Hansard, 1963-07-29

I have had a message that the Prime Minister may be a few minutes late. On the matter of Questions, there is a Standing Order which provides for a contingency of that nature. It is Standing Order 20 (3): `If a Minister [I am reading the relevant portion] who is to answer a question, is absent, the question shall, if he then be present, be taken after all other questions appearing on the Order Paper have been disposed of.' If by then the Prime Minister is not present, there are other provisions in the Standing Order which will apply.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir,I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply to Question No. 4.

I will then call Question No. 4. Mr Tan Cheng Tong.

asked the Prime Minister what is the total expenditure from Government funds on the Government officers who attended the recent London talks; and whether the expenses or any part thereof of his wife during her stay in London were met out of such funds.

The expenditure incurred on bills so far received for air passages and other expenditure amounts to $44,808. Mrs Lee Kuan Yew's travelling and other expenditure was on the Prime Minister's personal account. It is not borne by the Government.

asked the Minister for Health and Law how many hawkers were arrested during the periods (a) 3rd June, 1959, to 31st July, 1961, and (b) 1st August, 1961, to 30th June, 1963; and what was the total amount of fines collected from the hawkers during each period.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the period between 3rd June, 1959 and 31st July, 1961, 493 hawkers were summoned before the police courts for hawking offences and the total of the fines imposed by the courts was $4,140. Sir, in this period, no sort of positive action was taken to help the hawkers, and conditions became chaotic especially in congested areas and around the markets and street-corners, with the result that market stallholders left their stalls in the markets and shop-keepers left their shops to compete with the hawkers outside the markets and shops and in street-corners. In this situation of a free-for-all which did not serve the interest of the hawkers themselves, the Hawkers Department was too afraid to discharge their normal duties to the hawkers and to the people. Sir, for the period 1st August 1961, to 30th June, 1963, 3,214 hawkers were summoned before the police courts for hawking offences and the total of the fines imposed by the courts was $33,763. Sir, in the second period under reference, a new policy for the resiting of hawkers on alternative sites off the main roads and markets was adopted. The new sites they occupy are chosen in close proximity to the places from where they had been removed so as to ensure the least dislocation to their business. Every hawker who is to be removed from a clearance site is registered and is assured of a place in the new site. The places in the new sites are drawn for in a ballot held in public. The sites are properly marked out and laid out with standpipes to facilitate daily cleansing. Bins are also provided at such sites. Sir, the hawkers were also, in this second period, for the first time, given a proprietary interest in the sites they occupied which they could transfer to others for a consideration when they decided to give up their business or which could be transferred to members of their family when they die. Previously in such circumstances, their sites were declared to be vacant and were given to newcomers on the results of a ballot. Under the new system, all opportunities for graft in the allocation of pitches and hawker sites have been eliminated, as the hawker himself gets the best price for his site and his family gets the site when he dies. Under the present system also, the hawker who actually does the business on a site is licensed and if subletting is discovered, the person actually doing the business gets the licence transferred to him. The Housing Board has also embarked on a very enlightened policy of building hawker pitches in the Board's estates which are rented to the hawkers on small instalments to cover their cost of construction over a period of three years and which become the property of the hawker at the end of the period. Thereafter, the hawker only pays a nominal rent of $1 per month for the site which is his and which he can transfer to others for a consideration or which passes to his family when he dies. In addition, in furtherance of the scheme for a fair deal for hawkers, they have been allowed to ply their trade in various parts of the city and in the rural areas at nights and in selected locations once a week where their presence does not cause any traffic obstruction and where they can find a ready market for their goods. Sir, as a result of the enlightened policy followed in regard to hawkers in the second period, the hawker situation in the town has shown considerable improvement. The Government regrets the need for enforcing the law on hawking but this action has had to be taken in the interests of both the hawkers themselves and the public and has been reduced to the very minimum. Where new hawkers come to sites where hawkers have been resited, action has obviously to be taken against them otherwise there would be no point in proceeding with resiting schemes. Also where hawkers ply their trade at street-corners or on streets which because of the heavy traffic are restricted to hawkers, action has obviously to be taken to keep the streets free for traffic. So with the new deal that the Government has given to the hawkers, the Government has been able to get their co-operation in keeping the city clean. The hawkers themselves understand that if the law is not enforced in a fair and reasonable manner, a free-for-all situation develops which does not in the long run serve their own interests.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to understand why there is a great difference between the fines imposed in one period and those imposed in the other period. In the period between 3rd June, 1959, and 31st July, 1961, the fines were less than those for the period between 1st August, 1961, and 30th June, 1963. The time lapse between the two periods is not very great. Why is there also such a great difference in the number of hawkers arrested during the two respective periods? It may be an indication that after 31st July, 1961, the Government did not look after the interest of the hawkers well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, have already answered the question. I have told the House that in the first period there was no attempt made to try to contain the hawker situation. A genuine attempt was made in the second period referred to. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the second period, I can assure you that the Member for Bras Basah, who is closer to the hawkers than the Member for Jalan Kayu, who is the son of a rich landowner in Singapore, was a member of the Hawkers Committee, and endorsed this policy as being in the interests of the public as well as in the interests of the hawkers themselves.

asked the Minister for Labour whether he will consider making available to this House the financial statements of the People's Association for the years 1960, 1961 and 1962, and when.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes if the House requires it, although it is not required by statute to do so.

asked the Minister for Labour whether he has any information as to who paid for the expenses of Mr C. V. Devan Nair when he attended the recent International Labour Conference in Geneva, and whom did he represent.

The expenses of Mr C. V. Devan Nair along with other delegates who attended the recent International Labour Conference held in Geneva from 5th to 27th June, 1963, were paid by the Singapore Government. Mr Devan Nair attended the Conference in his capacity as the workers' representative.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister give the names of the members of the delegation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the observer delegation of the Singapore Government comprised the following:- The Commissioner for Labour. Mr Devan Nair, Two advisers to the workers' representatives - Mr Hsu Tze Kwang and Mr Ho See Beng, An employers' representative - Mr G. C. Thio.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, did they go to other places in addition to Geneva?

That supplementary question does not arise out of the original question. If the Minister chooses to answer, he can do so if he has the information. Mr Ong Pang Boon indicated dissent.

