Hansard, 1963-12-18

I understand the Prime Minister wishes to make a Ministerial statement of urgent public importance at about half-past Four, and he has asked me leave to do so. I am prepared to grant leave, subject to the approval of the House. No dissenting voice? We will then carry on with the business on the Order Paper. At about half-past Four, I will stop the matter under debate and allow the Prime Minister to make the statement. Questions for Oral Answers, Mr Sim Boon Woo.

asked the Minister for National Development when will the roads and jetty at Pulau Ubin be repaired.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to Question No. 1 is that work on the repair of roads and jetty at Pulau Ubin will commence next year.

asked the Minister for National Development when will the land for Malay settlement at Ayer Gemuroh be levelled and when will it be distributed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Work Brigade will commence initial work at the Malay settlement at Ayer Gemuroh in 1964. As soon as road works are completed, and lots plotted, the Board of Management, Malay Settlement, will look into the question of allocation.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he will take immediate action to repair Siak Kuan Road off Padang Terbakar and supply street lamps to the kampong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Siak Kuan Road, off Padang Terbakar, is included in the programme for the making up of agricultural roads. Work will commence as soon as funds are available on approval of the Development Estimates 1964, which have been approved. Provision of Street lamps to the kampong is under consideration. This will, only be installed on completion of the road.

Will the Minister please signify the recommendation of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before he introduces the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill?

I so signify, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled, "An Ordinance to amend the Trade Unions Ordinance (Chapter 154 of the Revised Edition)". Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir, I lay on the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Yes. Copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with. I also have a Certificate of Urgency by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to proceed with the Bill through all its stages under Standing Order No. 81. In my statement at the sitting of the Assembly on 11th December, 1963, I have already touched on the matter of the setting up of a one-man Commission of Inquiry to look into and examine the financial transactions of three deregistered trade unions. I have already recounted to hon. Members how unscrupulous and mercenary anti-national leaders of unions could usurp the funds of the workers towards purposes inconsistent with the objects and rules of the unions to the detriment of the unions and danger to the State. In order that the interests of the workers may be safeguarded, the Government now consider it necessary that the Bill before the House should be taken through all its stages and passed on a Certificate of Urgency. As I have stated previously, the reason for bringing in the Bill on a Certificate of Urgency is obvious. The Assembly will be adjourning shortly and it is necessary that the Bill be passed in order that there will be effective legislation to prevent trade union funds from being frittered away illegally and dishonestly. The Government at present have no power to deal with the funds of unions which are deregistered or are being given notices to show cause why they should not be deregistered. The Trade Unions Ordinance which was passed in 1940 did not foresee that there are so-called trade union leaders here in Singapore capable of taking away large amounts of money of the workers for purposes known only to their secret masters. As a result of this, once a union is deregistered, the money of the union is left at the mercy of the union leaders. Amongst themselves they can do anything they like with the money. Although union rules require them to distribute the money to the general members, in most cases this is never done. In fact, in the case of the Singapore General Employees' Union, the Secretary-General, when called upon by the police to explain why certain amounts of money were expended, disappeared with some union minute books. So you can see how dangerous it is to leave large amounts of money in the hands of union officials who are capable of going underground at any moment. They do not have the workers' interests at heart. The workers' money is not used to further the interests of the workers. It is being used for some inexplicable purpose. On 3rd September, 1963, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara issued a writ to dissolve the previous Assembly and ordered fresh elections. Everyone knew that elections were coming and elections cost money. And it was exactly on this day, the 3rd of September, that leaders of the three unions, viz, the Singapore General Employees' Union, the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, and the Singapore Bus Workers' Union decided to withdraw large amounts of money from their banks. I can leave it to you to draw your own conclusion as to what they intend to use this money for. The Government cannot afford to be complacent in this matter. If we are to protect the interests of the workers, I am sure hon. Members will agree that stringent and urgent action must be taken to deal with the situation. At present the Trade Unions Ordinance does not empower the Minister or the Registrar of Trade Unions to freeze the bank accounts of any trade union if information is received that the union intends to utilise its funds for any purpose contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance or the rules of the union itself. While the Registrar has power to apply to the Court for an injunction to restrain any trade union from unlawful expenditure of its funds, this process in law, however, is not practicable especially when the matter has to be dealt with on an immediate basis. Because the present Ordinance does not provide the necessary powers, the Registrar of Trade Unions could only advise banks holding the accounts of unions to suspend payment of any cheques drawn on them. Although in the case of the three deregistered S.A.T.U. unions the banks co-operated with the Government, they were in a difficult position as the Government's request had no statutory backing. This being so, the banks would therefore be liable for damages if they were sued by their clients. As Government had perforce to freeze the funds of these unions, it was necessary, therefore, for the Government to give a categorical assurance that it would indemnify any legal costs arising from any proceedings as a result of their failing to honour the unions' cheques. Despite action taken by the Registrar to request the banks to withhold withdrawals which might be initiated by these three S.A.T.U. unions, two of the unions, however, were able to withdraw about $30,000 from their accounts in a number of banks before the banks could receive Government's indemnification assurance. The new section 15A provided in clause 2 of the Bill will now enable the Minister, where he is satisfied that the funds of any unions may be misused, to order any bank in Singapore not to pay any money or to cash any cheques of the unions for a period not exceeding three months. Non-compliance with this order will make the manager of the bank liable to punishment as set out in subsection (3) of section 15A. Subsection (2) will, of course, absolve the bank of any liability arising from compliance with the order of the Minister. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 18 of the Ordinance, and this amendment is necessary having regard to the new section 18A provided under clause 4. The new section 18A in clause 4 of the Bill will obviate any undue delay in the winding up and disposal of funds of unions which have been dissolved on the grounds that they have not applied for registration or where their registration has been refused, withdrawn or cancelled. There are many instances where unions that have been dissolved have still to wind up and dispose of their funds. A glaring instance is that of the Singapore Factory and Shop Workers' Union, which was deregistered in 1957, and to date it has still to wind up and dispose of its funds. Hon. Members will, therefore, see that the powers sought in the new section 18A are necessary. Once a trade union is dissolved, the assets of the union will vest immediately in the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy so that he can proceed to wind up the affairs of the union. Any surplus assets after providing for all debts and liabilities will, if the Minister directs, be paid into the Consolidated Fund; or where no such direction is made, will be disposed of as provided in the rules of the trade union in question. It is very necessary that the assets of the dissolved trade union should vest in the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy to prevent officials of the union from making any withdrawals on the accounts of the union held by any bank between the period when notice has been given by the Registrar of Trade Unions to the union of the intention to dissolve such union, and the actual date of dissolution if dissolution takes place. I have already recounted instances of such irresponsible withdrawals in my statement of 11th December. This will make very interesting hearing when the Commission of Inquiry sits to look into the matter. The new section 18B gives retrospective effect to the Bill so that the unions deregistered or cancelled prior to the date of 11th December, 1963, can be dealt with in the same way. I would like, therefore, to commend this Bill to the House so that it can be taken through all its stages and passed at today's sitting. I do not propose to overemphasise how essential it is for Government to be given the powers sought in the Bill. Any person having the interest of the workers and the protection of the funds which rightfully belong to the workers will undoubtedly support the enabling measures that will be vested in Government by the amendments proposed in the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that the P.A.P. Government have now tabled this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill shows that they are taking further action against the workers. This will thus deal a blow to the workers who do not allow themselves to be controlled by the P.A.P. The P.A.P. have always boasted in the past that it is their intention to have an open argument. But this so-called open argument and competition has not been used in the true sense. As a result of their insincerity in the so-called open argument and competition, the Government have taken action to ban some trade unions and have arrested their leaders. Some of the workers and their leaders who went on strike were assaulted. Apart from this, the P.A.P. Government have also made use of the State machinery to break up the non-P.A.P. union strikes. This can be seen from their repressive actions in the past. Seven unions were dissolved. The application for registration by S.A.T.U. was also turned down. The Naval Base Workers' Union strike, which lasted about thirty days, was a legitimate strike. But it was broken up by the P.A.P. by illegal means and despicable methods. In spite of all these actions, the P.A.P. have discovered that they have not sufficient powers to deal with the workers whose only wish is to struggle for a better life and improve their working conditions, which are their legitimate rights. In spite of all these actions, the workers are as united as ever. They are as adamant as ever. This fact has worried the P.A.P. very much. That is why the P.A.P. are now taking a step further. They are abusing the legal and State machinery by tabling this Bill, which is an attempt to gain control over the unions' funds. In other words, unions which do not support the P.A.P. can be controlled by the P.A.P. There are provisions in this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill which empower the Minister to freeze a union's funds deposited in a bank for a period of three months when the Minister is satisfied that the funds may be misused. We know that workers have contributed to the trade unions' funds by way of monthly subscriptions. Therefore, the disposal of the funds should be decided by the workers themselves and not by the Minister and the P.A.P. The funds should not be interfered with. The trade union officials have been elected by the workers themselves. They have been entrusted to administer the funds. They are held responsible to the workers and members of the unions. So long as the workers of the unions agree to the action taken by their elected officials, and so long as the administration of the unions' funds is not inconsistent with the rules and regulations of the unions, the Minister should not be given any right to interfere with such administration of the unions' funds. In fact, nobody should be allowed to interfere with them. The phrase "satisfied that it is likely that the funds of the union may be misused", is actually typical of Fascist methods. It seems that only the Minister is able to decide whether a union's funds are being used in the right and proper manner. We know that if the Minister is given this power, then he may make use of this power as an excuse to take action against the union which refuses to be under the control of the P.A.P. Trade union funds come from the workers themselves. They subscribe to these funds in their own interest and for union activities. They can be considered as the capital of the workers for their union activities. If their funds can be frozen at the whims and fancies of the Minister, then the workers will face great difficulties in carrying out their activities. They will have no financial backing if they wish to increase their wages through legitimate methods. For example, if members of a union decide to stage a strike or take any other industrial action, which is their weapon, to fight for better working conditions, then the Minister may, if he so desires, break up this impending strike or even if a strike is on. He does this by exerting pressure on the bank to freeze the funds of the union in question. If a union is not able to withdraw its funds from the bank, how are the workers to have any means of livelihood during the period of the strike? How are they going to maintain themselves during the duration of the strike and their activities in connection with the strike? In the case of the Naval Base Union, the Government took action to freeze the funds of the union when the strike broke out. All the banks were instructed not to meet any payment on their behalf. As a result of the Government's action, the strikers met with many difficulties. There are other cases. There is the example of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Strike action was taken by some branches of this union. Action was taken by the Government to control their funds. They therefore faced similar difficulties. If the Minister is given these dictatorial powers, then the workers will face difficulties in the event of a strike. In fact, these powers will give the Minister many opportunities to break up the legitimate strikes of non-P.A.P. unions. This is my first point. The second point I wish to draw your attention to is this. If the workers wish to support the strikes of other unions, that is, by giving material and financial aid, the Government can, by virtue of these provisions in the Bill, abuse their power and freeze the unions' funds. These provisions are meant to prevent certain unions from making use of their funds to assist other unions and other workers who are on strike. Apart from this point, if such dictatorial powers are given to the Minister, then, in the event of the unions desirous of expanding their activities, and if the Minister does not like certain unions to expand their activities, he will again resort to the powers contained in this Bill to freeze the union funds.

On a point of order.

What is the point of order?

This is the sixth time that he has mentioned about the Government freezing the funds of the trade unions. He need not have to talk for two hours on just one reason - the freezing of union funds.

There is one clause which deals with the point, and the debate is on that clause. Though he is using the same expression, he is using it in a different context and using different reasons. I rule that he is in order. Please proceed, Mr Chia.

