the Ministry of Education asked for applications to fill 1,000 posts, there were so many applicants 11,000 applicants from middle school graduates. There are graduates from the Universities who are also unemployed. Cases of robbery and all kinds of crimes are happening everywhere and everyday. The Government does not try to solve these problems. Instead, it resorts to certain tactics and actions against those people who do not see eye to eye with it; for instance, members of the Work Brigade and the staff of the People's Association. From all this, we can see what the Government's attitude to them is. Let us ask the hawkers and the workers what their livelihood has been. They can all tell you that they are very disappointed with the P.A.P. Government. It is true that the P.A.P. Government has been a great disappointment to us. What then is the cause? In the 1959 general elections, did it not clearly promise the people of Singapore to improve the economic situation of Singapore and to resolve unemployment? The P.A.P. also printed in booklet form their promises. I will quote them in order to show that what I am saying is correct. Otherwise they will say I have no proof. From this booklet we can get our answers to rebut them. We can see that all the promises made by the P.A.P. at that time have not been realised. I will mention some of them and to refute everyone of them to show whether the P.A.P. Government has lived up to its promises. In the first book of the P.A.P. pamphlet on the hive-Year Development Plan, there is a short passage which reads: 'Let us briefly consider what factors work to our advantage in industrialisation, where the difficulties are likely to arise, and how our favourable factors can be put to the best advantage to overcome the difficulties. The correct economic policy would then emerge.' In this small pamphlet it is also pointed out that in regard to the industrialisation of Singapore, there are four economic advantages. It says, first, we have in Singapore a hard-working, resourceful and enterprising people. Our workers, if given the proper training facilities to develop their skill, are able to reach the highest standard achieved in a modern industrial nation. Let us examine the first point. How does the P.A.P. Government treat our hardworking, resourceful and enterprising people? Let us see. Not only does the Government not organise and mobilise all workers to create a more beautiful and more reasonable society, but instead it has resorted to all means to defeat them, and give them much trouble. It has also de-registered four trade union federations. The Government is also making use of certain yellow trade unions, which have been banned before, to defeat the other legitimate trade unions. As to the promise of giving the workers certain kinds of training to equip them with higher skills and scientific training in order to serve society, it depends on the people themselves to acquire the knowledge, to study and to practise. Given encouragement by the Government all this can be realised. But the basic attitude of the P.A.P. towards the workers is not a friendly one. It is at enmity with the workers. How can they talk about improving the technique and skill of the workers? Let us talk about the Singapore Polytechnic, which is meant to train workers, to provide personnel skilled in scientific knowledge. But how many workers have the Polytechnic trained? How many workers are studying there? The Polytechnic does not provide any technical education to Chinese stream students. The pamphlet says that the second advantage of Singapore is that its central position, with its excellent sea communications with all places in the world, gives her an advantageous position to obtain cheap raw materials from nearby countries. The absence of the raw materials in the island itself will not be such a drawback to industrialisation since we can obtain cheap supplies from nearby countries. Now, that is the second advantage Singapore has in industrialisation. Since we have these favourable conditions and these advantages, why has the Government not tried to make use of them to carry out its promises? Why then does the Government make such pathetic accusations as that it does not have raw materials and skilled labourers and other things and contradict what it has said before? As to the third advantage, the pamphlet says there is a fairly substantial amount of capital accumulated by local concerns and public authorities; that much of this capital is lying idle or is invested in foreign countries. This advantage would give confidence to the people in respect of the future economic prospects of Singapore. But all these good prospects can materialise only if Singapore can shake away from colonial economic control and shake away the yoke of colonial rulers, and promote the local economy and encourage local people to take part in economic activities. But what the P.A.P. Government has done during their term of office has greatly disappointed us. The P.A.P. rulers have kowtowed to colonial rulers. They are now trying to grovel. They are now trying to resort to appeasing foreign capitalists, to come to terms with them. They have neglected our economic development and industrialisation policy. In this respect, there is one very important factor, which is to make use of our present local capital and not try to depend entirely on the investment of foreign capital. This point is also mentioned in the Chinese pamphlet of The Tasks Ahead. It says:- 'The P.A.P. profoundly disagrees that the survival of Singapore depends on foreign capital and foreign capitalists. That is to say, there is ample local capital for this task.' It continues to say: 'But it would be foolish to imagine that whatever we do, foreign capital will come in on the scale needed to solve our problems. Our salvation lies in our own hands. There are no benevolent foreigners knocking around the world anxious to discharge these duties and responsibilities which are rightly our own.' There are also a few lines which say: 'Let us never forget that self-government is not possible without self-reliance. This is true both in politics as well as in economics.' Mr Speaker, Sir, this is what the P.A.P. promised in 1959. How grand it sounds! But it is a pity that our Minister for Finance is not here. He has said that we should not face our economic problems with the mental attitudes appropriate to colonial servitude. Can he still remember what he said? I believe he has relegated this statement of his to oblivion. During these 30 months, how has the P.A.P. Government dealt with the economic situation? Has it carried out its promises? I am not a Doctor of Economics. I have not studied economics much. Of course, I am not used to giving grand talks on economic theories, but from the realities of life and facts, I feel they have already forgotten their resolute belief made at that time. I say this not because I am now in the Opposition. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, I also mentioned this to him on many occasions. I suggested to him how to deal with the local economic situation and how to deal with foreign capitalists. But he seemed to feel that he is a very famous economist well known in Singapore, so he took my suggestions as something acquired from others. When somebody else says so, I also say so. That is what he thought of my suggestions. But during its 30 months of office, has the P.A.P. Government taken steps to encourage local capitalists and industrialists? Has it tried to gather scattered local capital in order to invest locally and to develop local industries? We have to ask our local national capitalists and industrialists this question. Their answer will be the same, that they are greatly disappointed. The Government has not done so. The P.A.P. Government has not only not reclaimed the money invested in England to invest it in local industries, but instead it has reinvested large sums of money in England. How disappointing it is to us. The P.A.P. Government is giving special treatment to foreign capitalists and their local compradores. It has given foreign monopolistic capitalists a five-year tax holiday from income tax. It has also given them pioneer status and certain favourable terms for certain Government industries and manufactures. Although local capitalists and manufacturers can apply to have such terms, there is a provision in the Income Tax Ordinance which gives the Government power to claim arrears of tax retrospectively for 12 years. Of course, the Government, if it is in the hands of the people, can have such a law to prevent the evasion of paying tax. But during the previous Government the people tried to evade paying tax. This was inevitable because, during those colonial days, this was one way to hit at the colonial rulers by evading paying taxes to the colonial government. When the relevant laws were formulated in those days, they were specially meant to deal with the general public. But now, if anybody or any national capitalist tries to evade paying tax, he will be running a risk. It is mostly in the past that they tried to evade tax. If they were to, put in capital, they run the risk of investigation by the Government under the present law and they fear that they may be required to pay the tax which they evaded in the past. Therefore, they would rather carry out some other kind of business in order to avoid investigation by the Government. So this policy of the Government is not very correct. It is trying to get golden eggs by killing the goose which lays the golden eggs. But in the end it will lose both the golden eggs and the goose. If only it does not take stringent restrictive measures against the local nationalist industrialists and capitalists who help to promote local industries, commerce and trade, and economic development, they will be more than willing to help. But the Government is in favour of foreign capitalists, and is neglecting our local national capitalists and industrialists. How can the Government now explain away what it has said before, of encouraging our local industrialists and nationalists? How can the Government now be able to stimulate economy and achieve its economic purposes? I will again quote from the small pamphlet on the economic policy of the P.A.P.: 'Let us never forget that self-government is not possible without self-reliance. This is true both in politics as well as in economics.'. The Minister for Finance must be very absent-minded, because how can he now explain this? Perhaps he has now forgotten what he said in 1959. When touching on the fourth advantage of industrialisation in Singapore, he said that large natural markets exist in neighbouring countries with whom the merchants of Singapore have good relations and that manufacturers in Singapore could have access to these markets provided they could produce goods at competitive prices. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is obvious. There are large natural markets existing in our neighbouring countries, not only in the Federation of Malaya. The P.A.P. is adopting a grovelling attitude to the Federation of Malaya as though the people of Singapore cannot exist without the Federation of Malaya. The P.A.P. Government despises our local capitalists and industrialists. It does not encourage and guide them. What is the use then of these large natural markets? The Government has ignored the local capitalists and industrialists. For instance, most of the people engaged in the biscuit, soap and leather-shoe industries have closed down. Some of them have gone bankrupt while others are in a very bad economic situation. Are these not good examples? If the Government had taken good care of them so that they could have sold their products at a lower cost to world-wide markets since they had close links with these markets - the local economy would have improved. We should try to lay a sound foundation for our local economy to help the local industries prosper. But has the Government done anything towards reaching this objective? Has it any plans? No, none at all. Let us see again whether the P.A.P. Government, during the last 30 months of its office, has tried to remedy any defects in industrialisation. In their small pamphlet there is a passage which reads: 'On the other side of the picture, there are certain weaknesses. The first is that the free entry of foreign goods places local manufacturers at a disadvantageous position especially in lines where it would take some years for a factory to reach full efficiency. Also foreign price-cutting is not unknown as a method of killing locally established industries. This increases the risk of investing in manufacturing industries.'. In order to cure this weakness, we must first break away from the colonial economic yoke, eliminate the colonial forces and help establish local industries. That is the basic method. The preservation of Singapore's status as a free port and the development of Singapore as an industrial island are two contradictory objectives. Therefore, the Government should try to find some means whereby we can preserve our entrepot trade and, at the same time, promote industrialisation so that we can offer more opportunities for employment to our rapidly increasing population. Therefore, we have to expand our industries rapidly. In order to protect our local industrial products against foreign goods and at the same time compete in other markets, the Government should impose certain tariffs on foreign goods. But it is regrettable that the Government has-

Order. I do not know whether the Member for Havelock has had an opportunity of seeing the Bill presented yesterday. It is called the Customs Dumping and Subsidies Bill which seeks to do exactly what the hon. Member is urging now. I would suggest that if he has any comments on that particular aspect of his speech, he reserve it until the Second Reading of the Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason is that we have not received the Bill in question. I was talking about how to protect the locally manufactured goods and local industries, that the locally manufactured goods have been badly hit because of competition with foreign goods.

Order. I think the hon. Member is now going into too much details. I have indicated that there is a Bill which has been introduced and when we come to debate it, he can go into these details. Let us touch on general policies.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if that is the case, I will go on to the second weakness in the P.A.P.'s economic policy. This is very important. In the P.A.P.'s pamphlet, it is stated: 'The second disadvantage is that the large market in the Federation is not open to Singapore on the same terms as it is open to the Federation manufacturers. A factory in Johore Bahru does not pay import duty on its products but one sited five miles away along Bukit Timah Road will have to pay a duty on goods exported to the Federation. So long as this is the case, there will be a strong incentive to manufacturers to establish plants in the Federation rather than in Singapore.'. This is what the Minister for Finance said at that time. Everybody can clearly understand how the Federation Government is treating us. It is just like an elder brother bullying a younger brother who has all the time been tolerant of such treatment. Let us recall what the P.A.P. said in 1959. This is to be found in the Chinese version of the pamphlet: 'Hitherto, Federation manufacturers have enjoyed not only free access to Singapore markets but could also depend on Singapore's entrepot services to help them to penetrate overseas markets. On the other hand, Singapore's products are treated as foreign goods in the Federation. The Federation need not assume that such a one-sided arrangement could continue indefinitely. The establishment of a common tariff-free market within the framework of a larger economic union based on a co-ordinated development programme is the only way whereby both territories can find answers to their pressing economic problems. It goes on to say: 'It will be foolish in the extreme for one territory to take temporary advantage of the other, for this will set off a chain reaction of reprisals and counter reprisals which will lead to the ruin of both territories. In Malaya, as indeed elsewhere, prosperity is indivisible.'' This has been correct. Discussions on a common commodity market between Singapore and the Federation have been going on for two years. Up to now, this question is still being discussed between the two Governments. This proves that the Federation Government does not have any regard for the wishes and hopes of the people of Singapore. Where then are the ambitious aims which the P.A.P. manifested some time ago? The P.A.P. are adopting an ignominous, shameful and begging attitude by asking the Federation to help them. This description by me is not exaggerated. Let us examine what the P.A.P. said in 1959 in their pamphlet: 'A P.A.P. Government in negotiating with the Federation Government for the abolition of import duty on Singapore manufactures need not approach the Federation Government in the role of supplicants for favours.' Is it not very clear from this? The P.A.P. said that we would not approach the Federation Government in the role of supplicants for favours. Let us now hear again what the, Minister for Finance said on the 25th November, 1959, when he made his Budget Statement. He pointed out that the interests of the two territories are indivisible. It is to be found in Volume 11, No. 13, col. 780 of Hansard. Then he said: 'It is clear from the foregoing account that an arrangement of this kind accepts the fact of the economic unity of the two territories. Whatever the political divisions, it is obvious that they must co-operate in economic fields and it would be injurious to both countries to take an independent and competitive line of action in promoting industrial growth. From the point of view of the prospective manufacturer, the attraction of investing in Malaya would immensely increase. A Federation investor, for instance, would be assured of a protected market not only in his own country, but also in Singapore. Similarly, a Singapore manufacturer would not have to surmount the tariff wall which the Federation now places against Singapore products. It is therefore hoped that an early decision would be reached. Any delay in reaching a decision would merely mean that prospective investors may be induced to adopt a waiting policy. Singapore's attraction as a partner to the common market is much greater than the comparison of the population figures of the two territories would suggest. While the Federation has more than four persons to one Singaporean, the purchasing power of the two territories by no means follows this ratio. This is because ---'.

