Hansard, 1963-12-13

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day].

Head 17-

We are on Head 17 - Ministry of Health. Mr Poh Ber Liak.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I would like to take the two amendments* together. Can I have your ruling, please? * The amendments standing in the name of Mr Poh Ber Liak read as follows:-

Very well. Will the Member formally move both amendments before he proceeds?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I accordingly move the amendments* standing in my name as shown on the Order Paper. I have put in the amendments because I am not satisfied with the Government's effort in respect of the Ministry of Health. We are familiar with Press reports nowadays about all sorts of infectious diseases and epidemics. We have read reports of doctors resigning from the service and patients not well looked after because of a shortage of doctors. There is, therefore, an insufficient number of doctors to look after the people. If the poor people living in outlying areas have to go to Government clinics, they have to spend money on transport, and for treatment at certain City Council clinics they have to pay fees. If these clinics are too far away from their homes, they have to see private doctors and the fees are a burden on them.

Order. There seems to be a breakdown in the translation system.

(In Mandarin): Another reason is that on Sundays and public holidays, or sometimes in the night, there are insufficient doctors in the hospitals to go on shift duty to attend to serious cases like accidents, where the patients have to wait for a long time for treatment. This causes the situation to be serious. Over the past few months we could not find any improvement in the food served to patients and they, of course, cannot recover quickly. The other point we would like to clarify is this: there have been two outbreaks of cholera. Is it due to water rationing? If it is, then what measures is the Ministry of Health taking to improve the situation? Then on dental care. This is also insufficient in aided schools. Government schools are better looked after than aided schools. Although some students from Chinese schools were recruited as nurses, they were actually not well trained. What measures can the Ministry take to improve the situation? How many more regional hospitals can the Government set up to provide medical care for the people? At the moment, the provision of drugs and medicines and maternal care at the Thomson Road Hospital during the night is also inadequate. We also learn that the Cleansing Department intends to extend the hours of water rationing in certain areas so that there will be a greater supply of water in other areas. This is for the purpose of cleaning the drains. The extended time of water supply in these areas is still not enough because certain markets in these areas cannot be cleaned properly. Can the Department think of better ways to clean these markets and so help improve the sanitary conditions generally? The Ministry of Health is asking for an increased provision of drugs and medicines but this has been turned down by the Minister for Finance. We do not think this is proper. This is not a good policy of economising. Money should be spent on buying drugs and medicines for the welfare of the people. In several hospitals and clinics patients have to queue up for registration for treatment. Can the Ministry devise any method of making it more convenient for the patients to register so that they need not waste so much of their time queuing up before they can be treated at these clinics? Another point is that the Ministry is still unable to look after the welfare of the hawkers. There are about 50,000 to 60,000 hawkers in Singapore, and they have formed themselves into hawkers' organisations. These organisations can look after the hawkers but the Government have not been very co-operative with them. On the contrary, they have banned some of these organisations. They have adopted certain measures which are better than those of the Lim Yew Hock Government, but we are of the opinion that these measures are not adequate enough. Adequate shelters and hawking space should be given to the hawkers, but the Government are levying high licence fees for their stalls, and in certain places there is little hawking space as these places are very crowded. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, the Member is making unusually extensive references to his notes. It amounts to almost reading from a prepared text.

I have had occasion to rule on this before. I will indicate once again I am prepared to allow him to read from his text at least for these few sittings. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): These points are made from the general outline. So in order to make a speech, I have to refer to my main points in the outline. This is necessary in the course of making a speech in order to be able to give a more comprehensive picture. I am not reading from a prepared text. I would like the relevant Ministry of the Government to provide adequate protection for the hawkers and the general public. This will help the hawkers in their business. There is another instance. The hawkers in Geylang Serai are not very well looked after. In the day-time there are hawkers' stalls at certain bus stops. At night they do some other odd jobs. The Government have not been able to look after these hawkers. There are several eating stalls in Geylang Serai. As from last March they were asked to leave their places. But since then they have not been looked after by the Government. They, therefore, cannot carry on their business and make a living. I am mentioning all these matters in order to point out that there is inadequacy in the services of the Ministry of Health. Since the P.A.P. have now come into office, can the Government from now on try to do something better in order to improve the lot of the hawkers as well as the general public?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tampines has talked at great length just now. I would like to ask him a question. Did he say that patients are not being properly treated by doctors in the Government clinics and that they have to go to private practitioners to get treatment? I am wondering whether he did say this or not.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the time for Opposition Members to ask the Minister for Health questions. Instead of that, the Parliamentary Secretary is asking questions. He has not listened properly to my colleague. We are asking the Minister,

I rule that the Member for Thomson is out of order. The Parliamentary Secretary has been replying to the Member for Tampines. In the course of the debate he has asked questions which the Member for Tampines may or may not answer. The Member for Thomson is right when he says that this is the time for Members of the Opposition to ask questions. But surely in the debate Members on the Government side can retaliate with questions. Please proceed. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, may I suggest, in future, if any Member stands up and queries on a point of order, that he quote which provision of the Standing Orders he is referring to?

Please proceed, Mr Parliamentary Secretary.

(In Mandarin): We have all listened to what the Member for Tampines has said just now. He was very querulous and his arguments were very tedious. He has not made any proper criticism.

The Member is now quite close again to personal attacks which I will not have in this Assembly. Otherwise these attacks will lead to replies from the Opposition and we go on and on.

(In Mandarin): When I said that he was querulous, I did not mean to attack him personally. He was beating about the bush. On the third point, he said that patients who go to the Government clinics are not properly treated and that they have to go to private practitioners for treatment. Can he give a clear explanation as to how this state of affairs has come about?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, the question which I have raised just now is meant to elicit an answer from the Minister for Health. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary is another Minister.

The Member for Tampines is now personally attacking the Parliamentary Secretary, which is exactly what I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary not to do. Please refrain from attacking personalities.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister for Health will give a clear answer to my questions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Tampines has ranged right through the Ministry of Health, I believe, over thirteen points. It is a very unlucky number, Sir - like the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen. That is their trade mark. He started first by talking about the resignation of doctors. I believe a similar question was put to the Central Government at Kuala Lumpur, and it was the Prime Minister who answered to the effect that unfortunately quite a number of doctors spent some time in Government service and then suddenly they appeared to be bitten by the money bug and they decided to resign from Government service arid go into private practice. That unfortunately is also the situation in Singapore. But this shortage of doctors is not typical only for Singapore or for the Federation. It is worldwide. This is because people are now getting more accustomed to employing the services of doctors for their illnesses and ailments and there is a crying need for medical attention. It is, therefore, a world-wide shortage from which we ourselves suffer. May I, however, say that Singapore can consider itself lucky because the ratio of doctors to population is fairly good in our case. It is one doctor to about 2,200 of the population. whereas I believe in Malaya it is one doctor to 7,000 of the population.

Indonesia?

I think we do not get statistics from the heartland of our Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen. There has been very little information from that quarter. I think we have a little over 700 qualified doctors in Singapore, of whom one-half are in Government service. The remaining half are in private practice. There have been resignations in the past. But since I assumed office as Minister for Health for the last two months, there has been only one resignation of a doctor who is a temporary officer. She is an expatriate who is leaving Singapore to join her husband elsewhere. So I think it is pretty difficult to try to remedy the shortage because it takes at least six years for a doctor to go through university training and an extra year as a houseman before he is permitted to practise. So I am afraid, for that reason, there is no solution in sight. But we can remedy the situation somewhat by making a greater effort to recruit and train auxiliary medical personnel. By that, I mean junior staff like laboratory technicians, hospital assistants, assistant nurses, dental nurses, and so on. I think it is possible to increase the recruitment and training of these personnel within the forseeable future. I believe the second point mentioned by the Member for Tampines is this. He was referring to the hours during which our out-patient clinics are open to look after the people throughout the State. As stated in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, we have unfortunately expanded in this respect faster than we were able to get doctors to man them. May I read this particular paragraph of the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in Hansard of 29th November, 1963, column 124: 3.00 p.m. `The shortage in doctors is being slowly overcome, but the extension of Government clinics and health facilities has been at a higher rate than the recruitment of new doctors, Administrative efficiency and tightening of "referrals" from these clinics to the hospitals are essential if the strain on the medical staff is to be checked,' I would like to repeat the word "strain". It means that we have less doctors and staff than we would like to have to man these clinics, be they outpatient clinics or maternal and child health centres. I say this and this is what our Finance Minister in his Budget speech on the 28th of November, 1963 - I refer to Hansard again col. 97 - said `The expansion in outdoor medical service brought about a severe strain on the available medical staff, and nurses and doctors had to work long and punishing hours to maintain the enlarged services,' Sir, there is a limit to human endurance. May I say, therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I wish in this Assembly to pay the highest tribute to those few but loyal and dedicated doctors and nurses who are serving our people, be they hospitals, out-patient clinics or maternal child health centres, and trying to cope with the tremendous demand for medical services required by our people. Far from wishing to complain against them, I seek the co-operation of Opposition Assemblymen to understand the situation ---

Point of order. (In Mandarin) I do not have any complaint against the doctors. What I am complaining is that the time is very short at the out-patient clinics. The whole situation is as a result of the Government's policy.

That is not a point of order. That should have been a point of clarification and the Member should have asked the Minister to give way to him. Please proceed, Mr Minister - [Interruption] Order.

The Member for Tampines chooses not to understand; he chooses to misunderstand. He was complaining that doctors will not be available for a sufficiently long period of time to look after sick people. I have explained that doctors are human. There are too few doctors and too few nurses to meet the thousands of cases that come to them. You do not want the doctors and nurses to fall flat and have a nervous breakdown, because then there will be no doctors and nurses to look after them. That is why I say, be understanding and human and not act irresponsibly. That is what the Barisan Sosialis people are. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Order.

As for transport expenses, we have endeavoured to spread these clinics and centres throughout the island. I hope the Barisan Sosialis, especially the Member for Tampines, are not expecting a clinic and a health centre at his house for every one of them. That sort of senseless argument which is being persisted ---

Order. Mr Minister, please leave the Member for Tampines alone. He did not ask for a clinic in his own house. Try to refrain from personal attacks. Please proceed.

Very well, Sir. The third point, I believe, is about the conditions in Woodbridge Hospital. Yes, there is overcrowding there, and there is also a committee studying the situation in Woodbridge Hospital. But I can assure you, Sir, that there are lots of people in this Assembly who could find a place in this hospital. The fourth point - that on Sundays, public holidays and at nights there are not sufficient doctors available - I believe that point has already been covered when I explained that unfortunately there are not enough doctors in Singapore that Singapore would like to have, and therefore certain services have to be reduced, and doctors, nurses, attendants, clerks, hospital attendants, etc., being human, must also have their days of rest before they can look after sick people. The fifth point - poor food in hospitals. It is quite easy just to pick on that. Even in university hostels, food can be considered bad. It is a very simple complaint. It should be put right, of course, but there will always be complaints however much effort may be made in this respect. We come now to cholera. It is unfortunate that there have been two outbreaks of cholera within the last six months in Singapore, in fact, in the whole of Malaya. But I must say that there are perpetual outbreaks in other countries like the heartland of the Barisan Sosialis, be it Indonesia, the Philippines or the China mainland. I think it is reasonable to suggest that the water shortage and water rationing has some part to play in these outbreaks. But what are we to do if there is no adequate rainfall and we have to have water rationing? We can only hope that if the Assemblymen from the Barisan Sosialis would pray hard enough, there would be more rain for all of us. The seventh point referred to the school health service and an allegation that students in aided schools are not as well looked after as those in Government schools. There are in all only seven doctors in the school health service to look after 416,000 pupils. I ask the Member for Tampines to do a little bit of mental arithmetic to see how and why it is almost impossible for those few doctors to look after 400,000 pupils. The allegation that aided schools are being ignored is entirely untrue. Because of the few doctors that are available, what is now possible is only the examination of school pupils when they enter school at Primary I and when they are at Primary VI, and again when they are about to leave secondary school. Of course, we would like to be able to expand the school health service to make it possible for our children to receive medical attention throughout the year. But I think it will take a very, very long time before we will be in the position to have adequate staff to cope with the tremendous increase in our school population over the last few years. The eighth point, Mr Speaker, Sir, was on the question of recruitment of staff like nurses from other than English schools. Never, I think, have there been attempts to recruit nurses from other than English schools in the past and we were quite happy. I believe, in 1960 to make the experiment to second two teachers from a Chinese school and a Malay school to be attached to the Ministry of Health in order to recruit school leavers from Chinese and Malay schools. They received my approval and I can assure the Member for Tampines that I hope to be able to do more than what was done a few years back. I understand that since almost everything is done in English, there are difficulties in trying to bridge this language gap. But it is a problem which I hope I will be able to improve upon if given adequate time. The Member's ninth point refers to hospitals. According to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, we have already indicated that the Thomson Road Hospital will become the second General Hospital in a few months' time. It is not possible for me to anticipate further than this because the speech only refers to 1964 and the second Five-Year Plan 1965-69 is now in the process of being drawn up. Perhaps the Member for Tampines will be patient enough to wait for the publication of this second Five-Year Plan when the question of a third and, possibly, a fourth general hospital to be established in Singapore will be revealed. The tenth point referred to the recent relaxation of water rationing by the Public Utilities Board to cope with the cholera situation. If our water situation improves - I think it is improving now, probably thanks to the prayer of the Member for Tampines; it is raining outside - there will not only be a further relaxation of water rationing but maybe water rationing will not be necessary, and then this extension of two hours from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. may be improved. As regards timing, well, it could be one way or another. I think we have to accept the fact that we are lucky to be able to have a relaxation in the water rationing, so that there are two more additional hours for our city cleansing workers to clean up not only the drains that are choked with rubbish over a long period of time, but also to cleanse our markets all over Singapore. 3.15 p.m. The eleventh allegation was that my colleague, the Minister for Finance, has been very unkind by cutting down requests for drugs and chemicals. I think the Member for Tampines would be raising this subsequently and so I shall not anticipate this question and will deal with it when the time comes. All I can say is that what he said is not true. But I will give him a full answer if the Member for Tampines will raise it subsequently. The twelfth point refers to patients queuing up for attention. Well, if there are only a few doctors and more patients, that is to be expected. We would like to have more doctors, and therefore there would be shorter queues. But that will take a long time. [Interruption] Yes, my colleague, the Minister for National Development, says that our clinics must be very popular and so they are prepared to queue up like queuing up for the cinema.

