Hansard, 1963-12-12

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day].

33 p.m.

We are on the Main Estimates, 1964. For the convenience of hon. Members, I intend taking the total for each head as it appears in the last column of the abstract of estimated expenditure on pages 37 and 38 of Paper Cmd. 30 of 1963. We are dealing now with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper. 2.34 p.m. Head 3-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 3 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, I would like to know how public funds are being used in the Legislative Assembly. I would like to know whether Government documents used in the Legislative Assembly could also be printed in all the four official languages. The Prime Minister has said that he intends to appoint a Puisne Judge to be the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. I would like to know the position on this matter. Another point is this. I hope there will be more supplies of different kinds of books for our reference in the Assembly Library. This will help us to understand better the situation and all matters relating to the State and to the society in Singapore in general.

Mr Speaker, the Member has raised several points. I do not think I need labour the House with a long harangue on lines diametrically opposite to those that have been delivered by Members in the Opposition, apart for the fact that if we had not made special arrangements for terms and conditions of merger, the Member for Jalan Kayu would not have been here today even in spite of the split vote in his constituency. Being unable to speak English or Malay, he would be out, disqualified, and unable to take part in this debate. First of all, whilst we do not expect him to thank us for our forbearance and the great care we have taken to see that people like him should not be penalised, at least we do not expect him to come here and cause unnecessary trouble by raising problems about equality of languages. Next, the question of the Speaker. The Government has announced its intention, and this is a matter which requires the consent of the Federal Government. Needless to say, if the consent has already been obtained, an appointment may well have been made. The problem is whether we can satisfy the Federal Government to come to some arrangement whereby one of the judicial officers can, at the same time, either be seconded or otherwise freed, do these duties. At the right time and when finality is reached, the House will be informed. The third point is the Library. I do not know whether the Member for Jalan Kayu believes that the Assembly Library is really meant for political tracts and dissertations. If he did, then I think really the place for it is the National Library. I am sure all the treatises and pamphlets which he wants to read, for instance, about infantile Left-wing adventurism and how generally not to make Marx and Lenin look like fools in Singapore, can be obtained in the National Library. But the Assembly Library is normally concerned with records of proceedings of this Legislature and treatises on rules, procedures and Standing Orders of this House. I am not saying that there is no vast store of literature in the other languages. They all have: Chinese, Tamil and, not least, Malay. But whether there are any useful publications to help Members in the deliberations of this House is another matter. If the Member for Jalan Kayu can make out a case why he has been at a disadvantage because he cannot understand, for instance, Erskine May on parliamentary practice and procedure, we might seriously consider setting up a team of translators to translate such useful treatises on parliamentary procedures, if he really finds that there is a need for that, and that he is at a disadvantage because he does not understand the English language.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, only two days ago the Prime Minister said in his speech that he welcomed opinions and criticisms from even his own Back-benchers and Members from the Opposition. But when we put forward suggestions such as this one, he does not take them seriously. I remember the Member for Jalan Kayu has pointed out that the P.A.P. always raise the question of the Communist bogey. If everything can be explained away on the pretext of the Communist bogey, then nothing can be resolved. If he can use this term to evade every question, why should it be necessary to have any debate in this House? I hope those Members of the P.A.P. who were in this House some time ago, and who are now still here, will help to persuade the P.A.P. leadership to implement truly the use of the four official languages, orally as well as written, in this Legislative Assembly. I hope the Prime Minister has not forgotten the promise he made some time in the past. What is wrong with making this suggestion to use the four official languages, orally as well as written, in all the printed papers? I would like him to let us know whether there are any difficulties in implementing this suggestion. We cannot deny that the Legislative Assembly occupies quite an important position, dealing as it does with all matters of State and public affairs in Singapore. Therefore, it is necessary that the four official languages should be used in the Legislative Assembly. The Prime Minister, of course, will remember that there are Members in this House who do not understand English. If all the documents are in English, then those who cannot master the English language will, of course, find it difficult to take part in the business of this House. Our suggestion is to enable every Member to understand the matter under discussion and the business that is conducted in this House so as to help in conducting the Assembly proceedings smoothly. The Prime Minister thinks that those who do not understand will have only themselves to blame. We hope that the books in the Library will be in other languages as well as in English. The Assembly Librarian will be in a position to look for the relevant books. In addition to books in English, we also hope there will be books in Chinese, Malay and Tamil available in the Assembly Library. 2.45 p.m. As to what books to supply to the Library, this question can be thrashed out by the Librarian himself. Why should the Prime Minister talk about buying books on Marxism and Leninism? In fact, we have never asked for these books. Hence the Government are not sincere in wanting to solve this question. On the other hand, they want the Opposition Members to make suggestions as to how to improve the running of this Assembly --- [Interruption] The Member for Jalan Besar should not say that. We are not the librarians of this Assembly or keepers of the Library. We should trust the Librarian. He will be able to get all the relevant books --- [Interruption].

Order.

(In Mandarin): If the Member for Jalan Besar is interested in these books, of course, we are not opposed to the buying of books like The Adventures of Pinnochio. Talking about the appointment of the Speaker of this House, the answer given by the Prime Minister about appointing a Puisne Judge to be the Speaker is very vague. We have now elected a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker, and these persons are Members of the P.A.P. What we want to say is that we hope the Prime Minister will not forget that it has been two and a half months since the general election was held on the 21st of September. If the Prime Minister is serious about getting a Puisne Judge to be the Speaker, his appointment to be approved by the Central Parliament, how is that we still have to wait for the appointment of this Puisne Judge as our Speaker? Why should they elect a Deputy Speaker? I want to know whether it is because they are unable to find a Puisne Judge to be Speaker. Whether it is because of the P.A.P.'s arrogance that some of the Judges do not want to come here to be the Speaker of this House? Who insult the Judges? It is the P.A.P. who always insult other people. We agree that the P.A.P. should appoint a Judge to be the Speaker of this House ---

(In Mandarin): When did we agree to this?

(In Mandarin): I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture is talking about. I have no need to reply to the questions put forward by the Back-benchers of the Party in power --- [Interruption].

Order. Please allow the Member to proceed.

(In Mandarin): Secondly, yesterday the Minister for Culture was consistently going against the rules and Standing Orders of this House when he made his speech. Therefore, we have no doubt why some of the Judges do not want to be the Speaker of this House. It is because of the arrogant attitude of the P.A.P. --- [Interruption]. It is a fact. As Opposition Members, sometimes we feel sorry for the Speaker when he is in a very difficult position ---

(In Mandarin): The Member for Jalan Kayu has moved this amendment. Just because he does not understand the documents which are printed in English, he cannot blame the Assembly or the Budget, because in the past four years, especially when he was a member of the P.A.P., there was a provision in the Budget to enable Members to learn Malay and English and other languages. You are lazy. You do not want to make an effort to learn English or Malay ---

(In Mandarin): I doubt whether now is the time to debate the proceedings in this House or to debate the question of our Assembly Members. It seems that the Minister is debating the Member for Jalan Kayu. I do not know what subject we should be discussing ---

Order. Just allow the Minister to speak on a point of order.

(In Mandarin): He himself has been unable to master either English or Malay or any of the four official languages. He has always allowed himself to be led by the nose by others. Now, what more does he want to complain? He now complains that there are not enough books for him to serve as references. He also complains that he cannot understand the books in English. Even if we give you books and documents in Chinese, you may not be able to understand too. Even if we translate all the documents and even the Budget into Chinese, you will not understand it, you will not be able to comprehend it. What is the use? We should thank the institution of this Legislative Assembly, because the Government is providing $500 allowance per month to enable them to criticise and attack the Government. In how many countries can you find these things in practice? Not to talk about freedom of speech. If you dare to attack the Government or any leaders of the Government in certain countries, you will land in gaol or be banished or even disappear. Now in this House Assemblymen have various kinds of privileges. They are not liable to court action for their speeches made in this House and are not restricted under normal laws. Now, this is the spirit of parliamentary democracy. These few days we have to put away all our work to come to this House to listen to their speeches. Whatever they talked was like a stereotype gramophone record played over and over again, like an old grandmother's tale - long and stinking. The Opposition Members are even boasting about the length of their speeches, requesting us to compete with them in the length of speeches. That is not the purpose of this House. Neither is it the principle of legislative proceedings. They want to have all documents, the Budget and Bills to be translated into the three remaining official languages. At the moment, they have the right and the opportunity to make their speeches in Mandarin. But do they know how much money will have to be spent in translating all these documents and papers into all the three other official languages? This sum could very well have been used for other useful purposes, such as building roads and providing social amenities and facilities. Even if we provide documents and papers in Chinese, the Member for Jalan Kayu may not be able to understand them. He has raised the question of books in the Library. I remember that in the last session, there were certain publications in the Library called Monitoring Digest containing printed records of radio broadcasts from other countries. Now this is for the use of certain people who have need to study them. These Monitoring Digests are not for publication, and in the organ of the Barisan Sosialis they print certain quotations from these Digests, not from material supplied by the Voice of America, but from North Kalimantan Radio, material advocating the destruction of Malaysia and making anti-Malaysia speeches. 3.00 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, it pains me to find that the Minister for Labour whose skin is not white - but our Prime Minister's is somewhat red ---

On a point of order, Sir, I wonder whether the fact that my skin is white or yellow has got anything to do with ---

What is the point of order?

The point of order is that the Member is making remarks irrelevant to what we are discussing.

The Minister for Labour has also made personal remarks about the Member. He said the Member for Jalan Kayu could not read.

(In Mandarin): If your skin is white, perhaps you could justify yourself to your forefathers and speak in English in this House, and you will be justified in criticising others for being unable to speak English.

Point of order, Sir, I do not remember making any reference to my ancestors.

(In Mandarin): My suggestion for the amendment is made for the cause of equality of the four official languages in this House. This Assembly is the highest law-making body and should be the right place for implementing respect for all the four languages. It is the duty of the Assembly to implement it, because Singapore society is composed of various races. Since this House is an important body in the State, we should use all the four languages. The Minister for Labour has just now mentioned the extra expenditure incurred in translating these documents. But in the Ministry of Culture there is plenty of literature which nobody wants to read and which is a waste of public funds. Can they justify their expenditure on publications of the Ministry of Culture?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now debating the proposed cut in the Legislative Assembly vote. But I am afraid the Member for Jalan Kayu is talking about the Ministry of Culture, and the waste of money on the publications of the Ministry of Culture.

The Member is trying to make his point. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Fortunately the Speaker has some experience in guiding the proceedings of this House, otherwise what is to become of this House? There will be disrespect in this House. We should have reference books which might have come from other countries. The Prime Minister has been touring various countries in the world and has therefore acquired some knowledge and knows more from his experience. In the same way, we should also be given the opportunity to acquire more knowledge and know more things through literature in various languages. This is good for all and this suggestion is reasonable. I would urge the Government not to evade the question by saying that this is a political issue. I hope that the four official languages could be treated equally. This is not a political question.

(In Malay): I am surprised to see the behaviour of the Opposition Members today. They appear to be so keen on our expanding the Assembly Library. As Members of this Assembly, elected by the people, we should not depend on others to bring forward our arguments into this Assembly. The Government have established a National Library where books in all the four languages are available there. Members of the Assembly are provided with a special Library, and they, as well as members of the public, should go to the National Library for their books of reference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I really do not know why the Opposition Members have asked for a reduction in Head 3 - Legislative Assembly - and, at the same time, ask for translations in the four languages. What they should have done is to ask the Minister for Finance to increase the amount allocated to the Legislative Assembly. For the last four days we have had dreary speeches about the unemployment position. The Opposition Members have said that there is unemployment all over Singapore. What they should have done is to ask the Government to increase the number of typists and translators probably in the Legislative Assembly in order that they can have translations, and therefore create employment.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I feel that equal treatment of the four languages is exposed as a falsehood in this Assembly. We see that the P.A.P. is only paying lip service to the policy of equal treatment of the four languages. Even in this House this equal treatment cannot be put to work. The P.A.P. is playing about with this question of giving equal treatment. We are not asking for something that cannot be done. It is not fair to have everything only in the English language. If we are really sincere in giving equal treatment to the four languages, then it should first be done in this House.