Order. I really do not know what the hon. Member for Havelock is driving at. He is either in favour of or against the Common Market, I do not know. If he is in favour of the Common Market, all he need say is to tell the Government to carry on with it. But going into these details is irrelevant. We are on general policies.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I mention this to elucidate what the Minister for Finance said in 1959, and to show how the P.A.P. rulers have forgotten what they promised at that time, and that they have not-

Order. I do not think we should carry on with what was debated in 1959. We are now debating what is being said in 1961. There is something about the Common Market, I think, in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. Well, let us confine ourselves to the Common Market as a general policy.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not oppose this Common Market with the Federation of Malaya, but we think that negotiations by the present P.A.P. Government on the question of a Common Market have not come to any results yet. Instead the P.A.P. Government is taking a kind of grovelling attitude towards the Federation of Malaya. Mr Speaker, if you think it is not necessary to quote what the Minister for Finance has said for comparison, then I will not mention it again. But there is one point, Mr Speaker. I think, in criticising the Go vernment, the most effective weapon is to attack it with its own words. The economic interests of the two territories are indivisible. Neither side should take advantage of the other side, but the Federation of Malaya achieved independence in 1957. After its independence, the Federation Government not only has not helped us but has been pressing hard on us, somewhat like persecuting us. Yet the present P.A.P. Government is adopting a kind of trying to please attitude.

Order. I do not think the hon. Member is justified in debating the policy of the Federation Government now. The Federation Government is a friendly government and I do not think he ought to say anything derogatory about it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, are we supposed to stare at the P.A.P. while they sell out the interests of the people of Singapore? Of course, we should not allow them to do such a thing. But, Mr Speaker, we think that Singapore can stand by itself. We do not have to kowtow to anybody. We do not have to supplicate anybody. Everything in the world is created by labour. As long as we have faith in ourselves, we can live and exist. There is nothing difficult in the world. The only hindrance is that there is no faith in oneself. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us now examine the fourth weakness. It says the merchants of Singapore pay too much attention to commerce and little attention to industries. Singapore has been the centre of commerce for over a hundred years. The British colonialists, for the sake of exploiting the primary materials, products and wealth of South-East Asia, did not in the past try to expand the local trading facilities. Whatever they did was only for their own interests. They did not have the interests of the local people at heart. They did not have any intention to promote our local industries. So without any safeguard, local national capitalists and industrialists would not dare to invest money in industries. We should blame the British colonialists for what they did. But the present P.A.P. Government has not accused the British colonialists. Instead the Government is accusing the local industrialists and capitalists of not in vesting locally. It has also accused the workers in Singapore of not following the line of the Government. As I have said just now, Singapore has been a commercial port for over a hundred years. So to revert it to an industrial centre is not a very easy matter. Therefore, the Government will have to encourage local industrialists and mer chants and national capitalists, to persuade them and give them more confidence, and try to help them in all ways to give them confidence to invest locally, to promote industries and to create more employment opportunities. The livelihood of the people will then be solved partially. But the Government has not encouraged local national capitalists and industrialists to develop local industries. On the other hand, it has only been ridiculing the simple family industries and businesses carried on by them. Of course, industries managed by a family are not run on scientific lines. But the Government has the duty to teach them, to encourage them, to help them run their businesses on modern lines. So this attitude of the Government is only impeding the development of industries in Singapore. When the country is at the beginning of industrialisation programme, we cannot expect it to be up to modern standards, up to 100 per cent. Our local national capitalists have been going through a long period in which they have been exploited by foreign monopolistic capitalists. They have been suffering. But the Government has not tried to help them. The Government has said that it wants to help build local industries. But, on the other hand, it is actually helping foreign monopolistic capitalists in industry locally. There are foreign monopolistic concerns established. That is the Shell Oil Refinery. When it was established, the concern employed only one extra worker. I remember that-

It is getting rather fantastic how the Barisan Sosialis Members are repeating arguments which have been advanced by their own Members in this Chamber. Let us try not to repeat. Let us touch generally on the Government's policy. Mr Low.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

Order. Business motion.

7.17 p.m. Resolved, "That the proceedings on item 1 on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1." - [Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no intention to repeat what others have said. What I want to do is to mention the most important point. Having done so much, the said company only engaged one extra worker. From what we have revealed about the various economic advantages and disadvantages of Singapore, we can easily come to this conclusion, which is that the P.A.P. Government, which has been in office for 30 months, has not carried out its promises made in 1959. The whole economic policy is near the stage of bankruptcy. The livelihood of the people has become more difficult. The whole situation in Singapore is very confused. It is in a state of turmoil. All this can be attributed to the P.A.P. In the P.A.P.'s pamphlet, it is also mentioned that the unemployment problem in Singapore is very acute. If we do not try to resolve this problem now, then by 1962 the situation will be out of hand. It will be very difficult to tackle it. The P.A.P. is now trying to salvage its political fortunes and to save itself from dying. To do so, it is now trying to carry out a kind of phoney merger in order to achieve its own purpose of maintaining its political position and political power. Lastly, I want to say that if we want to make the economy of Singapore a prosperous one, we have, on the one hand, to eliminate colonial influences and forces and, on the other hand, to try to build an independent and autonomous economic system. Therefore, our major economic tasks now are, first, to eradicate colonial economic control and economic forces and to eradicate all kinds of unreasonable phenomena from our society. When there is no exploitation of man by man can we then achieve our purpose of having a more just and equal society, which is our long-term aim. 7.21 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to waste the time of this Assembly to do roundabout talking, because we have been sitting in this Assembly for quite sometime and we are almost tired of words being repeated again and again. I do not think this is necessary for the people of Singapore. I feel that we, as represen tatives of the people, are big enough and we are quite aware. We can understand what we say. But unfortunately there are people who could not understand. My intention in debating the Address of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in connection with the Government's policy is to draw the attention of the Government, who has governed Singapore for two and a half years, to certain things. It is necessary for us to look back during the two and a half years and see what are the achievements confronting us now. This Government was elected to power because it promised to bring prosperity to the people of Singapore. The people of Singapore are still waiting for the promises to be fulfilled. But what we get is just the reverse. There are things which are not satisfactory to us. There are political conflicts among the people. We find more unemployment, and it is getting worse each day. This is one instance which shows that the Government, who claims to be a socialist Government, has not fulfilled the promises it made. Another instance is this. There are rules and regulations as to where hawkers are to set up stalls and what will happen to them if they do not comply with those rules. It is not that these hawkers wish to be like this, but they have to rely on their livelihood as hawkers. But it is wise on the part of Government to plan long-term development programmes, although the results will not be achieved within a short space of one year, two years or three years. Such long-term objectives will not immediately effect a change in the livelihood of the people. Everyone in Singapore needs all the basic necessities and amenities of life, as are required by ordinary human beings. A short-term objective can be achieved within a specified time. It is not because we are half independent but because of the restrictive constitutional conditions that we are barred from finding ways and means. I feel this is merely an excuse put forward which is not in the interest of the public. I think there is no difficulty which cannot be resolved. If there is a will, there is a way, Mr Speaker. For instance, today we are providing houses. There are unemployed persons and the money spent an housing will be wasted because the houses will not be occupied by people because they are unable to afford the rentals. This is the reason as explained by a Member of this Assembly. This cannot wholly resolve the unemployment problem. On the contrary, it will lead to communal distrust. They will have no faith in the Work Brigade which, it is said, was in fact established for the good of the people, although the object of the Work Brigade was to help in the implementation of the Government's development programmes. I do not wish to go deeply into the details, but it is obvious that the Work Brigade is merely for the good of the party in power and not for the good of the people of Singapore. Similarly, Mr Speaker, although we admit that the present Government was elected on the basis of parliamentary democracy and that it is the responsibility of the Government to govern, we cannot get the support of the people if the methods of administration are not implemented in the true spirit of democracy. Democracy does not mean that the Party that has been elected to power can force plans down the throats of the people. The people are not like hens which we feed with maize. We as humans beings can distinguish the good from the bad. The Prime Minister himself has admitted that he has no confidence in nominating persons to the Public Service Commission who are not closely asso ciated with the P.A.P. So when such a method is adopted naturally there is a feeling of dissatisfaction among those persons who cannot get through the P.S.C. I think this question of having no faith in the non-P.A.P. members is a mistake, because the Government are not merely responsible for P.A.P. members. They are not going to provide a livelihood for P.A.P. member's alone. They are responsible for all the people of Singapore, numbering 1½ million. Therefore, if this practice is continued by the Government - we experienced Japanese administration for over 3½ years - I fear more chaotic conditions will be suffered by the people of Singapore. On the subject of land planning, Mr Speaker, I know the Government is basing it on the Master Plan which, according to this policy speech, says that the Master Plan will be revised to fit in with the prevailing conditions as to the provision of houses for the public and the development of factories and so on. I would like here to draw the Government's attention to the fact that it is right and proper that some revision be made to the Master Plan. I think suggestions for the amendments have already been submitted to the Government for consideration. I raise this matter, Mr Speaker, in view of the unsettled conditions, that is to say, wherever vacant land is found, there will be erected unauthorised huts. But I do not wish to go into details. Admittedly in accordance with the law the people who build these unauthorised huts are at fault. These people deserve to be punished. The Government has taken action to demolish these huts. But one thing which I would like to awaken the Government to is that these people are the people who have been neglected. To the best of my knowledge, these people are unemployed or are not fully employed. They are hawkers selling satay and things like that. They are renting cubicles at $20 per month, sometimes $25 per month. They do not like to rent such cubicles because of the unhealthy and insanitary conditions. Naturally they wish to seek better accommodation. These cubicles are not in accordance with the building regulations. Because circumstances force them to do so, they have no alternative but to erect unauthorised huts. Although these unauthorised huts had been demolished by the Government, they were prepared to live in them. So this is a matter to which the Government should give serious consideration. These people are prepared for the worst. They are not prepared to quit. This is a serious matter and I have brought it to the knowledge of the Prime Minister. I have suggested to him how this delicate problem could be overcome. But up to today, my Party has not yet received a positive reply whether our recommendations have been accepted in order to overcome this very delicate problem. In this policy debate I have heard Members of the Barisan Sosialis who, in addition to attacking the present P.A.P. Government, have also seen fit to criticise the Federation Government which is not in this Chamber. But as a member of a Party-

I think the hon. Member did hear me over-rule the Member for Havelock when he attacked the Federation Government. I do not think he should expand on that now.

(In Malay): I bow to your ruling, Mr Speaker. I will not reply to the criticisms levelled by the Member for Havelock. Once again I emphasise that the elected representa tives of the people must speak with sincerity, that all that they express in this Assembly is, in fact, for the benefit of the people. If they have to depend on the backroom boys, I think it is no use. 7.42 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the third policy statement read out by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in regard to the Government's policy, and we feel very disappointed. We realise the P.A.P. Government is now at a loss to know what to do, and so it has to pin its hopes on merger to save its fate

Order. I have repeatedly directed hon. Members to keep away from the subject of merger. We have dealt with it. It should not even be touched upon in passing.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just mentioned the word "merger" in passing. I will not mention other details. Mr Speaker, Sir

Order. Perhaps what I have said has not been understood by the Member. I have indicated that the word "merger" or any reference to merger even in passing might provoke rejoinders. So the best thing any hen. Member can do is to refrain from touching on merger, which took us, I think, about 12 days to dispose of.

