Hansard, 1963-12-17

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (d) of section 30 of the Singapore (State Constitution) Order in Council, 1963, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Minister for Culture - from 18th to 24th December, 1963. The Clerk: Honourable Members, I have to announce that the Speaker, is unable to be present.

Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the second and third readings of the Supply Bill, the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963 and the Second Supplementary Development Estimates, 1963 (contained in Papers Cmd. 29 of 1963 and Cmd. 32 of 1963 respectively) be taken today." - [Dr Goh Keng Swee].

2.32 p.m. Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted day]. Head 33-

Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963 as contained in Paper Cmd. 29 of 1963. We will now deal with the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand in the Order Paper. Head 33 - Ministry of Finance.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to he allocated for Head 33 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 34. I would like to ask the Minister for Finance this. In 1963 there was a provision of $30 million. I do not know why there is a need for a further provision of $200 million in these present Estimates. I would also like to know what is the purpose of this $200 million. Also, to what extent has the present amount already been used by the Government?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member has asked for information as to why it is necessary to transfer this large sum of money from the Consolidated Fund to the Development Fund. This is a fairly reasonable request for information, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. So I shall try to enlighten him. There are two main funds operated by the Government. The first is the Consolidated Fund. This is the Fund in which all revenues of the State are kept. From this Consolidated Fund all payments of Government Departments are paid out: running of Ministries, for staff, public services, and all the other items of expenditure in the Main Estimates which we passed the day before yesterday. That is the Consolidated Fund. In other words, it is a fund which deals with the operating expenses of the Government and keeps the current revenues of the Government. In other words, it is our current account. The other fund is the Development Fund. All the projects for capital expenditure, such as the Development Estimates which this Assembly passed yesterday, are paid out of monies of the Development Fund. The Development Fund gets its income from three principal sources. The first is loans which we raise each year in Singapore. The second is the interest on the earnings of the Development Fund. The third source comes from allocations from the Consolidated Fund to the Development Fund. As Members will know, each year sums of money are transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the Development Fund. The purpose of this item in the Supplementary Estimates is to transfer this amount of money, namely, $200 million, from the Consolidated Fund to the Development Fund to meet expenditures in the State's development plan. So the short answer as to what the money is going to be used for is that it will be used to pay for expenditure on the projects which this Assembly approved yesterday. Now, why is it $200 million? If the Member will read the notes attached to this subhead, he will find this in the last sentence: "The Consolidated Fund now stands at $288 million which is much in excess of normal requirements...." Normally we want something like $60 million in the Consolidated Fund. That is quite ample to meet Government's expenditure in its day-to-day operations. But the Consolidated Fund has stood at this very large figure as a result of surpluses accumulated in previous years. It is necessary to transfer these surpluses in a lump sum now. Members will recollect that in 1961, we made a transfer of $80 million. Today, with a transfer of $200 million, we will have transferred $280 million of previous years' surpluses into the Development Fund. In 1959 we transferred $20 million from the Consolidated Fund to the Development Fund, and from 1960 to 1963 in each year we transferred $30 million. So the total of all these monies transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the Development Fund stands at something like $420 million. This is the surplus which we have referred to every now and then. Obviously there is no point in letting the money remain in the Consolidated Fund. In fact, the Barisan Sosialis have always asked in the previous Assembly why we do not spend this money. Now when we are transferring this money to the Development Fund, they say, "Why do you want to do this?" They cannot have it both ways. I hope I have explained the matter clearly to the Member for Choa Chu Kang. He was urging me yesterday to spend this money. This exercise, among other things, will have the effect of obliging him. I hope I have made the position clear. There is no catch in it. I can see him frowning. His brain is physically working! But if it is still not clear to him, I will be only too happy to explain further the working of this financial arrangement.

(In Mandarin): If $200 million is to be allocated to the Development Fund, I would like to know how much of it has already been used, and to what purpose.

Since the money has not been transferred to the Development Fund, obviously we cannot use it. You have got to put the money into the Development Fund before you can touch it. So the answer is that none of it has so far been used. The Member has asked, "How will it be used?" Only yesterday we had a long and sometimes acrimonious debate on how to spend money on development. This money is to meet the expenditure which this House approved yesterday. I hope I have made myself clear. But he looks puzzled. Perhaps if he wants further clarification, I am prepared to go outside the Chamber, get down with a pencil and paper, and make everything more crystal clear than could possibly be the case when one talks to each other across the Table.

Does the Member for Choa Chu Kang wish to withdraw the amendment?

Yes. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $200,000,000 for Head 33 ordered to stand part of the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963. 2.45 p.m. Head 36-

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 36 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 62. A sum of $450,000 is now being asked for additional expenditure on the National Theatre. We heard that the theatre opened on 31st August this year when the South-East Asia Cultural Festival was held. How is it that there is a further need of $450,000? Does it mean that this money will be spent on neon lights and decorations of P.A.P. signs?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am indeed surprised at the question asked by the Member for Thomson. It is unusually short. It is customary for the Barisan and the pro-Communist boys to be very interested in cultural activities. They consider it a means to disseminate Communist propaganda and to indoctrinate the young. Sir, the National Theatre project was approved at a total cost of $2.2 million. The cost was worked out by the architects as well as the former Director of Public Works. Government's contribution is the balance between the total cost of $2.2 million and the total sum of donations including interest derived thereon. The total amount of donations, inclusive of interest, if the Opposition Member is interested to know, is $856,279.04 as at 16th December, 1963. The Member for Thomson has touched on the delay of construction of this National Theatre. We have to appreciate the following facts. Piling work on the National Theatre was completed in October last year. Work on the building contract commenced on 24th October, 1962. The original target date for the completion was 31st May, 1963, which meant that the steel contractor had to finish the steel work by 15th May, 1963. The technical difficulties involved in the steel work prevented the target date from being met. Sir, there is another reason for the delay. The late completion of the level structural drawings was due, in a large measure, to the necessity of making careful calculations to ensure a safer cantilever. It should be noted that the contractor's efforts to complete the work quickly are reflected in the fact that during the period 23rd October, 1962, to 7th August, 1963, the building contractor spent approximately $118,000 by way of overtime wages. And also during the period 7th March, 1963, to 20th July, 1963, the steel contractor spent approximately $38,000 by way of overtime wages. The work had to be rushed as it was necessary to have the main building and stage roof ready before the South-East Asia Cultural Festival in which the Member for Thomson is so interested. I shall enlighten him on this later on. The Festival was held from 8th August, 1963, to 15th August, 1963. All this work for the Cultural Festival was completed in time. Sir, it should also be noted that the National Theatre is architecturally unique in South-East Asia, perhaps in the whole of Asia. Nowhere in Asia can we find a cantilever thrust jutting out 150 feet without any supporting columns. In a project of this nature, undue speed in construction is not desirable. In fact, it is dangerous. Sir, the Assembly is now requested to pass this further contribution of $450,000 made to the National Theatre Trust. We recall that on 24th July, 1963, the previous Assembly passed a first contribution of $500,000 to the National Theatre Trust. This request, therefore, is the second payment. The Member should also note that a further payment will have to be made in accordance with what has been agreed in respect of Government's contribution to the Trust as mentioned earlier. Sir, for the information of this Assembly, the National Theatre Trust was established by an Ordinance No. 61 of 1961 on 19th November, 1960. The Chairman of the Trust is Mr Lee Khoon Choy. The other members are Inche Zubir Said, Mr Ng Aik Huan, Mr Paul Abisheganaden, Madam Liu Hsue Ying, Mr K. P. Bhaskar, Mr Liao Sung Yang, Mr Liew Yung Ho, Mr Wee Kim Wee, Mr Ang Hock Lam, and the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Culture. All these are voluntary members. The object of the Board is to manage, on behalf of the Minister for Culture, the National Theatre and other theatrical institutions placed under its management by the Minister. The Member for Thomson probably would be interested to know something about our South-East Asia Cultural Festival, which I earlier promised to enlighten. Sir, the first South-East Asia Cultural Festival which we in Singapore had the distinction of staging took place from 8th August, 1963, to 15th August, 1963. It cost the Government about $311,500. This is only a provisional figure as the accounts have not yet been finalised, but it is more or less accurate. The gate receipts amounted to $52,671.03, of which $45,220.83 was collected at the National Theatre and $7,450.20 was collected at the Victoria Theatre. The net cost to Government was, therefore, approximately $258,829. The gate receipts would have been much more but for the complimentary tickets issued to the artistes and other guests of participant countries. The tickets were sold at $5, $3, $2, and $1 at the National Theatre and $3 and $1 at the Victoria Theatre. The participating member-countries were Cambodia, the Federation of Malaya, Hong Kong, India, Laos, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sabah, Singapore, South Vietnam, and Thailand. I think the Member for Thomson may be interested to know that his former colleague or former adviser, the former strong man in the S.A.T.U. group, the pro-Communist group of unions, was one of the keen supporters of the National Theatre. He contributed a lot to the National Theatre. Sir, the National Theatre was intended to be a small one, but because of the tremendous enthusiasm shown by the donors and well-wishers, we had to reconsider our plan. The structures have to be reconsidered and our National Theatre is now a sizable one. I can promise the Member for Thomson that it will not be used for staging any songs which they are now teaching the small children in the kindergarten classes in the rural areas.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, we all know that the National Theatre was opened on the 31st August this year. Yet the Parliamentary Secretary has said that it has not yet been completed. He has also referred to the Communist activities and Barisan disturbances. I expect him to talk in such a trend - accusing the Communists of interfering with the work so that the Theatre could not be completed in time. But fortunately he did not talk in this manner.

Order. The Member should refrain from crude and unparliamentary language. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is only meant to describe him adjectivally. But since you have ruled it as improper, I withdraw. 3.00 p.m. They claim that the Theatre is the most beautiful and the grandest in the whole of South-East Asia. We would like to ask whether the Government have been misusing public funds by allocating a further provision of $450,000. The National Theatre may appear to be grand and beautiful on the outside, but it may not be so in actual fact. If you put some zinc sheets and have them painted, they too can appear to be pretty from the outside. But what we want is something concrete, real, and valuable and not something that is beautiful superficially. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has been travelling all over South-East Asia. That is why he finds the National Theatre in Singapore to be the most beautiful in the whole of this region. Apart from the provision of $450,000, the sum of $2.2 million has already been used on the National Theatre. Has it not been a waste? Perhaps you can say the National Theatre appears superficially to be very beautiful. But it might be too extravagant an item of expenditure to spend $2.2 million just on this sort of National Theatre. What we want is not the most beautiful National Theatre in South-East Asia, but something that is of practical use and value to the people. Moreover, we would like to know whether there has been any waste or misuse of public money. It might be possible that because the Ministry of Culture wanted to meet the completion date of the National Theatre, a certain wastage of money or some irregularities might have taken place. We do not know. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary concerned can enlighten us on this, instead of talking about Communists.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify certain points. The Member for Thomson has said the Government wasted this money, which was public money. We used the money to build the National Theatre. The money, of course, came from the people. But it is for the good of the people. How can he say that this is a waste of money when we are not using it for ourselves? The National Theatre has been built from the contributions of members of the public. Whenever there is a $100 donation, we too contribute an agreed amount at the ratio of 1:1. So how can he say that this is a waste? The building of the National Theatre has been initiated by the public themselves, and for their own use. From what the Member for Thomson has mentioned just now, it appears that he might be qualified to be an associate member of the Architects Association of Singapore. He talks about whether the National Theatre was a waste or not and whether it was beautiful or not from the outside. He makes all these comments as though he was a qualified architect. I think the Member for Jalan Kayu is more concerned with the style and structure of pig sties and chicken sheds. He might well be conversant with this subject. But he and the people over the other side might not be so well conversant with the true architecture of the National Theatre. They are not experts in this field. The National Theatre is a very big construction job and much effort has been put in to build it. So all sorts of details must be taken into consideration. The second reason for the delay in the completion of the National Theatre is that the public's enthusiasm and zeal has made it possible for the original plan to be modified and altered. Just now the Member for Thomson has asked whether the National Theatre would be safe or would it collapse. I can assure him that if he were to go and look at the National Theatre, the ceiling would not collapse on his head. About the possible malpractices committed by the contractor, the Government are very cautious about this and pay very much attention to it. If he is interested, I will ask the P.W.D. engineer to accompany him to the work site to inspect the construction work. He can see whether there have been malpractices committed by the contractor.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the past few days, the Barisan Sosialis Members have been always finding fault with every plan and suggestion made by the Government. Their motive and objectives are to sabotage and not to make any constructive criticism. For example, the Member for Thomson has criticised the construction work of the National Theatre. He has also accused us of having misused the $2.2 million. We know that the National Theatre building campaign was launched in 1959 during Loyalty Week and that it received the enthusiasm and support of the public. Even the Barisan Sosialis and the S.A.T.U. unions also gave enthusiatic support to it. This National Theatre has a very great historical significance to the people of Singapore. In the past, the colonial regime was never able to put up such a theatre. If the Barisan Sosialis had been elected to power, they too would not have been able to put up such a theatre. But today when the people are awakening to political consciousness, the Barisan Sosialis will never be in a position to come to power. The National Theatre will be able to fuse the cultures of the various races in Malaysia. Those who have come to Singapore from abroad will know that the National Theatre plays a very important role in creating a Malaysian culture.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not intend to speak further on this. But perhaps they have not been listening to what I have said. They were dreaming. They were shouting anti-Communist slogans. I was merely asking whether there has been a waste of money in building this National Theatre. It does not mean that I am opposed to the building of this National Theatre. What I want to know is: in the course of construction was there any waste in order to speed up and have it completed on the 31st August?

