Hansard, 1962-01-19

I have to report that I have been informed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that on the 18th day of January, 1961, he assented to the Banking Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last Tuesday this House passed the Banking Bill on a Certificate of Urgency. During the debate, I announced that I intended to establish a clearing house under the Ordinance by Friday, that is, today. Members will be glad to know that the clearing house has been established on time, and clearing operations began at 2 o'clock this afternoon. I am sure that Members of the House will join with me in recording our thanks to the officers of my Ministry who had to work long hours to establish this clearing house at short notice.

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day].

2.33 p.m.

Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before the Committee proceeds to consider the Development Estimates?

I so signify.

We are on the Development Estimates for 1963. For the convenience of hon. Members, I intend taking the totals for each Head as they appear in the fourth column of the Summary of Expenditure on page 7 of Paper Cmd. 1 of 1962. We are dealing now with Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper. Head D49 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 9. Raffles National Library - according to the Estimates here, there is a token revote of $10. We therefore presume that extensions would practically be completed or about to be completed in 1963. Could the Minister in charge please describe to us the nature of these extensions, because in the blue book given to us there was no description or particulars given as regards these extensions?

Mr Speaker, Sir, about $750,000 was provided under the Plan Cost for the Raffles National Library to meet bills for final expenditure on building and furniture. It is most likely that all expenditure would be paid for in 1962, but the token provision for 1963 is entered to ensure that outstanding bills can be paid for in 1963.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Raffles National Library is practically a monument. Although no doubt we appreciate the fine building, we would appreciate it more if the contents of the library are adequate. Sir, I think if there is money to be spared, we should spend more on equipping the Library with books than the $53,000 that we have voted for expenditure this year. So I wonder whether out of the amount spent on the building we could not devote more money per year to increasing the contents thereof.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a different proposition. That is annually recurrent expenditure. As far as the Development Estimates are concerned, the building is finished, and that is that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if that development is finished, that means that there will be more money available for increasing the contents thereof and I am sure the Minister could do that.

Sir, you cannot do that. Money for development projects are paid out of the Development Fund. You cannot use that to buy books. Books are paid for from the O.C.A.R. items in the Annual Estimates.

What the Member for Tanglin wants, I think, is an assurance from the Minister responsible that when this big building has been completed, more monies will be voted for the purchase of books annually.

Of course.

The Minister had already asked for an increase, and although the Treasury was unable to agree to the full sum, nevertheless, there was a very substantial increase for last year to be spent this year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the assurance given, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $4,080,070 for Head D49 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D57 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 7. Headquarters Project - Sir, we are glad that the Government proposes to move the Ministry of Education's headquarters from Kay Siang Road because the site has been found to be very unsuitable and very inconvenient to members of the public, and to heads of schools and teachers. Since there are transport difficulties, people from Geylang would have to change buses and so on. We would appreciate it if the Minister could tell us now where the headquarters would be sited.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I have to disappoint the Member for Tanglin if he thinks that the headquarters is going to be transferred to Tanglin or that it is going to be nearer to Balmoral Road. This project will be in the same location. The reason for suggesting a new headquarters project arose out of the fact when the present Government took office in the middle of 1959, the Ministry of Education found itself housed in three temporary structures believed to have been built by the Japanese some 20 years ago. With the expansion of the Inspectorate, we found it necessary early in 1960 to requisition a primary school building just next to the three temporary structures, off Kay Siang Road and Tanglin Road, to house the enlarged Inspectorate. It is understood that the three temporary structures are uneconomical to maintain and, therefore, we have to think a little ahead in view of the tremendous expansion which we have to undergo in the Ministry of Education, especially in respect of the Examinations Division. For security reasons, it is also essential that adequate measures have to be taken so that there will not be any repetition of leakage of examination papers. If we refer to the Four-Year Development Plan at page 112, Table 9.4. the headquarters project would come to a total cost of $1½ million. It was envisaged to complete the headquarters project in three years, starting from 1962-3-4. So the present provision of half a million dollars in 1962 which was passed recently, Sir (page 41 of the 1962 Development Estimates, subhead 7), shows a figure of half a million dollars. For this vote to account for 1963, we feel that the estimated expenditure for 1962 would amount to $100,000. So the 1963 figure would mean a revote of $300,000 plus an additional $200,000. This is in respect of the Examinations Division block which will have first priority under our Plan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an Education vote. I think, as a Member of this Assembly, I require a little bit of education on the question of revotes. In 1962 the vote asked for was just $200,000, and yet for 1963 according to the "Notes" column it is a revote for $300,000. Where does the money come from? 2.45 p.m. The vote for 1962 is only $200,000 and yet it is anticipated that in 1963 there will be a revote of $300,000. I do not know how that is worked out, Sir. Perhaps the Minister for Education can help me in trying to understand how the revote is going to be more than what the actual vote is.

The Minister has indicated that the vote in fact was $500,000. He has referred to the 1962 Estimates.

In that case, may I have further information? The work is to be started in 1962. It is this year. For 1963 $500,000 is put in. But this $500,000 includes a revote of $300,000. A revote means a revote of the project this year.

Perhaps I should go through this slowly with the Member for Cairnhill. First of all, would he take the 1962 Development Estimates? Turn to page 41, subhead 7. Estimated expenditure, in bold, is shown as $500,000. If we now turn to this vote on account for 1963 Development Estimates - also on page 41, sub-head 7, first column - we see that the estimated expenditure for this year is $200,000. Therefore, there would be a balance of $300,000 which would be revoted back to the next column, plus another $200,000 additional commitment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could I take the next item together with this one, because what I wish to indicate is related to "Renovation to Raffles Institute."

Related?

Yes, because it is a question of siting, Sir.

I suppose the hon. Member is entitled to indicate his points.

Sir, from the point of view of the general public, the present site is most unsatisfactory for the headquarters. If a parent has to change buses several times before he reaches his place to see an inspector or any official, it causes him great inconvenience. And Government policy has been to bring the Ministers and their staff near the public! We fully support it. That is why the Immigration Department has been brought nearer to the centre of the town. Sir, Raffles Institute, I think, is spelt wrongly. It should be "Raffles Institution". It has been changed to Raffles Institute. Now, Raffles Institution is occupying a very ancient building. It is very costly to maintain the present building. We know that even after costly renovations, after a few years the building will again look shabby. We cannot blame the building because it was built over a century ago. Would it not be possible, since there was a project before, for the transfer of Raffles Institution to new and better quarters elsewhere, to have the two projects co-ordinated? Maybe Raffles Institution could go to the present site of the Headquarters and the Ministerial headquarters could go to Raffles Institution site. That is a matter which I believe Rafflesians would be interested in. In, any case, Sir, this is a perennial thing. After a few years, the Raffles Institution building will look very shabby as compared with other new buildings that are being built. I think Raffles Institution deserves a new set of buildings.

Sir, when the file for the renovation of Raffles Institution, amounting to $100,000 (the estimate given by the Public Works Department) came to me late in 1959 I had the same feeling as the Member for Tanglin that it might perhaps be a waste of money to spend $100,000 just to renovate an old building. Of course, it was prevailed upon me that it had a historical interest and old Rafflesians would fight to the last ditch to preserve this building. But I deferred the matter. In six months' time it came back again with a plea that if I did not make a decision on the matter, then the building might collapse because the windows were coming off at the hinges, the stairs were getting very rickety and so forth. I was still adamant that we should spend $100,000 on a new school building. Then the explanation was given to me that for $100,000, we would be able to get Raffles Institution into good shape and also put into it certain new laboratories. It is certainly much cheaper spending $100,000 carrying on with Raffles Institution, which is centrally situated, for at least 2,000 students rather than ponder over the possibility of erecting a new secondary school that would cost as much as $600,000 and to wait for perhaps one and a half years. So I had to agree, after weighing all the various advantages and disadvantages, to proceed with this project. In fact, the repairs and renovations have already started and it is more or less halfway through.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no doubt after a few years when the time comes for the building to be again renovated, if the Minister should still be occupying his post, he would reconsider this question after discussing it with the Rafflesians. I beg leave to withdraw.

I never heard the Member for Tanglin! Mr Rajah.

Sir, as an old Rafflesian, I entirely agree with the Minister when, he says that there is need to renovate the school. When I was more intimately connected with the Raffles Old Boys' Association, when the previous Government, that is, the Lim Yew Hock Government, made the decision to move Raffles Institution to some other place - I think it was in Dunearn Road, if I remember rightly - there was a lot of objection from the Old Boys' Association and from the old boys of Raffles School. The old boys felt, quite naturally, a sentimental attachment to the original site and that it should be preserved. I for one, Sir, speaking as an old Rafflesian, would not like to see the headquarters of the educational department shifted there, not because I do not think it is an appropriate site - it is an ideal site - but merely because I would not like to see the historical connection of the school with the site disturbed. On the question of siting for the headquarters, Sir, there is opposite to the school itself across the road what the City Council preserves as an open area. It is next to the Club. I believe the previous Government had some ideas about erecting a building there - a civic centre and all that sort of thing. But that did not come to pass. That site is still available. It is not earmarked for any particular project on the Master Plan. I was wondering whether the Minister could look into that aspect of it to see whether that site in front of Raffles Institution across Beach Road might not be a suitable place for the Education Department.

I think my colleague, the Minister for Health and Law, would be very pleased to hear this, because that was originally reserved for the Health Ministry, before the Education Ministry parked itself there. We shall give it some consideration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for myself, I think it is wholly inappropriate to remove Raffles Institution. If there are sites available to which it can be removed, they are in any event urgently required for the erection of secondary schools to which we are committed. But I would urge that a long-term view be taken of the school which has survived for more than a century and that we should have some plan for the erection of a substantial secondary school building which would replace the existing building on that site for the same purpose and with the same aim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was going to say the same thing because I feel that it is a waste of money if a building is too old and we keep on renovating it as we are renovating an ancient monument. Today a modern secondary school requires buildings built along different lines because of the emphasis on science. I would suggest that after this period when the renovation period is over, the Government should plan to rebuild Raffles Institution so that in prestige it will be equal to all the bigger schools in Singapore. I am sure today the old boys feel unhappy passing by to see the building looking as if it is ready for demolition. An hon. Member: Not like the A.C.S.!

No, Sir. We want to be fair because we believe that all schools must be given equal chances. It is not right that one building is new and another building is old. Sir, I beg leave -

Will the Member please take his seat? I do not know whether there is any response from the Minister.

The Prime Minister is concerned about Raffles Institution. He was so sorry about the whole matter that he got up and walked out when this issue was being discussed!

Now, Dr Thio.

Sir, if there is nobody else who wants to speak, then J beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee - * That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 12.

Amendment No. (2)* is not being moved, I take it?

No.

Amendment No. (3)+.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, + That the sum to be allocated for Head D57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 23. Sir, the item here is a peculiar one: "Percussion. Drill for School Site Investigation Works - One". Sir, the sum to be spent is about $60,000. We in school used to remember an item in a school concert called "percussion band" where little children beat drums and cymbals. We like some clarification on this. What does percussion drill mean in this setting?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an item really put in by the Economic Development Section of the Ministry of Finance. For a clearer explanation for the Member for Tanglin, perhaps I might have to call upon my colleague, the Minister for National Development. There is a thing called positive piling. I do not know if there is such a thing as negative piling. But this particular item "percussion drill" for school site investigation works, I understand, is a machine - and not a musical instrument - which is required for soil testing purposes in connection with the structure of school building. It was approved last year by the Development Planning Sub-Committee as an essential equipment. I suppose the Member for Tanglin is aware that we hope to build as many as 17 to 19 schools each year. It is perhaps in the long-term interest of the Government to purchase such equipment rather than depend on private contractors every time we want to test the soil for the building of schools.

I beg leave to withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.00 p.m. The sum of $25,217,950 for Head D57 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D58 -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 21. Agricultural and Kampong Roads - $600,000 in 1963. Sir, could we have an idea of the basis on which priorities for improvements are given for these roads? I understood from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who has something to do with this project, that the petitions of various people - I sent some petitions on behalf of certain kampong people - have been lost in view of the changes in the P.A.P. The one who retired as head of the relevant committee did not leave the papers in the proper places and apparently the present officer in charge could not locate them. So I was asked if I could send a petition for certain improvements. Sir, I would like to know the basis on which these priorities are given, so that we will be able to put forward, our cases properly.

Sir, the priority and approval of requests for improvement or construction of agricultural and kampong roads are fixed by the Committee called the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee. In view of the fact that there was some misplacement of previous requests for construction or improvement to these roads, I would like to call upon the present Chairman of the Committee to give a clarification of this matter.

Kampong road priorities are always given to those roads that are very bad. We just send an engineer to investigate which road has priority and then we put it to the meeting.

Are we to understand that priority depends on the degree of disrepair and not the extent of the use of the road? Just because a road going through a lonely swampy area is very bad does not mean that that road must be repaired first. I should think that where a road is in disrepair and it serves a very large kampong, that one should come first. We know places where taxis dare not go in because the taxi-drivers say if they go in, it is not worth the fare in view of the danger of the axle breaking or something going wrong. Sir, perhaps that could be considered by the Chairman of the Committee.

When a road is in disrepair and kampong people send in their complaints, we always send a road engineer to investigate. Then when a meeting of the Committee is held we immediately ask the officer concerned to take action to have the road repaired. Certainly we are not going to make a road near a swamp, as the Member for Tanglin has suggested. We are not so stupid. I live in the rural area and I know how to make a road. The Member should go and see what the kampong roads look like and not come here and say that we are building roads near the swamp.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take up this matter later on whenever there are roads requiring repairs, because as I say, Sir, he is quite aware of that. There are other factors that decide the state of disrepair of a particular road. Being old enough and mature enough, he would, I think be able to give due and careful consideration.

I would enquire, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether we are to understand that the vote sought would be adequate to meet the requirement for repair to all agricultural and kampong roads and that it is merely a question of priority, so that by the end of 1963 all our agricultural and kampong roads now in disrepair will be fully adequate?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we always look into this matter. If sometimes the vote is not adequate, certainly we will ask the Prime Minister to give us some more money for this.