(In Mandarin): I thank you for your direction, Mr Speaker, Sir. Let us look at the P.A.P. in its handling of the political and economic fields. What has the P.A.P. achieved in 21 years in the political and economic fields? The answer is nothing. The negotiation for a common market between Singapore and the Federation has not come to fruition. This House has not been informed of any result so far. The Four-Year Development Plan, as far as we can see, is nothing but a mere plan in which the P.A.P. tries to make itself happy. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the whole of the policy statement for the present session, we can discover that the Government is now indulging in another kind of argument. It is contradictory to what they said last year. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like your permission to make some quotations from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech appearing in column 12 of Hansard dated 31st October, 1961: 'With merger now in prospect, the assumptions on which the original economic policies of the Government were based must be reviewed. As part of a greater entity, Singapore can stand up better to its...'-

Order. Here again the Member for Punggol is developing an argument which involves merger. I have indicated that that has already been dealt with and I do not want a debate to develop on any aspect of merger.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember that the Minister for Finance declared last year that the Government wanted to increase the registration fees of businesses and the property tax. At that time, my colleague the Member for Hong Lim, with a mandate from the people, criticised the Minister for Finance by saying that the Estimates were going to extract money from the people. The Minister for Finance tried to defend himself and this resulted in a very heated debate. At that time, the Government insisted on its own views and refused to revise its economic policy which was based on a certain assumption. The P.A.P., in wanting to prevent itself from coming to a political end, changes its policy from time to time. We can see this very often and there is no need for us to speak a lot on this. In order to survive, the P.A.P. has resorted to all sorts of tactics. It has restored the pay cuts and it has cancelled the registration fees for business and professions. The Government is now in a pathetic position. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have already approved about $6 million as expenditure for the Work Brigade next year. This is a considerable amount of money. But we have not as yet seen any comprehensive plan which the Government proposes for the Work Brigade. I am not personally against the Work Brigade or its members who are very young and useful people. If the Government can take good care of them, they would then be able to help in nation building.

7.50 p.m. Unfortunately, due to a lack of leadership and ability and the lack of a comprehensive plan, these young people are just like heroes who have no way to express their abilities. As a result of this, public funds are being wasted on the Work Brigade. This is, however, not so bad. But now the Government is even making use of military forces and the police to suppress members of the Work Brigade. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I can see that this Government is becoming more and more fierce. The Prime Minister is now as fierce as Hitler was. I think if this amount of $6 million is spent on the construction of roads and amenities in the rural areas, the people in the rural areas will derive a great deal of benefit. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we can see that the Government have done hardly anything in respect of health. We know that the population of Singapore is increasing from day to day. At present the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital has to attend to too many people. I wonder whether the Government are considering any plan to expand this hospital. As a result of the present congestion, many pregnant women can only stay in the hospital for one day. As a result of this, mothers and babies are not receiving proper care. On the other hand, instead of doing something to extend the hos pital, the, Government are building more and more community centres from public funds. Sir, the P.A.P. have not helped the poor people very much. I can quote an example to illustrate this. Clinics, which are a help to the poor people, are not being built in great numbers. I want to quote some facts to, show how the Government are ill-treating our poor people in Singapore. At the 6th milestone, Upper Serangoon Road, there is an old post office which has been turned into a children's welfare clinic. This old post office building is very small and every day you have many mothers bringing their children to this converted clinic because they cannot afford to incur medical expenses. When there is a big crowd, they have to line up in the hot sun. I would like to ask the Government whether such treatment of the poor people is proper. On the contrary, we can take a look at the other side of the picture. In Upper Serangoon Road, there is a new community centre which is closed in the day. It is only used in the night when there are a few people playing some games. At the 9th milestone, Punggol, there is not even a single clinic although it is a very crowded area. The Government would do a better job if they spend money on the building of more clinics than on community centres. We made these proposals during the Hong Lim by-election. Sir, I remember that when the P.A.P. came to power in 1959, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who is now the Member for Nee Soon, invited me to visit the Woodbridge Hospital which is in the constituency of Punggol. I had occasion to visit the voters living in the neighbourhood and I noted that the workers lived in a crowded area. In some cases, many people lived in a small room. The ventilation was bad and so was the other aspect of health. Therefore, I asked the Minister for Health to pay a visit to this place. He agreed to do so and we went together to inspect the quarters of the workers. The Minister for Health agreed to my suggestion and promised to do something about it. He even went to the extent of saying in an angry tone that this came about as a result of colonial rule. He told the workers that the Government would do their best to improve their living conditions. But now the Minister has changed and the promised improvement has not come about. I hope the new Minister for Health will one day pay this place a visit. A man with the physique of the Minister for Health will not be able to go into the building. I am not making a joke at his expense, but it is a fact that the building is too small for him to enter. Sir, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister referred to what the Government have done in respect of road construction in the rural areas. Yes, we agree and we cannot deny what they have done, but what I want to say is that they have not been doing things in a positive manner. The construction of roads and the installation of standpipes were carried out to a great extent by the present Member for Hong Lim who was then the Minister for National Development. Within a short period of one year about 300 standpipes were installed. I spent two weeks working on the job. In the morning I had to get up at 6 a.m. to go out with the engineers-

Order. The Member is going into details, such as how the Member worked, and so on. We are discussing the speech setting out the Government's policy.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will not take long. I am just mentioning it in passing. And so this work was done, to a great extent, by the former Minister for National Development. The remaining part of the work has been done by the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee. Its present President is the Member for Tampines who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister. He lives in the rural area and he knows this area well. He is an old man to whom I pay respect. He is one of those old men whom I respect most. So I hope he will, in the spirit of service to the people, carry out work in the rural area with the powers which I hope the Government will give him. I believe that during his term of office he will be able to-

Order. I think the hon. Member should discuss the Government policy, and not, the Member for Tampines' personal policy. Will the Member please come back to the subject of the debate?

(In Mandarin): I am of the opinion that this work in the rural area is closely connected with the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee. Now I am making some views in this respect. I hope that this is not a departure from the debate. What I have been saying is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister knows full well the conditions in the rural area. I hope the Government will give him more powers to enable him to do some work in the rural area during his term of office. In the meantime, with the additional powers he has, he will be able to do some more work for the welfare and interest of the rural people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me touch upon the land and building constructions in the rural area, especially the procedure for applications to build houses. During the general elections, the P.A.P. used to promise the people that once t came to power it would simplify all applications and procedures for permission to put up houses. But now, as far as I can see, there has been little improvement in this line. I am of the opinion that the Planning Department is closely related to the rural area, because mans parts of the rural areas have been referred to as "the green belt" on which no houses will be allowed. On the one hand, the land in the rural area is not well defined as far as the boundaries are concerned. So when the rural people apply to the Land Office for permission to put up houses, they are always turned down by the Planning Department because there is a lack of land. Now, if a piece of land is not defined, well, there will be no roads. It does not mean that inside the land there is no system of roads. If this situation is not improved, then the rural people will find it difficult to get permission to put up attap huts. The procedures regarding such applications should be simplified as far as possible. It is the stand of the United People's Party which has not changed at all. When we were struggling with the P.A.P. we had the courage and confidence to fight it. We the United People's Party will continue the work left behind by the P.A.P. in the City Council and we will try to do our best to express the opinion of the people and to alleviate the suffering of all classes of people. 8.08 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, two and a half years ago the keynote in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech was one of great confidence and optimism regarding the future. In that speech he gave us three forecasts of fine weather ahead. The first was that the P.A.P. Government would build up a climate of confidence for great expansion and industrial growth. The second forecast was that there would be political stability since the Party in power held 43 out of 51 seats in the Assembly. The third forecast was that there would be no industrial unrest; instead there would be industrial peace with justice. Sir, at that time the Opposition was very small in number, but we warned the Government that there would be hidden rocks ahead, that there would be unseen dangers-

Thirteen unseen rocks!

- and that there might be stormy weather. Sir, at that time the Members of the Barisan Sosialis were Members of the Government Party. Today the hidden rocks have become visible. Today, the three weather forecasts have proved to be wrong. Instead of a climate of confidence, we have today a climate of uncertainty among the people. Instead of political stability as promised, there is now great instability, and the Government majority has been reduced to one vote. Instead of industrial peace, there is now grave industrial unrest and an epidemic of strikes. We now see Singapore becoming a veritable battle-ground of two contending groups of trade unions - an unfortunate state of affairs which the Government seems unwilling to tackle vigorously. Apparently things have been allowed to go on indefinitely. Under the circumstances, no wonder the tone ,in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech this year is no longer optimistic but instead is a very cautious one. The Government now talks about two roads - the main highway leading to peace and prosperity, and the sidepath leading to disunity, to chaos and to economic ruination. Sir, we contend that we are not at the crossroads. We contend that since 1959 the people of Singapore have been led down that sidepath to chaos and economic ruination. Sir, we hold both the P.A.P. and the Barisan responsible. They misrepresented the sidepath then as being the main highway. And today, instead of having greater peace, unity and prosperity, we are already in a serious state of affairs. We are not facing the crossroads. We are not facing a political crisis or economic crisis. We are now in the midst of a political and an economic crisis. I am sure the P.A.P. now agrees, Sir. The problem of unemployment has been soft-pedalled. We know, and all political Parties know, that we are facing a very grave situation as regards the unemployment problem. The Government has seen fit, while mentioning the seriousness of the situation, to underplay it and say that it has been partly alleviated by the present boom in the building industry. Employment figures in that industry show that the number of people employed has not reached the level of that in 1957. [Interruption] We will come to that, Sir. The Government has decided that, under the circumstances, it is impossible to solve the unemployment problem without remedying the political situation. We are not allowed to touch on the question of merger, Sir, and so I will not refer to that. But in the Four-Year Development Plan, they did say that under certain very favourable circumstances described as "under conditions of maximum acceleration" the Government hoped to solve this problem by inducing private investors to invest to the tune of $600 million to provide jobs for 30,000 workers. The rate estimated would be $20,000 per job per worker. Sir, that is the target which under the present circumstances we know cannot be achieved, even in the next two years. If the conditions were as in the Federation, one could say that the target could be achieved. But under the present conditions, what do we see? Instead of maximum acceleration, we might describe the conditions in Singapore as those of maximum retardation and friction, because in the struggle for political power between the Barisan group and the Government group, the welfare, the livelihood, the prosperity of the people have become subordinated. This is most unfortunate, because the situation is really grave and almost desperate. When we think of the workers of Singapore, people have not realised that we must think not in terms of the workers in employment only but also of the workers in unemployment and those leaving school seeking employment. According to the Government's estimate, there will be in 1964 something like 83,600 unemployed. Sir, I believe this is an underestimate. Very likely the figure is very near 100,000 or even more. It has not been realised by many people that there is another picture somewhat hidden, and that is that the number of workers employed has since 1957 been reduced by something like 15,000. I shall be quoting figures to support this. So we have a double picture of this tragedy. One, employment since 1957 becoming less and less and less; more and more being retrenched. The number in the queue of unemployed seeking employ ment increasing year by year because of the thousands coming in from the schools.

No birth control!

Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister has estimated that the annual intake is something like 15,000, increasing year by year. In the 1960 Annual Report of the Labour Department, Command Paper 24 of 1961, the total number of employed workers in Singapore was 123,000 in 1957. In September 1959 it went down to 106,800, and in the following year, in September 1960, it went down again to 105,600. I am quoting this sentence, Sir: 'The above figures give a picture of declining employment.' A total reduction of 17,400 workers in three years. Sir, the field of building construction, regarded as the most optimistic field that - I agree - shows the same decline from 1957 and a slight rise, I might say, beginning in 1960. We hope building construction will increase in volume as the years go on. The figures, however, from 1957 have been very discouraging. In September 1957, there were 15,000 workers in the construction industry. In 1958, 12,000 workers. I think-

Order. I think the hon. Member is going into too many details. This decline in unemployment has been dealt with at length at the beginning of this session by the Opposition Members who put the question to the Government side. Even during this debate, this decline has been quoted in the Labour Department's Report. The Government has given an explanation. I think the hon. Member should come back to the general principle of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

Sir, I am touching on something quite new. It has been shown that unemployment has been increasing-yes. But it has not been shown that the employment figures have been decreasing. I am showing here that by the time we reached September 1959, it has gone up to 8,000.

Order. I think the Member can just touch on it as a passing remark, but not in detail.

If that has been accepted by the Government, Sir, we proceed to the next. What was this factor that happened in 1957 that brought about an economic crisis? In 1957, the People's Action Party took control of the City Council. A new factor came into the scene. Less workers in employment. In 1959, another new factor came on to the political scene. The P.A.P. won control of this Assembly by 43 against a small Opposition. Strange to say, the victory of a Party that has declared itself to be for the workers resulted in a less number of workers being employed. Sir, today the Barisan star has come out of the lightning or from behind the lightning. It remains to show whether in future the people have learnt a lesson, whether the workers of Singapore are going to suffer some more. We hope that by this time they have learnt to read the signs. Sir, in 1959 when we warned that there would be rocks and stormy weather, they laughed at us. Now we see the rocks here, [Laughter] and we realise that it is not a laughing matter for the people of Singapore. They laughed, Sir, but we did not laugh. They took a tiger, put a pink ribbon round it and then told us and the public, "This is a tame pussy-cat being domesticated. There is no fear at all."

It will bite you!

Order.

Today they have learnt that we must give respect to the tiger and let it be free in its own habitat.

They are behind you!