Have you anything like that in Indonesia?

His thirteenth and last question - hawkers. He alleges that there are 50,000 to 60,000 hawkers. I think the figures are exaggerated by 50 per cent. I think there are about 40,000 hawkers in Singapore. Here again, there is a question tabled by him which will come up for answer tomorrow. I shall not anticipate the question and I shall give him the answer in due time. Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech was quite clear at column 124 where we came forward with a statement: `On the Public Health side, the Ministry is planning a reorganisation of the City Cleansing services,' I will skip a few lines and go on: `... and the ... huge increase in the number of hawkers, inadequate methods of supervision resulting in lack of discipline in the work force, complicated by secret society elements in their midst, have brought about an increase in rubbish, flies and mosquitoes. All this can and will be put right. Reorganisation can succeed once these factors have been dealt with,' This hawker problem is part and parcel of the reorganisation which the Government will put into operation and I think the best part of the reorganisation is the banning of the two Singapore hawkers' unions which were the front organisations of the Barisan Sosialis. I hope I have been able to answer all the 13 questions put up by the Barisan Sosialis to the best of my ability and I assure them that reorganisation is coming. I do hope that I will get the support of the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen in putting matters right for Singapore.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that the Minister in his reply did not mention "Communism" or "Communists". This is very rare indeed. But it cannot be denied that although he has given fair answers, he has also made other allegations against us. I will say something on the views he has expressed and on his allegations. The first is about the shortage of doctors. The Minister has said that many doctors in Singapore as well as those in Malaya resigned from Government service in order to practise privately for pecuniary reasons. That was his excuse for the shortage of doctors. As has been admitted by the Minister, half the doctors in Singapore are employed in the Ministry of Health. If there is still this large number of doctors employed, why did he say that more doctors resigned from the Government to make more money in private practice? I would like to have a better explanation from him. I hope the Ministry of Health will be able to recruit more doctors to serve in the hospitals and clinics. If the doctors are not satisfied with their working conditions, the Minister should be patient with them and hear their views so that they will be content to remain in their jobs. Nobody wants to be ill but if a person falls sick, of course, he will have to see a doctor. If the Government will not accommodate the views of the doctors on their working conditions, then naturally there will be a shortage of doctors. The Minister alleged that many doctors resigned because they were not satisfied with their terms of service. There are clinics as well as the Thomson Road Hospital and the General Hospital which are under-staffed. There is also a shortage of nurses. As a result of this, an indisposed person will find it difficult to go to a clinic or a hospital to see a doctor or a nurse. Therefore, I hope the Minister will try to recruit more nurses for the various clinics and hospitals, otherwise the people might think that the nurses are unwilling to serve them. They might not know that there are insufficient nurses. We all know that a small number of nurses cannot look after too many patients. Of course, it is a very good thing to recruit nurses from all schools of the four streams, otherwise many school-leavers will be unemployed. Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot agree with the Minister that we should pray to God for more rainfall.

It is raining outside.

(In Mandarin): Today we have to pray. In the past, the Government tried: to create artificial rain with very little success. I would urge the Government to speed up the Johore River project. The sooner the project is completed the earlier the people of Singapore will be free from water rationing due to water shortage. If it is a question of shortage of funds, it is really unbelievable, as the Government have spent about $100 million on T.V. alone. If they had spent this sum of $100 million on the Johore River project, we would not be experiencing a water shortage today and the incidence of disease and epidemics would be very much less.

(In Malay): Mr Sneaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Health has explained to the Opposition Members that the shortage of doctors is riot only confined to Singapore or, for that matter, to Malaya, but that it is a universal problem. It is not an easy matter to recruit doctors, Mr Speaker, Sir. They must be trained for a number of years before they can be considered as capable doctors. The Minister says one doctor caters for 2,000 people and it will take a lone time to achieve this. We have doctors in Singapore but most of those whose sympathies are with the Barisan Sosialis resigned from Government not because they wanted to go into private practice but because they wanted to encage themselves in political activities. I think if these doctors were to discharge their duties as doctors, it would be of greater benefit to the people of Singapore. On the contrary, they have not attended to the sick but they have spread malicious political propaganda as a result of which the people of Singapore are more sick. The Members opposite talk about the shortage of water. They say that if the Government had accelerated the Tebrau River and the Johore River projects, we would not have experienced the present water shortage. I wish to emphasise that although we have expended millions of dollars on the Tebrau River and the Johore River projects, the purpose will be defeated if there is no rain. The water for Singapore depends on how much rainfall we get. 3.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the first point I want to make is that when I gave notice of the two amendments I did not attack the doctors in the Ministry of Health. I am sympathetic towards these doctors and I hope the P.A.P. will not sour up the relations between the doctors and the Barisan Sosialis because all along the doctors have maintained good relations with the Barisan Sosialis.

Order.

(In Mandarin): The reason why the doctors resigned from Government service is that they were not satisfied with their working conditions. They had to work very hard and the Government could not solve their problems and meet their claims. That is why there was an exodus of doctors from Government service. This was admitted by the Minister for Health. Today we can see that many doctors go into private practice. How can you say that there is a shortage of doctors in Singapore? The reason for the shortage is that they do not like to work in Government. Since it is so, why do the Government not improve the working conditions so as to attract more doctors? The money in our coffers is derived from --- [Interruption]

Will the Government Members allow the Member for Tampines to proceed with his speech and keep silent? I must mention again that the Member is speaking in Mandarin and I am trying to follow the English translation. It is difficult enough trying to follow that translation without Members from the Government side adding to the confusion. Please proceed, Mr Poh.

(In Mandarin): Nothing is more valuable than life. But the Government disregard giving medical attention to the people in order to fill up their coffers. Why do the Government not solve all these problems? If I can increase the vote by $1,000 or $10,000 I am willing to do so. [Interruption] If you are competent, we can argue point by point. As regards public holidays and Sundays and at nights, I agree that nurses and doctors should rest. But what will happen to emergency and serious cases? [Interruption] You have not listened properly to the speech made by your Minister. This is ridiculous. The Government should see to it that there are extra doctors to replace those doctors who are off duty. On the question of water rationing, it seems that the Minister has admitted that water rationing has a part to play in the outbreak of cholera. It is a very dangerous situation and we must see that it is eliminated. What steps will the Government take to eliminate this dangerous epidemic? Some people have died of cholera. Do the Government want to see more and more people die of cholera?

(In Mandarin): Get inoculated.

(In Mandarin): You ask the people to get inoculated. When the people contract the disease, they are about to die and do not have enough time to get inoculated. You have caused the water shortage and you have asked them to go for inoculation when it is too late. This is all nonsense. [Interruption] Barking? I hear the word "barking" coming from the opposite side. Coming back to my point, since water shortage is the great cause of the cholera epidemic, why does the Minister not do anything in advance? About the queuing up of patients in hospitals and clinics, the Minister has mentioned the shortage of doctors. What measures is the Minister taking to remedy the situation? Is he contented to let the situation carry on like this and see people die of cholera? The Government are so very interested in blaming the Communists and so-called pro-Communists. They have spent so much money for their own benefit that they are not prepared to look after the patients, hawkers, and the people in general. Talking about the hawkers, they have formed their own organisations to look after themselves. The P.A.P. have ignored the interests and welfare of the hawkers. They are not prepared to look after the hawkers and yet they will not allow the hawkers' organisations to look after themselves. In addition to banning hawkers' organisations, the P.A.P. have smeared these organisations. If the P.A.P. had the courage to take up the challenge, we would be prepared for a public debate to see whether the hawkers are supporting us or the P.A.P. Let us see on which side the hawkers are on. [Interruption] Let me tell the Government Backbenchers not to bark. Fanatics, maniacs always behave like you. The three doctors in the Barisan Sosialis were not satisfied with working in Government service and in order to better look after the interests of the people, they resigned.

Point of order, Sir.

What is the point of order?

The point of order is that it is ethical for doctors not to put in advertisements in the newspapers or in the Assembly. I think the Member for Tampines is canvassing for the Barisan doctors.

I over-rule the objection. The Member for Tampines is not advertising for the Barisan doctors. It is the Minister for Health who first mentioned the doctors in the Barisan Sosialis. What the Member is doing now is to reply. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Laughter] Do not laugh at me. I have a very high respect for doctors. 3.40 p.m.

Order. Time is up. Will the member for Tampines indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or take a vote?

(In Mandarin): I wish to put it to the vote.

There are two amendments which were debated together. I will first put the Question on Amendment (1)*. *Amendment (1) reads as follows:- That the sum to be allocated for Head 17 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

We come now to Amendment (2)+. I will put the Question.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. +Amendment (2) reads as follows:- That the total sum to be allocated for Head 17 be reduced by $100. The sum of $3,964,000 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 18-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to take all the six amendments* together. *The six amendments standing in the name of Mr Poh Ber Liak read as follows:-

The Member may discuss all the amendments together, but could he first move the first amendment+ formally?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. +That the sum to be allocated for Head 18 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of subhead 12.

The debate may now range over all the six amendments.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the first amendment is that in the Estimates for 1963 the provision for this item was $723,000, but the provision for 1964 is $691,930 only. There is a reduction of $31,070. It is not right to reduce the money provided for drugs and chemicals because it means a reduction of drugs and chemicals, which are very important in the treatment of patients. This is a very important item and yet the Government has reduced the provision for it. This will lead to very bad consequences. The second amendment is in regard to the Out-patient Services. In the 1963 Estimates the provision was $507,830, whereas the Estimates for 1964 show $442,830. Therefore, there is a reduction of $65,000. This is detrimental to the treatment of patients. 3.45 p.m. The third amendment is in regard to the Out-patient Services. In 1963 the provision for drugs and chemicals was $71,000, whereas the estimates for 1964 show $68,500. This is less than what is provided for last year. Another amendment is in regard to drugs, materials and maintenance at Kandang Kerbau Hospital. Last year the provision was $155,000 whereas this year it is only $146.

000. This is another reduction. The fifth amendment is in regard to medical and surgical equipment and stores at Middleton Hospital. The provision for last year was $22,000, whereas the provision for this year is only $20,000. This is a reduction of $2,000. The sixth amendment is in regard to drugs and chemicals under the Social Hygiene Branch. The provision for last year was $72,500, whereas the estimates provided for this year are only $70,580. This is another reduction. Sc in the estimates for 1964 the Government have provided more money for those items which do not affect the livelihood of the people. On the contrary, the Government are providing less money for those items which are essential for the welfare of the people. This is not right.

As I have indicated just now, the debate will range over all the six amendments as shown on the Order Paper.

I think a very good point has been raised by the Member for Tampines regarding the reduced votes for drugs and chemicals in respect of all the six hospitals mentioned. What I would like to say is this. For the last three years provisions for drugs and chemicals for all the hospitals were really much higher than actual expenditure. For 1963 - there is still about a month to go - we have made a projection of the estimated expenditure, so perhaps I will just quickly run through the figures. For the General Hospital for this year, we have a provision of $723,000, but I think we will spend only $673,480. Therefore, the 1964 provision of $691,930 should be adequate. I think it goes right down all the hospitals in a similar way. The only one is Middleton Hospital where we had a provision of $22,000 and our anticipated expenditure is $21,000 for this year because of the cholera epidemic which occurred twice, and for 1964 the provision of $20,000 may not be adequate. But I understand the Treasury has always been reasonable and whenever there is a request for additional money to purchase drugs, it never says no. So I can assure the Member for Tampines that the Ministry of Health would be able to get adequate money to purchase all the drugs and chemicals that will be required to maintain efficient medical services. I myself will be worried if I cannot get the money. But I can assure him that it has been the practice of the Treasury to provide the money if we can make a case for the purchase of drugs.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we could see that the attitude of the Minister for Health towards the medical services is more reasonable than that of the other Ministers. If we could maintain this kind of reasonable attitude ---

The Member must not attack again or make comparisons between one Minister and the others. That is an indirect attack on the other Ministers.

(In Mandarin): Since the Minister has assured us that there will be sufficient drugs and chemicals for the treatment of patients, we hope that this assurance will be implemented. Apart from the provision of adequate drugs and chemicals, we also hope that other facilities will be adequate in the hospitals and clinics. I would like to withdraw these amendments.