The question is out of order on those grounds. We come back to Question No. 1. Mr Low Por Tuck.

asked the Prime Minister who were the members of the Singapore team that attended the inter-governmental financial talks in Kuala Lumpur on 10th and 11th April, 1963.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope you will forgive me if I have not come prepared to answer the first three questions. I will answer them tomorrow. I have been busy this morning trying to sort Out the Constitutional documents. Questions 1, 2* and 3+ will be answered tomorrow.

Question 5++ too? The Questions read as follows:- *2. Mr Tee Kim Leng: To ask the Prime Minister what is the progress in negotiations on the question of compensation for the massacres by the Japanese Army in Singapore in the last war and what further action he intends to take. +3. Mr Lin You Eng: To ask the Prime Minister (i) when will Government repair the road in Kampong Chia Heng, Mergui Road, Joo Avenue and Starlight Road, and (ii) when will street lights be installed in these roads. ++5. Mr Tan Cheng Tong: To ask the Prime Minister what is the total expenditure incurred from Government funds on his tours of the Anson, Tanjong Pagar, Telok Ayer and Hong Lan Constituencies on 14th July, 1963.

Yes, including Question 5.

I have indicated the relevant Standing Order which covers a matter of this nature. If the Members asking the Questions ask that that be done, then, of course, that will be done. If they do not ask that that be done, then the Prime Minister will send Written Answers. Can I have an indication from the Member for Havelock whether he wishes his answer tomorrow?

Yes.

And from the Member for Pasir Panjang?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

The Questions are therefore postponed until tomorrow.

2.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I was in London I was approached by the British Council of Churches about the question of religious freedom in Singapore after Malaysia. It would appear that there was some misunderstanding and not unnatural concern regarding religious liberty after Malaysia. I therefore undertook to make a declaration on religious freedom on my return to Singapore in this Assembly. It has always been the policy of the Government of Singapore to allow freedom of all religions in Singapore, and I gladly give the assurance that we will continue the policy of religious toleration. Members of other religions than the Muslims will appreciate that the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, makes it the responsibility of the Government of Singapore to protect, safeguard, support, foster, and promote the political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests of the Malays. This responsibility will remain after Malaysia Day, as it will be included in the Singapore Constitution. However, the over-riding safeguard for religious freedom is contained in Article 11 of the Federal Constitution, which provides that every person has the right to profess and practise his religion, it is the policy of the Singapore Government to maintain the status quo in all matters of religious freedom, in other words, there will be no change after Malaysia. Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution does give power to the State to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief amongst persons professing the Muslim religion. And Article 11(1) of the Constitution provides that the right to propagate the religion shall be subject to this power. The power will be exercised by the State Government and the provisions of the Federal Constitution in this matter cannot be amended without the consent of the Singapore Government. Sir, it is not possible for me to bind all future governments in Singapore, but I give the assurance that it is not the intention of my Government to introduce legislation to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief, and the present position in all matters of religious liberty will continue.

2.51 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, That the Member for Queenstown is guilty of dishonourable conduct and abuse of privilege in that he did on the 14th day of June, 1963, in this House maliciously and falsely attack the integrity of the Minister for Finance by making the following statement:- "I remember reading in the newspaper about the Minister for Finance going along to open the `National Tower' for the firm Matsushita or something like that. I do not know; may be the Minister has some vested interests in this, and it may be that because of this that the Minister has been running along, flying all the time to Japan and Tokyo.". Sir -

Order. There is no debate: no speech. The motion stands referred to the Committee of Privileges under the provisions of paragraph 7 (d) (i) of Standing Order 93. The Minister for Finance will, of course, make his speech in the Committee of Privileges.

* The amended notice of motion, standing in the name of the Prime Minister, reads as follows:- 'In pursuance of the resolution of this House taken on the 10th June, 1963 that there should be an early settlement fair and just to both sides on the basis of the terms of the White Paper (Paper Cmd, 33 of 1961) and mindful of the long and arduous battle for merger, this House WELCOMES the successful outcome in the final agreement reached in London on 8th July, 1963, which agreement contains the terms in the said White Paper with amendments made on a quid pro quo basis, Singapore getting a Malaysia Common Market written into the Constitution in return for a percentage of Singapore's revenue of national taxes instead of an annual lump sum as contribution for Federal services in Singapore, and TAKING COGNIZANCE of the exchange of memoranda, on the financial arrangements as in Paper Misc. 4 of 1963 which sets out the basis on which the Singapore and Federation Governments arrived at their respective percentages and the component parts thereof, and SUBJECT to the fulfilment of the conditions set out in the exchange of letters between the Singapore Government and the Federation Government and the Singapore Government and the British Government contained in Paper Misc 5 of 1963. this House ADOPTS the constitutional provisions and amendments contained in Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963.' 2.53 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must apologise to Members of the House in not being able to present them with a final version of the Malaysia Bill even right up till now. I discussed the matter with you, Mr Speaker, Sir, on Saturday and decided that rather than wait for more further amendments to be put in which will delay the debate, we would table the Malaysia Bill as it is and introduce the amendments. I hope, in the course of the debate but certainly before adoption by this House. The position is as follows. Members who have read the exchange of letters will be aware that there were certain changes conceded and agreed to on the 8th July, the day when we signed or initialled the Agreement in London. In several cases, as in the case of one document which was signed by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, it was not agreed to till 9.15 on the evening when we signed the Agreement. That, Sir, has provided certain drafting problems. I have been busy this morning with the State Advocate-General who is in constant communication with his counterpart in the Federation. I would have preferred to have all these amendments included in the document presented, but I think time is pressing and I have undertaken to introduce the amendments before the provisions are adopted and then to produce a clean copy of the final Bill.

Order. I think the Hon. the Prime Minister mentioned the date as "8th July" when the Agreement was initialled.

Yes.

I have been a bit puzzled about this date because the Agreement itself, which is contained in Paper Cmd. 22 of 1963, gives the date as "9th July".

Sir, there was some difficulty about that. We foregathered at about a quarter to twelve. After 9.15 when we agreed at the Ritz, quite appropriately. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister of the Federation took us all out to dinner to a place called the Omar Khayaam. We foregathered at Marlborough House at 11.30 and did not get down to business until 11.

45. I am not quite sure at what exact time I initialled the Agreement, but I think there was some jesting with some of the participants of that Conference as to the date of it, because when the last signature was appended, the clock had moved on to Tuesday, the 9th of July. I think, for purposes of propriety, as far as I was concerned, it, was the 8th of July,. hut if the document says "9th of July", then so be it.

Order. Then will the Prime Minister agree to a typographical amendment to his motion - instead of "8th July", it will be "9th July"?