No.

(In Mandarin): Therefore, they should have round-the-clock work. Were there any malpractices or irregularities during the course of construction? That is what I want to know.

For a stupid question there is always a stupid answer. The Member did not know what he was asking for. If he is interested to know whether the Government are throwing money away, the answer is simple - N-o- no. Sir, we are not the kind of government that throw our money away by putting it in an unprofitable investment. We calculate and consider every item of expenditure and we cut the expenditure to the bone. There is no waste. The answer is no. It is simple. I think what the Barisan Members are really sore at is that they cannot turn the National Theatre into a red star theatre, where they can have Communist culture, the harvest dance, very inspiring songs from China, probably some songs from Indonesia and some inspiration from Aidit of Indonesia. I think this is what the Barisan Sosialis Members are sore at with this National Theatre. Because they know that they cannot make use of the National Theatre for their own purpose.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think I can give a straightforward answer to the question posed by the Member for Thomson. Though I am not connected with the building of the National Theatre, I will try to answer his question. He asks whether there has been wastage in public and Government funds in the building of the National Theatre. The answer is no. He asks why should there be work round the clock? The answer is probably this. In coming to a contractual agreement with the contractor, there is always a deadline and probably the contractor finds that he cannot make the deadline, therefore he has to do work round the clock. Another worry of his is, why should we spend more than $2 million on the National Theatre? Sir, in Singapore we build for a useful purpose; we build in order that it can be of practical use for our people. But, at the same time, we want to build and see that we should be proud of whatever we build. The National Theatre is something which one should be proud of, if one embarks on that venture. As a loyal citizen of this State and of Malaysia, I think one should be willing to spend a bit more money on a project like the National Theatre, so that we can embellish it a little bit more, have better fittings here and there, so that when visitors come to Singapore, we can say, "Look, this is our National Theatre. It is about the best in the Far East." 3.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture and the Back-benchers talk about the National Theatre they raise the bogey of Communism. The P.A.P. are very anxious to make use of the National Theatre for their own party purposes and when we raise this question they become very sensitive. The building of the National Theatre is a good thing, more so because it has received the support of the people. But after its completion, will the Party in power - as they have stated - be able to promote Malaysian culture? [Interruption] During the last few years, the P.A.P. have monopolised the promotion of different cultures and they have banned the publication of cultural magazines which were opposed to them. Books that really reflect the people's consciousness in dances, poetry and songs have also been banned by the Government for their own party purposes. It is doubtful whether they are really able to foster Malayan culture. If they carry on in this way, Singapore will become a cultural desert because the dances, poetry and songs which really reflect the people's way of life are discouraged and suppressed by the Government. Therefore, the standard of culture in Singapore cannot be raised any further. The building of a so-called new culture is another form of deception. We hope the P.A.P. will change their attitude of monopolising the promotion of culture and will really encourage the promotion of cultures which are beneficial to the people of Singapore and Malaya - cultures which truly represent the way of life of the people - and not encourage the promotion of foreign cultures such as American culture.

I just do not understand why every time we talk about Communism, the Barisan stand up without hesitation to defend it. If they are not Communists, why do they defend it? Sir, as I have said, what really makes them feel sore is that they cannot make use of the National Theatre as they made use of the Dramatic Society in Nanyang University to disseminate Communist culture. But if we were to give them a chance to stage some dances of Mao Tse-tung and his gang or of Aidit, probably the Member for Jurong would agree and he would donate a few dollars. Sir, it is alleged that the National Theatre is intended to serve as a tool for the P.A.P. This is an utter insult not only to the people of Singapore who contributed so willingly towards the National Theatre fund but also to the countries which participated in the South-East Asia Festival - Cambodia, the Federation of Malaya, Hong Kong, India, Ceylon, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sabah, Singapore, South Vietnam and Thailand, not Jakarta and China. Sir, in the last few years, we have done much to promote Malaysian culture - may I emphasise, Malaysian culture - and I can assure the Members of the Barisan Sosialis that we have also done very, very much to curb Communist culture. On the question of publications that were banned from circulation, just give me a list of them that they consider are not Communist-inspired and I will produce them in this House and prove that they are Communist-inspired.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to say a few more words. I was very pleased to hear a Member of the Barisan supporting certain projects like the National Theatre. I have two questions to ask him. First, why did he not say "Malaysian" culture but "Malayan" culture? Second, is it not a fact that Malaysian culture is now in existence? Its existence has been recognised even by Russia, though Indonesia still refuses to recognise it. On this question, I would like to ask him what types of songs and poetry really reflect the people's way of life. We say that this cannot be judged by a group of politicians but by the broad masses - by the majority of the people and not by a minority.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the last Member who spoke on this question did so in the hope that the reactionary groups in Malaya, the United Kingdom or in the United States of America might give him a title like "anti-Communist doctor or hero". Culture is a thing that belongs to the majority of the people and not only to the ruling class. As to what magazines, journals and literature have been banned, I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture himself should know more about them. He cannot deceive the people. He can go through the records to find out the facts.

I really do not know whether the Member for Sembawang will get a medal from the British or American imperialists, but I am confident that the Members of the Barisan Sosialis are going to get medals from Soekarno and Aidit for being their spokesmen in this House. Sir, I wish to answer the question on the banning of publications. We are confident that each and every one of those publications that we ban is not desirable, and that it is not in the interest of the people of Singapore for these publications to be circulated. If the Member for Jurong is interested, I would like him to give me a list of the books, poems or songs which he thinks are good for the people of Singapore and then I will consider the matter. As far as we are concerned, all the books, poems and songs that we ban are not in the interest of the people of Singapore for them to be circulated.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture has again raised the Communist bogey. I think it is better for him not to distort the facts. It he wants to debate Communism - he can do so outside the Assembly with anybody he likes. He should not repeatedly raise the Communist bogey in this Assembly. While we are discussing affairs concerning the people of Singapore, he introduces the Communist bogey again. Yesterday, the Minister for Culture asked us to deny whether we are Communists. I say that we do not oppose the banning of Communist literature. But can the P.A.P. say that the dances, literature, poems and songs that really reflect the way of life of the people of Singapore are Communist-inspired? Why were some of those people connected with them banished? The criterion on whether a song or literature is Communist- inspired or not depends on the judgment of the people and not on the decision of the P.A.P. oligarchy or by Mr Lee Khoon Choy alone. I would like to ask the ruling clique, how many publications and concert programmes have been banned?

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Members accuse us of raising the Communist bogey on the National Theatre. If they are really not Communists, why do they not say "Malaysia" but "Malaya and Singapore"? If they consider themselves citizens of Malaysia but they refuse to say "Malaysia", it means that they are anti-Malaysia like Indonesia, which refuses to recognise the existence of Malaysia. It is, therefore, clear that they are agents of the P.K.I. because they refuse to acknowledge that Malaysia is an accomplished fact.

Sir, when I was making references to Communism, I was only making passing references in relation to culture. But the Member for Tampines was so annoyed - I do not know what pinched him - that he spent the whole time talking on Communism with no reference at all to culture. Sir, since they are so interested in defending themselves, I will just put forward a simple question for them to answer. The people of Singapore have yet to know whether they are Communists, pro-Communists, anti-Communists or non-Communists like the P.A.P.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, if the question of Communism involves us, we will say we are not Communists but if it does not involve us, we will not comment. Sir, I would ask whether the shows put up by Aneka Ragam are Communist-inspired. 3.30 p.m.

Time has expired. Does the Member wish to withdraw his amendment?

(In Mandarin): I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $450,000 for Head 36 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963. Head 48-

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 4. The Government is asking for a provision of $1.5 million for the People's Association. I feel this provision will be a waste of public money. The provision for community centres in 1963 is $2 million. We must make careful use of our meagre national revenue. But, as a matter of fact, the motive of the P.A.P. Government in making use of this money in this matter is to win support for party purposes. I would like to cite an example. If we approve this additional sum of $1.5 million, then the total amount for 1963 in respect of community centres will be $3.5 million. How much then is intended to be spent on hospitals and other services? We can clearly see from this comparison that, in spite of the P.A.P.'s slogans and publicity that community centres, clinics and veterinary stations are important and useful to the people, they are in fact spending less money on these useful services. The Government are in fact spending more money on community centres. Another point is that more and more community centres are being built without any principle. There is no justification for them. The main reason why they are built is that the Prime Minister is going to tour the rural areas. Many community centres seem to go up in those areas where the Prime Minister is going to make a visit. But are these community centres still open today? Many of them are closed now. What is the use of spending such money on community centres? They serve no practical purpose. Many of the community centres were built in the rural areas during the time when the Prime Minister made his tour of those areas. They did this to show what the Government have done. Hence they would welcome the Prime Minister. The P.A.P. Government are going to use this $3.5 million. But will it benefit the people living in the rural areas? No. This money is really going to be used for the benefit of P.A.P. supporters and their lackeys. They would be given jobs in the community centres as a kind of reward for their support of the P.A.P. At the same time many people working in the community centres are receiving double wages. On the one hand, they are being paid as members of the staff of community centres. On the other hand, they are also being paid for being inoculators in the Primary Production Unit in the rural areas. This is not the proper way to spend public money. We also see that there is an allocation of $2.3 million for next year which will be spent on community centres. This is a big sum of money. If the Government want to use the money for the benefit of the people, it should not be done by way of building more community centres. We should examine and consider the needs of the people. We should find out what is important to the people. We should see what useful services can be provided for the people in order to help them in their livelihood, especially those living in the rural areas. Many people in the rural areas who rear pigs and poultry have to borrow money in order to keep going. They are thus being exploited by money-lenders and middlemen by having to pay a high rate of interest. They have no bargaining power in all these negotiations and transactions. They have no alternative. Everything is being controlled by the middlemen and money-lenders. If the Government are really interested in the welfare of the people, especially those in the rural areas, then they should see to it that the farmers get reasonable prices for their agricultural products. Why are the Government not prepared to give loans to the farmers? They should have done this to help the farmers in the rural areas. Another way to help the farmers is to build co- operative societies. This will help the people. The P.A.P. have talked about this a few years ago. But up to now we have not seen any co-operative societies to help the farmers. If the Government are keen to help the farmers, they should do something to help increase the productivity of the farmers and maintain reasonable prices of their products. They should not build community centres for the people just for show. These community centres have no practical value at all. In fact, when we look round we can see that there are only P.A.P. members who are being employed as staff for these community centres. This is yet another instance which shows that the P.A.P. is making use of public money to build community centres in order to further the interests of the Party. These are the reasons why I move this amendment.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Choa Chu Kang has raised a few questions just now. I have explained the position. The question concerns community centres which are likely to be built. He says that community centres are not a necessity to the people. We have discussed this question at length in the last few days. But they still want to show in this Assembly that there is no need for community centres in this State. As a matter of fact, these community centres are now becoming more popular to the people in the rural areas, and even in the towns. The amount of $1½ million in the Estimates is necessary for the building of community centres this year. It is Government's policy to build more community centres and to give more facilities to residents in the rural areas. This decision was taken at the end of 1962. This provision for community centres is, therefore, entered in the Supplementary Estimates for 1963. The programme for the building of community centres has already been approved. According to this programme, the number of standard type community centres to be built in the rural areas will be 101. Six standard type community centres have so far been built in the rural areas. They are in a resettlement area in Jurong, Woodlands, Nee Soon, Kranji, and Princess Elizabeth Estate. I would like to explain what happened last Saturday at the Kranji Community Centre when it was officially opened by the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Khoon Choy. A number of people have told me of this incident. In fact, one of the people that night said that a few days before the community centre was opened, a number of people went round to the villages and intimidated the residents. They said that if the people were to attend the official opening of the community centre, they would be attacked and beaten up. They made this threat, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that the people would not attend the official opening of the community centre. We know from the debate in this Assembly who have opposed the opening of community centres. They comprise the people sitting in front of me. They even go so far as to prevent people from going to the community centres. It is in a community centre that people can see and talk with one another. They can mix freely among themselves. In this way, they will be able to understand one another and live in peace in this country. The reason why they are opposed to community centres is that they are afraid the centres will become popular with the people. That is why they send their men into the villages to intimidate the people not to attend the community centre at Kranji. Now to return to the subject of the provision of $1.5 million for the building of community centres. The cost of building the six standard type community centres is $250,000. Those in the rural areas cost $6,000 each. Altogether, they cost $846,000. Personal emoluments for all these come to $210,000. 3.45 p.m. Equipment amounts to $242,000 and expenses in connection with the community centres such as electricity supply, magazines and newspapers, and other equipment, amount to $220,000. Altogether, it amounts to $1,500,000. From this expenditure, it can be seen that the Government have not wasted public money. Every item of expenditure has been accounted for. The community centre is a place where people gather to enjoy the facilities provided for their benefit and welfare. Why must we build standard type community centres, which number six in the rural areas? The reason is that such centres can provide more service to the people in larger areas such as Kranji and Jurong. They can also serve as the headquarters of other community centres in the rural areas. Many other points have been raised by the Member for Choa Chu Kang. He has said that members of the P.A.P. are employed in community centres. There is no truth in this statement. Mr Deputy Speaker, anyone can apply for work in community centres through the People's Association. In the People's Association, we have a Committee to consider all applications. The Committee takes into consideration the qualifications and experience of the applicants. Those with good experience and who are likely to make good officers are accepted because they will then be able to give good service to the people. Some days ago, the subject of community centres came up for debate in this Assembly. I said then that they provide poultry inoculation service in the daytime. They also provide useful services to farmers, shop- keepers and hawkers, and services such as for the payment of licence fees. In general, Mr Deputy Speaker, they are open all day up to 11 o'clock at night to provide useful services. There are also kindergarten classes provided in these community centres which are run on proper lines, and not like those which propagate anti-Malaysia feelings. These classes are provided for the welfare and benefit of the people.