(In Mandarin): The Minister can even go to the extent of abusing his powers, contained in this Bill, to threaten certain unions. That is to say, if the Minister does not want certain unions to carry out certain activities in the trade union movement, then he will again take action to freeze the trade union funds. Even when certain unions want to carry out legitimate activities of a cultural nature or, in other respects, to raise the cultural standard of the workers and make use of the union funds for publication purposes, if the P.A.P. desire to stop the activities of these unions, the Minister again can freeze the union funds in order to prevent such activities from being carried out. If these undemocratic powers of a dictatorial nature are given to the Minister, then we can see that the P.A.P. will, by way of this Bill, take action against those non-P.A.P. unions and drive their members over to the other side, namely, the side of the P.A.P.-controlled trade unions. So since the P.A.P. have failed to control the non-P.A.P. unions, they are now resorting to legal means to further suppress them. The P.A.P. always claim that these unions are indulging in open front Communist activities, and so it is necessary to have this Bill to take action against such unions. But let us look at the facts. This is a document from the Malayan Trades Union Congress. After the Committee came to Singapore for a survey, they came to this conclusion as contained in this document: `The Singapore Government always make use of the State machinery and other governmental facilities to help the National Trades Union Congress in Singapore, but neglect those other unions which do not endorse the Government policies.' This point has been admitted by the Minister for Labour. In this memorandum the Malayan Trades Union Congress officials continue to say that those trade unions which do not endorse the P.A.P. Government's labour policies always have their leaders intimidated on all sorts of excuses and harassed unnecessarily. Such excuses like anti-national elements, open-front Communist workers and the rest are common expressions used by the Government against them. This is the conclusion arrived at by a third party from an objective point of view. So the so-called "pro-Communist" and "anti-national elements" are but expressions used by the P.A.P. against non-P.A.P.-controlled trade unions if the P.A.P. fail in other ways to deal with them. If the P.A.P. fail to gain their support by legitimate means, they will turn round to brand them as Communist controlled and take action against them. This again is another example to show how one can give a dog a bad name and hang him. In this Bill there is also a provision stipulating that the Minister can, in the event of the dissolution of a trade union, direct that the funds be put into the Consolidated Fund of the Government. As we have already said, the funds of a trade union come from the workers by the accumulation of their subscriptions over years. The workers have to work very hard to build up their own funds to safeguard their rights and to enable them to have financial means to carry out their trade union activities. 3.08 p.m.

So how these funds should be used should be decided by the workers themselves. In the event of the dissolution of any union, the members of that union may desire that the funds be used for the welfare of the workers. Therefore, the disposal of such funds should be in accordance with the trade union rules or according to the desire of the members of the dissolved union. It is not proper for the Minister to direct that the funds of that union be put into the Consolidated Fund, thereby depriving the members of that union of their legitimate rights. We know that even in the Federation of Malaya or even in England, trade union laws do not have the provision whereby trade union funds can be forcibly put into the Consolidated Fund, which amounts to confiscation in the event of the dissolution of the trade unions. In this amending Bill, there is also another provision whereby the Minister's direction that the trade union funds can be put into the Consolidated Fund will have retrospective effect to the 11th of December, 1963. Now this provision is even more unreasonable. According to the present Trade Unions Ordinance, before the Government can freeze the funds of any trade union, an injunction should be applied for in the High Court of Singapore. That is according to the present Trade Unions Ordinance. But in the past, when the Government froze the funds of seven unions of the S.A.T.U. group, the Government used illegal means in freezing their funds. Now the Government are trying to pass a Bill to legalise their illegal acts in the past. For example, recently the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union wished to make use of the union funds in the bank. According to their rules, the funds in the event of the dissolution of the unions should be distributed among the members. Now the Government are trying to race against time to pass this Bill in order to prevent the members of this union from having a share in the union's funds. If any law is to be given retrospective effect, it is improper, and it is even more improper if the P.A.P. should try to make use of this Bill to legalise their illegal acts in the past. Now if legislation is to serve the interests of the P.A.P., then the P.A.P. can make laws and break laws. Then where is democracy? Where is the rule of law? We find, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill is a Bill unprecedented in the history of the trade union movement in Singapore. It is a most undemocratic and dictatorial Bill. If the Government should force through this Bill, then we must condemn them strongly and they should be held responsible for any consequences.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am looking at this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill as a piece of legislation, and as a piece of legislation, I see three objectionable features of the Bill. First of all, the Bill is made retrospective to be applicable to unions which were being closed down before this Bill has been discussed or passed. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, any democratic government recognises as a fact that retrospective legislation is a very bad thing. As far as I know, in other democratic countries no government has ever attempted to try to introduce retrospective legislation because, if once the door is opened, we will not know where we stand tomorrow. For instance, today we have freedom of speech in this Assembly, but tomorrow we may not have it here. The speeches we make before such a Bill is passed can also be made effective retrospectively. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the second objectionable feature of this Bill is that the Minister will have the power to seize the funds of a union which he does not approve. Now when a member joins an association, he is like a shareholder buying shares in a public company. May I state, for instance, a public company is mismanaged or some of its officials have misappropriated the funds or invested them in contravention of the objects of the company. There is nothing to prevent a government in future, based on this precedent, from seizing the funds of that company and putting the, likewise into the Consolidated Fund. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, very soon we might find many public companies in Singapore being mismanaged - funds being lost, the shareholders lodging complaints with the Minister. [Interruption] I beg your pardon.

Are you worried about your company?

I have no company. I think the Ministers should investigate how many shares they have in companies they should look after their own shares in companies! Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is very unfair to expropriate the funds which rightly belong to the members. When a person becomes a member of a union, or an association or a company, he has complete trust that the articles and rules approved by the Government will be carried out to the letter. Now we have a Bill which will supersede all the previous rules and constitutions approved by the Government, and it will enable the Government to seize control of the funds of the members. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, clause 4 which gives power to the Minister to seize union funds is most objectionable. If the Government have any reason to close down a union - any reason that they can give - the funds should rightly go back to the union members. The third objectionable feature, Sir, is that this Bill gives too much power to the Minister. My view is that trade union funds rightly belong to the members. The Registrar of Trade Unions has a legal duty to discharge to see that the funds are not misappropriated or misused by union officials and, for this reason, the best way is to strengthen the Registry of Trade Unions. Clause 2 of this Bill enables the Minister to act on information given to the Registrar. The Registrar might have obtained false information. You may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that at one time there was some false information about Tommy Koh, a university student who was supposed to be with student pickets, whereas he was actually in Cameron Highands, This sort of thing might happen again. An informer might lodge a complaint with the Registrar of Trade Unions that a meeting is to be held on a certain night and that the union funds will be appropriated. The Minister, acting on this information, will immediately freeze the union funds. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is sufficient provision in the Penal Code to institute criminal breach of trust proceedings against any union official who misappropriates or misuses union funds. Therefore, Sir, I feel that this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill should not be passed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a little while ago, the Member for Jurong raised a hue and cry over this Bill. We know why he has made such a strong protest against it. Before the elections, the Barisan had been warned that once merger took place, every step would be taken to check the pro-Communists from manipulating the unions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our object is to prevent them from using the unions and other civic organisations for activities which are inconsistent with our national interest. Their allegation that precautionary or whatever steps we take to checkmate them are detrimental to the workers is far from the truth. This is the very Bill that we are introducing in order to protect the interest of the workers. I will explain to this House how the pro-Communist elements in the unions manipulate the unions and union funds. I will dwell on this point later. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at present the Trade Unions Ordinance has provision to deal with such matters. But this is an old Ordinance which does not make provision to cope with the situation that we are faced with at the moment - that is, the manipulation of the trade unions by the pro-Communists. If they had been honest and served the interest of the workers, we would not have had to move this Bill to amend the Ordinance this afternoon, in the present Ordinance, there is provision to say that in the event of a union being deregistered by the Registrar or dissolved on its own resolution, the assets and funds of the union should be distributed according to its rules and constitution. If there are people who are genuinely looking after the interest of the workers, the present Ordinance will have sufficed. But, unfortunately, we have an unscrupulous group of persons who are manipulating the unions and they find ways and means to overcome the provisions of the Ordinance, not only to exploit the workers but also their funds - as they say "the sweat and blood of the workers". This is exactly so, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir; we know that that is the workers' money - from the sweat and blood of the workers. And we want to preserve it. That is the present position with regard to the Ordinance. When the three trade unions were served with notice of cancellation - mind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, only a notice was served to ask them to show cause why the registration of the unions should be cancelled; the Registrar had not taken action yet, and they had ample time - two months' time - to convince and satisfy the Registrar why the registration of the unions should not be cancelled - the general election was around the corner and we had information that the people behind these unions intended to withdraw large sums of money not for use in the interest of the workers but in the interest of the Barisan. Therefore, the Registrar had to take action to preserve the workers' money. After the election, that is, after one month of the notice served by the Registrar, the so-called officials of these unions with their legal adviser threatened the bank to allow them to withdraw a sum of money. We were not aware of this until the money had been withdrawn from the bank. Immediately the Registrar came to know about this withdrawal, he wrote a letter to the unions and their legal adviser. They replied to say that this sum of money was withdrawn to pay for the services of their comrades Mr Woodhull, Mr Fong Swee Suan and Mr Bani, immediately the Registrar wrote to them that this was an unlawful use of union funds. Their own legal adviser wrote back to admit that that was unlawful. Therefore we told them, "All right, now you have withdrawn this sum of money. Will you please put it back into the bank?" But no, they still clung to that sum of money. But when the Registrar threatened to take action against the legal adviser, the latter, probably from his professional point of view, quickly passed back the money to the union officials. Therefore, we had to chase after them for this sum of money. Ultimately they went underground, the minute books and other things disappeared. For this reason, the Registrar was compelled to report the matter to the police. Anyway there will be a Commission of Inquiry which will look into this matter. So I will not go into details. The next point is this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, If their argument is that while the notice was served they needed money to defray administrative expenses, there was no such hurry. They were asked to show cause within these two months why the registration of the unions should not be cancelled. If they had any bill to pay, what they could do was to tell the shops or any one who pressed for payment, "All right, the Registrar has seized our funds at the moment. So during these two months, we will have to await the decision as to whether the Registrar's notice will be withdrawn - that is, no cancellation will be effected - or whether the registration of the unions is cancelled." Even if the registration of the unions was cancelled ultimately, the bills could still be paid, because there was a rule to the effect that the unions had to pay for whatever liabilities they incurred. Therefore, the outstanding debts could be paid. Therefore, there was no hurry whatsoever for the unions - especially these three unions that were under notice - to threaten the bank to allow them to withdraw large sums of money. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these are the main causes that have motivated us to move this amending Bill so that the Registrar will have power to seize the funds of a union when it is served with a notice, otherwise the money of the workers will not be safeguarded, or it will disappear for some motives other than in the interest of the workers. The Member for Jurong has said that this is a repressive law to obstruct the trade union movement. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can he cite an instance? Can he point out in what way the workers will be affected by this Bill? Of course, he has cited that in case a union calls a strike it cannot withdraw its funds. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the words used here are "Where a notice has been given by the Registrar to a trade union". Now if a union has done nothing wrong and has not been served with a notice, of course, it is not affected by this Bill. So in what way will this Bill affect or hinder the workers in the struggle for better terms and conditions of service? Of course, he has mentioned that we have exercised our power to freeze the funds of the Naval Base Workers' Union. That is not true. We have never done that. He has also mentioned that this amendment will affect the unions in their expansion of union branches and in promoting cultural activities. That is untrue. Any union can expand its branches and promote activities, but this can only be done if its constitution provides for such activities. They also mention just now that even the Federation have no such similar Ordinance. Again that is not true. At the moment, the Registrar of Trade Unions in the Federation has full power to make directions on the use of union funds when a union is under notice. Of course, they say that this is a dictatorial piece of legislation because the Minister can exercise his discretion. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in clause 4 of the Bill which proposes the new section 18A, it is provided that: `Upon the dissolution of a trade union under the provisions of section 18 of this Ordinance -

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my colleague the Member for Jurong has said that this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill is introduced by the P.A.P. for various purposes. One of the purposes is to legalise their illegal acts done in the past. They have not acted according to the law when they froze the funds of the three trade unions. Now they come to this House for the power to legalise their past actions. If they have done anything illegal, i.e. without abiding by any proper procedure, they come to this House to ask the House to condone their actions. Mr Wee Toon Boon rose ---

Is it a point of order?