Yes, surely, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am not quite sure when the Agreement was made - I mean the exact time when everybody put his signature to it - but I think it might be safer if we said it was the 9th of July. The amendments that will be introduced - I hope some tomorrow or some this afternoon, and some the day after - are of two types. One is purely legal draftsmanship. The legal draftsman of the Federation Government, who has been seconded from the British Treasury, has suggested certain improvements in the syntax and phraseology of some of the Articles of the Constitution. There are no substantial amendments, and I think the House will not wish to quibble if the Federation wishes to take their draftsman's advice on these matters. But there are several other amendments of substance. We managed to have one put into the Bill. Members will note that when the general elections for 51 seats take place - it will be any time between now and three months after 31st December, depending on the will of Members of the Opposition - the position of candidates and Assemblymen will no longer be quite the same. If those who are elected on the party platform and bear the party symbol break faith with the Party, either by resigning or by being expelled, then they automatically vacate their seats in this Assembly. In other words, there will be no more musical chairs in this Chamber. The next election is an election to decide who is to govern for the next five years. There are two other important amendments. One, Members will notice, is contained in a letter I wrote to the Tunku, enclosing a document he signed in which it has been agreed that the power to detain gangsters even after merger and Malaysia will rest with the Singapore Government. This is a matter of some importance, Mr Speaker, Sir, particularly as we know that in certain parts of the country and certainly before 1959, gangsters played an important role in elections. Well, I am afraid they will not be able to do so at the next general elections, whether it be before merger or after merger. The power, the executive authority, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, rests with the Singapore Government. I think it is to the good of the peace and good order of this country. I am sorry some Members on the other side may have friends who were in Pulau Senang, but they will remain in custody. This is a matter of sufficiently grave importance for it is to be carefully spelt out in the Constitution. Next is the question of migration control. Under the Constitution we have afforded the Central Government authority to prevent specific persons under the Restriction of Residence Ordinance from staying in a particular part of the country. Members will remember how one Said Zahari came back to Singapore and suddenly found the ban across the causeway. He then resided in Singapore and added to the mischief that was then going on. Well, I think, in fairness, we should have a reciprocal right that we shall have no more Fong Swee Suans, or, for that matter, Lim Ching Siong, whose family is from Pontian and who will be proved ultimately to have come from Pontian; James Puthucheary, Mr Woodhull. Mr James Puthucheary was a political friend of mine, now he is only a friend. I do not see why they should add mischief to Singapore. There will be reciprocity. In other words, we will keep our bad hats in Singapore if the Federation Government so wills it, and we will have the right to request the Federation Government to keep their undesirables on the other side of the causeway. In this way, I am quite sure Singapore will become a much more peaceful and salubrious place. This power extends not only to political undesirables, but also to secret society undesirables. It may be, Mr Speaker, Sir, that just before the election, whether it is held between now or three months after the end of the year, trainloads of young men, whose political skill Consists of the bicycle chain and the knuckle duster, will come from places like Ipoh, Penang and other parts of Malaya, where they do not have the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance to detain them. Members will notice that every time there is an election in a town, there is always an anguished plea for fair play by the Opposition. I leave Members to draw their own conclusions. But I say, first of all, we do not want these gentlemen to come here either before or during an election. I know of several bus owners whose business ramifications spread over the rest of Malaya and who, I am quite sure, will be able to provide quite a number of cohorts for these matters. Youth leaders, the Youth League, first they cannot come here because we will have the right to ask the Federation Government not to allow them entry; secondly, if they do slip by, they will be detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. Insofar as is humanly possible, we will try to keep Singapore the clean, sober and reasonable city that it always has been. For these reasons. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not possible to give Members the Malaysia Bill until sometime, I think, yesterday morning - The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

This is for the record. The paper arrived here at 9.15 a.m. We started to despatch at 10.30 a.m. and it took the whole day until 7 o'clock in the evening.

Well, I apologise for it, Mr Speaker, Sir,I do not think it is the Government Printer's fault. He had 500 pages of electroplating to do, the Rueff Report, the Malaysia Bill, the various financial papers and the exchange of documents. I think, in all fairness, Members should read the Malaysia Bill before the debate commences. I read in the newspapers, that the Member for Anson, who was not present, said he had read the Malaysia Bill. He had bought a copy from London and had ordered hundreds of them for the Press. Well, I am sorry he has done so, because I think these copies will be a little bit out of date. They will need a lot of corrigenda. By tomorrow I hope the drafting amendments will be in, and the gist, if not the final form, of at least two of these important constitutional provisions. Therefore, I propose under Standing Order 33 (2) (b) to name tomorrow 2.30 p.m. as the date for the commencement of the debate. In the meanwhile, if my Office or the State Advocate-General's Chambers can be of any use to Members on the other side who are genuinely interested in the Constitution, we shall give whatever explanation is required.

The motion will be before the House tomorrow. Now I take it the Leader of the House will move the adjournment? 3.09 p.m.

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

The Public of Singapore must have been amazed at the manner in which the Prime Minister has tried to bring peace, as he says, to the port workers. Members will recollect that as early as March this year, the public was treated to the wonderful spectacle of the Chairman of the Harbour Board instructing the police to go and nail up the premises of the Staff Association, and then a few hours later of the Prime Minister saying that he was horrified, and that he had instructed the Chairman of the Harbour Board not to do such naughty things. All this sort of play-acting really brings the P.A.P nowhere. It just makes people laugh. Here was the Chairman of the Harbour Board, a Permanent Secretary, doing the thing which he thought was what the Government wanted, and here was the Prime Minister saying that the Chairman of the Harbour Board should not do such a naughty thing. That was the start of the tussle for power between the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis for the Harbour Board Staff Association: between, as they would like it to be described in more trade union terms, the N.T.U.C. and S.A.T.U. Then in May, as the matter could not be settled amicably, the Prime Minister, who had been the legal adviser to the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association for many, many years in the past, called a meeting of the two factions in the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. He tried - he really did - to bring peace. He told these two factions that they should go back, talk matters over, and come to some decision whereby they could protect the interests of the workers. But, and this is what he warned them, they should not allow themselves to be made use of by pro-Communists who were just around the corner trying to cash in on the situation in an endeavour to damage Malaysia. Sir, it really tickled me. I have been in the Legislative Council since 1948, and the British colonial government, whenever they met with any trouble from the trade unions, always smelt a Communist behind every tree. "Ha, this is a Communist trade union. Ha, so and so is a Communist." And the Prime Minister, who was with that union for many, many years and who, as a result of the support given by that union, won resoundingly in the Tanjong Pagar election, the Tanjong Pagar by-election, and yet another Tanjong Pagar election, and was carried on the shoulders of Jamit Singh as a great victor - and now poor Jamit Singh is under detention by the same man whom he chaired -

By your friend, the Tunku.

