Hansard, 1963-06-10

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the talks, to date, between the Federation of Malaya and the Singapore Governments on the financial arrangements relating to Head 17 (Finance) of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make a statement on the progress of negotiations relating to the financial arrangements between Singapore and the Federation. The Committee of Officials of the Singapore and Federation Governments reached no agreement on two matters: (i) The apportionment of expenditure and the quantum of Singapore's contribution for Federal expenditure. (ii) Responsibility for collection of national taxes in Singapore after merger. As a result, these and other unresolved matters were referred to the plenary sessions of the Inter-Governmental Committee which to date has held nine sessions. The first session was on the 28th February, 1963, convened at the instance of the Federation Government to discuss these unresolved matters. On the 21st March, the plenary session of the Inter-Governmental Committee met again to discuss a memorandum forwarded to the Singapore side on the 18th March setting out the proposals of the Federation Government. The main features of this memorandum are as follows: (i) Provisional actual expenditure incurred in Singapore in the year 1962 is classified according to whether it is State or Federal expenditure according to the interpretation of the Federation Government of the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961. (iii) Similarly, revenues are classified as State or Federal in accordance with the interpretation of the Federation Government of White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961. (iii) The Federation Government proposed that Singapore should bear 21.2 per cent of certain common Pan-Malaysian expenditure such as defence, internal security, external affairs, Parliament, etc. This percentage was based on the average of the 1961 actual revenue and the 1962 provisional actual revenues collected in each of the territories to comprise Malaysia. (iv) Since Singapore's revenue from State taxes, as defined in the Tenth Schedule o the Federation Constitution, will be inadequate to meet local State expenditure plus Singapore's contribution for common Pan-Malaysian services, as well as the cost of Federal departments in Singapore, the Federation Government proposed that certain revenues be assigned to the State to enable Singapore to meet her obligations in both these respects. The effect of the above proposals will be that Singapore's revenue surplus, in other words, the whole of the balance between revenue collected in Singapore, on both national and State taxes over Singapore's expenditure for both State and Federal departments will go to the Federation Government. The Singapore Government objected to this scheme on the following grounds: (i) The figures used for computing Singapore's State expenditure were based on the provisional actual expenditure in 1962 whereas the cost of Federation defence services is based on projections as far ahead as 1970. Even expenditure outside the fields of defence and internal security of the Central Government has been raised by varying percentages representing the expected increase in future expenditure. (ii) The percentage of Singapore's contribution for common Pan-Malaysian expenditure, assessed at 21.2 per cent was too high. The percentage, in our view, should have regard to two factors, namely representation in the Central Parliament and population, and not just capacity to pay. (iii) The whole of Singapore's surplus based on 1962 calculations goes to the Federal Government. Agreement had already been reached on the 1st March, 1963, on the initial disposal of national taxes collected in Singapore. The proceeds would go neither to the Singapore nor to the Federal Consolidated Fund but to an account to be opened in the Singapore branch of the Central Bank. The money collected must physically be in Singapore. No disbursement from the fund would be made until the apportionment between the two Governments has been agreed to as to Singapore's contribution to the Central Government for Federal services. The Singapore Government then proposed a scheme which was embodied in a paper submitted to the Inter-Governmental Committee for consideration at its meeting on the 2nd April, 1963, held in Singapore. The main outline of the scheme was as follows: (i) Singapore's contribution for Pan-Malaysian services should be based on actual expenditure and not projected expenditure. The contribution in the first instance should be based on estimates passed by the Federal Parliament in respect of these common Pan-Malaysian expenditure and should be adjusted after the Accountant-General has submitted his accounts of actual expenditure. (ii) Capital expenditure on defence and internal security should be financed partly from revenue and partly from loans. (iii) The percentage of Singapore's contribution should be based on three factors, namely, its representation in Parliament, population and economic growth through Time. This percentage will increase in accordance with the growth of industry in Singapore determined by the annual census of production carried out in Singapore since 1960. The percentage should initially be below the proportion of Singapore's population to total Pan-Malaysian population and eventually rise beyond it, to the extent that it falls short of it in the initial year. The Federation Government objected to Singapore's proposals on the following grounds: (i) the contribution for Pan-Malaysian defence and internal security expenditure was far too low. (ii) there would be troublesome accounting difficulties which may lead to acrimonious annual disputes over the quantum of contribution. (iii) the Federation Government would be put into an invidious position of having its financial accounts scrutinised by a State Government. (iv) the surplus of the Singapore Government was not shared and made available to the other territories. Tun Razak, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation, then discussed the matter informally with myself and the Minister for Finance and stressed that the expenditure approach must be abandoned by the Singapore Government if any progress was to be made in these discussions. The contribution must be assessed in terms of percentage of national taxes arising in Singapore and this percentage could be subject to periodic review to ensure fairness to both sides. The Federation Government then submitted an amended scheme. This approach is identical with that to the first scheme, but it contains two concessions. First, defence and internal security contribution by Singapore was reduced from $93.6 million to $75 million a year. Next, Singapore retains half her surplus, based on 1961 calculations, instead of surrendering the whole. The proposals of the Federation Government were then discussed at plenary sessions of the Inter-Governmental Committee on 10th and 11th April, 1963. The Singapore Government, at this meeting, accepted that Singapore's contribution need not be rigidly related to actual Federal expenditure incurred and we attempted to work out the apportionment pf national taxes between Singapore's contribution for the cost of common Malaysian services and the cost of Federal departments in Singapore and Singapore's State expenditure. The gap between the estimates of the two Governments of the cost of Federal departments in Singapore was narrowed down to $8.7 million. This is due to differing interpretations of the White Paper on the responsibility of three Departments - Income Tax, Customs and Broadcasting. The amount of $75 million for defence and internal security expenditure was accepted subject to a consideration of the following factors: (i) British contribution to defence expenditure. (ii) Details of the defence and internal security expansion programme have not been examined by the Singapore Government. (iii) Capital cost of defence and internal security expenditure which may amount to $18 million out of $75 million would be met by capital transfers from Singapore's Development Fund to Federation Development Fund. (iv) The percentage agreed upon should be reviewed periodically for the first five or six years until defence and internal security expenditures have stabilised themselves. As regards non-defence expenditure, such as External Affairs, Parliament, the Civil List, etc., this constitutes a small part of the total and could be settled without difficulty. We have agreed in deference to the Federation Government's approach that expenditure on these Federal services, except defence and security, would not be subject to scrutiny of actual expenditure. We were, however, unable to do so for defence and internal security expenditure, because future expenditure was unpredictable and periodic reviews, which the Federation Government had agreed, would ensure fairness to both sides. The Federation Government had indicated that it is not prepared to meet any prospective deficits in Singapore's Budget. Accordingly, Singapore's view is that there is no case for surpluses to be paid into the Federal Treasury. If the question of sharing surpluses computed on the basis of 1961 figures were not pursued by the Federation Government, the difference between Singapore calculations and the Federation calculations becomes very narrow indeed. The gap amounts to no more than $13.7 million, or about four per cent of what we estimate national taxes in Singapore will yield in 1964. We had also offered to amend our laws to allow the Federal Minister of Finance sufficient scrutiny over Singapore's tax collection machinery to ensure that the collection of taxes, including Income Tax and Customs, was carried out efficiently and effectively. There were two elements which have a bearing on Singapore's financial contribution to the Federation. The first consists in the accounting approach, and the purpose is to forecast, as accurately as possible with the figures at hand, what would be the cost of Pan-Malaysian services and of Federal services in Singapore from 1964 onwards. On the basis of this forecast, we can agree on the apportionment of national taxes collected in Singapore for Singapore's contribution to the Central Government. The second element consists of sharing Singapore's prosperity after Malaysia. The financial talks have run into difficulties because the Federation Government wants to introduce this element into the apportionment ratio, taking the 1961 surplus as the yardstick of prosperity. Whilst we agree that prosperity in Malaysia should be shared all round, we have been unable to agree to this particular formula. It is the additional prosperity consequent on Singapore's entry into Malaysia that should be shared, not its past prosperity based on 1961 figures when it was not part of the Federation. Should for instance, Singapore prosper under Malaysia with the advent of a Common Market, then we must share this prosperity with the rest of the Federation. A meeting was held informally on Wednesday, 29th May, in Kuala Lumpur. It was agreed in principle that a Common Market should be established throughout Malaysia. This agreement will pave the way for a settlement of the financial arrangements between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. Singapore's progressive entry into the Common Market must necessarily mean the gradual erosion of its free port status as Malaysia industrialises. A further informal meeting was held on Tuesday, 4th June, in Kuala Lumpur. On the basis that satisfactory arrangements will be made for the establishment of a Common Market including the setting up of a Tariff Board under a chairman to be nominated jointly by the two Governments by Malaysia Day, we have agreed to consider that the Singapore Government should pay a certain percentage of our national taxes to the Central Government. The Singapore Government is also being asked to pay by way of grant a sum of $50 million during the first five years of Malaysia for development expenditure of the under-developed States of Malaysia, namely, the Borneo territories. The Ministry of Finance is at the moment carefully going through these proposals, in particular the percentage figures, and a reply will be given to the Federation Government this week. I have set out only the main outline of the course of discussions. When final agreement is reached, all details will be published for debate and adoption in this House. In conclusion, may I say that the rationale for the arrangements in regard to Singapore lies in the fact that there will not, in fact, be a complete merger on the basis of one of the present eleven States of the Federation. Had there been complete merger as advocated by some Parties in Singapore, like the Barisan Sosialis, then the whole of Singapore's revenues from Income Tax, Customs, vehicle taxes and others will logically be surrendered to the Central Government. This means that we give up more than three-quarters of our total revenue instead of only about one-quarter under the White Paper terms. Under the terms of the White Paper, the usual arrangements which are suitable in the case of the other States in the Federation do not apply to Singapore. The special position of Singapore is also shown by the fact that it has been allotted only 15 seats in the House of Representatives, which is below the number it is entitled to if there was complete merger. Within the limits of this position, we have tried and will continue to try to work out a fair formula to share our prosperity consequent on the formation of a Common Market for Malaysia. Needless to say, if the Common Market terms are inequitable in their application as between industries in the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, then the whole basis of contribution to the Central Government must be altered. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Order Paper I notice there is a motion standing in the names of the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Tanglin. There are approximately ten minutes to go before we have, under Standing Orders, to move on to the discussion of the Development Estimates. With the concurrence of the House, I would suggest that since this is a matter of some importance and since it has been raised not only by way of a question but also by way of a motion, perhaps we could, at the end of the debate on the Development Estimates, take the motion standing in the names of the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Tanglin. In the course of that debate I would be able to give any such further information as Members would deem proper or necessary for a proper discussion on this matter.

On the suggestion made by the Prime Minister, the relevant Standing Order would be Standing Order 10, paragraph (2) . The Leader of the House could move a motion to the effect that item No. 20 on the Order Paper be taken immediately after item I on the Order Paper. That is, of course, after the disposal of questions and the Development Estimates. Perhaps Members would like to ask questions on the statement first.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask a supplementary question before we come to that issue.

Yes.

I am much obliged. Mr Speaker, I would inquire from the Prime Minister whether he does not think it more appropriate that we should have a White Paper? Would he consider publishing a White Paper together with the memoranda referred to by him, and particularly, Sir, in view of the very grave connotations to that statement of his, that a common market has been agreed upon, which rather suggests not a common market, Sir, but a Customs Union; and whether he would also publish the Rueff Report for which we have been anxiously awaiting, so that we should be in a position with some responsibility and seriousness to consider a matter gravely affecting our future. It should not be taken so hurriedly, Sir. This is a matter for study and I would urge the Prime Minister to indicate whether he would consider the urgent publication of a White Paper with the memoranda and the details he has given, and other details that might help us, together with the Rueff Report.

At some stage or other, either when negotiations are successfully concluded or are unable to he resolved, then all the memoranda that had been put in stating in detail the respective stands of the two Governments will have to be published together with the Rueff Report. It is my considered opinion that publication at this stage would not help the course of negotiations as it would tend to harden attitudes on both sides. I have made this statement because a Member of the Alliance Party has requested me to do so. I would not otherwise have thought it appropriate at this juncture when we are still closely scrutinising the detailed proposals which we received last week, but since a member of the Singapore Branch of the Federation Alliance, the Member for Cairnhill, has made some rather disparaging remarks about my not being prepared to answer these questions, he has, in fact, unwittingly brought these issues into the light of day. I would have preferred to allow his principals in Kuala Lumpur more freedom for discussion and negotiations. I have deliberately slurred over certain parts of the immediate proposals that we are considering in order to give a certain degree of flexibility of approach. I hope "flexibility" would be an appropriate word for both sides, because of this new element that they have introduced into the discussions - the question of Singapore's prosperity being shared with the rest of Malaysia. I say the House can have my assurance that we will not move, and in fact we have no right to move, from the terms of the White Paper which had been voted upon by the people, unless there is definitely a quid pro quo. If we are asked to give something more than what we had agreed to give and what they had agreed to accept, then obviously we must in return have some benefit arising out of Malaysia, and I was glad on the 29th of last month we reached agreement on a common market in principle. The detailed recommendations of the Common Market are contained in the Rueff Report. It will have to be gone through by the officials. But I can assure the Member for Anson that nothing would give me more pleasure eventually when negotiations have been successfully concluded than to publish them in toto, and I think he, and even more so the merchants who have built a valuable and lucrative trade over the years on the basis of our free port, will have a great interest in seeing that all this does not disappear in the chase of a will-o'-the-wisp for a common market. I think he can take the assurance of my Minister for Finance, who has met these merchants, that there is no such sudden disappearance of our free port at all under contemplation. I have given an indication of the common market proposals when I said that by the 31st of August there must be set up a joint Tariff Board with a Chairman appointed jointly by the two Governments. In other words, before any item can be included in new tariffs, it must first be in. respect of a commodity manufactured in Malaysia, and, second, our concurrence with this appointment of a joint Chairman must first be obtained.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister felt that it was inappropriate to disclose the terms of the discussions in Kuala Lumpur, but because I asked a question he felt that he had to disclose what he considered inappropriate. Would he consider it appropriate that he should go to the Press and start telling the Press all the things he felt he wanted to tell the public of Singapore and not this House first? Would he consider it appropriate that he should go to the Press, whereas the question asked in this House could be considered as inappropriate?

No, I am not saying the questions are inappropriate, Mr Speaker, Sir. All I said was that I would not have chosen this particular juncture, but since the matter has been raised by a member of the Singapore Branch of the Federation Branch, I felt perhaps they had thought it in the public interest that the matter should be canvassed. 2.57 p.m.

Order. A suggestion has been made that item 20 should be taken immediately after item 1. At the same Time, the Prime Minister has indicated that a White Paper will be published setting out the details of all the talks -

Not immediately, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Order. Yes, not immediately - when the talks have been completed, and he has indicated that there will be a debate on that White Paper. I do not know whether the Member for Cairnhill, in view of that, will still insist that this motion be debated today.

May I explain my stand, Sir? My motion is not on the terms of the arrangement to be arrived at between the two Governments, but rather on the way this Government has gone about in trying to arrange those terms, and I am calling on this House to express concern because of the manner in which the Prime Minister has been trying to get at those terms. The Prime Minister rose ---

I am sorry. I want this Business Motion now. The Prime Minister wishes to say something else? We are nearing three o'clock.

I was wondering whether those were, in fact, the terms of the motion - express concern at the progress.

Yes, the terms of the motion are: `That this Assembly views with concern the progress made by the Singapore Government in its talks with the Federation of Malaya Government on the financial arrangements relating to Head 17 (Finance) of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961.' But if the Member for Cairnhill insists that a debate be taken on that item today, then I will ask the Leader to move a motion.

I beg to move, That item 20 on the Order Paper be taken immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on item 1 on the Order Paper. Question proposed.

Can we have copies of the statement made by the Prime Minister?

Surely.

The Prime Minister has indicated that copies will be made avail-able.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That item 20 on the Order Paper be taken immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on item 1 on the Order Paper.

It is three o'clock. The Clerk will read the Orders of the Day - Business of Supply.

On a point of information, Sir. The Questions on the Order Paper will go over till tomorrow, do they?

The position will be that immediately after we have completed the proceedings on item 1, Questions come on as a matter of course. We will dispose of the Questions and then go on to item 20.

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

3.01 p.m.

Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before the Committee proceeds with the consideration of these Estimates?

I do.

The summary of these Estimates is at page 7 of the Paper. We are to deal with heads of expenditure in respect or Which amendments stand on the Order Paper. The first Head is Head D.l9 - Vehicles Registration. Head D.19 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D.19 he reduced by $l0 in respect of subhead 2.* * The same amendment also stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee. According to Paper Cmd. 16 of 1963, Head D.19 is about the Multi-storey Car Park. The Government approved the project for this Multi-storey Car Park in 1961. In 1962, the Government asked the House to approve a Supplementary revote. In all these estimates, there was no such provision as this one. Why is it that the Government now intends to ask for $600,000 for this Multi-storey Car Park in such a great hurry? Mr Speaker, Sir, we would like the Minister to tell us in this House whether or when this Multi-storey Car Park can be completed. At the same Time, When will the capital outlay be recouped?

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am worried about is that greater expenditure will have to be involved in order to ensure rapid progress. Sir, if a contract has already been made for the completion of this project by a certain date, then usually for every day's delay after the contractual date, the contractor has to pay a penalty of a certain sum. If that is the case, then naturally he will have to complete the contract as soon as possible in order to minimise his losses. Now here the Government is going to ask for more contractors to help and get itself involved in an expenditure of $600,000 more in order to achieve completion in February 1964. What is the magic about the date February 1964 that requires the Government to spend up to $600,000 more.

Mr Speaker, I can understand why the Members for Yio Chu Kang and Tanglin are hotted up over this item. I myself was pretty hopping mad and when I came back and I found this explanation given under Head D.19 - Multi-storey Car Park. I have since made inquiries in my Ministry and have discovered that actually the sum of $600,000 does not represent an increase to be asked for in this Assembly on account of our desire to have the car park completed in February 1964. The sum of $1 million was voted to be spent in 1962. However, only $400,000 was spent last year. Therefore, the sum of $600,000 as indicated in this estimate is actually a revote. Members will see that it is written down there quite clearly "Multi-storey Car Park -Revote - $600,000" which we are asking to be spent this year. There is no necessity - in fact, I would be the last person to come to this Assembly to ask for a sum of money of this size just to have the car park completed by that date.

Sir, if this is a revote, it means that the original situation still holds good. According to the Four-Year Development Plan of the Government, this Multi-storey Car Park is just going to cost $2 million - a million to be spent in 1962. But because $400,000 was spent, therefore, $600,000 more will be required as a revote. But in the explanation given to us in this Paper, Sir, the construction of this car park is mentioned at a cost of $2.45 million. Where does the $0.45 million come from, if it is a revote? It just makes the matter more confusing. If it is $2 million, why can it not be mentioned as $2 million? Why should $2 million become $2.45 million and then we are led to believe that it was an increase on the original cost of the Multi-storey Car Park? According to the explanation given by the Deputy Prime Minister, it is still $2 million. Then what is the point of putting in $2.45 million? Somebody must be making some mistake somewhere?

Sir, the mistake, if it arises, is not on my account. The Member for Cairnhill is quite correct when he pointed out that another $450,000 has `been mentioned as the cost of the Multi-storey Car Park. In fact, Members of the House will remember reading in the Press of the delay which was experienced in building the multi-storey car park owing to the extra depth of the piling which must le made and, in fact, we shall come later to this Assembly to ask for this additional sum of money to compensate for the extra amount of piling that will be needed. But at the moment, these estimates are asking simply for a sum of $600,000 as a revote, a sum of money which was not spent in 1962.

Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister admits that an extra $450,000 would be required. May I ask -

For piling.

For piling. As this is the place where money required for Government expenditure has to be brought up, and as he knows that $450,000 extra would be required for this Multi-storey Car Park project, would it not be proper that he should have asked for the full amount instead of doing it piecemeal - $600,000 - and then coming back for $450,000? I think that is a wrong way of budgeting.

Sir, it is really a matter for the Public Works Department to work out increases that are required on the project. Only the sum of $600,000 which should have really been spent in 1962 is being asked to be revoted and the additional sum of $450,000 which is required for extra piling would probably have to come up for Assembly approval at some later stage.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Cairnhill has pointed out to the Deputy Prime Minister that from this estimate it is clear that the Government, when it put forward this estimate, did not find out how deep the piling has to be. That is why they have made this mistake in the estimate. Therefore, since the Minister has asked for another $600,000, according to him, this was a revote which was not spent in 1962. But the Deputy Prime Minister has not answered my two questions which I raised just now. Firstly, when will this Multi-storey Car Park be completed, and how long will the Government take to recover the capital expenditure on this Multi-storey Car Park from the receipts from the car park?

The car park is expected to be completed sometime in 1964. Whether it is going to be done in February 1964 or not, I cannot guarantee because the progress of the work must necessarily be dependent on several factors. With regard to the second question raised by the Member for Yio Chu Kang, it has been estimated that we would recover the cost of the Multi-storey Car Park by renting out the ground floor as shops and also by charging motorists the cost of parking, probably within a space of five years. 3.15 p.m.

As I understand the Deputy Prime Minister, there was a vote for this Head of $1 million for the 1962 Estimates of Expenditure. Now, in the explanation to the Supplementary Estimates, it is put down as $2.45 million, so that, in effect, the Government have already spent $0.45 million more than they had expected to spend during that year. It would appear from the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that the $0.45 million has been incurred on account of the extra piling. If that is correct, then, I think, with due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, this House has not been given the proper information, and they should have come to this House then for $600,000 plus $0.45 million. Otherwise, it does not make sense.

It is a matter of accounting the responsibility of which, of course, is not mine. But it is quite correct that we have discovered that the original cost of the multi-storey car park has now exceeded by $450,000. $2.45 million would, therefore, be the revised cost. Now, presumably when we spend the $2 million which had been voted for in the 1962 Estimates, the Assembly will be asked to approve another sum of $450,000.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to disagree. It is not a matter of accounting. It is a matter of P.A.P. style of misleading the Opposition. $450,000 has already been spent, as admitted by the Deputy Prime Minister. $0.45 million has already been spent On extra piling, and yet that extra cost is paid for out of a vote for the whole project. He says that the extra cost need not he brought to the attention of this House until the 1964 Estimates come up for discussion. That is a way of trying to mislead the Opposition.

There is no intention to mislead the Opposition. I have placed the facts very clearly before the House. In fact, they can investigate the matter more closely in detail in the Estimates Committee if they so wish. But these are the facts and they are very simple to understand.

The matter could be referred to the Estimates Committee.

All right, Sir.

Does the Member for Choa Chu Kang wish for a vote?

No.

Is the Member withdrawing his amendment?

May I say a few words before I withdraw my amendment?

Yes.

(In Mandarin): After hearing the explanation of the Deputy Prime Minister, the $0.45 million intended as a sum to build a skyscraper, like a multi-storey car park, has now gone down the drain. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $600,000 for Head D.19 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963. Head D.20 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to he allocated for Head D20 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3. It is the Government's intention to ask for $740,000 for rural development projects. According to the explanation given in the Estimates, they say that it is for the purpose of "raising the standard of living of rural dwellers and assisting them in the improvement of their production techniques". Among the schemes proposed by the Government are `the construction of three Veterinary Clinics and Extension Centres, and a Fertilizers and Mixtures Supply Service. The P.A.P. have been in office for four years. It is the fourth year now. Over the past four years, we have never seen the Government doing anything to help improve `the agricultural techniques of the farmers, nor have they done anything to improve their standard of living. From these Supplementary Development Estimates, we can see that the Government in the past four years have not been looking after the livelihood of the rural people, especially the farmers and poultry-keepers. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me point out to the Government that, in fact, this $740,000 should have been spent in 1961 but in that year the Government did not use this money. Let me quote Paper Cmd. 6 of 1963 - Financial Statements for the Year 1961 - page 191. The money voted to be used for Rural Development Projects in 1961 was $500,000. But by the end of 1961, the money spent in this field was $34,000 - not even $35,000. Therefore, in 1961, the Government had only spent 6 per cent of the sum voted, and the balance of about $460,000 has not been touched. In the 1962 Development Estimates, the Government asked for a vote of $470,000. How much of this sum has been spent? This House has not received any financial report on this. In 1963, the Government have also asked for a sum of $200,000 for rural development projects. The sums voted for the two years 1962 and 1963 total $670,000 for rural development projects. But up to now, we do not know how much the Government have spent from these votes. If the Government have spent 6 per cent of the 1961 vote, then we believe they could not have used more than ten per cent of the total votes for 1962 and 1963. Therefore, we can clearly see that from 1961 to 1963 the Government have spent less than $70,000 on rural development projects. That is my calculation. But the Assembly has approved $1.37 million for rural development projects, and we can therefore see clearly that during the past three years the Government have not spent $1 million to improve the standard of living of the rural people and to help the farmers to improve their production techniques. And today, the Government want the Assembly to approve $740,000 for this purpose. This only goes to show the false intention of the Government because this sum of money should have been spent during the past three years, but they have not done so. Mr Speaker, Sir, from these figures, we can clearly see that the P.A.P. Government have no intention of improving the livelihood of the rural people. They do not care about the living conditions of the farmers, the bankrupt rural economy, and the reduced prices of eggs. The Government are not concerned about all these matters. It is now 1963. In one year's Time, the P.A.P. will have to face the people's judgment. The people know - and the P.A.P. also know - that what the P.A.P. Government did in the past will be exposed. The coming year will also show that the P.A.P. Government will no longer receive the support of the rural people. That is why the P.A.P. Government have now come to the Assembly to ask for a vote of $740,000 for rural development projects for the construction of Veterinary Clinics and Extension Centres, and a Fertilisers and Mixtures Supply Service. Mr Speaker, Sir, before the P.A.P. took office, they proposed to the rural people their so-called P.A.P. Development Plan, in which they promised that they would establish co-operatives and all sorts of things to help the rural people, especially the farmers. But so far they have done nothing of this sort, and they still have no intention of doing anything. The P.A.P. have not done what they had promised to do. This is a fact both the P.A.P. and the people know very well. 3.30 p.m.