Sir, I think I had better bring the debate back to the rails. Perhaps I will give them the best construction possible on their motives. The best construction is, I think, a genuine misunderstanding on their part. The Assembly Library is not an ordinary library meant for general reading. The purpose of the Library is to have treatises on parliamentary procedure and practice as in Britain and other parts of the British Commonwealth which have adopted this parliamentary practice. There are, therefore, no Chinese books written on this anywhere in the world, nor for that matter Malay hooks or Tamil books. Therefore, if Members of the Opposition feel that they find any particular kind of text-book of assistance, i will seriously consider the proposition that translations should be made. [Interruption] One at a time. Mr Speaker, I intend to meet all the points that have been raised. As for the Library, as I have said, if the Barisan really want any other reading material, then the proper place is not the Assembly Library but the National Library. When we come to the Ministry of Culture estimates, that is the time to point out whether or not the Ministry of Culture is doing its duty in providing reading material and literature in the Chinese language - indeed in any other language, Tamil and Malay. So I really ask them to consider whether, in fact, they want to pursue this matter. If they really want to, then I say I am quite prepared. The leading textbook on Constitutional and Parliamentary Practice is Erskine May's, a book of over 1,000 pages, full of technicalities. If necessary, I will even consider a commission to translate it if it is of any value to Members opposite. Other than that, we get donated to us proceedings of other Parliaments in the British Commonwealth; free of charge, they give them to us and we put them in the Library. Sir, I think the point of substance is - I agree this is a point of substance - about notice papers, and so on. Members will notice that at the ceremonial opening of the Assembly the Order Paper for that day was printed in four languages. If the staff of this Assembly plus the staff of the Government Printing Office can cope with the work, we will likewise do every single Order Paper. I concede that. What I would like to point out is that we have inherited a Government Printing Office which only prints in English. The Ministry of Culture is at the present moment trying to build up a section that can print in Malay, Tamil and Chinese. When that section is built up, and provided we can at the same time build up a coterie of translators, we will let all Members have all notifications in all four languages. [Interruption] Do they want it? Surely I am assuming that they do not want us to do it only in Chinese. If we do it, then we have got to do it also in Malay and Tamil. [Interruption] That is a matter --- 3.15 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that you remain silent when the Opposition Members interrupt the Prime Minister.

Perhaps it is because the Prime Minister was speaking English.

Sir, the plain fact of the matter is this. This was decided by an All-Party Commission back in 1957 and the Members opposite besides the Member for Jalan Kayu may not be aware of this. But it was found that it is impossible with the administration at present constituted with both the clerical staff - the Government Printing side - and interpreters at our disposal to have simultaneous records of all documents distributed to Members in four languages. And therefore, for convenience sake, they retain the use of English. Sir, I will be quite frank and say that it will never be possible at any time to run all four records in all four languages. It is something which not even the United Nations can successfully do. But I do promise the Members opposite that whilst we will always maintain the liberty of each Member to use his own language, the moment there are sufficient men and material and the printing capacity to do it, the records will be kept in the national language. And I do urge the Member for Jalan Kayu to utilise the opportunity we offered him in the last Assembly and in this Assembly to really make an effort, otherwise if in five years' time we have built up this whole apparatus, he may find himself illiterate. Now, Sir, about the Speaker. But before I go to that, I would like to make this point. I think Members on the opposite side run a very grave risk of playing this dangerous line of saying that we are not equal. Sir, I am prepared to meet this problem all the time and every time. But I say that they have already been well isolated from the mass of the public, playing all kinds of dangerous external lines. The foreign policy of the P.K.I. is the internal policy of the Barisan. Now they play on language and sentiments. It is our job to see that these very sensitive and highly-charged issues are played down. And I say, if they have a genuine point to make, I will meet it genuinely. But generally to say that we are not treating the Chinese language - and really they are only interested in the Chinese language; let us be quite frank about that - equally with the others, I say that it is not only an untruth but a positively dangerous line to pursue. If they have a genuine complaint and if they do not really understand what is being said in the notices, I will consider during Assembly sittings to try to get some translators seconded from the Courts to try and help them. But this is not a genuine misunderstanding or incapacity to comprehend. This is deliberate mischief making, and I say they do so at their peril. This is a country with a plural society. If we play one without taking into account the sensitivities of the others, there will be real trouble. So I urge them not to pursue this line. Our policy of equal treatment for the four streams was decided by an All-Party Commission, that it is only feasible to have one administrative language. Wherever possible - at ceremonial openings, and so on - we put it in all languages. If really there is a need, they do not understand it, I am prepared during Assembly sittings, as I have said, to bring in interpreters. But to play this as a propaganda line is a very dangerous line. I will meet it. I say we will survive. But I am not so sure whether the country can stand these stresses and strains. One thing is definite. If the next wretched riot takes place, like the Bertha Hertogh riot, we will not have enough policemen to guard the Member for Jalan Kayu and all the Members opposite. Sir, the question of the Speaker. I had hoped that Members opposite would have shown a certain amount of decorum and good taste. They say they welcome our desire to appoint a High Court Judge concurrently as Speaker of this Assembly. They have cast aspersions that perhaps no High Court Judge wishes to be a Speaker. I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, you are in an invidious position in that you lean over backwards to be more than fair to them, because there can he no allegation about that. And I see the advantage of having an impartial non-party Speaker who is doing a completely impartial duty, like a Judge, to take this office. I have explained publicly the reason for the need to get the consent of the Central Government, because the Judiciary is now in the Federal vote. I do not want to go into the details. I have been pressed now. All right, I will say this now. The Central Government having taken the advice of not our Judiciary - our Judiciary is quite happy with this arrangement and is quite prepared to allow one of the Judges concurrently to act as Speaker - but the Federal side of the Judiciary feel that they should not duplicate their functions. I am now putting forward a proposition to the Central Government that perhaps one Judge could be seconded to fulfil this function for the term of this Assembly, and if the next Assembly does not wish to have him continue, then he can go back and be a Judge. This matter requires a certain amount of deliberation and consideration. But I think one thing is quite clear, Mr Speaker, Sir. What the Members on the opposite side understand is the kind of fight they carry out where they kick a man when he is down and if they had won ---

Order. Time has elapsed. Will the Member for Jalan Kayu indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to withdraw my amendment. But ---

On a point of order. My point of order is that when a Member withdraws, he withdraws. He does not make another speech. I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir. One of the problems which I wanted to anticipate was to have a Speaker who also understands the language of the Opposition in order that they can be checkmate before they are out of order through the interpretation. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $701,300 for Head 3 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 6 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 6 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1. I know that when we raise many questions the P.A.P. Members always harp on the need to economise. I do not understand why the Government are prepared to spend $1,350 per month on the post of Personal Secretary (Political). We know that the present incumbent of this post is the defeated candidate for Bukit Panjang. [Interruption in Mandarin] Dr Lee Siew Choh did not ask you to appoint him as a Political Secretary. Why should the Government spend $1,350 on a person who was defeated in the last election? It looks as if this post is a kind of refuge for a defeated candidate of the P.A.P. The Minister for Finance realises that we are facing financial difficulties. Since that is so, we need to be economical. [Interruption in Mandarin] It is a waste of public money to provide for this post. What have these Political Secretaries done or, for that matter, what can they do for the people? There are many people who are out of job and these people are increasing in number. The salary paid to a Political Secretary amounting to $1,350 a month is quite enough to feed one family for one year. [Interruption in Mandarin] Mr Speaker, Sir, the Members of this House - whether Government or Opposition Members - have been elected by the people and the $500 a month paid to each Member is not from the purse of the Minister for Labour. [Interruption in Mandarin] Mr Wong Soon Fong and Mr Chan Sun Wing never [Interruption in Mandarin] ---

The hon. Member should proceed. When the Government side get the same treatment from the Opposition, they will not like it. I think we should allow him to proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir [Interruption in Mandarin] - there is a saying that if one has not made a careful examination, one should not have the right to speak. If the Members opposite do not know the real situation and facts and talk at random, then they will be doing wrong to themselves. [Interruption in Mandarin]

May I remind the Members of the Government not to interrupt?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, whenever Members of the Opposition speak, we are always faced with two reactions: one is interference and the other is that whenever the Government are unable to rebut or argue, they always raise the Communist bogey. [Interruption in Mandarin] How many questions have we raised which they have never been able to answer?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, since our first Budget was put forward at the end of 1959, the men who opposed the posts of Political Secretaries were Members of the S.P.A. But today the opposition that was voiced by the S.P.A. is now voiced by the Barisan Sosialis. When the strong men in the Barisan Sosialis - Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan and Mr Woodhull - held the posts of Political Secretaries, they did not object to these posts. But now they say that it is a waste of money. These Political Secretaries are important to the Ministers and to the people of Singapore. If they are loyal to Malaysia, then they are good. So I am surprised that the question of the Political Secretaries which was raised by the S.P.A. led by Tun Lim Yew Hock is now raised and debated at length by the Barisan Sosialis. 3.30 p.m. The S.P.A. talked at length on the Political Secretaries, so much so that the Party disappeared from the political arena. I am afraid that the same fate which befell the S.P.A. would also befall the 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis in this Assembly. In regard to the defeated candidates, does it mean that because they have been defeated they have no ability? Their defeat is due to several reasons. They were defeated because their campaign was not very good. They went and intimidated the people in the kampongs. But the Political Secretary who has today been appointed by the Prime Minister was put up to contest the election at Bukit Panjang to show the strength that has ensued in the past two or three months. If by being defeated means that a candidate has no ability, then in the case of their own leader, Dr Lee Siew Choh, the fact that he was defeated means that he has no ability. If he is no good, why should he be elected again as Chairman of the Party? So, Mr Speaker, I am rather fed up. Four times in the past, we had a debate in this Assembly on this point. And the voice of Tun Lim Yew Hock is still ringing in our ears! His voice is still being echoed in this Assembly in the same manner and in the same tune. But this has been voiced by other people.

(In Mandarin): Just now a Member of the Government spoke about Political Secretaries like Mr Lim Ching Siong and Mr Woodhull. But I would like to point out that the present Political Secretary of the Prime Minister is a defeated candidate. What did he do in the past Government? I am sure the people will see this clearly. He must have done a lot of things for which he cannot quite be responsible to the people. If you want to appoint a Political Secretary, you must consider his ability. A character like him is not appropriate. This is just only to help out a defeated candidate.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Members of the Government are now irrational ---

Sorry, I must take it before the translator reaches you.

I have not got the translation yet.

Yes, before it reaches you. Before the Member goes on further. I think as a former Member of this Assembly he must know that making references, albeit allegorical references, to the excreta of animals and other things is not becoming of this Assembly. If anybody is debasing the prestige and standing of this Assembly, it is the Members of the Opposition. [Interruption]

Order. Please do not use unparliamentary language.

(In Mandarin): The Speaker has not heard it. What I am going to say is this. You must know that Lim Ching Siong was loved by the people. He is a patriot. Why are you afraid of him and put him in gaol? [Interruption]

Order. Are all of you going to shout? I am having difficulty enough trying to listen to the English translation. I cannot well do that with several Members shouting across the Floor. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): I thank the Speaker for his decision. Now the Prime Minister's Political Secretary has been discarded by the people of his own constituency. That is the comparison I made just now, between the flower and the cowdung. The Prime Minister's excuse for appointing him as Political Secretary is for him to act as liaison between the people and the Government. Since he has been discarded by the people, is he in a good capacity to create good liaison between the Government and the people? Can he do that? This is just to help out a defeated candidate. This is a sheer waste of public money. His work is to liaise between the Government and the people, but since he has been discarded by the people, how can he liaise between the Government and the people? Nobody wants him. These people must struggle by themselves. You have no character; the whole lot of you. You are not people of character. If you have, it will be good for you. These people are just white Chinese.

I do not know, Mr Speaker, whether this is going to be a perennial subject of discussion. I am quite prepared for it every year. I stand by my decision, and I will justify my decision at the end of my term of office. We had all this before. We will have more of it in the next four Budgets. But I will ask Members opposite to ask themselves this simple question. If I wish, through my office, to bestow money and patronage, there are sufficient powers at my disposal to do it without having to put it in the Budget and make it the subject of discussion and debate. Therefore, when I do this, I am quite prepared for discussion, criticism and debate. There are so many other officers which any government has got. I ask them next to ask themselves why, although right from 1959 we had nine vacancies - one for each Minister; one Political Secretary per Minister - I am sorry, there were eleven, because three were for Culture - we never at any one time filled all the eleven, as we were entitled to do. Even now we have only filled three out of the eleven. Surely there must be a reason. Surely they must credit us with sufficient, if not responsibility, then at least with a sense of decorum of what is right and wrong in the interest of the public. I do not want to have to defend the virtues of my Parliamentary Secretary. But may I just say this for the benefit of the Member for Jalan Kayu? If he is of no value to me, he will not be there.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister tries to justify this item in the Budget by saying that they have only filled three vacancies. He wants to say that he has not squandered away public funds. We know that we are facing financial difficulties. Even these three posts will come to more than $4,000. In one year it will amount to about $48,000 to $50,000. This sum is not small. If there is a real need for a Political Secretary, I would like to hear the reasons for it. As regards the Political Secretary of the Prime Minister, they have explained that they want him to act as a bridge between the Government and the people. Hence the need for a Political Secretary. But the present Political Secretary of the Prime Minister - although I do not know him much - when he was attached to the Ministry of Education, was not able to act as a bridge between the Government and the people. Two days ago when we were talking about Government's monopoly on education and how they made use of education in the interest of their Party, the culprit who did that is the present Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. He was supposed to be the vanguard of the P.A.P., and yet he lost the election. [Interruption]

Who is on the floor? Is it the Member for Thomson or the Minister for Labour? Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): If the debate were to continue in this way, there would not be any meaning at all.

The Member for Jalan Kayu and the Member for Thomson - a constituency where his former colleague in the Barisan Sosialis had to run away and allow him to win - on respective merits. Earlier we heard that he asked for facilities to be able to get documents translated into the Chinese language. The present Political Secretary, more than any of these eight gentlemen, speaks four languages. He writes his own speeches, which cannot be said for these eight. The Barisan Assemblymen are getting $500. He is a former journalist. He was President of the Journalists Union. He worked in the Nanyang Siang Pau where a lot of Left-wing gentlemen used to go around him to get their statements published. He knows more about what is going round in this country, and he is more loyal to this country than any of them, because, as I have said, he can speak four languages: Chinese, English, Malay and a little bit of Tamil. Can the Member for Jalan Kayu claim to be able to speak in four languages, write his own speeches, read the books in the Library? He gets $500, Sir. [Interruption].