- now smells a Communist behind every tree. Their boys have just found out that the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association, because the P.A.P. have found difficulty in controlling them to their way of thinking, are now getting into the hands of the Communists. The two factions, as I have said, went back and I do not know what they did; whether they did try to resolve their differences; but it would seem that they could not resolve their differences. In May the Prime Minister found it difficult to drum some sense into the group of trade unionists who would not follow the P.A.P. party line. He gave them a sort of ultimatum, "Unless you boys behave, you watch out!" Although he did not use the same memorable phrase - "I can fix you, but you cannot fix me!" - it meant the same thing. "You boys watch out!" He told these two groups and I do not know whether they did try to resolve their differences. But it would seem that things have gone from bad to worse. The Prime Minister thought that something must be done to teach these boys, who would not listen to the great words of wisdom of the Prime Minister, a much-needed lesson. The trouble between the two groups was not resolved. But then the one group that did not owe allegiance to the P.A.P. decided that they should give an ultimatum to the Harbour Board to have their demands finalised within a certain period. That really got the Prime Minister wild. He went to the Harbour Board, and with the P.A.P. radio, P.A.P. television, and P.A.P. newspapers too showing pictures, it would seem that there were 10,000 workers, with mouths opened and gaping, listening to the words of wisdom from the Prime Minister. At that meeting, he said, "Boys, better watch out. If you go on strike, the strike will be called off within two days." I do not know what he meant by that. Obviously if there was to be a strike, the Government would take action and put an end to it. And this came from the Prime Minister whose political strength came from the trade unions. A man who fought me when I was there - thou shalt not do this; thou shalt not do that - is doing the things that he told me that I should not do. Times change, temperaments change, and even ideas change. I cannot blame the Prime Minister if he feels that he should now do the things that he said I should not do. So he said he addressed the big meeting of 10,000 workers. I am not so uncharitable as to suggest that the gates were closed and the people were shepherded there, that even some of the people who listened to him were from the Work Brigade and they were not members of the Harbour Board. Let it be. There were 10,000 people listening. But this is what the Prime Minister said, "You boys. Do not listen to all this. Do not go on strike, if the strike is not over in two days, I know who they are. These 300 or 500 people will be in trouble. But if you behave, I shall give you an interim award." Where is the Harbour Board? Is it an autonomous body or is it not, with the Prime Minister saying. "I shall give you an interim award."? He said so on Tuesday, "I shall give an interim award." The boys raised their hands. Who does not want money? Cheers. "Hurray, great Prime Minister. I am going to get an ang pau." So everybody raised his hands. So the photographers who were there when the people raised their hands snapped the picture, and it came out with everybody raising his hands for the great ang pau from the Prime Minister who, at that particular time, was the Chairman and members of the Singapore Harbour Board all rolled into one. That was what the Prime Minister was when he announced that. Then he came and said, "I do not think there will be a strike because I believe in the good sense of the workers of the Harbour Board." Everything went on nicely for two or three days. Suddenly he found that this troublesome group, as a result of evil machinations of the Member for Thomson, still would not bow down to him. They were trying to call a meeting, trying to take a ballot of the port workers as to whether a strike should take place or not. The Prime Minister had another meeting. "Boys, boys, look at this. Do not listen to all this. I give you a Malaysia bonus." Malaysia bonus! The Prime Minister giving a Malaysia bonus! "I have deregistered the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association." Sir, everything is "I". The great Prime Minister! Where is the body that is to consider whether this interim award should be given or not? Is not the Singapore Harbour Board an autonomous body? The Minister who is to say whether a trade union is to be deregistered or not is the Minister for Labour. But here was the Prime Minister who says. "I - I - I." Everything is "I". Even in London - An hon. Member: He says no.

- it was "I". He is also the Minister for Finance! He said, "I will give you a Malaysia award." If I were uncharitable, I would say. "Ah, the Prime Minister is giving a Malaysia award because of elections, is it not?" If I were to think along those lines, I would say it is nothing but political corruption. I do not want to think in that way. The Prime Minister can do what he thinks is good for him. I only hope that the people of Singapore, particularly the port workers, will not be so foolish as to accept this sweet and think that all the evil that the P.A.P. has done for the past four years should be forgotten and forgiven. But what makes matters worse in the industrial field in Singapore today is this, Sir. Here was the Prime Minister saying that he was giving a Malaysia award. He is now giving ideas to the trade unions so that they will be going to their employers and saying, "Ah, Malaysia is coming. I want a Malaysia ang pau."

And why not?

So much so that the Prime Minister if he would say, as far as I could gather from the port workers, that the Malaysia award is postponed, "Tahan sekejap. Not so fast." It has not been paid. It is up to him. If he says it is paid, I shall be very happy for the workers. But it has not been paid, because of the implication that is coming in. A Malaysian ang pau is going to be the demand by trade unionists. And if trade unions from the S.A.T.U. group start demanding ang paus. "My God, it would mean the Communists again working up industrial strife in Singapore and we should lock them all up." The Prime Minister might say that. I do not know. I met such "activities" of the trade unions during my time, when the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association was very ably led by Jamit Singh - now under detention - and very ably advised by the Prime Minister, who was then the legal adviser of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association, and in spite of all the evil things that they did against me, I had not the heart -

You had not the courage and guts.

It is not a question of courage, Sir. It requires courage to do the right thing and at the right time. It is not courage to use the big stick, as a Government, to go and knock off the head. It is the greatest form of cowardice. Surely that is not courage. If it is courage, let us have it on equal terms.

You were chased from pillar to post.