Point of elucidation. Mr Koo Young remained standing.

Is the Member willing to give way?

(In Mandarin): They will have their opportunity to speak later. I was saying just now that this is a request which they hope the Assembly will approve - approve what they have done in the past without abiding by legal procedures. I find this kind of attitude which they are now taking most uncalled for and most serious. Even Lim Yew Hock, another dictator, did not dare to take this action which the P.A.P. are now taking. He did not resort to laws passed in this House. The Government claim that the power is given to them by the people. But do the people give them the dictatorial rights? The people will never approve or give them dictatorial powers. [Interruption] If the Member for Changi's physiognomy is primitive, that is his own business. But then ---

Point of order, Sir. The Member for Thomson is out of order by using unparliamentary words to describe the Member for Changi. We are now discussing whether we should give power to the Minister to freeze the funds of unions. We are not discussing the description of any Member here.

Point of order. I hope there will be no personal attacks in this Chamber.

It has been ruled by the Speaker that hon. Members when making their speeches should not be interrupted, even from the Government Benches, if there is no instigation or no personal attacks made, I think the Member for Thomson could be given a chance to proceed without any interruption, and we can get on quickly.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you. The P.A.P. have resorted to interruptions in order to prevent me from making my speech. If they had not interrupted, I would not have commented on the physiognomy of the Member for Changi.

Order. I have made my ruling. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Party in power attempt to legalise what is illegal and to right what is wrong. This is a new kind of democracy of the P.A.P. It is a most serious blemish on democracy. This amending Bill smacks of Fascism and dictatorship. They say that the intention of the Bill is to prevent the activities of pro-Communist trade unions from being carried out. But what they actually have in mind is to turn all non-P.A.P. trade unions into pro-Communist unions. Can they legally prove that these trade unions are pro-Communist or Communist organisations? You can accuse anybody of being a Communist or a running dog, but where is the legal evidence? None at all; they cannot advance any evidence to prove their allegations. What they can do is to produce this Bill here so that they can have the power to control all trade unions which are non-P.A.P. and to eradicate or wipe out all those trade unions which do not support them. If they attempt to do so, then trade unionism will be in difficulty. This kind of action is very serious indeed, because the P.A.P. are abusing their majority position in this House to give themselves dictatorial powers. This action of theirs smacks of Fascism and dictatorship. They claim that the people elected them. But the people did not elect them to be dictators. The people will never condone their desire for dictatorial powers. The people did not give them the power to do whatever they like when they elected them. I would say that the introduction of this P.A.P. Bill will brand them in the end as anti-Communists. They call us traitors. But this Bill will finally land them in a position where they will be the traitors. It is full of Fascist ideologies. If it is approved and implemented, we will see more Fascist methods being employed by the P.A.P. in the future. They will be able to deal with all the people whom they do not like. Will this be good for the people in the end? It will only endanger the rights of the people. In the end the rights of the people will be undermined. I hope the P.A.P. will not make use of their majority position in this House to abuse their powers. If they abuse their powers, then in the end it will not only be detrimental to the people but also to the P.A.P. themselves. The Bill gives very wide powers to the Minister to control and take action against those unions which do not belong to the P.A.P. The Ministers and the P.A.P. have shown in the past that they can make use of the law to deal with people whom they do not like. Furthermore, when this Bill is passed, it will provide them with further powers to take further repressive actions against the workers. The powers will enable them to do more things detrimental to the workers. I hope the Member for Bras Basah will examine this Bill in a democratic spirit, dispassionately and objectively. I also hope that Members of this House who are not P.A.P. Ministers will look into this Bill objectively. They will find that it will hinder the growth of trade unionism and democracy. With the passing of this Bill, a non-P.A.P. Government will also follow suit. This will be a great blow to democracy. The P.A.P. have been smearing those trade unions which have been banned and closed by them. They have accused them of misusing the unions' funds. I would like to ask a question. To whom do these funds belong? The answer is that they belong to the workers who are members of trade unions. The question whether or not the funds of the unions have been misused should be left to the workers to decide. The decision should not be made by the P.A.P. oligarchy. What right have they to say that the funds have been misused when the workers themselves do not think so? Are they the office-bearers of the trade unions? Therefore, the P.A.P. is not the arbiter or the judge to decide whether trade union funds have been misused. The arbiter should be the members of the unions themselves. The workers and the office-bearers have all along been members of the unions from their inception up to the time when the unions are dissolved. They have never expressed their disapproval of the activities of the trade unions and the guidance of their leaders. This shows that whatever actions that have been taken in the past by the leaders have had the approval of the workers and members of the unions concerned. This also shows that the members of the unions concerned supported them. The Minister has alleged that the leaders of the unions have been misusing the funds of trade unions. How could he convince others of this?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you will agree that whenever a piece of legislation is introduced in this House, it is always intended to protect the good citizens and not the culprits. If the S.A.T.U.-controlled trade unions are straightforward and make use of their money not inconsistent with trade union activities, there is no need for them to be afraid of any legislation that will be passed here. Therefore, why should they raise strong objections to this Bill? They must have something at the back of their minds. They are afraid legislation can stop these people from making use of their money to further their anti-national activities. That is the reason. I think the Member for Jurong is more a teacher than a trade unionist. He says that the Malayan Trades Union Congress in the Federation have made a report on their investigation of the trade union situation in Singapore. But, on the other hand, he is ignorant of the real facts concerning the M.T.U.C. team that has come to Singapore to investigate the trade union situation here. In fact, the M.T.U.C. in the Federation cannot even take part in any trade union activity for the simple reason that it is not registered under the Trade Unions Ordinance. It is registered under the Societies Ordinance. So the Member of the Opposition is ignorant when he tries to bring in the stature of the M.T.U.C. and compare it with the trade union situation in Singapore, which is quite irrelevant. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in a democratic country it is nothing unusual for the people to criticise the Government. But whenever the Barisan Sosialis make a criticism, they always do it out of point. The reason why I say they do it out of point is this. They have even mentioned that the funds of the Naval Base Union were frozen. I think the Member knows that the Naval Base Union's funds have never been frozen. He is making use of this House to publicise this statement so that the public will come to know that they are the champions of the workers.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am giving my personal views on this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. In the first place, let me deal with the intentions of the Government and the grounds on which this Bill are tabled. Their grounds can be classified in three categories. In the first place, they are tabling this Bill because they want to take action against those so-called Communist-controlled trade unions. Their claim that the unions are Communist-controlled is most unconvincing. Nobody will ever believe what they say about Communist activities in Singapore. The second reason which they have put forward to justify this Bill is this. There are many unions which do not come under P.A.P. control. Their membership is strong. These unions will not take instructions from the P.A.P. The P.A.P. are, therefore, introducing this piece of legislation in order to control these disobedient unions. The third reason they have given to justify the introduction of the Bill is this. They say some unions are responsible for the industrial unrest in Singapore. Therefore, the Government want to consolidate their control over the unions in order to safeguard the workers. The Government want power to direct trade union officials to make their workers obedient. These are the reasons they have put forward to justify the introduction of this Bill. To put in a nutshell. The P.A.P. are contemplating action against all those trade unions which do not obey them and which refuse to allow themselves to be under P.A.P. control. Why should the P.A.P. do such a thing? My view is that the P.A.P. is a discredited Party in the eyes of the workers in Singapore. It is difficult for them to get the support and confidence of the workers in Singapore as a result of their bad reputation. They have already failed in gaining the confidence of the workers because they have never given any assistance to the workers in their struggle for their legitimate rights and their betterment. They have already failed in the open confrontation and open argument. That is why they are amending the trade union laws to their own advantage. The second point I wish to draw your attention to is that the Government try to cover up the shortcomings of their anti-labour policies. They want to control all unions and all the workers and put them in servitude. But they have already failed in so doing. So to strengthen their position, they have to find some ways and means and they have found them in the introduction of this Bill. The failure of the P.A.P.'s labour policies is known to everybody. Therefore, where there is the existence of non-P.A.P. trade unions, the N.T.U.C. cannot survive. In places where there are workers belonging to non-P.A.P. unions, the N.T.U.C. can never find a way in. That is why the P.A.P. want to have this Bill to protect the life and the existence of the N.T.U.C. They cannot do so in open competition, so they resort to some legal means to gain control over the non-P.A.P. unions in order to promote and strengthen the N.T.U.C. The third point is that the P.A.P. desire to further persecute the workers and the broad masses of the people. In the past, many trade union leaders were arrested, workers were assaulted and yet the P.A.P. would not stop at that. They now realise that these repressive actions of assault will never lead them anywhere. So they put on the mask of open argument and legal facade. That is why you have this Bill. But this Bill is a very clear indication that the Government are wearing a mask of trade union democracy in Singapore. The Minister for Finance is particularly interested in foreign capitalists. He has said on many occasions that the strikes of the Singapore workers threaten foreign investment in Singapore. They put the blame for the hesitation of foreign investors to come to Singapore on the shoulders of the non-P.A.P. unions ---

On a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, we are debating now on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, and not on an industrial motion as such. Therefore, I think whatever the Member has uttered just now is utterly irrelevant.

Will the Member for Tampines remember that this is an amendment to the Trade Unions Ordinance and not stray away from the Bill? Try to come back and speak on the Bill itself. He may proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was just trying to sketch to you the background behind this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. Since you do not want me to go further into the background, I shall not go further into it. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill has been introduced because some unions in the S.A.T.U. group were given notice to show cause why their registration should not be cancelled. These unions were not able to give satisfactory reasons. Also some of them have withdrawn some money from their banks. In view of this situation, the Government have introduced this Bill in order to exercise some control over the non-P.A.P. unions. This is going to give some undemocratic powers to the Registrar of Trade Unions against non-P.A.P. unions. The position is this. Instead of the Registrar telling the world how wrong these unions are, they want them to show cause why they are right. In other words, "I want to kill you" instead of "I am telling you and showing the world that you are guilty. You have to tell me why you should not be killed." This is the position. This is not in any way different from the methods of dictatorship and Fascist countries. If any of the unions belonging to the S.A.T.U. group has acted against the trade union laws or any laws existing in Singapore, it can be prosecuted and charged in court. Evidence can be produced in court to show what offence the union in question has committed and then the punishment can be imposed on the offending union. But this is not done and this is not a practice unfortunately ---

On a point of order. The amendment before us is whether we should give power to the Minister to freeze the funds of the union if they are being given notice to show cause, and not to discuss the deregistration of the unions. I think the Member has now drifted away in that direction.

Wasting time.

Order. I agree with the Minister for Labour. I think the Member for Tampines has strayed away again. Will he come back to the discussion on the Bill and not stray away? Make it as short as possible.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the deregistration of seven unions and the freezing of their union funds are inter-related. But in view of your ruling that I should not mention it further, I shall go straight to the discussion on this Bill. The Minister for Labour has said just now that it was necessary to freeze the funds of some unions because the officials had ulterior motives. Unfortunately, I was unable to hear from the Minister for Labour what those ulterior motives were, and on what basis he has made his allegation. Some unions have had their funds frozen not because they have any ulterior motive, but because the Ministers themselves have some filthy ulterior motives ---

On a point of order. The Member is referring to the personal conduct of Ministers, saying that we have inexplicable intentions. But I have to inform Members that this Bill is only the collective wish of the Cabinet and not of myself alone.