We cannot expect to ride the tiger and fare well. Maybe they fare well. But we do not fare well. The Prime Minister has given up the role of trying to hide his tiger. We notice that the Member for Queenstown is undertaking this job. Maybe being a doctor by profession, Sir, he hopes to chloroform-

Order. I think the hon. Member should bear in mind that we are debating the Government policy as outlined in the Yang di- Pertuan Negara's speech. When listening to the Member, it seems to me that he is completely away from the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am trying to give the cause of this political instability which is a very important factor in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. I am trying to show that this political instability will continue so long as the tiger is being treated like a pussy-cat. If the Barisan leader is trying to treat it in the way the Prime Minister did, then he may regretfully meet with the same fate. I was trying to show that he, being a doctor, might try another method, to chloroform the tiger, but in the struggle, the stopper of the chloroform bottle might get loose and the doctor himself become chloroformed. I am glad to see that Members of the Government know from experience that this can happen. Sir, the Member for Stamford made a statement with which we wholeheartedly agree. She said there are women who want employment in order to secure bread and freedom. The only thing is that she limited that freedom to freedom so that the wife could be independent of the husband. Sir, I am sure, in fairness to husbands, she should allow the same freedom to the husbands. In political life the same principle holds good. When we want bread and freedom for ourselves, whether we are in a community or in a party or in a nation, we must concede that there must be also the same desire to allow bread and freedom to be available to people of other groups, even to other political Parties, and other communities. In that spirit democracy will prevail. I shall now touch very briefly on certain aspects in the policy statement of the Government. First, on housing. Few people realise that whenever private enterprise builds three houses in the city area, one house is donated to the Government, and for every four houses built outside the city area, another goes to the Government. So that by encouraging private people to build, workers to own their own houses, the Government is lightening the burden that they could carry themselves. No doubt they have removed the development charges, but I have been told that they have increased the deposits to the point where they will become a deterrent. I hope the Government will look into this matter because, if it is their desire to encourage housing, here is one way by which they can encourage it. Let us remember that Government will be benefiting in the long run not only through houses, as they are donated to them, but by way of increased revenue, payment of light, water and other charges. Sir, on education, I understand the Government is thinking of building multi-storey primary schools, and that the first one will be in the Selegie Road area and there will be 7 storeys -

Ten.

Ten storeys. This has been tried in certain cities. When f was in New York I remember being shown a very tall building and they said that was a school. Sir, I hope the Minister has taken all precautions to prevent accidents, because young children, being thoughtless, are apt to push one another and there have been instances where small children have been pushed out of windows. Luckily, in these particular cases, they just fell to ground level, about six feet below. Precautionary measures would require wire mesh over windows. Another thing is the lift, lifts are liable to go wrong. I hope there will be liftmen provided. We cannot expecct young children to know all these things. After one experiment, if the results are not proved to be very good, I wonder if the Minister will reconsider the whole thing and have multi-storey secondary schools rather than primary schools, because secondary school boys can always have their games on playgrounds sited a distance away from their schools. Sir, when the Government carry out their policy of having the good boys in schools in the city area and the failures in schools in the rural areas, great hardship will befall parents who are unable to pay the extra transport involved and they are now being forced through circumstances to look for private schools in the city area. Under the circumstances, it may be wise for the Government to reconsider the present policy of actually killing the private schools by allowing those private schools which are up to the right standard to carry on, because they are also playing a useful part in solving this problem of education over here. Sir, regarding the Government policy of building more and more State schools so that they exceed the number of aided schools, I think it is only right that the Government should bear the greater responsibility. But let us also remember that it is important to provide keen competition for the Government schools so that the standard will not be lowered. Sometimes the spirit of free enterprise does more than the State can do. The parents' wishes must be considered so that where they want to have their children sent to certain schools to the private or aided Chinese middle schools - there should be no attempt made to prevent them. In such cases our Barisan friends will not have any cause to complain because, after all, we must allow the parents to decide to which schools they want to send their children. 8.34 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to spend too much time on the policy statement of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I am personally in full support of the Prime Minister when he thanked the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for reading the policy statement in this House. He said that we have made headway in achieving things for the people in Singapore. We have made some improvements in the basic requirements of life. Members opposite, regardless of whether they are Left or Right, whether they are adventurists or not, when they see the results of the P.A.P. in serving the people, feel a bit sour about it. In the broad masses there is political awakening, which is unprecedented. So the Right-wing remnants are no more hopeful. As to the Barisan Sosialis, which claims to be the most progressive Party, well, these Left-wing adventurists cannot do anything good, but they will make a mess of things. Their desperation and their excitement today have come about as a result of the selfishness of their backseat drivers, and also as a result of their lack of analysis of the political situation in Malaya. At present they are launching a desperate campaign which is not supported by the people. Neither have the people any sympathy for the campaign. But it is our responsibility to remind these reckless people that they must be rational and exercise self-restraint, especially the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, when he said at a mass rally last week that the Singapore citizens will become people with no country-

Order. This is irrelevant and out of order. If the Member wants to reply to the attack of the Barisan Sosialis Members on the Government, he is at liberty to do it, but he should not go into details on the Barisan Sosialis' merits and demerits.

(In Mandarin): The attacks made by the Opposition Members, I can say, are regrettable because the so-called socialists are playing a very dangerous communal game. Just now the Member for Havelock described the Federation Government as feudalistic and Singapore as a slave. This, l think, will not do any good in regard to the unification of the peoples of the two territories. In fact, such a statement will be discarded by the peoples of the two territories. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as regards the achievements of the Government in the past 21 years, many of my colleagues have already touched upon them in some detail. So I do not wish to repeat what they have said. I only wish to say something about the Work Brigade today in this House. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Toa Payoh has attacked the Government and described the Work Brigade as a concentration camp. He mentions how members of the Work Brigade are restricted. But he forgets that, in the past, he was all praise for the Work Brigade soon after its inception and establishment. So you find a lot of contradictions in the Member for Toa Payoh. He is a man of no principle. It seems be has forgotten that when he was responsible for the Work Brigade, he made use of his position and power to give favourable positions to those in whom he had trust and to those who followed him. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Work Brigade has come to the present situation of turmoil and trouble and I think the Member for Toa Payoh has a certain responsibility for this state of affairs. Can he deny he has agitated the rebellious members to form a union? The Chairman of their Action Committee is an important leader in Geylang East. The Barisan Sosialis Members think that by going through their stooges in the Work Brigade they can agitate members in the Work Brigade to form a union to go against the Govern ment, so that they Work Brigade will be dissolved as a result of their activities. But the facts of today have shattered their beautiful dreams. All the 10 camps of the Work Brigade have come back to normal. About 1,600 members are now leading a normal life of discipline and doing collective work. So the plot of the Barisan Sosialis leading to the dissolution of the Work Brigade has failed miserably. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have the responsibility to reveal the sins and crimes of the rebellious members of the Work Brigade and the Barisan Sosialis. Because of their foolish act to defy authority, some 300 innocent members of the Work Brigade have suffered. Members of the Barisan Sosialis must be responsible for this. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Toa Payoh has smeared the Work Brigade without any grounds at all. It is really shameless of him to make such an attack and smear. There is no need for us to refute him at all. He says men of the Headquarters in the Work Brigade, when going round the camps, found magazines published by the Nanyang University Society, namely, the Torch, but we have not discovered any such magazines. What we have discovered are some applications for membership of the Barisan Sosialis. So you can see the intention of the Barisan Sosialis in the Work Brigade. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have tried to do something about the Work Brigade, I know they are now in a state of desperation. Let me remind them that the Work Brigade of today is fully supported by the broad masses of the people. Barisan Sosialis Members have talked at length and made irresponsible attacks and criticism on the Government. They are very naive indeed in so doing and it is a matter for regret as far as I am concerned. They are trying their best to do things in their own way in Singapore in order to achieve their political aims. They just adopt all sorts of tactics to mislead the innocent people of Singapore. These are hard facts which we must face. Why should they not lead these innocent people in the right way? Why should they try to adopt unprincipled means to mislead them? We believe Members of the Barisan Sosialis will perhaps feel as sad as we do over the whole situation when they discover that their own children have been misled and tricked by politicians. The Member for Toa Payoh was responsible for the Work Brigade before hoe became a turncoat. It was the same in those days as it is now. There is no one trying to force members of the Work Brigade to join any union. But today, the hon. Member says it is like a wartime concentration camp. This is nonsense. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is my opinion that it is not easy to he a fighter of true socialism especially in a place like Singapore where political influence is still in existence. The people are quite happy with a peaceful life; so they do not wish to have radical changes made to the existing system. In the meantime, the colonialists are taking advantage of this weakness of the people. They are trying to perpetuate the existence of this social system in order to obtain benefits for themselves. We are aware of this present phenomenon and so are the Members opposite. When anti-colonial people have some power, it is easy for them to be influenced by the colonialists. The Members in the Opposition were at one time champions for the cause of the poor people but when they came to power, they just did things in the interest of a minority. As a result of this, they have not only changed their political stand but they have also changed their mode of living. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Members in the Opposition have made criticisms against the Government today. In their criticisms they have ranged from the important question of merger to the question of primary schools. All they have said boils down to this, that the Government is always wrong, but they have never pointed out how and where we have been wrong. They have never suggested how things should have been done. I am of the opinion that if the Opposition Members are men with conscience, who have the interest of the people at heart, they should not play political games to distort the policies of the Government in this House. They should sincerely try to work for the people of Singapore. It is only right that they should work for the welfare of the masses. 8.52 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is getting late now and therefore I will cut off two-thirds of nay speech. Sir, this House is debating the third policy speech of the Government which was delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. It tells us that the Government has entered its third year of office. The P.A.P. called the first year a year of reformation, and this year a year of construction.

On a point of order, Sir. This theme has been repeated by all the Members of the Barisan Sosialis - the year of construction, the year of liquidation, and so on.

I wish to remind hon. Members of the Standing Order. In fact, I was on the point of calling the Member for Choa Chu Kang to order when the Parliamentary Secretary rose on a point of order. May I remind hon. Members that they will be ruled out of order for repetition?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all along the P.A.P. Government have been boasting about 1960 as a year of construction. Let us see the extent of this construction.

Order. May I remind the hen. Member that he said that the time was getting late and he wanted to cut off two-thirds of his speech? May I also remind him that he should address the Chair and not Members on the opposite side, other wise he will get more excited?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope I can get the co-operation of the Members opposite. But if they want to interrupt, I intend to speak for three hours. Sir, the P.A.P. Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and Assemblymen said that our criticisms on the policy speech and the examples we quoted were based on a distortion of facts. It is regrettable that in the course of the Budget debate, the Government have not realised their past year's mistakes. In this connection, I wish to make use of some simple figures to point out where they have failed. In this year's Development Estimates, a sum of $166.2 million was voted for the Government, but as a matter of fact they have only used $67.8 million up to the end of this year. It is only 41 per cent of the total amount voted. Therefore, this year of construction has become a year of disappointment and a year of failure. Sir, for the past two days, the Government Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and Assemblymen have stressed in this House that the criticisms put forward by us were groundless. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development also pointed out that our criticisms were based on a distortion of facts. I would like to point out who is really distorting facts or ignorant of the facts. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development said that agricultural production has increased because of the help given by the Government and that therefore we are able to export our foodstuffs to other countries. I do not know whether he has investigated the real state of affairs or he wants to deceive the Members of this House. I would like to point out that what he said is a distortion of facts. I wish to quote from the Report of the Select Committee on the Agricultural Leases Bill, 1961, which was published on 15th May. On page A10 of this Report there is a memorandum which was submitted to this Assembly by Dr Tham Ah Kow - the Director of the Department of Primary Production. The Speaker was the Chairman of the Select Committee. The second paragraph of the memorandum reads: 'A large quantity of eggs, vegetables and fruit, however, has still to be imported. In 1959 the imports in respect of these items are as follows:- Type Quantity (i) Eggs 136,000,000 pieces (ii) Vegetables locally grown in Federation 20,000 tons (iii) Vegetables imported from places other than Federation 96,000 tons.' Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore have to spend $49 million on foodstuffs imported from other countries. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development said that we exported our foodstuffs to other countries. I hope the Minister could defend him. I hope the Minister for National Development can point out to us whether the report is wrong or what the Parliamentary Secretary said is right.

(In Mandarin): Point of order. To say that we do not export our foodstuffs to other countries is wrong. As far as we know-

That is not a point of order. The Member is going to make a long speech. I think it is not a point of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is mentioned by the Director of Primary Production. He is an expert on agriculture. He understands his work. He also knows the agricultural output of Singapore. I think he knows better than the Parliamentary Secretary. What the Member knows comes from the Director of Primary Production. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now the Parliamentary Secretary said the Government provided many roads for the people this year. I have studied the Estimates. There is not an item of provision of roads. There is a provision for the repair of roads, but no provision for roads. What the Government provides is electricity or water supply but not roads. I do not know-

(In Mandarin): Point of order, Sir. What I said just now was the provision of electricity and not provision of roads. He mentioned everything together, including roads.