Chased from pillar to post by the Prime Minister who was then adviser to the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. But I took a stand, a stand that I felt was the right stand, the most democratic stand - freedom for the trade unions to do what they think is right under the law, without political pressure. But the great Prime Minister does not believe in such democratic practice, "You cannot fix me. I can fix you." The poor Harbour Board Staff Association is now really fixed. What is more shocking is this. For the Prime Minister who believes in the right of association, freedom of trade unions, to say to the workers - on T.V. too, "If you take two, Markandu - tidak apa. If this side has two, never mind. I will put in two. So we have six new committee members. You can have the union back." What is this'? Is this the way the Prime Minister plays with the trade union? "You opposing group - you have two. My group has two. I put in two. Four against two. You can have your union back." That is not the way to make use of the law for the benefit of the P.A.P. And with this T.V. it is wonderful. Every day you cannot open the T.V. set and turn it on without seeing the great Prime Minister. It says, "Ah, our great Prime Minister, the hero, Premier Lee Kuan Yew." And what made me feel sorry for the Prime Minister was this: here was the Prime Minister having Markandu sitting by his side with the T.V. on: "Markandu, are you for Bani or are you for me? If you are for Bani, no interim award for you." Is that the way to run the government? "If you are for Bani, no interim award for you." Is the Prime Minister giving ideas to the employers that unless the workers are good to the employers, the employers can refuse to give any award. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, P.A.P. television just boomeranged. "If you are for Bani, you will not get the interim award. If you are for me, say so." And that gave Markandu the chance to say, "I am not for Bani nor am I for Lee Kuan Yew. I am for the workers of the Harbour Board." There was a big roar and a big laugh. And how did he fix this Markandu? Citizenship withdrawn. But then over television he said. "Markandu, saya tahu, lah, you bukan Communist." But why take away his citizenship if he is not a Communist? Here again is another example of the Prime Minister carrying out his threat, "I can fix you, but you cannot fix me." So the Opposition knows all the tricks of the trade of the Government to fix the Opposition while the Opposition cannot fix the P.A.P. But the Opposition can at any time knock out the P.A.P. The P.A.P. was knocked out at the last sitting of the Assembly and yet they have not admitted their defeat. 3.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have often been accused by Members on the other side of being arrogant. But I think you will forbear with me if I say that it is not arrogance that impels me to say what I am going to tell the Member for Cairnhill, but out of contempt for despicable, dishonourable, stupid conduct. On whose side is he on? The great anti-Communist defending the Singapore Harbour Board 10,000 workers! I never fought them. Playing the Bani line, the S.A.T.U. line, a small hard core of 20 chaps with an outer core of 150 chaps. And we know who they are. It is my job to know them and I am fighting them. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will also forgive me if I cannot help but show my disdain for those whose political fortune, literally fortunes in dollars and cents, motivate their whole being. The Member says he is an anti-Communist; that I am a waverer, a ditherer. My friends are non-Communists. Here is a Communist-led group - that is what the Intelligence is for - and I compare that intelligence with my own knowledge of my own friends in the unions. The Member for Thomson dared not raise it. The Member for Cairnhill has raised it on a motion for the adjournment. It was fiat and punctured. Would he like me to do it the way he did it - incomprehension of the problem, feeble? His knowledge of Communist philosophy, strategy and tactics was negligible. He was too busy preparing for the day when he would be out of office, like his colleagues now in the iron-mining business. He is even now too busy to read these documents, or he would know that by postponing the elections till after Malaysia, he is not going to get any advantage. Unthinking, plunging in to foolish decisions. Would he have me do it the way lie did it together with the Member for Anson? When the Harbour Board went on strike, the port was paralysed for over two months. Troops had to be called in. Industry and commerce came to a grinding huh. Finally, when a general strike was called in 1955, he had to arrest Mr Fong Swee Suan. Let his memory not be so short. I was away at that time, hut I was following it with great interest.

He was the Minister for Labour.

He was the Minister for Labour. If nothing else, I learned how not to govern. Let me tell him, because it is too late for him now ever to govern, hut he might wind up as a Senator in the Upper House, not from Singapore hut, you know, there are powers of patronage. One could be a Minister by becoming a Senator, an appointed one. He will never learn to govern now. He is too busy selling De Havilland aeroplanes to the Tunku, or trying to. $8 million worth of it.

Thank you for the advertisement.

Yes, I give De Havilland advertisement. I was there. The brochures were on the Tunku's table, and I asked him, "What is all this?" He said, "Oh, Yew Hock is trying to sell me De Havilland aeroplanes - $8 million worth." I know he is busy. He wants to build Kuala Lumpur Airport for $50 million. Just think of it, Mr Speaker, Sir, at 5 per cent, one could retire and live ten lifetimes in comfort. I sympathise with him. These are his personal problems. He has got four children to educate in England. Why not make money? Why not utilise the power of the connections, the contacts he has made, when he was Chief Minister? But I say to him now, and I say it seriously, here and outside this Chamber: do not meddle with the lives of the people of Singapore. We will fight before and after Malaysia. Never believe that because the police will be under the control of the Central Government after Malaysia, we will be deterred from saying and from doing what is right. Never believe that. Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleagues and I have this one great advantage - we have faced the ultimate. We faced it that night, here in 1961, when they all said it was phoney. That night we had to decide whether to fight the Communists or pack up. And fighting the Communists meant that if we lost, we died. And a painful death: they do not just take you at dawn and shoot you or give you a last cup of coffee and a cigarette. Thai is not the way they do things. Therefore, we are relieved of all these mundane problems of making a little bit of commission on $8 million worth of aeroplanes and $50 million on the Airport, and lots of other things besides what Ah Hong Construction does in Kuala Lumpur. We are relieved of these problems. We are not interested, Mr Speaker, Sir, but we are deeply and passionately interested in the future of this country, and we will fight the Communists and the merchant adventurers. His ilk -

Order. May I suggest to the Hon, the Prime Minister that all this probably will be very apt when we come to his motion. We are now on the port workers of the Harbour Board.

The point I wanted to make, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that all is for the purpose of gain. In this case, to get back to power, he is prepared to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. The 15 seats - he ganged up with the Barisan Sosialis, not knowing the immeasurable consequences of that decision. I have said this before, Mr Speaker, Sir, - he is a good poker player. I have played poker with him and the Tunku. I have, from time to time in the course of our deliberations, had to play poker with the Tunku, besides golf. Golf in the morning, sometimes poker in the evening, settlement in between, and sometimes on the back of an envelope. But I did not play poker to win. I played poker to amuse my friends. And I am not a good poker player. I do not like the game of bluff. We played bridge. When you know what your Opponent bids, you calculate very carefully what are the possibilities, and, most important, you come to a conclusion on the probabilities. So we put the 15 seats. This is by way of illustration to show how silly he is. He will forever regret this. As an act, he took our Bill away, but I think it would have made no difference if I had been here. He had orders from above, according to today's afternoon newspapers, as he must from time to time. Does he know the consequences of that? The 15 seats - we tested the ground with the Communists, and had them. See the difference between September last year arid now. Referendum Day - 25 per cent - let us see how much they have got and where it is, and let us work on it. And there is no danger attached to it; no power is attached to winning the 15 seats. By his foolish move, which we also contemplated - we credited him with more intelligence and said that the possibility was 50-50 whether he would block it or whether he would allow it. I think I over-rated his intelligence or perhaps these were things not for him to decide but for higher authority. Now he faces a contest for 51 seats, with power attached.