I must ask for more assistance than that, Mr Speaker, Sir,I would repeat my request. Surely he does know whether the vote is adequate in respect of the number of agricultural and kampong roads in disrepair in connection with which he has received complaints. Is it adequate or is it not adequate? Has he had reports in respect of all the complaints or has he not?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the vote for this year to repair these kampong roads is adequate.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (10) of subhead 21. Sir, item (10) concerns private streets. In view of the fact that the property tax has now been increased and in view of this anomaly which arose in colonial times of regarding certain streets as private when they are no longer private, since the public are allowed to go through all of them, could we ask for clarification whether these private streets will be given adequate attention, because I see the Government is going to spend $500,000 on private streets? Sir, private streets were not in the care of the City Council. Repairs to private streets have to be done by the private owners, and naturally it is difficult to get co-ordination and co-operation among the private owners living in one private street. For instance, Sir, if it is an estate, even a new estate, I remember how difficult it was to get one road in the Siglap Estate, Siglap Hill or Siglap Road, where several of the Ministers, I believe, stay -

We live in lorongs, not in public streets.

Private streets, we used to call them, Sir. But it took a long time before the residents got the Government to agree to make up the so-called private streets and to declare them public roads. I wonder what this item is for. If it is still for private streets, it means the Government has adopted new principles which we appreciate, that private streets needing repair would be repaired and not neglected.

Sir, under section 143 of the Local Government Ordinance, where any private street or part of a private street in the opinion of the local authority requires the execution of street works, the expenses incurred by the local authority in executing such street works are apportioned among the premises fronting that street. This practice still carries on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is merely recoverable expenditure which the Government incurs in the first instance. I understand that position. Could the Minister assure us that there are corresponding entries in the income estimates which will recover these monies from frontagers?

I so assure the Member for Farrer Park.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are, in fact, at present private streets which are both adequate and utilised by the public to such an extent that they should be declared to be public streets and taken over. Would he indicate Government policy in that regard?

Mr Speaker, Sir, public streets and private streets are two different things. Government will take over a private street and turn it into a public street. The frontagers of the property have to pay for making up the roads and also the drains and land. In an area which is just developing, one acre of land may cost about $5,000, and to make up a road would cost over $20,000. So how could the Government take over when the place is not fully developed? That is my answer.

The Parliamentary Secretary did not understand the Member for Anson.

If it please you. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate whether all these private streets are exclusively in undeveloped rural areas? Surely not.

Some of them are in the town area and some are in the rural area. Naturally the Government will take over the roads which are less developed and turn them into public roads or public streets, whatever they are called, and the frontagers have to pay for the cost of construction.

I do not wish to pursue this, Mr Speaker, but are we to understand then that it is Government's policy to take over those roads which are being extensively used by the public and that this money is required exclusively in respect of roads in undeveloped rural areas?

A private street or a private road is a public street or a public road when the place is congested or the road leads to schools. That is priority, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that many owners of property on private streets do not want the private streets to be taken over because they want some privacy. But where the private streets have become really public streets with people going through them because they are thoroughfares, as it were, then perhaps the Government would consider taking over them as public streets. If the owners have to share the cost, well, then, the owners must share the cost.

This is a matter for consideration by the Public Works Department (Roads and Engineering Section). When this Section recommends that the private streets be taken over as public streets and the frontagers co-operate with the Government to build the roads and pay their dues, then the private streets are turned into public streets.

He is helpful, Sir, but could the Minister add, what is the policy of this Committee governing the recommendations for taking over private streets?

Sir, the policy is to leave well alone.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not a policy. That is sheer laziness.

Sir, I do not know what the policy of the present Government is. As I was connected with these private streets in the City Council, perhaps I might state what the policy of the City Council was. That might help the Member for Anson. Sir, in similar circumstances, there were votes in the City Council budgets for these amounts which were recoverable from frontagers. As and when requests came in from frontagers that their private streets should be made up by the City Council, the City Council made them up to certain specifications which the Council insisted upon. Once those roads were made up to those specifications, then the Council declared them as public streets and took them over, from which time of declaration they became public streets and thence forward they were repairable at the expense of public funds. That I must assume is the position today too. As and when owners require public streets to be made up, this particular Committee has them made up and charges the cost to this particular vote and then recovers it from the frontagers. Now insofar as new development estates are concerned, the policy which was prevalent when I left the City Council was that the Singapore Improvement Trust insisted that all roads before development took place on a particular site be made up to City Council standards, or to Rural Board standards, as the case may be, and before any house could be sold the public streets were in fact taken over either by the City Council or by the Rural Board as the case may be. So I am assuming that this $500,000 is in respect of present private streets which have not as yet been taken over. That would be so if the policy of 1957 still prevails.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (13) of subhead 21. Sir, this concerns slabbing over roadside drains and the amount for 1963 is $¼ million. Those of us who go along kampong backlanes and roads find that some of the drains are not along the roadside. They are right across the roads and lanes, and if slabbing is put over the roadside drains, I hope that it will also be put over the drains that cross the roads. The taxis, lorries and so on experience difficulty because the drains go right across the roads without any slabbing over them. In some of the kampongs in Farrer Road, there are cases where right in the middle of the road there is a drain going across and there is no slabbing. So, Sir, I hope the Minister in charge will see that this is not followed literally, and that slabbing should not be just over roadside drains but also over drains across the roads.

Sir, this item is mainly for the slabbing of roadside drains in the City area, particularly in the Chinatown area.

In that case, Sir, what about the kampong lanes? It is no use having lanes made up when people wanting to go in taxis find that they cannot do so because of the drains and then the taxis have to stop. That is the whole trouble with some of these country lanes, Sir.

What sort of drains is the Member for Tanglin referring to? Are they man-made drains - drains made by the P.W.D. - or are they lanes as a result of erosion?

Made by the rural people.

Rural people? Why do they do this sort of thing?

Well, I thought the Government would know because they are in charge of these areas. What I saw was that the kampong people were compelled to make these drains to drain away water from their homes. Very often their homes are in a higher level and they have to drain away the water from their homes. The water must cross the roads. So they just build drains across the roads. If only the Government, when making up these roads, will instruct their engineers to provide some kind of cover, there will not be this unnecessary division of a kampong road into two or three sections so that people travelling in taxis have to stop and then walk round.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have never seen a drain across a kampong road at all. It is only on the site of a house where a drain is not covered. It has to be covered by the occupant of the house. I would like to invite the Member for Tanglin to show me one day the place where there is a drain across the road over which a taxi cannot go over.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view .of the assurance that the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to go personally to inspect some of these roads -

Pirate taxis!

- I will be glad to do so. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (14) of subhead 21. Sir, item (14) reads "Street Lighting -

I can assure the Member for Tanglin that this is being considered.

I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D58 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 21. Subhead 21 refers to "Improvements to Roads and Backlanes". Sir, there is one road in my constituency, Fernhill Road, which in a curious manner has been divided into two parts; one part has been made up as a public road up to where some members of the staff of the Commissioner-General reside, but the other part that goes through a Malay kampong has been neglected. Sir, the kampong people there are mostly U.M.N.O. people and they did not vote for me. But I went there several times. I sent in my petition requesting for the making-up of the drains and the roads, but nothing has been done these few years. Of course, I made certain enquiries from a Government Back-bencher and he said that the documents had been mislaid. Sir, if the officer in charge will travel along Fernhill Road, off Stevens Road, he will know what I mean. There are two portions: one is neglected and the other one is well laid being in a European area. But since there is going to be no discrimination in the same area. I hope the Government will pay attention to this particular road and make it up so that there will be no unpleasant comparison between the two sections of Fernhill Road.

Mr Speaker, I remember some years ago I tried to locate the residence of the Member for Tanglin. He was then in Balmoral Road. We tried to trace it through telephone calls to his address. Eventually we were able to locate him there. But he then never complained, Mr Speaker, Sir. He was in the Executive Council and he wielded considerable powers then. He did not want any developments to take place in this particular estate where he lived before. But now that he is in the clear, he is asking that there be road developments in the area where he lives.

That is not fair, is it not?

It is surely unfair.

Mr Speaker, I was at that time the Member for Balestier. Therefore, I had to look after my constituency; and since today I am the Member for Tanglin, it is only natural that I must look after this area.

The remarks of the Minister seem to be completely unfair and irrelevant.

The Member for Tanglin lives nowhere near Serangoon Estate. He lives in Balmoral Crescent which is a good mile away from Fernhill Road. It is no part of the estate in which the Member for Tanglin lives. I think it is a completely unfair statement.

I thought he was referring to the place where he lived.

Sir, there have been two references to missing documents. It is a very serious state of affairs if, in fact, these documents are missing. Now that we have the Member for Upper Serangoon present - he was formerly in charge of this Committee - can we, have a word from him as to whether he is keeping these documents, or any documents; and if he still has any official documents in his possession, when is he going to surrender them before legal action is taken to dispossess him of them?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I understand, this was the situation relating to applications for standpipes. When the Member for Hong Lim was suspended from the P.A.P., I was appointed Chairman of the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee and I received a great number of applications; but I did not take custody of the documents. Later when I left the Urban and Rural Services Consultative committee, I did not take away any relevant document addressed to this Committee. At that time, this Committee was in the charge of a civil servant who had to reply to letters written by members of the public. As far as I know, this public servant was transferred. So I think the present Chairman of the Committee will be able to answer how the letters were dealt with by this public servant.

It is completely irrelevant. Further enquiries can be made departmentally. 3.30 p.m.

Sir, no reply has been given to my question about Fernhill Road - not the road where I live in - a road that is a good distance away and where we might say people who were there voted against me. An hon. Member: How do you know?

Yes, at that time. Sir, I feel this particular section has been neglected and in order to prevent any further discrimination, I ask the Government to see that the road is made up.

Surely this is a matter which the hon. Member can refer to the Minister in charge. It is a particular matter. This motion is a motion to reduce by $10 the sum in respect of subhead 21 which relates to general improvements to roads and backlanes. Therefore, there must be some debate on principle. If there is any particular road to which the Member for Tanglin wishes to draw the Minister's attention, surely he can do it by letter.

I beg leave to withdraw. I will refer that matter to the Minister.

If the Minister wishes to make a reply, he may do so.

Sir, I cannot do anything to help the Member for Tanglin if he cannot get the votes of the people down there. But if he really wants to do something for them, I think he should see the Chairman of the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee as soon as possible.

Mr Speaker, I will do that, but I want to repeat here that I have written to that particular committee twice, I think.

Yes, that has been mentioned three times!

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $33,550,480 for Head D58 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The remaining Heads of Expenditure in respect of which no amendments stand, on the Order Paper are as shown on page 7 of Paper Cmd. 1 of 1962, other than the Heads we have dealt with, that is, Heads D49, D57, and D58.

Question, "That the sums stated for those Heads as they appear in the fourth column of the Summary of Expenditure on page 7 of Paper Cmd. I of 1962 stand part of the Development Estimates", put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $173,783,444 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 1 of 1962", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left tile Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly. 3.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $173,783,444 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 1 of 1962."

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Assembly doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to.

Order read for resumption of adjourned debate on Question (18th January, 1962), "That this House, taking cognizance of the heroic struggle of the Indonesian people to liberate Irian Barat from colonial rule, expresses admiration for the determination and courage of the Indonesian people and expresses full sympathy with their hopes and aspirations, and calls upon the people of Singapore to give their wholehearted support to our neighbours and friends, the people of Indonesia, in their just and legitimate struggle against colonial domination." -(Dr Lee Siew Choh). Question again proposed. 3.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday at the time of adjournment I was urging Government Members to take this debate seriously. I hope that today they will at least try and refrain from making frivolous remarks and, as a mark of respect to the Indonesian people, to take the debate seriously. Sir, to show the magnitude and importance which the Indonesian people place on the West Irian issue, I just want to quote from a publication of the Indonesian Government entitled "West Irian, an essential part of Indonesia". On page 21: `This West Irian dispute is likely to become an object of the overall struggle in international politics. West Irian is a vital problem for Indonesia which might affect, the basic cause and development of our national life and politics.' Therefore, Sir, I do not think it is proper for anyone of us to take this debate lightly. As I said yesterday, the Indonesians take the West Irian issue as a very serious issue. It is an issue which involves thousands of people, and if the present trend is kept, inevitably the lives of thousands of people will be involved. Yesterday the Minister for Culture was trying to equate the Malaysia plan with the Indonesia claim over West Irian. This is but an example of the hollowness of the P.A.P. logic. Briefly I want to put an end to this once and for all. I have no doubt that one after another Government speakers are going to come forward with the same line. And the sooner the stupidity of this logic is exposed, I think the better it will be for all of us. I make this quite clear to the Government Members - that if they want to talk of Malaysia, let us talk of Malaysia at the time the Malaysia motion is debated. This motion is not one which involves Malaysia in any way. Neither is this a motion which is sought to give the P.A.P. the opportunity to make political capital. Briefly, the position is this: Malaysia is a plan which is perhaps British initiated but nevertheless backed by British. Whereas West Irian is not, in the first place, being freely given away to the Indonesian Government. The Indonesian claim over West Irian is being resisted with all the armed might of the Dutch colonial government.

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

Yes, certainly.

I take it that the Member will give a solemn undertaking in respect of the Malaysia plan, that if the British were to fight us over the Borneo territories, then it becomes an anti-colonial struggle which he will wholeheartedly support.

As I said to the Prime Minister yesterday, I am not interested in arguing out the Malaysia issue on this motion. The Prime Minister can raise the same question when the Malaysia motion comes up for debate, and I shall be only too delighted to give a reply.

You mean you want consultation?

Secondly, Sir, the prime movers behind the Malaysia plan have quite definitely certain ulterior motives. But there is no ulterior motive behind the Indonesian claim over West Irian. Thirdly, the sort of independence through merger that is being sold through this Malaysia idea is farcical and is not genuine independence. It is riot a plan which would genuinely enforce the principle of self-determination. Whereas, Sir, the Indonesian desire to liberate the people in West Irian is founded on the genuine principle of self-determination.

Sir, on another point of information.

If the Member will give way.

He can interrupt when I have finished, Sir. I just want to get this point across. After I have finished making my points, he can ask for whatever information he wants. Fourthly, Malaysia is not coming about as a result of the unanimous desire of the people in these territories. Whereas the call to liberate West Irian is the result of the unanimous wish and desire of the people of the whole of Indonesia, including West Irian. Sir, the fifth point is unlike what happened in Singapore at the time of separation. At the time when the Dutch decided to retain control of West Irian, there was resistance from all sections of the population in Indonesia. As we know, when the British colonial Government decided to separate Singapore from the mainland, there were many people, now in key positions in the Federation of Malaya, who endorsed it. Whereas the Indonesians and the Indonesian Government resisted the Dutch plan to separate West Irian from Indonesia. Sir, lastly, to compare the Indonesian claim over West Irian to Malaysia I think is trying to insult the Indonesian people. Malaysia, in my view, is an anti Indonesian plan for the purposes of making political capital to try and equate these two together -

Why did you go to Jesselton and Kuching?