I take it that the Member for Tampines wishes to withdraw these amendments. Can the Member confirm that?

(In Mandarin): In view of the explanation and the assurance given by the Minister for Health - and I hope this assurance will be implemented - I would like to withdraw all my amendments. Amendments, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $34,781,000 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 19-

We will now proceed to the next Head, which is Head 19 Public Health Division. Mr Koo Young.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 19 be reduced by $100. As a result of the rationing of water, the health services in the town and in the rural areas are not adequate. For example, in the markets and in the areas where there are a lot of hawkers, rubbish has been piled up and has not been cleared away. Many people have complained that the public toilets are dirty. Is the Minister for Health prepared to take steps to improve health and sanitary conditions? Another point is this. There are many drains, especially in the rural areas, which, because they are blocked, create stagnant pools of water. This condition breeds mosquitoes. In the past, personnel from the Anti-Malarial Department would go round and spray chemicals to kill the mosquitoes. Has the Minister for Health taken into consideration the work that has been done by this Department? Is he thinking of any step to resolve this situation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have already partly dealt, with the question of public health. In the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech it has already been indicated that it is the intention of the Ministry of Health to reorganise the City Cleansing Service which, of course, includes looking after the rural areas. Singapore is so small now and with the integration of the City Council with Government, it really means that the Ministry of Health is now looking after the whole island State of Singapore. So the work of clearing rubbish, drains with stagnant water, flies and mosquitoes - all that has been accepted by the Government, and it is our intention to get down to tackling this problem. But the Member for Thomson will recognise the fact that I became the Minister for Health only two months ago. It is only last month that we had the cholera epidemic, so it was important that I should look after the cholera epidemic first. There is only one week more to go for the mass inoculations to be put through. At present I am glad to say that 700,000 of the people in Singapore have had their inoculations. Before the second mass inoculation cholera campaign started, I held a Press conference but it was only reported in full in the Chinese Press, which I am sure the Member for Thomson reads. I indicated then that I would go into various drives, e.g., the fly extermination campaign in March, Why March? It is because it takes time first to organise properly. Secondly, I want to get the schools to participate in this movement because the half million of our school children, if they really get interested in this movement, can influence their parents; and whether they are in the city areas or in the rural areas, they will be able to look after their own rubbish. Up to a point, there will be people who would go around to clean the drains whether in the city or in the rural areas. So there are plans. 4.00 p.m. But it takes time for the plans to get into motion. I can assure him that once the fly extermination campaign gets started for one month in March, then it is our intention to raise the standard of health education for all - not just for school children and parents, but also for hawkers. I think all of us accept the fact that, because of the huge number of hawkers in Singapore - it is partly because of the unemployment situation in Singapore that they turn to hawking as a means of livelihood - we have in Singapore more rubbish than usual and sometimes unfortunately hawkers so hawk that it is not possible to clean up their pitches. We hope we will be able to get hawkers to be conscious of the fact that they are as much responsible for the public health in Singapore as other people. In fact, our Prime Minister when he outlined the four tasks ahead for the Government for the next five years, did indicate that the fourth target would be to raise the social standards of our people. There was one reference where he said - I am quoting his words: `I wish to emphasise higher standards of public and social conduct. This can be brought about by a sustained process of education. It was inevitable that with new forms of popular and representative government, hawkers, squatters and other social problems increase. But slowly as social standards and civic consciousness correspondingly increase, hawkers for instance begin to understand that they must stay out of the main traffic routes and that they must for their own sake maintain certain standards of cleanliness and hygiene. Litter, rubbish, flies and mosquitoes are not only the job of the Health Ministry and the workers in the Cleansing Department, but the social responsibility of all.' All - every one of us. So I can assure the Member for Thomson that I will not spare efforts to raise the standard of health education for everyone in Singapore, and when I get started I hope I will receive full co-operation from our friends across the Floor.

(In Mandarin): On the public health in Singapore, firstly, the Government should bear the responsibility. I am very glad to hear the assurance from the Minister for Health that, although he has just taken over that portfolio for two months, he will be able to do good work later. I think if any health education movement is to happen in future, the Government must take a realistic attitude to proceed with this sort of movement, so as to achieve the anticipated results. I hope this is not just propaganda. If they are going to just do propaganda, they will not achieve any good results. I hope the Ministry concerned will carry out what the Minister has assured us.

Will the Member for Thomson indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or have a vote?

I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $24,383,000 for Head 19 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 24-

We now proceed to Head 24 - Contributions and Charitable Allowances. There are four proposed amendments. We will take the first one in the name of Mr Poh Ber Liak.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 24 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2. I must preface my speech by mentioning one thing, otherwise I will be misconstrued. This is about the building of a memorial to the civilian victims of the Japanese Occupation. We have no objection to it at all. We agree to it. We need to keep them in our memory and the imperialists and Fascists will be the objects of our hatred. So that this memorial will also enable us to look towards a better and peaceful future in order to ensure peace and happiness for all. What I would like to know is, what about the attitude of the P.A.P.? Are the P.A.P. pro-Japan or not? On the question of atonement, we will condemn the P.A.P. for having betrayed the people. If the P.A.P. allow the Japanese to delay and delay on the question of atonement, I would like to ask the P.A.P. what steps they are going to take to deal with this matter? They must not think that if the Prime Minister just shouts and gives some talk on this topic, the matter will be resolved. It is not so simple as that. I am talking about the $375,000 being allotted for the memorial. I would point out that on the question of blood debt, we have not seen any compensation forthcoming. At the last conference of all the representatives from the various races, it was decided that the compensation would be used in the fields of education and other social services. Up till now we have not seen anything done by the Government in respect of securing the funds. We have enly seen the public donating to the ---

On a point of order. This House should not anticipate. As the House knows, I will move a Bill in this House on the 18th on a Certificate of Urgency regarding the funds of unions. I would suggest the Member refrain from discussing this matter and keep his views until that date.

We are discussing contributions to the cost of a memorial to the civilian victims of the Japanese Occupation. I think the hon. Member for Tampines should confine his remarks to this memorial and nothing more.

(In Mandarin): Now, when I said the Government froze the funds of certain organisations, I meant that the public had been contributing to this fund and yet the P.A.P. have not done anything in the past in this respect. Since the Speaker has directed me not to continue in that trend, I will now talk on the sum as provided here. If the P.A.P. are sincere and active and are willing to carry out their work of getting compensation from Japan and having the memorial established, they should have done so. On the other hand, the people themselves are making contributions. The P.A.P. should have shouldered their own responsibility in making the contributions and also getting the atonement from Japan. This only goes to show that the P.A.P. are rather irresponsible.

(In Mandarin): What the Member for Tampines has said is laughable. He is making himself a laughing stock ---

I had occasion to rule before that I do not want any personal attacks. Please do not start off by saying that he is making a laughing stock of himself. If the Minister wishes to reply, he should reply to the subject matter. He is talking on the contribution to the cost of the memorial to the civilian victims of the Japanese Occupation. 4.15 p.m.

I did not say that the Member for Tampines was making a laughing stock of himself. I said that he misrepresented his views and that this misrepresentation made the people laugh. I think you got the wrong translation.

Perhaps, Mr Minister. But I am guided by the translation which I get. If that is the case, please proceed, but keep in view what I have said.

(In Mandarin): I was saying that the speech given by the Member for Tampines was ridiculous. He indulged in irrelevancies. This sum is actually a provision by the Government to help towards the building of a memorial to civilian victims of the Japanese Occupation. In July this year, the Government agreed with the various Chambers of Commerce in Singapore to take part in activities in various parts of Singapore to set up a memorial. The land for this memorial was donated by the Government, which is near the sports-field of Raffles Institution at Beach Road. The cost of the memorial is expected to amount to $750,000. The fund is to be contributed by the Chambers of Commerce in Singapore through public donations. The Government proposes to contribute an amount equal to half the fund, i.e. $375,000. So this fund has nothing to do with atonement from the Japanese, but provision has to be made in the Budget, whether or not such atonement is forthcoming. It does not mean that there will be a reduction of this sum provided here. The Member for Tampines accuses us of delaying the settlement of the blood debt issue with Japan. He has been indulging in irrelevancies. If he had paid attention to the discussions between the Government and the Chambers of Commerce, he would have known that we on the Government side have tried our best to help to liaise between the Chambers of Commerce and Japan. The Member for Tampines can ask the members on the Blood Debt Committee. On the 25th August this year at the Padang, a mass rally was organised. Before that we allowed the Chambers the use of the Padang and the City Hall for organising a rally, and even broadcasts were made through Radio Singapore. 4.22 p.m.

The broadcasts urged the people to attend the rally. We also sent members of the Work Brigade to help put up posters and do other work. On the night of the mass rally, we mobilised the whole Work Brigade to maintain order there. We wanted the rally to be a success. We wanted to help the Chambers of Commerce to press for atonement. The Barisan boys and their unions not only refused to help, but instead created trouble and disturbances at the rally. When the people of Singapore wanted them to show their strength in this common cause, they sent their boys to disturb the rally. And they now talk of their concern in this matter! Are they really concerned about this matter? I will now talk about the blood debt. Any matter relating to foreign countries is now in the hands of the Central Government. Since the subject of the blood debt comes under foreign relations, it also comes within the jurisdiction of the Central Government. In the past month, the Singapore Government have been negotiating with the Central Government on this question of blood debt and atonement. We are waiting for the results of the discussion. The Member for Tampines also talked about peace and war. He said that they are a peace-loving people. They were shedding crocodile tears. It is they who want war. They want to create hostilities. The Member for Thomson said that I was war-like in my attitude. I have never given any war-like speeches. What I have said is that we have only a few thousand troops while our neighbour has many more. So how can we go to war with our neighbour? Our neighbour has more than 30 jet planes ---

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour is not talking on the amendment but is talking on something else.

(In Mandarin): You only insist on the right to talk. But when I talk, you do not allow me to talk. You want to be Ministers. Well, you can be Ministers provided you win the elections. [Interruption]

Order.

(In Mandarin): There is a saying that those who win will be kings and those who lose will be slaves or robbers. This saying only shows that if you want to be the Government you should get the support of the people and get elected. We received the support of the people and that is why I was returned to office. Now, the Member said that I was war-like and belligerent. Since we do not have any modern armoury or even an army, how are we going to war? If they are really interested in peace and the welfare of the people, they should not be shouting about war or accusing us of preparing for war. If they understand the political situation and the balance of power in this part of the world today, then they will realise the seriousness of the present situation. [Interruption] I do not need your tuition. You actually need our tuition since you do not know anything. [Interruption] We do not have to arrest you. Of course, there are people to deal with you. We have not arrested the Member opposite.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour has said that we are not clear on the issue of a memorial for the civilian victims of the Japanese Occupation and on the question of the blood debt. It is because of the blood debt issue that there is this question of a memorial. Had there been no blood debt issue, there would have been no such question of a memorial to the civilian victims of the Japanese Occupation. What is the situation now in regard to the atonement of the blood debt? We have not heard any further news on this matter. In this Budget we see that the Government is making a provision of $375,000 for the building of a memorial. We fully agree on the establishment of this memorial. 4.30 p.m. We do not disapprove of this vote. What we do not want is this. We do not want the P.A.P. to go back on their word. This issue was brought forth by them during the pre-election period. Is it because the purpose for which this issue was raised, that is, to win the election, that they are not interested in this blood debt any more? We have some evidence in the newspapers. There is a photograph of a mass rally in this newspaper which was taken on the night of 25th August. It was attended by over 100,000 people of Singapore. That night the people requested the Government and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce to press home the issue of the atonement with the Japanese Government. Three resolutions were passed during the rally. They were, first, to unite with all the people of Sarawak, Sabah, Malaya and Singapore to press for the blood debt. Second, if the question of the blood debt is not settled, to initiate a campaign of non-co-operation with the Japanese. Third, to urge the Government to prohibit further visas to Japanese who wish to enter this region. I would like to know whether the Government have done anything in regard to the three resolutions which were passed by the 100,000 people. The Government have not done anything in implementing the resolutions. The Minister for Labour has been ---

(In Malay): On a point of order.

Point of order?

(In Malay): We are now discussing the contribution to the Memorial Fund. The Member for Tampines is debating matters outside this Assembly. He is talking about foreign relations with reference to the Central Government. The Barisan's Member of Parliament who has gone to the Malaysian Parliament should have put up such a question there. If it is just put superficially, they will keep quiet.

The Member was giving an illustration of these relations with reference to this amendment. I think it is relevant. He may proceed.