(In Mandarin): Perhaps he can listen to the tape record. Just now the Parliamentary Secretary was talking about reclamation of land in Sungei Boyang. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has revealed how much the Government has spent on this work out of the total vote in the budget. The Government should complete this plan. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we were discussing the Estimates we pointed how the Government has failed in this respect but because of the limited time we, were not able to do it in detail. Therefore the whole project to reclaim land is a failure. It should be completed this year and not started just now. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Education has said that ten years hence the P.A.P. Government will be able to build more schools to accommodate students and then there will not be so many private schools. I believe what the Minister meant when he talked about private schools was aided schools. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can the P.A.P. Government survive to 1964? We are not sure, about it. However, since the Minister for Education has said that ten years later the Government can build many schools to accommodate pupils, I want to point out his intention and motive for saying this. I got this impression and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education can reply to us whether after ten years there is no need for aided schools to exist in Singapore. Does the Government think that the present aided schools do not help the Government in solving the question of vacancies for the students? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a very serious statement if the Government does not clarify this point clearly, whether by aided schools in Singapore it means Chinese, English and Tamil schools. All along these aided schools in the past 100 years were supported by people who gave money to these schools. Especially under the colonial rule they were struggling to exist, to carry on to expand national education. According to what the Minister for Education has said, does the Government think that ten years later all these schools will have to be closed down? Does the Government think that they want to take back all these aided schools ten years later? On this point I hope the Minister for Education or his Parliamentary Secretary can give us clarification. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the whole content of the policy speech, we can see that next year there will not be any development in Singapore, and that the development next year is only a con tinuation of what the Government is doing this year. The whole policy speech as delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, has been described by our leader as a collection of reports from various departments and are then later submitted to this House. Many projects which were mentioned last year do not appear in the policy speech this year. For example, in the labour sphere last year the Yang di-Pertuan Negara said that the Trades Union Bill would be tabled after amendments, but in the whole policy speech this year we do not see any indication that the Government is going to table this Bill. Does it mean that the P.A.P. Government is going to give up its policy of unifying the trade union movement? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the political stability and economic expansion of a country depend on whether the Government has met the demands of the people materially and spiritually. As regards the material demands of the people, my colleagues have made very detailed criticisms, and I am not going to repeat the arguments here. The people of Singapore cannot see any achievements by the P.A.P. Government in the past two years. What do they get from the year of construction? What benefits do they derive? They have lost their confidence in the so-called construction work by the P.A.P. Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as has been fully said by the Member for Bras Basah, the greatest enemy of the people is colonialism. On the spiritual demands, what the people want is greater freedom of speech, of assembly, of organisation, and other activities. All these freedoms are not mentioned in the policy speech delivered by the Yang di- Pertuan Negara. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore have placed high hopes on the P.A.P.'s fighting for these freedoms. What is the result? The result is that they have been disappointed. The P.A.P. Government have deviated from their stand. Not only have the people not received any material benefits, but they have also not received any spiritual benefits too. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under parliamentary democracy, if the deeds and words of the Party in power depart from the Party's original stand, the people will be the first to suffer. Without citing concrete facts to prove that the Party in power has now pursued a Right-wing political line, we cannot prove they are doing so. Now, I want to quote some of the speeches made by the P.A.P. leaders to prove that the P.A.P. are now pursuing a Right-wing political line and that they have gone contrary to their pledges made during the elections. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has failed in construction and has also failed in politics. 9.15 p.m.

In order to save the time of this House, I do not intend to quote old newspapers and magazines. But if it is thought necessary, I shall quote the relevant articles to prove my arguments. Mr Speaker, Sir, after carefully listening to my speech, I believe you will understand why the people of Singapore are not satisfied with the P.A.P. Why has the P.A.P. lost the confidence of the people? Why is the policy speech empty and vague? Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 31st May, 1956, at the Joint Conference of the Central Executive Committee and the branches, the Prime Minister said: 'We must point out that what we want is only internal self-government. But we must not allow the British to control our State, to manipulate our military and economic activities.' In 1958, the leader of the Party, in the Fourth Souvenir of the P.A.P. said: '1958 saw the end of a historical stage in Singapore, and in this coming year, Singapore will get internal self-government. There will be a popularly elected government and the political status of Singapore will become a semi-colony. However, defence and foreign affairs will still be in the hands of the colonialists. Therefore, we cannot say that our campaign for independence will come to an end.'. Mr Speaker, Sir, from these speeches by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, we can discern clearly our present mission. Both speeches also show us the political situation in Singapore, namely, that Singapore is still a semi-colony. We still do not have full internal self-government. We must carry on with our struggle against colonialism. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government has discarded the anti-colonial fighters and has come to a compromise with the colonialists. Their stand in not distinguishing between friends and enemies is a departure from the original stand. I ask the P.A.P. to reply to us as to who has really departed from our political stand and principles. Mr Speaker, Sir, in July 1956 at a mass meeting held at the Badminton Hall to protest against the failure of the constitutional talks, the Prime Minister said : 'In a democratic society every legal political Party has the right to hold mass rallies to convey their opinion to the people. But now the Government is in control of the radio and the Press, and our Party cannot convey our views to the people, except by resorting to the holding of mass rallies. However, the police have tried to hinder us. After a protest by our Party leaders, our application for a permit to hold a mass rally was approved.' Mr Speaker, this was spoken by the Prime Minister in 1956. But today, in 1961, what is the situation? The Member for Tanjong Pagar is now our Prime Minister. We would have thought that, as a Party which is consistent, they should have rectified all the bad practices in the past. But instead of doing that, they are worse than the previous Government. Not only do they control the radio and the Press-

Order. Will the hon. Member relate what he is now saying to the policy speech delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara? I have reminded hon. Members time and again that this debate must be confined to the policy of the Government as outlined in the speech. I ask the hon. Member to relate what he has been saying to any part of the speech we are debating. If he can do so, then he can carry on, but if, he cannot, he is out of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I was aiming at was to point out to you that the Government and the Ministry of Home Affairs have departed from their original stand in dealing with democratic rights and civil liberty.

Order. Is there any passage in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which touches on that?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have pointed out that the whole construction work was a failure. The people are not satisfied with what the Government has done because it does not meet the material and spiritual demands of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me point out what the Prime Minister said during the May Day celebrations in 1955. He said: 'Today [meaning Labour Day] we are happy because the workers in Singapore are awakened now. They know how to use their strength to improve their living conditions. We have proved that we are united.' He also said: 'Today the workers are still living in a miserable condition. They are not free. Even on this day there are five or six strikes staged by the workers. Do you think that we workers like to strike? No. A strike is the last weapon of the workers. The workers are compelled to strike by the big-bellied capitalists. These strikes show that the people are still living in a very wretched condition. We appeal to all workers in Singapore to support the workers who are on strike.' He went on to say: 'Do you think that we have democracy when we can meet here? This democracy is only a bluff. In the day-time you can hold a meeting, but at night you cannot hold a meeting. All of us must remember that the Emergency Regulations are still hanging over our heads. Without the abolition of these Emergency Regulations, we are not able to improve our living standards.' Mr Speaker, Sir, on 1st July, 1959, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in his policy speech to this House said: 'The best way of ensuring industrial peace is to encourage workers and employers to use the machinery of collective bargaining instead of taking direct industrial action. This implies strengthening workers' organisations so as to enhance their bargaining position vis-a-vis the employers. This means the emergence of a unified labour movement.' Mr Speaker, Sir, during the 1959 election, what was the labour policy of the P.A.P.? They said we must have a strong trade union movement so as to be able to safeguard the interest of the people. In order to achieve this aim, we must revise the T.U.C. Constitution or absorb the T.U.C. into a new organisation. Mr Speaker, Sir, our Prime Minister was shouting that the workers must be united. We must support the workers on strike. We must abolish the Emergency Regulations. How fine and beautiful are these phrases! How progressive are these phrases! But now when the workers are forced to strike, he says these strikes are political strikes. When workers support the strikes, he says the workers are inspired by the Communists. When workers demand unification of the trade union movement, he says the trade union organisations are heavily infiltrated by the Communists. When people ask for the abolition of the P.P.S.O., he says this is because the Communists are afraid of the P.P.S.O. When workers demand the cancellation of yellow trade unions, the Government dissolve the Trades Union Congress and openly support the, splinter trade unions. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past workers were forced to strike. But what about now? Are the workers glad of striking? In the past the workers were told to be united. What about now? Is there any reason why they should not be united now? Should the Government be allowed to dissolve the Trades Union Congress? I hope the Government and the Ministry of Labour can answer these questions. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Emergency Regulations are a means of suppressing the anti-colonialist fighters. When the P.A.P. was formed in 1954, the abolition of these Regulations was also one of the objectives of the P.A.P. When the P.P.S.O. was tabled in this House, the Prime Minister both outside and inside this House opposed it. All the progressive organisations in Singapore also attacked it. They held several meetings to protest against it. Perhaps you can recall that when the P.P.S.O. was debated in this House, many people outside this Assembly wore black bands and carried banners to protest against it. In this House the present Prime Minister, then the Member for Tanjong Pagar, also attacked the unreasonableness of this Bill. What about now? The P.A.P. not only does not want to repeal the P.P.S.O., but it also extends it to five years instead of one year for a review. Should this be done by a socialist Party? The Prime Minister, when he attacked the P.P.S.O., was a non-Communist socialist-

Order. I think the hon. Member has made his point. Let us not go into further details. He has attacked Government policy in retaining the P.P.S.O., and I think that is enough.

(In Mandarin): I want to ask the Government - who have departed from their original stand and their policies? Who are inconsistent? Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1956, the Prime Minister, on the 8th of December at a mass rally in the Badminton Hall, posed three questions. The first was that those who were detained should be brought to trial in an open court or be released. The second was to convene a round-table conference of all the political Parties. The third was that the Lim Yew Hock Government had carried out its anti-Communist campaign. Would the British respect him? He was wrong. What the British wanted was not his anti-Communist ideology. What the British wanted was the wealth of the people in Malaya. If Lim Yew Hock wanted to be a national hero, he should emulate President Nasser of Egypt. He should not collaborate with the colonialists. He should lead the people to attack them. Lim Yew Hock wanted to be an anti-colonial hero, but at the same time he-

Order. Whatever has all this got to do with the Government policy we are now debating? We are now debating the Government policy as con tained in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. What has all that got to do with it? It is completely irrelevant.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to ask the Government is that they should release the political detainees as soon as possible without any conditions whatsoever. Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to assist you in understanding my argument, I must say that my argument is based on what the Prime Minister has said before. In this way, I will not be accused by the Government as being a Communist. It was the Prime Minister himself who claimed in those days that he was a non-Communist socialist. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are greatly disappointed in the policy statement of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, especially in regard to the Employment Exchange of the Labour Department. The Employment Exchange has this year given jobs to only 1,400 people in Singapore - on the average of less than 4 persons per day. I am doubtful indeed whether the Government is justified in spending so much money and energy in running a big organisation such as the Employment Exchange which can give only 1,400 jobs to people in a year. Has the Employment Exchange lost the confidence of the employers in Singapore? Perhaps the employers in Singapore do not go to the Employment Exchange to get their employees. I remember at one time the Government did appeal to employers in Singapore to make use of the facilities of the Employment Exchange to get their workers. In the meantime, it was also the policy of the Government to get people from the Employment Exchange to fill Government vacancies. But today, what we can see is that it has given only 1,400 jobs to the people of Singapore. I hope it will truly shoulder its responsibility so that many people in Singapore who go there hoping to get jobs will not be disappointed. In fact, many people who are registered in the Employment Exchange have to wait for several years without getting any jobs. I hope the Minister for Labour will be able to get co-operation from the employers as far as possible. He should appeal to the employers in Singapore to make full use of its facilities so that more and more people will be able to benefit from registration there. In this way the people can have more confidence in it. 9.42 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will try to do my best to make my speech as short as possible. Since June 1959, when this State began its self-government under the new constitution, this House has heard three policy statements delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on behalf of the Government. I am of the opinion that of the three policy statements, the one we heard on 31st of October this year is most void of content. It is the most hollow of the three policy statements. I have been reading it over and over again, but I am unable to find anything about social reforms therein. Apart from the mention of merger, this present policy speech is the same as the policy speech delivered by the governor of the colonial government from year to year. Formerly, the British Colonial Government ruled Singapore through a Governor, and the policy statement delivered by him was mainly concerned with the construction of roads, the building of houses, the increase of hospital beds, the building of schools, the expansion of social services and how the Government was going to expand the facilities of the port and telecommunications and so on. However, the policy statement of the colonial Governor could never give excitement or joy to the people of Singapore, because the people were just not satisfied with such things. True the people require houses, hospitals and factories, but they also require democracy and freedom. They also require a thorough reform in the social system. They also want to shake off the colonial yoke. Based on this fact. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will know that after reading the policy statement delivered on the 31st October by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, the people of Singapore are very disappointed. This policy statement is nothing but a slipshod affair. It has been rushed through. This explains how the P.A.P. Government is trying to pin all its hopes on merger. Apart from this-

Order. I have already stated time and time again that there must be no reference to merger in this debate.