(In Mandarin): The Minister for Social Affairs says that because community centres provide more and better services to the public, it means that the Barisan are afraid and therefore raise objections. If community centres can really serve the people well, we will give our support. My colleague has said just now that in the past the P.A.P. have made use of community centres as P.A.P. organisations to further their own interests. What we are concerned with is the people's interest. Past events have shown that the P.A.P. have ignored the rights of the people. Therefore, it is only natural that their Party branches have been avoided by the people. So the P.A.P. have to make use of community centres to carry out their party activities. If I am not mistaken, in the past, community centres were known as association centres. Then later, the People's Association did not hold meetings for quite some time. The members of the Association were appointed by Mr --- -

On a point of order. The Member is not making a reply. He has been talking of the past. There is no point in that. We all know what happened in the past. Everybody knows that they lost in the general elections. So why try to --- [Interruption].

Does the Minister for Social Affairs wish to reply? There are two minutes left. The Minister has already spoken; so I think we can proceed. Mr Chia.

(In Mandarin): After two or three years, the Council of the People's Association did not hold any meetings. I do not know whether the community centres are run by the P.A.P. or the People's Association. Another point which we are not very clear about is this. Not long ago, the P.A.P. sacked many employees of the People's Association working in the community centres. Their dismissal was not discussed by the Council of the People's Association, but it was approved. As a matter of fact, the action was taken under the direction of the Minister. Why did they want to do such a thing? Does it mean that those dismissed could not really serve the people? No. The crux of the problem was that they could not agree with some of the policies of the P.A.P. which tried to make use of and control the People's Association and the community centres. That was the reason why they were dismissed. This is another example of the P.A.P.'s intention to make use of community centres for their own party ends.

Can I be given two minutes to reply?

Since there is only one minute left, the Minister may reply in one minute.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to say here that the people of Singapore are not fools, and that is why they have elected the P.A.P. to form the government. If the people were fools or if they knew that the community centres are used by the Party, surely they would not have gone to the centres to enjoy the facilities provided. I would like to quote what the ex-Member for Choa Chu Kang said in this Assembly before. It is from the Hansard, Vol. 12, No. 11 [col. 739, 13th May, 1960], in which he said: `There is urgent need for low-cost community centres in the rural areas so that the rural people can make use of and enjoy the facilities provided by these centres.' The other Members of the then Legislative Assembly also fully supported the construction of community centres. But now these Members have come to oppose the building of these community centres, saying that they are not of any use to the people. 3.55 p.m.

Time is up. Does the Member wish to withdraw his amendment?

(In Mandarin): Take a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allotted for Head 48 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the name of Mr Kow Kee Seng, was not proceeded with: That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 14 (1) . The sum of $1,790,650 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963. Head 50-

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of new subhead "Legislative Assembly General Elections". A provision of $371,900 is required for expenditure in connection with the Singapore Legislative Assembly General Elections, 1963. I would like to advance my reasons for opposing this provision. Perhaps the Government side will be excited and infuriated when I have exposed them. During the last general elections the Tunku said that the campaigning period of nine days was unreasonable. The second reason is that some voters could not locate their polling stations. Was there any mystery behind all this? 4.00 p.m. The third reason is that before polling day, there were many illegal posters. Why did the P.A.P. keep silent about these illegal posters? I would like to ask whether something was done by the Minister about these illegal posters. The fourth reason is that Lee Kuan Yew at a radio forum, in the Press and everywhere ---

Order. Members are not supposed to address other Members by their names but by their proper designations. The Member for Tampines may continue.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, all right, I will call him the Prime Minister. Before the general elections, he frightened the people into voting for the P.A.P. through intimidation, threats, coercion, smears, and all sorts of tactics. That is another reason. The fifth reason is that the election agents of the various Parties were not allowed to accompany the ballot boxes. Perhaps there might have been some manipulation or other irregularities. The sixth point is why mass arrests were carried out before the general elections ---

On a point of order. This is none of our concern. Please ask Saudara Lim Huan Boon to bring it up in the Central Government. Why make a fuss here?

The 2nd of February arrests.

The Member for Tampines may proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have just been reminded by the Parliamentary Secretary of the difficulties of the Singapore Government because so many matters - powers, funds, finances - have been surrendered to the Central Government. But I would like to ask whether this alleged suppression by the Central Government ---

Order. I can hear the Member for Tampines quite well. I do not think it is necessary that he should raise his voice until it is almost earsplitting. Please proceed with his speech in a calmer manner.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope the crows opposite will not interfere with their shouts and yells, so that I will he able to speak ---

Will the Member for Tampines try not to get emotional and get on with his speech? [Interruption] Order. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope I can be allowed to speak in a calm and silent atmosphere, without being disturbed. The seventh point is, I would like to ask the Government in power: Why did they deprive the citizenship of those citizens who did not support the P.A.P. thus affecting the result of the elections? Many people who were not satisfied with the P.A.P. regime were thus disabled in their election campaign because many of them had been arrested and their citizenship had also been ---

Order. I do not see how the question of citizenship comes into this question. So will the Member for Tampines continue without referring to that? He may proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, these few points that I have raised are my reasons which go to show why there should not be such a provision for $371,900. If the Deputy Speaker is of the opinion that I should not raise those points, then I will now mention two further points which are more important. These two points have enabled the P.A.P. to continue with their dictatorship. The eighth point is that the P.A.P. have been using all the propaganda machinery such as T.V., the Radio, the Press for their own ends, as a result of which they were elected again to be the Government. Another reason is that all those who did not support P.A.P. policies and were in disagreement with them, including publications, literature, the Press and views and opinions, were banned, curbed or restricted, resulting in the P.A.P. coming to power. If the Minister can give us a reply to these points. I will be glad to withdraw my amendment.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, after seeing the tactics shown by the Member for Tampines, he reminds me of the boy who cries over spilt milk. They know that the elections are over and the questions raised by the Member are old questions which have been mentioned in this Assembly. He says that nine days were not enough to carry out the election campaign. They have ideas, but we also have ideas. What we know is that three months before the elections they had already stuck up posters in all the villages. We came to know of this when our candidates went to the villages. The posters were already up. If there were people who had more time to carry out the campaign, then they were the people. But what to do? The people have made their decision. They know that the P.A.P. are honest and have not done anything to damage their interests. Therefore, the people have elected us once again to rule the State for another five years. He also says that a number of voters could not cast their votes because they did not know the polling stations. In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, we all know that before the elections were held, the voters were asked to check their names and their respective polling stations. On the question of elections, Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not want to do things which are not good. We do things according to the law of the country. The other point the Member has mentioned is about posters. I do not understand what he means by posters. I hope he could give me the explanation once again. Then he says that the Prime Minister held a forum over the radio and television. He accuses the Prime Minister of issuing threats so that the people were afraid to vote for the other Parties. Mr Deputy Speaker, in these forums the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis also took part and they gave their own explanations and statements. But because their explanations were no longer of value to the people, therefore, the people could not care less for them. It was not because of threats as stated by the Member for Tampines. He also says that election agents were not allowed to accompany the ballot boxes to the counting centres. But I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that at every polling station after the votes were cast, the box was sealed by the officers because it was feared that these boxes might be opened and the ballot papers damaged. The Barisan Sosialis agents themselves saw that the seals were not broken. Therefore, there was no opportunity for the Government, as has been accused by the Member for Tampines, to damage the ballot papers and boxes. I do not want to reply to the question of citizenship because it has no connection with this. About the P.A.P.'s use of propaganda through the use of television and radio, I have already replied to this. Not only did the P.A.P. leaders take part in these forums and radio talks before the elections, but the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis also took part. As to those who had been arrested before the elections, this had not been done without consideration. Mr Deputy Speaker, these leaders had been working against the security of this country. That is why they were arrested. If they had been sincere and honest leaders working for the benefit of the country, they would not have been arrested.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, just now the Minister for Social Affairs has defended his Government's stand. The first point which cannot be denied is that in the recent general elections, the P.A.P. had resorted to various dirty tactics-

On a point of clarification.

If the Member gives way to the Minister.

(In Mandarin): He is stalling for time because there are only a few minutes left. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me continue --- An hon. Member: Charlie Chaplin!

Order.

(In Mandarin): The crux of the question is that the fact that only nine days were available for campaigning is well known to the world - [Interruption] If the Minister for Education would like to comment on my speech he could wait and be patient. Another point is that the Government during the election period controlled all publicity machinery - the Press, radio and T.V. They only played up their own speeches and stories in the newspapers. Opposition speeches at rallies were toned down and played down. They were not given space ---

Order. The Member for Paya Lebar is not touching on the subject under discussion. He should come back to the subhead "Legislative Assembly General Elections".

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, this election was closely connected with the nine-day campaigning period. 4.15 p.m. Mr Deputy Speaker, during the nine days' period of campaigning for the elections, the Prime Minister made use of the radio for propaganda. He made use of the radio almost every day for the purpose of campaigning for the P.A.P. They had complete control of all the newspapers in the State. Mr Fong Sip Chee rose ---

Is it a point of clarification?

On a point of order, Sir. He is getting too close to the microphone. It is stationary. It will not run away. My ears just cannot stand it.

Order. Will the Member for Paya Lebar please try not to go too close to the microphone?

(In Mandarin): Government Back-benchers are always interrupting our speeches. This is a fact. During the election campaign, the Government also tried to prevent us from printing our campaign material. The period was too short for the Opposition to prepare them. The Government obstructed and prevented us from printing our propaganda material. The period given to the Opposition for the electioneering campaign was too short. Even the Tunku, whom they respect so much, and who is a close friend of the M.C.A., was of the same opinion. The Tunku said that he had never heard of such a short period given to an electioneering campaign. With regard to the general election, the conditions were unfavourable to the Opposition Parties. The P.A.P. Government also denied us the opportunity for any publicity. Thus, through intimidation, coercion and suppression, the P.A.P. have come to power again. They are now in a position to ask for more funds to carry out their own intentions again. I, therefore, say that it is most undemocratic on the part of the P.A.P. to have resorted to intimidation and coercion of the people. The Government may now be elated that they have won the elections, and that we have lost the elections. But I should say that, in spite of their suppression and intimidation and even under their white terror, the people still gave us 200,000 odd votes. They should not think that all the people supported them when they came to office. There is 80 per cent support for them. But they must not forget that even Ngo Dinh Diem anti Madam Ngo received 99.9 per cent of votes of the people who voted them. Yet they were notorious throughout the world. They were the two people who suppressed the people of South Vietnam. What is there for the P.A.P. to boast about? If the P.A.P. think they wish to emulate Ngo Dinh Diem and Madam Ngo, then I am afraid their future will he just the same as theirs. They will meet with the same fate.

(In Mandarin): The Member for Paya Lebar has mentioned just now that the period of election given was unprecedented in the history of Singapore elections or for that matter in any part of the world. If he is not purposely ignoring the fact, then he should admit his ignorance. Even in England the period given for the election campaign was nine days. This is a common thing in the United Kingdom. In Ceylon only seven days were allowed. He said that because of the short period of nine days given, they could not carry out their election campaign to the fullest extent. He also mentioned the Tunku. But the period for campaigning that was enforced in the last election was in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. They should themselves analyse the causes of their defeat, which is, the traitorous role they play in Malaysia.

Does the Member wish to withdraw his amendment?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to put it to the vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $371,900 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963. Head 51-

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 51 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 10 (3) . I do not agree to the provision of this sum for this item. I would like the Minister to answer me these questions. When the Prime Minister visited Changi constituency on 19th May, 1963, he said that merger would be carried out according to the terms envisaged in the White Paper on merger. He said nobody could alter that. But I would like to ask here whether this provision has been agreed to by the Singapore Government. Who has changed the terms of the White Paper on merger? Another question I would like to ask is whether this expenditure was incurred before 16th September, 1963.

(In Mandarin): First of all, the flats built by the Housing and Development Board were occupied by the Singapore Military Forces. So there is no connection between this expenditure and the terms of the White Paper on merger. This expenditure was incurred at the beginning of 1963.

Is there any other Member who wishes to speak? Would the Member indicate whether he wishes to withdraw his amendment?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel that the answer given by the Minister is entirely irrelevant. In actual fact, he has not replied to my question. He merely said that this expenditure was incurred at the beginning of 1963. He did not say whether the expenditure on the Military Forces was before or after 16th September, 1963. If he said that the sum was incurred before 16th September, 1963, then I say the Government was right in doing so. But the Government have no right to do so after 16th September, 1963. The Minister said that the British Forces stationed in Singapore are meant to protect us. Since there are British Forces here to protect us, why should there be a need for a Singapore Military Force?