During the past four years the rural people have been very disappointed at what the P.A.P. have done for them. Everywhere you can see the people scolding the P.A.P. Government for not having improved their living conditions and helping them in their agricultural production. They blame the P.A.P. Government for having increased their assessments, taxes and all the other things. The P.A.P. Government cannot shirk their responsibility for this. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from this vote of $740,000 that is asked of this Assembly, we can see clearly that the P.A.P. have always been trying to seek ways and means to deceive the people, and to give them the impression that the P.A.P. are looking after them and are taking care of their livelihood by trying to give them veterinary services, fertilisers, supplies and things like that. But this sum of money, which was originally intended to be used for the people, has never been used to the fullest extent by the Government. Now the Government have come to this Assembly to ask for this vote in spite of the fact that there have been surpluses every year. These surpluses have been due to the fact that the Government have not been able to carry out its work. The Minister for Finance should resign since he is unable to use all the vote that has been approved. I am going to tell the P.A.P. Government that it is impossible now for them to cast a smokescreen to deceive the people of Singapore. The so-called development of the P.A.P. is nothing more than a paper tiger. It is something that is good to look at, but there is nothing in substance. Therefore, I want the Government to give us the full facts about these matters. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, now that the Government have come to this House to ask for a supplementary vote of $740,000 for rural development and other purposes, it shows that the P.A.P. have failed in their work in this respect. They have failed to look after the interest and livelihood of the people in the rural areas. Now that they are going to face their death, they are fabricating imaginary figures and plans in order to deceive the people of Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang seems to be out of his mind today. We come to the House to ask for a supplementary vote of $740,000 to meet the expenditure of construction of three veterinary clinics, a mobile unit to provide veterinary services to Pulau Ubin, Pulau Tekong and the Southern Islands, a fertilizers and mixtures supply service, extension schemes for agriculture, animal husbandry, fisheries, animal nutritional unit, a veterinary diagnostic laboratory, and primary production services to the rural community centres and other projects. Sir, in this House on the 8th April, 1963, I spoke quite lengthily on the services that we have supplied to the farmers and fishermen of Singapore. It looks to me as if the Member for Choa Chu Kang is deliberately saying untruths in this Assembly just to blind the eyes of the people who are probably ignorant. I have mentioned in this House of the services that have been supplied to the farmers and the fishermen. What we are requesting today is money to implement more schemes to help the farmers and the fishermen of Singapore. All the farmers in Singapore know that today if they need inoculations for their chickens and pigs, they can easily get them from either the extension centres that we have built or from the rural community centres which we have recently built. Sir, as you know, these rural community centres are built not only to supply amenities to the rural folks but also to supply veterinary services to the farmers, the pig rearers, the poultry rearers, etc. We have introduced artificial insemination in Singapore for pigs. As I have said before in this House, Sir, Singapore is the first tropical country to introduce this service. Already numerous farmers who have pigs in their farms are getting the benefit of this service. Sir, in 1959 when we came to office, there were two veterinary extension centres in existence. Since then, we have built three more of such extension centres - one in Changi, one in Yio Chu Kang and one in Tampines. The fourth one at Thomson Road is nearing completion. From these extension centres, we supply veterinary services to the people who live around these areas and certain of our services are even brought to the doorsteps of the farmers. When the Member for Choa Chu Kang says that the P.A.P. Government have not been doing anything for the farmers of Singapore, he must be talking through his hat. Sir, this additional sum of $740,000 is for the purpose of providing more services to the rural folks. In the Development Estimates for 1963, there is a vote of $200,000 for rural development projects. This money is committed to the artificial insemination service, the anti-pest service, the provision of fisheries training and also one film unit, and the building of the fourth extension centre at Thomson Road. What we are asking the Assembly is a provision of $155,000 for three more veterinary extension centres to be built in Jurong, Mandai and later on one to be built in the Punggol area. We are planning ahead so that the benefits of all these services can be brought to farmers all over the island of Singapore, including Pulau Ubin, Pulau Tekong and the Southern Islands. We know that whilst it has been possible to improve the veterinary services on Singapore Island by the establishment of veterinary clinics and extension centres, it has not been possible to provide these services to the adjacent islands of Singapore, particularly Pulau Ubin, Pulau Tekong and the Southern Islands. It is therefore intended that such services should be extended to these islands, and we intend to build a mobile team to move from island to island and from one part of the island to another part of the same island where there are concentrations of farmers. In order to render these mobile services, a properly fitted boat which can carry up to ten persons with a reasonable speed will be required. To provide this mobile unit service, we require $40,000. On top of that, we intend to initiate a Scheme whereby we will produce sludge and chemical fertilizers and sell them at cost to farmers through all our veterinary extension centres and the rural community centres.

Order. May I remind the Minister that there are only six minutes left for this item?

Sir, in other words, all these services that we intend to supply to the rural areas are solely meant for the benefit of the farmers and the fishermen of Singapore. 3.45 p.m. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has deliberately closed a blind eye to all these services. But I am quite sure that some day someone will open his eyes for him. And when the time comes for his constituents to pass judgment on him, they will do him justice.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for National Development has admitted and neither has he denied what I have pointed out in this House. That is, the Government should have done all these things between 1961 and 1962; because in the past three years the Government was given more than $1 million for rural developments, but it did not fully make use of the money voted. The Minister himself has admitted this. From this admission, we can see that the Government has no sincerity in looking after the livelihood of the rural people. In fact, it is only concerned with the future elections that it has come out with this supplementary vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $740,000 for Head D.20 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963. Head D. 25 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D.25 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 35. Mr Deputy Speaker, subhead 35 concerns markets and the construction thereof. According to the Government's explanation, it intends to put up markets in the Housing Board estates to the number of six, and the total expenditure is estimated at $1,350,000. We would like the Minister for Health and Law to explain to this House where these six markets are intended to be built. In the meantime, what is going to happen to the hawkers around the streets, and how are they going to apply for pitches in these markets? I would also like to know on what principle or basis is the allocation of hawkers' pitches to be made. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have seen that the Government is doing its very best to support a certain hawkers' organisation. In fact, a Member of the hack benches and a Parliamentary Secretary are acting in the capacity of advisers to this hawkers' organisation. So what we are concerned about is this. On completion of these markets, is the Government going to hand over the work of allocation to this hawkers' organisation? We raise this question because in Singapore almost everybody knows that if you want to get anything done or apply for anything, you must get the rubber stamp of the P.A.P. before it can be done. So I would like the Minister for Health and Law to assure this House that the future allocation of hawker pitches in these markets will be made on a very fair basis without any party bias.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in modern town planning, public markets are recognised as essential social amenities and often the markets form the centre of the shopping area of the neighbourhood. In the planning of the various estates, the Housing and Development Board have been requested by the Ministry to include in their layout suitable sites for markets in relation to the size of the population itself and the needs of the people. In conformity with this planned development of essential amenities for the public, it is necessary that markets in the Board's housing estates should be provided. The responsibility for the provision of markets lies with the Ministry of Health, and the Housing and Development Board have been requested to provide in their planning the construction of such markets as part of their overall development plan. Experience has shown that the construction costs of markets by the Board as an integrated project result in development at a much lower cost, so that the market extensions can be phased suitably with the development of the Board's estates. Details of the markets proposed, the population served and the costs of construction which the Member for Choa Chu Kang has asked for will now be provided. It is proposed, Sir, to build a market consisting of 198 stalls at 70 pitches at Geylang Serai, off Jalan Turi. This market is estimated to serve a resident population of 70,000. The cost of the building will be $375,000 and the cost of equipment will be $31,610. The second market will be built at Jalan Merpati, that is in the Macpherson Road (South) area. It is to be a market of 100 stalls. It is proposed that this market will serve a resident population of 17,000. The building cost is $180,000 and the cost of equipment is $31,600. The third market is to be a market of 150 stalls to be built in Beo Lane in the Bukit Ho Swee area. It will serve a resident population of 48,000. The building cost is estimated to be $225,000 and the cost of equipment, $71,990. The fourth market is a market of 100 stalls to be built in Tang-un Halt in the Queenstown neighbourhood (Four). It is expected that this market will serve a resident population of 32,000; the cost of construction will be $190,000 and the cost of equipment, $31,600. The fifth market is to be a 100-stall market, off Jalan Batu in Tanjong Rhu. It is expected to serve a population of 24,000 residents. The cost of the building will be $190,000 and the cost of equipment, $31,600. The sixth market is to be at Hoy Fatt Road. This is a 100-stall market in the Alexandra Hill Estate. It is expected to serve a population of 18,000; the cost of construction is $190,000; the cost of equipment is $31,600. It must be pointed out that the population figures are estimates of population growth in the area of redevelopment alone. In fact, experience has shown that these markets, when completed, can serve a much larger population. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, apart from markets in the Housing Board areas, hawker pitches are also being provided by the Housing and Development Board and up to date, the Board has provided 35 pitches in the Tanjong Rhu Estate, costing $25,000. In addition, the Board has built 35 pitches in the Alexandra Hill Estate, costing $11,000. The Board has already built half of the 312 hawker pitches in the Kallang Estate, costing $40,000. The Board will soon be constructing 88 new hawker pitches, costing $35,000 in the Bukit Ho Swee Estate. The construction of hawker pitches in Housing and Development Board Estates has been designed as an extension of the enlightened approach to the control of hawkers. In a number of Housing and Development Board estates, hawker stalls began developing and there was a danger that these modern housing estates would be reduced to slums if such hawker development were allowed to go on unchecked. In order to meet the demands of the population for hawker facilities and at the same Time to exercise effective control and maintain the estates in a sanitary and aesthetic state, hawker pitches have been provided and are being developed in all recent development. The cost of such construction is borne entirely by the Board. The arrangement between the Board and the Markets and Hawkers Department is that 70 per cent of the fees are paid to the Housing and Development Board for recovery of costs and 30 per cent is retained by the Markets and Hawkers Department for maintenance and water charges. The licence fees are $10 or $15 per stall. The policy of providing suitable alternative sites for hawkers has been followed in the case of other hawker areas. Those are areas other than the Housing Board areas, where it has been necessary to move hawkers to deal with development or redevelopment, traffic obstruction or hazards, interference with public cleansing and other health activities. This policy has been satisfactory and, in a number of cases where such resettlement has been necessary, there has been good co-operation on the whole from the hawkers. Such resettled areas include East Coast Road, the big bottleneck at the junction of Joo Chiat Road and the Changi Market, the hawker congestion outside Killiney Road Market and the vicinity of the Lido Theatre in Orchard Road. All hawker policy matters are carefully discussed by the Hawkers Advisory Committee and all aspects of the problem are carefully examined before any action is decided upon. Individual appeals are also considered by this Committee. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the Hawkers' Advisory Committee there are important Government officials; the police is represented on that Committee, also the Health Department. We have also somebody from the Social Science Department of the University who serves as a representative and all hawkers' problems are carefully examined by that Committee. As to the allocation of stalls, I can assure the Member for Choa Chu Kang that it is done properly and in a very fair manner. These pitches are built to replace the existing shacks and everyone who is in occupation of an existing shack is registered and he is provided with a new pitch. Allocation is done by ballot. Everyone has an opportunity of drawing in the ballot. As to the charge that is being made by the Member for Choa Chu Kang that preference is shown to certain hawkers' unions, I can assure him that no hawkers' union is represented in this Hawkers' Advisory Committee. I can assure him also that balloting is done in a fair and proper manner.

Would the Minister kindly inform us what sort of equipment he envisages in the markets, and would he also tell us what the actual composition of this Hawkers' Advisory Committee is?

It is all that goes with the markets, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir

What?

In the market you must have stalls --- An hon. Member: What would you use in the stalls? - [Laughter].

Order.

Well, you must have, say, tables and all the paraphernalia that go with `a market. Now, what is your second question?

The composition of this Hawkers' Advisory Committee. 4 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Chairman of the Hawkers' Advisory Committee is the Deputy Director of Medical Services (Health). He is a medical doctor, Sir. There is a representative of the police, he represents traffic problems on that Committee. There is a member of the Social Science Department of the University on that Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary is a member of that Committee, and so is the Member for Aljunied. There is no hawker representation on that Committee.

How many are P.A.P.? An hon. Member: All.

Order. Any other Member wishes to speak? Does the hon. Member wish to take a vote on it? Mr Ong Chang Sam indicated assent.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $579,980 for Head D.25 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963. Head D.49 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D.49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 4. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, subhead 4 deals with extension and development of radio, information and publicity services of the Ministry of Culture. According to the Government explanation, because Malaysia will be established on 3 1st of August, therefore it is necessary to extend short-wave radio transmission to the three Borneo territories. Therefore, the Government has asked this House to approve this vote of $1,350,000 for this purpose. The so-called Ministry of Culture is, in fact, the propaganda machinery of the P.A.P. Radio Singapore is, in fact, the voice of the P.A.P. From the past series of incidents, the people of Singapore have come to know that Radio Singapore is the main propaganda machinery of the P.A.P. Government, because the P.A.P. is already bankrupt in the eyes of the people and it has no possibility of convening rallies, street conferences and other meetings of the people. That is why the only propaganda machinery available to it is to make use of the money of the people for its own political propaganda, that is, through Radio Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, at present the facilities of Radio Singapore are more than sufficient and there is no necessity to expand them further by spending $1.35 million. 4.05 p.m.

We can know that the P.A.P. not only wants to carry out party propaganda throughout Malaya and Singapore, but also it wants to extend its propaganda to the three Borneo territories because it hopes to set up branches there. But so far it has not been successful. No members have been forthcoming. Because the P.A.P. is unable to set up branches in the Borneo territories, it has now come to think of this method of extending radio services. It has now come to this House to ask for a vote of $1.35 million to extend short-wave radio transmission to the component parts of Malaysia. According to the Government's explanation, it is scheduled to spend $550,000 in 1962 on the National Art Gallery, but so far we have not seen whether work has started on it. The Minister for Culture has never mentioned about it at all, because he knows that the National Art Gallery cannot do anything in the field of political propaganda for the P.A.P. That is why although the vote on the National Art Gallery was already there in the 1962 Development Estimates, the P.A.P. did not carry out the project because it found it was of no political use to it. Mr Speaker, in col. 2288 of Hansard, Vol. 15 No. 24 dated 15th December, 1961, when the Member for Farrer Park asked the Minister for Culture about the building plan of the National Art Gallery, the Minister for Culture pointed out to the House that the plan would be implemented in 1962. But he had not carried out what he had promised in this Assembly. But now he has transferred this $550,000 for the purposes of extending the short-wave radio transmission service. Mr Speaker, this sum of $1.35 million is not small. It is collected from the people in the form of taxes and it amounts to one-quarter of the assessment revenues for 1963. Since the P.A.P. came into office, it has introduced various taxes, one of which is assessment tax. The present Government, in order to extend the services of Radio Singapore, intends now to use a further $1.35 million which is one-quarter of the property tax for this year, 1963. But we would like to ask this. After the extension of this radio service, what can the people get? Can their living conditions be improved? Can sanitary conditions be improved? Will there be more schools? Why does the Government not want to use this big sum of money to help the people improve their standard of living? A little while ago the Minister for National Development boasted about helping the rural people to improve their livelihood and standard of living. Granted that the money to be spent is only about $740,000. But $1.35 million is proposed to be spent just for the extension of radio services, which sum is derived from various forms of taxes paid by the people, such as property tax. Mr Speaker, this House has a duty to prevent the P.A.P. from squandering away public money and the wealth of this country in schemes like this extension of radio service. Through Radio Singapore, the P.A.P has also threatened the people. For instance, on May Day after every interval of a few minutes, Radio Singapore made an announcement threatening workers repeatedly not to attend the May Day celebration of the S.A.T.U. for fear of violence. On the other hand, the P.A.P., through Radio Singapore, urged the workers to attend the N.T.U.C. May Day rally. All this proves that the P.A.P. is abusing State machinery to achieve its political ends by political propaganda. That is why we cannot allow the P.A.P. to squander away any more money belonging to the people. Today it comes to this House asking for a vote of $1 .35 million for the extension of radio services. I suggest that this vote should be withdrawn, and that this sum of money could be put to better use for the benefit of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be moving my amendment No. (2)* if I find that the answers of the Minister for Culture are not satisfactory. * Amendment (2) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D.49 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 4. 4.15 p.m.

The Member does not choose to speak now?

Can I speak now, Sir?

Certainly.

I would like to ask the Minister for Culture a few questions: firstly, whether this expenditure is really necessary; secondly, whether it is so urgent that it must be spent before the Federation of Malaysia is established; thirdly, if it should be spent after the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia, would the expenditure not be shared between the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I will answer the first two questions raised by the Member for Tanglin. His first question is: is it necessary to expand radio services before Malaysia is established? The point about the time factor - whether it should be spent before Malaysia is established or not - is irrelevant because radio services have to be expanded to cover the Borneo territories as well through the short-wave band for the simple reason that practically all the radio services in the five territories are operating on a short-wave band, including the Borneo territories where they are establishing a more powerful short-wave band. We ourselves therefore have to follow suit, regardless of what happens after Malaysia. One other reason is that, as the Member for Tanglin knows, we have a commercial service. Once every other commercial service goes on short wave and we stick to medium wave, then perhaps we shall have to ask for more than the $1.3 million that we are asking for today. We have to go on short wave, if for no other reason than to establish a commercial service. Apart from that, it follows on what the Member for Yio Chu Kang has been ranting against. We are quite gratified, Sir, that the Communists and their puppets here have developed a phobia about our radio propaganda. We are not afraid of propaganda. They are afraid of propaganda. The Member for Queenstown has every reason to be afraid of a further extension of our radio services to cover the Borneo territories as well, because if performance within our limits on medium wave in Singapore has cost him dearly, then I am quite sure that if our performance over radio forums could be heard throughout the Borneo territories, many of his Communist supporters in the Borneo territories would certainly have cause to doubt whether the Barisan Sosialis, which has always put itself forward as the spearhead of the Communist movement in Malaysia, is a dependable ally. Today they are a broken wing if we are to pay any credence to their own propaganda in the Barisan newspapers. Today they are relying on guerilla warfare in the Borneo territories to save them from the predicament they are in. We are quite open about it. It is the duty of a democratic society to use the propaganda machinery. It has always been here. It is nothing new. We have never established it. When the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Yio Chu Kang were on this side of the House, they had no occasion to raise questions about the money spent - whether it was worth while spending money on radio. In fact, they were anxious that our radio should be strengthened. But today, now that they are no longer on this side and no longer fighting the cause of democracy but obviously fighting the cause of the Communists and alien confrontationists, they know that the radio can be used effectively to stifle them and to conscribe them, as we had shown them in the referendum. That is why, Sir, they are terrified of any extension to the radio services because it would be one more blow against their propaganda and one more means to expose Communist falsehoods, Communist strategy and Communist propaganda. The Member for Yio Chu Kang, though, he made wild allegations ---

Order.

Choa Chu Kang, Sir.

Order. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has been referred to as the Member for Yio Chu Kang by not only the Minister for Culture, but also by the Deputy Prime Minister. I was wondering whether there is any hint that there will be another constituency called the Constituency of Yio Chu Kang.

No, Sir. It is purely in anticipation of the political future of the Member for Choa Chu Kang, because we are never quite sure where he is at any one moment. It is possible, Sir, that he will have to find new pastures, probably in Yio Chu Kang or perhaps some other quarters.

Woodbridge!

I am sorry, Sir,I should refer correctly to his present constituency, which is Choa Chu Kang.

Yio Chu Kang is the Tanjong Rambutan of Singapore.

Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang has been saying that the radio has been used for P.A.P. propaganda.

It is true.

For him, the P.A.P. is synonymous with democracy. We have never made any propaganda for the Party. We have always made propaganda on behalf of the democratic cause against the Communists. I challenge him at any moment to show any one occasion where the radio has been used for party propaganda. It is a tribute to us that he equates the P.A.P. to the democratic cause in general. We have always challenged, accused, and exposed the Communists but never have we ever gone and put across on any occasion purely party propaganda. We are able to deal with them in this field when we have occasion to meet them outside the radio studios. But over the radio, our main cause has been to espouse democracy in our fight against the Communists. They know very well, Sir, that the referendum proved that for the first Time. That is one of the reasons why we are expanding our radio services. The Communists believe in pro, paganda, but it is quite a different type of propaganda when they send school children carrying Ovaltine or Milo or milk bottles and going around whispering to farmers that the Government are doing this and doing that. They know that the blank votes in the referendum were least in the city areas where there is adequate radio coverage, but in the rural areas where there is not adequate radio propaganda coverage, the blank votes were high. Since the referendum, it has been our policy to extend the publicity services, including radio and television, in the rural areas which are their last stronghold. They know today that that stronghold is being taken away from them. Therefore, there is every reason for them to come out now and say that the $1.35 million that is being spent on the extension of radio services is a waste of money and why can we not build houses and clinics. We are building houses. In fact, Sir, the damage done by the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists by trying to sabotage the economy of the country and by misleading workers to artificial strikes has cost the country far more than the $1,300,000 that we are going to spend on radio. This $1.35 million will ensure that the capacity to damage the economy of the country by the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis is more effectively reduced. The result will be that this $1.35 million will ensure that the economy of the country will prosper and that our country will develop far quicker, because we can expose all their machinations. Secondly, by extending the services to the Borneo territories, we hope that we will he able to conscribe their Communist friends in the Borneo territories as effectively as we have done to the Communists in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered my third and most important question: if this expenditure were to take place after 31st August, 1963, would the expenditure then he shared with the Central Government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I shall answer that question because this point is among the Radio and Broadcasting matters still to be discussed with the Central Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to that is very important, and I am glad that the Minister is not able to give it, because after Malaysia I understand that the policy as regards programmes and so on will have to be subject to the approval of the Central Government and that the misuse of propaganda media by the local Government for party purposes could very well be checked, whereas today such propaganda cannot be checked. Now, Sir, if the expenditure will be shared by the Central Government after 31st August, 1963, then to save Singapore unnecessary expenditure, I think this item could be postponed till after 31st August. The inordinate hurry being shown by the Ministry of Culture to have two very expensive items before the House for approval shows its eagerness to have radio and television propaganda before 31st August. Sir, we all know how important it was for the Japanese during the Japanese occupation not to allow local people to be able to time in to short-wave broadcasts. We were only allowed to time in on the medium-wave band. It is recognised all over the world by both power blocs that radio propaganda is so important that even without sending forces across the seas, they can capture the territories they want by subversion in that way. Sir, when I was in Jesselton and in Kuching, there was fear expressed by the people there regarding the poison in Singapore. This was due to a statement by the P.A.P., who said that the Barisan were open-front Communists. They said, "They say so. If there are open-front Communists, what about those who are not open-front Communists?" The Finance Minister in his financial statement has referred to the last ten years as being years of strife. Sir, that period coincides with the period of the establishment of the P.A.P. in Singapore. If propaganda is broadcast on short wave to our neighbours who are going to be partners in Malaysia and they are already scared of the poison from Singapore, the earlier installation of all this machinery will simply mean the chance of more propaganda for the P.A.P. throughout Malaysia disturbing the climate in other territories. 4.30 p.m. Of course, Sir, the P.A.P. may say that they have changed, but we have not yet seen the change to be more than a bit above the surface. We are not convinced of that yet. Already we see a strike in Singapore today affecting the nurses and the welfare of the sick people in the hospitals. Sir, if the Ministry of Culture is really anxious to preserve the good climate in Borneo and Sarawak, they could very well refrain from trying to extend the scope of their propaganda machinery till after 31st August, when people can say there will be fair play for all. At this particular Time President Soekarno and the Tunku have decided that there should be a policy of co-operation and not one of confrontation. The P.A.P. have said they believe definitely in open confrontation. I can foresee, in these radio programmes over the short-wave broadcasts, there can be such statements as to invite open confrontation from other territories, thereby spoiling the atmosphere not of Singapore but of Malaysia. If the P.A.P. Government is really interested in more co-operation instead of more confrontation in Malaysia, they could refrain from spending this sum till after 31st August, 1963.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the three Ministers of the Government referring to me as the Member for Yio Chu Kang. I think this is because they will be going to Woodbridge Hospital in Yio Chu Kang one day. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture made a reply to me. His reply clearly shows that it is when the P.A.P. is unable to explain its abuse of the Government machinery that it will bring out the weapon of the so-called united front of the Communists. All this so-called united front of Communists is a claim made by the P.A.P. in order to shirk its responsibility and to deceive the people. It is claimed by the P.A.P. that the Barisan Sosialis has infiltrated into the unions and led strikes, and so it is necessary for the Government to expand the services of broadcasting in order to pin down the Barisan's infiltration. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few days we have seen that if the argument of the Minister for Culture can stand, then it means that the Communists have already infiltrated into the Ministry of Home Affairs. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen employees of the Ministry of Home Affairs on strike. The pickets perform their duties outside the C.I.D., on the doorsteps of the Special Branch, outside the Central Police Station and even outside the Ministry of Home Affairs itself. On all these buildings we can see banners and strike placards. The slogan is that the strikers condemn the Government for using the Police against the legitimate strikers. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are even a lot of cartoons on display, and one of the cartoons says, "Small men, small pay. Understand?"