Please let us have no more personal attacks. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the integrity and personality of the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister was questioned. His personal integrity was questioned. Why is he being paid $1,350? As for the fact that he was a defeated candidate, well, Sir, what about the Chairman of his Party? Why is he still the Chairman of his Party? Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, you recently heard some of the Barisan unions threw away the workers' money by way of giving gratuities to Mr Woodhull, and Mr Fong Swee Suan. And they were Political Secretaries here, Sir, unlike the present Political Secretary. Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr Lim Ching Siong and Mr Woodhull were paid $1,300 to help the Government, to be loyal to the Government. They used the money to work against the Government. We have a different batch of Political Secretaries who are loyal to the Government, unlike the three gentlemen whom they have mentioned who earned salaries from us and worked against us. Not only that, even when they worked against us after breaking away from us, they still insisted, and we had to sack them from their posts of Political Secretary. That is the difference between them and the present Political Secretary, who was my former Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Culture. Because he was good, we sent him to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. When he went there, he knew that gentlemen like them would use Chinese chauvinism, education, would use racialism, Communist propaganda to get hint out. That was one of the reasons. They used this line. Therefore, Sir, let them not talk about the respective merits of the present Political Secretaries and any of them.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Culture talked about Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan and Mr Woodhull, that when they were Political Secretaries, they were given $1,350 a month and he said that they should work for the Government. But the work of a Political Secretary is to be a sort of liaison between the Government and the people. If the Government do wrong, then they must oppose the Government. If what the Government do is detrimental to the people, they have the right to oppose them and point out to them that they are doing wrong. That is what they should have done in the past, because they were the bridge between the Government and the people. They were not as bad and as degenerated as the present Minister for Culture ---

On a point of order. The point of order is that the Member for Paya Lebar is referring to my character and he should be ruled out of order.

Has the Member for Paya Lebar finished?

(In Mandarin): I was saying just now ---

Has he finished? Mr Kow Kee Seng resumed his seat.

In his speech just now he referred to my "low-down" character ---

Mr Minister, before the translation had reached me, you had already risen. Mr Tan Cheng Tong rose ---

The Member for Jalan Kayu. I must ask Members of both sides of the House not to make personal attacks. One attack leads to another. When you are attacked, you do not like it, but when you attack, you like it. So if we are going to have a sense of decorum in this House, let us have no more personal attacks. I have been trying to prevent personal attacks in this Assembly right from the start.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, what I had intended to say has been said by my colleague, but I still have two points to make. Just now the Minister for Culture and the Minister for Labour challenged me on my knowledge of English and Malay. In the past few years, I have learned a lot from the people and I am able to understand other languages. Talking about a person who does not make any effort to learn additional languages has nothing to do with his character. As for me, I know my mother tongue and I am proud of it. But our Minister for Culture does not know his own mother tongue. Even our Prime Minister ---

On a point of order. The Member for Jalan Kayu is now referring to the personal conduct of the Minister for Culture ---

The Minister for Culture has attacked the Member for Jalan Kayu. When I asked him to stop, he said it was relevant. Surely the Member for Jalan Kayu has the right to reply.

(In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your ruling. You deserve our admiration for your just stand in this House. Even our Prime Minister who is a Hakka cannot speak Hakka. It is an insult to his ancestry. The fact that the Chairman of our Party lost in the elections does not mean that he should not continue to be the Chairman of our Party. This is our own affair and the money is paid by us. If the Government use the money for good purposes, then we will support them. But if they misuse the money, then we will oppose them, since the money comes from the people. The Political Secretary is making use of the people's money which is paid as salary.

(In Malay): I should like to explain that the allegations made by the Member for Jalan Kayu are not true. The Minister for Culture is not in the House at the present moment and is, therefore, not able to defend himself on something which affects him personally. The Minister for Culture knows his mother tongue, which is Tamil, very well. I know that he not only speaks the language with fluency but that he is able to read and write in Tamil.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel the debate has gone off the rails. But I would like to say that - the Member for Tampines has said earlier - at the time when Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan and Mr Woodhull were Political Secretaries, they had the right to criticise the Government if they found that the policy carried out by the Government was against the interests of the people. In fact, Mr Speaker, those three Political Secretaries received salaries from the Government and because of that they should have carried out the duties entrusted to them by the Government ---

(In Mandarin): On a point of order. I want to point out that I did not say this just now.

Can the Member repeat what he said? I did not quite catch it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the statement made by the Minister for Social Affairs is not my statement. I did not say it just now.

(In Malay): I beg your pardon. Mr Speaker, Sir, I meant to refer to the Member for Paya Lebar. What I would like to stress here is that those three Political Secretaries were paid salaries by the Government. Because of that, it was their bounden duty to carry out the duties that they were asked to carry out by the Government. It is their duty to explain to the people the policies of the Government. But what they in fact did - the three of them - was to subvert the Government by misleading the people with regard to the policies of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, we find the posts of Political Secretary during the time of the P.A.P. Government very useful and necessary. It was through the Political Secretaries that we could learn of the reactions of the people towards the policies of the Government of the day for the benefit and progress of the people. Even the Federation Government have begun to have Political Secretaries in their Ministries. If I am not wrong, I think there are 13 or 14 posts of Political Secretary vacant in the Federation. If any of these honourable Members m front are interested, they can make applications to the Federation Government.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I had no intention of saying more. But the Member for Paya Lebar has attacked my personal character. Therefore, I am compelled to reply to him to lodge my protest. He said my character is very low. Where is my character, up to what level, where have I reached, how low is it, whether I have reached to the level of robbers? He accused me of selling out something. What have I sold out? How much have I sold out and for how much? What reward have we got? The result has been determined by the people in two elections. What has that got to do with me personally? They say we are bad people. They say we are running dogs. What are running dogs? Running dogs are those who run away from the Barisan's original constituencies to other constituencies. Only those ---

The Minister has sufficiently vindicated himself. Has he anything else to say in the debate?

(In Mandarin): Now, let me say something about the post of Personal Secretary. I thought the Barisan's intention was to oppose the post of Personal Secretary. Instead, they are using this chance to level personal attacks against us. They say the present Personal Secretary to the Prime Minister has no qualifications because he was defeated in the last general election. Now that is no reason at all. 4.00 p.m. Whether one is defeated or not in an election is a common thing. To win or lose a battle is commonplace with soldiers. If you do not believe it, then let us have another round of elections and see who will win and who will lose. These people opposite are deceiving the people, playing politics. If they won the elections by their mean tactics and low games, then there is no meaning to that.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour has been using words which are not suitable to be heard in this House, words like "mean", "low", and "shameless".

(In Mandarin): But you have been attacking us with words like "mean", "low". Why cannot we rebut? You are really mean, low, and ---

Please proceed with the debate in an orderly manner.

(In Mandarin): Since the Member says there should not be the post of Personal Secretary (Political), let me say this. In an election there must, of course, be someone elected and others defeated. But that is no reason for the defeated candidate to be unduly depressed or the elected candidate to be elated. This should not also be used as a pretext to attack the personal character of a defeated candidate. During the Hong Lim by-election many people came out to support me, including Lim Ching Siong and Fong Swee Suan, and yet I was defeated. But now that I have been elected, what is there to brag about and what is there to criticise about an opponent who was defeated? There is nothing to laugh about a person being defeated in an election. There is no reason at all to accuse the defeated candidate as being low and mean because of the results of the election. We have been elected and some of us have been appointed to our respective posts. If you say that there should not be an appointment of a Personal Secretary (Political), then let me say that this post was already in existence in the last Assembly and yet the people voted us in. [Interruption] The Member opposite interrupted with the name "Ngo Dinh Diem". What has that got to do with us in this Assembly? If we are Ngo Dinh Diems, then all of you will be in gaol now, perhaps executed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the debate on the post of Personal Secretary (Political) to the Prime Minister has gone on for quite a long time. We have heard a lot from the Barisan Members advancing reasons for opposing the appointment of this post. All these reasons are unfounded and do not hold water. One of the reasons came from the Member for Jalan Kayu who said that since the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister was defeated in the last elections, he should not be so appointed. He also compared the appointee to cowdung and "flower". Can the Member for Jalan Kayu compare himself to our Prime Minister so that we can see who is cowdung and who is "flower" and also who is mean in character? Were you defeated in the last elections? No. Can we also say that you are a person with character or with a low, mean integrity? You have sold out our country to Indonesia and supported confrontation. [Interruption] Including Mr Koo Young. One of you has said this. Yesterday you also spoke in this strain.

Please address the Chair and not Members of the Opposition.

(In Mandarin): Talking about the post of Personal Secretary (Political) to the Prime Minister or any other Minister, this is not a new post. This post existed in the past. The Member for Jalan Kayu knows it. At that time he supported the appointment, a time when we were opposing and struggling against the corrupted Lim Yew Hock. What more reasons do you now have to oppose the appointment of Personal Secretary (Political)? It is because you are now collaborating with Indonesian Communists engaged in subversive activities against our nation and our people and our Government. I would now like to give you a very sincere warning - I caution you to consider this stand carefully for the good of yourselves and in the interests of the people. Now, when we are faced with Indonesian confrontation, where is your stand? Are you standing together ---

We are discussing an amendment to item (3) of subhead 1 of Head 6. We have had enough of Indonesian confrontation for the last three days. Has the Member got anything further to say about the proposed amendment? Unless he speaks on it, I am afraid I will have to stop him.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not further touch on Indonesian confrontation. But I would like to tell Members opposite not to make use of this subject as an excuse to talk of something else. The Personal Secretary (Political) to the Prime Minister has integrity that can stand competition from anyone of you opposite. He can stand comparison with Members opposite in any respect. Even Mr Koo Young cannot be compared with the present Personal Secretary (Political) to the Prime Minister.

Are we going to see the end of personal attacks, or is it going to be one series of attacks throughout the day? If the Member wants to talk about the Personal Secretary (Political), please do so, but I do not want him to make comparisons with Members of the Opposition.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time I am making a speech here. We have just heard the Member for Sembawang. He said that in the midst of Opposition Members there is a kayu, i.e. a blockhead. What does he mean? I feel it is unnecessary for him to deride and to use abusive words. Since we have been elected by the people into this House, we are expected to make speeches. Just now the Member did not make a speech because it was not his turn to make a speech, and he chose not to speak at that time. That does not mean that he is low or mean. If it means that a person who does not speak is low or mean, then there are many among you who are mean or low. 4.10 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Speaker ruled just now that there should not be any personal attacks and that we should be talking on the amendment. I think the Member speaking is going off the road.

Will the Member for Bukit Panjang confine himself, as ruled by the Speaker just now, to the amendment concerned and not continue with his personal attacks on any Member of the House?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would now like to talk about a few points raised by the Government Members. The Minister for Culture said just now that the Personal Secretary (Political) to the Prime Minister is a very capable person who knows four languages. If we assess a person's merit on the number of languages he knows, then I know that there are many Members in this House who, because they cannot speak many languages, are useless and cannot be representatives of the people. We dare not say so, and the P.A.P. should not say so too. The Minister for Labour praised himself, saying that he is a very capable person. But the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister is a person who lost the election in the Bukit Panjang constituency. The Minister said that during the elections we deceived the people. He also said many other things. It is really bad for the Minister to say such bad things. I find it imperative to tell the House some things which happened during the election in Bukit Panjang. During the election he said that we were cheating the people.

I am very sorry to be up again to draw attention to a point of order. As you have said, Mr Chairman, we are debating an amendment, and here again we are going on to the general elections, personalities, and all that.

Will the Member for Bukit Panjang confine himself to the amendment to item (3) of subhead 1, Personal Secretary (Political) to the Prime Minister, and not run off the rails to the question of elections? Please proceed. 4.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that the Member for Sembawang and the Minister for Labour touched on this, and as I am the representative of Bukit Panjang, I was therefore forced to raise these matters in the House. Since you have ruled me out of order, I am not going to say any more on this.