Mandarin): Does the Member for Bukit Panjang mean that when the British Forces go away, then the Indonesian Forces would move in? So that it is his intention to see that the British Forces would leave and also to dissolve our own Military Forces. This would then be a convenient situation for the Indonesian fifth columnists or even their Army to come in. I feel that his hostility towards the British Forces and even towards our own Military Forces is uncalled for. They should have regard for the defence of the people of Singapore. Another thing I cannot understand is their question on the allowances for housing accommodation to personnel of the Singapore Military Forces. Before Malaysia Day, this expenditure would be incurred by the Singapore Government. This sum of money which was expended was handed over to the Housing and Development Board. So in the end the money is still in Singapore. 4.30 p.m. Does he mean that we should not maintain a force such as the Singapore Military Forces just because the British Forces are here to defend Singapore from an attack by the Barisan's friends? Do they hope the Indonesians would invade by the front door or the back door? No matter how they propagandise to fool the people, the people will not listen to them in the end. They can also talk of Ngo Dinh Diem and Madam Ngo Dinh Nhu. If we were like Ngo Dinh Diem, then we would not see them any more in this House. They might even expect an accident any time they walk on the road. But now some of them are at liberty to walk around Singapore in safety. This shows that if we were like Ngo Dinh Diem, they would not have this liberty. Their speeches only go to show that they have been defeated in all respects and are not able to persuade the people into believing them. There is only one hope for them, that is, when Indonesia sends her troops into Singapore to frustrate the will of the people here. Therefore, through military might and force they hope in the end that their friends in gaol will be released and eventually ride over the heads of the people. [Interruption] You who sit opposite cannot release your friends even if you should form the government because this is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Central Government. The Member for Thomson has been shouting that the P.A.P. have sold out the interests of the Left-wing movement. I ask him: who has sold out whom? Actually they are the traitors. In the past Assembly when some of them were Ministers they had signed pledges. Some of them who now sit here were in the P.A.P. and we were blinded for a time. That is why the Member for Jalan Kayu was elected on the P.A.P. ticket. These are the people who have betrayed the Left-wing movement.

May I remind the Minister that the acoustics in this Chamber are pretty good? So would he not raise his voice too much?

(In Mandarin): I am sorry. So who have betrayed whom? It is they who have betrayed the P.A.P. Their leaders like Woodhull, Lim Ching Siong, and Fong Swee Suan - before their release we had been to see them and all of them had signed a pledge to support our political platform and policies and the principle of independence through merger. There was only one among them who did not betray us, and that is Mr Devan Nair. The rest of them betrayed us in spite of their pledges. I would ask them: how many of them were not former P.A.P. members? The Member for Jalan Kayu was an ex- member of the P.A.P. There are others. At the moment, I am unable to check up P.A.P. records, but it is likely that many of them in this House had been P.A.P. members. [Interruption] You have pledged to abide by P.A.P. principles. Mr Koo Young rose ---

I see that time is almost up.

I might not have any chance to reply.

Well, the Member will have an opportunity to reply at the next sitting.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $506,080 for Head 51 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963.

The remaining Head of Expenditure in respect of which no amendments stand on the Order Paper is Head 14.

Question, "That the sum of $58,000 for Head 14 stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963", put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $203,176,630 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963 contained in Paper Cmd. 29 of 1963", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. 4.39 p.m.

Second Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963 as contained in Paper Cmd. 32 of 1963. We will now deal with the Heads of Expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper. Head D8 - Land Office - Mr Ong Lian Teng.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D8 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 (1) . I would like to know whether this provision for general development includes the purchase of the fire sites at Lorongs 5 and 11. 4.41 p.m.

As far as I know, if there are many families occupying a certain piece of land, the market value of this land is not as high as a piece of vacant land where there are no houses built on it. After the fire at these Lorongs, there will not be any building left on the site and there is no need to pay compensation. Have the Government got to pay a high value for this site? I hope the Minister can give me a satisfactory explanation on this point.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, a sum of $1 million is provided in the Development Estimates for 1963 for the purchase of small parcels of land required for slum clearance and improvement schemes. This vote is not used for the purchase of land on behalf of other Ministries which have separate provisions for the acquisition of land for specific projects, such as schools, clinics, etc. The supplementary provision which is now being sought is required for the following purposes which were not originally envisaged: (a) The prompt acquisition of fire sites. (b) The purchase of land in excess of the actual areas required for a specific project in circumstances which reduce the overall cost of acquisition. (c) The taking up of surplus land held under title and offered by the United Kingdom Services. The acquisition of large areas of vacant private land ripe for development which availability in the open market is known in advance.

(In Mandarin): I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 4.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D8 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 (2) . The Government are asking provision for $408,000 as expenses for resettlement purposes. I would like to ask some questions on this point. Will this amount of $408,000 be used for compensation to be paid to the settlers in the Toa Payoh area which will be cleared for development purposes? In tabling this amendment I do not want to oppose this provision. I just want the Government to tell me. The Minister for National Development has said the compensation rate is not just and the Government is prepared to alter the rate. I note the provisions under other items are very big. But this item of compensation for the resettled people is very small. The Government should take into consideration their interests so that they can resettle in other lands and start a new livelihood again. Especially the dwellers in the Toa Payoh area. In the past, the Government have been trying to solve the housing shortage problem and their livelihood problem, but now we do not condemn the Government's effort in this field, since the Government want to resettle them in other areas. But the problem of 20,000 people who have to be removed to other places is a very grave problem. The Government should take a responsible attitude. In resettling the dwellers in the Toa Payoh area before the scheme starts, I hope the Government will modify the compensation rate and announce it to the people, and also to announce how the resettlement schemes are going to be carried out, because there are various economic activities in the Toa Payoh area. There are farmers, shopkeepers, handicraft workers and horticulturists. Their economic activities are diverse in nature. If the Government pay them the same compensation rate, then it will create a lot of problems. The Government's attitude should be flexible and not adhere strictly to the laws and regulations, and pay $200 as compensation to the florists and the horticulturists. Furthermore, the Government should consider the problem that if these people are resettled on a piece of land which is not fertile, the Government should think of other ways to help them. They should provide alternative employment. The compensation must be adequate in order to ensure that they can start afresh. I do not intend to elaborate on the conditions of compensation. Before they start resettling these people, they should improve the resettlement area, that is, that a supply of water should be provided for those areas and that the Government should see that the land should be suitable for farming. In certain resettlement areas the soil is so poor that the farmer cannot cultivate anything. Therefore, the area chosen for resettlement must be fertile and suitable for farming so as to enable the farmers to carry on their farming activities. I would just like to ask this question and I hope the Government would give me a satisfactory reply.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, if the hon. Member for Choa Chu Kang reads subhead 1 (2) he will understand why the Government ask for the additional provision of $408,000. The answer is given there. It is not necessary for me to give a lengthy answer. The question of resettlement is being considered and the Land Office is merely an agent for acquiring land and for administering the resettlement. I feel this needs no further answer.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Barisan Member opposite the Floor has just now raised the question of Toa Payoh. Everybody knows that the opposite pro-Communist Barisan Members have instigated the settlers in Toa Payoh not to co-operate with the Government in the resettlement scheme. When the project was launched, they unreasonably obstructed the Government's resettlement plan. The Government plan to develop Toa Payoh. This will be carried Out in several stages. Then the pro-Communist elements instigated the residents not to co-operate with the Government and to refuse the Government's compensation terms. Their motive is to obstruct the Government's plan to develop Toa Payoh into a satellite town. Everybody knows that the Toa Payoh plan is to make it into a first satellite town comprising about 600 acres of land and 250,000 people who can be accommodated there. This plan cannot be stopped just because of the instigation and the activities of the pro-Communist Barisan. The Government will bring better livelihood for the people of Singapore. They also have a plan to meet the demands of the people in the face of the rapid increase of population in future.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I do not like the Parliamentary Secretary who, in the course of his speech, mentioned again Communist instigation. What I said was that if the Government had given them adequate compensation, then who would not want to remove? Who wants to stay in an attap house and not want to move into a modern structure? You think they do not want to move into an air-conditioned house but prefer to stay in a dirty hut? The question is that these people do not have money. They cannot remove because the compensation given by the Government is not reasonable. The Minister for National Development has also told us that the Government want to revise the compensation rate, which shows that the rate as in force is unreasonable. So the question is not whether anybody had instigated any of the settlers. The question is the equity of compensation. For instance, if you force hawkers to some site very far away, it will amount to unemployment to these hawkers who cannot ply their trade in the areas they are to settle. Have the Government considered this problem? Have they considered all this? For instance, if bean-curd makers are resettled in areas which are not suitable for their trade, their livelihood will be affected. So I hope the Government can pay more attention and give more consideration to this aspect. I hope they will announce their plans and their compensation rate to the people in order to enable the people to know whether the compensation rate and other things are reasonable. Because in the past many people had the impression that the Government had deceived them by being told that they could go to certain Government departments to get their compensation, but when they returned they found their houses had been pulled down by demolition squads and riot squads. So if the Government can enlighten these people as to the rate of compensation, they will be satisfied. Nobody can be instigated ---

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

I suspend now for half an hour. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5 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 D8 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1 (2) ."

Question again proposed. 5.31 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was talking about the Government's policy in regard to the resettlement and enforced removal of settlers and squatters. The Government are not adopting a policy of an enlightened and democratic government but a policy which is not befitting a good government. For instance, Government officers went round to ask the settlers concerned to move out to some other areas or else they would be moved out by force. As an inducement, they said that the Government would give each of them a certain sum of money to help them to move out, but in the end nothing happened. The promises were not kept by them. This is not the way the Government should carry out their resettlement policy. The settlers did not mean to just stay on the land. There is the question of compensation for the loss of their livelihood. If the Government want them to remove from certain areas, they should take into consideration the loss of their livelihood. On this question, the Government have been playing politics. If they had been defeated in the last election, then during the last stages of their rule, they would have behaved worse than at present. When some farmers refused to remove, the Government used riot squad vans, police, demolition personnel and bulldozers to forcibly evict them. Why did the Government take such inhuman action against the people concerned? Why did they adopt such forceful and brutal means to bulldoze through the houses and the vegetable plots of the farmers concerned? This goes to show that the Government have not been quite proper in the way they dealt with the farmers. The Toa Payoh resettlement scheme involves the livelihood of about 20,000 people. The Government should also think in terms of their economic well-being and livelihood. Because of the limited vegetable plots and limited area for growing agricultural produce in Toa Payoh, the farmers can fetch higher prices for their produce, but by asking them to remove to some other outlying areas, the Government are causing them to suffer a loss. The Government should also see that the areas allocated to the resettled farmers are suitable for agricultural purposes. Also, when these people are resettled in outlying areas, they wilt have to spend more money on transportation. The Government have been telling the public that they intend to help the farmers increase their farm produce and lower their costs of production. They also say that they will develop the rural areas. I do not say that this is not good, but they should, first of all, pay more attention to the livelihood of the farmers and the people concerned and not make this a political propaganda issue. Have the Government-benchers gone round to see these areas for themselves? If they have a conscience, I think they will shed tears when they see the miserable living conditions of those settlers who have been asked to move out, because members of the demolition squad have even used parangs and other tools in a cold-blooded way. The Government have not paid enough attention to the difficulties and economic problems of the farmers and the rate of compensation. On the other hand, they have forced the removal of farmers and they brand those who do not want to be evicted as trouble-makers. If they resort to force and brutality without any consideration for human rights and other things, then these people who are forced to leave their farms and homesteads will naturally show their anger and hatred. So I hope in respect of their resettlement scheme the Government will announce in advance their plans as to the parts of Singapore that will be used as resettlement areas and the sites that will be acquired. They should also publish the rate of compensation and other relevant details in order to help the people concerned to enable them to understand and comply with the Government's plans, so that they will be resettled ---

The Member is repeating himself.

Will the Member for Choa Chu Kang get on to some other arguments? He has said four times that the Government have used forceful methods to pull down the houses, and I think he has made his point there. We have ten minutes more on this item. Can he go on to something new?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have only a few questions to ask. The point I have just mentioned is, firstly, the Government should announce their plans and secondly, the removal of the squatters should be effected only after careful consideration, taking into account the housing problem and the rate of compensation. The Government should use money where it is properly needed and not on community centres, etc.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I tried to be fair to the Member. When I first made my answer, I tried to clarify briefly. It appears to me that the Member for Choa Chu Kang who has asked that the question of resettlement should not be used as political propaganda, has himself embarked on that line. Mr Speaker, Sir, the allegations are that we forcibly evicted these people and broke up their homes. I had no opportunity to speak the other day on a similar matter. He alleges that the police and bulldozers wrecked the houses and that the Malays came out with their parangs. This is a communal matter. He brought in the Malays as well, alleging that they came out with their parangs. It is very irresponsible of the Member to say this. If anything untoward were to take place as a result of what he has said, the responsibility for it should rest squarely on his shoulders. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of resettlement of those persons who are staying in Toa Payoh and who are involved in this scheme I have to say this. If it had not been for the activities of the Country People's Association who are pro-Barisan and pro-Communists, the resettlement scheme could have been carried out peacefully. But because of the whispering campaign and rumours spread by members of the Barisan Sosialis and the Country People's Association among those persons who are involved in the resettlement scheme, these people remain adamant. Also, because they are forced by these irresponsible people they have to stay put. [Interruption] Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask him to withdraw the word "lie" which he has used just now - "bohong" in Malay. I demand that he withdraw that word, Mr Speaker, Sir, I say that it is unparliamentary. Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been stated in this House that the Ministry of National Development will reconsider the question of payment of compensation to the people involved in resettlement, but if the matter is repeated over and over again, it merely shows that the Members opposite want to exploit this situation for political purposes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in charge of matters pertaining to land including resettlement. We do not go and destroy illegal houses while the occupants are away. In fact, we give them two years' notice, and the hon. Member opposite knows it well. It is only after this period that we go about demolishing illegal houses - and that also after having given them a number of notices to vacate. 5.45 p.m. Is this unfair? Is this what you say that we are using forceful methods? If it is alleged that these houses were demolished white the occupants were away, this is completely untrue. Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I know, with regard to most of the resettlement schemes carried out because of Government projects, the Government usually offer alternative sites after serious consideration. In fact, facilities too are provided, such as water supply, roads, etc. Do you know that the resettlement of a family involves an expenditure of about $8,000? The expenditure incurred by Government to purchase land amounts to about $4,000 to $5,000. And then to lay on water supply, to lay on roads, etc. Do the members of the Barisan Sosialis not see all this? If only they will see and be true to themselves, then they will appreciate this. If the policy of this Government is against the interest of the people, I believe the Government would never be able to win the elections by obtaining 37 seats. The people have been cheated twice already. They cannot be cheated a third time. The words which have been uttered by the hon. Member opposite should not be repeated. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken in a parliamentary manner without wanting to involve matters which are irrelevant, but the Member for Choa Chu Kang still brings up matters which have been repeated in this House while the Minister for National Development was dealing with the matter of resettlement. The theme is the same and the person bringing up the matter is the same. Only the date is different. Is there nothing more profitable for us to discuss here than to repeat the same thing over and over again? Even if they say these are constructive arguments, they have ulterior motives. In an indirect way, what they say will defeat the good that the Government are trying to bring about for the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, therefore, I say it is only those whose vision is blurred who cannot see clearly. It is only those who have defective ears who cannot hear the good that is being done by the Government. It is only people who are indifferent who cannot understand and appreciate what good we have done.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a few months ago the Member for Choa Chu Kang made certain allegations against the Government, which were sheer nonsense in order to suit his own theories. He wanted to make allegations in order to win a victory in future, but he was unsuccessful. I have been in this House for several years and I have been on the Housing Board for several years. I myself have been to the Toa Payoh area. When I went there, three or four families had already moved out. 5.50 p.m.