Personally, I do not understand how all this has got to do with the motion before the House.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am mentioning all these in order to reply to the allegation of the Minister for Culture that the Barisan has led strikes and infiltrated into the unions. Mr Speaker, Sir, the leader of the strikes is actually the Secretary of the A.U.P.E. who is the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. Does the Minister for Culture mean that Mr Kandasamy is also a member of the united front of the Communists? Mr Speaker, Sir, all this talk of Communists has been made in order to enable P.A.P. to shirk its responsibility and all this talk is very unconvincing in the eyes of the people. In fact, the Government intends to make use of the radio to achieve its political propaganda and it is actually impractical. They are unable to do this because the future general election will show where they stand. As a matter of fact, the naive arguments of the Minister for Culture over Radio Singapore will not be able to deceive the people. If he thinks so, I say it is a mistaken conception. We all know that the Voice of America has a very great voice. Its transmission is very strong, but the strength of the U.S.A. imperialists is decreasing from Time to Time. All that we are concerned now is that the Government should not be allowed to abuse public funds on an insignificant and unnecessary expansion. So if the Government wants to show the world that it is interested in the welfare of the people, then it must make use of this money that is being asked for, for the improvement of the livelihood of the people and not for the expansion of this short-wave service.

Sir, the Member for Tanglin takes objection, as far as I can gather, to the extension of the short-wave service on two grounds. First, be seems to be under a misapprehension that Radio Singapore is for party propaganda. He has been saying that for the last three years. There must have been many instances over the past three years. I have asked him Time and again if he could quote any instance where party propaganda, as distinct from government propaganda, has gone across the air. Secondly, he says he went to Jesselton and saw some people - I do not know which people he saw - who said that they are afraid of the poison that is going to be spread from Singapore to the Borneo territories. Obviously, Sir, this "poison" is meat to many people in Jesselton, because we have had from the Political Study Centre-which has also in the past been accused of being a P.A.P. propaganda outfit - enquiries from certain people who came from the Borneo territories and the Federation to attend our Political Study Centre, who were so impressed by what was going on that they have officially requested us twice to send our lecturers and speakers to go and conduct similar political study classes in the Borneo territories. In fact, we have another request and we have been so successful that they have asked us to go across and tell their civil servants of the political background to the big struggle that is going on in this area. I cannot therefore see that what the P.A.P. says over the radio or at the Political Study Centre could possibly be called poison by people who matter. I do not know who were the people whom the Member for Tanglin met in Jesselton. Obviously, they could not be people who mattered. Secondly ---

All people matter. Ha, ha, ha!

Obviously, Sir, these people whom he saw --- An hon. Member: Nobody knows ---

Order.

Sir, the Member for Anson occasionally breaks out into interjections. Obviously he does not quite understand what I am saying. I am saying that the Member for Tanglin saw some people, and as it was a short visit he could have seen only two or three people. It is quite possible that those people do not matter in terms of what the people of Borneo or Jesselton want. Secondly, Sir, if what goes over Radio Singapore can be considered as poison, the radio stations in these three territories would not have asked for an exchange of programmes, especially many of the programmes in regard to political matters. Therefore, Sir, what we are trying to do by establishing a short-wave service is to ensure that instead of recording programmes on tape and sending them there weeks late, with the establishment of a short-wave service people in the Borneo territories can listen in to the same radio programmes and enjoy the same radio diet as the people of Singapore. As regards his other point, whether this expansion could not be held back until after Malaysia, it is our duty not to halt everything, even necessary extensions, just because of Malaysia. We have to go on with the normal extension of our service, not only for radio but also other services. Nor can we say that we should stop building a few more post offices because we should wait till after Malaysia for the Central Government to decide whether to build those post offices or extend the airport. It is our duty to carry on doing what is necessary, regardless of what happens after Malaysia. That is the basis on which we plan to extend this short-wave service because it is necessary and not because we want to spread poison. It is ridiculous to say that, because far from receiving poison the people of Borneo want to listen in to many of the Singapore programmes, such as some of the radio forums. The Member for Queenstown has excited considerable interest in the Borneo territories and many of them regretted that they were not privileged to listen in to the fiasco that the Member for Queenstown is supposed to have experienced at a recent radio forum. There is a reference to T.V. in the latest issue of the Barisan from which I shall quote some relevant extracts when we conic to deal with T.V. I think they were more interested in the report of the performance of the Member for Queenstown during this radio forum. And now with this short-wave service, they will have direct experience of what the Member for Queenstown and his ghost-writers are capable of.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture should really he called the Minister for Propaganda. He is a trained journalist and he knows how to obscure the main points by adding so many other points until people get confused. Sir, we give credit to the P.A.P. for knowing when to slow down and when to expedite matters. The Sembawang by-election has been slowed down for many months, because they want to build up a new image of the P.A.P. That is why the Prime Minister is going all over Singapore. The whole of Malaya knows it. An hon. Member: Why don't you go around? [Laughter] 4.45 p.m.

I am asking something very simple. Is Singapore not going to benefit by sharing the expenditure on this item with the Federation by postponing it for just a few months? Surely it is reasonable for the Minister for Culture to agree, and I would be glad to withdraw my amendment. Now, Sir, regarding the question of the Minister for Culture. Firstly, he says that I merely met a few "nobodies" in the Borneo territories and formed a quick impression therefrom. Sir, I met responsible leaders of the political Parties in North Borneo, and they explained to me the reason why they insisted on controlling immigration in their territory. That is because they were scared, particularly about the poison in Singapore. The other thing is this, Sir. He asked me for proof as to how the present broadcasting system can be regarded as P.A.P.-controlled propaganda. An hon. Member: Party propaganda.

Sir, before the P.A.P. came to power, was the Broadcasting Department not fairly independent when it came to the broadcasting of news and the selection of news? As soon as they came to power, `the Control Room was shifted to the Ministry of Culture. Now that is an indication of closer control. Secondly, Sir, and this is very specific. Once somebody in the Broadcasting Department rang me up and said, "I am sorry, we can only give you little space," and he read out to me what he was going to report of my speech in the Assembly. [Laughter] I am not a liar. I claim anybody to charge me as a liar, Sir. Sometimes the Government benches like to laugh derisively.

Because you put us in good humour.

Please continue, Dr Thio.

I expected that at least the small bit that he read out would be reported in the broadcast of the proceedings of the Assembly. Sir, what he read out to me was brief enough: it was cut down further.

Possibly the Broadcasting Editor thought otherwise.

Well, those are just two things that indicate that ever since the P.A.P. came to power, there has been greater thought control through the radio and through the Press. We know it and we know very well that there are two versions of many Singapore papers. The papers that are read in Kuala Lumpur give one impression; the papers that are read in Singapore give another impression. Anyway, Sir, I was just asking for something very simple: whether in the interests of the economy of Singapore to save some money this item could not be postponed until after 31st August, and I suppose the answer will be "No".

Anything further? No? Mr Rajaratnam.

I think his last statement is correct, Sir. The answer would be "No". As I have indicated, these things should be judged on their merits. It has nothing to do with Malaysia. Regardless of Malaysia or not, it cannot be postponed until after 31st August. But I ask one question of him. Can he give evidence of party propaganda - I think those were the words he used - over Radio Singapore? And he said "Yes". The evidence was this: that the News Room under the Labour Front Government - then they metamorphosed into the S.P.A., and I think now they call themselves the Grand Alliance. But his claim is that before, under their regime, the News Room was elsewhere, and that with the present Government the News Room is in the City Hall. The News Room has always been in City Hall, so I do not see how that constitutes party propaganda over Radio Singapore. As regards his speech. I cannot recollect it. Normally we never interfere with the news presentation and he can challenge it. He can ask of any News Editor. The only thing we are interested in is, how should the news be relayed? Normally what the News Editor does is he has got only two, three or four minutes. He uses his judgment and cuts out the least impressive of the speeches. It may be that when he first read out the report of the Member's speech unedited, which as he said came to a few paragraphs, and it was discovered that the Time limit at his disposal was only two or three minutes, he went through it with a red pencil and decided to delete it. It is a normal process which goes on in every newspaper office. So that does not constitute proof that'd there is P.A.P. propaganda. Sir, these are the two points I wish to make, because the Member and other Members have been saying that we broadcast party propaganda. We always challenge them. Please produce instances. If there were any instances during the past three years, there must obviously have been a great deal of party propaganda going across. They should have noted it down - "Such and such a date, this particular item or party propaganda was put across. Please, can you explain?" Then we will be prepared to explain. But to make a general statement that there is party propaganda, as distinct from government propaganda. What hurts them most is this. This Government has achieved a great deal, unlike the previous Government, and therefore has a lot to boast of. Therefore, the more we boast, the more it hurts them. That is the crux of `their complaint that there is P.A.P. propaganda. What he means is that by contrast we build houses; we show them over T.V. If they had T.V., they would have nothing to show. If you want to boast about something, you should boast about something which is convincing. Now we have achieved so much of which we are proud and we are justified in putting it over the radio. We have built houses, we have built schools, we have built roads; we show them. When Members like the Member for Tanglin look at all this, it irritates them. It annoys the Member because it is the truth. Therefore, he decides being a "moral rearmamenter" to say that all this is propaganda. The houses could not exist, the schools could not exist; therefore this is party propaganda.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will pardon me, I have to bring up an illustration that I think should be brought up under television. This is to answer his point that the P.A.P. never use their machinery for P.A.P. propaganda. Sir, on the referendum, they made a film to show that it was victory for the people; but the film was so made that it gave the impression `that it was a victory for the People's Action Party. An hon. Member: They were there, but your chaps were asleep.

They asked us in the national interest to put aside party considerations; we did. We told the people to vote for certain issues regardless of party considerations. It was not a vote for or against the P.A.P. Now, usually, Sir, my temper seldom rises. [Loud laughter]

Order.

Now, Sir, I was there right through the counting ---

The what?

--- the counting of the ballot ---

Order.

We were told that there must be no display of banners of any Party. The moment the P.A.P. knew that the result was going to be in favour of the referendum --- An hon. Member: What time was that?

Well, a crowd of people began to gather outside the Hall with P.A.P. banners. Sir, when the Supervisor of Elections announced the result of the referendum, he made a mistake. He announced it to the crowd outside and not to us inside the Hall. Now, to show that the masses were so powerful that they were eager to please the masses, they announced the result to the public rather than to the polling agents who were inside the Hall, until I pointed this out. I saw this particular scene on television. The closing scene showed people waving flags. Whose flags, Sir? The People's Action Party flags! So it was a victory for the P.A.P.

Sir, it occurs to me that the Member for Tanglin has great difficulty in producing evidence to substantiate his claim that there is party propaganda. First, Sir, this was after the referendum was over. The Supervisor of the Referendum was announcing the result. There has been a tradition that such announcements are made publicly over the loudspeaker to the people, because they voted for it. Similarly, we went through the same process after the referendum. Surely if the Member for Tanglin - I do not know if he was there, I did not see him after the result - he could have hobnobbed with the masses and listened together with them, and rejoiced over the result together with them. It has been the custom always for the Supervisor of Elections to make the announcement publicly, and not whisper it privately to a few friends. Then, regarding some films over T.V. There was no T.V. then. T.V. started on 15th February. I do not know whether he is mentioning some other instance. As regards the display of flags, we made a film, and there were occasions during the referendum struggle when there were rallies for the Tunku. We took a lot of pictures - some where the S.P.A. brought banners.

They were not shown.

They were shown, and if the Member wants, we are prepared to show him. We have sixteen Berita Singapura, each lasting about ten to fifteen minutes. There were pictures with lots of S.P.A. banners. In fact, there was a slight confusion between S.P.A. and A.U.P.E. banners. If he wants to, he can come and see them. There was nothing to prevent the S.P.A. on the day the referendum results were declared to come out with their flags and banners and mingle with the P.A.P. banners. The Barisan were there; they brought banners, but they had to leave hastily before the results were announced. So they now have the opportunity of being filmed. I therefore submit, Sir, that the Member for Tanglin has not yet produced tangible evidence of party propaganda as against government propaganda.

The Minister for Culture has not denied that there is such a television film and that it was shown over the television programme. I can bring witnesses of people who were present when we saw that film. We were surprised.

Does the Member for Choa Chu Kang desire a vote? Mr Ong Chang Sam indicated assent.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Is the Member for Tanglin speaking more on his amendment*? * The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D.49 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 4.

No, Sir.

Dr Thio will then move simpliciter.

I move simpliciter.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

It is time to suspend. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I will take this Chair again at five-thirty. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

5.31 p.m.

Head D.49 - Ministry of Culture. Amendment (3), Mr Ong Chang Sam.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D.49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 10. Mr Speaker, Sir, this item is related to television. Here the Government is asking for a vote of $4,460,900 for providing furniture and equipment. According to the explanation given here, the T.V. Pilot Service was inaugurated on 15th February, 1963 and the Regular Service came into being on 2nd April, 1963. Here we can see clearly that this House has approved two votes for this expenditure. In 1962, this House already approved $3 million for T.V. expenses. On 18th June, 1962 the Government also asked this House to approve $787,030 as shown in Command Paper No. 11 of 1962. Therefore, the two votes passed previously should be enough for the Government to use on T.V. services. Fundamentally speaking, the emphasis should be on educating the people. The television services should not be used to mislead the people or as a means of propaganda for the ruling Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, since the 15th o February when the T.V. Pilot Service was inaugurated in Singapore, the Government have installed quite a number of television sets in the community centres. At the last sitting of this House, the Minister in his reply said that the Government had installed 78 T.V. sets in these community centres. At the same time, he said that the Government would install the same number of T.V. sets from then on in other community centres. But can these T.V. sets bring any benefit to the people? We have to examine this question closely. It is now four months since the setting up of television in Singapore. During these four months, many guardians of households have advanced their views on the T.V. services and they have pointed out the errors of the Government, saying that the Government have been using T.V. for their propaganda purposes for their own Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, the T.V. programmes are normally on in the evening from 7 p.m. to about 11 p.m. This period is very important to certain people, especially to the students. As a result of the introduction of T.V., many students waste their valuable Time watching T.V. programmes and do not concentrate on their school lessons. This is especially so in the community centres where many afternoon session students do not go home after school. They just loiter around the community centres waiting to see T.V. programmes. Quite a good number of parents have complained about this to us. They say that because the Government have installed T.V. sets in many community centres their children have not been returning home in Time and that they have been neglecting their school lessons. Mr Speaker, we should remember that in the rural areas every family makes full use of its labour force. Some of these students have to help in the farm or look after the poultry after school. But as a result of the Government's installation of T.V. sets in community centres in the rural areas, these students do not return home in Time to help in this sort of work. Thus, the family as well as the students themselves suffer a great loss. We can therefore say that the period for T.V. programmes is already long enough, and yet the Government are trying to introduce another channel, a second T.V. channel. Mr Speaker, I believe that the Government will be receiving complaints and they will have to think twice about this to ensure that the students pay attention to their lessons. Instead of this, the Government are trying to extend T.V. services. What is the Government's intention? I think the Government intend to extend their T.V. programmes to the rural areas in order to propagandise their rallies and meetings with a view to the next general election. But whatever they do, we know that the people will not be attracted to these rallies. That is why the Government intend to attract and induce the people to come to their rallies and talks by means of T.V. programmes. The Conservative Party in England also used this means and I believe that the P.A.P. Government are also trying to emulate this tactic for their political publicity. Mr Speaker, the Government are wrong in wanting such a great sum of money for T.V. extension. They should not be doing this. The vote asks for $4.46 million plus $3 million voted in 1962 plus $780,000 voted for 1961. Altogether the Government will have $8 million for T.V. purposes. Now this total sum of $8 million is the same amount as the house assessment rates in the rural areas for 1961. Mr Speaker, let us see Paper Command 6 of 1963, page 81. Under the heading of Rural Administration, the sum is about $8.5 million for house assessment rates. The Government are asking $8.2 million for T.V. Why can the Government not use this sum to build more creches and other social amenities in the more crowded areas to give more benefit to the working population? The Government have not been looking after the livelihood of people in the low income groups. They are only interested in their political future. Mr Speaker, the way in which the Government are squandering the money will not be forgotten by the people in the next elections. The Prime Minister's trips and his speeches here and there and certain American films of low taste are televised. 5.45 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the P.A.P. came to power, the Minister for Labour inspected various community centres and ordered that all American publications should be confiscated because, according to him, these publications gave American imperialist propaganda and should not be allowed in the community centres. But in the T.V. programmes of today the Government is exhibiting a lot of American films and other undesirable films. This goes to show that T.V. Singapura is unable to provide its own programmes. On the contrary, it wants to extend the time of T.V. shows and thus it will have to borrow from elsewhere. That is why quite a great deal of American films have been used in Singapore T.V. programmes. This is very dangerous to the people of Singapore. This practice is exactly opposite to what the Minister for Labour has said in the past. Mr Speaker, a little while ago when discussing the question of Radio Singapore. I said that the Government should spend more time on social welfare and not on their struggle for their own future political life. Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the sum of almost $4� million is a very big sum to spend on extension of television services at this Time. From those who have been watching television programmes there have been complaints that the Government, instead of spending more money on quality films, are giving very, very old films, and educationally the films especially for the children arc not quite suitable. I saw a few of the films on television and I must say that young children with their imitative faculties highly developed would be able to follow the creatures in the cartoons resorting to the use of axes to break down doors anti so on and to chase one another with very dangerous instruments. Of course, we know very well that the main purpose of television at this time is propaganda on behalf of the P.A.P. We know very well that in the case of the P.A.P., the Government and the P.A.P. are almost identical, because when the Prime Minister goes on his rounds visiting the people, he is greeted as the Prime Minister, but when he talks he attacks other Parties, making him appear as a Party leader rather than the national leader. So, how are people to know that the Prime Minister appearing in television is the Prime Minister or the Party leader, because he acts as if he is both at one and the same Time, and the Minister for Culture himself has indirectly admitted only a few months ago that the main purpose of television is to reduce the influence of the Barisan in the rural areas.

The Communists.

Sir, by implication, that means it is really to put up the stock of the P.A.P. in the rural areas.

That is right.

If that is the main purpose of the sense of this item, I think it is not proper for the Party in power a: this Time, with the general elections probably not far away --- An hon. Member: Round the corner.

--- to spend large sums of money to bolster up the party prospects in the coming general elections; that is, using public funds, I think, Sir, for wrong purposes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Chu Chu Kang ---

C-H-O-A Chu Kang. [Laughter]

--- spent a great deal of Time arguing that we should not have spent more money on television but that we should have no television at all .Sir, he pointed out the evils of television. Young people instead of going home, go to the community centres: farmers' children instead of staying at home go to the community centres. But, the Member for Choa Chu Kang knows that even in Communist China long treatises are written to say that the advent of television is to keep up with the Times, so the people should have the advantage of the latest of scientific devices, which is television. So, to that extent, the Barisan Sosialis is not only a pro-Communist group but it is outdated. It does not keep in touch with the latest advance in Communism, because in Moscow and in Peking, television is regarded as an essential part of the people's life. Therefore, for the Barisan Sosialis now to claim that television is no good - and that is what a great deal of the argument was about, because some parents are complaining that their children are not staying in their homes and are spending their time in the community centres, I can tell him that if he tries to say that the Barisan Sosialis would like the Government to dismantle all T.V. sets in all community centres, I shall be prepared to take Members of the Barisan Sosialis to any community centre to get them to get up and say that we are going to take away the community T.V. sets, and I am quite sure, Sir, what the answer of the people would be. The Barisan Sosialis would probably have to go to Jakarta to seek refuge. Sir, this is quite simple. Just like radio, T.V. is one more weapon to expose the falsehoods of the Communists. They keep on saying - they have been saying for the last two years - that the P.A.P. is exploiting the people and has done nothing for the people, has not done anything to improve the welfare of the people. But what is happening since T.V. came? The people arc seeing houses. They see them visually and the lie of the Communist propaganda that a non-Communist Government cannot do things for them has been exposed. They say there arc no clinics. We show clinics being opened. They say there are no schools. We show schools being opened. People see that in community centres in the rural areas for the first Time on TV. People are beginning to realise - visual evidence, concrete evidence - that unlike what the Communists claim, that only under a Communist society can life be better for the people, they now say, yes, in a democratic society it is possible to create a better life for the people, and that is the main motivation. Because, Sir, when the project for television was started while hon. Members were still in the Government, they were quite excited about the prospects of television. But since they left suddenly, television has become a bad thing, a dangerous weapon to deceive the people. Why is it when the television project was mooted when they were still in the government, they were most enthusiastic about television? They saw in it a weapon to educate the people, to teach them. That is what we are doing now, teaching the people what is happening in Singapore. For the first Time, they are beginning to see things which were not possible to convey purely over the radio. So, Sir, I hope it will be made public that the Barisan Sosialis have now come to a stag e where they will deny T.V. to the ordinary people in the community centres who cannot afford T.V., that they are now demanding that the Government should withdraw television sets because it is a waste of Time and it is not fit for ordinary people.

On a point of elucidation.

Will the Minister give way. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Sir, as far as I understand my colleague, the Member for Choa Chu Kang, he has said that the contents of television are no good. It is not television itself.

Order. If the Member for Choa Chu Kang had been misrepresented, I am sure he would have got up to say how he had been misrepresented. Mr Rajaratnam.

I have got my notes here saying that farmers are complaining that their children, instead of helping them in their houses at night, are spending Time in the community centres watching television. Obviously, therefore, the Barisan line is that children of farmers are not to see television. I hope this is a line that the Barisan is taking, that they have come to a point where they have now to argue that television is all right for doctors who can afford television. Their children can see television, but as regards children of farmers, the Government is wasting money providing a television service in community centres. Sir, again he says that the television programmes fall far short of expectations. We have only been four months on television. People are trying hard. We are short of money and some of the programmes are not up to standard. But it is not quite true to say, as the Barisan Sosialis has just claimed, that we show only American films. It is true we show American films, but we also show Chinese films, Indians films, Indonesian films, Malay films, Malay programmes. It is difficult to get Malay films, so we spent more money putting forward live programmes which cost six or seven Times as much, even sometimes ten Times as much as getting feature films on hire - old films - but again I have said that we hope that as our people become more experienced, they will be able to produce better programmes. May I quote, Sir, that even the Barisan Sosialis, after making all this denunciation of television, find it convenient from Time to Time to refer to television? Recently, we had a T.V. forum. The leader of the Barisan Sosialis came to the forum. If he thought it was an instrument of reaction, a waste of Time, a waste of public money, why did he come up to the television forum? And the latest issue of the Barisan referred with great pride to what happened at the T.V. forum. They used the programme as an argument in their favour - "It has been noted that three M.P.s in the T.V. forum have similarly suggested that Malaysia had been rushed." So, Sir, when television suits their ends, it is good television; but if it does not, then let us deprive the people of television. That is the approach. We are quite frank about our use of television. We use television, we use the radio, we use all means of propaganda to defeat and expose the Communists; and this is a powerful weapon. As I have said before, Sir, we will continue to use it to conscribe and defeat the Communists as we have done in the past. 6.00 p.m. Sir, with reference to the Member for Tanglin, I am not quite sure what he said. After regretting that we have spent $4 million, he went on to say that we should spend more money on quality films. If, on the one hand, he believes that television should be improved by using better films, I quite agree with him. We hope there will come a Time when with the introduction of commercial television there will be enough money for us to buy newer and better films and produce our own films. But this is a normal part of our expansion of television service. As you know, the television service originally started off as a one and a half hour service. Since then, far from what the Barisan Sosialis have to say. I have lots of letters from people saying that they want more Time. They say that three hours are not enough. The Chinese want more programmes; the Indians want more programmes; the Malays want more programmes and the English-educated want more time. Therefore, the expansion which has been foreseen is now taking place, far sooner than we expected. So this money is to ensure that expansion takes place as rapidly as possible; and I am quite sure the Member for Tanglin did not really mean what time said when he said that cartoons had a bad effect on children. I am quite sure in his school he must have provided Grimms' Fairy Tales to school boys. There are more horrors in a Grimms' fairy tale than in one of our modern cartoons, because modern children are bright enough to be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and I am quite sure that none of the cartoons really have an adverse influence on children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I want to waste too much Time because there is a very important motion coming after this. But realising. Sir, that it is no use arguing too much and too long with the Government side when they are determined to run the thing through, I want to say this. If the Government had spent with as much sense of urgency the huge sums of money to avoid the water shortage, there would have been no water shortage, but when it comes to election propaganda, money is available and it must be spent quickly.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a while ago, I pointed out to the House that the present T.V. service is more than sufficient and that there is no necessity for further expansion of the T.V. service, but the Minister for Culture said that we are opposing all the T.V. services. As I have pointed out, another point is that the Government make use of T.V. for political purposes. On 28th June, 1962, when this House was debating the First Supplementary Development Estimates, I asked the Acting Minister for Culture, that is the present Minister fur Finance, to assure this House that the T.V. service should not be used by the P.A.P. as a sort of political propaganda. I also pointed out on that occasion that the Acting Minister for Culture should give us such an assurance, but he did not and dared not give such an assurance. Therefore, this clearly shows that the P.A.P. are only interested in their political propaganda and not in educating and informing the people but only in their political future. The Government feel that the present T.V. service is not sufficient, and therefore they have asked for another $4 million approximately to expand it. This will be a great loss to the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said just now that when I was in the P.A.P. I said that T.V. was a good thing and that it should be started. This is wrong. When we left the P.A.P., the Prime Minister saw me and the Member for Upper Serangoon and we talked for more than three hours in his office. At that Time, the Prime Minister said that all the measures and policies can be put to the people through TV. The Prime Minister then requested us to give very careful consideration to this problem. However, we told him that propaganda through T.V. could not deceive the people, that it would only increase the misery and hardship of the people and that therefore this would be a waste of public funds. If the Prime Minister were here, I hope he would rise up and confirm this if he has the courage to do so. Mr Speaker, Sir, as responsible representatives of the people, we have a duty to keep a check on the actions of the Government, so that money derived from the people will be spent for the benefit of the people and not for the benefit of the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not really intend to get involved in this debate, but since my name has been used in vain, I think I should say a few words of clarification. The Member for Choa Chu Kang said that he asked for a guarantee which I dared not give. The guarantee he asked for was mat T.V. should not be used for party propaganda. Sir, it is just like asking a man to guarantee not to beat his wife with a big stick. It is obviously an irrelevant and loaded sort of guarantee and I treated it with the contempt that it deserved. My colleague, the Minister for Culture, has repeatedly said that if the Barisan Sosialis or the Member for Tanglin has any concrete example that any particular programme is being used for P.A.P. party propaganda, please let us know.