(In Mandarin): The Government are very scared of this issue. This is their sore spot. They dare not talk about it. Why is it that the P.A.P. did not invite the Tunku to the rally? Why should he speak about the rally? Why is it that at that time they forgot about the Central Government? When the Prime Minister was invited to the rally, he went up the platform and made a speech. At that time they did not remember about the jurisdiction of the Central Government. Why is it? We are of the opinion that these three resolutions are correct. We demand that the Government should implement what they have said. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister said at the rally, "No doubt we are very indignant. We are full of anger, but we are at the same time civilised people. We must adopt civilised methods. Since we have given our pledge, we must carry out our pledge. Otherwise no people will trust us." That means to say, since the Government have allowed Japanese nationals to come to Singapore, they should not ask them to leave on account of the blood debt. The Prime Minister said that since he had given a pledge, he must implement it. But as regards the three resolutions which were approved by the Government, why is it that they have not implemented it by adopting action with the Federation and North Borneo to press for the claim by initiating a non-co-operation movement against the Japanese? Why have the Government not prohibited Japanese nationals from coming into Singapore? This is also one of the resolutions. I shall read further another speech made by the Prime Minister. He said: `Tonight's rally is totally different. The rally tonight is being held in a very solemn atmosphere. The Government had considered it very carefully before it organised this rally. This decision is very significant. After passing the three resolutions at tonight's rally, it would mean that the Government's attitude towards the Japanese Government will change. Once we adopt this resolute stand, we must insist that reasonable agreement should be reached. The resolution tonight calls for non-co-operation with the Japanese Government. After this resolution has been passed, people from all walks of life and the Government must adopt a non-co-operation movement until we arrive at a very reasonable settlement. This decision is momentous and full of significance.' What has happened to this decision? It has been forgotten by the Government. We have good reason to doubt that in carrying out this blood debt campaign the Government were not motivated by sincere intentions. It was not motivated by the desire to press for compensation for the victims and for those people who died during the Japanese Occupation. The campaign was solely directed at gaining votes from the people. On the 27th August, it was reported in the Sin Chew Jit Poh that a spokesman of the Japanese Foreign Ministry said that the Singapore Government had no status to resume negotiations on the question of a blood debt and that the Japanese Government would not agree to the big sum asked by the Singapore Government. But it said that it would agree to a certain gesture of atonement. When the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, visited Japan in May last year, the Japanese Government and the Singapore Government had agreed that the Japanese Government would build a park in Singapore as a gesture of atonement for the war-time victims. Have the P.A.P. Government denied that the Prime Minister went to Japan in May last year and that it was agreed that the Japanese Government should build a park in Singapore as a gesture of atonement? That is what the P.A.P. Government want. The P.A.P. Government are only contented with building a park and a memorial. They are forgetting the question of the blood debt and are trying to shift the responsibility on to the Central Government. It is easy to do this because the P.A.P. Government have been doing that all along. The P.A.P. Government have seen fit to blame the Barisan Sosialis for the so-called disturbance at the rally. What evidence can they produce to prove it? Mr Speaker, I shall give you a news item in the newspapers to indicate our stand and our attitude on this issue. We have made a statement that we fully support the claim for a blood debt. This statement was published on the 25th August in the Sin Chew Jit Poh. This statement says that the Barisan Sosialis had written to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce explaining the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis to the question of the blood debt. It says that, in principle, we fully support the demand of the people of Singapore for compensation for those victims who were murdered by the Japanese Military during the Second World War. The letter also expressed its wish that the rally would be a success. This letter was published on the day the mass rally was held. The Barisan Sosialis attitude is very clear. We fully support the demand for compensation. But the P.A.P. in order to monopolise the whole issue tried to create tension before the rally. They spread the rumour that some people might sabotage the mass rally. 4.45 p.m. This was done when the people were going to attend the rally. At the same time, the Government issued a statement. There is no need to read the whole statement because it will be a waste of time. I will only read the caption which says "The Barisan Sosialis only opposed Malaysia and was trying to create trouble at the intended rally." Before the rally was held, the Government was spreading rumours that the Barisan Sosialis was trying to wreck the rally. Now, when people have not done anything, how can you say that they have the intention to do so? How could the Government accuse the Barisan Sosialis of trying to wreck the mass rally? The Barisan Sosialis and some of the unions understood the P.A.P.'s intention, and therefore we exposed them. In their anger, they said we wanted to wreck the rally. We exposed the fact that the P.A.P. did not have the real intention to press for the claim against the Japanese Government. What they wanted was only political capital. [Interruption] The Member opposite can only indulge in abusing other people. We want to challenge them to produce evidence to show that we had intended to wreck the rally. But they could not do so. When they were bitten, they wailed like a dog. Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, we are sincere in our hope. We sincerely hope that not only should the Government provide $375,000 to build this memorial, but we also hope that they should not shirk their responsibility because they are in power and they have forgotten all their pledges and promises. They should open fresh negotiations with the Chambers of Commerce and start anew. They should spare no effort to achieve the goal in conjunction with the Chambers of Commerce. We feel that if we can get this compensation, it will do a lot of good to the people of Singapore. At the same time, it will do good to the P.A.P. Government. At least the P.A.P. can make use of this money on education and not use it for their own party purposes.

Mr Deputy Speaker, one thing about the Barisan is that we know not only what they think, but we know what they think before they think it. You will notice, Sir, that the amendment relates to a memorial to the civilian victims of the Japanese Occupation. But we were quite sure that they were not going to talk on this, but that they were going to bring up another question about the blood debt. You can see, Sir, the gentleman from Thomson brought newspapers not to deal with this question ---

It is a fact.

--- but another question which is within the purview of the Central Government. I understand a leader of their Party is now in Kuala Lumpur. But he has not got the guts to bring it up there but these gentlemen bring it up here. Why? Why does their leader, who has not been in this Assembly for the last one week, not bring up the question in Kuala Lumpur? Because he knows if he brings it up there, he will be in more serious trouble than these gentlemen would be by bringing it up here. But this question has been brought up, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have allowed them to deal not only with the question of the memorial to the civilian victims - to which incidentally, may I say, Sir, the Government are contributing $375,000; the people of Singapore will contribute their share - but also with the question of blood debt. But let it be understood that by the time the memorial is established, I am quite sure it would be a memorial not only to our people who were killed by the Japanese, but also the victims of their friends, our people who will be killed by their friends when confrontation starts. So it also becomes a memorial to the victims who are going to be killed by their friends. I hope, Sir, that the Barisan Sosialis will contribute generously towards this memorial as a memorial which will be to the victims of traitors in our country. --- An hon. Member: Traitors!

Order.

So let them be quite clear, Sir, that this memorial would be something which they will regret. Let them support it because it will stand for something much more important than they think it is. It is a memorial for all our people who have and would be killed by the enemies of this country. Secondly, Sir, why have they brought up the other question of blood debt? They are not interested in compensation for the poor victims of the Japanese. For years the Communist Party has been here. It is now operating through the Barisan Sosialis. They never brought up this question. The war ended in 1945. The question came up in 1962. What was the Malayan Communist Party doing then? Why did they not bring it up? Why did the Barisan Sosialis not bring it up? But they know any opportunity for mischief, any opportunity that will work up public feelings, any opportunity to create disturbance and riots the Communists are there, just like rats in a rubbish heap. The Communists are always around a rubbish heap. That is why they are bringing up this question, not because they are interested in the sufferings of the victims of the Japanese Occupation. For 15 years they had not been interested. But just before last year, when somebody else brought it up, these gentlemen, just like rats gathering around a rubbish heap, were there. When the blood debt question came up - in fact, Sir, may I remind them, since they have brought it up here Mr Ng Aik Huan told them to shut up. He did not want their help. He did not want their assistance in this matter. I repeat to them the advice given to them by one of the leaders of the Chambers of Commerce who are trying to collect money. They said, "For God's sake, please shut up. By the time you have fought the cause, the cause is lost." So, therefore, they are not going to get any thanks by poking their noses into a business in which I am quite sure they are not really interested. They are not interested in the people who died during the Japanese Occupation. Nor are they interested in the hundreds of thousands of our people whom the Communists bumped off during the emergency. I am quite sure the people of Singapore, even if they read tomorrow the speech given by the Member for Thomson, are not going to believe that he is really spending sleepless nights, shedding tears in his room because of the thousands of people who had been killed before he was born. I do not know how old he is, Sir. But these people were killed and I am quite sure neither today nor tomorrow nor since he was born, has he been shedding tears over the Japanese victims. But let me say this as far as the memorial is concerned. It is clear the Government is quite prepared to do its share by contributing half the cost. The Chambers of Commerce will get money to complete the project. There is one thing about the Barisan Sosialis. Their line is this. Not only here, Sir, but earlier in the debate. We do the thinking. We are going to build the Tebrau Works. They say, "Oh good. But please do it quicker." We are going to put a hospital. They say, "Please put up more hospitals." We are going to have more doctors. They say, "Please have still more doctors." All they do is to sit there and say, "Please have more of everything." If they want to get a little bit of free publicity by saying, "Well, you know..." I am sure, Sir, there is a famous saying about the cock which always boasted, "You know, I am very powerful because every day when I crow the sun rises." That is what they are trying to do. We will do our job. This Budget is no fun. We have thought it out and we will do what is possible, what is practical, regardless of what the Barisan say. So let them crow. But whether they crow or not the sun will rise. So similarly, Sir, as regards the memorial, we do not need their advice, their exhortations, their denunciations to say what we should do, because we have already decided to do it. The Chambers of Commerce have decided. They do not want their help. In fact, they spurned their help. They said, "Shut up, please. Do not bring this question up yourselves. We will do it." But they are coming in purely because they know confrontation is here, "How can we start trouble? A few more riots; something to work up public feelings. Maybe a riot over this blood debt issue. Maybe we could work up some riots. Probably the Japanese firms in Jurong, steel mills, let us go and burn them up." That is what they want - riots, trouble - just like school kids. Any time they want to have trouble - and I notice one thing. Sir; any time there is going to be trouble, anything involving violence, the leaders of the Barisan are not in front. A couple of months ago, a pregnant woman led demonstrators. Mr Chan Sun Wing operated the whole show from the safety of this Assembly. They allowed pregnant women to risk their lives and limbs. Fortunately, Sir, there cannot be pregnant men, so I am quite sure these people are not going to be in trouble. But these Barisan people, the Communists, let them realise this. The days are over when they can fool the people. They know what the Communists stand for and what the Barisan stand for. They know they are out for mischief. They know they want to create trouble, chaos, violence in this country and they know today, after the last three or four days of debate, that these gentlemen are out for even more serious trouble, to create more serious consequences for Singapore by playing around with foreign powers who have made it quite clear that they are out to destroy this country. Because of that, they want to create this atmosphere of tension. Nothing has happened, Sir. They have made speeches for the last four days. I am told, Sir, that even, the newspaper readers are getting fed up of reading these long chunks. I am told that some of these speeches were handed to the newspapers who were told another thrilling instalment ---

(In Mandarin): On a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Culture is irrelevant. He is not directing his remarks to the subject under discussion. He is accusing us ---

I think the Minister has spoken on matters which are not quite relevant to the discussion in hand. Would he please stick to the amendment?

With due respect, Sir, I am first talking about the relevant question the Barisan Sosialis, their motive in bringing up an irrelevancy. Sir, the item under consideration is - "Contribution towards the cost of Memorial to the Civilian Victims of the Japanese Occupation." The Member for Thomson brought newspapers, handed to him by his advisers to come and speak about some other issue. I want to point out to you the tactics of the Barisan Sosialis. One thing about us is that we understand their minds far better than they do. We know what they are going to do tomorrow, even though they do not know themselves what they are going to do tomorrow. But we know. That is why they landed in trouble. On Monday, when the other subjects for debate come up, we will tell them what is in store for them. For the time being, Sir, it is relevant to the extent that they have brought up an irrelevant question. Therefore, I am dealing with an irrelevant matter simply because for the last 15 minutes, the Member for Thomson has been talking about a subject which is not connected with the matter in hand.

Order. It is five o'clock now. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I propose to suspend the sitting until 5.30 p.m. 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 24 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2."

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have said all that need to be said on the subject of blood debt except this, that the whole attitude of the Barisan Sosialis in this respect shows that they are not really interested in the blood debt or in any other issue. As the Minister for Labour has indicated, their attitude is like that of a cat which is moaning for a mouse. What they are really interested in is to find some issue with which to work up the feelings of the people and create some tension, especially in view of the particular political objective that they have at the moment. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that as far as both the blood debt and the memorial issues are concerned, they can leave them to the Government which have been pursuing them fairly effectively, consistently and sincerely for quite some time. Whatever the outcome may be, they can be quite sure that the four Chambers of Commerce which have taken up these issues are quite capable of dealing with them because even the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen cannot query the sincerity and determination of the Chambers of Commerce which have been carrying on with this work, both in regard to the memorial and the blood debt issues. And regardless of what the Barisan Sosialis Members may say here, we are quite confident that the Chambers of Commerce will press the issue to as successful a conclusion as is practically possible.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, on the question of the memorial, the Minister for Culture talked at length on Communists and Communism. From his speech, we can learn very much about his achievements in the study of Communism. Whenever the Minister for Culture makes a speech, he points at us, and accuses us of being Communists. Mr Speaker, of course, we do not have to take him seriously, because he has been here in Singapore for quite a long time and we have been hearing him telling stories about Communism for quite some time. It is possible that in the United Nations and in America, such speeches may have some use. The American President may give him a medal for his speech ---

(In Mandarin): On a point of order. Is the hon. Member a Communist or not? If he is not, then why is he now defending the Communists here? Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

That is not a point of order. Before I ask the Member for Paya Lebar to continue, can I ask him to come back to the subject under discussion, which is the "Contribution towards the cost of Memorial to the Civilian Victims of the Japanese Occupation," and forget about the Minister for Culture?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, a little while ago under the chairmanship of the Deputy Speaker, the Minister shouted about Communists just like a dog barking ---

Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders prevent any Member from referring to any other Member in abusive language. The Member for Paya Lebar is now alleging that the Minister for Culture was barking like a dog.