(In Mandarin): The Government is no longer interested and is no longer capable of dealing with the day-to-day business of the people in Singapore. In the first year of office of the P.A.P., there appeared in the policy statement of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara some very good phrases which gave joy to the people, such as social reforms, political, economic and cultural revolutions, etc. It also touched upon the fact that under colonial rule only a minority were enjoying certain privileges. But in the policy statement delivered on the 31st October this year, we do not find any more such phrases. Perhaps the big shots of the P.A.P. are of the opinion that since they have taken office for two years, the social reforms, the political, economic and cultural revolutions have been achieved. So there was no need for them to mention any more of such things. In the second year when the policy statement was delivered by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, although there was a lack of fighting spirit, we must admit that there was some courage ,on the part of the Government to admit that it had made some mistakes and that it had its own shortcomings. In this second policy statement, the Government announced that it wanted to have more consultation and understanding with the people. But in the policy statement delivered en the 31st October this year, this courage of self-criticism and this courage to admit mistakes and shortcomings no longer exist. The P.A.P. leadership today have changed. They are no longer courageous enough to face their own mistakes. Recently the P.A.P. has even gone to the extent of putting the blame on the Barisan Sosialis for the mistakes they made. They described the Barisan Sosialis as Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, let me make a comparison of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's policy statement from another angle. In 1959 when the first policy statement was delivered, it was full of confidence that the Government would overcome difficulties. It touched upon the fact that the Government would not hesitate to bring about economic expansion. It also said that the Government would not hesitate to do unpleasant things in the interests of the people. But in 1960, when the second policy statement was made in the very beginning, it stated that the Government had certain limitations in carrying out its work. It even stressed that the existing conditions were not favourable to the achievement of a socialist society. Obviously after coming into office the P.A.P. has met with many difficulties, but unfortunately the ambition and the confidence of the Government has been lessened a great deal by hard facts and difficulties. This year we have the third policy statement made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. In this we can see how the Party in power is miserably trying to tell the people, "Well, hurry up. You had better merge with the Federation. Otherwise you will be finished."

Order. I have told the Member already that no aspect of merger can be touched upon. He is deliberately going back to the merger problem.

(In Mandarin): The P.A.P. Government has lost its stamina in social reform. Although there is an opportunity, it dare not face the influence and strength of the colonialists. On the other hand, it is afraid of the growing strength of the courageous people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy statement of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is nothing but a statement written on paper. Even then it is capable of reflecting the change of stand and ideology of the Party in power in these few years. My colleagues have already quoted many classical examples in this House to explain how these changes have taken place. They have also pointed out how this change of stand and thought on the part of the Party is not in the interests or the welfare of the people. I do not wish to repeat, neither do I wish to supplement their statements attacking the Government. I would like to tell the P.A.P. Government that we, the thirteen of us in the Barisan Sosialis sitting on this side of the House, are always prepared to support the Government in all sorts of economic construction and welfare services which are in the interests of the people. We want to ask the Government to learn from its mistakes and try to turn away from the wrong direction so that it will go back to the broad masses of the people. We also ask the Government to carry out what was said in the first policy statement, that is, to strengthen the unions and organisations and to give assistance to local industry and businessmen. We want the Government to carry out what it declared it would do in the second policy statement, that is, to give assistance to farmers and carry out a thorough campaign against yellow culture. We also contend that the present Ministry of Education should be thoroughly reformed so that the colonial education policy will be discarded. We are not happy with changes on the surface only. It is hypocritical. We feel we must try all we can to help the development of national education. We hope the P.A.P. leadership will wake up so that they will discard all its plots and intrigues against the Left-wing progressive forces.

Paint of clarification.

Let the Member carry on.

(In Mandarin): The strength of the people is invincible. It is the people who direct the course of history. It is not to be directed by a minority of people who think they are clever politicians. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have nothing praiseworthy to say of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's policy speech delivered this year. 9.57 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on reading the Government's policy statement presented to this Assembly and read by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on the 31st of October this year, one most lamentable fact comes to light. In the text of the whole speech, there is not one single reference to socialism, nor is the word "socialist" written anywhere. For a Party that was swept into power on a socialist platform during the elections, for a Party which had written into its Party objectives socialist ideals, such an omission must be considered as something very grave indeed. To understand why socialism is excluded from the Government in its third year of office, one must trace the events that led to the third year of office of the Government. A good way is to go back very briefly and look into the speeches made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in the first and second year of the P.A.P.'s term of office. His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, on the 1st July, 1959 (Hansard, Vol. 11, col. 6), said in the Introduction: 'This session of the Legislative Assembly is another step away from the past. The immediate future is clear and certain. During the next five years a Government elected by a decisive majority of the people will, through peaceful and constitutional means, take the social revolution a step further. It is a Government pledged to bring about a more just society.' In the same speech at column 15: 'The P.A.P. Government stands for an independent, democratic, non-Communist, socialist Malaya. It cannot be pressured into deviating from this stand.' It is curious that only a month ago, the Prime Minister, when he was addressing the University of Malaya Students' Union, deviated from this stand. For in place of the word "socialist", he substituted the word "nationalist". And he now pledges that the P.A.P. Government stands for an independent, democratic, non-Communist, nationalist Malaya. These are words enshrined in Hansard and yet the Government does not pay heed to them. In moving the motion thanking the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for delivering the speech on behalf of the Government, the Leader of the House said - I quote from Hansard, Volume 11, column 118: 'In 1959 conditions have now changed. The P.A.P. has led the people of Singapore to obtain a new Constitution which provides for complete control of internal self-government in Singapore.'. He went on to say at column 119 and 120: 'The People's Action Party has a positive ideology. We believe that our ills, the ills of our society, can only he solved on the basis of a socialist ideology, and it is because we hive a Political belief, we therefore have a principle, and having a principle, we have the ability to lay down a line of action by which we hope to advance our cause and the progress of our society.'. Brave words, Sir! The lamentable fact is that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here to hear me quote his words. The second year of office of the P.A.P. resulted in a speech that is of a slightly different tone. It recognises the mistakes of the past, for it says in Hansard, Volume 13, Col. 5: 'The Government does not wish to give the impression that there have not been mistakes and shortcomings during the past year. It is aware that some of its measures should have been more carefully planned and expertly executed. In some instances, it moved too fast and without preparing public opinion adequately for the changes. Some of the legislation resulted in inconveniences or misunderstandings which could have been avoided by .a little more foresight, a little more consultation, discussion and a little more explanation.' The third speech, Sir, is more a speech given by a caretaker Government, for it says at column 12 of Hansard, Volume 15, No. 1, last paragraph: 'For the immediate future, the task of the Government is to proceed with the work already initiated.' Since in the first two years of office very little has been initiated, by implication, it must mean that the Government has no intention to initiate anything in its third year of office and it must necessarily mean that it is only acting as a caretaker Government in its third year of office. In the first year of office, we saw the Members on the Government Benches - I was then privileged to be on, their side but now I am privileged to be on this side-speak arrogantly with revolutionary fervour. The Prime Minister in Hansard, Volume 11, column 373, said these brave words: 'I say, without the slightest immodesty on the part of my colleagues and myself, that we are the only group that has the coherence, drive and the convictions to build something more than ourselves - a democratic, socialist movement within a revolutionary situation . . . If we do not continue recruiting as we have done in the past five years, then we shall eventually wither and die.' Further down in the next paragraph, he says: 'And you can only recruit if you convince those whom you intend to recruit that you are recruiting for a worthwhile cause. Let me draw one lesson for the Members on the other side. There is not one single Member - apart from the U.M.N.O. [that, of course, means the S.P.A., Sir] Members who are representing a portion of the Malay people - who represent the people.' Then the S.P.A. did not represent the people. But now they represent the people because they have saved the P.A.P. The Prime Minister went on to say: 'They represent a group which is spent, lost and exhausted.' They do not seem to be very much exhausted today, because when the Government falls they are the people who stretch their hands to lift it up. He then had these gracious words to say of the Opposition - the same Hansard, column 375: 'I tell the Opposition this. They provide us, and I hope they will continue to provide us in the next five years, with that vivid contrast which will throw up the virtues of the P.A.P. into magnificence.'.

Order. I wonder whether the Member for Nee Soon can explain how that is connected with the debate we have embarked upon for the last two days.

With great respect, Sir, I was just trying to show the differences in the first, second and third speeches of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara because-

Order. What have the alleged weakness of the S.P.A. and the strength of the U.M.N.O. got to do with it?

With great respect, Sir, if I might be permitted to answer that. In the first and second years of its office, the P.A.P. could steamroller the Opposition. Today it cannot, Sir, and it is the S.P.A. and the U.M.N.O. which help to keep the P.A.P. in office.

What has that got to do with Government policy as illustrated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech? We are now debating Government policy. Let us get on with it.

I bow to your decision, Sir. The financial policy of the Government lays great stress on industrialisation. To achieve this goal, the statement makes great play of the Economic Development Board, the Industrial Research Unit, the Common Market and the Four-Year Plan. Sir, these things have been said in the past and I have no doubt they will be said in the future.

If they are here in the future.

But what good can these things do for the Government if there is no political stability in the country? If the employer-employee relationship in the country is not stable, all these very nice plans will be in vain. If the Government is sincere in wanting to industrialise the country, it must pay heed to stability in labour and employer relationship. One of the important ways of encouraging stability in this relationship is to help build up a unified trade union movement. In Hansard, Volume 13, the third paragraph in column 8 of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, reference is made to the stability of employer-employee relationship: 'A further important factor is stability in labour-employer relationships, for nothing is more harmful to economic expansion than the unpredictable outbursts of industrial strife.' The P.A.P. in pursuing its trade union policy today is doing exactly the opposite. It is splitting the trade union movement which is just beginning to be unified and splitting it for political purposes. Much has been said of the Government's manoeuvres of the trade unions and the dissolution of the Trades Union Congress-

Order. I think the Member for Nee Soon knows that Members of his Party have touched an that aspect probably about a dozen times. Let us not have any repetition.

Thank you for your guidance, Sir, I was going to say that a lot has been said about it and that I would not like to repeat it. If you had been patient and listened to what I was going to say, it would have been well. Now, since much of the text has been covered by my colleagues, I will just pick up a few parts which have not been adequately touched upon. Housing and housing subsidy. We on this side of the House would like to congratulate the Government on stating that the question of subsidy to the Housing and Development Board is under review. For we know that in the past, the S.I.T. houses were subsidised, but when the P.A.P. Government came into office and started to build cheap housing units for the poor people, it was, then discovered that the cheap houses were hardly subsidised at all by Government, for it was the Government's own admission that an economic rent was charged for those houses. I believe that when the Government mentions "economic rent", it means rent worked on the most economic computation, and if it is, economic it cannot be subsidised. We have read today that the Government has seen its mistakes and is reviewing the whole policy of housing subsidy. We look forward to the day when the Government will subsidise the poorer people's houses as much as the middle-class houses have been subsidised in the past. Now, I come to the Ministry of Health. Going through the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, I find it curious that no mention has been made of family planning. It cannot be that because I have left the Ministry that no mention has been made. If one refers to the Four-Year Plan of the Government, the biggest problem of the State is the state of over-population and the fast and rapid growth of the population which i, a very young one; and the absence in the Government policy statement of any mention of family planning and birth control is surely something very serious. It is said in this book, Sir, that unless the population growth is checked, unless family planning is properly taught to the people, no amount of industrialisation plans could solve the Problem of the people of Singapore. Yet today, I see the complete absence of this very important subject in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. I recall, Sir, during the time of the last Government, when the subject of birth control and family planning was brought into this House, there was a free vote. The reason was that the then Minister was a Catholic. Now that I see the total absence of the subject in this year's statement, I am very tempted to draw some similar conclusions. However, I shall not labour the House with such conclusions. We welcome the Government's intention to enlarge the Tan Tock Seng Hospital because we know that there are a lot of people on the waiting list for admission to the Tan Tock Song Hospital. We know that the only reason preventing the expansion of the hospital is the shortage of medical staff and nurses. We have been assured in this House by the Minister for Health and Law that the situation of the doctor shortage is much better today. In fact, the Minister has said that he has more applicants for medical officer vacancies than he has provision for in the Budget to take them in. It is very glad tidings to one who has been in the Ministry before and who understands how acute the shortage has been. But on, the question of the expansion of the Tan Took Seng Hospital, the remedy does not lie only in the recruitment of doctors. The nursing staff is a very important branch of the hospital service. It is known that there are wards now ready to be opened in many hospitals, including the Tan Tock Seng Hospital, but are not opened because of the shortage of nurses. We would, therefore, urge the Government to reconsider the conditions of service and the salary scale of nurses and to look into the possibility of recruiting more nurses, particularly from the Chinese stream, into the nursing service. In its first year of office, the Government was quite successful in recruiting Chinese school girls into the nursing school. But today, I understand that applications from Chinese school girls have dropped very considerably, partly because of dissatisfaction with the way and the method in which the courses are conducted and partly on account of other grouses and grudges. An hon. Member: You were there!