Will you appoint a Commission?

Sir, I am really surprised to learn that the Party appointed the Commission. I thought it was the Government that appointed the Commission. And as my colleague, the Minister for Culture, said, the Government make no apology for using the instruments oil all the media of publicity to put forward their policies to the electorate. It is his duty. And if we do it effectively to the discomfiture of Members of the Opposition, well, it is too bad for them.

I think it is necessary to make it clear once and for all that so far in all these discussions we admit that we use the radio and television to publicise and put forward Government propaganda and Government views, but never party interests. We have challenged them time and time again to produce arty single bit of evidence where T.V. or radio has been used for purely party propaganda. We have our own newspaper as far as our Party is concerned. They have beaten about the bush, but nobody has yet produced a single bit of evidence. I think the Member for Choa Chu Kang really gave the game away. He said that he talked to the Prime Minister during the break, not before the break. Long before that, the Government had decided to launch into T.V. and there was no dissenting voice then. It was during the break that he went to see the Prime Minister to say that propaganda should not be used to deceive the people. That is the Barisan Sosialis type of propaganda. Our propaganda is used to expose those people who deceive the people as well as to educate the people and that is the crux of the problem. What really annoys them is that their deception is Time and Time again exposed over television and the radio to their great discomfiture and also to their gradually declining prestige among the people.

I take it that the Member wishes for a vote?

Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Does the Member for Tanglin wish to move his amendment simpliciter*? * The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head D.49 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of item (2) of subhead 10.

No. The sum of $5,810,900 for Head D.49 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963. Head D.51

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D.51 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 6. 6.12 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Head D.51 is Defence Services. In our present Constitution, defence services and foreign affairs are the responsibilities of the United Kingdom and therefore we, the people of Singapore, should not shoulder these responsibilities. The Members of this House are elected according to this Constitution. Before our present position alters, we should not incur any expenditure to expand this Regiment. Last year on 28th June, we had a very heated debate in this House on the question of the establishment of the Second Battalion, Singapore Infantry Regiment. On that occasion, the Government asked for $2 million for the establishment of the Second Battalion, Singapore Infantry Regiment, and that Development Estimate was approved in spite of our strong opposition. Today, the Government are asking for $3.8 million for the same purpose. If the Government are going to use this sum of money on other development projects, then we welcome it. But the Government are now going to use this sum of money for the establishment of the Second Battalion, Singapore Infantry Regiment. 6.15 p.m. Ever since the P.A.P. came to power, among all the pledges they made during the election, they had not pointed out that they were going to use this sum of money on the establishment of this Second Battalion. At that Time, they promised the people that they wanted to use all the resources to improve the living standards of the people. However, not only do the Government now not intend to carry out their pledges, but, on the contrary, they are going to do all sorts of things which they did not promise the people during the elections. The request for provision for this Second Battalion is a very clear example of the Government's intention. The Labour Ministry has published two publications. The first one calls on the people to join the Police Force; the second calls on the people to join the Singapore Infantry Regiment. It looks as if the P.A.P.'s industrialisation scheme has now been turned into a scheme for expansion of the Armed Forces. The Labour Exchange of the Labour Ministry have not told the people what employment they have given them. Instead they have asked them to join the Police and the Armed Forces. Singapore is a small island with only 1.6 million population. Is it really necessary that we should expand the Armed Forces? At present the U.K. Government has stationed a lot of troops in all parts of Singapore. The Prime Minister last Friday, when replying to the Member for Upper Serangoon, also pointed out that the British Government has occupied 13,000 acres of land for their Armed Forces. Apart from the British forces, there are also Federation troops in Singapore. Last Friday, the Minister for National Development, when replying to the Member for Changi, pointed out that there were 1,380 units of houses which are occupied by the Federation troops. Therefore, in addition to the British troops in Singapore, we also have Federation troops stationed in Singapore. Apart from these troops, we also have local troops - the First Battalion, Singapore Infantry Regiment, established on 11th March, 1957, by the then Labour Front Government, which was an anti-people, anti-worker, reactionary Government. The purpose of forming this Regiment was to fight against the people in Singapore. But the P.A.P., which professes to be an anti-colonial Government, not only does not disband the First Battalion, but, on the contrary, is doing all it can to establish another Battalion. This is a very good political lesson to the people of Singapore. We have seen that the P.A.P. has no intention whatsoever to improve the people's living standards. They are now building their political future on the strength of the Armed Forces so as to maintain themselves in power. Can we say that the Loops at present in Singapore are not sufficient? In fact, Singapore has become a police State and a military State. Hence we can find the reason for the establishment of this Second Battalion by the Government. In The past they relied on the people's strength, but now they have forsaken the people and lost the support of the people. Their very survival now depends on the Police and troops. The Government have also anticipated that the people will resent them, because they have suffered enough, and the resentment and dissatisfaction of the people have also increased day by day. Therefore, the Government, in order to suppress the discontent of the people and to shore up the British position in this area, have found it necessary to establish this Second Battalion. We the people of Singapore should not incur this extra expenditure. If this amount of money came from their own pockets, we still want to object. However, this big sum of money has to be paid by the people, and that is all the more reason why we should object to this request. This sum of money is not used to protect the people but to maintain troops who will be used to suppress the people. I do not know whether, apart from expanding this Battalion, the Government have the intention to set up a Third Battalion. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must not allow the Government to increase the troops to suppress the people. The revenues collected from the people should be spent on their welfare. Now, the Government is asking for $3.8 million, which is equivalent to the revenue collected from radio licences and vehicle driving licences. Just now, the Member for Tanglin pointed out to this House that when the people asked for money to be used on development which is beneficial to the people, the Government replied that it had no money. But now the Government are asking for a big sum of money to support British imperialism and colonialism, and they are willing to be the running dogs of British imperialism. They are willing to see the people suffer, and to see that there are no opponents. The establishment of the Second Battalion only shows that the people will have more misery and hardships in the future and that they will be suppressed by this military unit. We, the people of Singapore, must be united to condemn the Government for this irresponsible action in establishing the Second Battalion, Singapore Infantry Regiment. If the Government are sincere in caring for the people, then we ask them to make use of this sum of money on social relief, because this sum of money will double the amount at present available for public assistance and other social welfare purposes. If the Government are going to set up this Second Battalion by hook or by crook, then the P.A.P. will not be able to avoid their responsibility in the future and the consequences arising from this action. 6.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, first of all, I would like to ask the Member for Choa Chu Kang whether he thinks that the defence of a country and its internal security should be handed to a colonial ruler. Perhaps he did not have the time. The Chairman (Mr Mammen): If the Member for Choa Chu Kang wants to reply, he will reply.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, from what the Member for Choa Chu Kang has criticised about this vote, we can only come to one conclusion. That is, he is of the opinion that Singapore's defence and internal security should be the responsibility of the British colonialists, and not that of the people through their own Armed Forces. Because, according to him, there are many British troops in Singapore, therefore, there is no necessity to expand this Battalion of the Infantry Regiment, and there is no necessity for such a large sum of money to be spent on it. His argument is that we should leave our defence and internal security in the hands of the British troops. He is in fact speaking like a colonialist. Mr Deputy Speaker, no nationalist with any self- respect, will allow his own county and its defence to be in the hands of a colonial government. The Singapore Government has been elected by the people themselves. The Battalion that we have established comprise the citizens themselves. The aim of this infantry Regiment is to shoulder the responsibility of internal security in our own State. It is necessary for us to expand this Infantry Regiment, because after the 31st of August, 1963, Singapore will have achieved independence through merger and Malaysia, thereby becoming a part of an independent nation. As I have already pointed out, no nation with any self-respect will ever allow its internal security and defence to be in the hands of any foreign country. So it is necessary for us at the present juncture to expedite the expansion of the Infantry Regiment, so that by the 31st of August, we will have our own troops to shoulder the responsibility of defence. As a matter of fact, the question of whether there is a necessity for this Battalion arose last year when we were debating the Supplementary Estimates on the Second Battalion. But for the fact that the Member for Choa Chu Kang has seen fit to raise the question again, there is, in fact, no need to repeat the arguments in reply to the criticism raised at that Time and repeated now by the Member for Choa Chu Kang. I agree that the Labour Ministry has published two booklets calling upon the people of Singapore to join the army and the police. What is wrong with that? Any independent nation should have its own Police Force and Armed Forces. Is the Member for Choa Chu Kang suggesting that the Police Force of Singapore should be manned by foreigners? Does he also mean that the Armed Forces of Singapore should be manned by foreigners as well, entirely in the hands of a foreign nation? Does he also go a step further to mean that we should leave the protection of the lives and properties of our people in the hands of a foreign nation? He has also said that the intention of the Second Battalion is to suppress the "people". I would like to ask him for a definition of "people". According to what I understand, the word "people", in the dictionary of the Barisan Sosialis, refers to the Communists and those elements which are in collusion with foreign Communist forces. So in the eyes of these "people", the Armed Forces and the Police would be used to suppress the people as indicated in their own definition. The Member for Choa Chu Kang says that the amount we are asking for should be utilised in building more houses and increasing public assistance. But I would like to tell him this. If the pro-Communist elements do less to instigate political strikes, thereby resulting in the loss of employment for thousands of people and cause untold misery and suffering to their families, then there will be no need to increase the amount of public assistance.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is our contention that our State should have no bases for foreign forces, and foreign control in a united Malaya. The Minister for Home Affairs does not in his speech deny what I have alleged in my speech. It is obvious that we can see that the First Battalion and the Second Battalion have their Commandants appointed, not by the Minister for Home Affairs, but by somebody else. Are they appointed by the Prime Minister? In fact, all these officials and Commandants are not in the hands of the Minister for Home Affairs. Can you tell us in whose hands and in whose control are these people? If the Government thinks that the people of Singapore are in the Armed Forces, then these Armed Forces are forces of Singapore people. Who are actually controlling these Armed Forces and in whose interests are these Armed Forces intended? It is obvious that the present Armed Forces are not actually in the hands of the people themselves. They are being controlled by the British colonialists and the British rulers. In fact, the Minister for Home Affairs is, on the face of it, a Minister who appears to have some powers within himself, but in actual fact, the appointments of the Commandants and other Army Officers are not within his powers. Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the Members of Parliament of the Labour Party of Britain came to Singapore on 17th April and he told the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs in the presence of representatives of the Press that if a nation still has its economy and Armed Forces in the hands of a foreign country, then that nation is still a neo-colonial country. In Singapore and Malaya today, can we ask, is there true independence? Even in the event of so-called Malaysia, Singapore will still remain in the hands of the British rulers. The British/ Malayan Treaty will still remain in force to protect the interests of the British colonialists. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the debate on Radio Singapore, the Minister for Culture talked about Communists; so did the Minister for Home Affairs. It was said that because the Barisan Sosialis instigate political strikes, it is necessary to establish the Second Battalion. From the words of the Minister for Home Affairs, we can see clearly that the Government has established the Second Battalion in order to suppress legitimate strikes and the working class. In the struggle of the workers, strikes are forced on the workers themselves. There is no question of Communists or no Communists. If it is a matter of Communists inciting political strikes, then how are you going to explain the strikes that are happening within the Ministry of Home Affairs itself? Can we ask the Minister for Home Affairs what happens to the strike that concerns the Special Branch and the Police Force? Have all these strikes been instigated by the Communists? It is clear that the working class, in order to improve and raise its living standard, will have to resort to the final weapon of strike. But the Government has classified strikes as "political" and "non-political". 6.45 p.m. Strikes that are organised by unions belonging to the Government are non-political, whereas strikes organised by unions that are not affiliated to the Government Party are political. But in the eyes of the working people, it is clear what intention the Government have in the establishment of the Second Battalion. In fact, the Minister for Home Affairs himself has already indicated the real intention for the establishment of the Second Battalion. So this Committee should refuse to approve this vote that is being asked for for the Second Battalion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, let me explain the intention of establishing the Second Battalion. The purpose is to suppress those traitors who try to sell our country to foreigners and not to suppress the people. We can therefore understand why the Barisan Sosialis and the people who toe their line are worried about this, because they are serving the interest of certain foreign powers. Their purpose is to sell out our national interest and the interest of the people to these foreign powers. They would like to see Singapore and Malaya controlled by foreign powers. That is why they are worried and are averse to the idea of setting up a Second Battalion. But the genuine nationalists and those who are law abiding and loyal to Singapore do not have to worry about the expansion of the police or the armed services. They do not have to worry about the consequences of this expansion. They can sleep well without any worries, but to those pro-Communist elements and those who try to sell out the interest of the people of Singapore to the Indonesian Communists, it is, of course, a cause for concern. The process of suppressing those people who try to sell out their countries and the interest of their people has been carried out periodically in many neutral Afro-Asian countries, for instance, in the United Arab Republic, Cambodia and India. They have suppressed those traitors among them who want to sell out their countries. I would like to tell these people who want to try to sell out our national interest that we will use all the forces available in Singapore to deal with them. To such people like the Member for Choa Chu Kang, whether a country is truly independent depends on whether it is in the Communist bloc. Only those countries in the Communist bloc are independent and those outside the Communist bloc are not independent countries. Therefore, to argue with these people on whether Malaya is truly independent is only a waste of Time because we will be playing a harp to a cow - it will not be able to understand. Malaysia, when established on 31st August, would be an independent nation. This the Member for Choa Chu Kang cannot understand. Unless and until Malaysia joins the Communist bloc, according to the Member, it will not be an independent country. But I would like to ask him one question: Is Hungary truly an independent country?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am rather surprised that the Minister for Home Affairs a little while ago said that he was playing a harp to a cow. In actual fact, he is not clear himself. His mind is not clear when he clearly states that the independence of a country depends on the fact that in the country there are no foreign military bases, and in the field of economy it is not controlled by foreign powers. Now, to become a so-called independent Malaysia, the establishment of the so-called additional Battalion in a so-called independent Malaysia, according to our view, the intention is to use the manpower of Singapore to be colonial puppets, because we know that if the Minister for Home Affairs can recognise that an independent country is one that does not have military bases for foreign powers, then we can say that the expansion of a further Battalion is necessary, but we would like to point out that the purpose of this is to suppress the people of Singapore.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot agree with what the Member has said. I cannot understand what his definition of "an independent country" is. He says that an independent country should be one that is without a foreign military base in it. In my opinion, whether a country, is independent depends on whether the military base is there by consent of the country concerned.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman. We seem to have strayed radically beyond the amendment before the House, Sir. The discussion is not on the definition of "independence'. It is not a question of external security or external defence at all. The issue is merely the formation of a Second Battalion and I do say with respect --- The Chairman (Mr Mammen): The point of order being?

The point of order is that the statements now being made by the speaker are totally irrelevant to the issue and the amendment.

I do not think it is a point of order, but I was trying to make my stand clear, that since Head D.51 is on Defence Services, the Opposition and the Government Benches have gone to some lengths to define what is "independence" and what is the purpose of defence, and so far they are within the limit of the defence services. Mr Ong Pang Boon.

(In Mandarin): Whether a country is independent depends on whether it has the right and power to decide if there should be any foreign military base or troops in it. If an independent country is of the opinion that its own resources and financial means are insufficient to protect itself and needs the help of foreign forces to help it, then it is entirely within its power to invite foreign assistance. If the country has the right to make such a decision, then it is independent, because the decision rests with it and the presence of foreign troops is as a result of the decision of the country concerned. Just now I have asked the Member for Choa Chu Kang whether Hungary is an independent country. I would also ask the Member for Pasir Panjang whether Hungary, Rumania and Eastern Germany are independent countries, because in these countries, foreign troops and bases are there not by treaties but as a matter of rights. 7.00 p.m. Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D.51 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 6." The Committee divided: Ayes, 12; Noes, 31; Absent, 7. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Fung Yin Ching Haji Jumat Miss Buang bin Leong Keng Seng Omar Junid Lin You Eng Bryne, K. M. Low Por Tuch Chan Chee Seng Ng Teng Kian Chan Choy Siong, Ong chang Sam Madam Sheng Nam chin Chor Yeok eng Tan Cheng Tong Goh Chew Chua Tee Kim leng Goh Keng Swee Teo Hock Guan Lee Khoon Choy Wong Soon Fong Lee Kuan Yew Lee Teck Him Absent. Lim Cheng Lock Lim Yew Hock Ahmand Jabri bin Lingam, S. V. Mohammad Akib Mammen, John Chan sun wing Marshall, David Hoe Puay Choo, Mohd. Ali bin Madam Alwi Kandasamy, G. Mohd. Ariff bin Koh, C. H. Suradi Lee Siew Choh M. Ismail Rahim Ong Eng Guan Ong Pang Boon Raja, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamym, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Tan Kia Gan Thio Chan Bee Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamed Al-Haj Yong Nyuk Lin Question on the amendment accordingly negatived. The sum of $3,885,460 for Head D.51 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963.

Now we are on Head D.56 - Prisons. Mr Ong Chang Sam.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir ---

Order. An application to move a business motion. I suspend the sitting. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly. 7.03 p.m.

Resolved, "That the proceedings on item 20 on the Order Paper today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1."-[The Minister for Education, Mr Yong Nyuk Lin]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Mr Ong Chang Sam.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D.56 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6. Subhead 6 relates to the Pulau Senang Settlement. I wish to ask the Minister for Home Affairs to tell this House how many persons are being detained in Pulau Senang Settlement and of those who are detained there, the longest for how many years, what crimes they have committed, and what are the conditions for their release? I also wish the Minister for Home Affairs could tell this House the actual facts regarding the incident in April where the officers in Pulau Senang were assaulted. As fair as I know, the Government has set up a camp to rehabilitate all those secret society members who were released, but it makes use of these gangster members to take part in the mass rallies and on other occasions organised by the Government. If they did not present themselves at the meetings, then their salaries would be cut for three days. I would like the Minister for Home Affairs to tell this House whether there have been such incidents.

Mr Ong Pang Boon, in Mandarin?

No, I do not think so. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether this is the appropriate time for him to raise the first few questions and whether I should answer him here. The questions about the number of detainees in Pulau Senang, how long they have been detained in Pulau Senang, and the conditions for their release - those are questions being asked by the Member for Anson. So I think I should reserve the answers when it comes to his questions. As for the incident which happened in April, I would suggest the Member for Choa Chu Kang put it in the form of a question and I shall give him an answer here. As for the last allegation, that those Pulau Senang detainees who have been released into the Work Brigade Camp have been asked to attend government functions and all that, I wish to deny completely the false allegation made.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have visited Pulau Senang, Sir, and I have been struck by the amount of work that has been carried out there - a very considerable amount of work. I was informed that there is an average of about 400 persons there. Sir, we want to remember that they are not prisoners. They have never been convicted by any court of law. They are detainees detained by order of the Minister on inadequate information to convict them in a court of law, otherwise they would be produced in Court. 7.12 p.m.

The Minister, in the public interest, on suspicion detains them. And these arc the persons we call gangsters or who are alleged to be gangsters. One thing I want to draw your attention to, Mr Chairman, is that there is no right in law to make these people work, no right whatever; but with a now traditional capacity for intimidation, what in China is called persuasion, the P.A.P. makes it plain to these detainees that if they do not agree to work, they do not have to but they will not come out of gaol alive. It is very simple. We have power to detain you for ever and a day, not like the Judges of this country who can only send you to prison for life, which means 15 years. We have power to detain you for ever and a day. Every two years it is renewed. And so these detainees, under threat, which in a different climate would constitute criminal intimidation, volunteer to work, Mr Chairman, and they are working in the heat of the day - and I do say heat, Sir, of the day. They are working, I understand, 8 hours a day and I accept the assurance I received from the Commissioner of Prisons that they do not work for more than 8 hours at very hard manual labour; and they get paid, Sir. Do you know how much they get paid? - 10 cents a day. I remember in Japan, as a prisoner of war being made to work at the same type of work and being paid 10 Japanese sen a day which I never received, because at the end of 10 days they exchanged it for 10 cigarettes for 1 yen, 1 cigarette a day. But here these people are paid 10 cents a day. Mr Chairman, there are two things I want to draw your attention to, apart from having drawn attention to the fact that these persons have not been convicted. I know we are on Pulau Senang itself only and I shall limit myself to the issue there, and it is this, that there is a responsibility, where a person is not properly convicted, for us to look after those families whom we deprive of their bread winner. I think that there is a duty to maintain them reasonably. There is a second aspect and it is this, Mr Chairman; there is a duty on us to pay for work according to the value of the work, that is to say, according to trade union rates. These people, I repeat, are not prisoners. These are basic issues. 7.15 p.m. One other matter, Mr Chairman - I was received with every courtesy and shown, I believe, all round the island, certainly all the places that I wished to see. But it is rather far away, and possibly it is not often visited. I may be wrong in this, but I came away with a very strong impression of an aura of fear in all those detainees, an aura of helplessness and hopelessness, because they are so utterly at the mercy of every minor official on that island. Their release or their continued detention is at the whim of officials and is no longer subject to law. They are beyond the pale of the law. It is the rule of fear. It is a very unhealthy atmosphere. I am informed, Sir, contrary to my fear, that, in fact, there is no cohesion between the different gangs from whom these 400 people are alleged to be drawn. That is one matter which I find it difficult to understand and which would like the Minister to explain if he can; whether, in fact, bringing these people in close propinquity over a long period subject to not merely superior discipline of the officers from the prisons but the discipline of their own groups does not build an esprit de corps which could endanger our peace if in fact they are - as I have no doubt some of them are - drawn from secret society gangs. One final matter, Mr Chairman. It is a dreadfully forlorn spot, this wrongly named island. I would like to hear some public assurance that the officers in the Prison service, who are condemned to do part do their duty on that island, receive some recompense in some fashion either by way of special leave or over-time pay because, Mr Chairman, they are doing jobs not originally envisaged under the Prison service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think, in fact, some of the points mentioned by the Member for Anson have already been raised in the form of questions and I would be repeating the answers if I were to answer him in detail now. But briefly, what I would like to say is that prior to the P.A.P. Government assuming office, the detainees who were detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance had, in fact, no means of securing their own release, because there is no scheme for rehabilitating these secret society members and what the previous Government did was to lock them up in Changi, three to a cell. Now, when we came to power we thought that this state of affairs was undesirable and that something should be done to rehabilitate these detainees so that they could be returned to society as normal human beings. Therefore, the Government appointed an ad hoc committee in December 1959 to inquire into the existing arrangements for the detention of persons under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1955 and to make recommendations for any modifications or alterations of the existing arrangements and also to make recommendations for the rehabilitation of detainees. The report of this ad hoc committee was submitted in January 1960, and I would like to draw the attention of the Member for Anson to sections 6 and 7 of the said Report which can be found in the Report of the Prisons Inquiry Commission, 1960. Except for some minor modifications based on practical experience, the Government has, in fact, implemented the scheme for the rehabilitation of criminal law detainees or better known as the Pulau Senang Scheme recommended by this ad hoc committee. I wish to say that detainees who go to Pulau Senang volunteer to go there and also voluntarily agree to work there. The work they do at Pulau Senang is not punitive in any sense but part and parcel of the whole rehabilitation process of teaching the detainees the normal acceptable standard of conduct in society and to equip them with the necessary skills for making an honest and productive livelihood when they are released. So far as I can say, it is very much of an experiment, and I think only time can tell whether the scheme is really a success. But judging from the results since the implementation of the scheme, I would say so far the results have been encouraging. The Member for Anson just now mentioned about an aura of fear in Pulau Senang. I just wish to repeat what the Director of Prisons replied to him, that is, he went, in fact, at the wrong time. When the Member for Anson visited Pulau Senang, there was an incident which happened just a week before his visit where, I think, a warder or several warders had been assaulted `by some criminal law detainees, and consequent upon that, these detainees were punished. They might have been sullen as a result of that. Presumably that might have given the impression to the Member for Anson that there was an aura of fear. But I have myself made several visits to Pulau Senang, and I do not think there is an aura of fear. In fact, the detainees were very pleased to speak to me. In fact, occasionally, they even raised problems to me. I did not detect any aura of fear. As for the dependants of the detainees, if they are in difficulty, they can always go to the Social Welfare Department and public assistance is always given to them. As for the law wages of the detainees - and I am sure the Member for Anson was informed by the Director of Prisons - it is receiving the attention of the Government. In fact, their wages have been increased to 30 cents a few months ago. I think, since early this year, their wages have been increased to 30 cents a day and the Government is considering further increases if it can afford to do so. Now, the Government do recognise that the officers working in Pulau Senang are isolated from society and therefore merit some compensation for the isolation that they have to undergo. In fact, the Government gives each officer $3 allowance a day extra, and in addition to this the Government also gives each officer one day leave per week over and above their normal leave period. In other words, each officer is entitled to two and a half days rest per week.