(In Malay): In debating the matter of the post of Political Secretary, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis Members have stated that a Political Secretary is a person who liaises with the people and the Government, and that, according to them, as the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister was defeated in the elections, he is not fit to fill that post. His defeat does not mean that he is not able to carry out the duties of liaison between the Government and the people. Even though he was defeated in Bukit Panjang, nevertheless, the other 50 constituencies still retain their confidence in him and believe in his integrity. That is the reason why the Prime Minister has appointed him to fill the post. In the past, three members of the Barisan Sosialis filled the posts of Political Secretary. What did they do? If they say that a Political Secretary is one who liaises between the Government and the people, then those three Political Secretaries of the Barisan Sosialis had not carried out the duties which the Members in the Barisan Sosialis now expect them to have done then. They, in fact, channelled the propaganda of the P.K.I. through the Barisan Sosialis to the people. Is this the kind of liaison work which the Barisan Sosialis expect from them? The Barisan Sosialis Members who are here today say differently and act differently. They are being used by the P.K.I. who are on the side of the people who oppose the Government, and this is not for the benefit and happiness of the people. All their efforts are for the purpose of leading the people astray. At one time, the Political Secretary to the Ministry of Education challenged these people to give up their jobs, but the Political Secretaries from the Barisan Sosialis did not give up their posts because they placed great value on the salaries they were receiving. They were consorting with Azahari which is detrimental to the peace of Singapore and the interest of the people as a whole. Therefore, in my opinion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the incumbent of the post of Political Secretary to the Prime Minister is one who is capable and who commands the confidence of the people. Even though he was defeated in Bukit Panjang, he is working for the benefit and welfare of the people. He nevertheless still retains the confidence of the people. He is not like the Political Secretaries from the Barisan Sosialis who in the past betrayed the people and the country.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, on the subject of Political Secretaries, it seems to me that although the Members of the Government have explained the position, the Member for Jalan Kayu is still in the dark. Their heads are dull, despite the fact that they have been told of it on many occasions. We have heard just now how the Members of the Opposition have raised the question of language. They pay more attention to the Chinese language than the national language. Do they still owe allegiance to China? They have taken the oath of allegiance to Malaysia. If they are inclined towards the Chinese language, then this tactic clearly shows that they have close connections with China. Mr Tan Cheng Tong rose ---

Is it a point of order?

(In Mandarin): Yes. Inche Rahamat resumed his seat.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, just now we were talking about the previous Head. Now we are talking about Head 6.

Will the Member for Geylang Serai confine his speech to the amendment under discussion and not run into the question of languages?

(In Malay): In the debate mention was made of languages and the defeated candidate for Bukit Panjang. Therefore, I thought it would be fit to explain this matter to the Members of the Opposition. If they raise this point, I cannot see why I cannot raise it. They referred to the defeated candidate for Bukit Panjang. It is clear that the Members of the Opposition do not owe allegiance to Malaysia. They still owe allegiance to their country of origin. That is all, Mr Deputy Speaker.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have taken much of the Assembly's time to debate the post of Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. From the Budget we can see that there is a provision for a Political Secretary for each Minister. But only four Political Secretaries have been appointed. From the notice of the amendments we observe that queries have been raised only on this particular Political Secretary. To me this goes to show that they have a special respect both to the Prime Minister and to his Political Secretary. I have no doubt that the present incumbent is an efficient and capable man. No notice of amendment was raised in respect of the other three Political Secretaries except the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. This clearly shows that the 13 Opposition Members are really scared because they realise the capability and efficiency of the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. I still remember the case of the present Minister for Labour. He stood in the by-election in Hong Lim and he was defeated, although Mr Lim Ching Siong and his colleagues supported him then. Although he was defeated at Hong Lim, he was appointed a Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. This was cause for concern to the Barisan Sosialis. When the present Minister for Labour was going to stand for election at Queenstown, which was the former constituency of their Chairman, rather than be defeated by a former Political Secretary, he would rather prefer to be defeated by the Deputy Chairman of our Party. This, as the Malay proverb says, means that if an elephant fights an ant, people will laugh. So the Party Chairman chose to fight the Deputy Prime Minister in the Rochore constituency but not in Queenstown. This again goes to prove the respect that the Political Secretary commands. That is, although he was defeated in the Hong Lim by-election, he succeeded in being returned in Queenstown. Therefore, it is not surprising that the present incumbent has become the main target of the Opposition Members, whilst the other Political Secretaries who have been appointed and who have not been appointed have been left in peace. They have been left alone. No mention was made of them in this Assembly. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think we have wasted much of the Assembly's time on this subject. It is nothing but purely personal sentiments. It is not the post. If it is in regard to the post, then it should be for all the Ministers. But this concerns the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister who is very much feared by the Opposition Members. This shows that the Prime Minister of Singapore has chosen a very capable man to hold this post.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Members on the Government side have said that we have been debating this subject for quite a long time. Since there is a time limit and we have put down several amendments, I hope we can put a vote on this amendment. But before that I would like to say a few words. On the appointment of the Political Secretary, I would like to know whether the things he did in the past commanded the support of the people and was he really of value to the Government and to the people as well? Has he such merit or not? But it would be a waste of public funds to appoint a Political Secretary who is not able to advance the opinions of other people to the Government. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have spent quite a long time discussing the amendment of the previous speaker who said all sorts of things about the present holder of that post. I feel that the only people competent to judge the ability of the person concerned are those who work closest to him. I think if the Prime Minister considers him the right person to be his Political Secretary, I do not think anyone else is competent to say otherwise. So that a great deal of this talk really means nothing and I propose that we dispose of the matter quickly.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Jurong has said it himself. It came out from his mouth that the post of Personal Secretary (Political) to the Prime Minister depends on whether the post is necessary. The true valuation should be related to the performance and personal integrity of the person and also the necessity of the post. If we agree that this post is necessary, then we should not waste any more time talking about it. So now the question before us is whether there is a need for such a post.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have debated at great length on this subject raised by the Barisan. The arguments have been repeated over and over again. I wish to point out that the holder of the post, in this case, the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister, is not the concern of the Barisan Sosialis. The Barisan can, of course, question the allocation for the post of Political Secretary if they want to. The person who holds that post is none of their business. Therefore, may I suggest that we end this debate on this amendment, because the Barisan has not raised the question of the post of Political Secretary.

If there are no more Members wishing to speak, does the Member for Thomson wish to withdraw the amendment? Mr Koo Young indicated dissent.

Then does he wish to have a vote taken? Mr Koo Young indicated assent.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Poh Ber Liak --- That the sum to be allocated for Head 6 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (44) of subhead 1.

Mr Poh Ber Liak.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to move this amendment.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 6 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 8. In this Budget there is provision of $51,150 for the Office of the Singapore Government Representative in Kuala Lumpur. Now, what is the use of this fund? Of what good is it to the people of Singapore? I raise this question because the P.A.P. have all along been using public funds to further their own propaganda purposes. I would like to ask whether this "Temasek" building is being used in Kuala Lumpur as a branch of the P.A.P.?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am greatly relieved that we have settled the programme for the various items on this debate because at the rate of one hour per item - as somehow this House managed to find one hour to discuss what I would have thought was a settled subject like Political Secretaries - we might well be here for the whole year. Well, subhead 8 - $51,150. Sir, I can understand the unhappiness of the Member for Paya Lebar at the effectiveness with which the Government has been conducting its duties, amongst which is the constant debunking of Communist propaganda and lies. But to envisage in this item some Party advantage - that I think can only be conceived by those with the most distorted of minds. Sir, our relationship with Kuala Lumpur has always been the most important single factor in the well-being of Singapore. I disagree with the assessment of the Members opposite that it is Indonesia that will determine our future. I say it is Malaysia that determines our future. Now, with Malaysia it is a matter of some considerable importance particularly in the first 18 months of the running-in period of the new Constitution that there should be Singapore machinery in Kuala Lumpur to sort out the bits and pieces to ensure that they understand what we are doing, why we are doing what we are doing. May I explain to the Member who asked this question that the problem is not why we should have an office, but whether we can have a suitably qualified man to conduct our affairs in Kuala Lumpur? The reason why nobody has been appointed is because of the difficulty of getting somebody endowed with ministerial status to be able to take up our problems, instead of taking them up on the telephone, in person in Kuala Lumpur. It may be that in the end this is a problem on which we will have to feel our way before we can get a solution. In the end, it may be that Ministers may have to go up in turn to keep liaison and get Kuala Lumpur to understand what our policy and our programme are and why we are doing what we are doing. But if it were possible to get somebody permanently to reside there, and if there is a person who can be spared for these duties, then I say he will need this office staff to conduct proper business between the State and the Central Government.

Does Mr Kow Kee Seng wish to withdraw the amendment? Mr Kow Kee Seng indicated dissent.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 6 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 10. I would like to ask whether this Senior Trade and Cultural Representative's Office is still in existence in Indonesia, whether there is such a representative, and what is the use of this office in Indonesia? If we do not have this office at the present time, then why should the Government include this in this Budget?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, again we go back to the special terms of Singapore's entry into Malaysia. One of the special terms spelt out in Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961 was that we should have in each Malayan Embassy or each Foreign Office establishment abroad, if we so wish, a special trade representative to look after Singapore's special trading interests. We had before the 16th of September one representative in London and another one in Jakarta. It may well be that depending upon the trade and future industrial development, there might be a few others. The one in Jakarta continued to function up till the middle of October, about one month after Malaysia. 4.45 p.m. We were not asked to leave. It does not follow that because diplomatic relations have been severed, therefore trade relations are also severed. Members may not be aware that even though there are no diplomatic relations, for instance, between the British and North Vietnam, there is a British Consulate or a Trade Commission in Hanoi. So similarly, even in spite of the rupture of diplomatic relations between Indonesia and Malaysia on the 17th of September, as far as Singapore was concerned, our trade representation went on up till the middle of October. Sometime round about the middle of October, for various reasons, the Indonesian Government Foreign Office gave our mission two weeks to wind up their affairs in Indonesia and leave, which they duly did. I do not know when or whether or not it will be possible for a resumption of diplomatic relations; when or whether we will resume trade relations. But this is a sum that has been set aside in the event that it is possible to resume trade relations. I am sure that having spent the whole of the last three days exhorting negotiations to resolve confrontation, they would welcome a resumption of trade. Members on the other side may like to know that, as far as the Singapore Government is concerned, it is always prepared to resume trade; whether or not there is a resumption of diplomatic relations is an entirely different matter. It is a matter in the hands of the Central Government. All of us on this side and, I think, Members on the other side have seen the views of the Central Government on it. I would like to repeat what I said on the 25th of October, that if there is to be a normalisation of relationship, which we all hope there will be, we hope it will be on a permanent basis and not a temporary patch-up, generating once again a false sense of euphoria soon to be banished again shortly thereafter. In the meantime, if conditions permit, we will resume trade relations.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have listened to the explanation of the Prime Minister. It is clear that the Singapore Government pays much attention to trade between Singapore and Indonesia. You will remember that when the P.A.P. came into office in 1959, there was a special mission to Indonesia the object of which was to promote and improve trade relations between Singapore and Indonesia. But today it seems that our Senior Trade and Cultural Representative is no more in Indonesia, and yet the Government still provides a sum of money in the Budget for this Office. This shows that the Government is very anxious to re-establish trade relations between Singapore and Indonesia, which also is the hope of the people of Singapore. We voice the same hope that there must be a resumption of trade relations between Singapore and Indonesia. The P.A.P. Government also expresses the hope that ---

Sir, on a point of order. The Member opposite must understand that he is a subject of Malaysia. He is a Malaysian citizen, not a Malayan citizen. If he insists on referring to a non-existing Malayan entity, then one must assume that he disavows the fact that he is a Malaysian citizen and should not be in this Chamber.

(In Mandarin): The Government expresses the hope that, notwithstanding the relations between Malaysia and Indonesia, the Singapore Government is also hopeful that there may be a resumption of trade relations between Singapore and Indonesia. One thing we do not understand is, why does the Government not want to accept our proposal to resume trade relations between Singapore and Indonesia? There are reasons for their adopting their present attitude. Firstly, the P.A.P. Government in dealing with our future does not accept the views of our Party. They also run counter to the interests of the people. They are prepared to work for Malaysia which is sponsored by the British. Now that Malaysia has brought difficulties and hardships to our people, without Malaysia there would not have been this Indonesian confrontation.

Order. Will the Member for Choa Chu Kang confine his speech to the amendment and not go back to what has been gone through over the last 3� days?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is because I want to point out that since the Trade Representative's Office is no more in existence in Indonesia, why should there be such an item in the Budget? I also want to point out the reasons for the attitude the P.A.P. Government have adopted. Now they are trying to shift the blame on to other people for our present hardship. We want trade relations to be resumed between Indonesia and Singapore, and since the P.A.P. have the same hope and aspirations, why should they not accept our proposals? Because of the ferocious attitude of the Alliance Government in the Federation, the P.A.P. Government are forced to toe the line of the Alliance Government. Because after merger the P.A.P. Government have given up all control and rights to the Central Government. So even though the P.A.P. Government want to resume trade relations, they cannot go against the wishes of the Alliance Government. Therefore, they are forced willy-nilly to toe the line of the Central Government, i.e. in not wanting to hold negotiations to re-establish relations between Singapore and Indonesia.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on Monday when I invited criticism from both sides of the House, Members may have noticed that I invited honest, useful criticism that can lead to a constructive reframing of policy. I then already suspected, even before the Member for Jurong began his speech, that we would be in for another five years of sterile, destructive, completely insincere attack. May I ask the Member for Choa Chu Kang whether what he has said, which will be published tomorrow in, I hope, all the newspapers and not just the Chinese newspapers, is going to help resolve the present trade boycott between Indonesia and Singapore? If he has the interests of Singapore at heart, even assuming he has not got the interests of Malaysia at heart, does he think he is helping Singapore by encouraging our neighbours to believe that we are prepared to go down on our bended knees and plead for trade - trade which as clearly borne out in our statistics is 8.7 per cent of our national income? Or is he not spreading alarm and despondency to be used by the Indonesians and the Filipinos for their international propaganda to say that Malaysia is, in fact, torn and divided within itself, unworthy of international support? On whose side is he speaking for? Of course, we all want a resumption of trade. But I say, more than a resumption of trade, we want to survive as a separate entity in South-East Asia, not to be slowly, one by one, absorbed and dissolved in South-East Asia. Does the Member understand what this is all about? Does he think we are playing for a bagful of marbles? Men are being killed, have been killed, in Brunei and Sarawak. The former leaders of the Barisan Sosialis thought they were playing a clever little game. I do not think those who are in gaol now believe that this is so funny. Three of them have already sworn that this is all a great mistake and have given up politics. If they had the courage, they would have come out and fought their erstwhile companions in the Barisan Sosialis for having brought trouble into this country. Who brought about confrontation? Who started this whole thing? Of course, we know that some people in this region thought that it would be a good thing if Malaya did not grow bigger. But who gave them the entree, the sparking point, with which to intervene in the affairs of another country? The Barisan Sosialis, together with the Socialist Front, linking up with S.U.P.P., linking up with Brunei and Azahari, leading to the revolt, leading to a United Nations assessment. They made the interference easier. What is the logic of the criticism made by the Member for Choa Chu Kang - begin negotiations? All right, what for? To resolve confrontation. All right, on what terms and on what conditions on which confrontation will for the time being be withdrawn? He said, "Malaysia will dissolve." Another assessment team has been suggested What for? In the hope that the assessment will be unfavourable and therefore Sabah and Sarawak are out. What is he preaching? What I suggested on Monday - the line of treachery and betrayal.