- I say is an insult to the Indonesians. Sir, I shall answer whatever questions the Ministers have when we come to the debate on Malaysia. The Minister for Culture was in Kuching together with the Prime Minister. I can understand the Prime Minister, Sir. He was playing golf most of the time. So perhaps he did not have the opportunity -

Order. Let us get on with the motion. I would suggest, as the Member has in fact done, Malaysia can be mentioned in passing only, and the debate on Malaysia, I take it, will be entered upon in detail under item 3.

Sir, on a point of elucidation. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we know how jealously you guard the personal conduct of Members in this House. If I do not guard mine, it might well be that I would suffer as a result. Just a personal explanation of my personal conduct.

Is it on the question of golf?

Certainly.

I must rule then that the Member for Thomson is out of order because he is now referring to the personal conduct of the Prime Minister. Under Standing Order 46 (10) , the personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion. The Member for Thomson must refrain from mentioning any golf party.

There is one point I must make. The Member for Thomson - I read from the Press reports - having accused me of having manipulated the Federation delegation, now accuses me of abandoning my duties and playing golf. He has to make up his mind which of the two things he accuses me of having done.

A number of other things also. Mr David Marshall rose -

Point of order?

A point of clarification, if the Member will extend me the courtesy, Mr Speaker. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

I am much obliged. I am very interested to hear him say that the Malaysia motion is an insult to Indonesia. I would appreciate a clarification of that statement.

Anti Indonesia plan.

I beg your pardon. An anti Indonesia plan. I would appreciate clarification.

Sir, I did say that I do not want to start a debate on Malaysia. But, nevertheless, briefly I would say this, Just now when I was talking about the personal conduct of the Prime Minister in Kuching, what I was about to say is that if they had spent their time reading the local papers, then they must have known what I did say. Sir, we have been accused of being anti Malaysia. We have been accused of all sorts of things. Our attitude is quite simple. We say we support the concept of Malaysia. It was the Left-wing progressive leaders in Indonesia and in Malaya who first mooted the idea of Malaysia, in this original concept, Indonesia was supposed to have been the heart-land of Malaysia. But whereas in the Tunku's plan, Indonesia is excluded altogether.

You support the original plan - Malaysia plus Indonesia.

We are prepared to state our stand on Malaysia when the time comes. But since the Member for Anson has asked for clarification, Sir, I just want to say that much. Sir, perhaps it would be better for the Minister for Culture and the Prime Minister to read the Sarawak Times -

I would be much obliged -

Order.

- and then, when we come to the debate on Malaysia, we would be saved a lot of time in interruptions. Yesterday, I was saying how the Dutch had retained control of West Irian by the use of force. I explained how today the Indonesian people are forced to use force to liberate West Irian, just like the Indians were forced to use force to liberate Goa. If West Irian can be liberated without the use of force and loss of lives, none will be happier than we, who wish to see a definite end to colonialism. But, Sir, it is mischievous for the Minister for Culture to imply that the Barisan Sosialis is in favour of strife and open conflict between the Indonesians and the Dutch. We invite the P.A.P. to state its stand clearly and unequivocally.

We have done so.

The statement that they issued was wishy-washy. It was not sufficient. To say that they agree that Irian Barat belongs to the Indonesians, that the P.A.P. stand by all those who volunteer to serve in Indonesia, is not enough. It is not enough to say that the P.A.P. will pay the passages of volunteers from the Barisan Sosialis.

We will train them first!

Order.

What the people are interested to know are not nice sounding phrases like, "We are anti colonial." What the people are interested in is whether the P.A.P. agrees with the Indonesian policy of open confrontation, of open conflict and, as a last resort, of force (whether used or not) as the only language the colonialists can understand.

On a point of order, Sir. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Is the Member allowed in this Chamber to suggest by implication that we should in a similar way prepare for the ultimate open confrontation by the use of force with our colonial authority? An hon. Member: Certainly.

Let him say so.

The Prime Minister knows that it is not a point of order. It is just a point of argument. It is not a point of order which I can take.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to seek clarification on this point because I think it is very important. In this Chamber we are all supposed to act within the ambit of the Constitution. If we start in this Chamber to espouse the philosophy underlying the pronouncement of the Member for Thomson, and what we, as anti colonialists, must really do to equip ourselves for ultimate confrontation, then he is, in fact, inciting revolution by violence.

And ultimate revolt!

I cannot see how an exhortation in this Chamber offends our Standing Orders, even an exhortation to use force. It is left to the good sense of this Assembly to see that exhortation is not adhered to, not even given any weight to. It is not a point of order for me.

Will the Member clarify as a point of information?

Order. I would ask the Prime Minister to try, if he can, to obey Standing Order 48, paragraph (e) , which says: `While a Member is speaking all other Members shall be silent and shall not make interruptions except as permitted under the provisions of Standing Order No. 47...'. That is, on a point of order or elucidation. That does not arise. I have mentioned in the past that I do allow interjections, and if they are in the nature of pleasantries, then I think the Speaker could listen to the debate without any boredom. But if these interjections be, come frequent, become running commentaries, then I think they must be stopped under the Standing Orders. I am only trying to enforce the standing Orders which have been made by this Assembly. Mr Bani.

Sir, in his last desperate moments, the Prime Minister chooses to behave like a thug.

Order. If the Member for Thomson endeavours to make pronouncements on which I have ruled, then I might have to ask him to stop his speech. I am trying to enforce the rules of order. It is up to the Member for Thomson to continue his speech in the light of my ruling.

I have no intention of not following the rules of the debate. I did preface my speech by saying that at least today the Government Members will show a sense of seriousness. The Prime Minister was not here just now. Before he came in, Sir, I thought today at least we could debate this motion with all seriousness; if not for anything, then at least as a mark of respect for the Indonesian people. As soon as the Prime Minister came in [Interruption] -

Order.

Sir, I want to say this in reply to what the Prime Minister raised just now as a matter of clarification. I am not advocating armed revolution, and the Prime Minister knows this very well.

I do not. I am worried about it.

Nobody in Singapore is advocating armed revolution against our colonial power. All that I am saying is today the Indonesian people are forced to take up arms against the Dutch to liberate West Irian, just as the Indians were forced to take up arms to liberate Goa. It is no use for the P.A.P. to say, "We sympathise with the Indonesian people." This is the position. Do they support the Indonesians in their desire to liberate West Irian by peaceful means or otherwise? That is the stand I am anxious to see the P.A.P. explain. Does the P.A.P. Government condemn Nehru's Government for its use of force in Goa? What I would like to know is, will the P.A.P. Government condemn the Indonesian Government should force become necessary? Sir, to say that they are for a peaceful solution, as the Minister for Culture indicated yesterday, without the recognition of the open use of force by the colonialists, is to join the chorus of all the protagonists of colonialism. We heard the hue and cry by the N.A.T.O. powers when India was forced to use armed might to regain her territory. Sir, if we were to follow in the same train as the N.A.T.O. powers, we would also have to condemn the Algerians for their heroic struggle against French colonialism. Yesterday the Minister for Culture in his speech ridiculed some of the people who have volunteered to go to West Irian. He, in fact, Sir - Mr Rajaratnam rose ---

On a point of order?

On a point of correction. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Sir, I did not ridicule the people who volunteered. I ridiculed the Barisan Sosialis who stayed behind.

Let the girls volunteer!

Sir, if only the Minister had been patient for a few more minutes, he would have saved himself the energy of having to walk up to the Table and say two uncalled for sentences. Sir, by implication, quite definitely he was ridiculing. He said these three women who volunteered are Barisan Sosialis members. I did say yesterday I would check up because I did not know whether they were members of the Barisan Sosialis or not. I say this, Sir: they are not members of the Barisan Sosialis, and we are sorry they are not members of the Barisan Sosialis. If they were members of the Barisan Sosialis, we would be very proud indeed. But -

They are too involved.

Why do you not go there?

- it shows, Sir, the sort of things the P.A.P. is prepared to do to make political capital. I would like to use an unparliamentary word and say what I think of the Ministers for making this inaccurate statement, but for parliamentary reasons, I shall not. The Minister was also trying to show that we in the Barisan Sosialis are not genuine anti- colonialists -

The Dutchmen of Malaysia.

- the Dutchmen of Malaysia, and trying to say that we were not courageous people because we were sending our women. In fact, the three of them, as I have said, are not our members. I hate indeed to measure the extent of anti-colonialism in individual human beings. But since the Minister has ventured to say this, and since I have no doubt other speakers, including our great Prime Minister, the great one-time anti-colonialist, would be taking the same line, I might as well say one or two things here. Everybody in Singapore knows how anti-colonial our Prime Minister was at one time, to the extent of saying, "Cut out the Harry Lee Kuan Yew." Sir, as we all know, the P.A.P. organised a rally for Dr Ferhat Abbas. There is a story behind this. It was not the P.A.P. who made the first move. Some students in the University of Malaya Socialist Club contacted Dr Ferhat Abbas when he was in Indonesia, got him to agree to address the people here, and then applied for a permit. The permit went to the Ministry of Home Affairs, and then the Prime Minister came to know about it. The P.A.P. thought it would be very embarrassing for them if they (led by the Prime Minister), who were supposed to be anti-colonial, did not do anything about it. The students wanted to hold a mass rally. Therefore, the P.A.P. refused permission for the rally requested by me - The Prime Minister rose -

On a point of order?

Yes. In my subsequent speech I will want to elaborate on that in reply. Would I be in order, Mr Speaker, Sir? It is very important.

I was just about to say that this seems to be completely away from the motion. I was wondering whether the Member for Thomson can relate that to the West Irian issue. When the Minister for Culture spoke about Malaysia, he was always on the borderline. He was skimming on the borderline and relating his references to Malaysia to the West Irian problem. If the Member for Thomson can relate this to the West Irian problem, then perhaps I will allow him to continue.

Sir, this one particular incident, of course, is in no way related to West Irian, but I was saying this as a reply to the Minister for Culture. It is no use coming to this House and trying to measure how anti-colonial one human being is. We did not start this thing. But we say that if they want to start it, we are quite prepared to carry it through to its logical conclusion.

But if -

Order.

- your political grave. Sir, there were many such examples. We say this. If it were not for the fact that the P.A.P. leadership, particularly the Prime Minister, had lost the anti-colonial fervour, there would have been a different situation today. Sir, we - The Prime Minister rose ---

Point of order?

Point of information. I told -

Order. The Prime Minister must not speak if the Member has not given way. Will the Member give way? Mr Bani resumed his seat.

I beg your pardon. Having lost such a valuable thing called the anti-colonial fervour which I value very much, I would like to know when and where I lost it, in order that I can go and find it again.

I will tell him that. Sir. Go to the Colonial Office in London and search for it. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

When? An hon. Member: Eden Hall.

He has money. Sir, I do not have. He can just fly to London. He can go and search where he has left it and he can find it quite easily.

On a point of information, Sir. It is very -

Order. If the Member will give way.

No. I am prepared to give way to the Prime Minister if he will stop making these frivolous remarks. I am not going to let him waste the time of the House and reduce the debate on this motion to frivolity. He can have his say at the end of my speech. Sir, to say that the P.A.P. are for only a peaceful solution to the West Irian dispute without recognition of the fact that the colonialists want to use force, is not proper. Sir, we say if the P.A.P. are truly anti-colonial and believe in what they say, then invite them unreservedly to support the Indonesian people in their anti-colonial struggle. Have no qualifications. Also, we tell them to stop hindering others in their campaign to gather support for the Indonesian cause. Let them not on the pretext of a few Municipal laws and regulations, allow the police to intimidate those who put up posters calling for support -

Order. There is an allegation that the police intimidate. I take it that the Member for Thomson has evidence that the police intimidated?

We understand that some people who went around putting up posters were called up by the police and interrogated.

Did they have permits?

But we tell them this, Sir, let them not use the pretext of these Municipal laws. If they are anti-colonial, let them give unqualified support to the Indonesian people. Why must you prevent people from putting up posters -

Do you like one poster on your front door?

- and use other regulations to try to hinder other people from organising this campaign? Sir, I am not particularly interested in having a poster pasted in my house, but if the Prime Minister himself takes a poster and comes to my house to paste it with an Indonesian slogan, I shall be indeed -

Honoured.

- honoured, because I would then think that at least [Interruption] he has one tiny drop of anti-colonial sentiment.

What is the sense of the talk?

Order. I do not know what the Prime Minister is up to. I do not know whether he wishes to reduce this Assembly to a House where a debate could be conducted without order. I only ask him to try to contain himself - he will have an opportunity of speaking - and let the Member for Thomson carry on without interruption. Mr Bani.

Sir, on a point of information - this is the last time. In view of the request the Member for Thomson has made for my anti-colonial fervour to be evinced, can he inform me of the size of his front door so that I can take the necessary steps to demonstrate to him the anti-colonial fervour?

I think Members should not ask such frivolous questions.

I agree with you, Sir. We saw posters being put up with total disregard for Municipal laws in the case of the reception for Dr Ferhat Abbas and in the case of the Lumumba rally. Sir, it is not that we in the Barisan Sosialis think we are above the law. It is not only that precedents have been set but that Municipal laws are made for definite purposes - an objective which I see bears no relation to the West Irian dispute. Sir, if the P.A.P. believes in what it says and if it is not to appear as merely paying lip service to the slogan of anti-colonialism, let it not try to dampen the enthusiasm of our people's support for the Indonesian people's struggle by resorting to the use of petty Municipal regulations. We in the Barisan Sosialis can quite understand that the P.A.P. leadership cannot afford to show too much enthusiasm in supporting the Indonesian people and their anti-colonial movement. In the first place, that will lead to a strengthening of our own ant-colonial fervour in Singapore which will, of course, be extremely embarrassing to the P.A.P. leaders who have chosen to abandon their former anti-colonial sprit. In the second place, it will embarrass the Tunku who has preferred to remain on the sidelines on this issue.

Order. I think the hon. Member is getting out of order if he criticises the conduct of the Prime Minister of a nation with which we are very friendly. I would suggest that he should not in his speech embark on criticism of the Tunku.

I did not do that. This is not a criticism of the conduct of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya. All that I am saying is the fact that the Prime Minister of Malaya has stated that he is neutral on the West Irian issue. We then think that if the P.A.P. shows too much enthusiasm, it could be embarrassing to the Federation Government.

Sir, on a very important point of order. May I ask you for your ruling on it first? A very important statement has been made with regard to the freedom of action of the Singapore Government in this matter. It has been suggested that the Federation Government can either conscribe the freedom of action or the stand of the Singapore Government. On a point of order, may I ask you when it would be an appropriate time to make a categorical statement utterly and completely rejecting this falsehood, because it not only affects technically our foreign relations with the Federation of Malaya but it is, in fact, an insult to the conduct of the Singapore Government in these circumstances?