Time is up. Will the Member for Choa Chu Kang indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or have a vote taken?

(In Mandarin): I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $3,258,000 for Head D8 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963. Head D32-

We now proceed to Head D32, Ministry of Finance. Mr Poh Ber Liak.

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, today the House is considering the sum of $12,500,000 for Head D32. I would like to ask the Minister for Finance whether in the past ---

Will the Member move the amendment first and then say what he likes to say on the subject?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D32 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 8. Mr Chairman, unless the Minister for Finance can give adequate replies to my questions regarding the achievements of the Public Utilities Board, I think we will have grave doubt as to what this sum of $12,500,000 will be used for.

I do not want to be difficult. The Member asks what are the achievements of the Public Utilities Board. Now, I am not in charge of the Public Utilities Board. He knows that the Public Utilities Board provides the State with water, light and gas. Now, in what respect is he dissatisfied with the performance of the Public Utilities Board, and in what way? What further details does he want? If he is dissatisfied with a particular aspect of the Public Utilities Board, perhaps he would like to say exactly what is troubling him. Because if he wants to ask for the achievements of the Public Utilities Board, I say the best thing for him to do is to read the Annual Report of the Board.

Mr Poh Ber Liak.

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, the Minister for Finance desires that I should give details with regard to my dissatisfaction with the P.U.B. Let me now give you certain facts. In the first place, I wish to bring your attention to the supply of electricity. We can see that in the Katong area and Tanglin area, where rich people live, there are street lights in the roads and the small lanes, and there is an adequate supply of electricity available to the residents there. But, on the other hand, in places such as my own constituency and Changi 7 m.s., there is one area still solely occupied by Europeans and this place is adequately supplied with electricity because it is a place for the rich people. But in slum areas the situation is entirely different and cannot compare favourably to areas occupied by the rich people. Although we do not deny the fact that we should supply electricity to the rich, we cannot deprive similar facilities to the poor. In the area that I have in mind, there is not an adequate supply of electricity and installation of street lights. This is a contrast to those places occupied by European and rich people. I can give you another example. At 6¾ up to 8¾ m.s. Tampines Road, there is an inadequate supply of electricity in this area.

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are discussing the Development Estimates and I think this is no time to go into details of particular areas where there is not enough lighting. The Member has made his point there is not enough lighting. If he thinks that the rich get preference over the poor, all right. Having established that, let us go to the next point. This is not the City Council --- An hon. Member: Malu-lah!

Order.

--- debating where to put street lights and so on. For heaven's sake ---

I would ask Members to refrain from any comments when the Minister for Finance is on the Floor. Whether the Member is out of order or not is for me to rule without any help or comments from others. Mr Poh, we have only got ten minutes more. Have you made all your points, or do you want to give some more examples? I think you have made your point, that in some places there is electricity and in others there is none. There is no need to go into some more examples. Can you proceed?

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, I am giving you all these details in order to satisfy the Minister for Finance who has asked me to provide details to show my dissatisfaction. There are many other places with which I am not satisfied, but I just give you enough examples to show my dissatisfaction. I do not want to proceed further with my examples. 6.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tampines - I do not know how his mind works - it is a one-track mind, discrimination.

Mr Minister, I do not want any comments on how the mind of the Member for Tanglin or the Member for Tampines works. If you have anything to say on this particular subject, I will listen to you. But if you are merely commenting on Members of the Opposition, I am not prepared to allow you to go on.

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. The Member says that in the poor areas - the squatter areas - there is no street lighting. Before we can put up any street lighting under the Local Government Integration Ordinance, I think, it is stated that the streets must be made up to certain specifications. Now, the areas he has mentioned where there is street lighting, these streets are made up to certain specifications, specifications acceptable to the City Council, to the Public Utilities Board, and therefore the street lights are installed. Here is another point. The reason why we do not allow unauthorised houses to be put up is that they are put up in a disorderly manner and it is impossible for us to lay streets which are worthy of our city and which are, shall I say, acceptable means of communication. It is not a question of whether that area is poor or whether that area is rich. It is a question of which area is well planned.

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, I have never talked about houses or unauthorised structures. I am just complaining that in the areas occupied by the rich men, even in small lanes there are street lights; whereas in places occupied by the poor people, whose occupants far outnumber the rich in certain areas, there is no provision of street lamps. That is my dissatisfaction which I am raising to show to the Minister for Finance at his request. But all of a sudden you have an Acting Minister for Finance who talks about houses and unauthorised buildings.

About street lights the Member must remember that the building of street lights has been going on for perhaps 150 years, and not all the street lights in Singapore today were built in the last 4½ years under the P.A.P. Government. True, in the past there was preference for Europeans, we do not deny that - during colonial times - and I agree this happened. So, what does the Member want us to do? Pull down the streetlights in Tanglin? Surely not. No, the way to do it is to make sure that electricity goes to places which were neglected in the past. At present, the Government have worked out an emergency scheme whereby electricity can be conveyed to villages which formerly had no hope of getting electricity. The way of doing it is not to maintain the high standards of electric mains in the rural areas, where they have to dig ditches and have underground cables, but to have electric cables on poles. An extensive system has been worked out and planned, and the scheme will be put into operation. For all I know, it might have already started in certain areas, but certainly the money for the extension of electricity supply to villages has been approved. And, of course, this thing has been going on for the last 4 years. But surely the Member for Tampines does not expect very much to be done in 4 years - one and a half centuries of colonial neglect to be set right by the P.A.P. in 4 years. I mean, that is being completely unreasonable. Now, perhaps for the record, I should say just what this $12.5 million is for. This year the Public Utilities Board, that is the Gas Department, the Water Department and the Electricity Department engages in capital construction projects to a very substantial amount, something like $50 to $60 million a year, and that is excluding major capital undertakings like the Pasir Panjang Power Station or the Johore River Scheme or the Scudai River Scheme. These development projects will be the extension of water mains, electricity mains, gas lights, the installation of substations and so on and so forth. For a lot of the capital for such extension works, the departments themselves were able to meet from their current revenue surpluses. It was because of the major undertakings that the P.U.B. are now having in hand - that is, the power station in Pasir Panjang, which will eventually cost something like $70 to $80 million, the Johore River Scheme and the Scudai Scheme - that they find that they will not be able to meet the demands of both the major projects as well as their normal expansion projects. That is why they have to come to the Government for loans. These loans are on fairly reasonable terms for 20 years at 5¾ per cent simple interest, and they will help the P.U.B. to bring about just the services that the Member for Tampines wants, that is, electricity to the villages, water mains wherever it is possible. But we have to remember this, that it is also not possible to provide electricity or water to each and every home in Singapore. Supposing a group of 3 families at the end far away from the main lines, I mean just to run the lines there will cost such a substantial amount that it would be subsidising these 3 families. But where there are compact settlements of 100 homes, 50 homes, it will not be long before most of these rural areas will be provided with electricity. I hope my explanation satisfies the Member for Tampines.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanation and because the Minister himself has admitted that rural areas have been neglected in the past and he has undertaken to look into the matter, I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $12,500,000 for Head D32 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963. Head D37-

(In Mandarin): I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D37 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 9. [Silence]

The English translation never came through. The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head D37 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 9. Dr Goh Keng Swee.

The bonded warehouse at Keppel Road has not been completed.

(In Mandarin): Since it has not been completed, why are the Government proposing to spend a further $400,000? How is this money to be spent? Can the Minister reply?

The Member will find the information from Cmd. Paper 32, page 2, Head D37 under subhead 9. A sum of $400,000 was made available for an advance account to meet the cost of piling for the current year. Before you can build this warehouse, you have got to put the piling.

(In Mandarin): I would like to ask when will this bonded warehouse be completed?

In fact, the sum for the completion of this warehouse is in the Development Estimates which was passed yesterday.

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

(In Mandarin): I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $400,000 for Head D37 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963.

The remaining Heads of Expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper are Heads D54 and D58. Question, "That the sums stated for those Heads* as they appear in the Summary of Totals on page 3 of Paper Cmd. 32 of 1963 stand part of the Second Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963", put and agreed to. *Following are the heads of expenditure: Head Title $ D 54 Immigration and Passports 336,290 D 58 Public Works Non-Recurrent (General) 235,000

Question, "That the sum of $16,729,290 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Second Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963 contained in Paper Cmd. 32 of 1963" put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly. 6.15 p.m.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions. Resolutions reported --- "That the sum of $203,176,630 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963 contained in Paper Cmd. 29 of 1963." "That the sum of $16,729,290 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Second Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1963 contained in Paper Cmd. 32 of 1963."

Sir, I beg to move that the Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Supply on the said resolutions.

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

6.18 p.m. Order for Second and Third Readings read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with. The Main Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year 1964 have been considered and approved by the Assembly as Cmd. Paper 30 of 1963. Under Section 85 of the Constitution of the State of Singapore Heads of Expenditure other than statutory expenditure to be met from the Consolidated Fund have to be included in a Bill to be known as a Supply Bill. The purpose of such a Bill is to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the sums necessary to meet that expenditure and the appropriation of those sums for the purposes specified therein. The Supply Bill before Members is to give legislative authority to direct special approval for the issue of funds from the Consolidated Fund to meet the sums of expenditure shown in the Estimates of Expenditure for 1964. Once the Supply Bill is approved, I will be empowered to issue warrants authorising expenditure up to the amount under each Head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Will the Minister please proceed?

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

6.21 p.m. Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [9th December, 1963] to Question [9th December, 1963], "That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to:- `We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government on the 29th November, 1963.'.". -[Prime Minister]. Which Amendment was, at end, to add - "; but this Assembly regrets that the Government in helping to impose Malaysia on the people has caused great difficulties and hardships to them in Singapore and urges the Government to take immediate steps to persuade the Central Government to get rid of foreign interference, negotiate with the Indonesian Government, and resolve all existing differences to our mutual benefit, and so help to bring stability, peace and prosperity to South-East Asia". - (Mr Chia Thye Poh). Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