I am afraid the translation had not reached me when you interrupted. Please proceed. Mr Kow, and forget about the Minister.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, of course I do not mind very much what the Minister for Labour feels in his heart about me. I only consider that he is arguing unreasonably. I will now deal with the memorial and the blood debt. On this matter, the Government has said that the Barisan Sosialis created a lot of trouble during the mass rally. They have also alleged that the Barisan Sosialis and their trade unions tried to wreck the rally. Who were actually responsible for disturbing the order of the rally? I would say it was the P.A.P. who were afraid of the success of the rally. If the rally had been successful, the people of Singapore would have wanted the Government to take up the matter of the blood debt with the Government of Japan, because this is a matter which the people of Singapore cannot forget. This is a fact, because of the Japanese atrocities that were committed here in the last war. The people here demanded retribution for the atrocities committed. The P.A.P. indulged in white terror to frighten the people away and they tried to make use of the rally for their own purposes. They have therefore shifted the blame for the disturbances that occurred during the rally on to the Barisan Sosialis. This has always been the practice of the P.A.P. Now, what happened at the rally? 120.000 people of Singapore passed a resolution to ask Japan to compensate for the blood debt. The Minister for Labour has just now said that this is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Central Government. I would like to warn the P.A.P. Government not to shift their responsibilities on to the Central Government for whatever mistakes they have made against the people of Singapore. Of course, we know that in certain fields the powers have been handed over to the Central Government. Then why are the P.A.P. Government now shirking their responsibilities after having handed over the powers to the Central Government? We know that this is a matter in the hands of the Central Government, but this Government is a Government of the people of Singapore. Therefore, the P.A.P. Government will have to implement the resolutions passed at the rally which was attended by hundreds of thousands of the people of Singapore ---

On a point of order. The Member for Paya Lebar is not talking on the subject under debate, which is "Contribution towards the cost of Memorial to the Civilian Victims of the Japanese Occupation". He has been leading himself ---

That is not a point of order.

He is talking about the blood debt.

I disagree, Mr Fong. I believe the Deputy Speaker had occasion to rule previously that the blood debt was related to the matter of the memorial. The Member for Paya Lebar is merely alleging that the Government are shifting their responsibilities on to the Central Government. Surely that is relevant. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What I have said just now is to show that the P.A.P. Government have not done those things and that is why I have found it necessary to mention them here. The Minister has also said that the booing at the rally had been done by the Barisan Sosialis. I would like to ask why the people booed the Prime Minister. It was because the hundreds of thousands of people who attended the rally and who hated the brutality and atrocities committed by the Japanese heard the Prime Minister speak on the platform about P.A.P. politics. This was what offended the people. The crowd naturally resorted to booing him when he made such speeches there. He said that those people who booed him were Communists and members of Communist unions and that they did this to disturb order at the rally. I would like to ask the P.A.P. whether it is wrong for the people to ask for payment of compensation for the blood debt by Japan and to attend the rally to pass resolutions. Hundreds of thousands of people attended the rally because they felt very deeply about the Japanese atrocities and the delay in the settlement of the payment of the blood debt. And yet the P.A.P. made this an excuse to ban seven trade unions and freeze the funds of certain unions in the banks. 5.45 p.m.

The Member for Paya Lebar is now going off the track. He is going on to the question of unions which is not the subject matter of this debate. I believe he will have plenty of opportunity for a debate on that matter in the very near future.

(In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your direction. I only mentioned that in passing because these things happened at the rally. Therefore, on the question of demanding payment or retribution for the blood debt, the P.A.P. have not done anything to show to the people of Singapore to what extent they have implemented the three resolutions passed at the rally. The people of Singapore, of course, know it very clearly. The Minister has said that it is a matter that comes within the jurisdiction of the Central Government. Now, we are waiting to see the Government implement the resolutions passed by the people. If the P.A.P. Government are unable to do anything for the welfare and in the interest of the people:, then the Minister should not try to absolve himself from blame and shirk his responsibilities and say that they are the responsibilities of the Central Government. It is very wrong for the P.A.P. to do so.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, if we attend a picture hall once in a while we will see a character called Charlie Chaplin.

I have had occasion yesterday and today to ask Members to refrain from making personal remarks. The Parliamentary Secretary just mentioned Charlie Chaplin and before he goes on further, I must stop him.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not alleging that any Member of the Opposition is like Charlie Chaplin. I am merely saying that Charlie Chaplin has ways which are humorous and we have been tickled by the way Members of the Opposition have put their case to this House. If we study carefully the speeches of the Members of the Opposition on this subject, there are two or three main points they have dwelt on. They have tried to take the main part, to replace the part played by the Chambers of Commerce of Singapore, because people who are above 18 years of age can be sensitive about the atrocities and cruelties committed by the Japanese during the three years they occupied this country. The people who suffered under the Japanese are now advanced in age and they fully supported the Government during the last election. But those youths who are below the age of eighteen and who concern themselves only with the question of Chinese education want to remind their elders of the atrocities of the Japanese. This matter is brought up again while we are facing confrontation. Mr Speaker, it is not even four months now since the rally took place on 25th August. A mother needs nine months before she can give birth to a baby. A baby that is only conceived in four months is still-born. So it is too early for the Opposition Members to challenge the Government on the action to be taken by them. They bring up this question so that the Government of Malaysia will be faced with worse problems in the midst of confrontation. They are merely instigating us to arouse people's feelings and to worsen the effects of confrontation on this country. If I remember correctly, the Member for Tampines has challenged the Government to say what they have done. We are against not only the Japanese who were our enemies, but we are more against all those who wish to bring suffering to the people. These are our real enemies, even if they are Communists. It is their ideology that we are against. We know their tactics. They will use any possible opportunity to advance their cause, to bring about the downfall of our economy. These are the ruses they employ to aggravate the situation. Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier the Member for Thomson talked about the Prime Minister during the rally and one clear point which strikes me is that we should not be foolhardy in whatever we do. If we retaliate in a foolhardy manner, it will bring about our own ruin. We must negotiate and continue to negotiate until fruitful results are achieved. The way they go about it is to aggravate the confrontation. We and the four Chambers of Commerce are together in our efforts to forward the same demand. We can read this from the papers and the matter of blood debt is now in the hands of the Central Government. As my colleague, the Minister for Culture, has said just now, we can foresee what the Barisan intend to say or do. They are merely trying to make use of this opportunity to aggravate matters. I see these people as true patriots who hate atrocities! If it is within my means, I would ask the Chambers of Commerce to put up their statues there as true patriots. The matter is now in the hands of the Chambers of Commerce. They bring up this question in order to confuse the people. Are they truly the people who love this country? We are now facing confrontation and they request the Government to bring about another confrontation with Japan. Is this true patriotism? The loyalty of any patriot is towards his own country and for the welfare of his country. We should adjust ourselves to different situations. We must be loyal to the country of which we are citizens. The Opposition claim that they are sincere in their opposition. But do they not realise that we have given our assurance to the Chambers of Commerce that the Government will contribute half the cost of the memorial lest we forget the sufferings of the people during the Japanese Occupation? So, Mr Speaker, Sir, to me, the tactics of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis are like this Malay proverb, "We can tell whether a fish is male or female merely from its glint in the water".

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have already dealt adequately with this matter.

The Member for Jalan Kayu has been reading a newspaper all this while. I think that is not in order.

Surely that is a matter for me to decide. Please proceed, Mr Jek.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have already taken some time to deal with this matter, and unfortunately it seems that this time has been wasted. We have been playing music to cows who never appreciate good music! We have been explaining again and again, and they still fail to understand the explanations. 6.00 p.m. We have already said that the amount of $375,000 has nothing to do with the blood debt. It is a contribution from the Government side towards the building of the memorial. Whether blood debt is forthcoming or not this amount has to be shouldered by the Government. They now say that we are trying to make use of the public funds thus causing people to forget about the blood debt. From their talk, we can see that they fail completely to understand the problem and the present situation. As a matter of fact, we are using this fund for the construction of the memorial, but before the negotiations on the question of atonement are finalised, we just do not know how much we are going to get, but we can promise them that whenever the money is paid, we shall make use of it for social uses. They can go and ask the Chambers of Commerce whether negotiations are now under way. As a matter of fact, this question of atonement has been raised by the Chambers of Commerce and not by the Government in the first place, but the Government are assisting in the matter. So they cannot say the Government are fully responsible for the matter. They are talking nonsense all along. We know that the leaders of the Chambers of Commerce in carrying out this work will surely achieve something finally, and we believe that they are capable of achieving something and even in persuading and getting the Central Government to solve this matter as early as possible. We believe that the leaders of the Chambers of Commerce are capable of settling this matter to the satisfaction of everybody, particularly those relatives of the victims during the Japanese Occupation. Just now the Member for Paya Lebar has said something to the effect that the Prime Minister was not welcomed at the mass rally because he was talking something different and not in keeping with the spirit of the meeting. But I want to ask him whether they knew that the Prime Minister was invited by the sponsors of the rally to speak at the rally. I want to ask them whether they know that some members of the Barisan Sosialis attempted to go up to the stage to speak, but were stopped by the sponsors. Actually they wished very much to go up to the stage to speak, but they were not given the opportunity. So they say that the grapes are sour and that the Prime Minister was talking on irrelevant matters at the rally and that was why the crowd booed him down. This is just like saying that the grapes are sour. This kind of talk is totally irrational and meaningless. They also say there was nothing wrong in attending the mass rally. It is not a crime to attend this mass rally. I say there was nothing wrong at all. In fact, it was the Government who assisted in the organisation of the rally. They gave radio and television facilities to the sponsors to enable them to appeal to the people to attend the rally. In fact, the Government also provided free bus rides to the people. Now, these are the grapes we gave to the people. But because they could not enjoy them, they say they are sour. This was work supposed to be done by the sponsors, and we were helping them on the other side. Now the work has been taken over by the Central Government and the Chambers of Commerce. Of course, we will get in touch with the Central Government with regard to the negotiations to be initiated. All that we did and were required to do was to help in the rally and in its organisation. We said that we had sent members of the Work Brigade to paste posters and to make appeals to members of the public to attend the rally. Now, have they done anything to this end? Have they helped in getting more people to attend the rally? We helped in all ways in order to ensure that the mass rally would actually and truly reflect the will and wishes of the people. But instead the Barisan Sosialis tried to sabotage the rally. They carted loads of workers and other Barisan members to boo down the Prime Minister at the rally. Because we knew what they were going to do, what they were up to, we had some police and some members of the Work Brigade to maintain order there. They put up posters with anti-Malaysia slogans and other slogans having anti-merger meaning. We were all there to talk about the blood debt and the atrocities of the Japanese, but they were there to talk about their anti-Malaysia and anti-merger sentiments. It is they who brought irrelevant and extraneous matters to the mass rally, and not we. [Laughter] What is there to laugh at? I do not have to consult anybody in the use of Chinese idioms. I know what idiom I am using and I know its meaning.

Has the Minister got anything more to say on this subject of a contribution towards the cost of a memorial to the civilian victims of the Japanese Occupation?

(In Mandarin): They have the look of slaves all right. As a matter of fact, this matter of blood debt involves the sentiments of many people. It is actually quite an emotional matter. So if anybody can make use of this matter for political purposes, he will do it. We know the Barisan Sosialis have all along been trying to make use of the issue of blood debt for their publicity and propaganda. They tried very hard to go into the pro tem committee of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, but they were given the cold shoulder. Mr Ng Aik Huan told them that they were not welcome. If they want to know more, they can go and see him. This again is another instance in which they say the grapes are sour because they cannot enjoy them. When the Chambers of Commerce were registering civic organisations which were desirous of taking part in the mass rally, the P.A.P. did not register themselves, but instead the S.A.T.U. group and their unions attempted to have themselves registered for the rally. There was no need for us to register ourselves. The fact that you wanted to have yourselves registered shows that you wanted to make use of the rally.

(In Mandarin): The Minister said "you" pointing at us. He was saying "you, you," all the time.

There is no harm in saying "you" as long as he does not condemn you. There is no harm if he says "you" provided he does not condemn you.

(In Mandarin): Why should you be trying to split hairs? You do not understand. We can see very clearly that they try to make use of the mass rally for their propaganda and political purpose. Now, they turn round to ask us why we did not take part. The answer is very simple. We had no intention to make use of the rally. That is why we did not take part, but you did and that is why you attended and took part in the rally. The Prime Minister was invited by the sponsors to go there. You tried to go there without being invited. You are thus like the frog trying to eat the meat of the swan.

At the rate at which the Minister has been going into the motives which do not seem to be the subject matter under discussion, he will take up a lot of time.