Since the comment was made by the Member for Thomson, I think the Prime Minister will be perfectly in order when he speaks to make some reference to that aspect. Mr Bani.

Sir, we appeal to the P.A.P., if they themselves do not want to be enthusiastic participants in the anti-colonial movement of Afro-Asia, let them not try to dissuade others from participating. Let them not say, in the open, "Go ahead," and on the quiet say, "You cannot do this. You cannot do that." Let them not indulge in double talk and double dealing. Sir, let us all in this House be consistent in our anti-colonial stand. The struggle against colonialism is the struggle of all self-respecting men who have the courage to be free. Sir, we admire the Indonesian people who are prepared to sacrifice their sons and daughters for freedom. Let us in Singapore all derive inspiration and courage from the determination of the Indonesian people. Let those in the P.A.P. especially rekindle their former anti-colonial fervour and join the people of Afro-Asia in the struggle against the degradation and suffocation of colonial domination. Sir, colonialism is the sourge of our times. It is an abominable ingredient of imperialism - an economic system that thrives on the exploitation of man by fellowman. Sir, it is a system that brings degradation and demoralisation, not only to the victims but also to the colonial powers. We have seen the French who fought so courageously Hitler's Fascism but who are now applying the Fascist method of aggression on the Algerian people to keep them suffocated. The utterly inhuman atrocities inflicted on the people of Angola and Algeria have shocked the conscience of mankind. This makes utter nonsense of Western propaganda that colonialism is a benevolent system and that it is prepared to die a willing death.

What about Budapest?

I can understand how any strong attack on the colonialists hurts the P.A.P. Front-benches, so much so that -

On a point of clarification.

No. The greed of colonial masters has reduced them to sub-human characters with no human conscience.

On a point of order, Sir. The Member referred to sub-human characters. Was he referring to Members of this House?

I do not know whether the Member for Thomson was referring to Members of this Assembly as sub-human characters. I do not really know whether that is offensive or not. Perhaps the Member would like to inform the Chair.

I was not using the term with reference to Members of this House but if Members of this House - [Interruption] but I shall abide by your ruling because, as I have said, I have no intention of indulging in frivolous arguments on this motion. Sir, we believe that, as a mark of respect, we should be serious on the West Irian issue. If the Government wants to carry out a political battle, there is the question of Malaysia and there are so many other matters on the Order Paper. The Government always has the right and privilege to move more motions. We can then have - if you will bear with us, Sir - days and days of debate so that the Prime Minister will be satisfied that parliamentary democracy is in operation. In conclusion, Sir, I wish to say that Irian Barat is an ugly symbol of colonial domination in Asia. The struggle of the Indonesian people to liberate Irian Barat is the struggle of all oppressed people throughout the world. We in Singapore who are still living under the yoke of colonial rule cannot remain neutral on this burning issue. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no neutralism in the struggle for freedom. Let us declare our stand unequivocally on the side of the Indonesian people. 4.30 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that no one, with national spirit and undivided loyally, could oppose any effort of the Indonesian people to get back West Irian from the Dutch. The P.A.P. has clearly shown its support for the Republic of Indonesia in its demand for West Irian. Mr Speaker, as explained by the Minister for Culture yesterday, an agreement has been signed when the Prime Minister went on a goodwill visit to Indonesia. But on this motion moved by the Barisan Sosialis: Is it moved with honest intentions, Mr Speaker, Sir? For the reasons given, if we follow the tactics of the Barisan Sosialis, it is clear that this motion is not honest. We can afford to look further. We only have to look at the symbol of the Barisan Sosialis, which is a circle and a star. It is like a crescent and a star. That is the symbol of the Muslims. This is confusing to the Muslim religion. The Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, has also said that this motion is the decision of a rally held in Geylang Serai two weeks ago. Why has the Barisan Sosialis selected Geylang Serai for holding this rally in order to get a solution on Irian Barat? Mr Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis has quite a number of times held rallies at Choa Chu Kang, Hong Lim, and Paya Lebar, but has never mentioned anything about Irian Barat. They have mentioned only phoney merger and second-class citizenship. West Irian and the resolution made at the rally in Geylang Serai have been talked about in the coffee-shops. What the P.A.P. has said, is it not enough? And the resolution taken at the rally, is it not enough? Mr Speaker, the Government of Indonesia through their representatives here require volunteers from here. Has any member of the Barisan Sosialis registered his name as a volunteer? This is a motion which only tries to confuse two issues. First, the Malaysia issue, and second, West Irian. From this it is clear that the motion brought forward by the Barisan Sosialis is clearly dishonest. Another matter mentioned is that the Government has taken steps in regard to posters. If the Barisan Sosialis is really sincere in holding rallies in support of the Republic of Indonesia in its demand, why then should those who stick posters work late at night? Have they no other time to stick posters? Even if the Barisan Sosialis can work about 16 hours one day, it does not reach up to 2 a.m. If they work 16 hours or 2 hours a day, why must it take them up to 2 a.m. to stick up posters? Is this an honest and sincere way of doing things? So it is clear that the question brought up in this Assembly is only an attempt to confuse the two issues. As I have clearly stated, the Barisan symbol itself is confusing. Yesterday the debate on the Commission of Inquiry into the educational policy -

Order. I do not think the hon. Member should touch on that. That has been completed. Let us continue with the motion on West Irian.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I only wish to mention the dishonesty in the Barisan Sosialis. The Commission of Inquiry into the educational -

Order. I have asked the hon. Member not to harp on that. He has made his point, I think.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the motion which has been moved in this Assembly by the Barisan Sosialis is merely to confuse the people. The situation confronting us is Malaysia and West Irian. I hope that tomorrow or the day after there will be members of the Barisan Sosialis registering themselves voluntarily for West Irian to join the Indonesians to get back West Irian. As the Member for Thomson has said, only to express support is not enough. So have members of the Barisan Sosialis welcomed the appeal made by the Republic of Indonesia?

Mr Speaker, the motion before this House is not going to help the Indonesians one iota. When this motion is passed, as I know it will be, it is not going to make any difference to the position of the Indonesians in the eyes of the world, nor will it help Indonesia physically to overcome the stubbornness of the Dutch. When we in this Assembly have said all that we have to say, the position both militarily and politically will be the same in so far as the Indonesians are concerned. They are not going to get more guns, nor are they going to get more manpower. They have this in abundance. In fact, this motion is more of an embarrassment to the Indonesian people and the Indonesian Government. For once in the history of the struggle for party domination in Singapore, the Government and the people of Indonesia are going to be led deliberately into the quagmire of local politics, as indeed they have been when the Consul-General of Indonesia wisely or unwisely instructed a representative of his to be present at the mass meeting held in Geylang Serai by the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, we all know with what motive the mass meeting was held, and why it was held in a predominantly Malay constituency. The organisers hoped that because of the sentiments of the Malays for the Indonesians, the Malay masses from Geylang Serai would come out in their thousands to hear the famous orators of the great anti-colonialists. But, as it turned out, no such thing happened. Very few Malays appeared on the scene.

How many?

UMNO's estimate was less than 200. Some came out of curiosity, and a few were sent by my Party to assess the support for the meeting. This all goes to prove that the Malays of Singapore have enough sense in their heads to be able to draw a line between political propaganda and political convictions. I do agree there were a few thousand people at the meeting, not 10.000 as suggested by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis.

He went up to more than 10,000.

Sir, I know my Geylang Serai very well. That is my constituency and I live around there. The field in which the meeting was held could at one time accommodate 10,000 people. We had our mass meetings there during the elections. In fact, we had a few thousand more. But now with half the field occupied by permanent stalls and itinerant hawkers, a car park, four to five thousand people were, in my opinion, a fair estimate. However, the point I am making is that those who went to the meeting did not come from the vicinity. They came from various parts of the island in lorry loads, no doubt organised by the Barisan Sosialis.

Buses.

There were some buses. Sir, that was the best the Barisan could produce, and I do not think I need say anything more. To come back to the motion, I have no doubt that the general sentiments of this House will see the motion through, even though we are not blind to the intent behind it. I, Sir, have followed the Indonesian struggle for independence from the very beginning, and I can proudly say that in my own small way I have contributed my share, not by making speeches, but by getting myself involved in the struggle. When many Members in this House, including the Member for Thomson, were still in school in 1946 and 1947, I was smuggling guns for the Indonesians. I was smuggling guns into Pekan Bahru - not for profit, Sir, but because of my firm conviction that the Indonesian fight against the Dutch colonialists was my fight too. Sir, today what do we have? We have a motion in the name of the Barisan Sosialis calling upon us to take cognizance of the heroic struggle of the Indonesian people, to express full sympathy with their hopes and aspirations, and to call upon the people of Singapore to give their fullhearted support. Sir, what does this amount to? Simply this. It means that no one is going to shed any blood over West Irian. Let us pay a bit of lip service and embarrass all political opponents! That is the theme of this motion. Those of us who have followed the recent political trends in Singapore will understand what I mean. Indeed, Sir, politics in Singapore can be very dirty. There is a Malay saying which goes: "Kuman di-seberang lautan nampak; gajah di-bibir mata ta' kelihatan", which means, in English, germs that cross the sea are visible, but invisible to you with the elephants before your eyes. That sums up the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis. They can see colonialism at work in Irian Barat but colonialism in Singapore and the Borneo territories does not exist to them. 4.47 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in this august Assembly, we spent weeks debating the eradication of colonialism in our part of the world. Now, did the Barisan Sosialis Members contribute anything constructive towards it? An hon. Member: Nothing.

The answer is no. Right through the debate both inside and outside this Chamber, their line has been the same. Let colonialism flourish in Singapore. If you cannot get merger on their terms, then let Singapore remain as a self-governing colony without the Internal Security Council. At least the Member for Anson, much though I dislike his politics, has an alternative. He wants an independent Singapore.

Under the United Nations!

Sir, as I have said earlier, this motion and the way the debate is going on is an embarrassment to the Indonesian Government. I hone the people or the Government of Indonesia will not take to heart what is being said in the Assembly. We, and I particularly, who have lived with them and who have close relations with Indonesia, would like it to be recorded that our, and my, sympathies are with Indonesia in its fight against Dutch colonialism. To the Barisan Sosialis, let me say this. Let us first of all put our own house in order before we help to put other people's house in order. Sir, having said that and having recorded my Party's views, we from the Alliance are abstaining from voting. We do not want to be a party to what is obviously an attempt to introduce party politics into the affairs of a foreign country. Sir, what else can we, or can I and my Party, do when only a moment ago there stood up the prophet from Thomson -

False prophet!

- who made clear his Party's stand on this issue? Malaysia, he said, was an anti-Indonesian plan. This is the type of respect which the Barisan Sosialis leaders have for our leader, Yang Teramat Mulia, Tunku Abdul Rahman. This is the stupid attitude his Party has adopted for the greatest anti-colonialist of Malaya. Sir, we from the Alliance will not forget it. 4.50 p.m.

No speakers? Dr Lee Siew Choh, in reply. Dr Lee Siew Choh rose ---

Sir, I am going to speak.

Why do you not stand up earlier?

I think I asked hon. Members and nobody responded to my question. There was even no sign that anybody wanted to speak.

No, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just trying to pass a message to the Member for Cairnhill, to consult the Member for Geylang Serai whether he would ask the Member for Kampong Kembangan to speak.

Dr Toh.

Mr Deputy Sneaker, we all know that in this world today, a very important force which is driving the people of Asia and Africa is the force of nationalism. Asia and Africa, including South-East Asia, have for the past century been dominated by the Western imperial powers. The Western powers have made inroads into these large tracts of land, firstly, in the form of commerce and trade, subsequently followed by preaching missionaries, and then ultimately followed by the gunboat. The time is past when a gunboat alone can subdue the nationalistic spirit of the people in Asia and Africa. Once upon a time Africa was represented to us as the white man's grave. Indeed, Africa was the white man's burden. But today we find that the whole of Africa has found that it is the white man who is a burden upon the Africans. It is because of this that we find that Africa has been torn today into several States fighting against colonialism. The House will recall that in the last Session, I had the honour and privilege to move a motion supporting the struggle of the Algerian people against French colonialism. The House will still recall how we received the pro tem Prime Minister of the provisional Government of Algeria, and that we in this House at that time, together with the people of Singapore, fully supported the cause of the Algerian struggle. Today, we have a similar motion with similar sentiments, that this House should endorse its confidence in the confidence of the Afro-Asian people to fight external domination. It is true that today we see in Africa a bitter struggle against colonialism in which violence has been employed. It is true that Goa has been retaken by the Indian Government by the use of force. But, Sir, while we are in full support of all colonial peonies against their masters, at the same time, we cannot but feel sorry that this anti-colonial struggle has to be conducted by violence. Now, it is not because we fear bloodshed ourselves. It is not because we fear that peace and tranquillity will be disturbed that we regret indeed that force should ever be used at any time to solve political problems. It must be quite clear to us, as we have mentioned in our statement to the Press last month, that any violent struggle in any part of the world is bound, under modern conditions, to draw in the major powers. Whilst we fully sympathise with the Indonesian Government in their aspirations to recover their sovereignty in West Irian, a sympathy which, in fact the Prime Minister has expressed during his state visit to Jakarta, we must at the same time try to look at the problem objectively and with farsightedness. If it should come to pass that over the issue of West Irian, a violent struggle erupts, it is not impossible that other powers would be drawn into the struggle. Members have been aware of the statements which have been issued in the Press by the Prime Minister of Australia and by the leader of the Opposition in the Australian Parliament of their own fears of the consequences of a conflagration in West Irian. Sir, Members in this House must still remember -

Order. I think this is a convenient time for tea. I suspend the sitting until half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. 5.31 p.m.