Order. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

It is now 5 o'clock. I propose that the sitting be suspended until 5.30 p.m. Order. 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. Resumption of Debate on Question, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 6 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 10."

Question again proposed.

Sir, there are approximately nine minutes left before the vote is taken at 5.40 on Head 6, and I would like to put the following point to the Member for Paya Lebar. First, on whose side is he on? On the side of Indonesia or on the side of Malaysia? Second question: Does he want things to get better between Malaysia and Indonesia, or does he want things to get worse? Third question: Has what he has been saying just now, exaggerating alarm, loss of trade, differences of opinion between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, been really in the interest of Singapore? Let us assume that he is against Kuala Lumpur. We take that for granted. But is it really in our interest - whatever our internal differences of presentation of policy - to exaggerate these differences and allow them to be exploited by outside powers? It is as simple as that. The Member took the oath of loyalty in this Chamber, and he should be loyal to Malaysia. He has never even once - none of the Opposition - admitted that Malaysia is in existence. They talk of Singapore; they talk of the Federation of Malaya. Let me remind them that this is a matter which may become extremely serious, and that their words here - frivolous though they may be to those who are watching these proceedings - if used and exploited internationally, may well add to a worsening in relations. In the event, are they alive to the dangers they are in - that any man against the nation who actively aids and abets aggression against the nation is a traitor, and will be punished as such? There are five minutes left, and I would be quite happy if the Member for Paya Lebar would give me a direct answer on behalf of his Party to my three questions. On whose side is he on - Malaysia or Indonesia? Does he want things to get better on worse? What he has said and what we have said over the past three days - today is the fourth day - on confrontation and loss of Indonesian trade, is that going to make things better or worse for Singapore?

Anybody who wishes to can speak.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, because of time limitation, I will briefly reply to the challenge given by the Prime Minister. On the question whether we are standing on the side of Malaysia or Indonesia, I will say that we have never been standing on the side of Indonesia. We are standing on the side of the people of Singapore and Malaya.

Malaysia! [Interruption]

Let the hon. Member answer in his own way.

(In Mandarin): He asks us whether we want relations between the two countries to get worse or better. Our answer is, we sincerely and truly want to bring about progress and prosperity in the livelihood of the people of Singapore. That is why we propose that we should negotiate with Indonesia to resolve this problem, including confrontation. The proposition is based on the interests of the people of Singapore. My explanation is clear enough on this point. [Interruption]

The hon. Member has only a few minutes left. I think we should allow him to say what he wants in the few minutes.

(In Mandarin): I hope the Government side will not continue to accuse us of being traitors. They should realise that they themselves have sold out the interests of the people of Singapore. They are the true traitors.

This is the first of the many points at issue. We shall meet again and again on this point. First of all, the Member for Paya Lebar was not in a position to reply to such a "world-shaking question", so the Member for Jurong, in the absence of their leader, has taken over. In his answer he did not, by implication, admit that Malaysia existed. He talked of Singapore; he talked of Malaya. So Malaysia does not exist. Of course, he says he wants things to be better. He was unable to answer the simple point - does he want Indonesian confrontation to succeed? The way they have been acting over the last few days leaves nobody in any doubt that what they want is to do harm to the country - to spread alarm and despondency - and give succour and comfort to the enemies of the people, like the P.K.I. That is where their hearts lie, where their loyalty lies. And I say, before Malaysia, it is one thing saying all these things. After Malaysia, I beseech them, before it is too late. From time to time, Sir, we proffer them sincere advice for their own good. Many of their members who used to be there, had they taken our advice, would have been much more wholesome personalities today, instead of being broken-down enemies of the people. That is what they are.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has just now raised a few questions. He says I dare not answer them personally. At the same time, he asks whether we want confrontation to succeed or fail. In the past three days, all our Members on this side have said that we are opposed to confrontation, because it will increase the difficulties of our people and bring hardships to their livelihood. So, in order to resolve confrontation, the first thing is to seek peaceful means to negotiate, to discuss amicably. That is the best way to resolve the economic difficulties and hardships in the livelihood of the people of Singapore.

Will the Member for Choa Chu Kang indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or whether he wishes to have a vote taken. A vote to be taken.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allotted for Head 6 having expired, the following amendments, standing in tile names of Mr Kow Kee Seng and Mr Tan Cheng Tong, were not proceeded with: Mr Kow Kee Seng: That the sum to be allocated for Head 6 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 18. That the sum to be allocated for Head 6 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 26. Mr Tan Cheng Tong: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 6 be reduced by $100. The sum of $1,429,500 for Head 6 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 7-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the total sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, on this question, I will have to read out to the --- [Interruption] because the Land Office has much land in its possession which is occupied by rural people. I would tell the Government that the Land Office has much land under its control. The people have been living on the land for many years, for scores of years. Some farmers have been occupying pieces of land on short-term as well as long-term leases. Now, these several acres of land to each homestead after having been cultivated for several years will have increased in value and will provide succour to their families and members of their families who, after several years, will have grown up and will be leaving the land. They will have their own families and will need further land to develop, cultivate, and to live on. The Government do not have adequate legislation in regard to land policy to provide for the needs of the farmers. 5.45 p.m. Even when the farmers make applications to the Government, they are turned down. They apply to extend their houses but their requests have been turned down. On the one hand, the farmers are unable to find sufficient means to support their families. On the other hand, the Government do not allow them to build houses on the land, and they put them in difficulties. Also, private land is not available to the farmers. The Government should look at things objectively. They should see whether the land available to them is enough --- [Interruption]

It is only proper for a Member to disclose his personal pecuniary interests when he speaks on any subject. The Member is now preaching the cause of those who surreptitiously extend their occupation of Crown land and prawn ponds. He has got great interests in them. I think it ought to be disclosed.

I am not aware that the Member has a great interest in prawn ponds. But surely it is up to him whether he wishes to disclose it or not.

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker. If he has, then he must disclose. If he has not, then let him say so. Hon. Members: Hear! Hear!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I can tell you this. But let me touch on this topic first. So in the end, when a farmer wants to build a pig sty, his application is turned down. Mr Speaker, the farmers want to live on the land. This is for the purpose of making a living. Any application to extend the building or build pig sties is for the purpose of supporting their families. Yet all these requests have been ignored by the Government. They say that what I say here is ridiculous, because they have understood the importance of this. In my constituency there is a place where there is a prawn pond and the farmers can support my argument. The Members opposite can go there to investigate. Let the members of their branches go there to find out. My land is not Crown land. It is private land. There is a small prawn pond owned by me, and this land is also private land acquired through proper means. During the course of time, prawn ponds have been built. Some farmers have been arrested by the military authorities because of encroachment on the land. The result is that I have been approached by these people for help. I went along to the military authorities and got the release of these farmers. So the farmers in this area think I am an influential man and have been able to get their release. That is why I have been reelected by them again. [Laughter] So in this frame of mind they think I am an influential man, and they make use of my name to apply for land in order to tide over the difficulty by saying that the land belongs to me. If you do not believe what I say, you can carry out an investigation to look for the truth. I can challenge them to look for the truth. If the investigation is against me, then I am quite prepared to go to court. Otherwise, they will have to apologise to me. The Minister for Culture said that I applied for a permit to get land for the purpose of building a prawn pond. But you can go and ask your own jackals in my area who know what the true position is. They are not aware of the true position and they try to force the matter on me. The land actually belongs to the military authorities. They use force to recover the land, thinking that it belongs to me. So they want to deprive me of the land and the benefit thereof. But that does not affect me at all, in so far as the vested interest in the land is concerned. All this goes to show that these political nincompoops of the P.A.P. will resort to all sorts of dirty means to attack their political opponents. Insofar as it is to their political interest, they do not mind. If anything is politically advantageous to their opponents, then they will resort to all sorts of tactics to remove these advantages. Now, even if you occupy a piece of private land, you will have to get a permit first before you can put up a pig sty. In these circumstances, many farmers are at their wits' end. So I hope the Government will relax certain restrictions in regard to applications for construction of structures and pig sties to help the livelihood of the poor farmers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, this long theme of woe interests the Land Office and transactions in the Land Office. They all have for the Member for Jalan Kayu very personal and somewhat painful and unprofitable connotations. If one illegally embarks on a business venture without permission from the Land Office and is subsequently discovered, then the law must follow. Why should the law now be binding, particularly as one of the eminent Members of this Assembly makes the law? However, apart from his personal interests in these matters, may I go on to say this? There are two points he has made two valid points of substance which I think merit a firm reply. First, additions to squatter huts on Crown land. Second, the fact that the Crown takes a firm stand against further illegal buildings which, according to him, leads to unhappiness for squatters on private land. This is a perennial problem. Crown lands are of two kinds when you let them out. One is under Temporary Occupation Licences, the other is under a proper lease. What the Member for Jalan Kayu was referring to were Temporary Occupation Licences. In other words, land which has been earmarked for public development - schools, clinics, community centres, veterinary centres and so on. Sooner or later, maybe this year or next year, but definitely within the foreseeable future - five to ten years - there will be building and user of land. And the more extensions we allow, the more compensation will have to be paid out of public funds. It is not our money. It is the people of Singapore's money. Is the Member for Jalan Kayu seriously suggesting that we, having been sufficiently humane in allowing the encroachers to remain and giving them a Temporary Occupation Licence at nominal rent, should further burden the public treasury by the prospect of bigger compensation when the land is ultimately required for use? If he does, and he thinks he can win popular public support, then I say he should move a resolution in this Assembly and we will hear his reasons why we should pursue his policy. We are fully aware that there is a shortage of land in Singapore, as can he seen from the efforts of the Ministry of National Development in reclaiming Kallang Basin, the seaside from Bedok to Nicoll Highway and Merdeka Bridge, and my own little effort in London to get back 300 acres of farming land inside the Naval Base. All this we get no thanks for. What we are asked to do is something which, to my mind, is manifestly wrong - to burden public land with more tenants who will claim more compensation. Private land is in an entirely different category. Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy of this Government is different from the policy of previous Governments. This Government has an assessment policy which actively discourages the holding of land for speculative purposes, in other words, buying a big piece of land, squatting on it, waiting for a fraction of time for an increase in population, development around the area which will bring the price up, and then selling it. Whether a house is vacant or not, assessment is put up. Therefore, it becomes necessary for the land-owner to utilise his land. Sir, if this were a Government out to protect the landlords, squatters would not have got in in the first place, let alone expand their holdings. adding rooms to squatter huts. There is a whole kampong now in Kampong Chentek, another one in the whole of the area between the Race Course and Sime Road, private land, squatted. If we had let out our Crown land on T.O.L.s and held them, this thing would not have taken place. I am not saying that this is an answer to the problem. Here was vacant land not utilised, not looked after, and squatters have moved in. The last I saw of it was that a telephone has been installed and so have water pipes. It may well be that ultimately a land policy may have to be formulated in which vacant land user may have to be acquired for public disposal. But the plain fact of the matter remains, that the Government cannot prevent the private land-owner from allowing or not disallowing his land for certain uses. It has nothing to do with us. But what we are considering is the possibility of land in agricultural areas, not in rural areas, marked for agriculture on the Master Plan, where the land is arable, and the question of letting out the land if the owner does not utilise it. 6.00 p.m. Now, I would be glad, Mr Speaker, Sir, for constructive proposals. If the Member for Jalan Kayu, with all the experience of dodging in and out of the law and growing wealthier in the course of the years, could explain to me how we could do it, we would be indebted ---

Order. Time has expired. Would the Member for Jalan Kayu indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or have a vote taken?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to raise a few points. The first ---

Does the Member wish to withdraw the amendment or wish for a vote?