Mr Speaker, I am sorry if my little speech gave the impression that I was criticising the concept of Pulau Senang. The fact that I did not praise it is possibly due to the unhappy infection from P.A.P. traditions of never saying anything nice about your opponents. The concept of Pulau Senang and the experiment of Pulau Senang is a good one. What I am criticising is that we are using persons who have not been convicted by any courts as slave labour. The Minister having been there - and I know he has been there - must be impressed by the very considerable assets in buildings, vegetable gardens, irrigation works and the provision for water which are being constructed by these detainees. And it is my submission, Mr Speaker, that if you make a man work, you should pay him his full wages - what I call trade union wages, or what you might call economic wages - deducting therefrom the cost of his enforced lodging and the cost of his board. That would be fair. I am glad to hear that it is 30 cents. But you know, Mr Speaker, they do not even have a canteen. They cannot order a cup of coffee. Gangster or no gangster, Sir, if you are trying to attract them to a human way of life, I would suggest a proper approach, and from the point of view of socialists and persons who believe in the trade union movement, I resent the suggestion of using persons detained by executive act as slave labour. I resent the suggestion that we can compel human beings to work at below economic wage and let the Government benefit by it. 7.30 p.m. I would like to see a canteen for these people from which they can purchase a few of the minor necessities of life. I would like to see opportunities for them to receive their families in the island, so that it does not sound so bad, instead of being brought to some prison in town for the purpose of their fortnightly meetings. Mr Speaker, the concept is a good one: do not let us spoil it by being mean. I say that they should be paid in full and I say that they should have some human amenities. On the issue of volunteering, Mr Speaker, the Minister was not completely frank with this House. Perhaps he would like to add that any detainee who does riot volunteer to go to Pulau Senang will not be released by this Government. That is a fact. It is made, I gather, completely clear to those in Changi that if you want to be released, you first apply to go to Pulau Senang. If you are a very good boy there for one year or 15 months, then you go back to Changi for a short period and then you are released. These are matters that have been officially brought to my attention, and I do not think I am in any way misrepresenting them. Sir, if you say to me, "You will be a prisoner for the rest of your life, or else work," and I volunteer to work, need I add that that is a curious concept of volunteering which is peculiar to the P.A.P.? But one other matter, Sir - apart from this volunteering aspect that the Minister has introduced - is that there are some who are not allowed to volunteer. I wonder if I might be permitted to mention it under this heading. That is, the non-Malayan citizens have no hope of over being released, because they are not allowed to volunteer for Pulau Senang. Mr Speaker, it is a very unhappy position we have been reduced to, that Government can, at its pleasure, do more than our Judges and keep a man in prison for longer than his own life Time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not sure the Government has the power to detain a person for ever. I think there is a limit to the period of detention, I think, to five years. Well, nevertheless, I will check that up. Mr Speaker, Sir, first the canteen facilities for the detainees. The detainees do have canteen facilities to purchase cigarettes and tobacco, toilet articles, confectionery and groceries. The suggestion by the Member for Anson that the detainees should be able to purchase meals and drinks is, in fact, receiving attention now. Now, as to the suggestion that the detainees should be allowed to receive their families on the island, this question has been gone into since 1961. There are a number of difficulties quite apart from the difficulty of getting launches to convey the families of these detainees to Pulau Senang Island. There is also the question of security and also the construction of a jetty. Until the jetty is constructed, it is just not possible to make a start and, in fact, if I recollect, we have, since the end of last year, managed to secure a launch for this purpose and we are now just waiting for the completion of the jetty to commence conveying the families of detainees to Pulau Senang. I must emphasise that as far as these detainees are concerned, work is of a voluntary nature, regarded and accepted as part of their training and rehabilitation process. In their case, work has a therapeutic meaning, and wages are a secondary matter. What they receive is regarded as a means to provide them with a few extra amenities of living. There is the Member for Anson's dispute that their work is voluntary. Sir, I do agree with the Member for Anson that detainees have been told, or it is more or less indicated to them, that if they want to secure their early release, they must go to Pulau Senang. That is accepted. Because how do we assess whether a detainee is fit for release to society? How do we observe whether the detainee has changed his attitude towards society, has decided to reform and to make an honest living if he is given a chance outside? The only way, I suggest, is through the work that he does in Pulau Senang, his behaviour in Pulau Senang; then we can observe whether he has really reformed. Therefore, work is, shall we say, necessary, and, in fact, it is recommended by the ad hoc committee on Pulau Senang scheme - that is, rehabilitation through work.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is some political motive. We hear from the Member for Anson that the detainees in Pulau Senang should be paid the rate for the job according to good trade union principles. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has even gone so far as to suggest that the Government is guilty of employing slave labour in Pulau Senang. May I, with respect, suggest to the Member for Anson that this is completely sanctimonious humbug. Let us view the concept of Pulau Senang in a proper light. This is a scheme to rehabilitate secret society gangsters. It is not a matter of the wicked P.A.P. Government catching innocent people and putting them to do some slave work for the benefit of the P.A.P. or the Government. Now. Sir, let us suppose that the Government is so absurd, so ridiculous, as to accept the proposal of the Member for Anson and pay these detainees in Pulau Senang the rate for a job - let us say, $4.50 for unskilled labour, going to $8.50 for masons, and so on. Surely, he will understand that if this were the case, then there would be a standing invitation to members of the public to join secret societies and thereby to get a remunerative career in Pulau Senang with food and everything thrown in. The purpose of the work that they do is not for the Government to make money out of it. If they rear poultry and collect eggs, the eggs do not come to the Ministers on the breakfast table; the benefit goes back to the detainees in the form of more amenities for them. But the main thing is to impress upon these people that work is creative and is of value to society and to inculcate in these unfortunate young men pride in work and a sense of social responsibility. There is one matter connected with the scheme which has not been mentioned, that is the follow-up work on detainees in Pulau Senang. After they have had a good record, shown responsibility and leadership, they are given a trial in the Work Brigade camp where I must say that many of them have proved to be very creditable members. The particular camp which graduates of Pulau Senang go to, I think, is the most efficient camp in the Work Brigade.

Mr Speaker, the courteous effort of the Minister for Home Affairs to answer my criticism had, for a moment, made me forget that we were in a Chamber dominated by the P.A.P. I am indebted to the Minister for Finance for his Alibanesque contribution to the debate. The "sanctimonious humbug" of which he speaks is very apt to those who can speak of pride in work being paid 30 cents a day whilst your family starves on social welfare pittances. That is the kind of pride in work that the P.A.P. can speak about. That is the kind of men they say they produce, men who take a sense of social responsibility - whilst their families starve, they sweat at hard labour in the sun with pick and shovel and get paid by this beneficent Government 30 cents a day. Mr Speaker, what kind of self-respect do you think you can build in a human being like that? What kind of attitude do you think you can build in a human being like that towards a society which treats him in that fashion? The Minister for Finance refers to them as secret society gangsters. I would remind him that not one of those men has been convicted by an impartial Judge.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson again expressed great sorrow and sympathy for the families of these detainees in Pulau Senang; he said that they are neglected by society. May I ask him one question? How many hundred dollars does he suggest the Government should pay to the families of these detainees who he says have lost their livelihood as a result of detention?

The answer, Mr Speaker, is that, if their detention is necessary for the welfare of the country according to this Government, their families should be maintained by this Government if they have not been imprisoned by a court. They should be permitted to earn enough to give them self-respect so that they can maintain their families. It is a very simple matter and it is not beyond our means.

How much?

This is all about self-respect, Sir, I must say I spent a rather exciting evening at the Aftercare Association one evening when the Superintendent of Pulau Senang put on a concert with these gentlemen who posed as choir boys, bandmasters, a seven-piece band, iron drums and the rest of it. One of them is quite a maestro. He is better than Walter Mitty, Danny Kaye. All I can tell the Member for Anson is that my experience of these gentlemen is that they are not lacking in aplomb. What they lack is the opportunity to do the right thing for themselves and for society, and perhaps if he would spend some Time giving some patronage to this very deserving Aftercare Association to which other members of the Bar subscribe from time to time, he might help a few to come round the bend. After all, I know it is always his fervent belief that if you can get a man off, he is innocent; but if he is in, well then, that is too bad, because that means he could not pay the lawyer enough to get him off. However, I hope he will make some effort in getting real self-respect into these men because I think they have got good stuff in them. I promise the Member for Tanglin that we will put on Pulau Senang at the next T.V. show and that there will be no P.A.P. symbols on the drums. 7.45 p.m.

Time has expired. Does the Member for Choa Chu Kang wish for a vote?

I beg to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Time allotted for Head D.56 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the name of Mr Ong Chang Sam, was not proceeded with: That the sum to be allocated for Head D.56 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8. The sum of $221,070 for Head D.56 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963.

Heads of expenditure undisposed of. They appear in the Summary at page 7 of the Paper. I propose to take those heads of expenditure* en bloc.

Question, "That the sums stated in the summary of totals contained in Paper Cmd. 16 of 1963 for Heads D.16, D.17, D.18, D.58 and D.59 stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963", put, and agreed to. * Following are the heads of expenditure:- Head Title $ D.16 Meteorological Services 37,990 D.17 Postal Services 370,000 D.18 Telecommunications 3,199,980 D.58 Public Works, Non-Recurrent (General) 120,000 D.59 Colonial Developemnt and Welfare Schemes 2,122,227 Question, "That the sum of .517,687,607 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963 contained in Paper Cmd. 16 of 1963", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $17,687,607 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963 contained in Paper Cmd. 16 of 1963".

Sir, 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. 7.49 p.m.

As we are to sit after 8 p.m., the Deputy Speaker omitted to include in the motion exempting proceedings from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1, Questions on which we have already entered. So to put the matter right, I ask the Minister for Education to move an amending motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That notwithstanding the resolution of this Assembly, the proceedings on Questions and on item 20 of the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That notwithstanding the resolution of this Assembly, the proceedings on Questions and on item 20 of the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1.

.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will give the figures, as on the 30th April, 1963, of (a) persons convicted in the Courts and serving sentences in prison; (b) persons detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, and how many of these were 16 years of age and under at the Time of detention; and (c) persons detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and how many of these were 16 years of age and under at the time of detention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as on 30th April, 1963, (a) Persons convicted in the Courts and serving sentences in prison number 1,300. (b) Persons detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, total 830, of whom 23 were 16 years of age or under at the Time of detention. (c) Persons detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, number 149. All these persons were above 16 years of age at the time of detention.

Does the Minister consider it appropriate that those under the age of 16 should be dealt with under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance? Would he consider some different approach to this problem?

Mr Speaker, Sir, all these persons under 16 years of age - the moment after their detention - were sent to the Reformative Training Centre.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many persons now detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance have been detained (a) prior to June 1959, (b) since 1959, (c) since 1960, (d) since 1961, and (e) since 1962.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as on 1st June, 1963, the position is as follows:-

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister indicate whether there is any hope for those who have been detained for more than four years of ever being released? How long does he anticipate that they will continue in detention?

Mr Speaker, Sir, most of the persons detained for more than four years were non-citizens of either Singapore or the Federation of Malaya. In fact, they were down for banishment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would ask of the Minister: if they are to be banished, whether in fact it takes more than four years for the machinery of banishment to take effect. That can hardly be the explanation. And whether it is really the policy of this Government that a person who is not a citizen of the Federation or Singapore and who is suspected of being a gangster should remain in prison indefinitely.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the delay is not on the part of the Government. In fact, all the necessary procedure is completed and the difficulty is with the recipient country. If the Member for Anson can persuade the country from which these persons came to accept them, I think they would be gone in no time.

The Minister appreciates that until I am appointed Minister Plenipotentiary to those countries of admission, I cannot very well attempt it. But I would ask the Minister to answer my question: When does he anticipate that those persons who are not citizens of Malaya and Singapore, will no longer be detained in Singapore, will either be free or away from this State?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the easiest way is for the detainees to accept voluntary repatriation, and the Government is prepared to pay for their passages, including the passages of their families.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will make a statement as to the policy of rehabilitation of detainees under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance with special reference to the treatment of those who are Singapore citizens, those who are Federation of Malaya citizens, and those who are citizens of other countries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will permit me, I propose to answer Questions Nos. 4, 6* and 7* together because they are all related. * Questions 6 and 7, standing in the name of Mr David Marshall, reads as follows: 6. Mr David Marshall asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the detainees at Pulau Senang are required to work; what are the hours and nature of work; and whether and at what rate they are paid for such work. 7. Mr David Marshall asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether all or only selected prisoners detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance are sent to Pulau Senang, and what are the principals of selection.

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson is perhaps unaware that the Government had appointed an ad hoc committee to inquire into the existing arrangements for the detention of persons under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. 1955, and to make recommendations for their rehabilitation. Since the submission of this Report in 1960, except for some minor modifications, the Government has implemented the scheme for the rehabilitation of criminal law detainees recommended by this ad hoc committee. The detainees who go to Pulau Senang, as I have said just now during the debate on the Supplementary Development Estimates, volunteered to go there and also voluntarily agreed to work there. Detainees who are eligible at present to go to Pulau Senang are Singapore citizens, Federal citizens, and Federation born persons. They have to be medically fit to proceed to Pulau Senang. Detainees under 17 years of age or over 50 years of age or persons suffering from, say, leprosy, would not be sent there. Provided they are willing to go and their conduct and behaviour at Changi Prison have been satisfactory, eligible detainees proceed to Pulau Senang in turn according to the date of their arrest. Those who are citizens of other countries are not sent to Pulau Senang at present but remain at Changi. Those of them who voluntarily request permission to return to their country of origin are free to do so, and the Government is prepared to pay for their expenses. Pulau Senang is not big enough to accommodate all criminal law detainees at the same Time. The number of detainees to be rehabilitated is large and as long as there are Singapore born or Federation born detainees waiting to be sent to Pulau Senang, the Government policy is to rehabilitate them first. Our duty towards these misguided, embittered, and maladjusted secret society gangsters is to return them as better and more useful members of society. At Pulau Senang detainees go to work from 7.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. and from 12.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. on week days; and from 7.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. on Saturdays. They do not work on Saturday afternoons or on Sundays or public holidays except for normal domestic maintenance. Certain projects such as jetty construction are dependent on the tides and it may be necessary for detainees to work outside the above hours for which they are given compensating time off. No detainee is allowed to work in excess of 44 hours per week without the written authority of the Director of Prisons. All detainees at Pulau Senang are paid 30 cents a day which is higher than the rate paid to convicted prisoners. The Government is considering a further increase in the rate of wages of these detainees, but, as I have said just now, it must be emphasised that as far as these detainees are concerned, work is of a voluntary nature and accepted as part of their training and the rehabilitation process. When detainees have gone through the rehabilitation process at Pulau Senang, which averages about 18 months to two years, they are released from detention and are sent on supervision orders to the Work Brigade Camp at Jalan Damai for the final rehabilitation stage. So far, 394 detainees have successfully been rehabilitated at Pulau Senang. At the Jalan Damai Work Brigade Camp, they live, work, receive board and lodging and pay like other members of the Work Brigade and have access to the community as a whole. They return to their families at weekends. After a period of three to six months, their stay at the camp is officially ended, but a number of them so like their new way of living that they volunteer to continue to remain as Work Brigade members at the camp. The rest return to their homes and to society free to come and go, subject to easy supervision conditions for a short period as a final test as to whether their rehabilitation is complete. And they are now better and more useful members of society.

May it please you. Mr Speaker, many matters are raised by the reply of the Minister, but could I start with the question of other nationals? Do I understand this correctly to be the true position, that those who are not Singapore or Federation citizens have no hope of ever getting to Pulau Senang because of the pressure of accommodation there. Shall we put it that way, and that, therefore, in view of the policy indicated by the Minister that he cannot assess their fitness to be released unless they go to Pulau Senang, it means that those who are not Federation or Singapore citizens have no hope of being released at all? Is that the position?

Mr Speaker, Sir, they can choose to go back to their country of origin, and the Government is prepared to pay for their expenses.

I do wish the Minister would give a straightforward reply. The answer is, "Yes, they have no hope of being released in Singapore." Now, the second question is this: Are they all individually informed and do they understand that they can be repatriated to their countries of origin, and do those countries of origin agree to receive these people back?

Yes, Mr Speaker, all these detainees understand the position, and the country of origin is prepared to accept them back provided they are repatriated voluntarily.

Sir, we have dealt with questions 4, 6 and 7, is that it? Question No. 5.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what was the total cost of the Pulau Senang project up to 31st December. 1962, and what part of such cost represents payment for labour on the island.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the total cost of the Pulau Senang Project up to 31st December, 1962, was $1,110,495. I take it that by "payment for labour" the Member is referring to payments for work done by the detainees as part of their rehabilitation scheme. If so, the amount paid out in this respect up to 31St December, 1962, was $30,677.

Mr David Marshall, Question No. 8.

Question No. 8, Sir.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many persons at present detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance have been detained since (a) 1956, (b) 1957, (c) 1958, (d) 1959, (e) 1960, (f) 1961, and (g) 1962.

Mr Speaker, Sir, persons detained under the P.P.S.O. have been in detention as follows:- Since 1956,7; 1957,8; 1958,1; 1959,0; 1960,2; 1961,0: 1962,3; 1963,127.

A record year!

You just wait for 1964!

Expect to be inside?

Could be.

Order.

8.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly views with concern the progress made by the Singapore Government in its talks with the Federation of Malaya Government on the financial arrangements relating to Head 17 (Finance) of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961.* * The same motion also stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee. Sir, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for allowing me the opportunity to move this motion at this particular juncture. I would not like to say that this is indeed a very tactical move on his part having this motion to be considered at this Time so that some Members of the Opposition would have less Time to think and prepare their speech for the main debate - the Budget speech of the Minister for Finance.

On a point of elucidation. The tactical objective, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not to deny the Member for Cairnhill Time to prepare for his Budget debate but in order to get his unqualified support in my negotiations with the Minister for Finance in Kuala Lumpur.

Sir, I have said that the tactical move could not be aimed at me because I am ready for the Budget even if it were to take place now before Time, but I did say that it could react to the disadvantage of some Members of the Opposition who are new to this parliamentary move on the part of the Government. Be that as it may, let me come to my motion. Sir, the operative word here is "progress", and I can understand that there is a divergence of views on the meaning of "progress". English, Sir, is such a difficult language to understand that sometimes a word can have two or three meanings. The meaning that I want to imply in this word "progress" is not, shall we say, the terms of an agreement or disagreement that have taken place in the Inter-Governmental Committee. What I mean to imply by my motion is the rate of progress, to come to a finalisation on such an important issue on which hangs the coming into existence of Malaysia on 31st August, 1963. Sir, the Prime Minister in his statement this afternoon disclosed that there has been a lot of hard bargaining going on, and we do sympathise with him that there has been this hard bargaining. But what we find it difficult to forgive him is the way in which he hoped to circumvent this hard bargaining. He did say earlier this afternoon that he felt that it would not be appropriate to mention in this House the discussions that have taken place between the Singapore Government and the Federation Government on the financial talks that have been taking place since February. But what I fail to understand is this. Why, if he considers it inappropriate, should he find it appropriate to give statements to Press reporters whenever he comes back after his discussions in Kuala Lumpur, and why should he find it appropriate during his visits to the rural constituencies to tell the people what he thinks should be the right thing for Singapore and what the Federation Government is trying to do to Singapore in regard to this financial arrangement. That is something which we find it difficult to understand. Sir, we have great respect for the intelligence of the Prime Minister, but we find it difficult to appreciate this intelligence when he tries to negotiate on matters of national issue through the Press. Members will remember that the Prime Minister has been giving statements to the Press on matters that have been discussed in Kuala Lumpur. The statements at Times prove very confusing reading. At one Time, we read that the Prime Minister was going to fight to the bitter end and the very next morning we read in the papers that the Prime Minister said, "There is nothing wrong. Things can be settled quite amicably." This brought confusion in the minds of the people. But one of the things I want to focus attention on is this: the Prime Minister is very adept at propaganda, while the Minister for Culture says, "What is wrong, if we are good at this particular game to knock out the Communists?" I agree with him. There is nothing wrong there. But what is wrong is this: the Prime Minister is fond of indulging in propaganda hoping to reap political capital out of propaganda based on something that is not correct. Now, let us take the most important Press statement which he gave some months ago. I think it was after the March or April sitting. He gave the impression -

May I have the date and Time of the Press report? I have got all the cuttings here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been so many Press statements, one contradicting the other, that I find it difficult to quote any Press statement at all, but I can give here the impression that the Prime Minister intended to create in the minds of the people of Singapore. If he felt that the people in Singapore were so foolish as to swallow his propaganda, hook, line and sinker -

On a point of order, Sir, I think you have made it a rule once on a point of order that when a Member quotes from a newspaper, he must produce it and give the page and the date. I am sure that if the Member for Cairnhill is not prepared with Press cuttings. I have here the complete set since the arguments began, and I will be obliged if he points out to me the particular passage which offended him.

I am not aware that the Member for Cairnhill was actually quoting from a newspaper. He was actually talking from memory.

He was guessing!

Sir, I do not wish to quote any words of the Prime Minister which I consider to be misleading, but what I do wish to say here is the effect of the statements of the Prime Minister on the minds of the people of Singapore.

On the S.P.A.

Sir, the Prime Minister has all the Press cuttings and he can go through them and show where I am wrong. The most important Press statement he gave was this, "Ah, that monster, the Minister of Finance in Kuala Lumpur, wants to take all the money from Singapore and to creep in and milk Singapore in order that our social services will go abegging." That was the impression the Prime Minister created. We got that impression, so much so that we even swallowed that wonderful propaganda. We felt, "Oh, God, our Prime Minister is right. There is no reason why the Federation Finance Minister must take all the Federal tax in Singapore and control us from Kuala Lumpur." We felt sorry for him and we took that line. We said that he was right. The Federal taxes collected in Singapore must remain in Singapore. We felt that he was right, but we -

Sir, on a point of clarification. I think the Member for Cairnhill will save Time in this debate if I were to refer him to page 1 of my statement, the first memorandum on the 18th March. If he will look at page 2, sub-paragraph 4, the sum total result of that memorandum was that we owed the Federation money. At the end of the accounting, as a result of this process, we found ourselves as debtors to the Federation Government and they generously waived the debt and our surplus disappeared. I am not a financial expert. I think the Minister for Finance can take the Member for Cairnhill through all the various intricacies of the arguments. But the sum total result is that we owed the Federation money.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the Prime Minister that I can never be confused by any attempt on his part to try to bring up irrelevant matters. I have mentioned that the impression he meant to create in the minds of the people was that the money collected in Singapore will remain in Kuala Lumpur.

Yes, the first proposal.

Is that not so?

Order.

He wanted to give that impression. But the actual truth, as in his statement here, was that all Federal taxes collected in Singapore shall remain in Singapore in a neutral fund. That was what was decided, was it not?

That was after quite some time.

Yes.