Sir, when we broke up for tea just now, I was making an allusion to the Bukit Ho Swee Fire. The fire could have started from a few sparks in a solitary attap house. But when the fire broke out in that little attap house, the people who were living in the neighbourhood did not, or could not control or isolate that little fire. The result was that what would have been only a little fire very rapidly became a conflagration until it became a disaster for a very large part of Singapore. Try to project the course of events that may happen if in any part of this world we have also such a political fire. Members of this House who claim to be well read surely should be aware that one of the difficulties which the modern world faces is containment of political fires. We have seen it happen in Laos, we have seen it happen in Vietnam, we have seen it happening in Africa, and all the while it is the task of all those who subscribe to the ideals of the United Nations Charter to try and contain these little fires. Sir, I do not pretend to be a fierce speaker; neither do I pretend that I can agitate anybody to go into a fight. The last thing I will do is to try and make fierce speeches or speak very loudly and push other people to the front line without due consideration of consequences. I was sufficiently old when the war broke out in Malaya in 1941 to understand, to know and to feel what war is. I would never want that we who have lived through one war should, by our own stupidity, get involved into another war, or implicate those who are innocent in the sufferings of another war. My allusion to the Bukit Ho Swee fire as starting from a little spark which reached the roof of an attap house can be applied very easily to the situation in South-East Asia. As I have said at the beginning, we are in sympathy with all those who fight against colonialism. The question of New Guinea or Irian Barat has been a long-standing question, but until lately, no real fighting has yet broken out between Indonesia and Holland over Irian Barat. As long as there are possibilities that this question of the control of the Administration of Irian Barat can be discussed objectively in a calm atmosphere to which the United Nations subscribe, then I say we ought to encourage both sides to proceed along these lines. There is indeed genuine tension which is developing in South-East Asia over Irian Barat. It is happening not only in Indonesia. There is not only excitement in Malaya and Singapore, but also in the continent of Australia. In the Straits Times of 1st January, there was a Reuter report saying: `The Australian Prime Minister, Mr Robert Menzies, warned Indonesia yesterday that any Indonesian attack on Dutch New Guinea could turn into a conflict between the white and coloured peoples in this part of the world.' To which the President of the Republic of Indonesia has replied, if I may quote the Free Press of 3rd January: `If any nation lays charges against us it must be acting on the Dutch plan to set up a puppet Papuan state. We must stand up and fight it.' Following those statements, there has been an atmosphere of some excitement amongst well-known leaders in Australia. A Reuter report carried by the Straits Times of 5th January said: `The wartime-commander of Australia's 8th Division in Malaya, Lieut.-General Gordon Bennett, said today a national service training scheme should be re-introduced immediately. He said that Australia "would not last 10 minutes" if attacked from the North by an Asian power.

"We are in no danger from Indonesia at the moment, but when she gets a little more uppish she could flirt with Russia."' To follow up the line of excitement that is going on in South-East Asia, another Reuter report carried by the Straits Times of 12th January, says: `A survey taken in the light of the developing West New Guinea crisis showed that Australia had more than 83,000 men virtually on call for service if required. The Canberra correspondent of the Melbourne Herald said yesterday that of these about 47,000 were regular army, navy or air force personnel on full time service.

Another 200,000 men have completed basic national service training, mainly in the army.' Sir, all this rattling of the sabre rather alarms me, because the question of West Irian is no longer an isolated problem. It is no longer a tussle between the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Holland. There is every possibility that if real war breaks out in the Pacific then we, in this part of the world, may very well become engulfed -

Hear, hear!

The Member for Anson was a prisoner of war in the last war. He knew what the sufferings of war were like. Sir, I do not pre end to be a brave hero although I did my little bit in the Medical Auxiliary Service during the war. I had attended enough wounded people and carried enough corpses and washed enough lavatories to know the miseries of war. We in the P A.P. are not going to make fierce speeches or shout empty slogans inciting people to volunteer for something which they cannot understand. Take for instance our three young lady vo1unteers whose picture appeared in the Straits Times. Sir, they are in their 20s: one of them has just graduated from a middle school. They were little babies when the Japanese invaded Malaya. They have no idea of what war is. Yet we have stupid people, evil people, behind them who are making use of them as political propaganda. A mother of four, a seamstress, a recent graduate of a high school, wanting to fight colonialism by signing up to fight in West Irian! Sir, if they wish to do it, we will not stop them. I can understand their fervour against anti-colonialism. But, at the same time, I say that they are too young to know what it is all about. It is a problem that is not going to involve just three girls; it is a problem that is going to involve the whole of South and South-East Asia and the whole of the Pacific region. Therefore, I plead to Members of this House to try and look at this problem with a little more foresightedness and to think of the consequences that will come in the train of their speeches. Rash people make rash speeches, but unfortunately people who make rash speeches do not pay the penalty. It is others who pay the penalty.

Hear, hear!

And that is what I strongly object to, the fierce slogans shouted by the Barisan Sosialis. We ask the 13 of them who shouted fierce slogans at Geylang Serai - are they going to volunteer? The Member for Choa Chu Kang was a baby when the war broke out. The Member for Bras Basah was sucking her mother's paps at that time.

Order. I can appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister is in a serious mood. But even in his serious mood, perhaps he could try and modulate his language.

She was a suckling baby in swaddling clothes when the Japanese over-ran Malaya. I would like to take a stand - I express my sympathy to the Indonesian Government in their claim for sovereignty over West Irian. I would, at the same time, appeal to both the Indonesian and the Dutch Governments to use to the utmost all available means for a peaceful settlement.

Hear, hear!

And in this sense, I must also support the plea of .he Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, that a peaceful solution of the Western New Guinea dispute should be sought within the chambers of the United Nations. I do not say that Goa is necessarily a precedent for other future violent attacks against territories. It should not be. In fact, it was with a feeling of regret and sorrow when I read in the Press that Goa had been recovered by force of arms. It was with regret indeed and for a very simple reason. In 1959, I was asked to make a speech to commemorate the birthday anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi before a society in Singapore, and when I made the speech quoting passages of Mahatma Gandhi's life and of Mr Nehru's life, I believe in all my fervour that India stood for peace -

Which it does.

- and neutralism. We must always face an important decision sometime or other, but in carrying out the decision it is important that we must also consider the means. I do not believe that any action taken should only be the means to an end. If every State were to subscribe to the idea that action is only a means to an end. I am afraid that very few of us are going to survive in the next few years. Therefore, I repeat, while the P.A.P. supports and is in sympathy with the claims of the Indonesian Government that the internal administration in Western New Guinea should be settled, we also say that we hope it will be settled not by a conflagration or by a war, but through peaceful mediation in the highest ideals of the United Nations to which the Republic of Indonesia itself is a member State. 5.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, the issue of Irian Barat raises emotional reactions throughout Asia in a manner which completely baffles Western observers. I have been repeatedly asked, "How can you support Indonesia and her stand on Irian Barat? Surely the Dutch have been reasonable. Why do you lend your support to the specious propaganda agitation?" Mr Speaker, I have had some experience in answering this type of question. I think it might be helpful to this Assembly if we do consider dispassionately the `basic issues so as to understand our own feelings which are so deeply sympathetic towards the people of Irian Barat and Indonesia. The Deputy Prime Minister speaks truly when he says there is a great deal of ignorance on the basic issues. But there is a curious phenomenon in ths. In most human conduct, many human beings seem to achieve the right approach without ever being able to tell you of the logical means or even of an understanding of the issues which could help to a logical solution of the issues. I do say that our people have reached the right result, although I am bound to admit that due to an inadequate Press we are gravely inadequately informed on the basic issues, and I would ask the indulgence of this House if I seek to go back a little to the things which motivate our feelings and the facts - some of which are quite favourable to the Dutch - which should affect our judgment. Sir, Asia had for two centuries been politically, economically, and militarily enslaved by white domination. For these two centuries, the people of Asia had been prostrate, wallowing in the tragedy of helplessness, whilst others robbed us of our wealth, our energy and even of our manhood. Then a little more than half a century ago, the liberation movement found sparks in India, and that spread to China, to Indonesia and elsewhere, and the little rivulet of more than half a century ago grew in strength and became a surge so strong against while domination that the British were compelled to withdraw from vast areas. And with their traditional wisdom, they withdrew gracefully. The Dutch withdrew from considerable areas of what is now known as Indonesia under military and political pressure. The Portuguese have been kicked out. The French lost on the battlefield. This surge against white domination has become of the very marrow of our bones. It is part of us. All Asia today consciously resents any white domination anywhere in this continent. I would like it to be clearly understood and recognised that this is not an anti-white movement. We are happy to welcome the white men as any other human beings, as colleagues and partners. It is an anti-white domination movement. It is a movement against foreign domination of our people. Let us recognise that even today there are pockets of white domination and white imperialism in Asian territories, and it is this which the decent and peace-loving people of Singapore resent from the depths of their being. It is this that is the explanation of the emotional speeches which have been made and are being made and will probably be made. The Deputy Prime Minister deplores - and I can understand his point of view - slogans which could inflame feelings to the point of sparking violence. But let us recognise that to the people of Singapore Irian Barat is an island in Asia and its people are Asians. Irian Barat is under the control of a white people and under the domination of a white race. That is enough. This is the first and main fact of life that Western observers must recognise and must understand, that Asia will not tolerate - and I mean all Asian nations - that any Asian territory be longer dominated by a European power. The second fact of life which has been little understood even in the United Nations - and frankly, Mr Speaker, Sir, in all otherwise admirable speech by the Deputy Prime Minister, even little understood by the Deputy Prime Minster himself - are the circumstances in which it is legitimate to use force. Mr Speaker, I say to you - and it is not for propaganda purposes - that I sincerely believe that the Workers' Party and I are as genuinely dedicated to the principle of peace amongst nations and international goodwill as any other group of human beings. Perhaps it is in our own interest. We recognise that we are a small people and we could not survive except in peace. But I believe that we go further than that. I say, Sir, that Mr Adlai Stevenson, the United States representative in the United Nations, erred - and erred grievously - when he laid down in the debate on Goa that force can only be legitimately used to meet immediate aggression. We accept the principle of self-defence, but we say it is not exclusive. We would add that in the case of colonies there are two other sets of circumstances in which force is legitimate. The first is nationally, where a people seeks to free itself from imperialist and foreign domination within its territory, as the Indonesian struggle for its own independence against the Dutch. The second set of circumstances is internationally, where a nation seeks to free part of its territory and its people from foreign imperial domination, such as the action of India in Goa. The only proviso - and a vital proviso - that we of the Workers' Party recognise in these two sets of circumstances is that every reasonable means of peaceful settlement should first have been attempted - An hon. Member: What about Hungary?

- and no means is left but force. That, Sir, I feel sure muse be recognised. Members are aware that when this issue was debated in the United Nations a short while ago, Mr Adlai Stevenson sought to censure India for aggression in liberating Goa by force, although he was aware that Goa was geographically and historically part of Indian territory. Mr Speaker, let it not be misunderstood: I am not anti-American and I have the deepest respect for the intellectual stature and exquisite phraseology of that gentleman. It is with regret that I noticed his incapacity to recognise the legitimate right of a nation to free part of its territory from continued imperial rule - an incapacity, if I might suggest, Mr Speaker, due to partial amnesia in respect of the h story of his own nation. Mr Adlai Stevenson forgot that some two centuries ago in that part of the world where we now have the United States there were American colonies, and that these American colonies rebelled against British imperial rule, and the big-hearted French came to their support militarily with naval and armed forces to assist these very American colonies in throwing off the British yoke and to assist them in gaining their independence. Was France guilty of aggression in giving her armed assistance to these colonies? Was LaFayette to be condemned? Is Mr Adlai Stevenson prepared to state on the next 4.h of July that he condemns the French for having assisted militarily the American colonies in gaining their freedom - that he condemns: LaFayette for his magnificent contribution to the achievement of American independence? If not, let him recognise that in his ignorance of his own history he has wrongly condemned India and her great Prime Minister of aggression. Mr Speaker, our Deputy Prime Minister says he learned of India's action with regret. No human being can view other than with regret any resort to international force: and in that I ant with him. But if he implied there a censure of India's conduct, then I would ask of him, is he not aware that for more than ten years India has striven in every possible way, by every possible peaceful means, to achieve a solution to end the imperial rule of Portugal in part of her territory? Could India have done anything more in the line of peaceful effort? If she could, then, Mr Speaker, I am with the Deputy Prime Minister in condemning India. But I say - You wish to rise?

To answer the Member for Anson on a point of elucidation? Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

I would just like to remind the Member for Anson that India chased out a mightier power - Great Britain - by means of satyagraha, whereas Portugal and Goa are becoming extinct, as extinct as the dodo. Therefore, in trying to achieve the prob lem of Goa by force, it was like using a sledge-hammer to crack a little nut.