As I have indicated before, the debate can range over the whole of the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara as well as over the amendment. Other than the mover of the original motion, that is to say, the Prime Minister, the Members who have already spoken on this debate will not be allowed to speak once again. Those who have as yet not spoken will be given a chance to speak. When last we adjourned this debate, the Member for Jalan Kayu had the Floor. Will he indicate whether he wishes to carry on or whether he had finished his speech then?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the past one week the debate in this House has revealed several matters and facts. I will talk about these facts. The first fact is to show that the reactionaries in Singapore and Malaya have been led by the nose by the British, who imposed Malaysia on the people here, resulting in difficulties and hardships. All these can be seen from the evasive attitude of the Ministers. The second fact is that the P.A.P. resort to dirty tactics. They are opportunists and they dare not face realities brought about by Malaysia. They are making use of propaganda and other tactics to put the blame on the Barisan Sosialis. This is a very low tactic and is despicable. The third fact is that the Prime Minister is dreaming of the P.A.P. being able to supersede the M.C.A. in the Federation. This can be seen from his speeches when he came back from London. When he came back from London, he said that it was only the P.A.P. who could fight the Communists. It is very low and mean of them to appease the British and curry their favour. Another point is that this House is full of foul words. Every now and then they talk about Communist bogeys. Even their Back-benchers indulge in such low tactics. The P.A.P. dare not face the Central Parliament. Therefore, they have to resort to the use of the Communist bogey. We hope the Ministers and the Party in power will be calm in their attitude and to discuss with us how to urge the Central Government to resolve the differences between Indonesia and Malaysia. They should not play party politics and bring hardship on the people of Singapore. These are the characteristics of the debate in the past few days. Now, let me talk about what the Prime Minister has said. In moving his motion, the Prime Minister has said that when the Yang di-Pertuan Negara came to this House to deliver his speech there was no gun salute. That means that the power has been shifted to the Federation. It is not the shifting of the power, but the sell-out of our power. The people of Singapore are very concerned about this power. They are not concerned about the question whether there should be a gun salute when the Yang di-Pertuan Negara comes to this House. What the people in Singapore are concerned about is their citizenship problem; whether there is equality on the issue of citizenship, whether there is equality in their political rights, whether their present problems and their livelihood can be solved or not. These are the questions which our people are concerned about. But we find that the Government Ministers and their Back-benchers dare not face stark realities. Their speeches tend to evade the fundamental problems affecting the people's livelihood. Instead, they use all sorts of epithets to cover up their sell-out of the interest of the people of Singapore. And they try to describe Singapore as a paradise in South-East Asia. I want to reiterate what I have said in the past. That is, what we have said and done is right. They are motivated by our desire to look after the interests of the people. We have said that Malaysia was brought about by colonialism and imperialism to replace the so-called divide-and-rule policy of the past colonial regime. This divide-and-rule policy can be seen in other territories as well. We are able to see that Singapore has been going backwards, retrogressing, politically and constitutionally. Mr Speaker, in the past the people of Singapore made great sacrifices to secure a semi self-governing status for Singapore. If the Government could be united with the people and continue with this kind of struggle in order to achieve full internal self-government, then it would be very good But, regrettably, after the establishment of Malaysia, the ruling clique in Singapore has collaborated with the Central Government in surrendering all the rights and interests to the Central Government, thereby resulting in the people of Singapore losing equality in the economic and political fields and other rights. In the past the Prime Minister told us that we would get equality and a fair chance in respect of citizenship rights. Since the citizens from the Federation of Malaya could come to Singapore, we should also be allowed to go to Malaya to take part in all sorts of activities. Otherwise it would be a kind of sell-out. Judging from the present situation, Singapore's position is one that is being ruled. We are losing our natural rights, and in the end Singapore will become a colony of the Federation. At present we have only obligations and duties. We have no rights in return. We have the obligation to pay taxes but we have no right to receive anything out of these taxes. The Ministers and Government Back-benchers have never dared to mention this question. According to the Prime Minister, we have stepped into a new phase in our history in achieving independence through merger with Malaya. This kind of phrase has been used to deceive the people. It is used as a kind of propaganda to deceive the people. Malaysia has been brought about by the British in collaboration with the Federation of Malaya. It was also abetted by the P.A.P. Government. Malaysia has been brought about through the joint efforts of the three Parties. They even went to the extent of resorting to force to bring about Malaysia. They arrested anti-Malaysian nationals in order to achieve their purpose. Now that these people in Sabah and Sarawak have been arrested, they have now come to Singapore to arrest these people. The Prime Minister should admit these facts. They talk about the United Nations Investigation Commission to the Borneo territories to inquire into the wishes of the people in regard to the establishment of Malaysia. In fact, they were only sent there after the Malaysia plan had been conceived and even carried out. If the result showed that the people did not agree to merger and Malaysia, then what would be their next step? We know their tactics. Ngo Dinh Diem could remain as the President even though the majority of the people hated him. So this does not show that if you have a certain amount of votes you have the support of the people, because the Government has control over the election machinery. It does not show that if you are in power you have the support of the people. It does not also mean that the results of the U.N. Investigation Commission have reflected the true wishes of the people there. Therefore, the series of incidents consequent upon the establishment of Malaysia go to explain why the British and the P.A.P. wanted to bring about Malaysia as quickly as possible. Their motive was clear to all. There are many reasons for them to do so. I will just mention a few evil things that they have done. Many members of our Party have been arrested. Even our Assemblymen have been arrested. These are some of the evils that they have done in collaboration with the colonialists and reactionaries. Some are forced to go into hiding. I believe that if Government were to bring them to open court for a trial, they would not run away. They have smeared us as rioters in the past. Yet we did not run away. These people who have now been arrested are innocent. If you were to set up a court and bring them to open trial, would they run away? I believe they would not run away. They would come out courageously to face the trial. Certain civic organisations have been banned by the Government on the pretext that they are pro-Communist. This is also another deception. The real reason is that these bodies are actually looking after the interests of the people. They are in very close contact with them. Their relationship with the people is very good since they are furthering the interests of the people. Since you are anti-people and jealous of their good relationship with the people, you have no other alternative but to ban these organisations in order that you might gain something out of the situation. [Interruption]

Would the Member address the Chair and not Members of the Government? Would Members of the Government allow the Member to proceed in silence? Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, it is said that these organisations are traitors. They say they are engaged in subversive activities. If that is the case, how can they receive so much support from the people? If they are traitorous, the people will know about this - [Interruption]

The Member has not even got up on his feet for 30 seconds before he is interrupted. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we can say that a traitor will be hated by the people. You do not have to arrest him because wherever he goes he will be ostracized and despised by the people. He will die a natural death. Following these arrests, the P.A.P. Government launched other arrests such as the arrests of Nanyang University students and other people. They are thus causing panic among them in order to achieve their aim of destroying Chinese education. They also want to bring about a general reign of terror among the people. The next step was to take action against the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Singapore because he was not so obedient to the P.A.P. We can see this very clearly from the newspapers. Mr Tan Lark Sye, who has been supporting Nanyang University with all his might and wealth, was deprived of his citizenship by the P.A.P. Government.

There is a Legal Committee going into the question of Mr Tan Lark Sye's citizenship. Before the Member goes any further, he must not make any comments on matters which are sub judice.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. I will not touch on that. I merely want to show that a millionaire is not a Communist. Since the case is being heard in camera the people will not know about it. Otherwise I would not have mentioned it. Do they think that by their action in suppressing the people ---

The English translation seems to have broken down. I am sorry to have to interrupt the Member. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): So no matter how much the Prime Minister and the Ministers may evade their responsibilities and put the blame on the Central Government, they cannot escape the results of their responsibilities and actions. All these have been brought about by them. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on the fancies of our Singapore Prime Minister who dreams about becoming the Prime Minister of Malaysia. From his speeches recently we could see that he had been indulging in souring up the good relationship between the M.C.A. (Malaya) and U.M.N.O. in order to achieve his purpose of becoming the Prime Minister of Malaysia. We and even the Tunku himself could see through his intrigues. The Tunku is not a fool. We can make an assessment of the political development and the situation in Singapore and Malaya. His hopes can never materialise, because, first of all, the interests of M.C.A. (Malaya) and U.M.N.O. leaders are closely related. The Prime Minister cannot achieve his purpose. The second point is that some of these P.A.P. Assemblymen have come from U.M.N.O. Before the P.A.P. was a political power, the U.M.N.O. and the Singapore People's Alliance had had an agreement between them.

(In Malay): On a point of order. This does not relate to the present debate.

The debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech is very wide. It covers so much ground. It is difficult to say what is relevant or irrelevant. But on this particular matter, I rule that the Member for Jalan Kayu is being relevant. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Even the Tunku can remember these facts and they cannot be obliterated and denied. The Singapore Prime Minister's fancy to become the Prime Minister of Malaysia is really his own personal fantasy, because at the moment all the rights and powers of the people of Singapore are already in the hands of the Federation. The people of Singapore have been deprived of every right and power. Unless the Prime Minister can stay in the Federation for about ten years to get citizenship papers from the Federal Government, he has no chance of seizing power and becoming the Prime Minister of Malaysia. I would like to tell you this fact. His fancy will lead him nowhere. In the end he will get nothing.

Order. The Member for Jalan Kayu has repeated three times that the Prime Minister desires to become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Can we go on to something else? He is repeating himself here. I think he has made his point clear. Please do not repeat but get on to some other matter.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I was trying to persuade the Prime Minister not to indulge in fantasy by enumerating facts and events and I was putting forward my arguments for his benefit. If the P.A.P. have a brother party in the Federation of Malaya like the Socialist Front, then perhaps there can be a political future for them in the Federation. But since the Socialist Front and those in the socialist camp have kicked them out and have condemned them as stooges of neo-colonialists, they therefore cannot achieve their ultimate aim of seizing power in the Federation. The most important thing is that the British have now found that the Tunku is more capable of looking after British interests in this part of the world than the P.A.P., otherwise they might have a chance. Mr Speaker, let me now touch on some of the utterances made by the Minister for Labour. The Minister for Labour has been rather unique in his speeches in the last few days ---

Order. We are not debating the Minister for Labour or what the Minister has said for the last three days. We are debating the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and the amendment to the speech. Can the Member leave the Minister for Labour alone and what he has said in this Assembly? Otherwise we will go on to that. I have tried before to prevent personal attacks.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is because the Minister for Labour had attacked us after we moved this amendment. So I am just going to deal with several points in his speech to show his hooliganism. The Minister for Labour appears to be a good candidate for Assistant Anti-Communist Minister of the Ministry of Culture. His speeches are full of grandmother's talk. And in this respect he is similar to the Minister for Culture. Mr Speaker, Sir, I greatly suspect that because the Minister for Labour has been successful in this respect, he has been able to become a Minister. This is very welcome to and appreciated by the British, because the present Minister for Labour has learnt well from the Minister for Culture in calling others Communists.

On a point of order. The Member should not be talking about the Minister for Labour, but he has been for the last two or three minutes talking about the Minister for Labour and nothing else.

We are not discussing the Minister for Culture or the Minister for Labour. I appreciate the Minister for Labour has spoken on this debate. The Member for Jalan Kayu may, if he likes, make references to what the Minister has said in his speech on this debate, but otherwise please make no references. So he is not in order in attacking. Can we get on to the subject matter of the debate?

On a point of order. Perhaps we may be of some assistance to the Member for Jalan Kayu if a short adjournment is given so that he can rearrange the paragraphs, otherwise he will have to proceed according to what was planned for him.

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

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, here is a newspaper of the 10th of December. Here you have a full coverage of the speech by the Minister for Labour on this page and on the other page [Indicating]. So I am going to quote, if I want to quote from the newspapers, it will take a lot of time, but I do not desire to do so, i have to point out here, Mr Speaker, that "Communist" is an expression which has been used by the reactionary and colonial elements against patriots of countries all over the world. For example, the British, the Federation, the P.A.P., in order to take action against the national patriots in this part of the world, have resorted to the adoption of this expression. Without using this tactic, they just cannot do anything against the Barisan Sosialis. If they want to have an open trial against us, then we will be acquitted and discharged. Those found guilty will be the P.A.P. - guilty of treason and treachery. Let me give you some more facts, Mr Speaker. I was talking about Ngo Dinh Diem, who called the nuns and the monks in South Vietnam Communists. Before Lee Kuan Yew became the Prime Minister, he was also called a Communist. You can refer to the back copies of the newspapers. So let me tell you the use of "Communist" against political opponents is the best method ever available. As I have said last week, Mr Speaker, Communists existed in the past. As far as I know, there are no Communists now. The Communists came into existence against the Fascists of the Japanese in Singapore and Malaya. They took up arms against the Japanese and later on against the British in the national interest. Now there are no more Communists. But the Barisan Sosialis, which is a legitimate Party registered according to the law, has also been branded Communist. It is a pity that they have to resort to this means of calling their political opponents Communists. This only goes to show their inability and incompetency. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour said last week that Singapore was a paradise on earth. His talk was full of exaggeration. He described life in Singapore as happy and gay. I give you one illustration. When he has gained the favour of the Prime Minister, of course, his life is happy and gay. Why? Because he gets a salary of $2,500 a month as a Minister and he gets another $500 a month allowance and he has a car.

On a point of order. The Minister for Labour is getting $2,500 a month salary. What has that got to do with the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech?

The Member for Jalan Kayu seems persistently to want to attack the Minister for Labour in spite of my ruling. Please forget the Minister for Labour. Let us get on with the debate. Otherwise there will be further attacks from this side and we go on and on forever. Mr Tan.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just basing my talk on the facts related to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. His speech is full of smears against the Barisan Sosialis. Now, if we cannot explain away their points, that will amount to admitting that the Barisan Sosialis is to be blamed for the confrontation. So, in order to show that they are trying to indulge in humbug propaganda to deceive the people, I wish that you will give me sufficient time, Mr Speaker, to explain the position clearly in order that the people of Singapore will not be misled by the P.A.P. As the Minister said in his speech, Singapore is a paradise on earth comparable to New York in America, and he says that Singapore is the New York of Malaysia. If you can say, according to facts, that Singapore is the New York of Malaysia, then we will be very happy. Then they try to compare Singapore with Indonesia and say that Indonesia is a hundred times worse off than Singapore, but this is entirely the business of Indonesia. Of course, we wish to have a happier life. We have a chair, we want to have a sofa, that is a natural desire. The people want to improve their livelihood from time to time. That goes without saying. So I am just trying to say that if you want to get the salary of the Minister as the basis to say that Singapore is a paradise, of course, it is true, but true only to the Minister. There is one other question I wish to ask the Minister for Labour. Why has he seen fit to evade the mention of workers who have to work under the hot and burning sun year in and year out? Why has he failed to mention the fact that these labourers and workers are unable to earn enough to keep their body and soul together, that they are unable to have a decent life? Now, why has he failed to mention all these facts? He should have mentioned taxi-drivers and trishaw riders as the basis in saying whether Singapore is a paradise on earth or not. There is mounting unemployment in Singapore. Students who have passed out from school will go and join the ranks of unemployed labour. There are many graduates from the secondary schools who are still unemployed after years of graduation. Are these not facts? Mr Speaker, I hope that those people, particularly the Minister for Labour, who say that Singapore is a paradise on earth will go round Singapore Island and see the large number of beggars and shoe-shine boys in the city of Singapore. They have only to sit down in Chinatown and then their legs will be pulled by these shoe-shine boys. Now, why should they do this, why should they behave in this manner? They do so because they are forced by circumstances, because of their miserable life. Are these not facts? If the Ministers do not believe in what I say, they can go to the People's Park for some time; then they will agree with me. If they appreciate these facts, then they will not dare to indulge in the nonsense that Singapore is a paradise on earth. Then they also stand up, on the other hand, and say that Singapore has not sold out Chinese education. Our colleagues have already mentioned certain points in this regard, but I wish to add to their views. The Minister for Labour drew an analogy by saying that the neighbouring countries were trying to destroy Chinese education and that they were quite successful. But it is a pity that he should have drawn an analogy on this basis. If he is right, then there is no point for the people to struggle for a better life. I am going to tell you now that the situation regarding education is not as he said. He said that the teachers are getting good salaries, the students are well dressed and well fed. But there is one point which he forgot, that is, the security of employment of some teachers. If they do not get the favour of the Party or the principal, then their jobs will be insecure. Then there is another point. There are many parents who wish to send their children to aided schools in Chinese, but the vacancies are all taken up. So the only thing that they can do is to go to English schools. Is this not the way by which they take action to destroy Chinese education? They talk about the outlet of the Chinese school students. They are not fairly treated in so far as employment is concerned. The Senior III graduates even find it difficult to get jobs as teachers in the Chinese schools. This also shows that this is the best way to force children not to go to Chinese schools, to narrow down their outlet in order to divert children to English schools in future. I am going to mention that the Minister for Labour is full of the colonialistic outlook in his speech. There is one paragraph here in which he says that the amendment moved by the Barisan Sosialis, to urge the P.A.P. to get the Central Government to negotiate with Indonesia, is a means by which we wish to have foreign interference in our local affairs. He goes on to say that if we should abolish all British bases in Singapore tomorrow, then we will become an Indonesian colony. This is what he has said.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, it appears that the Barisan Sosialis are not debating the speech of His Excellency but the speech by the Minister for Labour. It appears to me that he is being irrelevant to the speech by His Excellency.