(In Mandarin): Yes, I would like a vote taken.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $577,730 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 10-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 10 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (15) of subhead 1. This concerns the Registrar of Citizens and Commissioner for Registration of Persons. I say that in the past few months the Registrar has not been able to help a lot of innocent people obtain their citizenship. For example, there are people like Mr Tan Lark Sye who have lost their citizenship during these months. So unless some steps are taken to ensure that innocent people are not deprived of their citizenship unnecessarily, then the situation will become worse.

Mr Speaker, the cases of the persons whom the Member for Tampines has mentioned are under consideration by the Committee of Inquiry and I do not think it is permissible to discuss them in this Chamber. However, let me remind the Member of the relevant section of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance, section 22 (2) of which reads: `The Minister may, by order, deprive any such citizen of his citizenship if he is satisfied that the registration or certificate of naturalization -

(In Mandarin): I personally feel that those persons who are facing the possible loss of their citizenship must be given a chance in Court to prove that they are really guilty of being a threat to the security of Malaya and Singapore so that the innocent may be protected. For example, people like Mr Tan Lark Sye should be given a chance to show that they are guilty of something before they are deprived of their citizenship.

Order. Time has expired. Will the Member for Tampines indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or have a vote taken?

(In Mandarin): I want a vote, Sir.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $402,680 for Head 10 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 11-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 11 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (50) of subhead 1. The provision for overtime allowance for 1963 was $2,500 but the amount has been increased to $20,000 for next year. I would like to know why there is such an increase? Is it because of the tense situation which requires more patrol boats to patrol our coastal areas?

Mr Speaker, Sir, item (50) of subhead 1 relates to overtime allowance paid to launch crews, signalmen, Port Office hands. The increase from $2,500 in 1963 to $20,000 in 1964 is brought about by the new agreement on overtime allowances effective from 1st January, 1962, entered into between the Government and the union representing these grades. Overtime allowance was previously paid to launch-crews only. Under the existing agreement, it was paid to all Division IV personnel which include signalmen and Port Office staff. Previously, overtime allowance was paid on a daily basis of a nine-hour day and time off was given in lieu of work done on Sundays, rest days and public holidays. Under the agreement made now, overtime allowance is paid on the basis of a 44-hour week. Time off cannot be given in lieu and payment must be made at double rate for work on rest days and public holidays. On all days which are not Sundays and holidays, duty between 8.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. must be paid at one-quarter rate. The main increase is due to essential services of port health, port office and signal stations which are maintained on a 24-hour basis throughout the year. This is a service which has been introduced by the Government and it has been appreciated very much indeed by the shipping lines. 6.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): I am surprised to hear the amendment moved by the Member for Paya Lebar. This provision is for overtime in order to enable the workers to get more allowance. The Barisan have been claiming all along that they are the heroes and champions of the workers. Now that the Government has provided more overtime allowance to the workers for overtime work, the Barisan are protesting against this. This is a surprise to me. They are against Malaysia and every move made by us is construed by them as something which is for Malaysia, saying that this is a provision for patrolling. Now, is this sum enough for patrolling the whole coastal areas of Malaysia? They know that the budget for the defence of Malaysia is controlled by the Central Government. This has nothing to do with the State Government. They have been claiming themselves as heroes of the workers. But now they are protesting against this provision of increased overtime allowances for the workers.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am basing my question on the Budget because in 1963 the provision was for $2,500 whereas the provision for 1964 is $20,000. Why am I raising this question? It is because we know that the Government is making use of public money for the P.A.P. We want to know the reason for this increase in the provision. We have a duty to question the Government. The Minister for Labour spoke at great length on this simple question and what he spoke was all rubbish. Therefore, it amounts to the Government giving free rein to themselves. They do not allow the people to light their lamps but they themselves can set fire to houses. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the last three days, what the Minister for Labour has said is meaningless.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it only proves our contention that these are spokesmen for Jakarta. Here is an obvious case of allowances being increased for workers and what the Member wants to know is whether this is being directed against Indonesia. We said yesterday that these gentlemen are here to represent the interests of Jakarta and they have proved it today on a simple issue like allowances for workers.

Time has expired. Will the Member for Paya Lebar indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or have a vote?

(In Mandarin): I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,381,560 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 13-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, may amendments (1)* and (3)+ be taken together?

Both amendments are in the Member's name. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, *That the sum to be allocated for Head 13 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (87) of subhead 1; and +That the sum to be allocated for Head 13 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 61. Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to point out that ever since the P.A.P. set up the Work Brigade it has been using its members to work for itself. It is alleged that during the recent election the P.A.P. forced the members of the Work Brigade to campaign for their candidates in the various constituencies, to put up posters and carry out other propaganda work and to intimidate the voters. Did the members of the Work Brigade obey their orders? No, they did not obey them, but they were forced to do so. They were told that if they did not obey the Government, they would not be able to get jobs. Now if they were able to take on jobs as school servants and clerks or in hospitals and other Government departments, they would get at least a minimum salary of $100, whereas in the Work Brigade they get less. Whenever the Prime Minister tours the rural areas, members of the Work Brigade are forced to cheer him, shout slogans and welcome him. This is all wrong. The Government is using public money to pay them to do party work. This is not proper. If some of the Members are willing to work for the Party, that is another matter. But some members told us that they were forced to do so. They had to go to the various branches of the P.A.P. to work for the Party and to maintain them. This is very wrong. We hope that the Government will not repeat this in future. Some members may be used by you, but it is best for you not to force those who do not want to be used by you.

(In Mandarin): The Member for Jalan Kayu made many allegations against the Work Brigade. He said that the Government made use of the Work Brigade to campaign and to put up posters for the P.A.P. during the recent election. He also accused us of forcing the members of the Work Brigade to do this work. I think it is not surprising for us to hear what he has said, because the Work Brigade is not with them. They can say whatever they like. I would like to ask the Member for Jalan Kayu to recollect that when he was on this side of the House he visited the Work Brigade on many occasions because in his area there are many roads which were built by the Work Brigade. If he is not forgetful, he will remember that I also went to his constituency to look at the roads which were built by the Work Brigade. I do not think he will deny this. The Government set up this Work Brigade because there is a real need for it. At present, the Work Brigade comprises more than 2,000 members. Without the Work Brigade, these people will have to face the problem of unemployment. In their speeches during the past few days, the Barisan have shown great concern for the unemployment problem of the people. The Government set up this Work Brigade to absorb the youths so as to give them training and to provide jobs in the Government service. Is this not one of the means of absorbing our unemployed? Many roads and drains in the rural areas have been built by the Work Brigade. 6.30 p.m. The people in the rural areas know this very well. Therefore, the expansion of the Work Brigade is in keeping with our needs and our circumstances. That is why we want to expand it. The Member for Toa Payoh was once in charge of the Work Brigade. At that time he was full of admiration for the Work Brigade, but when he left the Party he made allegations as to how the P.A.P. forced members of the Work Brigade to work for our Party. But the people of Singapore know that the members of the Work Brigade have made their due contribution to the welfare of the people. Whatever allegations they make will not be believed by the people. The Government's explanation perhaps is that some departments in Singapore have been taken over by the Federal Government, but in spite of what they say, you just cannot say that there can be such a great difference between the two Development Estimates, because the new Estimates are only one-fifteenth of the former Estimates. From this point, one can expect that the facilities to be extended to the people of Singapore will decrease considerably.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of the Work Brigade - whether it can solve the question of unemployment can be seen from the fact that since its inception there are only 7,000 members in it, and we can see the success of only 2,000 members. It is not the question of whether the Work Brigade is desirable or not, but whether the P.A.P think that the Work Brigade can solve all the unemployment problems. We cannot see any good results from the Work Brigade under the P.A.P. My colleague, the Member for Jalan Kayu, has said something, but let me give you further facts to show that the P.A.P. in organising the Work Brigade are not really interested in the workers' welfare but are merely interested in making use of them as their political instruments. On the matter of the members of the Work Brigade being used to campaign for the P.A.P. during the September elections, we have already talked about it and there is no need for me to touch on it any more, but I would like to mention one thing. In Thomson there is a Work Brigade camp. Now, what are the members doing in that area, or what work have they done? They have only built the road at 51 milestone, Thomson Road, opposite Thomson Estate. This is because the road leads to the Deputy Chairman of the P.A.P. Branch there. But there are many other roads in the Thomson area which are in a very bad condition. Yet the Work Brigade Camp in the Thomson area has never been assigned to repair those roads. At the 6th and 7th mile called Rambutan Road, there is another road. The condition of the road is very bad. There are many other roads in very bad condition, and other areas in Singapore which have never been looked after or taken care of by the Work Brigade under the P.A.P. Not long ago there was a news item in the Press saying that the P.A.P. Thomson Branch had a new building and the Work Brigade members were asked to help in the Opening Ceremony to decorate the Branch Office and one of the members was electrocuted in the course of decorating the Office. Now these facts go to show that the P.A.P. are making use of the Work Brigade members to further their political ends. I believe the Member for Sembawang will not be so very forgetful about what took place in the last elections at Sembawang, when the Work Brigade members were used to help him, and also some members of the Work Brigade were made use of to beat up Barisan members for no reason. Now, this is a fact. All those who were beaten up have their wounds remaining to this day. When the P.A.P. perpetrate evil deeds, they want us to go along with them. The question now is not whether those beaten up by the P.A.P. men are still to be seen running about in the streets, but whether the P.A.P. are going to let members of the Work Brigade do work for the people and not for the P.A.P. itself. That is a matter of policy. If they really want to use the Work Brigade to solve the unemployment problem and to help repair roads and bridges and build roads and do other work to help the general public, then we will have no opposition to it. This question is very serious. Since at the moment, we are facing various economic difficulties and the Government are unable truly to look after the welfare and interests of the rural people, well on simple matters such as roads, bridges, cleanliness, drainage, the Government cannot even resolve them. The people are meeting with difficulties here and there. If the Government can use the Work Brigade to help in this respect but they cannot or will not, then we will really condemn them. What value can be obtained by allotting money to support the Work Brigade? I would ask the Government. What value has already been derived from this provision? Since my colleagues have also said something relating to this subject, that is why I would not like to say more.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, let me talk briefly about the allegations and accusations of the Member for Thomson. I would say that what he has said is mere balderdash. He said that in the Thomson area there is a Work Brigade Camp and also there is a road in that area leading to the P.A.P. Branch Office and leading to the Vice-Chairman of the P.A.P. Branch there. This is very childish talk. Since there is a P.A.P. Branch there, of course, there must be people living in that area, the members or office-bearers of that Branch. It is not like the Barisan Sosialis who, when they want to carry out anything in a certain Branch, will carry lorry loads of members and supporters from elsewhere to give the impression that they have great support in that area. But their deceptive tactics will not deceive and blind the eyes of the people. About the matter of members of the Work Brigade beating up others, it is a distortion of facts. It is because the Barisan members have insulted and smeared the members of the Work Brigade for no reason, and also due to anger and under provocation that certain members were, of course,---

Mr Speaker, the translation seems to have broken down.

Yes, I was wondering whether my own microphone alone was out of order. Can we pause for a little while? The translation system seems to be out of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the members of the P.A.P. are like urchins. They will not listen to arguments and good lessons, and after being taught they can never understand. I have to enumerate facts to illustrate my points. Now, in my constituency there are two Work Brigade members who are secret society members. One is a fighter and the other is a well-known secret society member. They are also P.A.P. lieutenants and the P.A.P. have been using these two powerful secret society members to further their ends during the election campaign. 6.45 p.m.

On a point of order. If the Member knows that they are secret society members, it is his duty to inform the police instead of talking about it in this Assembly.

That is not a point of order, Mr Minister. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): These two secret society members were arrested and put in Pulau Senang. The P.A.P. then started to negotiate with them, "If you want to serve us, then we will release you." Of course, they agreed to serve the P.A.P. So during the Prime Minister's tour of the rural areas, they really helped a lot and worked late into the night. Since one of the two is quite well off, he is being made use of by the Prime Minister.

On a point of order. Is the Member talking on the Work Brigade or on the Prime Minister's tours?

The hon. Member has been drifting a little away from the item on the Work Brigade. It originally started as a debate on the Work Brigade, but he mentioned what the P.A.P. did, and that is why we went on to the Prime Minister's tours. Please proceed and try to speak on the Work Brigade.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, so the Prime Minister used one of the two secret society men to carry out this purpose and he really carried out his job very well. In the past, he was an S.P.A. man, and he was also Mr M. P. D. Nair's man. He behaved well outwardly and every night he attended P.A.P. Branch meetings. He is doing all this as a result of his coming to terms with the P.A.P. but this chap is secretly helping Mr M. P. D. Nair. The other man I mentioned was also a secret society member and he has been used to threaten us and to create trouble among us. At least this chap knew us and he ---

Sir, I understand what he is telling us, but is it necessary to raise this matter in this Assembly? He is telling us a long story about some secret society gangsters going all over the place.

You are in order, Mr Minister. The Member is talking about someone. Is he a member of the Work Brigade? If he is not, then forget about it. If he is, then he can proceed.

On a point of order, Sir, If he is, then he should disclose his name, otherwise it is all a figment of his imagination.

Probably he does not want to mention the person's name.

I have reason to believe that it is completely untrue, Sir.