Mr Speaker, Sir, autre temps, autre moeurs - in different circumstances, a different effort. I think the Deputy Prime Minister will recognize as much as I do, and I recognize this without seeking to be patronising, that the British over the centuries of their colonial rule have shown, apart from their selfishness, a remarkable breadth of common sense. There was balance in their approach. They never pushed their luck too far, nor a logical argument too far: "This is my property. I have a legal right to it. I am going to retain it." They showed good sense. With people like that, you can - how shall I say it? - struggle constitutionally. That is why the problem posed by the Prime Minister, "Are we here to recommend then a violent end to colonialism?" is academic. The answer is "Yes, it is academic because it will not happen." The British would be willing to hand us our independence whenever, I say, we are near being strong enough to take over. That is the whole point. With the British you could use satyagraha. But with the Portuguese and their intransigeant arrogance, I say, with respect, that I believe they would qualify for P.A.P. membership; and with them, what would you do? Mr Speaker, the position is reached that over the years, in every field in and out of the United Nations, India did what she could. There is a reasonable limit even to the utmost humble human patience. They were her people, this was her land, and the damage was done. It is true, I regret it too. But let us face it: she was legitimately entitled to do what she ultimately did. Sir, this is material to our own argument, because it is in this context that we must see Indonesia's efforts to achieve the liberation of Irian Barat. Mr Speaker, what is Irian Barat? It is a part of a vast island. In itself, Irian Barat, which is the subject matter in dispute, is a piece of land of several islands which total in area some 700 times the area of Singapore. The population is less than half the population of Singapore, and the people are primitive to a considerable degree. The Dutch first established their administration in that area for trading purposes, I think some 63 years ago, Mr Speaker, although in fairness they have had an interest in that area for almost one and a half centuries. But the very first time that they officially established administration was, I think, in 1898. Mr Speaker, the administration of Irian Barat was integrated by the Dutch with their administration over some 3,000 islands. The mainland was what was then known as Java and Sumatra, under the administration known as the Netherlands East Indies administration. After the war - and here we must admire them - almost with no arms but with the vigour and the passion and the sincerity of a proud people, the Indonesia's put up an armed struggle against the Dutch. And partly through that armed struggle and partly, Sir, let us admit frankly, through political pressures, they achieved their independence. Sir, their independence was achieved officially by an agreement known as the Charter of Transfer of Sovereignty executed by Holland and the Indonesian Government. If I might - it is very brief - read the first Article. Article 1: `That the Kingdom of the Netherlands unconditionally and irrevocably transfers complete sovereignty over Indonesia to the Republic of the United States of Indonesia.' Sir, that is quite obviously to cover all the territories that were then known as the Netherlands East Indies. But in fairness, Sir, let us read Article 2 which specifically refers to Irian Barat. Article 2: `... it is decided that the status quo of the residency of New Guinea ...', Mr Speaker, if I may pause for a moment - that was the name in pre-independence days of what we call Irian Barat: `... it is decided that the status quo of the residency of New Guinea shall be maintained with the stipulation that within a yea from the date of transfer of sovereignty to the Republic of the United States of Indonesia the question of the political status of New Guinea is to be determined through negotiations between the Republic of the United States of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands." Now, the Indonesians claim that by virtue of this agreement, they are lawfully entitled to that area then known as New Guinea and not known as Irian Barat; or, alternatively, that no question affecting the Constitution of Irian Barat could be considered without their concurrence. They say, "We have tried, and tried with patience, to deliberate with you for two or three years on the subject of the transfer, not only for one year, which is provided in Article 2, and all you do is dig your toes in." It is correct that at that period the Dutch vigorously maintained their imperial approach, and in the frustrating circumstances then ensuing, the Indonesians broke off diplomatic relations. But in fairness to the Dutch, let me add this. They stated that by virtue of an exchange of letters between the Indonesian Government and the Dutch Government arising Out of the Charter of Transfer of Sovereignty, Article 2, the Indonesians agreed that Irian Barat should remain under the Dutch Government until the Dutch agreed to its transfer. In fact, the Dutch said the Indonesians never really wanted Irian Barat until after the execution of the Charter of Transfer of Sovereignty. And, Mr Speaker, they made capital of the fact that Dr Hatta (I think in July 1945) stated during the conference of Indonesian leaders leading to the proclamation of independence - these are the words Dr Hatta, who later became Vice-President of Indonesia, is alleged to have said: `If the territory of Papua ...', again, Mr Speaker, Papua is the pre-independence name of Irian Barat: `If the territory of Papua could be exchanged for North Borneo, I would be rather grateful Personally I am quite willing to state that I do not bother at all about Papua.' That is the Vice-President saying that. Yes. But, Mr Speaker, curiously I managed to unearth a document where I have the historic speech of President Soekarno during the proceedings in the Investigation Committee in preparation for Independence when he enunciated the historic principles of Panchsheela. Sir, the document is known as The Birth of Panchsheela, the five principles of the Indonesian State. President Soekarno's speech - the quotation is this: `The Indonesian leaders should aim at the establishment of one national State based on the entity of one Indonesia from the tip of Sumatra right up to Papua.' Mr Speaker, again in fairness, the Dutch say, "Well, you claim you are entitled to Irian Barat and that it is lawfully your possession. We are prepared to go to the International Court of Justice to submit this claim to arbitration." Mr Speaker, that impresses me. I say to you frankly, if a man says to me, "I am prepared to go to court to prove my claim," then that satisfies me that he genuinely believes he is right. And I accept the fact that the Dutch genuinely believe that they are legally entitled to possession of Irian Bar it. Whether such belief is right or wrong, let us leave that aside for the moment, sir, because the issue never went to the International Court of Justice. But how far does that take them? Let us assume that they are, in fact, just for the sake of argument, legally entitled to the territory of Irian Barat. Where does it take them? The British were legally entitled to - Penang and to

Singapore!

And to Singapore, it is true. We will leave Singapore out. Everybody has forgotten Singapore. Thank you. I beg your pardon. Mr Sneaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for reminding me that they are legally entitled to Malacca and many other possessions. But they have the good sense to realise that - how shall I say it, Mr Speaker? - laws are made for the convenience of human beings and not for their constriction, and that legal rights cannot stand in the way of human needs. The British recognise that and we expect the Dutch to have the good sense to recognise it. So whether they are legally entitled to Irian Barat or not, let us leave aside the issue of law which is in the context of human needs an irrelevancy. And again let us recognise this. The Dutch do, not in so many words but by their actions, admit that the position of hanging on to Irian Barat because of some legal justification is untenable. It is somewhat a late change in their policy, but in fairness to them, they do now recognise it, because, fortunately only two months ago in the United Nations, the Dutch offered publicly to have a United Nations Commission administer Irian Barat until such time as it was satisfied that the population of Irian Barat could have a plebiscite to be held under United Nations supervision to decide what the people of Irian Barat wish for their constitutional future. I believe the Dutch added that if the people of Irian Barat wanted to join Indonesia they would gladly concur. They would raise no objection. Belated though it is, let us at least give appreciation of a brave act and a radical change on the part of the Dutch, an act and a change which recognise that White imperialism in Asia is no longer appropriate, and furthermore, official recognition of the right of self-determination of the people in these colonies. Mr Speaker, this was a radical departure from the imperial approach to the problem through their negotiations with Indonesia in the early years of Indonesia's independence. Sir, unfortunately for many years now, there have been no diplomatic relations between Indonesia and Holland, and the two have not been on talking terms. But let us ourselves look at this offer, magnanimous as it seems on the part of the Dutch, in the United Nations two months ago. What is the sum total of this offer? To my mind, it constitutes a retreat, and a courageous retreat, from their imperialist approach and an effort to concede the claim of Indonesia without doing so publicly, providing - how shall I say it, Mr Speaker? - a face-saving machinery. Now, the end result of the United Nations Commission plebiscite, would be reunion with Indonesia through a somewhat circuitous and tortuous route. We of the Workers' Party have a great deal of respect for the value, in human relations of the face-saving principle. We accept and admit that if an opponent recognises his mistake and is prepared to change his stand, we should be generous and help him to save his face, for it does no one good to take away a man's self-respect unless it is absolutely necessary. Now, what is the Indonesian answer to this seemingly generous gesture on the part of the Dutch? They look right through the face-saving device and say, "But look, you are being obstructive. You are trying to achieve, after many years and through a very circuitous route, what in fact we claim rightfully now. You are admitting it. You only want to delay it." Sir, that is true. For myself I think it is valid that the procedure suggested by the Dutch really seeks to delay, not for the purposes of delaying, in fairness to them, but to my mind, seeks to delay for the purposes of political face-saving. And the Indonesians say, "We have been patient long enough. We are not prepared to enter into any discussions with you on the subject, except on your recognition of the principle that the discussion will be for the purposes of transfer of sovereignty." I do not know whether I have carried you so far, Mr Speaker, as to recognise that we have reached the point where the differences between Indonesia and the Dutch have been reduced very considerably, to the point where they have almost disappeared. It is the earnest hope of the Workers' Party that the Dutch, who have shown both wisdom and courage in their proposal, however belated in the United Nations two months ago, should now recognise the value of one final gesture. Sir, the Dutch must recognise that the whole of Asia would appreciate a frank admission that they have, in fact, reached a point where they agree that the political sovereignty over Irian Barat is Indonesian territory, and that the Indonesians have been very patient in seeking the return of their own. You see, Sir, I have a great deal of respect for the Dutch. They are a very practical people. Mr Speaker, most people said of the Dutch after they lost Indonesia: "Pooh! They will be worth nothing now. They will go back to being a penurious, poverty-stricken country." But what is the truth? Despite that grievous loss, they are one of the most prosperous countries in the world by virtue of hard work, ability and good government. Let us recognise the virtues of our opponents. I do not believe in running down a person unfairly -

Except the P.A.P.

Except the -

Order. I had to look twice, because that is the Prime Minister's seat on which the Minister for Finance is sitting. The Minister for Finance has been there for some time. I have allowed him to be near the Minister for Health for consultation. But certainly consultation cannot take as long as that.

Mr Speaker, on a point of explanation.

Dr Toh.

The Prime Minister will be coming in shortly to make a speech. Meanwhile I was just giving points to the Minister for Finance so that he could hold the fort until the Prime Minister comes.

The best way to do that is for the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance to take seats just beyond the bar. That can be done without any breach of the Standing Orders.

It is an admission of political vacuity on the part of one Minister.

Point of order.

Is it a point of order or elucidation?

On a point of order.

Point of order.

Sir, I know that nature abhors a vacuum. Everybody knows that nature abhors a vacuum. And if there is any vacuity, it is not on this side of the Bench but it is over there.

What is the point of order?

The point of order is that the Member for Anson said that the Minister had a vacuum -

The Deputy Prime Minister possibly is using the advantage of his being a University graduate - I think it is - to try and puzzle the Chair. I myself cannot see anything offensive about it. The expression was used of the Minister for Finance, but he seems to be quite happy about it.

I am quite happy because I did not quite catch what the Member for Anson said.

May we resume, Sir? I know that we must have a little buffoonery now and then. Mr Speaker, I was saying that we do respect the Dutch as a practical people, and we believe that they will recognise, we are satisfied that they will recognise, that they will earn considerable goodwill in Asia and in Indonesia if they make this final gesture. We know they are a peaceful people. They have to be a peaceful people because they are a small nation and they have shown their practical good sense in many ways since the war. Friendship with Indonesia would mean a great deal to the people of Holland. We cannot believe that they will sacrifice the goodwill of Indonesia and of all Asia in order to persist in what has become a barren face-saving approach. The Indonesians, who are a proud and sensitive people, believe that they have exhausted every peaceful means of solving the issue of the transfer of Irian Barat. Mr Speaker, Sir, is this remnant of Dutch pride to spark a war to their cost and ours? Despite the Deputy Prime Minister's levity and much that I disagree with him in what he does, I do agree with him that that spark could bring about a conflagration which would certainly engulf us. Let us recognise that if a war were to break out between Indonesia and Holland, would Russia not come in just to prove how anti-colonial she is where non-Russian colonies are involved? And if Russia comes in, are we not certain that America will find it necessary to come in on the other side? We will then have a dress rehearsal between these two .great military forces, not in Europe or in America, but here in our own -

Or in Russia.

Or in Russia. Thank you. Or in Russia, where I wish they would have it - but here, Sir, not merely on our doorsteps, but involving us. Let us remember that we are part of S.E.A.T.O. Singapore is S.E.A.T.O. Wherever they may have their Headquarters, in Bangkok or in Timbuctoo, this is S.E.A.T.O., our base. Who is S.E.A.T.O. but the United States. So, can the Dutch in all conscience contemplate permitting themselves to be made the excuse for triggering off the outbreak of a major war in South-East Asia between the major powers? Do they believe, in fact, Sir, that if it is triggered off, if there is a criminal conspiracy to which they are parties, that they can confine such a war to this area, so that they can play their war games with our blood and our assets? Are they really such fools that they do not recognise that such a war would involve their own lovely cities and neat farms? They are not fools. So, Sir, I say this. The difference that is now left between the Dutch and the Indonesians is not a difference for which any people can legitimately go to war. I think it is time that the Dutch should recognise that if they are prepared to hand over Irian Barat to the United Nations Commission, then why not to Indonesia? If they are saying, "We are not imperialists anymore. We are humanitarian," then save humanity from this potential holocaust. Mr Speaker, we support this motion, but we dissociate ourselves from any suggestion of supporting what may be in moments of emotional fervour legitimate, but in cold print frightening remarks inciting our people to violence. I say to the people of Singapore, "If you want an anti-colonial struggle, you have got it here. Let us have an independent Singapore, if that is what you want -

Order. The Member for Anson started off by saying he is against any incitement. That tone of voice, I would suggest to him, makes me think that he is inciting Members to do something rather violent.

Well, Mr Speaker, perhaps we do not view it the same way, because if we show the same fervour in our struggle against colonialism in this area that is being shown in certain quarters for a territory which few people in Singapore really know where it is, then we will get an end to imperialism without the shedding of any blood. That, fortunately, is not necessary in this area. Mr Speaker, we of the Workers' Party believe that good sense and sanity will prevail and that within the next few weeks the Dutch and the Indonesians will be sitting round the conference table and achieving an amicable settlement for the peace of this area and for the greater prosperity of the world. Finally, Sir, one word in the direction of the noble Earl of Eden Hall; that lean leopard on a leash, poised -

Order. I do not know who is being referred to in this extravagant language. Would the Member just indicate?

Mr Speaker, I did not get the question.

The question the Chair has asked is, who has been referred to in the extravagant language which has been used?

None other than Her Britannic Majesty's representative in South-East Asia and Singapore, the Earl of Selkirk.

Order. I would suggest to the Member for Anson that there should be some respect at least shown to Her Britannic Majesty's representative in South-East Asia. After all, we are not at war with Britain. Therefore, let us have some respect for accredited representatives.

Mr Speaker, with respect, I could not have more respect for the noble Earl and the remarkable talent he wears so gracefully; nor can I understand how my remarks could be in any way indicative of being derogatory of the hon. gentleman.