Will the Member for Tampines not make any unparliamentary personal remarks of any Minister and proceed? He may proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, about the undesirable motives, the expression came from the Minister himself. He said that some unions had undesirable objectives in the administration of the union funds. But as a representative of the people, I have to speak in defence of these unions which have been wronged and against which wrongful accusations have been made. This is a decision made by the Minister. If you want to shift the responsibility to the Cabinet, then I will say the P.A.P. Cabinet have undesirable motives in freezing the trade union funds and in tabling this Bill. You want to deprive certain unions of their funds and then you turn round and say that these unions have ulterior motives. It is just like a thief telling a rich man, "You have plenty of money and you have undesirable motives in making use of your money. So that is the reason why I shall rob you of your money." This is precisely the analogy that one can draw from this Bill. Trade union funds come from the sweat and labour of the workers who are members of the trade unions. So the funds should rightly belong to the members themselves. The decision on the disposal of the funds should not be decided by the P.A.P. Cabinet. They should be decided by the workers themselves. We ask whether the P.A.P. Cabinet is, in substance, the same as the Central Executive Committee of any trade union, so as to be able to decide on the disposal of the trade union funds. So the position now is that a thief wishing to rob another person of his money says that this person has undesirable intentions to use his money and make use of this allegation as the reason to rob him. As to the gratuity paid to some of the unionists, this was also a reason given by the Government to justify the introduction of the Bill. Regarding the gratuity payment by the union to some of its ex-officials, do you mean that the union has no right to decide on this and it should meet with condemnation from the P.A.P.? Is there anything wrong if the union decides to give some gratuity payment to some of their advisers and their leaders as an expression of respect for their leaders and advisers ---

Order. I do not see the relevancy of gratuity in the debate on this Bill. Will the Member for Tampines get on to the discussion of this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill! He may proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whether the question of gratuity payment has any connection with this Bill or not, I do not want to argue. But this question of gratuity payment was touched upon by the Minister for Labour in his accusation against some of the leaders of the S.G.E.U. If you rule that this is irrelevant to the Bill, then I will not proceed any further on this point. I have read an open letter by the unions addressed to the Registrar of Trade Unions, the Press, and the Barisan Sosialis agent. When this amount of $13,50() was withdrawn from the bank, how was this money spent? The Registrar wrote to the union officials asking them to give reasons why they withdrew money from the bank and for what purposes was the money withdrawn. The official of the S.G.E.U. listed the reasons for the withdrawal. His reasons were (1) the executive committee of the unions had passed a resolution authorising the President, Vice-President, and Treasurer, to withdraw the money from the bank to be spent as follows: $4,500 to be used as a strike fund to assist the striking workers; (2) this would enable them to have some means of livelihood, and (3) would prolong their struggle against oppression and exploitation and to ensure victory. The workers went on strike because they are against the exploitation and suppression of the employers. Is there anything wrong with the manner in which the money was spent?

On a point of order, Sir, I am afraid I have to interrupt again. We are discussing the principle of this amending Bill to the Ordinance. But here the Member has brought up details which, I would suggest, would be appropriate before a Commission of Inquiry which is to be set up. The Commission will be too glad to have the co-operation of the Member for Tampines if he will present his details before them. So probably we can save the Assembly's time by discussing the principle of the amending Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has just now made reference to this question of the money of the unions, and he did inform the House that a Commission of Inquiry is going into the matter. So will the Member for Tampines bear this in mind and not go into too much detail? He could make passing reference to it in its relation to this Bill, but please do not go into the details.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has brought up this point. But I wish to continue with my speech in a calm atmosphere. I hope I can be heard in silence. Talking about the second and third reasons for the use of the money, it is clear that this sum of money was used to assist those who were arrested and detained. The leaders of the trade unions have been arrested, workers have bean assaulted, and therefore the unions in safeguarding the interests of the workers have withdrawn this sum of money in order to assist the relatives of the arrested leaders of the unions. 4.22 p.m.

I do not understand why the Government should say it is wrong for them to do such a thing. The purpose of the withdrawal of the funds does not constitute a threat to the interests of the people. The Central Government have arrested the union leaders with the support of the P.A.P. and relatives of those arrested are facing starvation and difficulties.

Point of order, Sir. The Member is going into the arrests by the Central Government. We are discussing an amending Bill to the Trade Unions Ordinance, and not on the question of detainees.

Can the Member for Tampines satisfy me that what he has said just now is relevant?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the circumstances and facts I have mentioned just now are related to this Bill. The unions withdrew $13,500 to be used for rightful purposes, but the P.A.P. accuse the unions of having misused this money, and that they have introduced this Bill to deal with them. I say that the money was expended in a proper manner by the unions.

Yes, he may proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. The leaders of the S.G.E.U. and the Singapore Bus Workers Union have been arrested. The unions voluntarily withdrew the money to help relatives of those arrested. What is wrong with that? The Government not only want to persecute the trade union leaders but also want to resort to all sorts of measures to starve the relatives of the trade union leaders. We would like to ask the Government this: the Cabinet is not an executive committee of the trade unions. So what right have the Government to freeze and seize the funds of the trade unions? It the Cabinet is human, then this sum of money should be handed over to the trade union officials and to be used to look after the welfare of the relatives of the arrested trade union leaders, or to be distributed among the members of the trade unions concerned. This sum of money should be handed over to the executive committees of the trade unions concerned and let them make their own decision as to how this money should be used, or be distributed to the members fairly among them. I do not believe that since the registration of the unions has been cancelled, their members become illegal and are Communists. The P.A.P. Cabinet has no right whatsoever to introduce this amending Bill to enable the Government to put the money into the Consolidated Fund. The Government accuse the trade union leaders of the cancelled unions of not having given sound reasons for the withdrawal of the money from the banks. The Vice-President and Treasurer of the S.G.E.U. wrote a letter to the Registrar of Trade Unions. These leaders have been persecuted and arrested. Wong Pow Seng was persecuted and arrested. It is the P.A.P. that should be blamed. On the afternoon of 3rd December the trade union received a letter.

Point of order, Sir, I have said earlier that there is a Commission of Inquiry to enquire into the nature of the expenditure of the funds. The Member for Tampines will be given an opportunity to present his details before the Commission of Inquiry. We are now discussing the principle of the amending Bill.

Order. I think the Deputy Speaker had occasion just now to rule the Member for Tampines out of order on exactly the same point. So will the Member proceed on to something else, please?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Labour accused us. He said that these union leaders have disappeared. What are the actual facts? On the afternoon of 3rd December, the union officials received a letter in which --- 4.30 p.m.

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Member for Tampines. But I did indicate at the commencement of this sitting that the Prime Minister wishes to make a Ministerial statement at about half-past four. The House has expressed its general consent. I will allow the Member for Tampines to carry on when the Prime Minister has finished.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few weeks, my Government has been kept informed by the Ministry for Internal Security of the discovery of a group of Indonesian saboteurs and local fifth columnists who have plans to disrupt the economic life of Singapore and generally to cause alarm and despondency by terrorism. At present, there are 24 persons under detention in Singapore, five of whom are Indonesian nationals. Of the other 19, 18 are Malays and one is a Chinese. The Prime Minister of Malaysia has today made a statement* on the activities of these men in Parliament and I table a copy of it in this House for the information of Members. * Appendix, cols. 965-70. STATEMENT BY THE HONOURABLE THE MALAYSIAN PRIME MINISTER, TENGKU ABDUL RAHMAN PUTRA, IN THE DEWAN RA'AYAT (Cols 0965-0970) Copies of the Statement handed in to the Clerk. Sir, it is fortunate indeed that this first wave of saboteurs has been relatively unsuccessful and that their network has been extensively disrupted. However, it is expected that further and more determined attempts will be made by more intensively trained commando-type saboteurs, both Indonesians and local fifth columnists. All people must be on the alert and immediately report any suspicious movement or activity to the police through the 999 telephone system. Intelligence information so far available shows a concerted plan starting early in 1960 for cultural and ideological penetration of groups either sympathetic to Indonesia or hostile to this country. It is worth noting that these activities commenced a year before Malaysia was first mooted by the Tunku in May 1961. From June to November 1962, over 50 persons went to Indonesia from Singapore as volunteers for the liberation of West Irian. Seventy went from the other States in the peninsula. At the end of 1962, these volunteers returned to Singapore and Malaya. Indonesian Consulate officials here and Indonesian Embassy officials in K.L. maintained contact with them. From April to September this year, a number of these persons who were already politically indoctrinated were sent for further training courses at Tanjong Sekupang, a few miles south of Singapore in the Rhio Islands. In their operations in Singapore, the local representatives of this Indonesian intelligence organisation at Tanjong Sekupang used three dummy commercial organisations as cover for their intelligence operations and for the finances required -

Debate resumed.

Shall we proceed with the debate on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill? The Member for Tampines had the Floor.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bras Basah has said just now that the introduction of this Bill is meant to protect law-abiding workers. I do not know why the Government should have prevented the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union from withdrawing its money from the bank after it was banned. The Minister for Labour has said that it is his intention to get the Bill through all its three stages and have it passed. I do not know why if this Bill is very important, it should be taken through all its stages so hastily. Why is this being introduced at a time when certain trade unions have already withdrawn their funds from the bank, and also at a time when the Government have already admitted that they have taken action in the past to freeze the unions' funds in the banks? Their action has not the full backing of the law. It is not easy to understand why, in introducing this urgent Bill in this House today, the P.A.P. should have given specious reasons to cover up their real intention. I think one of their intentions is to legalise their past actions which were illegal. I will now touch on the opinions of the Malayan Trades Union Congress which were reported in the Sin Chew Jit Poh. From what the Government Benchers have said about this matter and also from what is reported in the Sin Chew Jit Poh and other newspapers, we can see that whatever the P.A.P. have done has caused dissatisfaction not only to the people and workers of Singapore but also to the people and workers across the Causeway. This is a fact which cannot be denied by anybody. The Member for Bras Basah may deny the important role of the M.T.U.C. But I would say that the M.T.U.C. has a large membership in the Federation. It occupies an important place in the field of trade unionism in Malaya. We should not overlook the opinions which they have expressed on the situation of trade unionism in Singapore today. I would like to refer to what the Member for Bras Basah has said regarding the banning of trade unions and other actions taken against them and his justification for them. All this goes to show that the P.A.P. have taken suppressive action against the workers. They are trying to ride over the heads of the workers. That is their intention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Members across the Floor are really not taking any interest in the grievances of the workers. Nor have they taken a keen interest in how to bring better working conditions to their fellow workers in the country. On the contrary, they are interested in the funds of the union. Can any Member over there answer me one question? Are not workers in our country adequately provided with good working conditions under the Labour Ordinance? Our fellow workers in this country are more highly paid than their counterparts in Japan or Hongkong. I must point out to the Barisan Sosialis that the good trade unionists will always show how best they can conclude the number of agreements with the employers and not in the number of strikes they can call. I think this House will agree with me that we should proceed to discuss the amending Bill and not waste any more time in this House.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for River Valley has said that in the whole of South-East Asia there is no country in which the workers have a better lot than Singapore. Perhaps it is so. But it does not mean that when the Singapore workers are well off their funds should be controlled by the Government. The union funds of the workers are built up by the $1 per month subscription contributed by each worker. So you just cannot say that when the workers are quite well off the Government should have control over their trade union funds --- [Interruption] Mr Speaker, I want you to stop the Minister for Labour from interrupting me.

Order. I request the Members from the Government side to afford the Opposition an opportunity to say what they like in silence. We are all anxious to finish this debate as soon as possible. The fewer the interruptions, the faster we go on. Mr Kow.