(In Mandarin): They want to enjoy the meat of the swan but they cannot. It is impossible. So they talk nonsense here and it is for us to tear their speeches to pieces, to tear away their masks so as to show them up. We also want to expose their ignorance and shame in this matter.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as Opposition Members we have the duty to reveal how the Government spend public funds. This is our obligation and duty and today we raise this question on the vote for this memorial. Why should there be such a memorial? This is because during the Second World War the Japanese murdered a lot of civilians here. In the past few months the people in Singapore have pressed for compensation for this blood debt, and after some time of struggle - this struggle is a popular struggle - the Government have also pressed for the claim. As Opposition Members, we have the right and the responsibility to contribute our bit, and the reason why we raise this question is to urge the Government to fight for compensation, But the explanation of the Minister is not satisfactory and has caused me much doubt. If the Government say that they want to press for the claim, there will not be such a heated debate today, but they seem not to be interested in fighting for the compensation. Instead, they make use of this to further their political ends. Since they abuse this as an instrument to further political use, they have no more interest in it. 6.15 p.m. Just now the Minister has tried to shift the responsibility on to the Chambers of Commerce. This reminds me that many Members have in the past condemned the Japanese atrocities and the Government pro-Japanese attitude. I have merely given an account of what took place in the past. I seem to remember that Mr Marshall raised a question about the Japanese advertising tower. He said the Government had something to hide about it. The engineer originally did not permit this particular firm to put up the advertising tower, but his decision was overruled by the Government. There is an oil refinery beside the Pasir Panjang Power Station which is owned by Japanese. Some time ago a Japanese firm applied to set up a ship-breaking yard here.

Mr Speaker, what has all this got to do with the memorial?

What has what?

This matter of ship-breaking yard has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing.

Except that he is talking about the Japanese, I do not think it is relevant to the subject matter. Please proceed. Can the Member come back to this memorial?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the impression that the Government Ministers seem to have very good relations with the Japanese. Had it not been so, then the Government should have actively pursued the issue of blood debt and they should not have attacked us. In parliamentary democracy the duty of the Opposition Members is to see that the Government exercise some care and caution in spending public money. It is our duty to guarantee that the money should be properly and wisely spent. We urge the Government to pursue the claim and press for compensation. It is right and proper. They should not say that we are stupid or ignorant. Why should they talk like that? Saying that we are stupid or ignorant. Our criticism is motivated by our desire to see that the people in Singapore benefit. Now, if the Japanese oil refinery explodes --- [Interruption]

Will hon. Members on that side please stop interrupting the Member for Jalan Kayu? They had their say; they had the Floor for half an hour. Please continue, Mr Tan.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we as Members of the Opposition do not have the intention of utilising this issue as something to further our political ends. We are merely voicing the feelings of the relatives of the victims. We are not trying to play politics in this matter. We did not, as you have said, attempt to speak at the rally. We have a mass following and among us many of our relatives were also victims of the Japanese. The brother of Miss Fung Yin Ching was also killed by the Japanese. So the question of the blood debt has touched us very much. Why should you create an atmosphere of terror, spreading rumours, and mobilising the police and military to terrify the people? You were trying to intimidate the people and prevent them from attending the rally. I urge them to go and attend the rally in spite of Government's attempt to intimidate them. It shows that the Government wanted to use this to deal with the Barisan Sosialis and the Left-wing organisations. The rally on that night was properly organised. There was no trouble. The Chairman of the rally also spoke highly of the rally. If you work for the benefit of the people, then we are willing to co-operate with you.

Mr Chairman, I feel very interested today to hear all this heckling across the Floor, and to know that the confrontation by the Communist Barisan is still on. I do not think the blood debt will create another confrontation between Singapore and Japan. We know that the Communist Barisan always take the opportunity, whenever they can, to exploit the situation. If their speeches are to be published in the papers tomorrow. I think the Internal Security forces will reinforce their police to guard the Japanese Embassy. Sir, this is quite serious - kicking up the dust. I want to ask Members across the Floor whether they want to teach the highest authority of the Chinese organisation, that is, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, the way how to insist on the Japanese paying the blood debt. I think they are old and experienced enough to deal with this matter. Sir, I want to deal with the mass rally, all the heckling, and how the Prime Minister was booed when he stood up to speak. As I have said just now, at every opportunity the Communists try to exploit and to intimidate. They tried to boo the Prime Minister at the mass rally, but when the spotlights were directed at them, this group of white shirts and blue trousers - well organised Communist puppets - disappeared. The organisations which supported this mass rally and had turned up in full force made a complaint against these unscrupulous and irresponsible Communist puppets who were out to destroy the mass rally. This talk about reinforcing the police and scaring away the people from attending the mass rally is all bunkum. Some hon. Members: Hear! Hear!

If the people are so afraid and so scared, why is it that 120,000 of them turned up in full force at the Padang in support of the blood debt? Sir, this is the motivation and the machination of the traitors and Communists in our country. They must be properly dealt with. Mr Teong Eng Siong and Mr Fong Sip Chee rose ---

I cannot oblige both of you. Mr Teong.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I have heard a lot from the Barisan Members. They have talked eloquently and at length. They were describing how the people had suffered during the Japanese Occupation. To sum up, it is only political talk. The Member for Jalan Kayu has said just now, because the Government are pro-Japan, therefore they are now not trying to press the claim for blood debt. I feel that today the basic principle is to be on good and friendly terms with people all over the world. Pressing for blood debt is another matter. It does not mean that because we want to press for blood debt, we should not be on friendly terms with others. This matter cannot be resolved just by shouting slogans or making accusations or attacking others. We should try to resolve the matter reasonably and in a sensible way. I would like to ask the Barisan Members opposite us. They have just admitted that the claim for payment of blood debt is a matter that concerns all the people of Singapore. Everyone has a share in it. Since it is so, I would like to ask the Members opposite why they attempted to destroy the rally. It will only enable foreign countries to see that among us there are traitors. The mass rally organised by the Chambers of Commerce and various other civic organisations was destroyed and sabotaged by such people as those sitting opposite. Can they deny this? All their eloquent talk is nothing but propaganda. There is nothing of substance. They should not think that by their talk they can deceive the people. They cannot make the people believe that they are really for them. Mr Speaker, for the past few days these Members have been making speeches in this House --- 6.30 p.m.

Order. Time has expired. Will the Member for Tampines indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to put it to a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allotted for Head 24 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the names of Mr Kow Kee Seng and Mr Chio Cheng Thun, were not proceeded with: Mr Kow Kee Seng: That the sum to be allocated for Head 24 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 15. That the sum to be allocated for Head 24 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 29. Mr Chio Cheng Thun: That the sum to be allocated for Head 24 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 16. The sum of $5,480,730 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 32 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir. I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for head 32 be reduced by $100.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Poh Ber Liak. Mr Speaker, Sir, we feel that whatever the Ministry of Labour has been doing all along has been to the detriment of Singapore. Members of seven trade unions have been arrested and trade unions have been banned. The Ministry is not truly concerned with the welfare of the workers. Just now there was mention of the blood debt issue and the mass rally organised in conjunction with it. Certain trade union members attended the rally and it resulted in their being arrested and the seven unions being banned. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government have cancelled the registration of these seven trade unions. On what grounds? I would like to give the reasons for their action in deregistering the seven trade unions. This action of the Ministry was carried out only two days after the blood debt mass rally, when the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr Duncan Sandys, all of a sudden arrived in Singapore. There seemed to be some connection between the banning of the trade unions and his arrival. The Registrar of Trade Unions issued a statement saying that certain trade unions which had taken part in the rally organised by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce on the 25th of August, 1963, acted incompatibly with the rules and regulations of trade unions and had carried out pro-Communist activities. On account of this, the seven unions were banned. Now, this is very ridiculous. And it also goes to show how the P.A.P. Government have been using this pretext to deal with workers who are now in favour of the P.A.P. and who do not support P.A.P. policies. All those trade unions which do not support the policies of the P.A.P. are banned. This is very clear to all. That is the way the P.A.P. Government treat trade unions and the interests of the workers. This is the only achievement the P.A.P. Government can claim in its labour policy. How can the P.A.P. claim credit for their services to the workers when in fact they are serving the interest of foreign capitalists? Workers had gone on strike because of asking for better working conditions and better wages, yet the Government in the case of the Naval Base strike turned round and said that that strike was illegal and so they stepped in. Mr Speaker, during the few days of the strike, why did the Ministry of Labour not tell the Naval Base Union that their strike was not legal? Why should the Registrar wait for about one month? He mobilised police and troops to break up the strike. For one month all the workers of the Naval Base Workers Union had been solidly behind the strike. When the P.A.P. Government saw that the workers were very strong in their concerted action, they resorted to action to break up the strike, calling it an illegal strike. Even the N.T.U.C. Secretary, Devan Nair, had sometime ago said that the strike was justifiable and that it was a genuine trade dispute. In the end the P.A.P., in conjunction with the authorities of the Naval Base, broke up the strike. It shows that the P.A.P. Government had been consorting with the British imperialists to break up the Naval Base strike. The workers there will never forget the P.A.P.'s collaboration with the foreign imperialists. I would also go further and show how the P.A.P. broke up the strike of the Naval Base Union. The P.A.P. used Singapore police and Federal police to beat up striking workers in order to break up the strike. Singapore has autonomy in labour. In the case of the Naval Base workers' strike, the P.A.P. Government, with the abetment of the Central Government, broke up the strike. Are the workers not part and parcel of the people of Singapore? I remember that the Prime Minister said sometime ago that certain powers will have to be in the hands of the Central Government, but in respect of labour and education Singapore still has its autonomy. Where is the autonomy in labour if the Federal police are used to break up the Naval Base strike? When the Central Government can send troops to break up the strike, so-called autonomy in labour is really a humbug. The police, maintained by our public funds, have been used to help foreign powers and foreign interests and to help the Federal police to come here and break up the strike against the interest of the workers. What kind of labour autonomy is this? Is it not humbug? The Member for Jalan Besar always mentions the Member for Jalan Kayu. This matter is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Singapore Government because Singapore has autonomy in labour, so that there is no need to shift the blame on to the Central Government. The Member for Jalan Besar dares to talk in such a trend. I hope he will not interfere further. Now, let me again come back to the Naval Base workers' strike. The police have been maintained by us and we have also contributed to the maintenance of the police in the Federation, and yet they are being used to help foreigners, to help foreign powers to maintain their interests against the interests of the workers. This is not wrong? Let me now touch upon the general strike on the 8th and 9th of October. How did it happen? I will give details as to how it all arose. On the 8th October the general strike called for resulted from the P.A.P.'s barbarous action in cancelling the registration of trade unions of workers which look after their interest. Totally disregarding everything, the P.A.P. Government took action to cancel the registration of these trade unions. 6.45 p.m. But these trade unions and the workers belonging to them, for the sake of their organisations and also in order that their future interests and welfare might be looked after, had come out to protest against the unreasonable and barbaric action of de-registration. They had called for a general strike also on account of their rights and their interests. How did the Singapore Government deal with this general strike? It adopted the tactic of breaking up the general strike by alleging that it had been instigated by the Communists. But the workers knew very clearly. How could they allow their own organisations to be broken up? Of course, they would not want to let the Government ban their unions. These workers are intelligent people. They would not allow the Government to do such things. Had the Government not taken action in banning the trade unions and arresting the workers, they would not have taken such action, and there would not have been any general strike. This is another instance to show that the P.A.P. have been using the police to break up the legitimate strike of the workers. And the police have resorted to atrocities in heating up the workers. There were four women workers in Lorong 3 who were beaten up. This is in the records of the Police Department. You cannot deny it. Just now the Minister for Education has alleged that their strike was illegal. Does he mean that only when the workers supported the interests of the foreign imperialists and capitalists and supported the authority of the Naval Base, would the strike be legal? [Interruption] I remind the Government Backbenchers not to interfere. I would urge them to talk reasonably. On the 8th and 9th the P.A.P. fantastically made use of the police to break up the legitimate strike of the workers. This has left a very deep impression on the minds of the people as to the nature and the true colours of the P.A.P. Let me now deal with the P.A.P.'s labour policies in regard to workers. Firstly, what the P.A.P. want to do is that all those trade unions which are not under the control of the P.A.P. will have to be banned. That is the first thing the P.A.P. would do in its labour policy. All non-P.A.P. unions will be dissolved. Secondly, through the Government's rights and powers, the P.A.P. are recruiting stooges and lackeys to create trouble and to control certain unions in order to take them over. In this way the N.T.U.C. and the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union were created. From this we can see what the P.A.P. have been doing in the field of labour and treatment of the workers. Another point I would like to make is that in the field of social welfare, the welfare of the workers, the P.A.P. Government have always been on the side of foreign capitalists. The P.A.P. have construed any trade dispute by trade unions not under their control to be Communist-inspired. The Naval Base Workers' Union strike is a very glaring example. The Minister for Labour has told us that legislation will be introduced in this House to amend the Trade Unions Ordinance and we will definitely oppose its passing. Mr Jek Yeun Thong rose ---

On a point of order. Mr Jek?

I do not know whether the translation has reached you now. Just now the Member for Paya Lebar has mentioned the freezing of funds and an amending Bill in regard to trade unions which we are going to bring up on the 18th. I think the Standing Orders here prevent discussion of any anticipated matters, and I think it is in order that we should not mention anything about that.