Order. I think the Member for Anson knows what the Chair is against. One might use flowery language in praise of a person which would he acceptable, but the same flowery language used in a different tone of voice might not he acceptable. I think the thing to do is just to refer to the gentleman as the United Kingdom Commissioner and he done with it.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was going to say, and I trust it is acceptable, that it is not for me to seek to advise the noble Earl. He has his retinue of advisers, and his own personal knowledge and abilities whereby he must be adequately informed of our basic feelings. But I want to emphasise in this Chamber: do not use the Singapore base against Indonesia. We are a peaceful people and a gentle people, Mr Speaker. There is a Chinese proverb you push the tiger to the wall, and he will turn. Maybe we are not tigers. We have not got the leadership. But it is not inappropriate to remember a name which I hope will one day be prophetic, i.e. the name of Singapore which means the House of Lions. Whether we are lions or not, I do repeat: do not use the Singapore base against Indonesia, for if such were to happen, then we might well find a leader and there might well be no Singapore base. 6.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a pity that the hon, gentleman who moved and supported this motion in the Barisan Opposition, instead of trying to seek the unanimous support of the House, tried to make this issue an inter-party affair. For instance, we have a remark made by the Member for Queenstown in his opening address when, in sneering tones, he referred to the P.A.P. He said that even the P.A.P. will support Indonesia's struggle for West Irian. Sir, may I remind the Member for Queenstown that the P.A.P. had supported Indonesia's claim to West Irian years before the Barisan Sosialis was formed? Our stand on this issue was not made just to whip up popular enthusiasm on an anti-colonial issue. It was made very early when the Party came to office, and on that nobody in his senses would question the sincerity of our position. But this does not prevent the Member for Thomson from making all kinds of disparaging remarks against the P.A.P. I do not want to waste the time of the House in going into each and every one of them. Yesterday, for instance, he saw fit to refer to myself as a Fascist. Today he referred to the Prime Minister as a thug. His general attitude is that the P.A.P. has lost its anti-colonial fervour; not merely that, Sir, we are openly in support of the Western imperialist policy. That is quite clear - the charge was made. Sir, no evidence at all has been produced to substantiate his allegations. We can meet his charges quite simply, not by Barisan Sosialis anti-colonial expressions. It is quite a simple matter for any Party, for anybody, to mount a public platform and shout his head off and claim to be a great anti-colonial hero in a matter which concerns another country in their fight against their former colonial masters. That is a simple thing to do. But let us examine the Barisan record in respect of their anti-colonial policy. Everybody knows that when Singapore began seriously to discuss the next stage in our constitutional development, that is, to merge with the Federation of Malaya or form part of Malaysia, immediately the great anti-colonial heroes of the Barisan Sosialis, the six trade unionists, publicly proclaimed that the next stage of Singapore's political evolution must be an internal self-governing Singapore. They are not prepared to fight colonialism in their own country. Just how contemptible can people be when they are prepared to accept the continuation of British rule in Singapore! Not merely that - their representatives have gone to see none other than the highest British representative in South-East Asia, the Earl of Selkirk - to make a deal with him. This is now public knowledge. The Barisan Sosialis have never denied that. They tried to explain it away by saying that they just wanted a clarification. But every time they attempted to explain away this foolish act of theirs, they only let the door open to greater and more damaging exposures. And so these great anti-colonial heroes want to see other people wage war to liberate their own territories; but in their own country our great Barisan anti-colonial heroes quietly try to make a deal with the colonial powers and openly proclaim that they prefer a semi-colonial Singapore to Singapore as a part of a wider, bigger, independent nation. For such people to say that they are anti-colonial whereas we are pro-colonial is absolute nonsense. Only the puerile and immature minds of half-baked revolutionaries would be deceived by their propaganda. Sir, the issue before the House is not whether we support Indonesia over West Irian or we do not support Indonesia over West Irian. Support and sympathy surely will be accorded to the Government and to the people of Indonesia by all right-thinking men who understand that in the age of the Asian revolution, the time for Western empires is gone; and the sooner, the quicker and the more painless Western imperialism is wound up the better for all concerned. That is not the issue. The issue is how West Irian is to be returned to Indonesia, whether it should be by war or whether it should be by peace. The Member for Anson went to great lengths to explain how narrow the differences are now between the Dutch and the Indonesian Governments. I cannot help feeling that he is a shade too optimistic. But be that as it may, I would agree with him that as compared with some months ago the prospects now for a peaceful settlement through negotiations between the two Governments are much greater than they were at any time in the past. Sir, West Irian is part of a very large island - perhaps the second largest island in the world. It is mostly undeveloped jungle, swamps and mountains with a very small population. It may have tremendous natural resources - nobody knows. The whole of the area has not been prospected, let alone developed. The benefit that the Dutch get from retaining authority over West Irian is negligible. I do not agree with the Member for Thomson that the Dutch are making money from the population by exploiting the natural resources of West Irian. However, if the Barisan Sosialis believe that the Dutch are making a fortune out of West Irian, please produce facts and figures and I am prepared to reconsider this as a statement of fact. The Dutch are not getting any benefit out of it. On the contrary, they have to maintain a substantial garrison and station fairly large naval forces there to meet any possible Indonesian assault on West Irian. At the same time, in order to get a good reputation among members of the United Nations, the Dutch say - and I have no reason to doubt it - that they are spending substantial sums of money on developing the area by building schools, roads, and so on. Now the people of Holland surely have no desire to hang on to a colonial territory from which they not only get no benefit but for which they have to incur a substantial expenditure by way of military expenditure and other development expenditure in West Irian. Experts on foreign affairs claim that members of the Dutch Cabinet are divided on this issue, with the majority of Cabinet Ministers against holding on to West. Irian. Under such conditions and with such considerations, I think the prospects for a peaceful settlement of this issue are not unreasonable and should be explored to the utmost before war is waged. Now I have not tried to examine the position of West Irian from the legalistic point of view. We have heard a long discourse from the Member for Anson, and the only conclusion one can draw is that both sides are right. I do not agree that both sides are right on that issue. To my mind, if one side is right, the other must be wrong. In this case, there is doubt that West Irian is part of Indonesia and must be returned forthwith to the Government and to the people of Indonesia. It is as simple as that. My colleague, the Minister for Culture, explained yesterday the principle of successor States and the definition of "national boundaries" when the former colonies obtained their independence either through the violent overthrow of the imperial powers or through negotiations. One of the most amazing things in this business is the attitude of the Dutch. The people do not want it; most of the members of the Cabinet do not want it; it is of no value to them; it brings them no benefit. On the other hand, it exposes them to a tremendous amount of world criticism not only from the Afro-Asian States but also from all right-thinking countries. Now why they continue to do so is something which I cannot understand, but it may be that there is a pecular philosophy that underlies the persistence of imperialism. It is true that the common factor of imperialism is that there is a personal gain to those who set out to conquer countries, acquire concessions and line their pockets. There is also the gain in prestige to the metropolitan power. When the Western European powers set out on their vast imperial conquest in the 19th century, they tried to rationalise their action and give it an air of respectability. For instance, the British developed the theme of the white man's burden. They were there not to loot India, although Clive, Warren Hastings and others plundered India very nicely for themselves. Nevertheless, the philosophy developed in the 19th century by Western imperialists and each of the major imperial countries - Britain, France and Holland - had different ways of justifying their conquests to their own people and perhaps to themselves. The British developed the theme of the white man's burden. They said that they went there really to help the black man or the brown man, and in that way they solved their own conscience. On the other hand, the French held the view that they were there to bring a higher form of civilization to their colonial territories: hence they had the expression "mission civilatrice" - the ideological justification of French imperialism. The Dutch, as far as I know, developed what they called the ethical principle, but it is not very clear in what way they have been ethical in their dealings with Indonesia. It may be - I think it is rather doubtful - that they think the people who stay in West Irian arc ethnically and linguistically different from the rest of Indonesia and, therefore, to surrender sovereignty over West Irian to the Indonesian Government would be to place the people in a form of colonial servitude. Surely this is nonsense, because that could be applied in practically any of the 3,000 islands comprising the Republic of Indonesia. There is a tremendous diversity of language, religion and even culture in this vast archipelago. For the Dutch to say. "This is where the ethical principle would apply and not, say, to the island of Amboina or Bali, or Sumatra or Sulewasi," is, I think, an untenable position. But whatever it is, the position of the P.A.P. is quite simple. West Irian belongs to Indonesia, and the sooner it is returned the better. We prefer it to be done in a peaceful way. We see that with the pressure of world opinion this could be done and we hope it would be done. On the other hand, if West Irian were to be an issue over which war is waged between the Republic of Indonesia and Holland, then the danger of war spreading has to be taken quite seriously. The Deputy Prime Minister has already elaborated on this point and I do not think I need say much more. For myself, I would say that not only are the international consequences to be taken into account but also the internal effects on the Republic of Indonesia itself should also be considered. This, of course, is a matter for the Indonesian Government and the Indonesian people to decide upon. It is not for us to tell them what they should do or to draw their attention to certain possible Consequences. Nevertheless, I think we are within our rights to make an estimation of the possible consequences of war in West Irian, on, say, the internal economic and political situation in Indonesia. If war breaks out and the Indonesian armed forces gain a swift and decisive victory. Then I say that will be all to their good. But if, on the other hand, the Indonesian armed forces somehow get involved in a protracted war, then it is a matter for some concern whether the economy of Indonesia can stand up to the strain of supporting a modern war in which highly developed and very costly weapons are to be used and have to be paid for. We are assuming, of course, that in this event war would be confined to just between the two parties. But if, say, other powers move in, then the question of maintaining the cost of the burden of the war on the Indonesian economy does not arise. Other parties would just move in and provide armies, and certainly would provide weapons, and possibly even provide armed forces. Now, if we rule out the possibility of direct international intervention on both sides of the struggle, and the war over West Irian becomes a protracted affair, then the consequences of supporting this costly war - and any modern war must be extremely costly to wage - will be very damaging to the Indonesian economy when they are now engaged in changing the whole basis of their economic system to a completely different one. It is for this reason that the emphasis which the P.A.P. laid down on the West Irian issue differs so radically from that of the Barisan Sosialis. 7.04 p.m.

The stand of the Barisan Sosialis is tins, and it is quite simple: they are out for a war, and they say that there is no point in negotiating; the patience of the Indonesian people has been exhausted. There must be recourse to arms and they call for everyone to support the liberation of West Irian by force of arms. They are absolutely cleat about this. Although the Member for Queenstown was rather guarded in his opinion and threat, be for some reason or other was equivocating. He did not say that he supported a peaceful solution of the issue. On the other hand, he refrained from going to the extreme that his colleague, the Member for Thomson, did. Mr Deputy Speaker, these are matters on which I think we must go straight to the oracle - what the Barisan stands for, what the Secretary-General, Mr Lim Ching Siong, stands for. I am going to read to the House an extract from a speech made by Mr Lim Ching Siong at a mass rally on 7th January. There is absolutely no attempt here to take an ambiguous position. Mr Lint Ching Siong is quite frank about this. He said the patience of the Indonesian people has been exhausted. They now want to liberate West Irian by force of arms. They have every right to do so, and everyone should support the armed liberation. Not only did he say this, but he said that the issue over Goa clearly shows that constitutional methods cannot bring about the end of colonialism. May I, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, quote the exact words in Chinese, and I am reading from the Sin Chew Jit Poh of Monday, 8th January. He said, and I quote the actual words in Chinese; Chih min chu-i shih pu-neng kou ren ho chih husan he hsia te hsien tse an pai he chi hsu. It means that you cannot depend on any level of constitutional arrangement to bring about the end of colonialism. In another instance he said this: Chi-tu kao hsieh hua shih mei yin yung te. It means (if I can give a free translation) it is no use fiddling about with constitutional processes; it just gets you nowhere. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is in black and white in the Sin Chew Jit Poh, Mr Lim Chin Siong went further and asked the people of Singapore to take special note of this point. It is clear that the Barisan Sosialis stand for the use of force not only in West Irian but anywhere where the anti-colonial struggle is waged because, in his own words, "constitutional processes get you nowhere". Now, the Member for Queenstown was not prepared to go that far either at his mass rally or in this Assembly. This cannot be sad for the Member for Thomson. We have heard with our own ears that he was upbraiding the P.A.P: for being unwilling to say unequivocally and clearly, to use his own words, "to support the use of force in the anti-colonial struggle in this context". He said it is no use to pay ho service to the claim by the Indonesian Government to West Irian. You must be prepared to say that they arc justified in using force. Sir, the P.A.P. has never said that force, as a weapon of the political struggle, must be ruled out at all costs, tinder all conditions. We have never said that. If force must be used, when all other means have failed, then force must be used. Otherwise, do not call yourself a revolutionary. Can he elaborate on this? I remember the time when I was a student in London. A very venerable gentleman, who was a retired Inspector of Schools, saw me and said, "What is all this? I hear you are sympathetic towards the P.A.P. Don't you know they are dangerous characters?" I said, "No, I thought they are very decent people. They want independence for their country." And he said, "Yes, I also want independence. But how far are you prepared to go? Are you prepared to use force? Are you prepared to use arms to get independence?" And I said, "Look, if every other form of constitutional process has failed and if you cannot get your independence by peaceful struggle, by peaceful constitutional methods, then if you have to use force and resort to an armed rebellion, I say, I will support it in principle." And if I were asked I were courageous enough, I would say, "I don't know. I would say that if I say that I support an armed struggle, then when the time comes for you to take up arms, you must do it." It is as simple as that. Then the man said, "Do you mean that you are that sort of chap who wants to murder Englishmen if they will not get out of the country?" I said, "Yes, if that is the only way to get them out, I would." He was really aghast, and I quickly assured him that that proposition was purely academic and that I had no doubt the British could be got rid of by constitutional processes. Now, the Barisan and Mr Lim Ching Siong do not think in this way. Neither does the Member for Thomson. Sir, while we say that there should still be effort to solve this problem of transfer of authority over West Irian from the Dutch to the Indonesian Government, there is still opportunity for negotiation, the Barisan has ruled it out completely. Even the Member for Queenstown takes it for granted that war must be waged. In his own words, he says, "It will not be an easy struggle against the superior military might of the Dutch armed forces in West Irian, with a possible intervention by Australian forces." And he says he admires the Indonesian people for their courage in the face of superior arms, and the tougher they have to fight, which means they would have to suffer more casualties, the greater is his admiration. Sir, may I suggest to the House that this sort of sentiment is completely spurious and contemptible? If they believe that West Irian must be liberated by force of arms, then I say it is their duty not to instigate other people to fight on their behalf. They should themselves volunteer for the West Irian campaign. And I am putting this proposition to them, not as a joke but as a serious, proposition. There have been cases i the past where people from all countries volunteer to fight on behalf of a single country. The Spanish civil war is a supreme example, where people with strong anti-Fascist convictions went in tens of thousands to Spain to fight against the Fascist forces of Franco. Sir, you will remember that on Wednesday the Member for Farrer Park brought up his motion about the anti-quated colonial law which says that nobody can recruit Singaporeans to send them abroad. In the course of the debate on the motion, I made the same point, that the Barisan Sosialis should set an example and register for combat service in West Irian. What sort of reply did I get, Mr Speaker, Sir? I got a very angry reply from the Member for Queenstown. He said that he would go if I went with him. Sir, this is an utterly ridiculous proposition. We of the P.A.P. say, "Let us explore all peaceful methods first and resort to arms when all other methods have failed." The Barisan Sosialis wants to support the armed struggle straightaway. Therefore, it is nonsense for them to say that they will only go to West Irian to volunteer for military service if we are prepared to do the same thing. Sir, the present age is the age of great revolutions. In an age of great revolutions, you will find that revolutionaries of all descriptions suddenly come into being. We have our revolutionaries in Singapore - many types of them. I propose to divide them into three types of revolutionaries. First the armchair revolutionaries. These are the chaps who talk fierce, go back and do nothing. They lead a perfectly comfortable life and hope that others will carry out the revolution. We are quite familiar with this type of revolutionaries. At best they are pests, nuisances. At the worst, they provide great amusement. I have nothing to quarrel with them. The second type we find in abundance in Singapore. I will call them revolutionaries by instigation. They believe in a revolution by instigation. They do not want to fight themselves. They instigate others to fight for them. This type of revolutionaries is found in abundance in the Barisan Sosialis and other Communist front organisations. Sir, you will remember that I have recounted to the House in the past that the P.A.P., on the one hand, and the Communists, their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis, and their open-front organisations in the trade unions on the other hand - the two sides - have come to a collision four times. Round one was over the People's Association, where these pseudo revolutionaries made use of some 300 workers in the People's Association to cause trouble. The result is that 140 of them lost their jobs. They lost a good career. Round two was over the City Council strike when they tried to move in, but were eventually discredited and denounced by the very workers whom they tried to exploit and instigate.