Sir, the very capable Minister for Finance, who has been a very obedient listener of "His Master's Voice" shall have his opportunity to reply to me or enter into this debate when the time comes. Just because His Master has said something, he keeps on saying "After some time, after some time." He need not have to nod and repeat His Master's Voice so obediently. Sir, the impression given to the public was that, and that we now find is the wrong impression, but what was more objectionable to us was this: the Prime Minister went out saying, "You know it is because we have a P.A.P. Government that we are fighting the Finance Minister in Kuala Lumpur. Had this Government been an Alliance Government, the Alliance Government in Singapore would have sold the rights of the people of Singapore to the Alliance Government in the Federation." This is what he said, but I say this in all seriousness, had it been an Alliance Government in Singapore, we would have got a better deal, because we would know how to negotiate and how to present the case of the people of Singapore - not in the way the P.A.P. Government has been presenting the case of the people of Singapore and not in the way the Minister for Culture - in spite of all the culture that he tries to indoctrinate into the people of Singapore - keeps on talking about, something which I could not even catch, although he knows that he has the opportunity to say what he wants and I have an opportunity of replying, because this is a motion in my name. I would invite the Minister for Culture to say what he wants when the time comes, but he should not be so uncultured as to try and say something which I cannot even hear and reply to him. That is what he said, had it been an Alliance Government, we would have sold the rights of the people of Singapore. Had it been an Alliance Government, we would have got a better deal. In fact, it could be proved when the next general elections take place and the Alliance takes over. Then we will see whether we get a better deal or a bad deal. Sir, I said in my speech on Friday that the name of the P.A.P. stinks worse than manure. But because the P.A.P. Ministers are so conceited, they refuse to see the truth of the situation. They do not know that they stink. They think that by laughing it off, people can forget that the P.A.P. stinks. Sir, the Minister for Finance seems to think that what we think is wrong. May I therefore ask him to have a by-election in Sembawang tomorrow? Do not laugh it off. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose ---

We cannot have two Members standing up. Let us hive some order. Is it a point of elucidation? Will the Member give way? Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

Have the Sembawang by-election tomorrow? The Member had been the Chief Minister of Singapore. Surely he knows that there are legal processes - nomination day, polling day, notice of contested elections, and so on. I mean, cannot we have some sense from the former Chief Minister of Singapore?

Sir, as I have said, the English language is difficult to understand. When I said tomorrow, I mean right away, and if he cannot understand what tomorrow means, perhaps he could consult the Minister for Culture on what tomorrow means. It means that there shall be no further delay. The Minister for Finance says surely there are a lot of other technical obstacles. What technical obstacles there are, have been created by the P.A.P. Government for ten months! And then again the impression given by the Prime Minister, who has taken upon himself to give statements on the discussions on the financial talks and brush aside his Minister for Finance, and the Minister for Finance has accepted that brushing aside so tamely and so quietly. The other impression given was this: Au, the surplus. The pre-Malaysia surplus, not the surplus after Malaysia, but the pre-Malaysia surplus. 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962. That monster, the Minister of Finance of the Federation, wants to grab it all. But that is not the position. What is disclosed by this statement is that the Finance Minister wants to grab it all. But that is not the position. What is disclosed by this statement is that what the Finance Minister wants to grab is the surplus after Malaysia. An hon. Member: "Grab" - that is the right word for it.

Order. We must have some sort of order from the Government Front bench, otherwise we will never get on. And I would suggest that the Member for Cairnhill look at Mr Speaker.

That is what he said, "wants to grab". Grab is the impression he created in the minds of the people, so I gave what my impression was. We felt it was wrong too. We felt that Federal taxes collected in Singapore should not be taken to Kuala Lumpur. We felt that pre-Malaysia surpluses should be the absolute property of the people of Singapore. We felt it so much that we went to Kuala Lumpur and made representations. The S.P.A. made representations that such things, if right, were wrong. But we were told there had been no such intention at all to take pre-Malaysia surpluses. There is no intention at all that Federal taxes collected in Singapore should be sent up to Kuala Lumpur and then the Singapore Government would have to go to the Federation Finance Minister for dishing out Singapore's proportion of the revenue for its own budget. Therefore the impression created was all wrong. But then when we found that the impression created in the minds was wrong, we began to realise that this was nothing but P.A.P. first-class propaganda. They wanted to make it out to the people of Singapore that they fought so hard, they fought so bitterly, they fought so consistently that money from Federal taxes collected in Singapore would remain in Singapore in a neutral fund and that pre-Malaysia surpluses would be the absolute property of the people of Singapore. Why did they play that game? Because they wanted to make it appear to the people of Singapore, with an eye to the general elections in 1964, that they were the champions of the people of Singapore. Well, I do not blame the Prime Minister for indulging in that kind of propaganda, but I do blame him for this. That if we are a party to any negotiation, it is the first requirement that either party should not do anything to cause embarrassment to the other party, so that there can be better understanding, better co-operation and better working out of a solution to the mutual advantage of both parties. Instead of which the Prime Minister went out tearing hard at the other party, that is to say, the Government of the Federation of Malaya, making out that he was a great hero. And could we say that it was as expected, that retaliation came almost forthwith from the Federation side that the Prime Minister was talking Out of turn, that the Prime Minister was trying to negotiate through the Press, that what the Prime Minister said was wrong; and not only that but they went so far as to let out a few skeletons in the cupboard? Now, Sir, that method of negotiation is all wrong and it is because of the manner in which the Prime Minister has indulged in trying to negotiate with the Federation Government that I have felt it necessary to bring this motion to the House in order to put the Prime Minister on the right track. You can only negotiate in the quietness of the conference room, each party giving his case as effectively and as forcefully as he can muster, but not to come out in the Press before the negotiations were concluded one way or the other and try to label the other party as a big bad wolf. Sir, the statement given by the Prime Minister today did not disclose that there was any intention whatsoever on the part of the Federation Government to want to take over the pre-Malaysia surpluses. And one more significant point in this statement of the Prime Minister is this. He kept on saying that the other party was the Government of the Federation of Malaya, but in all his Press statements, what did he say? The Minister for Finance, the President of the M.C.A. But here he did the right thing. He had been negotiating with the Government of the Federation of Malaya and not with the Minister of Finance, Mr Tan Siew Sin, the President of the M.C.A. Sir, this statement also discloses the fact that the very first plenary session of the Inter-Governmental Committee took place on the 28th February, 1963, and then there were a few meetings in March, then in April, and then again in May and June. Let us come to the April meeting. The Government gave, as an excuse to shorten the sittings of this Assembly last April, the necessity of the presence of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance in inter-governmental talks in the Federation. On the 9th of April, while the debate was still raging on the motion in connection with the action of the Government against subversives, the Prime Minister left for Kuala Lumpur that evening. The very next morning, while the Member for Queenstown was still on his feet talking right up to 6 a.m. in the morning, the Prime Minister was safely away in Kuala Lumpur. Not only was he safely away, but he was actually engaged in a game of golf. We were told that the reason why the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance had to go to Kuala Lumpur on the 10th of April was that crucial talks were to take place between the Government of Singapore and the Government of the Federation of Malaya, but then because of the war that had been engendered by the Prime Minister, the war in the newspapers between the Prime Minister and the Federation Minister of Finance, it led to a lot of unhappy disclosures, so much so that a disclosure was even made - and that has not yet been denied - that on the 10th of April, the date that the Prime Minister was to have a meeting in Kuala Lumpur on crucial talks, he was absent on the grounds that he was too tired after having played a game of golf the whole morning. I did not say it. But it was in the papers. I will not quote it. The Prime Minister can get all his assistants to read it. He did not attend that meeting on the 10th --- The Prime Minister rose ---

Point of order?

Sir, I just would like to be referred to the newspaper - the cutting - because I have never on any occasion remembered my being too tired to attend a meeting because of a game of golf.

I take it the Member for Cairnhill will be able to point out the exact news item in the newspaper.

Sir, I am sorry to see our poor Prime Minister is confused. What I was saying was that because, of all this verbal warfare between the Prime Minister and the Federation Finance Minister, a lot of awful disclosures came to light. It was said openly that on that particular day the Prime Minister did not attend the conference as fixed because he had a game of golf the whole morning. Of course, the Prime Minister is free to deny that. I am not speaking for the veracity of it. It has been said ---

On a point of order, Sir. The Member says it has been said. Where has it been said? Show it to me and I will clarify. Please show it to me.

I think a Member is entitled to say there has been a rumour and he takes the responsibility for repeating that rumour. If that rumour happens to be wrong, then he becomes liable for spreading a false rumour. That is all there is to it. Tun Lim.

It has been said and I say it here. Of course, the Prime Minister can deny it. An hon. Member: Bar, bar!

Is the Prime Minister going to have a glass of beer that he wants to go to the bar with me?

Let us come to the point - on whose side are you?

The Prime Minister wants to know on whose side we are on. There can be only one side for any political Party in Singapore - the side of the people of Singapore. But it all depends on the way that any political Party implements that vow. I am not going into the details of what has been said by the Prime Minister, what has been demanded by the other side, and what has been demanded by this side. That is still left for the Singapore Government to negotiate with the Government of the Federation of Malaya. But what I do urge upon the Prime Minister is this. It would be most foolish and suicidal to try and negotiate through the Press, and the sooner he understands and appreciates that, the sooner a better atmosphere will prevail in the Inter-Governmental Committee. Remember, Sir, about that meeting last April? What happened? Nothing came out of it - it blew up. The Prime Minister, according to Press reports, - if not on the 10th, then it must be the 11th or the 12th, you can see it - the Prime Minister according to all that, it was agreed that there should be no Press releases other than an agreed Press release. The agreed Press release was duly issued, but when the Prime Minister came home and after having been met by the members and reporters of the local Press, he went to town. He started calling names. He started saying that this was wrong and that was wrong. For all we know, he may be right in saying all those things. But what I say is that it is wrong for him to say all those things. After having reached a solemn agreement in the Inter-Governmental Committee, there should be no Press releases, he gave a Press interview. Then there followed a counter-attack from the Federation, and this makes sad reading. Sad reading to the people of Singapore. And what makes matters more sad was that it even brought the Chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee, Tun Razak, to give a Press statement rebuking our Prime Minister. Of course, the Prime Minister can read that particular Press statement. We all did see in it the local Press; and whether that rebuke administered by the Chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee was deserved by him or not we have not as yet read any statement from him denying that, or accepting the rebuke. Another point, Sir, the Prime Minister is very fond of negotiating in public is this. Every week he goes round baby-kissing in the rural areas. That does not matter. He can go and kiss as many babies as he wants. Nobody minds that. But at every visit of his to the rural constituencies, he starts blaring out "the trend of negotiations" in Kuala Lumpur. Does he consider that it is a wise thing to do? Or is he doing that with a particular political purpose? Surely, Sir, as our Prime Minister, we expect him to be more circumspect in his public utterances; that, in so far as a national issue is concerned, he should try to represent the people of Singapore in the best possible manner, without giving the other side the opportunity nor the right to run him down, to say that what he was trying to do was nothing but a political stunt. That is what he did - going round kissing babies and disseminating political propaganda. He visits the rural areas as Prime Minister. But in all his speeches it was the Secretary-General of the P.A.P. that was going out spouting political propaganda. I am sorry, Sir, if I spent a little time going through my notes, because ---

Because you had nothing to say.

--- we did not expect that this motion would come up. But anyway, what we are against is not what has been discussed by the Government, but rather the way in which the Prime Minister has been handling this situation. Sir, it is now agreed, even the Prime Minister has said it, that what is left to be settled is the question of apportionment: how much to go to the Federation, how much to go to Singapore. And also the ratio of distribution of post-Malaysia surplus. That is what I understand from this statement. In regard to apportionment, Sir, I would like the Prime Minister to make a categorical statement in this House. In November 1961, when the Prime Minister tabled Command Paper 33 for debate, he told this House that it had been agreed between him and the Federation Prime Minister that the apportionment would be on the basis of 25 per cent for the Federation, 75 per cent for Singapore. But it would seem from this statement here today, that the apportionment ---

On a point of order, Sir.

Point of order, yes.

Sir, the exchange of letters were tabled in this House in which the phrase was carefully used, "that we shall keep more than three-quarters of our revenue." I think that paraphrasing me when documents have been produced in this House does not help the debate. The motion is, "That this House expresses concern with the progress," and I cannot but join in the concern. The motion is not concerned with the manner in which we have negotiated but is concerned with the progress. And I would like to raise two points. First, that the Member for Cairnhill confines himself, when he quotes from authority, to the documents that have been produced at that Time; secondly, that he confines himself to this motion.

Order. I did more or less anticipate all these difficulties and I did hint that I considered that the debate on this motion was premature. The Prime Minister said he would produce a White Paper in due course. The debate could take place on the White Paper. But the Member for Cairnhill insisted, and now he finds himself in these difficulties. The Prime Minister, I think, is correct when he says that if there is to be some reference to a document specifically, a specific quote should be made from that document, and not a mere paraphrase. On the other point as to whether or not what has been said is relevant. I suppose it is relevant in passing. That is all.

I am not quoting from a document, Sir,I said that was what he said during the sitting in November 1961. I do not have the Time to go through the Hansard. In fact, if I had wanted, I could have the Hansard here and go through it for five or ten minutes and still be standing on the Floor. But I do not want to waste the Time of this House. That is what he said. That was the impression we got: that the Tunku agreed to an apportionment of 25 and 75.

No; I do not want to labour the point, but I must raise a point of order.

Point of order.

These documents are really the subject of controversy between the Federation Minister for Finance and us. And we say that in these documents are set out the bases upon which financial arrangements are to tie up Singapore with the Central Government. They are contained in the White Paper and in the exchange of letters. What it means is there; its words are very simple words. There has been a considerable amount of debate on that openly, which I think has been to the advantage of everybody. Now I suggest that if the Member for Cairnhill wishes to talk on the terms of the financial arrangements, he goes back to the exact words which are contained in the documents produced in this Chamber.

Sir, I do not know whether I find it a pleasure that I have got under the skin of the Prime Minister, but it is no pleasure to me. The issue is of greater importance than the Prime Minister or myself, than the P.A.P. or the S.P.A. or the Alliance. The issue is that the interest of the people of Singapore must be protected.

Hear, hear!

If the P.A.P. comes out to protect the people, we are with them, but we would not be a party to any political manoeuvring in order to embarrass the other party to the negotiations. Sir, I have said that this motion was brought in aimed more at the manner in which negotiations have taken place, but if the Members of this House wish to take this opportunity to have it out with the Government for the terms of agreement or disagreement, I cannot prevent them; but fortunately I shall have an opportunity to reply when such matters are brought up. One thing we want to make clear in this House is that whatever agreement that the P.A.P. Government reaches with the Federation Government must be guided by this important factor - the interests of the people of Singapore come first and foremost, and if they do that we are with them.

The Question is, "That this Assembly views with concern the progress made by the Singapore Government in its talks with the Federation of Malaya Government on the financial arrangements relating to Head 17 (Finance) of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961." I ask Members now to be relevant to the motion which is concerned over the progress made, and the progress made is, as I understand it, detailed in the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I make any comments on this motion, I want to make it clear that discussion of the motion does not mean that we accept the financial talks between the two Governments. We want to say that ---

You do not want to say.

--- so far as the people of Singapore are concerned, the White Paper is a sell-out and the Referendum on the 1st September. 1962, never gave the people the right to say "No". Under those circumstances, especially when it was conducted with deceit, coercion and intimidation by the Government ---

On a point of order, Sir. Are these proper words in respect of a proposal approved by this Assembly? Are these proper words - "deceit", "coercion" and other adjectives?

I understood the Member for Queenstown to allege that the machinery for the referendum had some deceit in it. The proper thing for him to have done at that moment was to have the matter referred to the High Court.

And therefore, Sir, the referendum at no Time reflected the will and the desire of the people freely expressed.

But you thought you were going to win.

The Prime Minister talks very glibly about the referendum. Let him give the people of Singapore a true plebiscite where they can say "Yes" or "No". Let him do that and then he will not laugh any more.

What should be done for the Barisan?

You can arrest all of us ---

No, no.

You have already put us in ---

Order. I would suggest to Members on the Front Bench of the Government side to refrain from interjections as far as possible if we want to get on with this motion. The Member for Queenstown is trying to address the Speaker, but he is interrupted by interjections.

As I say, Sir, discussion of this motion here in no way means that we accept these financial merger talks. And so far as we are concerned, the referendum surveys of Tanjong Pagar and Kreta Ayer fully reflected the views of the people, and that is on a straightforward question demanding an answer of "Yes" or "No". As in Tanjong Pagar, ninety per cent of the people said "No", and as in Kreta Ayer when the questions as were finally posed in the referendum were posed to the people, ninety-seven per cent of the people put in blank votes. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has brought this motion up not because he thinks there is something wrong as regards the actual terms of the financial arrangements, but because he wants to deny the P.A.P. an opportunity of playing politics.

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

On a point of elucidation, yes, if the doctor will give way. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

The Member for Queenstown seems to have failed to grasp what I have been saying. I said, insofar as the terms of agreement or disagreement are concerned, these are matters for the Government to solve.

Hear, hear!

But when it comes up for a full debate in this House, so long as the agreement reached by the Singapore Government is in the interest of the people of Singapore, we will be with them, and we will be with them too in any fight on their hands to protect the interest of the people of Singapore. An hon. Member: You may be sacked for doing that!

You see, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill, as I said yesterday, is fighting for the same piece of bone with the P.A.P. He is only annoyed because the Prime Minister makes statements at the Airport and because he makes political propaganda during his rural visits; whereas the Member for Cairnhill could not do that. An hon. Member: Very difficult.

And he is merely complaining that the Prime Minister is very adept at propaganda ---

You said so yourself.

And he would not mind if he was adept at propaganda against the so-called Communists, but he would object if the propaganda was directed against people with whom he is on very friendly terms. The Member for Cairnhill has his loyalties towards the Federation Government, the U.M.N.O. Alliance Government, and because of that he is ready to support the U.M.N.O.-M.C.A.-Alliance at any Time. It does not matter whether Singapore has a good deal or a bad deal. If you will remember, Sir, he is only saying that if he was the Government he would be able to offer a better deal, but not an equal deal, namely, a deal based on equality and justice - only slightly better ---

Or Barisan justice.

And, therefore, all he is concerned about is the manner in which negotiations have been carried out. He does not care whether, in actual fact, the terms are good or bad for Singapore.

Sir, on a point of order.

Point of order, yes.

Is it in order for a Member to paraphrase another Member for the last 10 to 15 minutes when we have suspended Standing Orders. Many of us have not had our dinners and we want to get on with this job. Is it in order for a Member to spend 10 minutes paraphrasing a speech lasting nearly one hour of another Member's speech?

I suppose any Member is entitled to an exordium and an exordium also, I suppose, does paraphrase previous speeches. I wonder whether the Minister who has just spoken is hinting that we should stop for dinner. I will give it another quarter of an hour and see how it goes and then I probably will have to suspend the sitting, because the Speaker himself has not had dinner Dr Lee.

I will take quite some time, Sir. [Laughter].

May I suggest to the Member for Queenstown that he review what he is going to say because we are only concerned with this motion which asks this Assembly to view with concern the progress made by the Singapore Government, and the progress is set out in this statement by the Prime Minister made earlier on today. Well, I had better stop at that, because I am going to be rather strict upon relevance and irrelevance. The Member for Cairnhill was irrelevant perhaps for about half his speech, but I think I owe it to Members of this Assembly to be very, very strict upon relevance and I think that perhaps we should adjourn now for three-quarters of an hour. Is it satisfactory to adjourn for three-quarters of an hour for dinner? I will take this Chair again at a quarter to ten. Sitting accordingly suspended at 9.02 p.m. until 9.45 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.45 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

I was saying, Sir, that the Member for Cairnhill does not bother whether Singapore surrenders in toto or not; he only bothers about the revelation of the talks which are in progress. He has informed many of us outside that it is a case of cheap sale but because the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. are fighting against the P.A.P., he therefore, has to support the Federation side. Now, let us see what the statement of the Prime Minister has revealed tonight. On reading through the whole statement, it shows one thing. It is a report of the different stages towards surrender and finally of abject surrender by the P.A.P. The Prime Minister talks of the quantum of Singapore's contribution and the responsibility for collection of national taxes in Singapore after merger, and these talks are important enough to have affected quite a number f services ill the Government departments. For example, you might have heard. Sir, that there are already strikes in the Police Department. You might also know that they are threatening a strike in the P. & T. Department. All these are Pan-Malayan departments and who controls the money and pays the salaries in these departments will have a great hearing on these strikes. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, of course, understands this very well, and he is responsible for many of the demands that are now conveyed to the P.A.P. Government. But this statement by the Prime Minister has revealed certain other things which we never knew before. You see, Sir, all the Time the P.A.P. has been giving the impression to the people of Singapore that the differences between Singapore and the Federation are only on the matter of surpluses. In a forum in the Nantah about a week or so ago, we exposed this so-called surplus angle of the P.A.P. But I will come to this later. The two other important points which the statement has revealed are: there is a new thing called Pan- Malaysian expenditure; and there is another new thing of payment to the Borneo territories of $50 million. Now, I have run through the White Paper very, very carefully, Sir, with a tooth comb, but nowhere have I been able to find the word "Malaysian" - common Pan-Malaysian expenditure. This is something which is entirely new and which the people of Singapore have so far not been told of. The other one is this $50 million. All this merely shows that the money, which is the bone of contention between the Federation and Singapore, will ultimately be used for the expansion of the armed forces for the suppression of the people in this region. The money which the Federation wants will be spent on capital improvements in fighting-ships, fighting-vehicles, fighting-equipment, all in order to prevent the realisation of the hopes and aspirations not only of the people of Singapore but also of the Borneo region.

On a point of order. I am not sure whether, on this motion, it is in order to speak on the merits of the proposals in the Malaysian discussion between the two Governments. It seems to me that the Member for Queenstown is wide of the track, because he seems to have assumed that the proposals, all made by the Federation Government, have been accepted by the Singapore Government in all respects. It seems to me that very little purpose will be served now - before all the documents have been published and the agreements in detail recorded - to discuss the merits of the different items. I thought the object really is to express anxiety on the progress made in the talks.

The difficulty, of course, the Speaker has is to draw a line somewhere. I think the comments so far are comments on the statement itself, and I have not as yet decided that the Member for Queenstown is in any way irrelevant at the moment.

I intend, Sir, to confine myself to the progress of the talks. You see, Sir, the Government account given tonight is, let us say, slightly different from the account that has been given to the newspapers, and that is why I say that there are certain things which, until to-night, have not been revealed. I have mentioned those two points, and I am sure that when all the facts are told, there will be more skeletons in the cupboard. All along, Sir, the Government have been talking about surpluses. When the Prime Minister came back from his trips to Kuala Lumpur he talked about surpluses and how he wants to make use of these surpluses for the benefit of the people of Singapore. In his visits to the constituencies, he tells everybody that that money is the people's money and that therefore he is going to keep that money for the people of Singapore, thus hoping to give the impression that he is really fighting for the interests of Singapore, whereas, in fact as I have already pointed out from the very beginning, he has already sold Singapore right down the river.

How?

"How, how?", he asks. Are we not controlled as and when the Federation likes? The facts of this financial talks agreement tell us that there is complete surrender on the part of the P.A.P. Now all control will be from Kuala Lumpur, and yet we do not even have proportional representation. The Prime Minister himself admits in the newspapers - if he wants me to quote. I will quote every word of it.

Do.

- that the whole thing is one sided, completely one sided. These are the words used by the Prime Minister, Sir,I am sure the Minister for Finance will not dare say anything against what the Prime Minister has said.

On a point of elucidation. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Is the Member suggesting that we have agreed to the agreement put up by the Federation Government? In particular, is he suggesting that we have agreed to surrender the surplus?

That is not for us to say, Sir. I am only going on what we have been told and on what we have read in the newspapers. I hope the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance will tell us straightaway in this House to-night whether they have surrendered or not.

Order. I have indicated my views as to how the debate should go. The motion asks the House to view with concern the progress made by the Government in its talks relating to Head 17 of Paper Command 33 of 1961. The Prime Minister has set out in his statement the progress made so far, and the debate now should be as to whether or not the Assembly should view with concern the progress as detailed in the statement of the Prune Minister. That is all we are debating to-night.