The Minister's point is in doubt. Standing Order 50 says that when the Assembly has ordered a Bill or any other matter to be considered upon a certain day, it shall be out of order for a Member on an earlier day to discuss the subject matter. Here the Bill has not been ordered to be heard on the 18th. I understand the Minister has merely given notice. There is some doubt on this point, but perhaps I could ask the Member for Paya Lebar to reserve his remarks. When the Bill comes up for hearing, he will have plenty of time and plenty of scope to air his views. Could he proceed with other matters and leave that?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not talking about the Bill which, as given out, would be introduced. I was saying what the P.A.P. intended to do under its labour policies, which would be about how the P.A.P. were trying to do things harmful to the workers and their welfare and interests. The Minister for Labour, I feel, is only trying to filibuster. His behaviour is like a dog. When his tail goes up, we know what he is going to do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is wrong - it has been ruled in the past that no Member of the Assembly should be referred to as an animal or whatever it is, and I think the Member for Paya Lebar should refrain from using such unparliamentary words.

The Minister is right. Please proceed, Mr Kow, and do not call each other names, otherwise they will call you something else and we will go on forever.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, they are just trying to create trouble here and stop me from talking further, but anyway we will forget about them. We will continue on our subject.

Order. Mr Jek, let the gentleman proceed.

(In Mandarin): Be a gentleman please. Do not behave like the P.A.P. which are always arrogant. Do not try to push matters to the Central Government on the face of it and secretly try to jeopardise the interests of the workers. This is very ungentlemanly. Mr Speaker, from the general strike on the 8th and 9th of October, one can see that the workers went on strike to safeguard their own interests and to safeguard and defend their own unions. There is no smoke without fire. If there is no fire, there will not be any smoke. If there had been no P.A.P. banning the unions, there would not have been such a strike. This is very clear. The P.A.P. Government have done something against their interests. So the workers should not allow themselves to be slaughtered in any way the slaughterer pleases. The workers have their brains. They will never allow themselves and their organisations to be jeopardised. They must have a reaction towards Government actions. They are not like the P.A.P. which are always running away from facts. So the workers stood up in defence of their organisation and they struggled for their interests. But the Government, thinking that these unions were not under the P.A.P. control and were not likely to be led by the nose by the P.A.P., resorted to various ways and means of dealing with them, and so they found the solution in Communism, dubbing these organisations as Communist and ban them. Mr Speaker, there are many representatives and leaders of the trade unions in Singapore who were arrested after having been called Communists. This is a fact known to everybody. And so we oppose and protest very strongly against all the actions that the P.A.P. have taken against the workers and their leaders. 7.00 p.m. That is why I am tabling this amendment. I move it in order to air my views on these matters. The actions of the P.A.P. will always remain in the minds of the people. The people will never forget their pro-colonial actions which are at the expense of the workers. They will always remember the barbaric and repressive actions which the P.A.P. took against the workers, indeed, the workers will never forgive the P.A.P. for behaving in this manner and bringing about greater misery among them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Paya Lebar said that the P.A.P. Government used the police to break up strikes and so on. We know that the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union were sometimes involved with the police in their strikes. We know that before Malaysia took place, the police were under the control of the Singapore Government. But today the control has gone over to the Federation. Now, at that time, Mr Speaker, Sir, we also saw that each time a Minister passed, the police saluted them. But nowadays, sometimes there is no salute from the police. This is clear proof - even if Charlie Chaplin were here, Mr Speaker, he would know this - of a clear-cut policy that the police are under the control of the Federation. Mr Speaker, he also mentioned that the former trade unionists who were arrested were called Communists and so on. That is the truth. Mr Devan Nair never disputed that fact. He has openly claimed that at that time he was a Communist. And so have the Barisan's three friends recently. The N.T.U.C. officials, Mr Speaker, or the N.T.U.C. affiliate unions, have never drawn sums in thousands of dollars for any of its advisers or politicians ---

Hear, hear!

They are not like the S.A.T.U. which we know have drawn out thousands of dollars from their funds for their good friends. There is no need for me to mention their names. Members of the Central Committee of the National Trade Union Congress are not all members of the People's Action Party. They are not like the S.A.T.U. unions, who echo the Communist voices, and whose officials are all members of the Barisan Sosialis. Whilst the N.T.U.C. supports the P.A.P. Government's pro-labour policy, I must inform the Member for Charlie Chaplin, I am sorry, Sir, I mean the Member for ---

This is the second occasion on which the Member has mentioned that word. Let us have no repetition of it.

Sir, I mean the Member for Paya Lebar. We have not always agreed, and that is a fact. We can prove it. We have criticised the P.A.P. Government whenever it is wrong. But I have never seen a Barisan union - when I say a Barisan union. I mean the affiliates of the ex-S.A.T.U. union - criticising the Barisan Sosialis, even in their last political strike of two days. Mr Speaker, the S.A.T.U. cannot criticise the Barisan Sosialis because they are birds of the same feather. They know what it means. Out of the 11 candidates selected by the National Trade Union Congress standing for election in the last general elections, nine were elected. I do not think the S.A.T.U. unions can boast of that. Surely the people of Singapore who voted these nine trade union leaders into the Assembly know what they have done. Now, if the S.A.T.U. unions think they have the support of the masses, which the N.T.U.C. now claims to be over 100,000, it reminds me of an old story which I read when I was a little boy. It is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. But now it looks as if Snow White is missing. Even now, Mr Speaker, the N.T.U.C. is helping to draft out the claims at the Labour Research Unit against its employers. I want to state quite frankly here that the N.T.U.C., as has been claimed by the Member for Paya Lebar, is not a P.A.P. N.T.U.C. The N.T.U.C. stands for its rights. It will criticise the Government at any time if the Government is proved wrong, unlike the S.A.T.U. which claims that it is anti-P.A.P. It can be anti-P.A.P. But I think, as far as the P.A.P. are concerned, they are pro-Communist S.A.T.U.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Back Benches of the Government are very fond of talking about people like Charlie Chaplin and the rest of it. Sometimes they refer to us as Charlie Chaplin and Communists. Now, if we were to indulge in the same tactics when dealing with them, then we could call him `the fatty Member of the House'. But we are not doing it because we do not want to insult the dignity of the House. We just do not want to call him names. This will be an insult to the dignity of the House. We are not like them. All that he has spoken just now boils down to this, namely, that even workers of their unions clash with the police at times. Now, this shows that we are right when we pointed out that before Malaysia autonomy in labour, which the P.A.P. was boasting about, is meaningless. We pointed out long ago that the so-called autonomy in labour was but a humbug and a fraud. We have been pointing out all along that as long as political power is in the hands of the Central Government, then the Central Government can, in the name of security, take action against all those people who are working for the interest of the workers. This point is fully borne out by the speech made by the Member just now. We have to point out again that the workers have the right to fight for their own interest. In so doing, they are entitled to take strike actions which are wholly legitimate. As my colleague has pointed out, seven unions were banned because their members went on strike to defend their own organisations. The Naval Base strike was precipitated because the workers wanted to ask for wage increases. That was very legitimate action on the part of the workers. But the P.A.P., because the unions who went on strike do not belong to the P.A.P. group, made use of the legal provisions and other illegal means as well against them. In the meantime, the police were used. Some members of the Police Force even went to the extent of assaulting the workers on strike. After all this, they would say "Oh, police action is the responsibility of the Central Government, and it has got nothing to do with the P.A.P. now." Who will believe all this nonsense? Mr Speaker, I wish to tell you that not long ago the reason why a general strike was called by the seven now defunct trade unions was that the workers wanted to safeguard their own organisations. The next day of the strike, the P.A.P. realised that the strike was quite successful and so they said the strike was illegal. So they went into collusion and collaboration with the Central Government to take police action against the workers who went on strike. In Lorong 3, Geylang, I think, there was an incident in which members of the Police Force assaulted members of the unions on strike. This took place in a rubber factory in Lorong 3. The factory is known as the Yam Hong Rubber Factory. All the workers in this factory - they number about 200 - went on strike. Because the P.A.P. Government called the strike illegal, there were a lot of policemen around the place on the second day of the strike with instructions to disperse the workers on strike. I think, Mr Speaker, you will appreciate that when a person or an organisation takes certain action to defend itself and such action is interfered with, then there will be a reaction. Of course, there will be resistance as well. So what happened? The police took action to disperse the strikers. In the course of such dispersal, some workers sustained injuries. Others were assaulted by the police. Some of them were even sent to the General Hospital. These are facts which nobody can ever deny. If you really want to know these facts, you can make an investigation in the General Hospital. Now, this action against the workers -why should there be such an action? Do you call the strike illegal? No, you cannot because they went on strike in defence of their own organisation. In the history of trade unionism in Singapore, there are many instances of such strikes. But what, is the result in connection with the recent strike? Now, because the newspapers are under the control of the P.A.P. mud because the P.A.P. have control over the radio as well, there was no news concerning the assault. On the other hand, it was reported that it was the workers who were rioting, by their surrounding the riot squads and the red vans. Now, Mr Speaker, if you were there and if you were one of the strikers, I think you would have a very strange feeling in you. This is precisely what the PAP, arc doing and have done against workers and unions which do not support them, that is, assault them first and smear them later. 7.15 p.m. Now, what is more vicious than this action and behaviour? All that they dare say is Communists and pro-Communists. They say so in this Chamber or in their air-conditioned rooms, but they will never go out to say this publicly. And they will never dare say this even in court. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that there are only 300 Communists in Singapore. We know that this figure comes from the Prime Minister himself. Now, because the P.A.P. are against the Left-wing movement --- Mr Jek Yeun Thong rose -

Is it a point of order? If not, please keep quiet.

On a point of clarification.

Will the Member give way?

(In Mandarin): The Minister can explain later. Since the P.A.P. have deviated from the Left-wing movement two or three years ago, Singapore has all of a sudden become Communist! Singapore has gone Red; everybody in Singapore who is against the P.A.P. is a Communist. That is their argument. If a trade union does lot support the P.A.P., then it is Red. Because the unionists do not support the P.A.P., they must be Red. For example, students who do not support the P.A.P.'s education policy are called Communists. Similarly the term "Communist" has been applied to many other people. If Ministers or Government Backbenchers cannot quote facts to refute our arguments, then they always resort to calling us Communists. It is under such circumstances that progressive trade unions have been persecuted and oppressed and banned one after another. On the other hand, the Government have the cheek to turn round and say that they are pro-labour and are working for the interests of the workers. But how do they go about safeguarding the interests of the workers? They liquidate trade unions whose leaders do not agree with their policies, and then organise trade unions which they think will support them. And now, they even make use of the Central Government against the workers and progressive trade unions which do not support them. Therefore, who can believe all this P.A.P. talk of the rule of law and the so-called democratic trade unionism? [Interruption] If you were to talk in this strain outside this House, it would be unbecoming of you as Minister for Social Affairs. [Interruption] We are supported by the people; we are elected by the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is becoming of this Assembly that we should prevent the hon. Member from telling lies.

What is the Minister's point of order?

The point of order is this. It should not be the practice of hon. Members to make use of the privilege of this Assembly to tell lies. The Member opposite said that they represent the people, and that the majority of the people are behind them. The fact is that in the past two years ---

Order. This is no time for debate. The point of order the Minister has raised cannot be found in the Standing Orders. The point whether the Member for Thomson is lying or not surely is a matter of opinion. I do not know whether he is lying or not. As long as he does not call you a liar, he is well within order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that it is a matter of opinion. It is a matter of a very cruel, painful fact.

The Minister is completely out of order! He has been ruled out of order. Does he want to go against my ruling? Now, when the Member for Thomson speaks, I would ask Members of the Government not to interrupt him so frequently.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from the attitude of the Minister for Labour towards you, we can see that they are very unreasonable. They say that they practise democracy --- [interruption]

May I ask the Member not to interrupt? If he wants to interrupt, he should rise on a point of order or on a point of clarification; otherwise, he should keep quiet.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in order not to fall into the trap of the P.A.P. - so that we will not have enough time to expose them - we will ignore their interruptions. I want to raise two points. Firstly, they say that S.A.T.U. is not truly representative of the workers' unions. I am not a member of S.A.T.U., but I feel that even as a non-member I can easily find out whether S.A.T.U. is really representing the workers. The question whether S.A.T.U. is truly representative of the workers should not be decided by those who oppose it. It should be decided by members of unions belonging to S.A.T.U. Here is a fact - the two-day strike action conducted by S.A.T.U. was a success. If S.A.T.U. did not represent the workers, then whom did it represent? It is because it represents the workers that the strike action was successful. That is why the Government said that the strike action was illegal so that they could ban the unions and arrest their leaders.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears to me that Members of the Opposition are beating about the bush. They harp on the subject again and again as though they alone have the liberty to speak in this Assembly. They are merely beating about the bush.

I do not think the hon. Member is beating about the bush. If he did, he was being led there by continual interruptions from the Government side. If Government Members were to hear him in silence, I think he will make a much better job than what he is doing now. Please proceed. Mr Young.