(In Mandarin): So when you talk about Legislation, Mr Speaker, we should not use this argument against the workers. It does not mean that when the workers are well off, their funds should be controlled and put into the Consolidated Fund. This is purely illogical and irrelevant. Then the Member for Bras Basah says that all the Bills tabled by the Government will always meet with our uncalled for criticism. But he fails to remember and appreciate that we are Opposition Members elected by the people to express our views on the Bills of the Government. It is our right to express our views and criticise the Bills of the Government. If the Government do not want this right to be with us, then they can introduce another Bill to deprive us of such right. If you want to, you can do so. It is a matter of whether you want it or not. If you want to, you can just have a law to say that the Opposition Members will have no right to speak here --- An hon. Member: Rubbish!

Order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Member for Bras Basah says that if we have nothing to hide, we should have nothing to fear. But the P.A.P. Government in the past did a lot of things by using the State machinery against innocent people. Public funds were used in the interests of the P.A.P. These are facts, and the people are afraid. So these people have a guilty conscience that every move of theirs will arouse suspicion on the part of the people in general because of their past acts. We in the Opposition and the people outside the House have the right to express our views on this Bill under discussion now. We have the right to criticise it. If there is no ulterior motive in the introduction of this Bill, why is there such a hurry? Why should there be a Certificate of Urgency to enable this Bill to go through all the three stages? This is full of ulterior motives. From this urgency one can rightly suspect that there is some ulterior motive behind this Bill. Mr Speaker, since the P.A.P. came to power, what are its labour policies? We have to look at this question first. One must appreciate that there is no smoke without fire, and nobody can deny this fact. Facts are facts and they cannot be explained away. When the P.A.P. came to power, it started its lunatic and barbaric actions against trade union leaders and trade unions. Patriotic nationals have been arrested by the P.A.P. --- [Interruption]

Order. I had occasion before to ask Members to allow the Member for Paya Lebar to be heard in silence, and I do not want any more further interruptions. Mr Kow, please proceed.

(In Mandarin): If their amending Bill has nothing to hide, then I think they should be silent and listen to me. Because their Bill has some ulterior motive, that is why they are interrupting to cover up this ulterior motive. They have taken action against seven Left-wing trade unions which are very influential in Singapore; thinking that by this action against trade unions and their leaders, the members of such unions will go over to the N.T.U.C. and be controlled by them. This is what the Government hope will happen. But in spite of these repressive actions and arrests, the members of these unions are still on their own side. They are not allowing themselves to be exploited by the P.A.P. So the P.A.P. are unable to achieve their ulterior motive. Failing this, the P.A.P. are now introducing this Bill which will give them another means by which they can take further action against non-P.A.P. unions. Mr Speaker, following the deregistration of some trade unions, the Government have even gone a step further to establish the so-called Commission of Inquiry to look into the trade union funds of these banned trade unions. Mr Speaker, why should the P.A.P. Government at this particular moment, not earlier or later, establish a Commission of Inquiry? In the meantime, they introduce this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, they are doing so because they realise now that they have acted against the law. Because in the past the Registrar of Trade Unions had no right to freeze the funds of trade unions in the bank. This is usually the behaviour of the Registrar of Trade Unions. So in so far as Singapore laws are concerned, the Registrar of Trade Unions has acted against the law, legally speaking. Everybody knows now, as admitted by the P.A.P., that the Registrar of Trade Unions has no right under existing laws to freeze trade union funds in the bank. So the P.A.P. are now introducing this Bill to legalise their illegal acts in having frozen the trade union funds in certain banks. But I want to tell them that although the powers are in their hands they must try to justify the use of their powers. They cannot abuse them. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one other point to which I wish to draw your attention. That is, in introducing this Bill, the Government will be able to have the means to control trade unions in Singapore for a very long time to come. The P.A.P. will lay down certain lines and ask trade unions in Singapore to follow them. If they do not, then action will be taken against them. If trade unions in Singapore refuse to go along the way laid down by the P.A.P. then the P.A.P. will take action against them. In the N.T.U.C. a lot of leaders are trained according to the ways of the PAP. They are all going along the path of the P.A.P. But there are unions which are not allowing themselves to be controlled by the P.A.P. There are non-P.A.P. unions in Singapore ---

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are here to debate the merits or demerits of the amending Bill. I do not see there is any relevance at all - the N.T.U.C. leaders are trained in the P.A.P. way or are trained in the S.A.T.U. way.

Can the Member for Paya Lebar satisfy me that what he has said just now is relevant?

(In Mandarin): Yes. Mr Speaker, there is much relationship between what I have said and this Bill. This is to expose the motive behind this Bill ---

Order. The Member for Paya Lebar is getting emotional. Do not shout into that microphone because I have to listen through my earphone and your Mandarin comes through here and I cannot hear a word.

(In Mandarin): I am sorry, Mr Speaker. So the P.A.P. are now thinking of how best they can control the non-P.A.P. trade unions. The P.A.P. wish to have all the unions fall into their control and follow their line. They want the workers to become servile to the P.A.P. ---

(In Malay): On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has given a speech without looking at the Speaker. He has been looking at this side. When the Minister gave his speech, he was looking at the Speaker.

When a Member speaks in the Assembly, especially when someone from that side raises a point of objection and he is replying, it is for that reason he is looking that side. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): So the P.A.P. hope that one of these days the workers in Singapore will be as obedient as some domestic animals. But workers are human beings and they will not easily become as obedient as domestic animals. So appreciating this human nature, the P.A.P. are now introducing this Bill ---

Order. It is nearly five o'clock. I think it is a convenient time to adjourn till half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before the tea-break I was giving my views on why the P.A.P. wanted to introduce this Bill today. Their main intention is to control all non-P.A.P. trade unions in order to win support for the P.A.P.'s future power thrust and power struggle. In this Bill, extensive powers are being given to the Minister who can make use of them to deal with any trade union which is not under the control of the P.A.P. in order to ban it or freeze its funds. Therefore, we say that this Bill has very serious and undesirable intentions against the workers, because by virtue of the powers of the Ordinance he can say that he is taking action in accordance with the law. His every action can then be justified by law. And the whole P.A.P. set-up can claim that out country is under the rule of law, so they are doing things according to law. Under such pretext they can take action against all those trade unions which are not in agreement with the P.A.P. That is why I oppose this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. Further, this Bill will not meet with the support of the workers, because no workers or trade unions had been consulted before it was drafted. I would point out that before the Bill was drafted, the Government should have consulted the workers and trade unions concerned and invited their views. Since this Bill will provide powers to freeze the funds of the trade unions, it is the duty of the Government to consult the trade unions to enable them to discuss among themselves and to help the Government in drafting a proper Bill by which the Minister will not be given the opportunity of misusing the powers of the Bill. Sir, I will now read out what the Minister for Labour has said about the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union ---

Surely the Member should not take out other unions' statements and read them out in this Assembly. If he wants to read such statements, he can read them in the newspaper.

I do not know what the Member for Paya Lebar was proposing to do ---

The Member was proposing to read out the whole statement issued by a trade union.

We have had this before. I remember when one of the Members of the Opposition quoted a statement, he was asked to quote the source of his statement. That point was raised by the Minister for Culture. If the Member proposes to read the statement which he has with him and if it is relevant to the matter under discussion, I will allow him to read the report. If he says, "The union said this and the union said that," the Minister would be right in getting up on a point of order and asking him for the source of his information. This is exactly what he is doing now. I will allow him to proceed.

Sir, I think it is in order for him to quote from the statement, but he is proposing to read the whole statement in this House. That was what he said in Mandarin.

Well, let us see what he has to say.

(In Mandarin): Just now I was saying that before the Bill was introduced, the Government should have consulted the trade unions concerned, so that nothing improper would be provided in this Bill and the members of the trade unions would be given the opportunity to discuss and to know and be assured that nothing in it would be detrimental to their interests. We have not been properly consulted and the Bill has been circulated to us Only today. In such a hurry, how can we have sufficient time to read the Bill and debate upon it in this House? This is most unreasonable action on the part of the Minister. The Government has even asked us to pass the Bill today. Here I shoud like to read out a statement issued by the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union: `This Union is of the opinion that the Registrar's action in giving notice to freeze the funds of the Union in the Bank is illegal, and the action to be taken in this regard is also illegal. In our letter of the 9th December, 1963, we already clearly pointed out that only the ex-members of this Union can have a share in the funds, in accordance with section 18 (c) of the Trade Unions Ordinance and our Trade Union Rules. Thus, this fund should be divided among our members. The Government knows very well that our reasoning has a concrete basis. All along our actions have been legal. Now the Government is making use of specious pretexts to take action against us, to introduce the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill in the Assembly oil a Certificate of Urgency in order to enable the Minister or the Registrar concerned to have the powers to deal with this matter, also to legalise their past illegal actions with regard to the freezing of funds and to give a legal facade to their actions. In actual fact, there is no need for the introduction of this amending Bill, because the present Trade Unions ordinance can achieve the same purposes. That Ordinance already provides the Minister with power to freeze the funds of a trade union in a bank. This implies that if the Minister wishes, he can force the dissolution of a union and seize the money of the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Judging from the past actions of the P.A.P., nobody is in doubt that the Singapore Consolidated Fund is no more than the P.A.P.'s fund. This act of robbery is despicable. ----'

Point of order.

What is the point of order?

The point of order is that the Member for Paya Lebar is not making a speech: he is reading the whole statement of the Union.

The matter is relevant, Mr Minister. Surely he can read it. We are discussing the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. He is free to give the views of any trade union.

(In Mandarin): `The Government might as well introduce a Bill to enable the Ministers of the PAP, to rob others of their money. We, the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union, have the right to appeal to the P.A.P. leader, ship and the Members of this House and the members of the public to rise up against this unreasonable Bill.' Now, this is the statement issued by the members in the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union. Because all of us agree that this Bill is actually meant to deal a great blow to the workers and is detrimental to the interests and welfare of the workers. First of all, the Minister for Labour has not been acting properly in introducing this Bill, because he has not given us ample time to read and to discuss before we debate on this Bill and no support from the workers ---

The Member is repeating himself. I think only five minutes ago he mentioned the Minister for Labour hardly giving him enough time to read this Bill. Do not repeat. If he has new arguments, I am quite prepared to hear them.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I only wanted to say that the Minister for Labour had not consulted the trade unions concerned and no trade union had given its opinion of this Bill, because no chance was given to them to air their views. I say that the purposes of the P.A.P.'s introduction of the Bill are twofold: firstly, to legalise the Party's illegal acts and, secondly, to have some legal means to perpetrate and carry out its future repressive actions against the workers. The Bill is also for the purpose of blinding the sight of the workers - to give the people a misconception. The P.A.P. also tried to mislead the public into believing that, because of a fraudulent act on the part of the leaders of the trade unions concerned, the funds of the trade unions have been frozen by the Government. The P.A.P. should not think that, by using this pretext, they can get the support of the workers from non-P.A.P. unions. It can never achieve this. I can tell them that. Mr Speaker, Sir, we should understand, first of all, how the trade unions and the funds of the trade unions came into being. These banned trade unions had a membership of more than 60,000 members. Had these unions' funds been misappropriated, how is it that there was $400,000 in the kitty? Had these unions' funds been misappropriated, they would not have had the support of the workers, and they would not have had so much money by now. That they have such a large sum of money only goes to show that the management had been carried out properly and without any defect. Had they been misusing the $400,000, then today we would not have been able to see the money any more. This shows that they have not been squandering away the money. The Minister for Labour says that the union officials, when asked by the Registrar to turn up to see him, did not turn up. But what is the actual fact? Is it a fact that, as claimed by the Minister for Labour, these union officials dared not turn up to see the Registrar? No. Because we know that the Registrar of Trade Unions had an appointment to see the officials of the Singapore General Employees' Union at 10.00 a.m. on the 3rd December, 1963, but the letter was received by the union only at 1.00 p.m. the same day because they had been to visit the strike at some other place. Thus the letter was not received in time. But the union on the 5th of December went to see the Registrar. They intended to see the Registrar, but before that the police went to search the residence of the leaders and their union premises on the 4th December, 1963. These facts go to show that the Minister for Labour has not been giving the full facts to this House. Talking about the $13,500 union funds being withdrawn, I would say that the Executive Committee of the union concerned had the full right under its union rules to decide on the use of the money and to withdraw it, because the Central Executive Committee had passed a resolution to that effect. The money belonged to the workers belonging to the unions, and was accumulated by the workers through their toil and sweat. This fund does not belong to the P.A.P. It is not from the P.A.P. kitty or from Government coffers. Since it did not belong to anybody else, what was wrong with their withdrawing the money and with their use of the money on the workers themselves as decided by the Executive Committee? We say that the introduction of this Bill has been too hasty. If the Bill is passed too hastily today through all the three Readings, I should say that it is most unreasonable, because we all know that the Bill has very much to do with the future of the whole working population, touching on their interests and welfare from now hence. The Bill should not be dealt with in a haphazard way. It is most unreasonable and abnormal. We the Opposition Members had not been given sufficient time to read the Bill. And there was no time for us ---

I am sorry, but this is the third time I have had to remind the Member on this point of insufficient time for the Opposition. Please do not repeat.