Order. I hate to interrupt the Prime Minister, but I think I must bring him back now to the industrial dispute of the port workers.

In the same way this is a prelude to my explanation, Mr Speaker. Sir. By unthinking actions he has led himself and the country into dire peril, because these 51 seats have got power at the end of it - $500 million worth of money every year controlled by the Treasury plus radio, television, and a host of other things. If he wants it that way, so be it. I would have preferred to do it the intelligent way: when one goes over a road which one knows is mined, one sends an armoured car first to blow up the mines. Watch for them, know where the path is safe, then follow. But not the Member for Cairnhill. He just went in on the Harbour Board Staff Association. Does he know what this is all about? Has he got any contacts with the Harbour Board? He says it i5 the N.T.U.C. versus S.A.T.U. I do not think it is. It is the Communists versus the Rest and I am in favour of the Rest. Mr Rajendra is not my friend. I did what was right for the nurses, although at that time my friend, the Member for Kampong Kapor, was extremely upset. Because my job was to get the Rest. It is like one of those Test matches, Mr Speaker, Sir. You know the other fellows have 11 good men and I think the intelligent thing is to get as many of the good men on your side as possible. The Harbour Board is not under my control. I put Jamit Singh there. He was blackmailed and bludgeoned into going the Communist way. He had to take the consequences. He went wrong. That is a matter for the law. But he was playing a political game. He got sentenced, sent to prison. He put in Bani and Lim Shee Peng. Lim Shee Peng is now in Kuala Lumpur. I arrested Jamit Singh. Want to be unkind? His boss the Tunku is keeping Mr Jamit Singh and Mr Lim Shee Peng. I could have fought them out right up to the 31st of August. We haste also calculated that. You see, Mr Speaker. Sir, my colleagues are like the Minister for Finance. We all play chess and there are books on it - the possible permutations and combinations which - are feasible in any given situation. You make one move, the enemy makes three or four possible counter moves. You calculate what is the possible counter to his counter. A good chess player, like Botvinnik, I think, calculates 10 moves ahead. But the Member for Cairnhill, only takes one leap into the abyss, not knowing where it is going to lead him - An hon. Member: Dissolved.

Yes. He talks of the N.T.U.C. versus S.A.T.U. At least we put up a fight with the N.T.U.C. What has he got? Where is his trade union? Where is his trade union leader, Mr Lee Yew Seng? In St. John's Island as a criminal law secret society detainee. He has been there for the last four years and will be there until he repents. That is his trade union leader. He wrote him a plaintive letter the other day. We passed it on. No reason why we should not. Probably he thought, after the 31st of August, Mr Lee Yew Seng would be released and the old gang would re-form and then they would run around the town again. No, we have calculated that to the nth degree. Make no bones about it. So we say he gets no advantage. He said all this tickled him. Does he really, Mr Speaker, Sir? Very funny man if he does. To go down to a meeting of 10,000 workers with whom he had lost contact for three to four years. I knew them for years. And on that confidence that my long association with them would give me a chance of getting a fair hearing, I got them there and got the union leaders there and put the cards on the table. I was not going to have a Harbour Board strike, definitely not one led by the Communists and certainly not before the 31st of August. And if they called one, it would be illegal. The union is under a state of suspension; order to show cause for stealing union funds; Court sentenced Jamit Singh to one and a half years for pinching $8,000; committee improperly elected; challenge in the High Court. I thought it was right and proper, in a friendly way, to put my cards down. But let me tell the Member for Cairnhill - he will never learn and it is too late even if he tries it now because he has not got that kind of thinking apparatus. Never fight the workers. Isolate the Communist leaders, settle with the workers, then break the Communist leaders. I make no bones about this. They know that I am going to break them and they are going to break me. They were not worried about him. They would rather have him here. Life would be easier for them. Because the Member for Cairnhill just would disappear. He would not turn up. I went there, put my cards on the table. There was no brow-beating; there was no nothing. There was just the plain straightforward putting of the cards on the table: appeal to their logic, their reason and good sense. I gave a Malaysia bonus. Why not? $2 million which Jamit Singh, had he not played the Communist game, would have got them nearly two years ago. The Anson by election - he started his first claim. We made an offer. My colleague, the Minister for Education, was Chairman of the Harbour Board then. I gave them no more than their just due, and I thought it was right. I also made sure that there was no sparking point for any trouble, because if the Harbour Board goes on strike and riots start, then the troops are out. I do not want the troops to be out. I would like to deal just with the leaders, not with the men. Never get the rank and file inflamed. I am not interested in arresting or beating up pregnant women who come to my office with bottles and sticks, or old- mothers and fathers. But I think, quite rightly, the State Advocate-General took the right and proper view, and the gentleman who led them will have to explain why they were present and for what purpose. And so the fight will always go on. Last time I had a ringside view and I learned it at the expense of the Member for Anson and the Member for Cairnhill I saw them bludgeoned and cudgelled almost into stupor. The Member for Cairnhill's tactics? He said it tickled him. I do not know whether he is the sort of chap whose wife will get a divorce for cruelty because he wants to be tickled. But I will tell him this. It did not tickle me when I read that Lim Ching Siong, in the days when the Member for Cairnhill was Chief Minister, in the room where the Clerk now sits, presented him with black banners. And his counter to that was to run around town in his car with the black banner, go to Merdeka Bridge and fire crackers -

To drive away the evil spirits.