However, Sir, we urge the Government to look into the possibility of enlarging the Nursing Training School and the training of more staff, particularly the Chinese school girls. Now, Sir, I come to the end of the speech Crime. In column 24 of Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 1, dated 31st October, 1961, it is stated: 'Because of continued pressure against secret society gangsters, the incidence arising out of secret society activities had been kept at a reasonably low level.' In view of this, Sir, and in view of the fact that I did not get satisfaction from the Minister for Finance a few days ago, when we were on the Budget in the Committee of Supply, I would urge the Government to look into the possibility of lifting the 7.00 p.m. ban on political meetings. If the Minister for Home Affairs thinks that it is a laughing matter and that it is an absurd request, might I perhaps refresh his memory by reading some of the speeches made by the Prime Minister, who was then a Member in the Opposition?

What has that got to do with secret societies?

In urging the then Government to lift this ban and to allow political meetings to be held after seven o'clock, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, now the Prime Minister, said this. I quote, Sir, Hansard, First Session, Vol. 1, dated 26th April, 1955, col. 59. This is for the benefit of the Minister for Home Affairs who thinks that my request has been frivolous and not worth considering. The then Member for Tanjong Pagar said: 'But we either believe in democracy or we do not. If we do, then we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from any democratic process, other than by the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed. If a man chooses to carry a hand grenade or a revolver, or some other lethal weapon, in times when the Governor and the High Commissioner have proclaimed a state of emergency, then he takes the supreme penalty the law has laid down for him. But if a political party wants to hold an election meeting, or even a post-election meeting after 7 o'clock, they are told : "We do not believe in democracy after the election. We only believe in democracy once in four years, for one month." That is not the kind of democracy that you can inspire men with, to fight for and die for. That is not the kind of democracy that is going to make it tick in South-East Asia, if you tell us that we can hold a public meeting in the heat of the sun at four o'clock or five o'clock when nobody would come to listen...[He was speaking on behalf of the P.A.P. then. But a lot of them came to listen to ours, Sir.].. when nobody would come and listen to us, when therefore there would be no real danger of any democratic movement starting, but that we cannot hold a public meeting after 7 o'clock, when by the habits of the workers they would have returned from work, the earth has got cooler, the walls have got cooler, the night is getting mellow and warm speeches can he made. But, no! That is not allowed. And yet, we are asked to believe that this is democracy. I must say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this is a very queer and curious democracy, ....'. That is only read for the benefit of the Minister for Home Affairs because he considers my request to be frivolous. I would urge him very seriously to reconsider and to take cognizance of what the Member for Tanjong Pagar said when he was in the Opposition. Or perhaps the Prime Minister does not mean it today because he is in the Government. If that is so, we would be happy if the Prime Minister would tell us. The second last item - television, Sir. We welcome the advent of television into Singapore, if only for the modernisation of Singapore. But, Sir, we cannot welcome television to come into Singapore as yet another political arm of the P.A.P. We would .

Order. I think that point has been made by three or four Members of the Barisan Sosialis. The Member is merely repeating what his Party has said.

Sir, if you will just bear with me, I will not take more than five minutes. I would just like to quote some of the remarks that the Prime Minister made about television not so long ago when you yourself, Sir, presided in this Chamber. We would welcome television in Singapore as a medium of information for the people of Singapore. We certainly cannot welcome it as yet another political arm of the People's Action Party. We do not mind T.V. P.A.P., Sir, if the People's Action Party paid for television-

Order. Is that what the Prime Minister said? I thought the Member for Nee Soon was quoting from the speech by the Prime Minister or the then Member for Tanjong Pagar.

Mr Speaker, I have not come to that. If I had, I would have given you the reference.

Order. I have indicated to the hon. Member that he is repeating what his colleagues have said. But if he wishes to add something new to what his colleagues have said, then, of course, he is perfectly in order.

With great respect, Sir, unless I quote the whole thing, I must give a slight-

Slant! An hon. Member: Twist!

Not twist - background before I can quote. Otherwise I would be obliged to quote the whole section. When the Prime Minister was in the Opposition, he said this. I am quoting, Sir, Hansard, Vol. 2, 5th September, 1956, col. 62, in the third paragraph; about six lines below: 'Can there be any doubt at all that Radio Malaya [which is Radio Singapore today] should be divorced from the Government and run as a public corporation? Is there any real doubt that if we wanted to introduce television, and if the committee sitting on it should want to recommend it, it should be done by a public corporation? I am not an uncritical admirer of the British. For their own country, they institute public corporations to run their radio, but they allow it to become an adjunct of a government department in their colonies.' "But they allow it to become an adjunct of a government department in their colonies." Sir, from the Prime Minister's own words, for Government to run television and radio together in Singapore would be the perpetuation of a colonial practice.

Decolonialise yourself.

That would be a fair interpretation, Sir, In the next page, col. 63, about half-way through, just the last sentence, the then Member for Tanjong Pagar said: 'We raised this matter of a public corporation for Radio Malaya at the very opening of this Assembly last year. After 17 months of office to be told that the Government is still thinking of it, one wonders what could have been the achievement in the last 17 months.' And the Prime Minister has been in office for almost 30 months, or more than that. Still he never thought about what he said just a few years ago. An hon. Member: Colonial days.

Colonial days?

The times have changed.

There is no difference, Sir. If television run by the Government in a colonial society is to serve a colonial Government and to serve the motherland of the colonial Government, surely in a self-governing country, it should only be fair that a public corporation should run it so that the views of the different Parties should be presented. Surely what applies then should apply now. In any case, Sir, as I have indicated, I will take only five minutes. I do not want to exceed that time.

The hon. Member has been speaking from ten o'clock!

Mr Speaker, Sir, in a debate of this kind where it has been found necessary to see that unnecessary repetitions are not made, I find it difficult to be at the tail end of all the speakers, particularly after 13 Barisan speakers who kept on repeating what the first one had said. So if I, in my innocence, repeat something which the Barisan Sosialis have said, I would ask your indulgence. All I can say is that it has not been said by my Party and I would like to say it. Sir, before I go to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, there are one or two matters which I would like to raise and which I would like the Government to think about. First and foremost, the Tamil school teachers for high school. Sir, it has been represented to me that there is no possibility of recruiting any Tamil school teachers to teach in a Tamil high school. There is nobody in Singapore qualified enough to take on the job. Therefore, I would ask, the Minister for Education to consider whether it would be in keeping with the policy of the Government that qualified Tamil high school teachers should be allowed to be recruited from India in the same way as the Government has already recruited a large number of teachers of Bahasa Kebangsaan from Indonesia. Sir, the other one is water. It seems that in spite of all the rains that we have been having, the public still have to be under a system of water rationing. It would seem that even the gods are not pleased with the P.A.P. Government.

We do not believe in God. We are atheists.

The Deputy Prime Minister does not believe in God, so he says. But when the water shortage hit Singapore the Prime Minister said, "Only the gods could save us." And the only way the gods could save us, according to Chinese culture, would be for the Government just to strangle itself and that would ease the ire of the gods and more water would flow. There is one very important matter that has not been touched upon by the Government nor by many speakers on this side of the House. What I refer to was the world-shaking event that was disclosed by the Prime Minister in his speech last year when he moved the motion of thanks for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. He said, if I remember rightly, that the Communist forces in Singapore were building up. If I may, Sir, with your indulgence, quote from Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 2, col. 54 [3rd August, 1960]. This is what the Prime Minister said last year: 'Meanwhile, Communist sympathisers and activists, who had scattered and gone under cover before the last elections, began the work of regrouping and reorganisation. Over the last 14 months, a build-up of their ground strength through ground cadres working on the workers has been taking place in the trade union movement. These pro-C. P. activists have worked hard to secure the support of the rank and file.' Sir, when he made that pronouncement last year, we in the Opposition at that time did not have the Barisan Sosialis with us; they were on the other side. We had, of course, the three U.P.P. Members with us. We in the Opposition, particularly the S.P.A.-U.M.N.O. Alliance, told the Government that if they were really sincere in meeting this threat, then the only way for them to do it was to cleanse the Party from within, and I gave them instances where the Party could be cleansed. I would not like to quote from Hansard, Sir, but I think I can remember what I said. I said those political bodies who were not loyal to the Party should be dismissed. The People's Association and the Work Brigade are Frankensteins created by the Government, and the Government should take steps to see that these Frankensteins do not come out to devour them. I said a number of other things too. But then the Prime Minister - it was typical of him - came along and said, "This discredited Member for Cairnhill, who lost the general elections, has the nerve to stand up here and teach me how to suck eggs." Look at what happened. Those 12 awful disclosures over Radio P.A.P. We told them, "You sack these people in your midst." "Oh, no. We are a clean Party. They were comrades of ours. We were non-Communists. We had no Communists. No, we never had them." But then let us examine those 12 awful disclosures over Radio Singapore. The very first thing they said was, "Yes, we had the Communists working with us in 1954." Yet they deny here that they ever had Communists working with them. The previous Government took action against what we then did not call Communists - because we did not feel that we should call them Communists; but we called them subversionists; people who were out to destroy the security of Singapore. We had by force of circumstances to arrest them. What did the present Prime Minister, who was and is the Member for Tanjong Pagar, do? He sat here and tabled a motion deploring the undemocratic action of the Government. He said those were his comrades; they were good fighters; they are not Communists. Today, he has admitted that they are Communists. I never called them that. The Prime Minister called them Communists. Talking of inside pressures, they have not yet learnt-

They are behind you now.

Sir, in 1959, when they came to power, there were 43 of them and we faced them. We were happy to face them because we could see them and therefore we knew what they were up to. Unfortunately for us now, we have 13 behind us and we do not know what is going on behind. Because at times while sitting in front, I can hear a lot of noise coming out attacking the P.A.P. although they graduated from the University of the P.A.P., attacking the P.A.P.-

They have never attacked S.P.A.!

I knew they have attacked S.P.A. just a few times. Apart from that, what I want to point out is this, if I may. That today we have in this debate 13 Barisan Members who ran down this Government more bitterly than the previous one. More bitterly because some of the things were due to some personal hurts which they had suffered and the awful disclosures that they had to make. Yet out of the 13 who spoke against the Government - I look through the records and I see that 8 of them were then speaking against poor me and my friends here - the Government was good, the Government was first-class; the Opposition was talking rubbish and all that. Now they have joined this side, maybe more of them may come over, I do not know. Sir, let us come to these "awful disclosures". I am afraid I have to speak out very strongly on this because it would appear that in spite of the fact that they come out today - I mean, the Prime Minister comes out today and openly calls his ex-comrades Communists, Communist front men, Communist sympathisers. At one time it was the lunatic Left and Communist; now it is real Communist. Yet he says, "Oh, no, I am not going to do anything. I am not like that foolish Lim Yew Hock. He did all those things. We are not going to fall into the trap that we laid for Lim Yew Hock and into which he fell." Sir, I think it is wrong of him to say such things. If he does not intend to look after the security of the country, then he should not go out of his way to smear them as Communists, fellow Communists, and Communist front men, because by openly calling them Communists, Communist front men, and Communist sympathisers, and saying, "You can have your fun, boys," you are just giving encouragement to people who will say, "Well, it is all right. I do not mind joining the Communist ranks now because the Government is not going to do anything about it." You are just encouraging people to come out and join them. If they are really Communists, there is only one answer. The security of the country is vested in the Government. It is the most sacred duty that the Government has to look after. It is not for them to say, "No. We had slept with them since 1954, but only last July they came out." At that time, I said you cannot sleep with the Communists without getting contaminated. Now they say, "No, I did not get sufficient enjoyment and it is time for me to go and tell the world." It is all bad. They have a Ministry of Culture and that is the kind of culture the P.A.P. has-

No honeymoon.

There is another one about the "Plen". The Prime Minister said, "I had a talk with the Plen in 1950." My God, if I had known there was a Plen, I would have taken the great Prime Minister and put him in Changi. I did not know that. But then it does not matter. What he said about this Plen was funny. Here is the great Prime Minister. He knew the Plen in 1958. But when he became the Government, he said, "I went to the Special Branch and saw the picture of the Plen." May I quote that little bit here-

Order. May I suggest to the Member for Cairnhill not to go into so many details? He can make his point anent the Government policy in these matters but he should not go into so many details.

With respect, Sir, I am talking about the Government's policy of sleeping with the Communists when it suited them and then denouncing them when it no longer suits them-

Order. That is exactly what I have indicated to the Member for Cairnhill, that that is the policy; he has made his point. But going into these little details will not improve matters; it will only waste time.

With respect, Sir, I am talking of the Prime Minister whose primary duty is to look after the security of the country. Yet although he went to the Special Branch and saw the picture, he now says, "Oh, I never told the Special Branch. The Special Branch can find it out." This is what the Prime Minister with the Special Branch at his service should do - see that the Special Branch is properly informed and not come and say, "I know who the Plen is. I saw the picture. But I never told anyone." As if it was a clever thing to say! As the Prime Minister he never told his own Special Branch who the Plen was. Nobody is, going to believe it. An hon. Member: We are not strangers. Another hon. Member: But I do believe.

Order.