(In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am trying to co-operate with you, but Backbenchers on the Government side are not willing to co-operate with you. If you say that S.A.T.U. is not representative of the workers, there is no need for the P.A.P. to use their State organ to declare that S.A.T.U. is an illegal organisation. Moreover, if it is not representative of the workers, then it will die a natural death. Why should the Government ban it? Why not leave it alone? It is because the P.A.P. is afraid of S.A.T.U. It is because S.A.T.U. is representative of the workers. If S.A.T.U. continues to exist, the N.T.U.C. will not be able to expand and recruit new members. Therefore, they saw fit to ban S.A.T.U. This is common sense. Nobody will believe that P.A.P. banned S.A.T.U. because it is not representing the workers. Furthermore, is the N.T.U.C. a P.A.P. union? Nobody believes that the N.TU.C. is not a P.A.P. union. Why should the P.A.P. want to create favourable conditions so as to allow the N.T.U.C. to expand and to take over the members of unions which have been banned by the Government? Why should the P.A.P. be so concerned about the N.T.U.C.? It is because the N.T.U.C. is the life-blood of the P.A.P. Without it, the P.A.P.'s deception of the so-called democratic trade union movement will not he achieved. 7.30 p.m. In the many struggles that followed, the P.A.P. have created opportunities and all sorts of conditions to allow the N.T.U.C. to expand at the expense of other unions. As they are selfish and they have a total disregard for justice, we dare not believe that the N.T.U.C. is not a P.A.P. union. Of course, the so-called P.A.P.'s pro-labour policy will one day be exposed. There will come a day when the N.T.U.C. members will clearly see through the P.A.P.'s pro-labour policy and will then see through the P.A.P.'s mask.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears to me that the Barisan Sosialis are trying to champion the cause of the workers, but actually they are betraying them. It is they who are responsible for instigating the people to go against the law. The simple reason is that they want the police to take action against the workers so that they can blame the Government. This is a betrayal of the workers.

Would the Member speak a little away from the microphone? Do not speak too close to it. I cannot follow the translation because his voice is too loud. I am sorry to disturb him.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears to me that the Barisan Sosialis would like to champion the cause of the workers. On the contrary, they are truly traitors. They instigate the workers to go against the law so that the police will take action and thereafter they can blame the Government. They are the people who are actually behind all this. I say that the labour policy of the P.A.P. is good. If we compare the labour policy that was carried out by the Government of Tun Lim Yew Hock with that of the P.A.P., the labour situation under the P.A.P. is healthier. Because the anti-national elements have broken away from the P.A.P., there is now a split among the workers. This is proof that the Barisan Members are not sincere in working for the interests of the workers. They use the workers for their own political ends, as in the last elections when they used them to oppose the Government. This is sheer exploitation of the workers. They also instigated the workers to go against the Government in order to help Indonesia in its policy of confrontation. We can see that the Barisan Sosialis have carried out orders from the P.K.I. in order to wreck our country and Malaysia. This is what the Barisan Sosialis want. They are against the interests of the workers and they are merely out to further the interests of Indonesia.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member who spoke just now praised the P.A.P.'s labour policy and compared it with the labour policy of the Lim Yew Hock Government. He said that the P.A.P.'s labour policy is better. I think this trend of talk has been used by the Prime Minister, and it therefore does not do the hon. Member any credit. I do not want to repeat what I have said just now. The P.A.P. Members have said that S.A.T.U. and certain trade unions were banned because they had been carrying out Communist activities detrimental to the security of the State. But we can clearly see through this argument. Under what circumstances were these trade unions banned? I believe you can conclude that the seven trade unions were banned merely because their members had attended the mass rally in connection with the blood debt. On the day following the mass rally, these unions were given notice to explain why they should not be de-registered. Of course, it is very difficult to explain. The Government should give reasons why these unions had to be banned. The Prime Minister of Singapore and Tun Abdul Razak had a secret meeting which resulted in their taking repressive action against the workers and the trade unions. It is not because these unions did not receive the support of the workers, or that they had carried out illegal acts, or that they had done anything detrimental to the security of the State. But all this is deceitful talk. The people of Singapore have seen clearly what the P.A.P. have done during all these years. When the workers went on strike, the P.A.P. Government helped foreign interests to break the strike. The Minister for Labour said that this is a matter that comes within the jurisdiction of the Central Government. Let me ask him: where is our autonomy in labour? That is the basic question. Therefore, we should know the circumstances under which the trade unions were banned. The P.A.P. wanted all the trade unions to come under their control and all the workers to go over to their side. In wanting to do so, they took action to ban the trade unions. If a person dares to criticise the P.A.P. and refuses to kow-tow to them, he will be sacked. If anybody dares to criticise the Government, he will definitely be arrested. Mr Speaker, there are many members and representatives of the trade unions who are in Changi Prison and Outram Prison. S.A.T.U. officials were also detained in gaol. How can you blame the Central Government? Were it not for the P.A.P. sellout, would the Central Government have dared to take such action against the workers? It is only because the Lee Kuan Yew Government have collaborated with the imperialists and colonial power together with the reactionary Central Government that the workers' interest and welfare have been suppressed. If the workers go on strike, the P.A.P. say that they are Communists, and they arrest them under such a pretext. Where is the justification for that? The Minister for Labour has said that Singapore is a country which is enjoying the rule of law. If that is so, why should such action be taken by the Government? How is it that there are so many workers in gaol? The Minister has also said that because of the rule of law existing here, we have not been arrested and put in gaol and that we are given the chance to speak here. I would ask this then: Why were the workers not brought to Court? Those arrested were not brought to Court to be tried, but they were sent to gaol. All those unions which did not support the Government were banned. And all those members of the unions which did not support the Government were arrested. If the Government accuse us of being Communists, then they should bring us to Court. This is a challenge to them. I challenge them to take action against us in Court if they want to brand us as Communists. We are speaking on behalf of the people. We are representatives of the people. We will still continue our struggle against colonialism and imperialism. We are not like those people who hide under the table in the face of imperialist suppression. I would, therefore, advise the Government not to raise this Communist bogey. I believe that if the Minister for Culture were to refrain from the use of the term "Communist bogey", he would not have any further argument to refute us. We have heard him for the last few years using the word "Communist", "Communist". To sum up, all his arguments are nothing but taking the anti-Communist line. If he is a Minister worth his salt, then he should not have done such things. He is doing this in the hope of getting a medal from America as one who is an anti-Communist hero! But he should understand that the people know where justice lies and who is right and who is wrong. [Interruption]. The Minister for Labour is right in saying that the judgment lies in the hands of the workers and the people. Why should they then control the Press, the radio - controlling everything - in order to carry out their own political propaganda for their own ends? The Minister has said that ---

The hon. Member is now repeating himself. Can the Member go on to something new, if he has something new? We have not much time left.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I also know that there is not much time. But I have to repeat it because in spite of your ruling some Government Front-benchers are always interrupting. But anyway I will resume my speech. The P.A.P. Front-benchers invariably talk about Communists and nothing more. Apart from Communism, what more can they talk about? What else have they got to say? We must allow the people to act as judges in these matters. We must not allow them to make use of the State machinery, for instance, such publicity media like the radio, television and the newspapers, for their own ends.

Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification.

Will the Member give way?

(In Mandarin): I do not propose to give way. I will continue with my speech. But I think I will allow the Minister some time to speak later on. We have to mention all these things because the Prime Minister has said that he is not so silly as the Lim Yew Hock regime, that is, he is not prepared to allow his hands to wear the dirty gloves of Tun Lim Yew Hock. But soon after he said this, what action did the Government take? The P.A.P. have taken even more drastic action.

On a point of order. Mr Kow Kee Seng resumed his seat. 7.45 p.m.

What is the point of order?

My point of order is this. The Member for Paya Lebar, having had the chance to speak twice on this matter, I think it would only be fair if he would stop now somehow or the other.

That is not a point of order. Members have got up and spoken three or four times like this. The Minister just now got up on a point of clarification. The Member did not allow him. He has now got up on another point which is completely out of order. The Minister is only interrupting these proceedings without permission.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I must thank you for your ruling. In spite of what the Prime Minister has said, the P.A.P. Government have done things in a cleverer way than did Tun Lim Yew Hock. It has taken action against the workers' organisations. Soon after their victory in the elections, the P.A.P. took action against many unions. They have taken action against the workers. Is this not the same action which the Lim Yew Hock regime and the colonial masters took against the workers? We have experienced such actions being taken before. Now we are seeing such actions being repeated. We are against the P.A.P. today. The workers are against the P.A.P. today. They are the same workers who were against the Lim Yew Hock regime. They are also the same workers who were against the Japanese atrocities and the colonial masters. They are the same workers. Now we can see whether the P.A.P. are really fighting for the interests of the workers. I believe that if the workers are not supporting the S.A.T.U. group, then I think they will allow the unions to continue in existence. From the 2nd of February, various trade union leaders have been arrested. Before the elections many of them were arrested and after the elections, another hatch of leaders were arrested. Responsible officials of the trade unions have been nabbed. In the end, the trade unions are left without leaders. And then the Government go on to smear them ---

(In Malay): Again the hon. Member is heating about the bush. With due respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not a concert.

I have already ruled on a previous occasion. I do not think he is beating about the bush. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): I again thank you for your ruling, Mr Speaker. But I do not propose to take up more time. As you can see, our friends opposite are interrupting from time to time although they will have their opportunity to speak. But they can only talk about Communists and that is they have to say --- [Interruption].

Order. Mr Jek.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, to save you from further trouble, I think I had better stop my speech.

Sir, I think the time has now come to show they are the real Communists and I am bringing evidence, not from Members of the P.A.P., but from three former Barisan Sosialis Members who will tell you that they have been telling falsehoods here. They are Communists, and the evidence is from Mr Woodhull, Mr Lim Shee Ping and Mr Puthucheary. The proof is here - written statement. First. Mr Lim Shee Ping, former Committee member of the Barisan Sosialis. None of them will say that he is a stooge or a neo-colonialist. Sir, this is what he says: `In the past I was enthusiastic about the possible achievements of Communist China.' Democrat? Communist. And he was the same man who said "Communist bogey".

Point of order.

Yes.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we are talking about the matter of labour. If the Minister for Culture wants to talk about Communists, I hope that he will touch on labour first.

I think you are out of order, Mr Minister. We are discussing the Ministry of Labour, not whether Mr Woodhull or Mr Puthucheary is a Communist.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are trade unionists. The Communists run the trade unions of S.A.T.U. Mr Woodhull was their trade union adviser. Let me say, Sir, it is very relevant. Because for the last three or four days, they got very angry because they know now --- [Interruption].

Order.

We have three creditable witnesses who were connected with their union, the S.A.T.U. union --- An hon. Member: Rubbish!

Order.

Sir, Mr Woodhull ---

I have ruled that is out of order.

Mr Speaker. Sir, with due respect to you. Mr Woodhull is connected with S.A.T.U. unions. We are discussing the merits of the S.A.T.U. unions ---

I have ruled the Minister for Culture out of order.

Mr Speaker, Sir ---

I have ruled you out of order, Mr Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if that is the case, it will be impossible for me to answer their point whether the S.A.T.U. unions are Communist or not. That is relevant ---

That is not the point. We are discussing the Ministry of Labour. Are you prepared to take my ruling or are you not, Mr Minister?

All right, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will go on to another point to prove that the S.A.T.U. union was banned for a good reason. The issue was brought up. The S.A.T.U. union was banned because it was involved in treacherous activities in Borneo. They were banned because of that. Because they were preparing to involve Singapore in an armed revolt and that has been admitted by none other than Mr Lim Shee Ping. He said in this statement: `In practice Communist activities in Malaya defeat the very causes which they claim to champion.' This is Mr Lim Shee Ping. And he goes on to say: `I deplore the recent violence in Brunei and Sarawak which causes unnecessary suffering to innocent people.' Sir, Mr Lim Shee Ping was closely associated with the S.A.T.U. unions, is this not an admission that the Barisan Sosialis and the pro-Communist trade unionists were preparing to involve Singapore in the armed violence in Brunei, Borneo and Sarawak? That is why they were banned. Not because they were trade unionists, but because they were preparing to involve the workers of Singapore in the armed revolt in Brunei and Sarawak. Further, Sir, Mr Woodhull said openly that he was in charge of unions which were controlled by Communists. And I quote, Sir: `In pursuing my political and trade union activities [and he was adviser to a great number of S.A.T.U. unions] it is true to say that I was indifferent as to whether Communists were associated with me. I recognise that this has been helpful to the Communist cause ...'. Who is saying it? It is not we. Mr Woodhull ---

Vice-Chairman.

Vice-Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis.

That is right.

He said, "I recognise that this has been helpful to the Communist cause which I have no desire to aid." He went on: `I want to make it absolutely clear that I am opposed to Communism. I believe that it is a threat to democracy and to the freedom I prize.' Sir, these are not the words of a neo-colonialist P.A.P., but of Mr Woodhull, who was closely connected with them. Their Vice-Chairman and adviser to S.A.T.U. trade unions. Mr Puthucheary ---

Their gods and saints.

--- adviser to the Barisan Sosialis. What does he say? He says about the Communists: `Not to fight them [i.e. the Communists] would be to abdicate the right to help the country to solve her economic and political problems. I believe that Communist infiltration of trade unions...'. Who is saying that? Their friend, who was adviser to the Barisan Sosialis and adviser to a number of unions, What does he say? `I believe that Communist infiltration of trade unions and social democratic parties has contributed to their weakening and led to the continuation of emergency powers.' Sir, do they now mean to sit here and tell us they are not Communists, that these unions are not manipulated by Communists? Are they prepared to get up now and say that these three are neo-colonialists? Are you prepared? Are you prepared? An hon. Member: They are not.

Are they stooges of the P.A.P.? Sir, Mr Woodhull further says that they have done more damage to the workers and so on. He says: `I believe that it is a threat...'---

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

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main Estimates for 1964, 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 Eight o'clock p.m.