(In Mandarin): How did the P.A.P. treat non-P.A.P. trade unions? The P.A.P. resorted to suppression, deception and even resorted to getting the help of the Central Government to suppress the workers and, through the Registrar, freeze the funds of the trade unions and prevent them from using their own money, the so-called "$15,000 incident". They also resorted to smearing the character and integrity of the trade union leaders concerned. Mr Speaker, we have already talked a lot about this. There is one thing we must ensure. We must ensure that we' consult all the trade unions and the workers concerned about this Bill. That is most important. And we should not pass the Bill hastily without giving it proper time, or giving enough time or opportunity to the people concerned to express their opinion. On behalf of the people concerned, we oppose this kind of action of the P.A.P. If the P.A.P. would not like to look after the interests of the people, the general masses, the workers, and would only look after its own interests, and want to force through this Bill today, then here we would lodge the strongest protest against the passing of the Bill. I say that if it is passed without regard to the opinion and the will of the trade unions, of the workers concerned, we would lodge our strongest protest against the Bill here in this House. Those are our views on this Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, there is one Chinese proverb, that if you are not guilty of anything, then you will have no fear of anybody when your door is knocked in the middle of the night. So if you are not guilty of anything, if you have no guilty conscience, why should you be afraid of people freezing your funds? The Members opposite have stood up one after another to attack this Bill. But they are repeating themselves one after another. They have called us "Fascists", "dictatorial" - these are all tunes being played over and over again, right from two years ago. There have been no changes in their argument. They are only capable of repeating themselves and their past leaders in this House. One Hitler propaganda expert says that if you repeat a lie one thousand times, then you may be able to convince others that it is the truth. So this is the purpose behind their talk. They are calling us "Fascists", "dictatorial" repeatedly. So they are actually resorting to the Fascist method of propaganda. They say that the people are on their side, they have the support of the broad masses, the workers and everybody, and that they have the support of all concerned all over the world and all over Singapore. Now, is this really true? If they have the support of the people in Singapore, how is it that they were not able to win power in the elections? So how can they explain away their defeat in the elections? How can they deceive the people by saying that they have the support of the people?

We have heard all about the elections for the last nine days. The Minister should try to confine his remarks to this Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said all this because since Members opposite have said many nonsensical things and made allegations against us and further claim that they have the support of the people, then I have to stand up and refute their arguments. But in any case, we can let that pass. Mr Speaker, Sir, the main idea of this Bill is to protect the interests and properties of the workers, and to protect the trade union funds so that such funds will not be made use of by the irresponsible trade union leaders by way of gifts to their so-called "union advisers", their "union leaders". This is an objective that we are trying to achieve through this Bill. Now the behaviour of these irresponsible trade union leaders, as I have already said, amounts to the act of workers' traitors. If they really have nothing to hide, then where is the General Secretary of the Singapore General Employees' Union? Why is he not here to explain that he has withdrawn their money in a legitimate manner? Why has he not explained how the funds that he has withdrawn have been used? It is because they have done something wrong that they are now in hiding. They are now trying to explain away the fact that they have done something wrong by saying that we in the Government desire to arrest them. Now why should they disappear so conveniently soon after the funds were withdrawn? Why should they accuse us of having introduced this Bill when they themselves are guilty of an illegal act? Of course, we agree that the funds of the workers should be decided by the workers themselves, but we must not, on the other hand, allow the so-called "leaders of the workers" to decide on the use of the funds of the workers. These so-called "leaders" tried to justify the use of the trade union funds withdrawn by way of paying a "bonus" to their so-called "advisers". But I want to ask them, "Did they consult the workers before they paid this so-called "bonus" to the union advisers? Did they have the approval of the workers before the payment was made for the benefit of the so-called "union advisers"? No. They did not do so. They never consulted the workers. This decision of paying "bonus" to the "leaders" and "advisers" was made in a hurry by just a handful of them. That was during the election time when a lot of money was required for election propaganda. So we have established a Commission of Inquiry to look into these funds having been misused. I am sure the Report of the Commission of Inquiry will give a full picture of how these funds were misused. A few moments ago the Member for Jurong said that, according to the provisions of the Bill, there are opportunities for the Minister to abuse his powers against the interests of the workers and to break up strikes conducted in a legitimate manner, that he can even go a step further and abuse his powers to restrict certain unions that he dislikes from expanding their activities, and that the Government can misuse their power to freeze the unions funds. But he should realise that these powers will not be misused by the Government. The Minister will have no power to freeze trade union funds according to his whims and fancies. According to clause 2 of this Bill, section 15A reads: `Where a notice has been given by the Registrar to a trade union under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 15 of this Ordinance, the Minister may, where he is satisfied that it is likely that the funds of the union may be misused, by order direct any bank in Singapore not to pay any money out of nor to pay cheques drawn on the account of such union for a specified period not exceeding three months.' So the conditions are, first, when a notice has been given and, secondly, when the Minister is satisfied. So it is not so easy for the Minister to abuse his powers. There is one prerequisite, and that is the notice must be served first on the union. This new section 15A is very clear, Mr Speaker, Sir. Before the Minister can exercise his powers to freeze the union's funds, a notice must be served on the union by the Registrar in accordance with section 15 subsection (2) of the Trade Unions Ordinance to show cause why its registration should not be cancelled. This is the prerequisite under which the Minister may only exercise his powers. It is not so easy for the Minister to exercise his powers, as alleged by the Members opposite. Then another allegation is that we are trying to rush through this Bill. But the fact is that before we introduced this Bill in my Ministerial statement on 11th December, 1963, we indicated that a Bill of this nature would be tabled and, in fact, we distributed copies of it to Members opposite for their examination and study. So from 11th December up to the present moment, the Members have had at least one week to enable them to go through the provisions of this Bill. How can they say that no time has been given to them? The Member for Jurong says that even the Malayan Trades Union Congress have accused us of having made use of the State machinery against non-P.A.P. trade unions. I will say that this allegation is untrue. It is not necessarily true that trade unions which do not endorse P.A.P. views are not allowed to exist. We deny facilities to those unions which are controlled by the Communists. As long as a union is not controlled by the Communists, then it will be given all sorts of facilities to carry out its activities, whether it is a P.A.P. union or a non-P.A.P. union. We only deny the Communist-controlled trade unions similar facilities. They also say that in the Federation of Malaya and other countries there are no laws giving such powers to the Minister for Labour except in Singapore. But I would like to refer to the statement by my Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the power to freeze trade union funds. The power to freeze and to put trade union funds into the Consolidated Fund also exists in the Trade Unions Ordinance of the Federation of Malaya. If the Members opposite do not know this, then they should go and read the law books before they criticise us. They say that the introduction of this Bill is to legalise our illegal acts. But I wish to point out that there are loopholes in the Ordinance which enable irresponsible trade union leaders to act against the interest of the workers. That is why we had to introduce this amending Bill to plug the loopholes in our laws. It is not our desire to destroy non. P.A.P. trade unions. All that we desire to destroy are the unions controlled by the Communists and anti-national elements. They say that by introducing this Bill we will ultimately land ourselves into the position of traitors. But they are the thieves, and now they turn round to call other people thieves. They are the traitors, and they have got the cheek to call us traitors now! They maintain that the question of whether union funds are misused or not should be decided by the workers. But the point is, were the workers given the opportunity to express their views against Messrs. Fong Swee Suan, Woodhull and Bani? No, they were not given the chance to do so. In fact, the workers themselves do not know how the union funds have been used. In addition to their salaries, the trade union leaders and so-called advisers are given $200 special allowance. Do the union members know about this? I think there are other facts which have not come to light and I hope the Commission of Inquiry will be able to bring them out into the open. So a good show is coming this way! Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim has also mentioned a few points, expressing his dissatisfaction with this Bill. He says that this Bill has a retrospective effect. But I say that this retrospective effect is necessary because the funds of some unions which have already been deregistered in the past have not been disposed of. For example, in the case of the Singapore Shop and Factory Workers' Union which was declared illegal, and deregistered quite some time ago, the problem of the disposal of their assets has not been settled. Their union premises in Bukit Timah Road have not been disposed of. Now, how are these properties and assets of the unions to be disposed of? One of the objects of this Bill is to provide a solution for the disposal of these unions' assets. Then the Opposition Members have also said that the Consolidated Fund is actually a P.A.P. fund. Now this is a big lie. The Consolidated Fund belongs to our country, it belongs to our people. In fact, they spent a lot of time in the Budget debate to say that the Consolidated Fund is a public fund and that we should not abuse it. It must be appreciated that we have to withdraw funds from the Consolidated Fund to provide services for the people. So there is nothing wrong, in the event that trade union funds cannot be disposed of otherwise, to put them into the Consolidated Fund. The Member for Hong Lim has also referred to the fact that the Minister in charge has been given too much power. As I have said, this power can only be exercised under certain circumstances, that is, after a notice has been served by the Registrar of Trade Unions on a certain union. Before that notice is served, the Minister can never exercise the powers under this Ordinance. So the arguments put forward cannot hold water. They say that the workers and the people are on their side. But why is it that they failed in the elections? Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." An hon. Member: Division. The House divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 8; Abstention, 1; Absent, 13. Ayes Noes A. Rahim Ishak Chia Thye Poh Buang Bin Omar Junid Chio Cheng Thun Chan Chee Seng Koo Young Chan Choy Siong,Madam Kow Kee Seng Chow Chiok Hock Ong Eng Guan Fong Sip Chee Ong Lian Teng Goh Keng Swee Poh Ber Liak Gonzales, R. A. Tan Cheng Tong Govindasamy, P. Ho Cheng Choon Abstention Jek Yeun Thong Barker, E. W. Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Absent Lim Kim San Bani, S. T. Mahmud Awang Chan Sun Wing Nair, Mrs. Devan Fong Kim Heng Ng Kah Ting Ho See Beng Ng Yeow Chong Lee Kuan Yew Ong Pang Boon Lim Huan Boon Othman Bin Wok Lingam, S. V. Rajoo, S. Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Rodrigues, Bernard Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi Sia Kah Hui Rahamat Bin Kenap Sim Boon Woo Rajaratnam, S. Teong Eng Siong Wong Soon Fong Toh Chin Chye Yaacob Mohamed Al-Haj Wee Toon Boon Yong Nyuk Lin Question accordingly agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. At this stage, all seven Members of the Barisan Sosialis walked out of the Chamber. Some hon. Members: Cowards!