That is a matter of opinion, Mr Minister. Perhaps we will allow the hon. Member to proceed. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, because these gangster members were being recruited into the Work Brigade, conditions were made for admitting them into the Work Brigade under the guise of providing training for them.

(In Mandarin): On a point of order. The Member has made an insulting allegation that the Work Brigade is merely recruiting secret society members. There are many Work Brigade camps, one of which ---

Order. The hon. Member is not allowed to debate this subject when he interrupts another Member who is speaking. Is he interrupting on a point of order or on a point of clarification? I ask him what is his point of order. Would he like to say what is his point of order now? Mr Teong Eng Siong indicated dissent.

The Member will not. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): You admit that there is a camp for the training of secret societies and secret society members. [Interruption]

Will the hon. Member for Sembawang stop interrupting? He rose on a point of order. I ruled that the Member for Jalan Kayu should proceed. I think the hon. Member for Sembawang should allow him to proceed without interrupting. Please proceed, Mr Tan.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to take a lot of the time of this House. I only express my hope that if the Work Brigade is being used to solve the unemployment problem, then the P.A.P. must not lay down any conditions for the admission of members of the public into the Work Brigade. The P.A.P. should not lay down a condition that if members of the Work Brigade were to help the P.A.P. branches for political purposes, their wages would be increased. If you want to make use of them for your own political purpose, then it is wrong. You cannot make use of public funds to achieve a political aim. But if some members of the Work Brigade of their own wish want to help the P.A.P., that is another matter altogether.

Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to the Opposition, I feel that they do not understand what the Work Brigade is here for. Just because in an organisation of about 2,000 people there are a few members who the Barisan imagine are gangsters, they try to smear the whole organisation. The Member for Thomson has asked me whether the Work Brigade will be able to solve the unemployment problem. It shows that he does not understand at all what the Work Brigade is for. I say that the Work Brigade will not be able to solve the unemployment problem, but it will help to solve it for the simple reason that the Work Brigade is an organisation where we try to recruit young people who have left school and who have no skill, and we give them training in every way we can. At the moment, we are working out a scheme whereby we can turn them into masons in six months so that they can participate in our expanding construction work. Now, the Member for Ubi Kayu --- [Laughter]

Order.

I am sorry, the Member for Jalan Kayu.

As I have said before, someone called him "kayu".

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker. It was a slip of the tongue. I thought it was Ubi Kayu, but ---

There is no need to repeat it again. Mr Minister.

Now, the Member for Jalan Kayu - I hope it is right this time - has said that the Government forced members of the Work Brigade to intimidate the electors. I do not know whether he understands human nature, because you can force a chap to do a certain thing, but you definitely cannot force him to intimidate another man. He said that these people helped the P.A.P. in the elections. Well, the Work Brigade is a force of over 2,000 young men. This is a democratic country and these people have their own beliefs. They are of different religions and they have affiliations to different Parties. If some of them want to help the P.A.P. outside their office hours, there is no reason why they should not do so. For that matter, I believe some of them may have helped the Barisan Sosialis. As regards intimidation and the beating up of people, I think the Barisan boys have beaten up and have intimidated more of our chaps. In fact, if what they say is true, they can resort to the law; they can make a report to the police and then the law will take its own natural course of action. There is another allegation made that the Prime Minister in his tours of the constituencies makes use of the Work Brigade. That is true. The Prime Minister in his tours of the constituencies has in attendance staff from every department because the purpose of his tours is to find out from the people what they want. Therefore, he has with him in attendance people from the Public Works Department, people from the Work Brigade, people from the C.B.S., people from the P.U.B., so that whenever a request is made of him on the spot, he will be able to weigh and will be able to discuss the problem which the people have right on the spot. In the same way, the Work Brigade is a disciplined force. We use it to control the huge crowds that turn up whenever the Prime Minister visits the constituencies. Now, they say that the Work Brigade is a useless body, but I am glad to hear from the Member for Thomson that if we can prove that the Work Brigade does work for the benefit of the public, he will fully support it. I do not know whether he goes around with his eyes closed or whether he just goes to Thomson. Singapore does not consist only of Thomson. There are 51 constituencies in Singapore and there are lots of things to be done in all these constituencies. So it does not mean that, because one or two roads in Thomson are being made up, the Work Brigade has not done work elsewhere. For his information, Sir, and for the information of this House, I would like to tell him that the Work Brigade in 1963 undertook this work - construction and maintenance of rural and kampong roads, construction and repair of timber bridges in rural areas. Sir, if I read the whole list, it will take a long time. There is on this list here 20 items which the Work Brigade has done - land reclamation, site preparation for Sembawang resettlement areas. Now, it does not mean that, because in Thomson there are two roads made up, the Work Brigade has not been doing anything. There is, for instance, the Kallang River improvement scheme, co-operation of Jalan Damar and Tanah Merah sanitary scheme, and also in the Southern Islands improvement schemes under the heading of fish prawn culture. The Member for Jalan Kayu may be interested if he wants to improve the output of his prawn ponds. We welcome him if as a member of the public he comes and asks for information or advice. [Laughter] Well, we are helping them. Mr Tan Cheng Tong rose ---

Point of order. 7.00 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister is making a personal attack on me. The matter that I have raised has got nothing to do with me personally.

The Minister is making a personal allegation against the Member for Jalan Kayu.

With due deference, Sir, I am not making any allegations against him. What I was saying was that we have these facilities ready for them as members of the public. We are able to help people with prawn culture, and therefore, as members of the public, anyone, including the Member, can approach us.

Order. The Minister is coming pretty close to attacking the Member for Jalan Kayu. Members on the Government side did heckle the Member for Jalan Kayu and make several allegations which add to the confusion. Can we leave the Member for Jalan Kayu and his prawns alone? Please proceed, Mr Minister.

Well, it has also been said that the Work Brigade does not train people for employment, that there has been no turnover. But I would like to point out that since 1960 the Work Brigade has trained 2,500 young boys who have had discipline in the force, who have had training in certain trades, and who have been employed by the Government and other statutory bodies. It has, therefore, served its purpose in training people who in between leaving school and finding employment, people who in order to become leaders of the future should first be disciplined. Therefore, Sir, from this you can see that the Work Brigade is serving a useful purpose in our community, and I therefore say the Work Brigade should be allowed to carry on.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government benches have been trying to distort our views on the Work Brigade. They say we allege that the Work Brigade is entirely useless, that it is an organisation of secret society members. This is not what we have said. They are trying to whip up discontent among the members of the Work Brigade against the Barisan Sosialis by saying so. In other words, they are trying to give members of the Work Brigade an impression that in the event of the Barisan Sosialis coming to power, then some members of the Work Brigade will be expelled. This sort of talk is more or less intimidation against some members of the Work Brigade who are now supporting the Barisan Sosialis. We do not deny that some members of the Work Brigade are useful youths who, by sheer dint of circumstances, are unemployed and have to join the Work Brigade for the time being to tide over their present difficulties and to enable them to have some means of livelihood. But unfortunately, in spite of what the Minister for National Development has said with regard to the achievements of the Work Brigade in the field of road construction, the Government can never deny that the Work Brigade has been used by the P.A.P. for propaganda purposes. This the Government can never deny. An hon. Member: We deny.

(In Mandarin): The Minister for National Development has said just now that some members of the Work Brigade can have their own political choice. They have freedom of religion and freedom of political ideas. But can the Party in power explain why a lot of members of the Work Brigade have been expelled en bloc at the same time? Why? Now, this is political persecution. Persecution against those --- [Interruption]

Order. Please allow the Member to proceed. We have not much time left. If we are continually going to have arguments from here to there, with somebody in the middle, I am afraid I cannot follow the English translation of what the Member is saying in Chinese. So, if Members will appreciate the task I have, perhaps we can have less arguments from one side to the other with someone in the middle.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what we are facing now is a crisis. What is the crisis about? It is that the P.A.P. are misusing public funds by establishing an organisation in support of its own political Party. The Government are trying to adopt the policy of starvation against some unemployed youths in Singapore and induce them to join the Work Brigade under the guise of road construction and other work. But the real motive behind all these acts is to make use of the Work Brigade for its own political ends. And this we are opposed. We are against all methods by which the Government try to make use of public funds for their own political ends. That is all I wish to say, Mr Speaker.

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, as far as I remember, when we started the organisation of the Work Brigade, it was actually mooted by the Member for Hong Lim with the idea of alleviating the problem of unemployment. The original intention of the Government in setting up the Work Brigade was, on the one hand, to help some unemployed persons to have relief work in order to earn their livelihood; on the other hand, to assist villagers in getting more sanitary amenities and other health services in the various rural areas, such as the construction of drains, the removal of lallang, and such other work. So the Work Brigade was originally set up to serve the interests of the people. I remember that we had a camp in Sembawang to absorb some unemployed youths in that area. In fact, most members of the Sembawang camp of the Work Brigade came from the villages around this area. This shows that the Work Brigade has the support of the people in general. If we do not close our eyes while walking around Singapore Island, then we can see that there are a lot of Work Brigade men at work clearing the drains, assisting farmers to remove weeds and lallang, and helping them do some work which they are unable to do themselves. Now the Barisan Sosialis has the effrontery to turn round and say that we are making use of the Work Brigade for our political purposes. I remember when the Barisan Sosialis left the P.A.P. there was a group of members in the Work Brigade who were supporters of the Barisan Sosialis then and they were expelled because they were trying to obstruct whatever measures the Government were adopting to improve the rural areas. Some of these people even went to the extent of burning the bicycles of the rural people and assaulting some members who were not members of the Barisan Sosialis. As a result of their behaviour, there was a lot of chaos in the Work Brigade camps. These trouble-makers were expelled because of their misbehaviour in the Work Brigade and because of their attempts to whip up rebellious feelings in the Work Brigade. They even tried to turn members of the Work Brigade into rioters. I remember the Member for Thomson said in his speech that in the event of some union members supporting the Barisan Sosialis, they would be persecuted. Talking about the Nanyang undergraduates, I remember there were lorry loads carrying Nanyang undergraduates with the banners of Nanyang University, and some banners of the Barisan Sosialis, appealing to the public to vote for the Barisan Sosialis. We have seen all this but we do not say that all the undergraduates of Nanyang University are supporting the Barisan Sosialis. In fact, some of our members on this side are graduates of Nanyang University. In fact, there are also other undergraduates of Nanyang who are ---

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has been talking on irrelevant matters such as Nanyang University which is not a matter under discussion now.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary has been relevant here, because allegations from the Barisan side have been that the People's Action Party used the Work Brigade for the elections, and he is merely making counter-allegations that the Barisan used other people, including Nantah, for the elections. Please proceed, Mr Parliamentary Secretary. Try to get back to the Work Brigade as soon as possible. 7.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): I thank you for your ruling, Mr Speaker. I just mentioned Nanyang University in passing to show that there was nothing wrong in some members of the Work Brigade helping the P.A.P. This was because these members believe in the policies of the P.A.P. and they came out to support the P.A.P. There was nothing wrong in it at all. Mr Speaker, the Member for Jurong a few moments ago said that he was not saying that all members of the Work Brigade were bad hats but, on the other hand, he said that in the Work Brigade there were some members who have been forced to join the Work Brigade by the Government's starvation policy. I just do not understand how there could be 2,000 members of the Work Brigade if they were forced by the Government's starvation policy to join the Work Brigade. Then they would not be helping the Government to clear the drains and engage in other construction activities.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, it seems that the Member concerned does not understand the meaning of "starvation policy".

(In Mandarin): I am saying that the Member for Jurong has been ignorant of how the Work Brigade was established. It is because the Work Brigade did not help the Barisan Sosialis in the elections that they turn round and accuse the Work Brigade of certain things. Now, if we apply the argument further, we say that Nanyang University has been used by the Barisan because some of the students have been helping them. Can you say all of them belong to the Barisan? Mr Speaker, the existence of the Work Brigade at present is significant. As far as I know, there is a plan under way to absorb more members into it because there are many people who are desirous of joining it. Now if it is not doing any good work, then there will not be anyone joining.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say something. Just now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs talked about the history of the establishment of the Work Brigade and the achievements of the Work Brigade. Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not oppose the set-up of the Work Brigade. We know the work done by it. We also know the motive behind the setting up of the Work Brigade. What we oppose is that the P.A.P. Government is making use of the Work Brigade to attain their political ends. The Parliamentary Secretary said certain members of the Work Brigade were expelled because they burned bicycles and cars. Mr Speaker, Sir, do you think that people really believe this? Can the Government allow the Work Brigade members to burn bicycles and cars? Another point is that as far as we know, some members of the Work Brigade were expelled because many of them did not want themselves to be made use of as spectators to welcome the Prime Minister on his visits. They did not want to obey the Prime Minister and as a result they were expelled. They were expelled because they did not want to allow themselves to be made use of by the P.A.P. Of course, the P.A.P. do not want to admit it, because this is shameful. If they do not want to admit it, it is our duty to reveal the facts to the people of Singapore. For example, in my area, Paya Lebar, during the election, at night, there were two lorry-loads of Work Brigade members who encamped near the Airport. They patrolled the area and pulled down the election posters of their opponents. These are the facts. Some of them carried parangs and clubs to beat up the members of the Barisan Sosialis. They did it during the middle of the night. They assaulted workers of other political Parties. They cannot deceive the people any more. These are the facts. They cannot hide it. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that the Government is not willing to admit the facts. All these things occurred in the rural areas. It is well known to the people in the rural areas, but people in the town area are in the dark as to the real state of affairs. Therefore, it is our duty to reveal how the Government made use of the Work Brigade to carry out propaganda work for the P.A.P. during the recent elections.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, on a point of order. I see the Member for Paya Lebar is speaking not like a Member of this Assembly but like a gangster.