But it would be enlightening, Sir, that whilst we go by what the Prime Minister has revealed to-night, we should also go by what the Prime Minister has said to the Press. Unless we do that, Sir, we shall not be able to see the deception which the Prime Minister has practised on the people of Singapore. It is pertinent at this point that we bring out certain facts to show that the P.A.P. is not above-board in all its dealings. Here, in this statement, the Prime Minister, first of all, reveals that on 21st March the Federation Government proposed that Singapore should bear 21.2 per cent of certain common Pan-Malaysian expenditure such as defence, internal security, external affairs, Parliament, etc. As I have already said, this is something which we cannot find in the White Paper. But, of course, the Government may have another story to tell. The other point which the Government of the Federation insists on is that the total revenue of Singapore should be collected and controlled by the Federation and that only certain revenue be assigned to the State to enable Singapore to meet her obligations in the State itself. Therefore, this question of the so-called surplus does not come in. Sir, in a letter to the Straits Times on 25th of May, the Deputy Controller of Supply, Malaysia, from the Treasury in Kuala Lumpur, revealed that it is not a matter of surplus or deficit, as the Government of Singapore has all the Time been trying to tell the people of Singapore, but a matter of percentage to be apportioned between the two Governments. And he revealed that it is a matter of X per cent to the Federation and Y per cent to Singapore. Once the percentage has been assigned, it is entirely a matter of State budgeting, whether there is a surplus or deficit. That was the position from the very beginning, as insisted upon by the Federation Finance Minister, Mr Tan Siew Sin. But, of course, as revealed in this statement, the Singapore Government objects, and it objects because of one, two and three reasons. But, if you will look, Sir, at No. (ii) - I will pick on No. (ii) , which is on 3 - it means that the Singapore Government in effect had already accepted in principle the matter of percentage to be contributed to the Federation Government. The P.A.P. merely complains of the percentage being too high. That is all. But the principle of percentage had already been accepted by the Singapore Government, although the Government of Singapore insist on a couple of conditions, namely, the representation in the Central Parliament and the population. Sir, we have all along been saying that representation in the Central Parliament is a very important thing, and we are glad to note that the P.A.P. Government has at last admitted this very fact. I wish also to draw your attention, Sir, to what the Prime Minister has been telling the people in Singapore. On the 23rd of March in the Straits Times, he said, "We must collect and keep and pay. The Federation Government understand this. I think we have been sufficiently articulate." This is the very firm stand of the Government, for in the headlines in the Straits Times it says, "We stand pat." Yet whilst saying that the Singapore Government must collect and keel) and then contribute, the Prime Minister in his statement here reveals that the Singapore Government had already accepted the principle of percentage contribution. He only complained of the contribution of 21.2 per cent being too high. But other than that, the whole principle has been admitted and everything agreed to. Then whilst talking about these three factors on page 4, namely, representation in Parliament, population and economic growth, the Government also revealed that any percentage payment to the Federation would mean a built-in increase in payment to the Federation and, therefore, so far as Singapore is concerned, something which the P.A.P. could not agree to. Mr Jek Yuen Thong, Political Secretary to the Prime Minister, wrote in a letter to the Straits Times that this built-in increase would arise from the natural increase in consumption, from the large number of taxes over a wider range of commodities, and from the increase in the actual level of taxation. Therefore, although it says that a percentage payment is very disadvantageous to Singapore, the Government nevertheless accepted this principle of percentage payment to the Federation. On page 4, it says the payment should be based on actual expenditure. But what difference does it make whether the actual expenditure should be in the case of 1961 or 1962? Because, as revealed in the Prime Minister's statement, the amount of future expenditure will be unpredictable; in other words, the expenditure will be mounting and the contribution from Singapore will similarly be mounting. They try to save face over the fact that actual expenditure must mean that the Accountant-General submits audited accounts. This does not mean anything except to show that even in the matter of Government to Government negotiations, the P.A.P. clearly does not trust the Federation Government. Otherwise, why insist on this? Unless there is fear that everything is not above-board, you need not insist on the Accountant-General submitting his accounts of actual expenditure. Then these three factors, namely representation in Parliament, population and economic growth - in the newspapers a fourth factor is added, i.e. the size of the area to be defended. The Government nevertheless, when it comes to the agreement, has clean forgotten these factors other than economic growth which the Government equates with the so-called common market. Representation in Parliament is forgotten. Population factor is forgotten. The little bit of face-saving that the Federation Government gives the Prime Minister is this talk of so-called limited common market. But we must be careful about this common market business, Sir, because, as far as we know, the form of common market which the P.A.P. had originally envisaged is that there must be joint consultation at the top as regards how industries should be sited and assigned. Only then would the interests of Singapore be adequately looked after; otherwise it amounts to surrender. A's it is, the only form of common market arrangement that we know the Federation Government will agree to is one in which the Federation has complete control.

How do you know?

Well, would you let us know then, if that is not the case! [Interruption]

Order.

I might inform the Minister for Culture that only yesterday the Minister of Commerce and Industry, Dr Lim Swee Aun, in the Sunday Mail, in answer to a question about the common market as to whether the Federation Government would review their whole policy of industrialisation or not, said: `It's the other way round. The Government will first consider the [Rueff Malaysia] Mission's report, and if it feels a review is necessary this will be carried out.' This alone shows, Sir, that the interests of the Federation must come first, and, whatever the Report of the Rueff Commission may be, it must tally first with the policy of the Federation before consideration will be given as to any possible review.

Order. I have been trying my very best to understand what the Member for Queenstown is driving at vis-a-vis the motion before us. I will try and explain exactly what is in my mind. The motion asks this Assembly to view with concern the progress made by the Singapore Government in its talks with the Federation of Malaya Government on the financial arrangements relating to Head 17 (Finance) of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961. Head 17 of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 was accepted by this House. To refresh the memory of Members, I will read the resolution of this House dated the 6th December, 1961 [Vol. 15, No. 16, col. 1525]: `That as an immediate practical step towards the ideal goal of complete merger this House accepts the heads of agreement set out in the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 agreed to between the Governments of the State of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya as a working basis for a reunification of the two territories.' From that base then, this Assembly having agreed to Head 17 of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961, the Singapore Government have made certain progress in the financial talks under that head and the progress is detailed in the statement made by the Prime Minister, and this House, as I say, has been asked to view with concern that progress made. I do not know whether the Member for Queenstown accepts the position that progress of some sort has to be made, and he is criticising the progress that has actually been made. If that is so, he is in order. If, on the other hand, he will have none of these heads of agreement, he will not agree to this Head 17, as in fact he did not agree to Head 17 of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961, then he will have none of these negotiations. I do not understand at the moment what the Member for Queenstown is speaking to in this motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am merely criticising the statement which has been issued by the Prime Minister. As I have said, we do not accept anything about the negotiations because it is only part of the White Paper and we have already rejected the White Paper.

Order. But the motion does not ask Members to criticise the actions of the Singapore Government as to how they negotiated these agreements or these steps towards agreement. The motion does not ask us to do that. The motion asks the House to view with concern the actual progress that has been made, and the actual progress that has been made is detailed in the statement by the Prime Minister. That is the position. Is the progress too little or too great or not enough? I should imagine that is how the debate should proceed.

It is a bit difficult, Sir, to confine ourselves exactly to lust the word "progress". There are other incidental happenings which are part of this Progress, and unless they are brought out, you will not be able to see how the P.A.P. has completely surrendered in these negotiations with the Federation. Let me just bring out one little point to prove what I want to convey to the House. A little while back, for example, the Prime Minister said that he has never said that 25 per cent of Singapore's revenue would be given to the Federation. I have here a statement issued by the Singapore Government which says that 25 per cent is all that the Singapore Government would be contributing. I will read this little bit from the statement, and I am sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will appreciate that to confine myself strictly to the progress at the present moment would be quite difficult. This is a statement issued by the Singapore Government on 7th February, 1962, and Dr Goh Keng Swee was answering Mr Chan Chiaw Thor, who is now being detained in the Federation ---

What date?

--- and the statement reads: 'The Minister explained that a certain sum was meant to meet the cost of two items, namely, the contribution to the Federation Government and (1) certain departments which are now run by the Singapore Government but which, on merger, will be run by the Central Government. For example, Police, Post Office, Telecommunication, Civil Aviation, Prisons, the Audit 0ffice and the Defence Forces. The recurrent loss of the department is about $62 million, the development expenditure about 8 million a year; and (2) Singapore will have to pay for its share of Pan-Malayan Defence Forces, the Foreign Office and certain State institutions such as the Central Parliament. Dr Goh estimated the annual share at $8 million. This makes a total of $78 million a year or nearly one-quarter of the estimated revenue for 1961, which was $345 million. This is the reason why the contribution Singapore makes to the Central Government has been put as about 25 per cent.' Further down, the statement reads: `The real additional expenditure to Singapore will be around $8 million a year only representing the cost of Singapore's share in the Malayan Defence Forces and the Foreign Service. As this amount is less than the budget surplus in the last three years, it will not be necessary to reduce expenditure on education and health.' Dr Goh at that time, Sir, was answering a revelation by Chan Chiaw Thor that Singapore will be contributing at least $40 million a year to the Federation Government. As revealed in this statement, the defence expenditure is only $8 million extra. But we can see here from this statement given by the Prime Minister tonight that it is much much more than $8 million. We are already asked to pay $50 million to the Federation Government and we have also agreed to pay a percentage to the Central Government which, according to the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Jek Yuen Thong, would mean a built-in increase. In other words, the amount that would be given to the Federation would be mounting and mounting and mounting --- An hon. Member: You are quite right.

And the only consolation that the people in Singapore can ever hope to get is the establishment of a common market which, as I have already explained, is a common market completely to the advantage of the Federation and will not help the Singapore Government in any way ---

How do you know what the U.N. recommended?

This is what we read and this is our interpretation. Of course, if the Prime Minister wishes to enlighten us, I am sure the House will only be too happy to listen to him ---

Give me a chance.

If you like to enlighten us, I can sit down and let you say ---

Order. Let us carry on with this debate. Dr Lee.

You see, Sir, what we are unhappy about is that while we have bean told we would be merely contributing to Federal services in Singapore all along ---

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. In this House in November 1961 we tabled certain documents which were solemnly agreed between the two Governments-in the White Paper and in the exchange of letters - and I suggest if Members on the opposite side wish to debate progress, they have to start off with these arrangements as a yardstick. What paragraph 17 stated, with respect to this particular aspect of the financial arrangements, is as follows: `The present machinery...'

Order. That is not a point of order. I have already indicated the trend of this debate and I am watching the situation very carefully. Dr Lee.

But anyway, Sir, whatever the Prime Minister may like to say, he cannot tell us how we have this cost of common Malaysian services plus the cost of Federal departments in Singapore ---

On a point of order. That is exactly the point I want to explain to him ---

Order. This is not a point of order. The Prime Minister will have his opportunity of explaining. Dr Lee.

From the talks, we also learn that the Singapore Government may have to contribute from Singapore's Development Fund to the Federation Development Fund to cover the cost of capital expenditure on defence and internal security ---

Those are all the words of your friend Azahari.

You see, Sir, the Prime Minister is very quick about Azahari and what-not. But whom does he help? Is he not a colonial stooge [Interruption] trying to help the British Government ---

Order. I would suggest that the Government Front benchers do not intervene. Because once they start intervening and interjecting, I suppose the Member for Queenstown must reply. Dr Lee.

Anyway, Sir, from this statement the whole thing can be summarised like this - that the Singapore Government has surrendered complete control to the Federation ---

Over security, yes.

In spite of the Prime Minister's brave words about collecting and keeping and paying the taxes and in spite of his assurance of retaining basic control. Let me quote from a televised panorama broadcast on 6th May in London. The Prime Minister was asked questions and he answered certain questions. I will just quote a couple of questions which he answered. `Mr Lee Kuan Yew stressed at the beginning of the interview that Singapore would be responsible for State services except Defence, Security and External Affairs. He continued: "We have got to collect revenue to be able to spend it the way we want."'.

Quite right.

And the question goes. "So that control over finance would be a minimum condition for you going into the Federation?" And the Prime Minister said: `"Oh, yes, absolutely basic."'

Quite right. We are telling you that.

I do not know whether these documents here reveal that he has surrendered control or not. He was asked another question: `Some people have said that it is Malaya that has made all the conditions and Singapore that has made most of the big concessions.' Then the Prime Minister said: "Well, I think we have made considerable concessions", he says.' Considerable concessions! Now he recognises that: `"We have been making concessions and concessions all the Time. I think the Federation would like us to make more concessions, you know, and give up control of finance and a few other things. But a contract has been made and Singapore understands this, If von sell rubber short, and the price goes up, well you miscalculated," he says. "We came to hard and fast arrangements. They now feel that they were a little bit too harsh on the financial arrangements, and so on. Well, they should have thought of these things.".'

Thank you.

Firstly, the Prime Minister has admitted that Singapore has been making considerable concessions; all the time concessions which he never admitted until now. Secondly, he says that control of finance is basic. But the Finance Minister of the Federation has already said that control must go to the Federation. Who controls? According to the statement that we see tonight, the Government of Singapore has already surrendered control.

Rubbish!

Where?

Even the Minister for Finance himself has said so. I can show him if you want. He himself said ---

Order. The hon. Member has referred to the statement. Let us have the paragraph.

Yes, go on. [Interruption].

I can even quote the page where Lee Kuan Yew was supposed to have played golf!

Order. I have asked the hon. Member for Queenstown to indicate the paragraph which he alleges states that the Singapore Government has surrendered control to the Federation Government. Let us have it.

It is not in this statement. But ---

Withdraw.

Order.

The Minister for Finance himself said, "There is nothing wrong in surrendering control to the Federation."

On a point of order, Sir. This is misrepresentation of what I said. I never said anything like that.

The Member for Queenstown must be careful about what he says. He is a responsible man. He is an honourable Member of this Assembly, and if he makes an allegation he must be able to prove that allegation.

You see, Sir, I can find the page and the line and show you. But it just happens that I cannot lay my hands exactly or the spot now. If he denies it, I will bring the quote here and show it to you tomorrow because the Minister for Finance is quoted in the Straits Times to have said that he admitted control should go to the Federation. He even said.. "What's the difference of a few millions between friends?".

Point of order, Sir.

Order. I think the Minister has already denied that.

If he keeps on denying, then I suppose I will have to bring the quotation when the time comes. Then he will never be able to deny that any further. The main thing is this Sir: that at the present moment we have been told that we will have to pay and contribute to Pan-Malaysian services and an extra $50 million to the Borneo territories. We do not know what the final outcome will be.

We want to know on whose side you are.

We are always on the side of the people.

Which people?

Order.

Of course, the Prime Minister thinks that the people, in his case, are the people who control the guns in London and maybe in Kuala Lumpur. That is why he is so keen to increase Battalions in Singapore. Even clerks in the Ministry of Home Affairs have complained that the Government is using the police to interfere with the strikers today. An hon. Member: No relevance.

No relevance? But relevant enough in that there are lots of things which the P.A.P. has not yet told the people of Singapore. [Interruption].

Order. There again I have indicated to the Government Benches not to interpolate. We will never finish this motion tonight. The Member for Queenstown must now try to come to the point, be relevant, and address his remarks to the Speaker.

Sir, the main thing about these negotiations is that it is no use trying to play politics by telling the people that the P.A.P. is fighting for their interests when, in fact, the whole of Singapore has already been sold down the river. We have repeatedly said, Sir, that negotiations of the finer points of financial arrangements mean only worrying about itches on the toes and fingers when, in fact, the head is already in the noose. The only way to serve the people of Singapore and to really fight for their interests, is to throw away the White Paper and once more go back to the people. Only then ---

Order. It now transpires that the Member for Queenstown is not interested in the progress of the financial talks. He is against this White Paper, and all his remarks really would be relevant if he moves a motion to rescind the resolution of the House which I have read, that is, the resolution of the House accepting these heads of agreement. Unless and until he does that. I cannot see how he can speak to this motion with any degree of conviction.

There is a reference here to the Barisan Sosialis regarding what amount Singapore would be paying to the Federation if it was a case of complete merger. As far as the Barisan Sosialis is concerned, we want a genuine reunification with the Federation, not this present so-called partnership, with Singapore becoming an inferior and junior partner and Singapore citizens becoming second-class citizens. If it is a genuine reunification, we want real proportional representation ---

Order. The Member for Queenstown is doing exactly what I have said he cannot do unless he moves a motion to rescind the decision of this House accepting those heads of agreement. He is now speaking to that motion. He has not even filed that motion.

I merely wanted to answer a couple of points since the Government has referred to us in this statement here. But I want to impress on this House that if any negotiations are to lead to success and be supported by the people of Singapore, then they must be negotiated on the basis of equality and justice. Only then will the Government get support from the people. Otherwise it is all a sham, and the P.A.P. will not be able to convince the people that the P.A.P. today is fighting for their interests.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have been very forbearing, both with the mover of the motion and the Member for Queenstown, and I want to be brief and to the point. I agree with the motion moved by the Member for Cairnhill that we are concerned with the progress made in our financial discussions. We are concerned because all that was necessary, after we had agreed the main framework of the arrangements for merger, was to work out the apportionment. The words are contained in paragraph 17 of the White Paper. May I read it: `The present machinery for the collection of taxes in Singapore will be retained. The proceeds of the national taxes will be used to pay the cost of Government and Public Services in Singapore and the contribution to the Federal Government for Federal services. The details of the apportionment will be worked out by the Joint Working Party.' All that remained to do since November 1961 was to work out the details of the apportionment, and we are concerned that it has taken us all this length of time to really get down to brass tacks. In the exchange of letters I set out clearly what we envisaged in this apportionment. Finally - this was an exchange of letters dated 11th November - we have agreed that Singapore would keep more than three-quarters of her revenue for the discharge of her responsibilities on education, labour, social welfare, health and all the other matters set out as State or concurrent responsibilities in the schedule annexed to our memorandum and be entitled to 15 seats in the Central Parliament of the new Federation. Now, in our estimation then, in broad outline, being entitled to 15 seats on merger which was on very special conditions, we envisaged that we would keep more than three-quarters of our revenue, and that is still the position - unchanged. Sir, it is not for me to comment on the tactics of an Opposition leader whose Party headquarters is in Kuala Lumpur. But I must thank him for the compliment he paid me in my absence on Friday, namely, that he wanted - in fact he was anxious for an occasion - to confront me. In other words, he, the agent of the principal in Kuala Lumpur, was going to confront me today, and I waited 45 minutes as he waffled on and on for that moment of confrontation. On whose side is he? He says he is on the side of the people of Singapore. What else could he say? If he were on the side of the people of Singapore, he should be prepared to stand up to his principals in Kuala Lumpur, as we have done, and say to them exactly where they get off. I know that in saying this, we become unpopular with people who will be in authority over Malaysia, which includes Singapore, after 31st August. There will have to be a settlement on fair and honourable terms based on the White Paper before the 31st. It will be tabled here in detail, and adopted after proper debate. We adjourned after our meeting in April in the hope that we would achieve agreement before the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation went off on his tour of the United States and Britain, which tour was expected to take a month. Unfortunately, our plea for a meeting was construed as a sign of weakness. Therefore, for reasons which I thought to be in the interests of the people, I did not attend a particular meeting in Kuala Lumpur and chose to stay in Cameron Highlands with the Prime Minister of the Federation who was golfing with me. Golf is a very necessary asset in Malaysia, and a lot of valuable and important information was imparted and analysed in the leisurely and sometimes enlightened and rarified atmosphere of the highlands. On many an occasion I thought perhaps if only Members on the other side played golf, they would not have made some of the colossal blunders that they had. Sir, I wish to move an amendment to this motion, and the amendment is to add at the end "Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961" the words "and expresses its desire that there should be an early settlement fair and just to both sides on the basis of the terms of the White Paper which has been approved by this Assembly." Amendment handed in.

"Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961" instead of "the White Paper"?

So be it, Mr Speaker.

The amendment is, at the end, to add - "and expresses its desire that there should he an earls settlement fair and just to both sides on the basis of the terms of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 which was approved by this Assembly."

That is correct.

The amendment is in order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I stress the operative words "on the basis of the terms of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 which was approved by this Assembly"? Sir, I do not wish to dwell at length on the tortuous course of negotiations. Clothed in the officialese language of financial negotiators was a plan by which we were, in fact, not only to lose all our surplus, but to be owing the Central Government money at the end of it. I refer to pages 1 and 2. We have moved away from that position, fortunately, not least because we decided to stand up and talk up, I think, with as much courtesy as the situation merits. There will have to be, if need be, more harsh words, but at the end of it, it is our duty to see that we produce to this House an agreement which is in accord with the principles of the merger which we approved in this Assembly and which we placed before the people. We debated it at great length and in great detail over a period of nearly a year. There was no misunderstanding as to the intent, nor as to the language that was used in these solemn documents. A departure from or an amendment in any respect to these documents can only be if it is on a quid pro quo basis. Sir, I would not wish to prejudice the future course of our negotiations, but I would like a categorical assurance from Members on the other side that they are with us in this, because it helps. If the agents or parties whose headquarters are in Kuala Lumpur are with us, then obviously it will be easier to persuade the principals in Kuala Lumpur that it is unwise in the long run to try and alter terms which may in the end work to the detriment of the whole of Malaysia. We are for a strong Central Government, and we believe that the most important element in making any government of the Federation strong is to command the loyalty of its subjects, in this case, the 1.7 million people of Singapore. They have been told for over a year, two years now, by people like the Member for Queenstown that they were sold down the drain, finished, enslaved by the Malays in the Federation, and that what really was wanted was complete merger. We fought them, because we believed that what we were doing was right. If conviction was lacking in what we were doing, we would have faltered before the cohorts that they were able to marshal. I promise this Assembly that we shall produce that document in which all that was agreed will be enshrined, and if there is any alteration, it must be on a quid pro quo basis. The Member for Cairnhill says that we have been untruthful. Have we? Right at this moment we are asked to pay $50 million as a grant. From what? From our surpluses. How can we pay if we have not got the money? I am not going to say whether we are or we are not. At this moment I think it is impolite to reply in this Assembly. This debate has been triggered off by the tactics of the Member for Cairnhill. He raised the question. He wanted a statement. He put a motion down. Mr Speaker, Sir, he said that he wanted to confront me. Well, I am here to be confronted, and we never run away from any confrontation. We say this, you can bundle up Singapore on a military plate, hand it over by military government, as it, is the right of the British Government to do as a sovereign power. But, if it is to be with our consent, if we are expected to justify and defend this Constitution and work it, then we must believe that it is fair and just. If we are going to find our cream soaked up, then I say that at the end of three years, if none of the houses go up, none of the factories go up to give jobs, schools, education for the children, jobs for the growing boys, then you can have all the army you like in the world, but you cannot keep this place down. That is why we fight for it because we believe it is right that this place should expand. If it expands because of a common market on terms which do not destroy our entrepot trade, then it is our duty to share that prosperity - additional prosperity, not past prosperity; not a $50 million grant. "Grab", that was the word used by the Member for Cairnhill. Sir, I have quite rightly kept the Federation Prime Minister out of my discussions on this for specific reasons, because I do not believe for one moment that it is either his intention or his desire to depart from what has been agreed. But I do believe that the M.C.A. in Kuala Lumpur, one of the principal associates of the Member for Cairnhill, played politics and they thought that this was a clever way in which they could fix Singapore. In 1964 there will be elections. Everybody knows that. This Assembly will have run out. Between August 1963 and July 1964, if the funds dry up, then the election results can be fixed, like they were in Kelantan and Trengganu. You can dismantle the bridge halfway, pack it and bring it home; and the State Government can rusticate. But that was not what we agreed. What we are fighting for is not for a P.A.P. Government but for any government elected by the people of Singapore. Whoever wins that election next year will find in the kitty nearly $400 million which was not there when we took office. That money will not disappear between now and next year. Some will be expended - more houses, schools and community centres - but it will be there. The reason why the Member for Queenstown finds the ground cold - he keeps getting these fainting fits, and I was worried for him when he said that he was going to take a long time this evening - is that there is euphoria on the ground. Where is the wrath of the masses? [Interruption]

You want to know?

The Member for Queenstown believes he would. Excellent. We will see.

Have the elections now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, this is a Government that does not seek any easy way out to prolong its life. This Assembly is evenly split with 25 Members on either side. It is within the power of the Opposition to bring this Government to a halt tonight, if they so will it. And the constitutional processes must work out to their logical conclusion. We are prepared for it.

To face the electorate?

We are prepared for it. And there will be ---

Go ahead.

Never the Member for Queenstown fear this. But if I were him, I would look beyond the 31st of August, into the wider unknown. We have done so. And I know that by doing this, we are tempting the gods. But I say, it is our duty to the people that we stand up to self- made Senators, and that they understand the mettle of Singapore, that whoever wants to govern Singapore must first understand the basic forces at work. And the first basic force is that the Member for Queenstown is just a little bit of ice on top of an iceberg, a little bit of fluff. It is the iceberg that we are concerned with. [Interruption] - No I have met the iceberg, and I have a healthy respect for it. They made very grave errors of miscalculation, misjudgment, for which no doubt they will pay bitterly. They blotted their copybook. But as for us, we are quite clear that in this piece of - may I in a small way call it brinkmanship - we all know that on the 27th of June a document must be signed at least on broad principles, or Malaysia cannot conic about on the 31st of August because the legislative processes do not allow time for it. Tun Razak is in Manila. He will be back on Friday. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, will have sent his reply before his return. He will be in Kuala Lumpur on Monday; I hope to be there on Tuesday. By the end of next week we may have to be in London. And I have said this publicly, not because we like to bare our chest on these matters, that in Singapore we are accustomed to living under high stresses and strains. And when Senators tell us that they intend to go on without Singapore, and hope thereby that we will succumb and our knees will buckle in, I think it is our duty to make it quite clear to them that, grave as the consequences may be for all of us, including ourselves as a Government and as a Party, rather than breach basic concord, we would face the awful consequences. For them, once again Pandora's Box is open. They may think Malaysia could be formed without Singapore. Maybe the Senators believe it. I wonder how it is to be defended without the bases in Singapore, which I have no doubt will vanish in a very short Time without Malaysia ---

You will have to defend yourself.

Quite right. We intend to see that there is a power balance here. And we have no intention of allowing this country to be over-run by outside powers. And we are not Lackeys to foreign imperialist powers. We intend to stand up.