It is relevant to reply to or make comments on the speeches of Members on the debate in question, provided, as I have said, there are no personal attacks. Please proceed, Mr Tan.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the Back-benchers of the Government have not heard what the Ministers have said and they have not even read the newspapers about what they have said. If they had, they would know that the Ministers' speeches dealt with the amendment. But I will forget about them now and go back to the debate. Here I wish to say that the speech made by the Minister for Labour was purely in defence of the rule of the British colonialists, because the British colonialists have no locus standi in this Chamber, and so the Minister for Labour has come up to speak in defence of the British colonialists. He becomes the mouthpiece of the British colonial masters. In the past they were very fond of using such expressions as "anti-national elements" and the rest of it. I think it is more appropriate that such phrases should be used on the P.A.P. Members. It is they who are anti-national, they who are loyal to foreign forces and powers, it is not we in the Barisan Sosialis who are so. I have a few points to draw your attention to, Mr Speaker. For example, the Minister for Labour said that the people of Singapore will have no chance of getting independence if we should drive away the British because Indonesia is a big power. So if we should drive the British away, the Indonesians will come in and then we will have no chance to become independent. In other words, you must either be ruled by the British or by the Indonesians. That is their argument. They say Malaysia will bring prosperity. Now this is again another humbug. I will put it the other way round. Malaysia brings neo-colonialism in this part of the world. The Minister for Labour said also that the British have got bases in Singapore for well over a hundred years. True, nobody can ever deny it. I agree that the British have got bases in Singapore for well over a hundred years, but I must ask - in all these years, what have the British bases in Singapore done? Are they here against possible Indonesian aggression? No. Indonesia became independent only during the last decade. Did the British make use of military power in Singapore to exploit us, economically and politically? Mr Speaker, the last point that I raise will be of interest to the Minister for Culture. I hope that the P.A.P. will try some means to resolve these differences between Malaysia and Indonesia and improve the trade relationship between the two countries. First and foremost, why did the Indonesians want to carry out confrontation? According to the Government's report the Indonesians suffer more than we do. I have some doubts whether this is wholly a political matter. Why does Indonesia want to oppose Malaysia? Is it because the first front-line is S.E.A.T.O., and the second front-line is Malaysia which serves to safeguard political and economic interests? If it is so, then we have to review the question of Malaysia in the context of South-East Asia. While there are countries which want to keep their neutrality, the U.S.A. is trying to safeguard British and U.S. imperialist interests. If they cannot do so, then they will remove Ngo Dinh Diem and company so as to suppress the people. Now, when they fail in these objectives, is this not what they want to carry out in this part of the world, by using Malaysia for their purpose? We should kick out the British imperialists. We do not want them to protect us. We can look after ourselves. If we are peaceful and sincere in our negotiations with Indonesia, I dare say they will not carry on with confrontation, because they suffer more than we do by it. Another point is that the Indonesians have much experience in getting rid of imperialists. The Dutch were making use of West Irian to sabotage Indonesia and were trying to undermine the social order in Indonesia. That is why Indonesia is afraid that the foreign powers are trying to make use of Malaysia to undermine the security of Indonesia. If this is so, then we must try to bring about negotiations to resolve the differences. They should not indulge in abusive arguments which are not worthy of themselves. 7.18 p.m.

I hope that when the next Barisan Member opposite gets up he will not continue to utter a long string of rubbish ---

Order. Is the Member going to speak on this debate or is every Member, when he gets up, going to make wonderful comments on Members of the Opposition the first thing he does? Get on with the debate. I do not want any more personal attacks, and if you persist, Mr Ng, I am going to stop you before you go on further.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw what I have said. Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Address of Thanks moved by our Prime Minister on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech on behalf of our Government on Friday, the 29th of November, 1963. Furthermore, it is my most sincere hope that this House unanimously express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. The Barisan Sosialis Members, in the course of their speeches, have made countless repetitions of false allegations against the People's Action Party Government. Their speeches were more or less similar and sometimes identical in many respects, so much so that we on the Government benches wondered whether the Barisan Sosialis speakers were attempting to out-read one another. However, these repetitions only revealed that they have nothing concrete to say apart from glorifying Indonesia, and that they are still consoling themselves and nursing their wounds which they suffered at their unbelievable and miserable defeats in the general elections last September. The Barisan Sosialis Members have tried vigorously to shift the blame on to the P.A.P. Government for the unemployment and the Indonesian confrontation which has resulted in an 8.7 per cent drop in our economy. It is actually the Barisan Sosialis who are to be responsible for these external threats. No one in his proper senses can forget or deny that Indonesia supported Malaysia when it was first brought up. But when Indonesia saw that anti-nationalist and pro-Communist elements both in Singapore and Sarawak were opposed to Malaysia, they were led into believing that Malaysia would fail and could easily be crushed. Consequently they mounted a confrontation policy against Malaysia. All these were brought about through the instigations of the Communist Barisan Sosialis; as a result of which trade relations between Indonesia and Singapore were severed, thereby causing a drop of 8.7 per cent in our State's economy and rendering a few thousand workers jobless. Our Government, however, took the unprecedented step together with the employers concerned to pay a two-third's salary compensation for six months for each worker affected so as to enable the worker to look for another job in the meantime. As a new nation, Malaysia today has to face both external threats and pressures. But if Malaysia is to survive and flourish, then I say it is the paramount duty of every citizen in Malaysia to be ever loyal to our nation. In fact, the Indonesian confrontation has done us a great service in further uniting the people. I was happy, Mr Speaker, Sir, when I observed Barisan Sosialis Members taking their oaths of allegiance on 22nd October, 1963, but today I am sadly mistaken. Why is this so? Because it grieves me to see that on the one hand they swear allegiance and collect their $500 monthly allowance as Assemblymen, but on the other hand they condemn Malaysia as a British-inspired neo-colonialist concept imposed on the people. But can the ten million people in Malaya, Singapore, Borneo and Sarawak be wrong in wanting to have Malaysia? After taking their oaths, the Barisan Sosialis Members have never at any time admitted that Malaysia exists. They only talk of Singapore and Malaya. Let me once again remind them that anyone who actively aids and abets aggression against his own nation is a traitor and for that ---

Order. The Member for Punggol has bud occasion to remember that I stopped the Minister for Culture from calling the Opposition traitors. So please refrain from doing the same thing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I put it this way: let me once again remind them that any man who actively aids and abets aggression against his own nation will be severely punished. The Communist Barisan Sosialis Members opposite have not answered our questions put to them. I therefore challenge them to answer the questions again. (a) On whose side are they - on the side of Malaysia or Indonesia? (b) Do they want things to get better between Malaysia and Indonesia, or do they want them to get worse? And (c) What they have said over the past week on confrontation and loss of Indonesian trade, is it going to make things better or worse for Singapore? On the education policy of the State, the Member for Jurong alleged that our Government is trying to destroy Chinese education and culture, and asked why there is such a marked difference in the proportion of students in the four streams of education. The allegations are absolutely not true. In fact, our Government is trying to raise the standard of Chinese education in Singapore; also it is a fact universally acknowledged that equal treatment of education is accorded to the four streams of education in Singapore - namely, Malay, Tamil, Chinese and English. There is also free universal education for six years in primary schools. There is a marked difference in the proportion of students in the four language streams because every parent in Singapore has a right to choose the type of education he wishes his child to pursue, and for that matter they are frightened by the agitation of the Barisan Sosialis in Chinese schools, such as strikes by students and examination boycotts. Every year more than 40,000 children are registered for education in primary schools in the various language media, and every registered child has a place in school. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is clear proof that the P.A.P. Government gives equal treatment in education. In the P.A.P. 1963 Election Manifesto, it was proposed to implement free secondary education as from 1964, but this proposal has to be postponed due to the setback in the State's economy as a result of Indonesian confrontation, which the Barisan Sosialis proudly claimed in their Party paper that they started. Who are to be blamed for all this? Yes, the Barisan Sosialis of course, for this! Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not trying to paint a rosy picture about the PAP. Government's past achievements, for they are all evident; but I have to state the naked facts in answer to some of the wild and empty accusations levelled at our Government by the Barisan Sosialis Members. It is also not our habit to glorify our success. Mr Speaker, Sir, the rural areas are not forgotten. Rural development projects are taking place in almost every rural constituency. Kampong electrification schemes and street lighting are carried out. More public standpipes are installed; better kampong roads are constructed; bridges spanning canals and streams and many other social amenities are now extended to the rural folks. All these developments are not brought about out of thin air as the Barisan Sosialis have claimed, but by careful calculation and intelligent planning on the part of the Government. Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I once again urge that for Malaysia to survive and flourish, we must be solidly united and ever loyal to the people of Malaysia - not as the Barisan Sosialis are to the Indonesian Communists. We must be ever alert and continue to carry on the relentless struggle and check against infiltration into schools, trade unions, old boys' associations and other civic organisations by the Communist united front cadres. We must not allow ourselves to believe that all important activities beyond our control have now been shifted from this Chamber to the Federal Parliament in Kuala Lumpur, and that we can sit back and relax; but we must persist vigorously in our constant and unyielding efforts to bring about a prosperous society through careful planning of the political, social and economic policies. Only in this way can we win the ultimate battle for democracy in Malaysia.

As I have said, I notice that only two Opposition Members have not spoken. I do not want the position to arise where all Members of the Opposition have spoken and we will then have only Government Members to speak on and on. So for this reason I am letting Mr Rajaratnam take the Floor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first business session of our Assembly and it is an occasion when every Party - the Government and Opposition Parties - sets the course for the next few years and for the future. So, I would like, as I said sometime ago, to give in all sincerity and without any sarcasm on my part - the Opposition some friendly advice. Sir, listening to them with regard to this amendment, I have a distinct feeling that they have not thought out the consequences to themselves collectively and individually if they were to vote for this amendment, which they have been instructed to bring into this Chamber. So I propose to convince them, so far as it is possible for me to do so, that by voting for this amendment they are going to be trapped into a course of action fraught with a greater danger than what their predecessors encountered. I hope that for their own good and welfare, they will give more serious consideration than their predecessors did to our prognosis of what is in store for them. Sir, on 23rd November, 1961, when merger was discussed for the first time, and when we on the Government side gave our reasons why we thought that the Communist and Barisan Sosialis effort to halt Malaysia would fail and end in disaster, there were many Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen then who laughed. May I quote, Sir, the concluding portion of my speech which I made on 23rd November, 1961? It is in Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 7, cols. 547 and 548: `Anyway, it is my contention that the Barisan Sosialis have miscalculated for the reasons which I have indicated. Today in this debate it will be possible for the Members of the Barisan Sosialis to dismiss them as fairy tales. They can dismiss our contention today ..... that the Barisan Sosialis is fighting the M.C.P. battle against Malayan nationalism as a fairy tale. But there will come a time very soon when merger is finally realised and the M.C.P. gives the signal to launch a do-or-die offensive. [This was said, Sir, two years ago] ... When that time comes, the battle lines will be clearly drawn. There will be no equivocation then, because there will be no no-man's-land. There will only be a thin red line dividing the forces of Malayan nationalism from the anti-nationalist forces. I said then: `When this battle comes, there will be no rescue parties, because all the contestants will be in the battle-field taking position on this or that side of the line.' This prognosis was made two years ago. At that time the Barisan Sosialis laughed it off as P.A.P. bravado. They then jeered back and claimed that, on the contrary, it was the P.A.P. who would be washed away by the wrath of the masses. At that time, they were flushed with the victory which they obtained at Anson by the betrayal of one of their own colleagues. I may in passing say that this act of political betrayal by the Communists has been thrice avenged. The Member for Kampong Kapor, whom they stabbed in the back, has been returned to this Assembly! We have also regained the seat that we lost in Anson! And finally, the man whom the Communists put into power at Anson has not only lost his seat, but also his deposit! Sir, at that time in November 1961, the Communists were so confident of their strength that our warning of why they could not halt merger was disregarded. May I, Sir, make one last quotation from the prediction I made then? I also prophesied in the speech which I made two years ago that some people in the Barisan Sosialis and - I quote: `.... can opt out of the battle in the nick of time, provided they get their timing right. I understand, Sir, that some people are already passing the word around that they may cease being students of politics to take up law or medicine abroad.' Well, Sir, that has come to pass.