I do not follow the Member for Kampong Kapor's point of order. He says the Member for Paya Lebar is not speaking like a Member of this Assembly but like a gangster. What does he mean?

(In Malay): We respect this Chamber and we should not permit any activities, any acts like gangsterism to be done here. I think it is not decorous, if, in the opinion of the Speaker, it is not against decorum, well, i have no objection.

I asked the Member for Kampong Kapor what he meant. I still do not know what he meant when he said the Member for Paya Lebar was speaking like a gangster. I therefore rule him completely out of order and I ask the Member for Paya Lebar to proceed, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I intended to finish my speech just now, but the Member from the other side said I was behaving like a gangster. I want an apology from him. Just now the Minister for Culture was pointing his finger at us when he was making a speech, and yet we did not say he was a gangster. I require an apology from the Member for Kampong Kapor.

Will the Member for Paya Lebar note that I have already ruled that the Member for Kampong Kapor is out of order and that the Chair does not think that he spoke like a gangster?

(In Malay): Originally it was not my intention to speak, but after hearing one of the Opposition Members saying that in the last general elections many members of the Work Brigade tore down posters, beat up political opponents, and carried clubs and parangs, this shows contempt for members of the Work Brigade. Mr Speaker, if warriors go to war with their arms and weapons, if farmers use their changkols and fishermen their fishing nets, then members of the Work Brigade have dedicated themselves to the cause of the public. Can these people be considered as a group of gangsters, beating up people during the late nights, as though this country has gone back to the law of the jungle? This is contempt for the members of the Work Brigade. Mr Speaker, we know the tree because of its fruit. We see the fruit and we know from what tree it comes. The tongue speaks for the heart. Therefore, members of the Work Brigade are very angry. They have served the public by cleaning drains and making up roads. The Barisan Sosialis threw wild allegations - salary $150; running dogs of Lee Kuan Yew, and so on and so forth. Even we Members of this Assembly listening to such allegations get very furious. Those expelled members of the Work Brigade were those who were engaged in agitation. Therefore, allegations of beating up people are all unfounded. It is contempt for the thousands of Work Brigade members who have contributed their bit towards society. I think the Member should withdraw these serious allegations against the Work Brigade members who have no opportunity to defend themselves in this Chamber against such allegations.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, at first I had no intention of saying anything, but after seeing that the Government benches are paying very much attention to this, since "it has caught hold of their painful legs", I will now discuss it further because these facts have exposed the evil deeds of the P.A.P. We have said just now that we do not oppose the Work Brigade members, but what we are against is that the Government are making use of their starvation policy to coerce people into joining the Work Brigade in order to make use of them to do things for the P.A.P. 7.30 p.m. As to the incidents mentioned by us, they are concrete facts which cannot be denied. I will give further examples. Sometime ago, in the small hours of the night at Toa Payoh, an incident happened at the office of the Country People's Association. This Association is now banned by the P.A.P. Certain members of the Work Brigade were engaged to wreck the office of the Association there. Of course, the members of the Work Brigade did not dare do such a thing. But they did it because they were thinking of their work and of their stomach. They had to make a living and therefore they had to take directions from those behind them - namely the P.A.P. So we are not condemning the members of the Work Brigade. We are only complaining about the way in which the P.A.P. are making use of the members of the Work Brigade. We did not lodge any complaint. But we did disclose these facts. But the main Chinese newspapers and other newspapers did not publish these facts. The reasons are obvious to all, There has been some intimidation from certain authorities to prevent the news from being published. Who directed or instigated the members of the Work Brigade to wreck the office of the Country People's Association? I mention this incident only to show that the members of the Work Brigade had been coerced and intimidated. If they had not carried out the orders, they would have been sacked. This goes to show that the P.A.P. are suppressing them.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, our friends opposite have made certain allegations. To me, they are just fantasies and cooked-up stories. We all know that Singapore is a country ruled by law. There is the rule of law in the legal institutions of Singapore. If any illegal act is committed, then it is the duty of a citizen to make a report to the police or lodge a complaint for action to be taken in a court of law. I believe that the Barisan Sosialis have many lawyers behind them. They would be able to take this case to the Court. They have people like Mr T. T. Rajah. Another allegation is that certain members of the Work Brigade were sacked because they did not support the P.A.P. But the true reason is that in any organisation there must be rules regulating the discipline of its members, and if any member of that organisation infringes any of its regulations he will then be duly dealt with according to the regulations. If any of the members commits an offence, he will then be dealt with according to the regulations.

Order. It is 7.35 p.m. Will the Member for Jalan Kayu who moved amendments (1)* and (3)+ to Head 13 indicate whether he wishes to withdraw them or have a vote taken?

(In Mandarin): I would like a vote taken.

Could he indicate whether he wishes one vote on two amendments or two votes?

(In Mandarin): Two votes.

I will put the questions on the amendments as the Member pleases. Question on the amendment* put, and negatived. Question on the amendment+ put, and negatived. *Amendment (1) reads as follows:- That the sum to be allocated fo Head 13 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (87) of subhead 1. +Amendment (2) reads as follows:- That the sum to be allocated for Head 13 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 61. The time allotted for Head 13 having expired, the following amendments standing in the name of Mr Ong Lian Teng were not proceeded with: (2) That the sum to be allocated for Head 13 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 13. (4) That the total sum to be allocated for Head 13 be reduced by $100. The sum of $7,232,560 for Head 13 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 14-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 14 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Head "Building Survey" concerns a department which carries out such work as the inspection of buildings. I would like to ask the Government some questions in regard to the inspection of houses, structures, chicken-sheds and pig-sties built by the farmers. This department also has the duty of inspecting attap houses built by the farmers. Of course, we do not agree that attap houses can be built at any place. But we can see only a few houses in certain areas where the population is not dense. We can see one or two houses in certain areas with families staying there, keeping poultry and rearing pigs and chickens. But this department has sent out notices to demolish their houses. But when I visited those places, I found the chicken-sheds and huts were so small that they could not even accommodate the Minister's car. Even such structures were given notices for demolition. For the sake of making a living, those people have to set up small sheds in order to maintain their livelihood. Yet the Government are giving them notices to demolish the structures. Even their applications to extend the buildings, houses and sheds have been turned down, Even requests to repair leaking roofs have been turned down. I went to see the Chief Building Surveyor and he told me that this was a matter under the jurisdiction of the Minister. He himself could not do anything. Since he said that he could do nothing in this respect, I thought that these farmers might go to see the Minister concerned. But the Minister did not care to see them because these problems did not affect him. So he was not unduly worried about it. But these things are closely linked up with the livelihood of the farmers. The ordinary chicken-sheds, pig-sties and structures are also being dealt in this way by the Government. There were houses which were somewhat extended; the extensions were not very extensive and yet they were prohibited and notices were given for them to be demolished. Of course, there must be cases where the Government could remind the farmers in advance about what could be done and what should not be done because the farmers in general cannot know the niceties of laws, regulations and procedures of the different departments. The Government should spend some time explaining to the farmers so as to guide and teach them. Then there will be fewer cases of farmers building unauthorised structures. I have raised this point in order to urge the Government to be flexible. It should not try to demolish such unauthorised structures whenever they are built. The Government should, at least, in its publicity work, enlighten the farmers on this. Mr Lim Kim San and Mr Chio Cheng Thun rose ---

I prefer to have one speaker from the Opposition and one speaker from the Government. Mr Chio Cheng Thun resumed his seat. 7.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Jalan Kayu again misrepresented the facts. He alleged that I was not interested in seeing the farmers. As far as I can remember, I am available to anybody who has a legitimate grievance to air, and I do not remember any of the farmers wanting to see me. We give notice to quit or notice of demolition under certain circumstances. Firstly, if the building is unauthorised; secondly, if the repairs or the enlargement is not according to the plans that have been submitted, or the enlargement is unauthorised. We have staff in our department who will be able to help these farmers if they really want to undertake legitimate repairs. In most of the cases that we have come across, they are not repairs but enlargements and extensions of illegal buildings. As I have said before, there must be control, not only over attap huts, but even over well constructed modern flats. There must be control, otherwise there would be chaos in this town. Every time there is an unauthorised erection, we send people there to investigate, and in most cases we find that they are either unauthorised or the reconstruction that has taken place has involved additional floor area to the building. Very often additional living units complete with living room, kitchen and toilet facilities have been added to the original building. If these were allowed to go on unchecked, very soon you would have an area where you would find that there is no access, and where usually it is a fire trap, as in the case of Bukit Ho Swee and the two fires that happened recently in Geylang. Therefore, Sir, if a farmer really wants to build, he can always come and see our staff; submit a plan which is according to specifications and which will allow him to have a healthy house, As the Member for Jalan Kayu has said, some of these units are so small that even a car cannot be put in. Therefore, these are not fit for habitation. Must we allow units of this type to be put up? An hon. Member: For pigs. Another hon. Member: Chickens.

That is all I have to say, Sir.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the last sentence uttered by the Minister for National Development surprised me. He has a few thousand dollars a month. He has a car and he owns houses. He does not know the difficulties of the villagers and the farmers. I have pointed out in my last speech that it is not the farmers who are willing to live in unhygienic structures and houses. It is not of their own free will that they have to live in such places. Our constructive suggestions with regard to rural development have not been publicised adequately, and there has been a lot of allegations against the Government for their failure to improve the lot of the poor farmers. This morning there were about 20 families in the Lim Chu Kang area who have had their farms, houses and vegetables affected adversely. This morning when I went there I saw a riot squad, policemen, red vans and radio cars and some Malays carrying knives, wooden sticks and parangs. Bulldozers were also used over the vegetable farms. How did this state of affairs come about? This is the so-called Government's intention of helping the farmers to live in flats, so that action can be taken to drive them away from their farms. Now, what happens?

On a point of order, Sir. We are debating Head 14 - Building Survey. We are not debating resettlement.

The point is in order. We are debating Head 14 - Building Survey. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the demolition of houses is connected with Building Survey. In fact, it is connected with the rural development scheme of the Government. I am just bringing your attention to this morning's incident to show that the farmers have no place to live in. I rang up the National Development Ministry as well as the Social Welfare Department, but there was no reply as to how these affected farmers are to be dealt with. They say that these farmers will be given Housing Board flats.

On a point of order, Sir, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member is referring to a piece of land belonging to the Housing Board. The eviction of trespassers on that land has no bearing on the subject we are now discussing. I hope he will confine himself to the subject under discussion.

The point is we have not got much time left. The Member speaking at present has only about two to three minutes more. So perhaps we will allow him to wind up the proceedings of the day. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): I have brought out these facts for the purpose of the record so that the Government will know what to do with regard to the livelihood of these farmers. In connection with this question, we want the Government to be careful in dealing with these 20 families (comprising at least about 100 persons) who are affected by the action this morning. This is a picture showing the demolition action of the Government which was taken this morning [Indicating].

Mr Speaker, Sir, here again it is a misrepresentation of facts. Though it does not come under the debate in question, but since you have allowed him to go on, I would like to give you the true facts of the case. These people, as a Backbencher has said, are trespassers who had been occupying Housing Board land for a long time.

Squatters.

No. Squatters on Housing Board land - yes. They were given every available opportunity to move out. In fact, alternative accommodation in substitution was offered to them, but they refused. They turned down the offer and, just like in Toa Payoh, they were bluffed by the Barisan boys. They were told to stay until the very last minute, when we had to say, "Well, we have given you enough time." They refused to budge, and that is why we had to take quite strong action. Every time the Barisan boys give a picture, it is a wrong picture. They never give the other side of the picture.

Mr Speaker, I would like to speak in Mandarin.

One minute left.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, since time is short I do not propose to talk too much. I would like to reply to the points raised by the Opposition in the shortest time possible. I personally feel that the Member for Jalan Kayu is not really interested in the farmers. What he is interested in are pigs, fish ponds, prawn ponds, and chickens. A few days ago ---

There should be no personal attacks. We have had this throughout the day. The Member has half a minute left, Is that all he proposes to talk?

(In Mandarin): There is a law in every country. Singapore is a place where the rule of law prevails. If you want to build a house, you can do so provided you submit a plan to the Government, and on approval you can go ahead and build it. You will then never have to face demolition. But the Member for Jalan Kayu seems to be encouraging the people of Singapore to build illegal and unauthorised houses and structures. 7.55 p.m.

Order. Time is up. Does the Member for Jalan Kayu wish to withdraw his amendment or to take a vote?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I want a vote to be taken.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $620,420 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. 7.58 p.m.

We are very close to the moment of interruption. If Members agree, I propose to take the Chair again tomorrow. No dissentient voice? Order. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main Estimates, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Tomorrow it shall be.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Dr Goh Keng Swee] Adjourned accordingly at One minute to Eight o'clock p.m.