Order. Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Jek Yeun Thong]. Bill considered in Committee. 6.20 p.m.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I wish to move an amendment to clause 2 of the Bill, In line 11, to leave out "notice" and insert "petition"; in the same line to leave out "given" and insert "made". In line 14, to leave out "Minister" and insert "High Court judge". In page 2, line 2, to leave out "Minister" and insert "Court". In line 7, to leave out "Minister" and insert "Court". Mr Chairman, Sir, the main accusation hurled against this Bill is that it gives the Government power to suppress the Opposition. This accusation actually throws any government in a very unenviable position and no government worth its salt and having the confidence to govern would like to give room for the people to have doubts that the Government is using such clauses to suppress the Opposition. It is important, Sir, that the Government must not give any grounds for doubt, that the Government is using its power to suppress the Opposition. Therefore, Sir, if the powers were to be transferred from the Minister to a High Court Judge, I think that would remove much of the odium of this undemocratic Bill. It is, therefore, with this intention that I move this amendment.

(In Mandarin): The amendments put forward by the Member for Hong Lim cannot be accepted by us. 6.30 p.m. The reason for his amendments is that the Minister may abuse the powers given by this Bill. On the Second Reading of this Bill, I have said that the Minister cannot freeze the funds of any trade union until the Registrar of Trade Unions has served notice under section 15 subsection (2) of this Ordinance. Before he does so, he cannot freeze the funds of any trade union. The second point is that the Member for Hong Lim suggests that the Minister should be replaced by a High Court Judge. This is not proper. Now, if there is any question in doubt, it can be decided by a High Court Judge. He can order the freezing of trade union funds. But will the same Judge preside over the original trial of a trade union as well as over the appeal case? There is a similar provision in the Federation trade union laws and our provision is based on that.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the dispute is whether this Assembly should observe the rule of law or accept that this country should be run by arbitrary powers of the Government? Where funds of unions are concerned and the future of union members is at stake, I feel that the Minister or the Government must not be given arbitrary powers to decide whether union funds should be frozen or not, but that the Minister or his representative, the Registrar of Trade Unions, should present a case and whether union funds should be frozen or not should be decided by an impartial High Court Judge. Mr Chairman, Sir, that is the essence of my amendments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the point mentioned by the Member for Hong Lim is, in fact, in the present Ordinance, but the difficulties we are facing are this. There is a group of unscrupulous people and if we resort to the democratic procedure laid out in the present section of the Ordinance, by the time we get an order from the Court the union has already withdrawn the funds and the money will have disappeared into the air. That is why, in order to plug the loophole, the inadequacy of the provision, we have therefore to amend it by this section here. But I think the Member for Hong Lim has just moved the amendment for the sake of moving it without looking into the whole aspect of the Ordinance. In section 15A there are so many provisions for the Registrar to satisfy himself before he can issue a notice to a trade union. First of all, there is a checkmate. The Registrar can only serve a notice on a union under certain conditions which are laid down in section l5A. Therefore, there is no justification for the statement that this Bill is trying to suppress the Opposition. What we want from this amending Bill is that, in the interim period where a notice has been served on a union, if it is found that the union intends to withdraw money for purposes inconsistent with its rules and objects, the Minister will have to exercise his discretion to withhold - he does not stop the money - the money for three months only. After that, if the union is allowed to continue, then the frozen money will be released; or if registration of the union is cancelled, the money will be transferred to the Public Official Assignee. There is no question of the Minister holding the funds. It is just a checkmate during the interim period.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I do understand it is to freeze the union's account for three months, although this is a moratorium on union funds for three months. But, Sir, with three months funds frozen, the union will cease to operate for those three months. If the Government think that it is very difficult to get a hearing before a High Court Judge - and I know of instances where the Government can get a High Court Judge to hear a case within one or two days, I mean, I do not mind amending it to a District Court Judge - either a High Court Judge or a District Court Judge but the essence of the amendment is this. Let the rule of law prevail. Let us have less arbitrary powers of the Government exercising more and more control over our daily lives. That is all. If the Government think it is very difficult to get a High Court Judge to hear such a case, I do not mind having a District Court Judge.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just to cut the matter short, just one point.

All right.

The Member for Hong Lim says yes, we are going to play according to the rule of law. We are not denying any party to seek redress from a High Court Judge in case there is a miscarriage of justice, either by the Registrar or by the Minister. I am a layman but I am sure there is provision in the law in this State where, if there is a miscarriage of justice, the person concerned has every facility to seek his redress through the Court. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division. The Committee divided: Aye, 1; Noes, 28; Abstention, 1; Absent, 20. Aye Noes Ong Eng Guan A. Rahim Ishak Buang Bin Omar Junid Abstention Chan Chee Seng Barker, E. W. Chan Choy Siong, Madam Chow Chiok Hock Fong Sip Chee Goh Keng Swee Gonzales, R. A. Govindasamy, P. Ho Cheng Choon Jek Yeun Thong Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Lim Kim San Mahmud Awang Nair, Mrs. Devan Ng Kah Ting Ng Yeow Chong Ong Pang Boon Othman Bin Wok Rajoo, S. Rodrigues, Bernard Sia Kah Hui Sim Boon Woo Teong Eng Siong Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yong Nyuk Lin Absent Bani, S. T. Chan Sun Wing Chia Thye Poh Chio Cheng Thun Fong Kim Heng Ho See Beng Koo Young Kow Kee Seng Lee Kuan Yew Lim Huan Boon Lingam, S. V. Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi Ong Lian Teng Poh Ber Liak Rahamat Bin Kenap Rajaratnam, S. Tan Cheng Tong Wong Soon Fong Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj Amendments accordingly negatived. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 6.45 p.m. Clause 4 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, to leave out from line 33 up to "Minister" in line 37; and In page 2, to leave out from line 40 to the end of the clause. Mr Speaker, Sir, the funds of the unions belong to the members of the unions, and it is not right for the Government to misappropriate union funds. If the Government consider it necessary to close down the unions, all the funds should rightly be distributed among the members, because the funds are subscriptions or donations from the members and should be returned to them, as is usually determined by the Official Assignee in bankruptcy cases That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the first reason for the amendment. The second reason, as I have said earlier during the Second Reading, is that it is very bad to make a law retrospective, and section 18B makes this law retrospective and applicable to unions against which the Government have taken action even before the law is passed. Mr Speaker, it is because of these two reasons that I move these two amendments.

Mr Speaker, the proposal made by the Member for Hong Lim negates the very principle of this Bill. Therefore, the Government cannot accept it. There is no question of misappropriating union funds, because The Minister shall so direct only in extreme cases where the union membership cannot be established or where the members cannot be traced. It is only in those extreme cases that the Government have no choice but to direct these monies be put into the Consolidated Fund. The Consolidated Fund belongs to the people of Singapore, and I cannot see any possibility of misappropriation. Section 18A paragraph (b) (ii) provides that the Government can dispose of the funds in accordance with the rules of the union. If the union membership can be established and its members can be traced, there is no reason why this provision should not be carried out. As regards the retrospective effect of the Bill, I think it is necessary because there are some unions which have been deregistered as early as 1956 or 1957, and the funds and properties of those unions have still to be disposed of. They are now in the hands of some legal firms. I think it is right that the Government be given the power to refer all these properties to the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy, so that they can be dealt with in accordance with the law. Amendments negatived. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

6.55 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.".

Mr Speaker, the debate of the last week has exposed the Barisan Sosialis in their true colours as a group of people who are willing to betray the security of Malaysia. I do not think the people are so naive as to believe that the Barisan Assemblymen and Representatives in the Dewan Ra'ayat in Kuala Lumpur were sincere when they took the oath of loyalty that they will defend Malaysia.

Mr Deputy Prime Minister, at the adjournment of the debate, the Member for Bukit Panjang had the Floor. I thought the Deputy Prime Minister was about to move a motion. If he is not moving a motion, then I have to give the Member the Floor. I am sorry for the interruption.

Resolved, "That this Assembly be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until the completion of the proceedings on item 1 of the Order Paper." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye.]

Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will continue from where I left off yesterday. Yesterday, in the Minister for Culture's speech, there was nothing but intimidation, threats and smears. We can see from his speech his despondency and evil intentions. There was nothing in his speech but smears, accusations and fairy tales. He put all the blame on the Opposition side. His speech can be described as reflecting on the P.A.P. He defended the Central Government for all the evils and failures the P.A.P. have perpetrated in the past and for all the repressive and oppressive actions carried out with the abetment of the P.A.P. on the people. The P.A.P. have defended themselves by putting the blame on the Central Government for the arrest of the trade unionists and other progressive elements. Today they use the same tactics; tomorrow they can also resort to the same game and tactics on the people. This has been their usual political practice. But I would like to advise them not to put the blame on the shoulders of others in order to show to the people that they are people of integrity and a Party of integrity. On the question of policy in regard to the rural areas, the P.A.P. have been following the same past practice - shifting the blame for their failures on to the shoulders of others. All the failures in their rural policy have been shifted on to the shoulders of the Opposition Parties and the pro-masses of the rural people. They have never thought of analysing their failures themselves or realising that they themselves are to blame. They should have revealed their own mistakes but in His Excellency's speech, nothing was mentioned about how the P.A.P. Government could improve the lot and livelihood of the rural people. The P.A.P. have never started anything on concrete grounds and have never paid attention to the realities existing at present. As in the past the P.A.P., have been making use of every available opportunity to achieve their political propaganda purposes. For instance, the Ministers have been using occasions when community centres were declared open by the Ministers, and using the radio and other available opportunities to do publicity for the P.A.P. But our defeated candidates have never resorted to these actions. Some of them are in gaol now. Further, the Prime Minister is now going on another round of rural tours and is trying to change the former Welcoming Committees of the areas, where he toured, into the so-called Citizenship Consultative Committees to help the Government when there are so many rural problems awaiting solution by the Government. Though these questions have not been solved by the Government and the needs of the rural people have not been met, yet the Prime Minister is doing something which will go to strengthen his own political power. There is a grave doubt whether the advice and opinions of the so-called Permanent Citizens Consultative Committee will be listened to by the P.A.P. overlords. And the P.A.P. intend to extend the fields of its activities in the community centres. But the P.A.P. Government have not disclosed the details and the nature of these activities. Does it mean that the P.A.P. intend to use the community centres as clinics or as veterinary stations or as offices for collecting centres for property taxes, or are they to be used as P.A.P. propaganda stations? On the other hand, we see that the P.A.P. are allotting $1 million to be used for the so-called training of leadership to serve P.A.P. purposes. This is another indication of collusion with the Minister for Culture. The Minister for Finance has also said that he would use most of his time to deal with the youths of some other sections. That is the only method of policy he could have in dealing with State matters. This policy of the P.A.P. can only create undesirable consequences in the State. In the past few years the P.A.P. Government's policy of suppression in the rural areas against the rural people - this sort of activity of the P.A.P. has far exceeded the good it has done to the rural people, and the enthusiasm and efforts of the P.A.P., in helping the foreign capitalists have far exceeded their efforts in helping the people themselves. The industrialisation policy of the P.A.P. is another humbug. It is a fact that the P.A.P. have been making extensive use of the police and the military to suppress the people and workers generally. The P.A.P. have driven away over 100,000 people from their homesteads without giving them any adequate compensation or properly solving their resettlement problems. This includes Toa Payoh, Kallang, Geylang Serai, Lorong Meng Kong, Bagan Merah, Aljunied, Potong Pasir, Bukit Linchik, Delta, Lim Chu Kang, Lamaji, Choa Chu Kang, the Geylang areas and various other places. People living in these areas are all involved. From November of last year up to this November, the P.A.P. have demolished more than 100 houses and destroyed the vegetable plots of the farmers. On the question of rural problems, unpleasant incidents have always been caused by the bureaucratic and unreasonable attitude and actions of the P.A.P. They will never listen to the opinions and wishes of the people of the rural areas and the representatives of the people. They are following the line of the Lim Yew Hock Government. They never consider the economic situation of those people who are affected. Do they not know that many of the rural people could not afford to pay high rentals? Do they not know that certain hawkers, after being forced to remove, would be short of finances to start their business anew? Do they not know that certain workers, when they are forced to settle down in areas far away from their places of trade, experience great inconvenience and economic difficulty? Do they not know that the costs of agricultural products would also be affected by removal? There are also other problems such as the difficulties and inconveniences caused to school-going children who are resettled in outlying areas. We should understand when the rural people are faced with enforced removal, they will suffer the loss of their wealth and other possessions and will be faced with new unknown changes which will cause undesirable psychological effects and an unnecessary burden. If their future livelihood and business could be assured by the Government and if their psychological ill-feelings could be avoided, then I am sure that they would be quite willing to be resettled, otherwise they would have no alternative but to react against their enforced removal and of course to oppose the Government's unreasonable compensation rates. All civic-minded citizens would also demand, on their behalf, adequate and reasonable compensation. This inhuman enforced removal carried out by the P.A.P. is uncalled for.