On a point of order.

Point of order.

What has this got to do with the motion before us?

I am just saying that this motion proposed by these pseudo revolutionaries is in keeping with their past conduct. I am recounting one by one all the three rounds, how they have made use of other people to fight their own battle. Now they are trying to make use of innocent Singaporeans to fight their battle for them over West Irian. It is so relevant. However unpalatable it may be to the Member for Queenstown and the other pro-Communist stooges in his Party, I insist on my right to recount each and every incident. Now, Sir, where were we - round two -

The Hon. Minister is in order in making a passing remark. But not if he is going into details on the first round, the second round, the third round and the fourth round, which he has dealt with quite at length in this Assembly. I think, as a passing remark, it will be within the ambit of the question.

I will go through very quickly the other rounds. Now, round three was when they tried to make use of school boys and school girls for their own sinister purposes. The pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis, in the Old Boys' Associations, and in certain student organisations in Nanyang University, tried to make use of school boys and school girls for their own interest. In round three, they were resoundingly defeated. Round four was the Work Brigade, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. And they were all scattered. Round five has been fought and ended in a victory for the P.A.P. Round five was the Chinese Chamber of Commerce forum in which the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis, their open-front leaders in the trade unions and in certain student societies in Nanyang University, tried to manipulate trade organisations and the Chinese guilds to attack the Government. Their plan was simple. They wanted to send representatives at the meeting to heckle us, to ask for the right of debate -

On a point of order, Sir.

Point of order.

Cannot the Minister finish the subject, so that we can really get on with the motion in hand?

I have made my ruling on that. I have told the Minister in this House that he is well within the ambit of this motion to touch on it as a passing remark.

This round five not having been mentioned in public, I think I could perhaps be excused for going through -

If the Minister is going into the details of the debate in the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, he is completely out of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir -

We will take it up on the Malaysia motion.

Yes. We will take it up at the appropriate time. The Member for Queenstown cannot hope to escape from the consequences of his ill deeds. Now, these are the three types of revolutionaries. I have given sufficient instances to show that the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis and in the trade unions do not fight the battle themselves. They instigate others to do it : the stall of the People's Association; school boys and school girls; Work Brigade members. They even had the audacity to try to manipulate businessmen to serve and advance their evil purposes. And over West Irian, if they believe and they are really genuine anti-colonialists - the Member for Thomson says we are not - let them register for military service. If they have no military training the Government is quite prepared to provide instructors for them.

With the approval of the Assembly!

One Member has received military training, that is the Member for Upper Serangoon, before we sent him for a training course in Israel. They had to go for weapon training there. So we thought we had better not disgrace the Singapore representative and, on the quiet, we gave him some weapon training. Of course, when he went there, he wrote me a personal letter saying, "My God, life is really hard here. The food is had" and so on.

The Hon. Minister is going into details. To refer to the personal conduct of a Member of the Assembly is completely out of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the last thing we want is to send 13 Barisan Assemblymen to West Irian who could not handle their weapons and are likely to get mown down like sitting ducks. If that is what is holding them back, that they have not been trained as soldiers, we will give them the training. But I have no doubt that none of them will have the guts to volunteer. In the true tradition of the Communists and their stooges, they will try to make use of others and try to get the glory for themselves. They are only interested in fanning public feelings on this issue and to make use of it for their own political advantage. Sir, before I conclude, there is one point to which I want to draw the attention of the House. That is the rather curious statement by the Member for Thomson when he said that he was opposed to Malaysia. He was all for the concept of Malaysia, and the concept of Malaysia, he reminded the House, was created by what he called certain progressive Left-wing persons in the past. He was, of course, referring to certain Communists. I think two of them had to lice the country to avoid arrest. It is their concept of Malaysia which the Member for Thomson approves, and, therefore, I assume the Barisan Sosialis accepts this concept of Malaysia. Under this plan, the Federation of Malaya, Singapore and the Borneo territories are to be merged into the Republic of Indonesia. Nothing more than that and nothing less than that. The Member for Thomson was therefore advocating on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis that the proper form of Malaysia is for it to be part of the Republic of Indonesia. He made the statement to explain why he said the present Malaysia plan was anti, Indonesia. I await with great interest a statement from the Member for Queenstown to explain this away. This is more important, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because Mr Lim Ching Siong - Mr Lim Ching Siong is the oracle of the Barisan Sosialis, because he is the most important Communist open front leader in Singapore - in an article in the Indonesian journal Bintang Timor - an Indonesian Communist Party journal - said that he opposed the merger proposals of the P.A.P. because, in his opinion, Singapore should merge with Indonesia. We have therefore two of the most important leaders of the Barisan Sosialis, the Secretary-General and the Member for Thomson -

7.29 p.m.

A delegate to Malaysia.

A delegate to Malaysia too - who have said in public that, in their view, Malaysia should be part of the Republic of Indonesia and Singapore should be merged with Indonesia. Now the P.A.P. have steadfastly maintained the principle of Malayan nationalism, that Singapore merges with the Federation of Malaya and with the Borneo territories.

Order. Perhaps the Minister for Finance could reserve all these remarks when we come to debate Malaysia. I think he has made his point.

The Member for Thomson has accused me of being a Fascist and I think it is only fair, Mr Speaker, Sir, that you should allow me to say something in defence. I could say in defence that I think I am a gentleman, honest, forbearing, generous to a fault. I could say all that, but it is not going to get me anywhere. I feel a more effective line would be this. I want to explain to the House how it comes about that the Member for Thomson believes I am a Fascist. I have no doubt he sincerely believes I am a Fascist. Perhaps he does not quite believe that, but he certainly believes that I have Fascist tendencies. I think the explanation is quite simple. I have been speaking to various members of the Barisan Sosialis, now and then pointing out the folly of their ways - breaking away from the P.A.P., openly associating with the Communists and as stooges in the Barisan Sosialis itself and in the other Communist front organisations - and I have told them this is utterly foolish because history must take its course. There is nothing that can stop merger or Malaysia, after which they have to account for themselves, not to the Singapore Government, not to the Singapore Special Branch, but to the Federation Government and to the Federation Special Branch. That is not the funny business that the Member for Choa Chu Kang thinks it is, because the Federation Government and the Federation Special Branch have waged war - not a constitutional struggle, but an open war - on the Malayan Communist Party. Ten thousand people have died 70,000 have been banished; more than 20,000 detained. I can assure and I have assured these very foolish young men and women on the other side - "For God's sake, do not do these foolish things because retribution is going to overtake you. It is inevitable; you cannot escape it." Sir, far from being grateful to me for giving them good advice, they say, "Well, you know, the man is a Fascist. He wants us locked up". But that is the very thing I do not want to happen. I told them, "Repent in time -" An hon. Member: And confess.

"- and maybe you may get away with it." But the way they are going or, I see there is absolutely no hope. They are a bunch of dead ducks -

Order. I think the Minister has made his paint. Let us carry on with the mot ion.

Actually, apart from that, there is only one minor point I want to deal with, and that is this. You will recollect. Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Member for Thomson spoke at length on the atrocities perpetrated in French and Portuguese colonial territories in Algeria and Angola. He thought that deserves the strongest condemnation. No one will dispute that. But I am merely asking - what about Budapest? Surely the Hungarian workers themselves were in open armed revolt, with the Hungarian army fighting on the side of the Hungarian workers, fighting against the imposition of a Communist rule, backed by the Russian Army. Did he not condemn that as brutal oppression of a small country by a very large and powerful power? All that the Member for Thomson then said was, well, that shows that any reference to Angola and Algeria hurts us. It does not hurt us. Any reference to the crimes of the Communist powers hurts him, as we already know. Why dispute this fact which is known to everybody? That the Russians in their own national self interests suppress the armed revolt of the Hungarian people against their rule. That is the point which I want to make. The Member for Thomson did not reply to it, and I hope the Member for Queenstown, when it comes to his turn, will duly give a proper and adequate explanation. 7.36 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am surprised that this motion has been moved by the Barisan Sosialis, and, following the debate in this Rouse, more harm than good has been derived from the speeches. From the content of this motion, the intention of the mover is sincere and honest, but taking into account our position in Singapore and viewing the political developments in Singapore, this has given the picture of an undesirable atmosphere. I am really sorry for this state of affairs, but I believe, on the part of the mover of this motion, this is the objective, this is the true aim; in the proverbial Malay saying - there is a nefarious motive behind the moving of this motion by the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Speaker, we are of the opinion that when two people are engaged in a struggle, for another party to take sides and thus create an even more dangerous situation is a bad thing to do. When a man comes across two men engaged in a struggle, that man should try to find a settlement between the two parties. The question I am trying to bring to this House is, who is right and who is wrong? It is the question of our attitude or stand towards the people of Singapore. I hope that atrocities towards human beings will be avoided throughout the world because we have experienced the dire consequences of war which bring in its wake sufferings and hardships to the children who became orphans, wives who become widows as a result of war. I do not wish to elaborate on this point. If we take this from the point of view of our ability, we do not wish to take sides. I think the difference is great. We are adopting tile attitude of the mouse-deer which is trying to follow in the footsteps of the elephant. Firstly, Singapore is not an independent country yet. We are still confronting colonialism, as has been expressed by my colleague, the Member for Geylang Serai. We can see colonialism across the ocean, hut we are blind to the fact that colonialism is before our very nose. This is something really astonishing and it clearly shows, as I have said earlier, an attempt with a sinister motive. We must cut our coat according to our cloth. If we shout at the top of our voice, it will bring no gainful results whatsoever. Mr Speaker, if my memory serves me right, the Member for Queenstown did say that he would indeed be concerned if war should break out in Irian Barat. He was concerned that if war broke out there, it would engulf us in Singapore too. Therefore, he urged us to give wholehearted support to the Indonesian struggle. I fail to understand what he means by wholehearted support. West Irian is miles away from us. But would he care to look around and see Vietnam or Laos? Is he not concerned about the situation in those two countries? The recent developments in West Irian give him cause for concern. We have categorically stated our stand. Our problem in Singapore is such that we must save ourselves first. We must first put our house in order before we can help others. It is just like putting the cart before the horse. I say that this is a very illogical reason. The object of this motion contains an ulterior motive. If we follow the tactics of the Barisan Sosialis since the issue of Malaysia came to the forefront, we can see their efforts to bring about disunity between the people of Indonesia and Malaya. Firstly, on the issue of Malaysia, as has been explained by the Minister for Finance just now, the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis has stated his stand that Singapore should not merge with the Federation but with Indonesia. Secondly, just now the Member for Thomson has uttered shocking remarks in this House by alleging that the Malaysia Plan is an anti-Indonesia plan. It is as clear as daylight that the Barisan Sosialis are keen to see chaotic conditions happening in Malaya and in Indonesia. We will not entertain that idea. On the contrary, we will march forward. We will not be carried away by emotions because this will ultimately lead us - especially hon. Members of this Assembly who are responsible to the people - towards disaster. It is our duty to lead the people of Singapore to the best path, the path of peace, and not lead them for the purpose of achieving our political ideology or our own self-interest. I describe those politicians who indulge in tactics to use mankind for their own ends as people whose hands are covered with blood. Mr Speaker, we oppose such tactics. We must oppose such politicians in Singapore who try to lead us towards the path of disaster and chaos. We have set an example of how to struggle to achieve freedom for our State from the colonial powers without resorting to the use of arms we have achieved freedom for our country by a stroke of the pen. Take for example Malaya: and we hope too Singapore. We will continue with our legitimate struggle to free our motherland from colonial rule. There is no other way. There is no solution in Indonesia so that Irian Barat can be returned to Indonesia which cannot be solved. We sympathise with the aspirations and hopes of the Indonesian people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said just now that we have set an example of how we struggle here without the use of arms, nor do we indulge in superfluous fiery speeches. Those who take pleasure in shouting empty slogans to whip up spirit and fervour, in order to create disorder, we know they want to overwhelm us in Malaya. But despite their efforts to bring about disunity so that we may follow in their footsteps, we are not that stupid. Through the experience and lessons that we have learnt, I say they have made a grave mistake. The motion moved by the Member of the Barisan Sosialis has no significance at all. It is just like adding fuel to fire. What we should do is to offer constructive solutions in order to arrive at a peaceful settlement. But as I have said earlier on, I hope the people will not be misled by the motion before the House. The Alliance stand on this motion has been clearly stated. There is no need for me to repeat it. We know the people will be asking why we have taken such a stand, but we feel that it is a righteous one which will lead to goodwill and the well-being of all the people in the world. We do not wish to instigate anything which will be detrimental to any people. We have shown that the problems which we face in Singapore, for instance, the multi-racial problem, can be resolved by negotiations. From time to time, agreements are reached and accepted by all sections. But those who are not pleased with the success or the progress which we have made have a different aim. As an example to the world and to the United Nations, we shall continue to proceed with our efforts until we have achieved the aim of building a single nation. 7.55 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion moved by the Member for Queenstown, who is better known as the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, is merely a reaffirmation of what was enunciated by the Prime Minister of Singapore in his joint communique with Dr Djuanda, the First Minister of Indonesia, early in 1960. This joint statement made by the representatives of the two Governments clearly states the stand and the aspirations of the people of both territories who are fighting to eradicate colonialism in their respective countries. When putting forward his arguments, the Member for Queenstown boastfully mentioned that no one who fights for peace and independence will oppose this motion. This is in order to get support for this motion. But when he ended his speech, he appealed to all Members of the House, including those on the Government side, to give their wholehearted support to it. It is now clear that the motive behind this motion is clear, because we the Government have earlier declared our positive stand along with the Government of Indonesia in their struggle for the transfer of sovereignty of West Irian. Mr Speaker, when the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, opened his speech, he proudly said that a mass rally on the issue of Irian Barat had been held. Yes, everybody knows that this mass rally was sponsored by the Barisan Sosialis. When he moved his motion and made his speech, it would appear that he was challenging the political Parties who did not hold mass rallies to support Indonesia for the transfer of Irian Barat. Such Parties which did not hold mass rallies are considered to be pro-colonial Parties - this is his logic. Mr Speaker, Sir, when we support the struggle of the Indonesian people, we support wholeheartedly, with all our sentiments and feelings, with deep sincerity and honesty -

Order. Moment of interruption.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Mr K. M. Byrne]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m. to Tuesday, 23rd January, 1962.