Order. Can the Minister get back to the debate? He has spoken on his previous announcements and on two gentlemen. Unless he can satisfy me that all that is relevant, I think he should press on.

Sir, what I would like to say is this. Once again, the same decision that their colleagues made in November 1961 will have to be made today by the seven Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen and their friends outside this Chamber. It is my contention that being anti-Malaysia before 16th September of this year is something different from being anti-Malaysia after 16th September. This is because, to use a Marxist term, there is a "qualitative" difference between being anti-Malaysia before 16th September of this year and today. I think it is necessary for them to understand that, because, as I shall try to show, this adventure that they are embarking upon is one that involves great risk. Before 16th September, opposition to Malaysia was at least superficially an internal political struggle. There was a legitimate difference of opinion between Malaysians as to whether Malaysia should be set up and whether Malaysia and merger had the approval of the people. Therefore, the Barisan Sosialis could have then claimed that in campaigning against merger and Malaysia during the referendum and during the general election, they were engaged in a perfectly legitimate, constitutional, and possibly patriotic struggle. And the price of defeat then, Sir, was at best a loss of political face and of seats. But today, as I have said, there is a qualitative change. Malaysia has been set up with the consent of the vast majority of the people. This fact has been endorsed not only by the elections in Singapore, Sabah and Borneo, but also by a U.N. survey team. What is more important, Sir, is that Malaysia has been accepted internationally as a political reality. Despite the intense lobbying by the Indonesians in the United Nations, the vast majority of the 113 nations who compose the United Nations have accepted Malaysia as an independent political entity. Hon. Members opposite also know that the Russians, the Communist countries - everybody - voted for Malaysia to share a seat in the Internal Security Council of the United Nations. This is a very important position. Malaysia shares the seat with Communist Czechoslovakia. Therefore, internationally Malaysia is accepted as an independent nation. All these people who say that it is a neo-colonialist plot are ignorant because the 113 members of the United Nations know that, by the rules of the United Nations, no country, except an independent country, can be accepted as a member. In passing, Sir, may I also observe that when our Ambassador in Washington sent out invitations to celebrate Malaysia Duty, many East European Communist countries attended the function to celebrate Malaysia Day? Therefore, Malaysia is accepted nationally and internationally. It is a political entity, an independent State. May I also point out that the eight Barisan Sosialis Members took the oath of allegiance to Malaysia? So everybody has accepted that constitutionally and legally Malaysia is a State. Therefore, in persisting in their anti-Malaysia struggle, the Barisan Sosialis are now dedicated to the destruction of an established Malaysian State, a State to which they have sworn loyalty, and which the vast majority of Malaysians support, and which is now recognised by the United Nations. That is one qualitative difference in the anti-Malaysia struggle before and after 16th September. I hope the Barisan Sosialis will carefully follow my next step of the argument because literally - Sir, I am not talking metaphorically - it is a matter of life and death to them if they do not know the distinction. They may accept or reject the essence of my speech, but they do so at their peril. If they persist in their anti-Malaysia struggle today, the stakes involved are pretty high. The stakes are not Assembly seats or loss of political face, but the stakes involved this time are not only their patriotism, their loyalty to the country and its people, but also their lives. To put it bluntly, Sir, the anti-Malaysia line today, i.e. after 16th September, must lead logically and inevitably to acts of treason. "Treason" is not used in the rhetorical sense of the word, Sir, but in its legal and constitutional sense. I would like to read the relevant portion on offences against the State. It is the Penal Code (Cap. 121): `Whoever wages war against the Queen [this now means the State of Malaysia] or attempts to wage such war or abets the waging of such war shall be punished with death, or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine.' Sir, I am not being frivolous about this. For the first time I do not want to taunt them unnecessarily because this is a serious step they are contemplating - today or tomorrow, when they have to vote on their own amendment. I shall try to convince them that it is a trap or a noose set around their necks by the men who manipulate them. Sir, my thesis today is this: to fight or to try to overthrow Malaysia is logically to involve themselves in an act of treason; the Barisan Sosialis must become a party to treason. Sir, those who direct the Barisan Sosialis - I am not interested in the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen because they have been talking all sorts of frivolous things, but the people who really run them - have analysed the situation and have decided that the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists of Malaya cannot capture power in Malaysia either by violence or by constitutional means within the foreseeable future. Here is evidence of that, Sir; as you know, the M.C.P. were engaged in an armed revolution for eight or nine years, and failed. And they have admitted this failure. In fact, I would refer the Barisan Sosialis not to my thesis but to a statement called Ends and Means of Socialism which Mr Fong Swee Suan and Mr Lim Ching Siong among others signed. These two gentlemen, together with Mr Devan Nair and Mr Puthucheary, and others, showed logically why it would be impossible within the foreseeable future for the M.C.P. to capture power by violence in Malaya and Malaysia. This is even more important, Sir - Chin Peng at the Baling Talks admitted that much. When the Tunku put a point-blank question to Chin Peng, "Do you, Mr Chin Peng, regard me as a British stooge?", the reply of Chin Peng as contained in the White Paper was, "No, Tunku. I regard you as a leader of Malayan nationalism." This is the biggest admission by the leader of the armed revolt, a man far more intelligent and far more dedicated than any of these gentlemen - that the Malayan armed revolt had failed. [Laughter] Sir, the Member for Jalan Kayu is laughing. I ask him to read the memorandum contained in The Battle for Merger, which is an analysis by Lim Ching Siong. It is a very important and a very intelligent analysis - why it is impossible for the Malayan Communist Party ever to capture power in Malaya by violence. So, Sir, armed violence is out. In the recent elections and the referendum we have proved another point - that the Communists cannot capture power by constitutional means in Malaysia. So it is out - the M.C.P. cannot capture power by violence or by constitutional means. The referendum has shown it: the recent elections have shown it. What then becomes the role of the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists in Malaya? They cannot capture power by constitutional means or by violent means So what is their role? That brings me to the third step of my argument - that the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis can capture power only by aid of foreign arms. This, Sir, again is not a wild allegation on my part. I say that the role that has been allotted to them by their masters, who are manipulating them either here or in Indonesia, is the role of Quislings or Wang Ching-wei. It is not because these people relish that situation but because they have no choice. The only way the Communists can survive is at the point of foreign bayonets. In fact, Sir, the real leaders who write their speeches which are delivered here by their representatives knew as far back as January 1962 before confrontation started - and the Barisan Sosialis are aware of this - that armed intervention must take place in order to break up Malaysia. Many of us will remember, Sir, that in January 1962 the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Lim Ching Siong, held a mass rally long before confrontation came into the picture. He said, "We realise that the moment is coming when we too will receive the support and help of other peace-loving people to free us from colonial domination." Where? You can look around, Sir. Obviously it is not America, not Britain, not China as it is too far away, not Russia. Which country is the peace-loving country?

Across the Indonesian Ocean.

Indonesia. In 1962, Sir, which is over a year ago, the Barisan Sosialis, or at least those who manipulate the Barisan Sosialis, were preparing for the time when foreign bayonets must save the situation and continue the anti-Malaysia struggle. Again, in April 1963, that was before the old Assembly went to the polls, there was a debate here when Dr Lee Siew Choh, who always reads other people's speeches, ended his speech in this Assembly with the following warning. He had lost the referendum and he knew what was coming; his masters knew what was coming. He said: `If the last door to constitutional struggle is closed to the people, then there can remain hut one final answer, i.e. the British and the P.A.P. rein in their horses on the brink of the precipice and turn back before it is too late.' What was he saying? He said that if Malaysia went through, that meant the constitutional battle was lost and there must be other means. What means? Dr Lee Siew Choh is not going to lead violence. He is a good chess player, I am told, and a bad rugger player. He cannot lead violence. Who then? Indonesia. Sir, I could give other quotations. Therefore, Sir, today this is their course - the course of treason is inevitable. This amendment, Sir. All right, these were mistakes of the past. This is the first business session of the Assembly. And this amendment. What does it prove? Does it prove that the Barisan have changed, and realised, from their mistake, that it was a folly to fight Malaysia? No, Sir. Here is the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and an amendment is put. When a Party puts an amendment, it means that that is the subject which it holds most dear. They say that they are Malaysians, shedding tears about the suffering of the people, about housing, roads, electricity and kampong people. But what is the amendment they have put here? Is it related to housing, roads, houses for the people, sufferings of the poor? It is an amendment that relates to the problems of Indonesia. Let me read how it is worded, the way in which it is worded. I do not think it is worded by them. I will tell them why it has been worded in this way. It says: ` "; but this Assembly regrets that the Government in helping to impose Malaysia...." '. Sir, nobody believes that Malaysia has been imposed. There was a referendum and an election. But this is an Indonesian argument. It is being put here because this amendment is going to be reported in Indonesia to give the impression to the Indonesian people that there is agitation and a fight against Malaysia, and therefore they can sustain their anti-Malaysia agitation in Indonesia. Finally, Sir, time is short. They must think why they have been forced to bring this amendment here. Why have they been forced? They know the amendment is going to be defeated. So why do they bring it? The amendment will bring them into greater disrepute. The people will know that this is a pro-Indonesian amendment. It will not be of great advantage to the Barisan Sosialis. I will tell you why, Sir. Their masters, knowing full well that the course of the anti-Malaysia struggle must lead to acts of treason, carrying penalties which I have read out, want to ensure that these friends of theirs do not wriggle out when the moment of danger comes. Once these people have publicly committed themselves to this pro-Indonesian amendment, there is no retreat. That is what they want. They are helping to put a noose around their own necks. Sir, may I conclude by a little quotation from The Revolutionary Catechism which has been praised by Lenin and which constitutes part of the organisational style of Communism? One of the first things they should note, Sir, is a piece of advice from the Revolutionary Catechism: `All real revolutionaries should have second and third string revolutionaries under their command, i.e., they must be able to control those who are not yet completely initiated. These lower members of the revolutionary order should be regarded as revolutionary capital placed at their disposal. When a comrade is in danger it may be necessary to determine whether he is expendable.' Sir, after listing the various categories of people who should be expended, they mention the fifth category which should be of great interest to them: `The fifth category of expendable people consists of compromisers, doctrinaires, conspirators and revolutionaries. Those who orate away at meetings or on paper, they must be constantly driven into ambiguous positions. They must be compelled out into the open and assume real and dangerous tasks. The majority of these will disappear, but of the rest, we shall make genuine revolutionaries.' This is what is happening to them, Sir, the moment they approve this amendment publicly. They know very well it is going to be defeated. But they are committed. The noose is round their necks. Treason carries the death penalty. Sir, what the confrontation ---

Order. The Minister is repeating himself now. He talks about treason. He has said it about three times. He talks about their putting the noose around their necks. Can we wind up?

Sir, it took two years for the former Barisan Sosialis to realise what we said was true. This time, I can assure them, it will not take two years. It may be a matter of months before what I say here will come true. I am prepared to stand by it. I am prepared to quote it to the Gentlemen who may be here or who may not be here, but I can assure them that this prediction will come true, not in two years' time, but in the course of the next few months. What do we read in the newspapers? Confrontation means Indonesian terrorists going to Sabah to blow up things - sabotage. We have read of Indonesian bombers flying over Sabah territory with the bomb doors open. This time there were no bombs. I read in the papers today (this is the final quotation) Soekarno saying that they must solve their economic problems (it is in the Malayan Times today) within three months, which means that economic confrontation obviously is hitting Indonesia so hard that he has given instructions to end the crisis in 90 days, i.e., three months. So if they do not end their crisis in three months, confrontation can mean anything. But what it will mean to the honourable Members opposite is something which I hope they will take into serious consideration, whether by voting for this amendment they are going to set the course to disaster - where the price is very high - or whether, as I have said, they can opt out. Sir, the best time to jump off a moving train is when it has started to move, not when it is travelling at 60 m.p.h. Today the train is moving at 5 m.p.h.; tomorrow at 10 mph.; and then it is time to get off. I can only quote them the banner which I saw in a film called On the Beach, it says, "There is still time, brother." Well, I say, "There is still time, comrade." 7.58 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know by now what confrontation means to the people of Singapore; what burden it has brought on the shoulders of our people in Singapore - [interruption].

Order. We have only got one minute.

(In Mandarin): This great burden brought about by confrontation clearly means that in so far as Singapore is concerned, the onus of the burden is greater than what it is on the shoulders of the Federation people. As has been admitted, the burden on Singapore, brought about by the Indonesian confrontation policy, can only he solved by the Central Government. That being so, we are clear that the repercussions of confrontation act differently on Singapore and the Federation. So, since the final say lies with the Federation, we, as representatives of the people of Singapore, have the duty to urge the Central Government ---

Order. I am sorry to interrupt. But the Member will have the Floor when the debate is resumed. It is the moment of interruption. Will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate the date of resumption?

Tomorrow. Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.