Yes. I wept, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I knew it was an unequal contest. Calculators with brawn and brains on one side: gamblers on the other side hoping for the lucky punch. I am not hoping for any lucky punch. You block the 15 seats; that was also taken into account. Certain other alternative plans are put into operation. This motion is blocked. He faces elections before 31st August. Can he? The boss decides. And I say this to him quite frankly. If it should so be, if they really want to test strength, I say. "Right, let us have it." And Members on the other side, the Barisan, the stupidity of it all. Here we were giving them a chance, a run for their money's worth; last race, put your money on an outsider, maybe it would come in. Supposing they won 10 or eight or seven or five. There you are, it proves that some of the masses are on their side. No, they did not want it. They wanted it after merger. I think it is the gravest miscalculation they have ever made. I have made the offer; it has been rejected; so be it. Now, we proceed. He kept on saying, "During my time." Yes, three and a half years of ineptitude, sometimes sheer blunt stupidity. They waited till the fire started; it got out of hand, and he called the Fire Brigade. It was not enough. The Army fire brigade had to come in. I do not believe in doing that. I think the art of government in Singapore is to make quite sure that force need never be used. The Chinese Communists, being Chinese, are calculative. I say this without any offence to my Malay friends on both sides of the House. They run amok. They do not care whether they win or lose. They just run amok. When a Malay runs amok, he takes a knife and runs amok. You kill him or you capture him or he kills a lot of people. But with the Chinese Communists, however brave, however big the talk of revolution, there is always that moment before the final decision is made when he stops and looks at the opposing forces. If he sees a small thing which he thinks he can take on and bash and beat up, then I think it mounts, and then real trouble starts. Then you have to call in the reserves, British troops and so on. I have decided to make my intentions and the intentions of my Government really clear and very simple. It always saves a lot of trouble. It is my way, of governing. My colleagues all do the same. And so it was with the Work Brigade. The Barisan boys were going to start something. One morning they woke up at dawn and at all the camps, my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, had the Gurkhas drilling in the centre of the compound. Not one word was said. Mr Speaker, Sir. Not one word need be said. All they did was, at 5 a.m., they marched into the quadrangle of the camps where trouble was expected and drilled for one and a half hours. They marched forward, gave orders, had bayonet practice - put it up and down, I do not know what they call it: you know, the bolt, the cartridges and so on, and all the trouble-makers went home. Not a shot was fired. And forgive me if I believe that that is the better way of doing things. Then they tried to march around town. The Reserve Unit came out, met them in sufficient force to leave nobody in any doubts as to who would be the victor, who would be the vanquished in a collision. They also went home. The Member said the strike would be called off within two days. What did I mean? I will tell him what I would have done. It is not past history. There will never be a strike before 31st of August. Bani has been isolated. The Committee with him and the 150 chaps, the hard core with him, are isolated. Two of them have already got the sack for indiscipline during working hours, and any one of the others up for similar indiscipline will be sacked. My orders. I am in charge. I tell the Harbour Board this is the way. Security ultimately is my responsibility. I make no apologies for it. A man was found missing from duty for one and a half hours. He is a Communist, Mr Speaker, Sir, I know him. He had been going around fixing up for the evening whilst he was supposed to be inspecting the loading at the hatch. He was asked where he had been. He said, "None of your business. You can tell the Chairman," which they did. The Chairman consulted me, and I said, "Proceed with the ordinary disciplinary procedure. What do the Harbour Board do under such circumstances?" They said, "Sack him." I said, "Well, so be it." So the Committee were going to call a strike. But that was a bad issue, because as one man, nobody got the benefit. So they said it was pay claims. Another chap got the sack under similar circumstances. Markandu is not a Communist. I gave him five chances, Mr Speaker, Sir three times in my office, two times in the Harbour Board. I know him. The trouble with him is that he needs a lot of time at some of the places of entertainment around Tanjong Pagar to be sober, and he is completely in their grip. He sees me; he agrees. He goes hack; Mr Bani writes a long statement; he signs. He cannot write that statement, Mr Speaker, Sir, I know his English and I know Mr Bani's English and I have proof that Mr Bani is -

Order. The Prime Minister should refer to Mr Bani as the Member for Thomson.

Yes, the Member for Thomson. He was the leading light. I called him to my office three times. The first time. I said, "Markandu, please do not make me do this. Here is a way out for you, and an honourable way out. So dissolve the two committees. Get rid of the Communists. Bani out. Settle your union problem." He said yes. "Elect section by section, start negotiations.:" He said yes. That evening there was a long statement denouncing me - that I prevented the right of the workers to make representations. Members of the Press were there. Why was there no adverse public reaction? Because the public knew the truth. There was a long, deliberate, elaborate process of the clarification of stands before the strike. I gave Markandu a chance. The second time he came, I said, "In that case, now since you have gone in, you have got to retire. No. He went on and signed more long statements. After the third bottle, they always think the revolution has been won. Just like some members of the Alliance Party, they always sit down at the table. I always find that my troubles begin after they have had a good dinner, because at the eighth course and after the tenth whisky has gone down, in their minds they have won the next elections and thinking how they are going to share the spoils. [Interruption] I drink beer, Mr Speaker, Sir. I make no bones about it. But I like to do my calculations very methodically early in the morning with a cup of tea. I never make a decision at night. That is so. And so. Markandu twice in the Harbour Board, in the Board room in the presence of all his fellow committee men and in the presence of the workers, I offered him a way out. I told him the first time that if he went down and signed any more statements from Bani, then it was an act of war. He was going with Bani. The Member for Thomson is lighting me, willy-nilly. He knows he has done it. He is not such a fool. He has got exactly 32 days left. If he wants to make it shorter, that is his business. But he has got 32 days left when I am in charge. And we play it the open way. They blew me with loudspeakers froth the roof-top. I hailed back and turned the loudspeakers on them. We started the argument. They said I am a Fascist. You know. Mr Speaker. Sir, it is a very simple point. I told the crowd, all I had to do, if I was a Fascist, was to tell the police officer who was there to ring up Rumah Miskin Police Station and the 70 gentlemen upstairs had no way of escape, and they would all be in for a breach of the law - disturbing the peace, conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. I know enough of the law to know what section all these things fall under. It is very simple. I thought it was best in the long run to let them have their go. Black banners. So long as they did not take a stone, a stick, an acid bomb, a gun. If they did, then force versus force. I mean, argument goes out of the window and force begins. Is the Member for Cairnhill prepared to do that? He will never contemplate that. Again these are personal problems which I do not wish to touch on. But I would say that people who spend their time playing mahjong and poker at high salaries are not likely to go around calculating these things methodically. And you have to when you are fighting an enemy who is methodical, thorough and absolutely determined. In this case, they were wrong. They fought the nation. They fought national unity. They told lies on citizenship. They told lies on education. Right at this moment, they are going around -

Order. Can I ask the Prime Minister to try now to devote his time to the port workers?