And to keep the base, is it not? How foolish.

Play lackey, and echo to foreign powers? Foreign Ministers meeting in Manila. And here is the great anti-colonialist revolutionary, sending a telegram to foreign powers asking them to stop Malaysia on his behalf. He cannot stop it, Mr Speaker, Sir. He tried; he flopped. Now he wants others to stop it. However, enough of this. All I want from this Assembly now, and whether we get it or we do not really does not matter, because we know quite clearly in our minds what our responsibilities are - namely, that there must be an agreement which spells out in detail the principles which we have agreed If they want a percentage which was never agreed, which means a built-in increase, quite rightly as the Member for Queenstown pointed out - three ways: (1) by increase in consumption; (2) by increase in rates of taxation; (3) by increase in the spread of taxation over commodities as Malaysia industrialises, then I say there must be a quid pro quo, there must be common market terms which make it worth our while. Otherwise we go back to dollars and cents every year. After all, we have 15 seats out of 159 - taxation and representation go together. We said so. And therefore I ask the House, fully confident that whatever the inner compunctions of the Member for Cairnhill about what his principals will tell him, he will find it difficult to vote against this amendment to his motion. It is so eminently reasonable, Mr Speaker, Sir, that he would be put to great trouble to find a way out of this. In the interests of the people of Singapore, something that they voted for, something that the Member for Cairnhill voted for, I say, "Vote for it", and we will go back next week to Kuala Lumpur renewed, more stout-hearted, because we have got even the local branch of the Grand Alliance backing us. What more assurance of success? By the Time the agent is prepared to tell the principal he is wrong, surely we who are not agents have got a right to tell the principal that he has got to settle this on fair terms.

The original Question was, "That this Assembly views with concern the progress made by the Singapore Government in its talks with the Federation of Malaya Government on the financial arrangements relating to Head 17 (Finance) of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961." Since which an amendment has been moved, at the end, to add --- "and expresses its desire that there should be an early settlement fair and just to both sides on the basis of the terms of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 which was approved by this Assembly." The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim) rose ---

The Member for Hong Lim wishes to speak on the amendment?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Is it possible to range from the motion to the amendment?

We will first deal with the amendment. If that is accepted, or otherwise, we will go back to the original motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion before this House and the subsequent amendment are nothing but an exercise between the S.P.A. and' the P.A.P. to outmanoeuvre each other, win more support, and capture more of the Right-wing votes. Mr Speaker, Sir, that was all the exercise we had the whole of today from the Time the Committee of Supply closed its business. We are against the White Paper in principle. We know that all this talk about so-called financial autonomy is something like a farce. Therefore we would abstain on the amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has staged this drama of a fight for so-called autonomy in finance for reasons best known to itself. However, this drama is coming to a close although the final chapters are still not yet concluded. But the farce has been exposed and the plot to deceive the people unmasked, and the P.A.P. now lays bare with the naked truth exposed. It finds that it has been cornered and it must find a reasonable and honourable way out of its quandary. Sir, the P.A.P. Government took a very short Time to bring about its phoney sell-out merger.

Order. The Member is out of order on two counts. One is the reference to this merger as a phoney sell-out merger which has been agreed to, or the terms of which have been agreed to by this Assembly. He is out of order by using that expression. Secondly, I cannot see how that is relevant to the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am coming to the explanation that this amendment is only an attempt to hoodwink the people. By and by, I will explain the position. Now, Sir, you will see from the White Paper that the broad principles of this so-called merger took such a short Time to draft out and formulate and which the P.A.P. Government accepted. We therefore cannot understand why it has taken so much time to finalise one small item amongst tens of items in the White Paper. We cannot understand what game the P.A.P. is playing when it has sold out more basic rights of the people of Singapore - for instance, the citizenship rights and our representation in the Central Malaysian Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government claims that it is fighting for us to obtain financial control, financial autonomy and that the delay in the progress of the talks is due to the stumbling block from the Federation side. Whatever it is, Sir, from what we know, the words "financial autonomy" were never mentioned at all during the referendum, and they were first quoted by the Prime Minister only in the Chinese Press during a visit to Bukit Panjang on Sunday, the 3rd March, 1963. Now, these words "financial autonomy" only appeared in the Chinese Press, but in the English Press and in official announcements in this House, we hear the words "financial talks", "financial arrangements", "negotiations on financial arrangements". In the Chinese Press, they appeared as "financial autonomy". We cannot understand the purpose of this double talk by the P.A.P. and we must clarify this to understand the motion. We know that the Chinese Press is read by most of the voters, three-quarters of whom are Chinese, and it is believed that most of the leaders of the Alliance Government read only the English Press. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Nanyang Siang Pan on 4th March, 1963, there were headings in the paper which read - may I translate: `Prime Minister Lee makes speech in welcome party at Mandai. "After merger, this State of Singapore will have autonomy in finance. Therefore, we have only 15 seats in the Central Parliament although Sabah and Sarawak together have 40 seats. But finance comes under the control of the Central Government."' Sir, this theme of financial autonomy was played up by the Chinese Press every Time the Prime Minister visited the rural constituencies, but it never appeared in the English Press. When he speaks in Mandarin and Hokkien, he speaks of financial autonomy. But when he speaks in other languages, we never hear of financial autonomy but just financial arrangements and financial negotiations. But, Sir, the people cannot be easily deceived. They know that all this talk of financial autonomy is a bluff. The White Paper has stated clearly and plainly under Item 7 of the Annexure that out of the thirteen powers relating to finance, eleven are completely under Federal control and two items are concurrent powers which mean nothing much to Singapore. Sir, where is the autonomy in finance? That is why we cannot understand the delay in the talks on finance. Under the White Paper, the control of financial and monetary policies has been given almost completely to the Federation Government. We cannot understand what is the meaning Of financial autonomy. Now, if financial autonomy means not the control of policies, which basic right the P.A.P. Government has sold to the Federation Government, but a difference of pounds, shillings and pence, of dollars and cents, then I wish to remind the Minister for Finance of a speech he made at the Singapore Airport on 16th April, 1963, contained in the Sin Chew lit Poh. The Minister for Finance, returning after a meeting in Kuala Lumpur, said, "Between friendly states what is a few million dollars?" Sir, if that is the genuine difference between the Minister for Finance and the Federation Government, then we do not understand why there should be delay in the talks, unless it is meant for the purpose of electioneering, for capturing votes and for outmanoeuvring the S.P.A. Alliance in winning the votes of the bankers, the insurance companies, the big bosses in town, the colonial merchants and firms and industrialists. Sir, the statement made today by the Prime Minister said that there had been no agreement or that the Singapore and the Federation Governments could reach no agreement on two matters; firstly, the apportionment of expenditure and the quantum of Singapore's contribution for Federal expenditure; and secondly, responsibility for collection of national taxes in Singapore after merger. Now this was the position on the 28th of February, 1963, and is the position, as far as I know, now. If that is the position, then the Prime Minister must have been guilty of deceiving the people, because a few days after that, during his visit to Bukit Panjang constituency, he said this and it was in the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 4th March, 1963. He said on and again in many of his speeches on that day, which was only three days after the First Session of the Inter-Governmental Committee, that the Federation Government had agreed after the establishment of Malaysia that Singapore would collect its own taxes. Other than fairly and reasonably allocating a part to the Central Government for defence, external affairs and internal security, the balance would remain under the control of Singapore. If you will excuse me, Mr Speaker, Sir, I repeat the words in Chinese which he said himself, "Ta mah chern lee ho lian her pang chern pooh ee tong yee."

Order. I do not know what the object of that is, because that will not appear in the Official Report.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister or the Government later decides to challenge my translation, then I will read it out in Chinese. On the same day, he said, "If our finance is controlled by the Federation, we must listen to them. The White Paper has stated clearly that we run our own finance; each year we give a quarter of our revenue to the Federation Government so that they can run external affairs, defence, etc." Mr Speaker, Sir, either the statement given to the House by the Prime Minister contains errors in facts, or the speech made by the Prime Minister at Bukit Panjang on the 3rd of March, 1963, was deceiving, because, according to the statement today, no decision had been reached at that Time either on the responsibility for the collection of taxes or on the apportionment of expenditure and the quantum of Singapore's contribution for Federal expenditure. Sir, this is another example of the P.A.P.'s double talk. Who can trust the P.A.P. Government any longer? So, now the P.A.P., having played out this episode of so-called autonomy in finance, found itself in a quandary and the whole thing has boomeranged against it. It has already gone back to the Federation compromised on the issue, and in order to cover up its sins, it has tried to deceive us by another method by saying that it has reached agreement in principle with the Federation Government on this so-called common market. Now, unless and until the P.A.P. Government announce the details of the common market, which they say have been agreed in principle, we are not sure whether it is another sell-out of the P.A.P. Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said at the beginning of the speech, today's exercise in pushing item 20 from the bottom of the agenda paper to the top is nothing but a test of intellectual capacity between the S.P.A. leaders and the P.A.P. leaders and to see who will come out best from this exercise. Therefore, on this motion and on the amendment, we will abstain because in principle we oppose the White Paper.

Tun Lim, on the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one can excuse the Member for Hong Lim for feeling that there is a game being played by the P.A.P. and the S.P.A. on this vital national issue concerning the lives of the people of Singapore. I can understand why he takes that line. It is because the Prime Minister in his speech tried also to play a game of politics with us. He asks, what kind of tactics am I indulging in? He thinks that by amending the motion he has got me where he wants me. Let me assure him in this House that the motion I put in is aimed at telling him that the way he has been going about things is wrong and has caused concern. He wants us now to give him added strength in his negotiations with the Federation Government. Let me at the outset say this to him. The interests of the people of Singapore come first, and so long as the Government is guided by that principle in its negotiations with the Federation Government, we are with it and to that extent we accept its amendment. But what we resent and resent strongly is the way he tries to sneer at us. He tries to point out that we are the agents of our principal in Kuala Lumpur. What is he trying to say? We in Singapore are autonomous insofar as the interests of the people of Singapore are concerned, but where it concerns the whole of Malaysia, it will he the policy of the Grand Alliance. From the tone of the speech of the Prime Minister, it would seem that he would feel very happy and strengthened in his resolve if we would give him support on this amendment. It is just like a confession that he has been having heavy weather and that heavy weather was as a result of the way he went about these negotiations. If he had gone on the right lines talking to the Federation Government in a sober and dignified manner, all this would not have come up in public and there need not have to he this motion before the House this evening. But no, he wants to play politics P.A.P. style. While supporting him on that amendment, we want the Government to understand this, that we do not support the Prime Minister in his antics in the Press nor in his antics during his visits to the rural constituencies. We want him to be a sober-minded responsible Prime Minister going to Kuala Lumpur to discuss the terms of the financial arrangements in a manner that is befitting the Prime Minister of the State of Singapore. We hope that in giving this moral strength to him, as we have been giving moral strength to the P.A.P. even before the P.A.P. came to power, if we can inject into the Government some moral strength to enable them to present the case of the people of Singapore more effectively, we are always prepared to do so. I must repeat, Sir, that the Prime Minister must not make use of our support to indulge in a political game. He must play it fair and square, otherwise he will have to give an account to us in this Assembly. Sir, the Prime Minister was carried away in his speech just now and he retorted to an interjection by the Member for Queenstown. This is what he said, "It is within the power of the Opposition to bring the Government down." Sure it is within the power of the Opposition, but as is typical of the P.A.P., the P.A.P. would not pair off with the Member for Bras Basah who is indisposed. I would then ask the Prime Minister if he really means business - give a pairing off to the Member for Bras Basah and let us see whether the Prime Minister will stand up to his brave words in this Assembly. Sir, the reason why we give this support to the amendment is that we feel that the interest of the people of Singapore must come first. But we are, I must confess, very concerned that this support which we solemnly give them in this House would be manoeuvred by them for their own ends. The Prime Minister is capable of this. Even in this House, where truth must he said, the Prime Minister said this in reply to what I said earlier in my speech, that the Prime Minister did not attend a meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee because he played golf and said that he was too tired. And the clever propagandist in the Prime Minister came up saying that at one particular Time he considered it to be k the interest of the people that he did not attend the meeting in Kuala Lumpur and chose to stay in Cameron Highlands golfing with the Prime Minister. Look at that. The people who know the true situation can nail him in his distortion. The day he was in Cameron Highlands, so was I. He did not attend the meeting in Kuala Lumpur when the Finance Minister did, because he agreed with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya that no useful purpose could be served for a meeting to be held. He tried to say that he did not attend because it was in the interest of the people of Singapore, and so he went out golfing. What kind of distortion is he trying to indulge in in this House? Let us not play that kind of a game. I would urge the Prime Minister and the Government always to remember this, in this solemn hour, with 31st August just around the corner - play the game straight, play the game clean, play the game without trying to gain political credit for the general elections that will take place next year. If they will just do that, they will have us with them in all their discussions with the Federation Government. This is typical of the culture of the P.A.P., that they want our support and yet they ridicule us. They say we are the agents, we always dance to the crack of the principals. But let me tell them here - repeat this here - that as far as Singapore politics is concerned, we are free to look after the people of Singapore in the context of Malaysia, and if the P.A.P. Government is having difficulty in its negotiations with the Federation Government as a result of the .way it has been handling these negotiations, and now wants support and moral strength from us, we are prepared to give it in the interest of the people of Singapore. But we must repeat our warning again. Play it clean, play it straight and play it in the best interest of the people of Singapore.

Dr Lee, on the amendment?

On the amendment. The Prime Minister plays very tough these days. He wants to give an appearance to the people of Singapore that he is really holding on, fighting for the interest of the people of Singapore. But who does not know that the P.A.P. has always been fighting for personal and selfish interest? The Prime Minister has referred to my telegram to the Foreign Ministers' conference at Manila. He says, "Of course, we cannot stop Malaysia." But the point is this, the P.A.P. today plays tough for one special reason. It is not because the P.A.P. Ministers really have the interest of the people at heart, but because they know that there are hitches in the formation of Malaysia. The fact that the Tunku had to go to Tokyo and that there are Ministers now in Manila show that there are a lot of hitches. The newspapers have already suggested that there is every possibility, and a very strong possibility too, that Malaysia cannot be formed in time.

Order. The Member for Queenstown is making another speech on the main motion. We are now on the amendment asking the House to express its desire that there should be an early settlement, fair and just to both sides, on the basis of the terms of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961. The Member cannot make another speech on the main motion.

Sir, why is the Prime Minister taking such a tough line? He does this hoping to give the impression to the people of Singapore that because of the P.A.P., Malaysia may have to be postponed.

Order. I must rule the Member out. He must speak on the amendment. He has had his chance to speak on the motion, and he is now speaking on the motion. He must speak on the amendment if he wishes to speak again. No other Member wishes to speak on the amendment?

Question, "That the words proposed to be added, he there added," put, and agreed to. Original Question, as amended, again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will try to be brief. There are, it seems to me, two very strong impressions that persist in the minds of the people of Singapore. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here, but I hope the Finance Minister will give the answers. Sir, the question of dates is important. On Saturday, 13th April, when the Prime Minister told the Press that there was a merger crisis and that anything could happen, could the Finance Minister please enlighten us on these two points? Firstly, whether on that date agreement had already been reached that surpluses accumulated in Singapore before 31st August, 1963, would not be touched by the Federation? Sir, this is important because the impression gained by the people in Singapore arising from Press reports was that the Federation was going to raid the pre-Malaysia surpluses which have been accumulated by the Singapore Government for development purposes. The second wrong impression, it seems to me, is that on that date when the Prime Minister made his Press statement, the Federation Government was still trying to get agreement with Singapore that they should control the Federal revenue collected in Singapore and keep it in Kuala Lumpur. Sir, these two impressions are very important because unless they are clarified they will cause a great deal of misunderstanding. When we heard of these impressions, we realised that, as a Party that stands for the people of Singapore, it would be difficult for us to agree to this sort of thing. Therefore, some of us went to Kuala Lumpur to seek personal clarification. There we were told on 28th April, I think ---

By whom?

--- that there had already been agreement that the surpluses accumulated in Singapore before 31st August, 1963, would not be interfered with by the Federation, and that if there was any impression that had been given to the people of Singapore to the contrary, then that impression was wrong. Further, the national revenue collected in Singapore and reported to be deposited in Kuala Lumpur would be deposited in a neutral pool in Singapore. Sir, if what we learnt in Kuala Lumpur was correct, then somehow or other the impressions given through the newspapers in Singapore to the people of Singapore were wrong. Sir, I am now quoting from the Straits Times of Tuesday, 16th April, 1963 - on page 1, col. 1: Here is the text of Tun Razak's statement: "As Chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, I have kept quiet for the last two days because it has been the agreed practice that at the end of a conference we issue a joint statement agreed by both parties and neither side makes any further statement to the Press. However, since the Prime Minister of Singapore had made a number of statements in the Press which were not quite accurate, I feel it is my duty to put things right in order to avoid any wrong impression of what took place at the Inter-Governmental Committee talks."' Then he went on further: "The Singapore Government, in an official statement, has now practically accused the Federation Minister of Finance, which means in effect the Federation Government, of trying to go back on the Singapore White Paper. This is completely untrue, and it is not the practice of the Federation Government to go back on its word, written or unwritten."' Then he went on: `"I regret very much the attitude taken by Mr Lee. I do not know what is his aim. The talks have been delayed because of this," Tun Razak said.' Sir, we ourselves were surprised that in the midst of negotiations the Prime Minister should have come out with A Press statement causing people to be unhappy. On a bigger issue than this, that is, over confrontation between Indonesia and Malaysia, which could have led to a world conflagration, we are glad that there has now come about a spirit of good-will and reconciliation in Tokyo. The people of Singapore and in this part of the world ---

Order. The hon. Member now seems to be far away from the motion. The motion is not a motion criticising the action of the Prime Minister or the Minister for Finance or their dealings with the Federation Government. The motion deals with the progress made. Let us see whether the Member speaking agrees that the Assembly should view with concern the progress made - with the addition of the amendment, of course - and expresses the desire that there should be an early settlement.

Sir, it is because I feel the people in this part of the world are so eager that there should be less confrontation and more progress towards co-operation that we urge the Prime Minister to have less Press statements making agreement more difficult.

Order. May I suggest to the Member for Tanglin that he file a motion criticising the Prime Minister in his dealings with the Press and the public?

Mr Speaker, Sir, fortunately, in one of his concluding paragraphs in his financial statement, the Finance Minister said: `We are likely to prosper in Malaysia and it is only right that the additional prosperity brought about by Malaysia should be made available to the under-developed parts of Malaysia.' Then he went on in the next paragraph, Sir: `It will be wrong.to adopt a selfish and grasping policy after Malaysia and try to hog the whole prosperity for ourselves. This will bring resentment in other States of Malaysia and in the end this will rebound to our disadvantage.' This applies to surpluses after 31st August, 1963, I believe, Sir, because it says here about prosperity after Malaysia. But what we would like to have clarified, Sir, on the date quoted 13th April, was it a fact or not a fact that there had already been agreement that the surpluses accumulated before Malaysia would not be touched by the Federation?

It seems to be irrelevant, but if the Minister for Finance wishes to answer, he can do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at this late time of the night after a very busy day at the office, I may be excused if I find some difficulty in giving all the details asked for by the Member for Tanglin. He wants to know, if I understood him right, whether on Saturday, 13th April, there had been agreement between the two Governments that surpluses accumulated before ---

31st August, 1963.

--- surpluses accumulated before merger day would not be taken over by the Federation Government. The answer is that this point never arose at all. The point is completely irrelevant. I remember seeing something like this in the newspaper, but the point is completely irrelevant, because if it means that they will share our accumulated surpluses, then it means that we have to pay out of our reserves. That was never discussed, never thought of, either by the Federation Government or our Government. But if the Member for Tanglin will look at page 5 of the statement made by the Prime Minister, in fact the last line says: `Singapore retains half her surplus, based on 1961 calculations, instead of surrendering the whole.' That was the proposition discussed at the Inter-Governmental Committee on the 10th and 11th of April.

Subsequent surpluses.

Yes, in other words, they wanted subsequent surpluses. No, no, that is not correct. It is a curious method of calculation. I think I shall find great difficulty in using words to get across the approach of the Federation Government. I shall try my best to explain. It is a very complicated idea.

Is it necessary?

I think the Member for Tanglin is rather looking forward to it.

Order. Is it necessary in this context? I am just wondering whether it is really relevant. If it is not relevant to this motion, then I suggest the Minister send a memorandum to the Member for Tanglin.

It is not really necessary. The second question is that he understood the Federation Government to have agreed [pause] ---

Order. The Minister may take his seat. Perhaps the Member for Tanglin would like to repeat his question.

The second impression gaining ground was that Federal taxes collected in Singapore would be kept in Kuala Lumpur, whereas apparently on the date of the Press statement, the agreement had already been that such taxes would be collected and kept in a neutral pool in the central bank in Singapore and not in Kuala Lumpur. Was that correct?

Page 3 of the statement gives the reply.

That is correct. But that is not the main point at issue at all. The main point at issue is who is to control the Revenue Department? We say Singapore controls the Revenue Department, and they say no. And at that Time there was still a dispute on that point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not intend to speak on this subject, but I felt that I must not allow a statement made by the Member for Queenstown to go unchallenged. Referring to the terms of merger, he said it is a matter of a cheap sale, but we, the S.P.A., had to support it because of our relations with the Federation Alliance. He went so far as to say that the Member for Cairnhill had said this. Now this is untrue. I would like to put it on record that this is untrue, because we have always said that we support the terms of the White Paper because we felt that the P.A.P. was not able to get better terms and that we the Alliance, when we come to power, would be able to get better terms. Accept the crumbs now and fight for the loaf later on. That has always been our motive. And to say that the Member for Cairnhill had told him it was because of our relations with the Federation Alliance that we were forced to accept a cheap sale merger is completely untrue.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Mrs Seow Peck Leng resumed her seat.

The Member for Cairnhill told the Member for Upper Serangoon exactly what I said.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure him the Member for Upper Serangoon misunderstood. I am quite sure. I am sure that even the Prime Minister today must be very surprised that we are accepting the amended motion. But, for his information, Sir, it has always been our firm stand that we are on the side of the people of Singapore and their welfare is our first concern. As a matter of fact, that was what inspired us to send our representation to Kuala Lumpur - the representation mentioned by the Member for Cairnhill. We actually made the decision that if the P.A.P. - P.A.P. or no P.A.P. - is on the right track fighting for the good and the welfare of the people, we would be on their side. But today, Sir, things are a little different. We have found out that it is because the whole thing has boomeranged on them. Because all their clever tactics of playing politics and calling names and so on for electioneering purposes on an important national matter like this have boomeranged on them, they now come to us and deceive or grab rather - I think it is right to use the word "grab" - the opportunity of this motion to amend it so that they will get our support and go back to Kuala Lumpur, as they put it, with the added figure. In spite of knowing that, Sir, but because it is for the good of the people that the Malaysia talks are finalised and completed, we will still support the motion, but we hope they will not play too much politics and exploit the situation.

No other Member wishing to speak? Original Question, as amended, put. "That this Assembly views with concern the progress made by the Singapore Government in its talks with the Federation of Malaya Government on the financial arrangements relating to Head 17 (Finance) of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 and expresses its desire that there should be an early settlement fair and just to both sides on the basis of the terms of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 which was approved by this Assembly." An hon. Member: Division. The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 13; Abstentions, 2; Absent, 8. Ayes. Noes. Buang bin Bani, S. T. Omar Junid Chan Sun Wing. Byrne, K. M. Fung Yin Ching. Chan Chee Seng. Miss. Chan Choy Siong. Lee Siew Choh. Madam. Leong Keng Seng. Chor Yeok Eng. Lin You Eng. Goh Chew Chua. Low Por Tuck. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Lee Khoon Choy. Sheng Nam Chin. Lee Teck Him. Tan Cheng Tong. Lim Cheng Lock. Tee Kim Leng. Lim Yew Hock. Teo Hock Guan. Lingam, S. V. Wong Soon Fong. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Ayes-continued. Absent. Sahorah binte Hoe Puay Choo, Ahmat, Madam. Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Kandasamy, G. Mrs Koh, C. H. Tan Kia Gan. Lee Kuan Yew. Thio Chan Bee. Marshall, David. Toh Chin Chye. Mohd. Ali bin Wee Toon Boon. Alwi. Yaacob bin Ng Teng Kian. Mohammed Al-Haji. Ong Eng Guan. Ong Eng Guan. Yong Nyuk Lin. Abstentions. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib. Motion, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly views with concern the progress made by the Singapore Government in its talks with the Federation of Malaya Government on the financial arrangements relating to Head 17 (Finance) of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 and expresses its desire that there should be an early settlement fair and just to both sides on the basis of the terms of Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 which was approved by this Assembly.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye] Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock midnight.

Monday, 10th June, 1963

Mr David Marshall asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many persons have been banished under the Banishment Ordinance since 1st June, 1959, and the period of residence of each such person.

Altogether nine persons were either expelled or banished from the State since 1st June, 1959. One of them was a returned banishee. The periods of residence in Singapore of each of the nine persons are :- 30 years, 25 years, 23 years, 15 years, 14 years, 12 years, 10 years, six months, and three months.