Sir, what hurts the S.P.A. is this. The Government have admitted now that when they were nearly swallowed by the Communists in August 1958 - when they had six Communists versus six non-Communists - they did not know what to do. But then poor me at that time felt that those who were out to damage the security of the country should not be allowed to continue to do, damage. So the previous Government took in five. I want to say here, Sir, since all these awful disclosures that have come out of it, Sir, it was because it was, felt that perhaps if the P.A.P. could be rid of the Communist stranglehold on them they could come out clean. I knew they could win and come out clean and run the country clean. Instead, immediately after their victory, they said, "Oh, comrades come out!" They released all the eight before they took office. It does not matter if they released the eight. They gave them jobs at $1,100 a month. We kept telling them it was wrong, "Do not do it," and they told us to suck eggs. Now they openly admit that they have been sleeping with the Communists. They now say that what they have done other people should not do. Sir, there are people who feel that it is this group of people who have brought the P.A.P. to power and they happen to fall out together at the same time. The P.A.P. are now trying to say that only they had the right to be friendly with the Communists. Anyone else who wants to be friendly with the Communists, like their ex-comrades, is ridiculed, jeered and laughed at. So the P.A.P. could do no wrong, according to them. Fortunately, Sir, in the Negara's speech the most important part of it has been settled. So we say that as far as the other part goes, the Government has failed the people of Singapore, and we will show by our vote that we consider the Government has failed. Many previous speakers have spoken on the first year of reorganisation, the second year of construction, and the third year of liquidation. But I say to the P.A.P. that the day of their funeral will be the day of the general election and they will be buried so deeply that there can be no rejuvenation. Allow me, Sir, before, I sit down, to answer the unjust attack levelled at us by the Members of the Barisan Sosialis. One Member who spoke before me said that the S.P.A. was giving a helping hand to the P.A.P. Previously, there was also another Member of the Barisan Sosialis who said that the S.P.A. and the P.A.P. are going together. Let me, as leader of the S.P.A., say solemnly in this House that we will at no time have anything to do with the P.A.P.

Hear, hear!

And, in fairness, we must say that there have been no overtures from the P.A.P. to us nor from us to the P.A.P. of any coalition. We know them and because we know that they have not played the right thing by the people of Singapore, it is our duty to see that they are knocked out of the Singapore political field. In spite of all the exposures by the Barisan Sosialis Members, I would like to say that it was we on the Front Bench who were able to expose certain acts of the Government that should have been challenged. As a result of pressure from us and with the help of Members of the Opposition - we were united in this - we got the Government more or less to bow down to the wishes of the Opposition insofar as the 1963 Budget was concerned.

Dr Toh, in reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to Members of the Opposition, I find I am now faced with the task of sifting the chaff from the grain. I have said once before that I am quite prepared to listen to any constructive suggestions made by the opposite side; but when it comes to spending hours in this Chamber listening to rubbish, it takes quite a lot of patience to understand what the Opposition is driving at. Sir, first of all, I would like, before going into generalities, to answer a few specific points raised by Members of the Opposition and which I think ought to be answered, because it is necessary to dispel any false allegations made by the other side. The Members for Farrer Park and Cairnhill have again and again harped on water rationing. The Member for Farrer Park, in particular, asked the Government to consider using Johore River as a source of water supply instead of proceeding with the waterworks at the Scudai River. Now it is important that I must place before the House the true picture of the history of negotiations between the Singapore Government and the Johore Government. In 1927, an agreement was entered into between the Sultan of Johore and the Municipal Commissioners of Singapore for the use of Gunong Pulai and Pontian as sources of water supply. This agreement expired in 1948. In 1952, fresh approaches were made between the then City Council and the Johore Government to renew the use of Gunong Pulai and Pontian and, at the same time, to include the Tebrau and Scudai Rivers as sources of water supply. No agreement, however, was reached between the Johore Government and the past City Councils. In 1958 a proposal by the City Council to the Johore Government to include the Johore River in the agreement was turned down. After this, nothing more was heard about the Johore River. When the P.A.P. formed the Government in 1959, we inherited a situation where no fresh agreement had been signed between Singapore and the Johore Government for the extraction of water from Johore sources. It was only in October this year that an agreement to use Gunong Pulai, Pontian, Tebrau and Scudai Rivers was signed. Now that this agreement has been signed, the Johore Government has agreed to open negotiations for use of the Johore River. These negotiations have just started. It is not possible to predict when a firm agreement can be arrived at with the Johore Government for the use of the Johore River. In any case, any scheme to extract water from the Johore River will take four years, costing $50 million. It is not possible for Singapore to wait for four years without looking for other sources of water supply. The Government, therefore, decided to proceed with the project to extract water from the Scudai River. It will take only two years, costing $20 million. The output from the Scudai River will be the same as that of the Tebrau River. The Gunong Pulai, Pontian, Scudai and Tebrau Rivers as sources of water supply should be able to cope with the demand for water until the Johore River Waterworks Scheme is implemented at some future date. It is quite clear that it is not that the Singapore Government is reluctant to go to the Johore River for our water supply but that a concession from the Johore Government must first be obtained. Past City Councils failed to obtain this concession, and it is only now that the Johore Government has agreed to open formal discussions on the use of the Johore River. Just now, the Lady from Mountbatten alleged that since the P.A.P. took over the Government, food prices have gone up. She quoted from the Malayan Statistics. I have just referred to the latest Malayan Statistics dated October 1961 and nowhere in the Statistics is there any indication that there has been an increase in food prices. In January this year, ikan tamban (sprat) cost 41 cents per kati. In September, it was 39 cents per kati. Pomfret - which the Member for Mountbatten described as the food of the bourgeousie - or what the Malays call bawal puteh, cost $2.42 a kati in January this year and the price in September was only $2.17 a kati. In January, the price of rice was $1.25 per gantang; in September, it was $1.

29. Poultry cost $1.60 per kati in January and $1.57 in September. From these figures, it is quite obvious-

Chinese New Year.

Still far away as yet.

January.

February. It is quite clear that the prices of food have therefore remained more or less at a steady level and there has been no increase in the cost of living. The slight increase in the price of rice is a reflection of the large purchases made by China to cover up the agricultural deficit in that country. It is only natural that when there are competitive buyers, there is an increase in price. The problem of unemployment is not a new one. In fact, when we first came to power in 1959, this problem was very clearly stated, to the people when we held a meeting at the City Hall steps on 2nd June, 1959. The Member for Tanglin has alleged that there has been less employment during the tenure of office of the P.A.P. Government. However, I would like to inform the House that his allegation is false. From figures in the Malayan Statistics, in September 1959, the total number of workers, excluding clerks, peons, watchmen, domestic ser vants and shop assistants, was 106,771. In September 1960, the number was 105,605. This is only 1,000 less and is part of what we call "fiction" unemployment, that is the workers who change their jobs to look for other jobs. With the boom in the building and construction industry, there is an increase in the number of workers engaged in this industry, as I have already explained. The statistics for 1961 are not yet available, but I am convinced they will show an increase in the number of persons employed. In 1962-

On a point of explanation, Sir.

I think I will wind up now, Sir, In 1962, when there is an acceleration in the development programme of the Government, it is likely that the figures of people employed will also be increased. The Member for Farrer Park did raise an important point and that was a suggestion made by him that the Industrial Arbitration Court should present an Annual Report which will show to the public the usefulness and importance of this Court. In fact, I understand the President of this Court will publish the Annual Report which will be available by January 1962. Another point raised by the Member for Farrer Park was on the terms of service of the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court. It is true that he was appointed on a three-year contract, but his contract of service however does not in any way affect his status or interfere with the execution of his duties as laid down in the Ordinance. References have been made by Members of the opposition to the Government majority of one. They have been made by Members of the Barisan Sosialis, the U.P.P. and S.P.A. But let me remind the Members that the new Government in Australia also has a majority of one in the House of Parliament and the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Menzies, who I think is more experienced than any of us in this House, has said that he is delighted with his majority - [Interruption] No. I would say this to Mr Menzies: we are doing fine. Much use of the smear has been made by the Barisan Sosialis on the use of the military in the recent City Council strike and the trouble in the Work Brigade. Let me say this : the first duty of any government is to maintain peace and order. The task of the police force is to uphold the law. It acts as a deterrent to evil-doers. The military is only called in when backing-up force is necessary. I hope Members of the Opposition are not suggesting that the 800-odd troops in the Singapore Infantry Regiment are to be deployed only when there is a possibility of a foreign army invading our shores. That would be ridiculous indeed. One of the functions of this small military force is the maintenance of internal security. Now, as long as workers strike peacefully and do not seek to create public disorder or damage public property, or intimidate and injure members of the public, we leave them alone. But when any group of persons seek to disrupt the peace by a show of violence, then violence must be counteracted by an equally firm determination on the part of the Government to uphold orderliness in order to protect the public. No responsible government can allow persons to go on a rampage of destruction throughout the City. We are not the first to use the military to assist the police to maintain tranquillity. Previous governments have done it the Government of the Member for Anson, the Government of the Member for Cairnhill. In fact, I can quote other instances. When rioting and disorder broke out in Little Rock in the United States over the question of admission of negroes to schools attended by whites, it could only be contained by the use of the army. If the Barisan want other examples, we need only remind them of Hungary and Tibet. The employment of violent tactics by any group is anti-social and against the welfare of the community. It is the first duty of any government, be it Left-wing or Right-wing, to uphold peace and orderliness in the use of forces at its command. It gives us no pleasure to deploy the Singapore Infantry Regiment in the recent City Council strike as we are naturally exposed to the smear of using armed force against violence.

You have earned it.

But we are not like the Member for Anson. As the Minister for Finance has said, he was driven from pillar to post because he wanted to make everybody happy. Let me say this: we will not shirk our duty as a government. The House is fully aware that if we had not taken prompt action, the violence which appeared in the early days of the strike would have grown to such proportions as to provoke rioting in the city. As it turned out, the use of armed forces had a salutary effect on a small group of people who had made up their minds to use violence to intimidate not only the Government but also members of the public. When the P.A.P. fought the general elections in 1959, we were the only Party to draw up a Five- Year political programme found in The Tasks Ahead to which the 13 Members of the Barisan contributed little to its thinking. But it is gratifying that the Barisan Sosialis nevertheless throughout this debate still make reference to our booklet The Tasks Ahead. In order to implement this political programme, we had to have an economic programme. Therefore, some time was spent when we formed the Government in 1959 to draft out the Four-Year Development Plan. As far as our political policy is concerned, it has already been enunciated in The Tasks Ahead. Therefore, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech only seeks to explain the steps the Government intends to take next year to implement the Government's political policy through its Development Plan. In the implementation of a political policy, we have encountered difficulties and sometimes even resistance. It may be that part of our political programme is acceptable and part of it is controversial. We do not claim to be infallible. If we have made mistakes, then we must obviously be told where the mistakes are so that we can rectify them. The six-day week for English schools, for instance, has not brought happiness to teachers in these schools.

I am sure of it.

But if it is the view of educationists and parents that this policy should be reviewed, we are going to have it re-examined. In fact, the Minister for Education has earlier today announced that he will set up a Commission of Inquiry into the six-day week. Such is the parliamentary democratic system which we hope to operate. The Government's policy is debated, the Government's Budget is debated-how much the Prime Minister spends, how much the Deputy Prime Minister gets in allowances is debated. All this is done without fear of reprisal. Members of the Opposition, including the Member for Anson, can either be constructive or destructive. But I will say to them; if their idea is to spend their time in this Chamber only to jeer, then I say I will respect them more if they also, particularly Members of the Barisan Sosialis, have the courage to jeer in Moscow or Peking where the government is monolithic.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, 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."

11.09 p.m.

Mr Speaker, before I move the motion for the adjournment, may I, on behalf of the House, express our appreciation to you and members of the staff for your patience and endurance in keeping up with this House during these six weeks' of sitting? We wish you and your staff a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

And I for my own self wish all present goodwill to all men.

May we in the Barisan Sosialis also associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the House? We wish you as well as Members of the House here a Merry Christmas.

May I also say, Sir, how greatly we appreciate your patience and the hard work put in by the staff? We would like to wish you all a very, very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Leader of the House said what he said, he was expressing the sentiments on behalf of all Members of this House. And when he said it, it was on a non-party basis.

May the blessed spirit of Christmas bring all of us together on one issue. I am delighted to join the other Party leaders and the Government in expressing not only appreciation of the work during the arduous weeks but in wishing you and your staff a very Happy New Year and a Merry Christmas to everybody.

I thought that possibly I should rule all these speeches out of order! But may I, especially on behalf of the Assembly staff, thank you, leaders of all Parties, for your very kind words and appreciation of what they have done for the Assembly. I myself, I am sure, have proved to be a bit impatient at times, but I think, with the goodwill of the season - the Christmas season and the New Year season - all Members have been able to take it. May I, on behalf of the staff and myself, wish all Members a very Happy Christmas and a very prosperous New Year. I have, I think Members will not disagree with me, directed the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly to close this Assembly tomorrow and give the staff a holiday for the whole of tomorrow. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn to 15th January, 1962."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock p.m. to Monday, 15th January, 1962.