Sir, we must always realise what we are doing. On whose side are we on? That is my theme, Mr Speaker, Sir,I am asking the Member for Cairnhill, on whose side is he on? And I say the answer is, he is on his side, and whether as a Communist or anybody else, if he believes he can get something out of it, he proceeds. That is my understanding of his conduct. They are going around. They have not given up the fight. They thought that there were going to be elections for 15 Members and now, by their own stupidity, they have thrown it away. They were preparing for it whilst I was away in London. The moment the Bill was tabled, they prepared for it. They went round the rural constituencies from Sembawang to Jalan Kayu to spread the lie that Chinese education and culture would be destroyed after merger. I know that. I will go back there and again explain and again unscramble. So it goes on all the time, every time. Now Mr Markandu again, on him I end. The Member for Cairnhill says, "Oh, what a wicked chap punishing a man." I gave Mr Markandu five chances. The last one was at a public meeting in front of 10,000 workers. I stated the facts which he could not deny. But he signed Mr Bani's statements every time. He said "Oh, well, Bani is my adviser." So I said, "Well, stop it now or you must share Bani's fate." That evening he went out and drank more booze and made more statements. His citizenship is being revoked and I made no apologies for it. I think it is necessary in the national interest that people should understand, that even if you are not a Communist but you play the Communist line, then you wear the Communist jersey and go down with them. You must be prepared. You cannot say, "if the Communists win, I share in the spoils. If the Communists lose, please do not hurt me as I am not a Communist." The fight is on. It is a matter of life and death, and I am determined not to lose this fight. There is no stir in the Harbour Board. The Member for Cairnhill has no chance at the waterfront. All his gangster boys, Lee Yew Seng's gangster boys - I beg his pardon - are all gone and they have dispersed. Let me remind him that on his own Special Branch advice - I do not say that he himself did it - he arrested the Member for Kallang, Che Buang, in 1956, knowing that the Member for Kallang was not a Communist. He arrested Inche Awang, President of the S.T.C.E.U., knowing that he was not a Communist, but because he was running around with the Communists. So he went down. The Special Branch recommended and he acted. When they were confident that Inche Awang and Inche Buang were not really Communists or going to support the Communist cause, they were released. Well, Mr Markandu is in exactly that same category. The only difference between the Member for Cairnhill and us is this. His Special Branch did all his thinking for him. Our Special Branch does part of our thinking for us because we have to make the political decision. If I listen to the Special Branch, Mr Speaker. Sir, then this Assembly today will be a slightly different place. There will be a few vacant chairs in this Assembly. I make no bones about it. They know it and I know it. It is a political decision which I had to make and I said. "No. Let it be 25-25 to the end and the end is the 31st of August." If he likes to make it earlier, it is in his hands. So I say, far from making an apology for the policies of my Government, I leave the Member for Cairnhill with this passing thought. He will never come back to power in Singapore. He has not a chance. Even if the Grand Alliance win, he is fairly low down the ladder. He is not even an office-bearer now. He is an embarrassment to them. There are other bigger men whom they think have cleaner records. He is out. So please do not try to make mischief here, because let me tell him this. If between now and the 31st of August, any mischief is created either by his running around with Mr Markandu who saw him and I know that -

When?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my job to be informed. I do not always keep everybody informed because it is not in the public interest. But I think in this case it is in the public interest for people to know that Mr Markandu thinks it is unwise to get the Member for Thomson to raise his case: it is better to get the Member for Cairnhill to raise ii. Originally, it was going to be a much fiercer thing than just a motion on the adjournment, had prepared for it. I knew it before I went to the Harbour Board for the first time. I say to him and his colleagues, there is a place in Malaysia for them. Kuala Lumpur has many places in the Senate. There are ways out. There are profitable ventures. But any involvement of Singapore's paramount interest in his personal machinations. I say please do not. It is bound to have very unfortunate circumstances and I will not baulk even if the Member for Cairnhill, in his folly, for his own selfish interest, plays around once again with the communists, as he did - 15 seats and Mr Markandu. That is my job. As I have said, we have contemplated the ultimate and the ultimate is a very unpleasant death. That has not deterred us and nothing will - no Khaw Kai Bohs, no other big bosses and other big friends of his. We will do what is right in the interest of the people of Singapore and in the interest of the people of Malaysia. Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

Is it on a point of order?

No, we still have time up to 8.30 to reply.

There is no reply. The hon. Member has spoken. He might have another opportunity to meet the points raised by the Prime Minister but certainly not on this motion for the adjournment. 4.10 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now we have heard the Prime Minister praising Fascism. In the last few months, especially the last few days, events have developed to such an extent that he is now feeling uncomfortable. According to his own words, the P.A.P.'s game has changed during the last few days. They cannot carry out their original plan of striking at Singapore's Left-wing movement. The Prime Minister has just pointed out in his speech that the P.A.P. will not follow the actions of the previous Government when striking at the Left-wing movement hut that they will adopt their own policy. The Singapore Harbour Board employees were suppressed under this policy. Their request was frustrated by him. In his speech, the Prime Minister bragged about the correctness of his decision on the award to the Harbour Board workers' wages demand. When the Member for Cairnhill was the Minister for Labour, he adopted the wrong policy because he did not look after the interest of the workers or meet their reasonable demands. But today, has the Prime Minister met the reasonable demands of the Harbour Board workers? Mr Speaker, Sir, these demands arose long before the split between the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis. For the last six years, the wages of the Harbour Board's workers have not been increased and their working conditions have not improved. Therefore, the claims of the workers are not as a result of the tussle between the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis. Long before we parted with the P.A.P., the union raised their demands and negotiated with the Harbour Board - 4.15 p.m.

On a point of order, Sir. There is no quorum. Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present -

Ring the Division bells. 4.16 p.m. The bells having failed to ring -

This is a very unusual position. It is either sabotage or some fuse has gone off. The Division bells refuse to ring. May I suggest to Members of the Barisan Sosialis that if they wish this sitting to continue they should have their Whip to whip in at least 13 Members in all. I will wait for two minutes. The Member for Upper Serangoon (Mr Chan Sun Wing) left the Chamber. 4.19 p.m.

Well, I have allowed two minutes. If there is still no quorum after the expiration of another 30 seconds, this Assembly will stand adjourned. It is up to the Whip now to get two more Members.

The number has now increased to three more Members. Further notice taken that a quorum was not then present, Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes past Four o'clock p.m.