The Member for Bukit Panjang is discussing the rural problem and resettlement on which much has been said in the Budget sittings and by his colleagues in this debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. He should not repeat what the other Members have said, I would ask him to try and get on to some new matter which has not been touched upon by any of his colleagues.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I wanted to say was about the Government's rural policy. They only mentioned the Government's rural policy in passing, but they did not give full details. That is why I would like to add my own points and views.

I would ask the Member to accept my ruling and go on to something else.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we can see from the policy speech of the P.A.P. that they do not have a complete education programme for the rural people. The Government should have planned to make use of available land in our State. But have the P.A.P. been using State land? What about the P.A.P.'s Master Plan? Let us use what the P.A.P. have said to rebut them. In 1959, in their election pamphlets there is a passage saying that the Master Plan drafted by the colonial regime could only satisfy the greed of the great landlords, that, in actual fact, it was not beneficial to the people and that it should be drawn up in accordance with the practical needs of Singapore. Besides this, the P.A.P. also condemned the compensation rates of the Lim Yew Hock Government. But when we look around, we can see that the P.A.P. are out in full force implementing the same Master Plan and the same compensation rates of the Lim Yew Hock Government. Therefore, unpleasant incidents have inevitably occurred. Perhaps the P.A.P. think that building and industrialisation programmes are not compatible with the interests of the rural people and that the interests of the rural people must be sacrificed in favour of industrialisation. That is why they always use terms like "industrialisation" and "housing programmes" to suppress the rural people. Those who oppose their actions are dubbed as anti-national by them. What else can the P.A.P. contribute towards the welfare and interests of the rural people? It is more pitiful to see their persecution of the rural people by making use of the money from the rural people for their other evil deeds. We are of the opinion that the interests of the broad masses of the rural people and those of the workers are compatible with each other. The industrialisation and housing programmes should not contradict each other. In our opinion, these two programmes are not compatible with the interests of the rural people. We have about $400 million in revenue every year, and yet we have to contribute $120 million to the Central Parliament. In addition to this, we have to lend $150 million to the Borneo territories. The P.A.P. further want to use public funds to set up centres to train their own cadres. I say that if these sums of money are used to resettle those who have been forced to remove in a proper way, then this question can be resolved to a certain extent. Mr Speaker, Sir, during these few days, although we have debated the question of rural policy, all our views and opinions have never received any proper answer or reply from the Government Ministers. That is why I feel that it is again necessary to give my viewpoints on rural policy. Because our viewpoints on rural problems have not been published in the newspapers, that is why I feel it necessary to touch on it again in this House. Mr Speaker, once more I tell the P.A.P. that their suppression of the rural people far exceeds the help given to the rural people.

The rural problem has been gone over for days. The reason given by the hon. Member for repeating it here is that the newspapers have not carried it. But under the Standing Orders, a Member is not allowed to repeat himself. Can he go away from the rural problem, on which so much has been said and on which he has already spoken, to some fresh matter?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now go on to something else. As to the other points which have been raised by my colleagues, perhaps I may mention in passing that they have not been adequately dealt with in this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, the rural economy is facing great difficulties at present. There are poverty and diseases in the rural areas.

I am not prepared to allow the hon. Member to go on to this rural problem. Can he not go on to something else? We have been debating this subject for four days. I am quite prepared to hear anyone who has something new to say. But do not repeat not only what he has said but what has been said over the last four days.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if you think I have been too repetitious, then I will try to finish my speech in the shortest possible time. What I have mentioned just now might not have covered all that has been mentioned by my colleagues in the past. But anyway, I will now try to finish my speech by dealing briefly with certain other points. The P.A.P. have not been able to find out the real problems existing in the rural areas. Once, when the Prime Minister toured a certain rural area, he found that some people who came out to welcome him with bouquets wore very nice clothes. He then said that the rural people were well-fed, wealthy and enjoyed a very high standard of living. In addition to the forced removal from their land, the rural people are faced with the scarcity of land. Here in this Assembly, the Prime Minister has said previously that 17,000 acres of land were occupied by the British Forces. Had this land been used to help the people, something good and useful would have come out of it, and this, to a certain extent, would have solved the scarcity of land. Many small farmers have gone bankrupt. This was because they lack capital and know-how. In the past, the P.A.P. promised to give loans to them, but they have not fulfilled their pledge. They have not adopted effective measures to stabilize the prices of farm products. There is a great fluctuation in the prices of farm produce. For instance, although the price of pork has gone up, the price of poultry has remained at $1 per katty. And because of an outbreak of a poultry disease, 200,000 chickens perished in this epidemic. The P.A.P. have stated that after the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, there would not be any tariffs. But we see that the tariffs are still there. A duty of one cent has to be paid on each egg that is exported to the Federation. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Lim Yew Hock regime, two rural organisations were banned. They were the Farmers' Association and the Rural People's Association. And during the regime of the P.A.P., two rural associations were also banned. They were banned after the 16th of September. They have a membership of more than 20,000. And no good reasons were given for their banning. The only reason given was that these associations carried out activities which were not consistent with their rules and regulations. This goes to show that organisations which do not support the P.A.P. are suppressed by them. The banning of these two organisations gives an indication of the rural policy of the P.A.P. and their collaboration with the Federation Government. It also symbolises the unity of the 500,000 rural people. That is why they have to be banned on the pretext that they were being used by pro-Communist front organisations. This is nonsensical argument. These rural organisations truly represent the rural people. They work for the interests and welfare of the rural people. They were opposed to the unreasonable policy of the P.A.P. What is wrong with that? Just because they are considered to be organisations that oppose the Government, they are banned. Instead the P.A.P. should arrest Lim Yew Hock because Lim Yew Hock organised the so-called Alliance Party, which also has a united front among them. The P.A.P. themselves rely on colonialism. Likewise they have a united front - an alliance with the colonialists. If you say that the rural people organise themselves to look after their own interests, the Government should not accuse them of being tools of the Communists. From all actions of the Government, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that spit and spittle will fall on their heads. Dr Toh Chin Chye rose ---

How long does the Deputy Prime Minister propose to take?

About ten minutes.

Then, please proceed.

Mr Speaker, the debate of the last week has exposed the Barisan Sosialis in their true colours as a group of people who are willing to betray the security of Malaysia. I do not think the people are so naive as to believe that the Barisan Assemblymen and Representatives in the Dewan Ra'ayat in Kuala Lumpur were sincere when they took the oath of loyalty that they will defend Malaysia. The Barisan Sosialis is now in an impossible contradiction out of which they cannot extricate themselves. Can there be anything more stupid for Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen to take a solemn oath that they would defend and die for Malaysia, when at the same time their own Party Chairman publicly stated that he is opposed to Malaysia? The stand of the Barisan Sosialis is always confusing, like a dog chasing its own tail. Barisan Assemblymen have been only too eager to exaggerate the unemployment situation due to the cessation of trade between us and Indonesia, but they have not uttered a single word to condemn the Indonesian Government which brought this misfortune upon the people. In fact, the Member for Tampines has said it is not the Barisan's concern whether the present attitude of Indonesia is correct or not. The Member for Thomson takes the cake when he urged the Central Government to stop scolding Indonesia. If the dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia amounted to only an exchange of words, then there need not be any anxiety at all. Let me ask this. Is the Member for Thomson not aware that Indonesia is not only scolding Malaysia but also bleeding the people of Malaysia to death by acts of aggression along our borders and piracy in our waters? This afternoon the Prime Minister has related in this Assembly acts of sabotage by Indonesian fifth columnists in Singapore. Will the Member for Thomson, or for that matter any Member of the Barisan Sosialis, be brave enough to go to the Indonesian Parliament and tell big brother to lay off smashing up Malaysia? The Member for Jalan Kayu declared that the Barisan oppose Malaysia because of their patriotism and love for their country. Let me ask him. Which is your country? He is not here to answer. May I ask his colleagues, which is their country? Indonesia? Is it that the Barisan loves Indonesia so much that Mr Bani, ex-Member for Thomson, made the revealing statement in this very Chamber that Indonesia is the heartland of Malaysia? Is it that the Barisan loves Azahari so much that it supported him during the Brunei revolt so that he could capture Sabah and Sarawak? Is it because of patriotism to Indonesia that the Barisan is now speaking in this Chamber on behalf of Indonesia to smash Malaysia? The Barisan has called the Central Government Fascist, neo-colonialist, brutal, suppressive and by every other conceivable adjective in the dictionary. But on Indonesia which is perpetrating aggression against us, they keep a pious and hypocritical silence. Together with the Member for Hong Lim, the Barisan Sosialis want us to crawl to the feet of Bung Soekarno and to plead for mercy. The Barisan Sosialis do not condemn the Indonesian Government as inhuman for stopping water supplies from Singapore to the inhabitants in the Rhio islands. They do not condemn the Indonesian Government as being Fascist for issuing a decree that all those in Indonesia who listen to Radio Malaysia will be executed. They do not condemn the Indonesian Government as brutal for inspiring the terrorism committed by Indonesian commandos in Sarawak and Sabah. On the contrary, the Barisan is acting as an advocate for Indonesian aggression and applauds, what they have called, "the national liberation struggle" in Borneo. Will the Barisan despatch volunteers to help Indonesia liberate Sabah and Sarawak as they did in the case of West Irian? Is the Barisan looking forward to Soekarno liberating them from the Tunku? I do not think we should make an error in thinking that those in the Barisan Sosialis are stupid men. Far from it. It will be more correct for us to believe that they are evil men with sinister aims. Their hatred for Malaysia and their delight at being able to make political capital out of the plight of those who are now unemployed on account of Indonesian confrontation stem from one fact, and one fact alone, and that is, the Barisan prefers to sleep in the same bed with Indonesia and dream the dreams of the P.K.I., the Communist Party of Indonesia. There is no positive or constructive thinking in the Barisan. Their attitude is one of destruction and condemnation. That was their stand during the general election. Condemnation - no positive construction. That frame of mind has persisted today. If there is a drought, they condemn the Government for not bringing in the rain. If there is rainfall, they condemn the Government for flooding. The Barisan call themselves champions of the workers. But they condemn the Government for putting up housing for the working class. The Barisan was prepared to sacrifice autonomy in education and labour by demanding complete merger with Malaya like Penang and Malacca. But what is their stand during this debate? Now they plead with the Government to protect the autonomy which we have fought for. The Barisan calls Malaysian citizenship second-class. I suggest let them then apply to become Indonesian citizens, and having acquired Indonesian citizenship, they may find a dialectical answer to explain the anti-Chinese rioting in Java and Sumatra. I do not believe the Barisan appreciate the amenities of civilisation and tranquillity that they now enjoy in Singapore and Malaysia. Nothing can be more salutary than for all of them to go back to Jakarta. They will then be thankful for the little mercies that they now enjoy. I think, Mr Speaker, we owe a duty to ourselves to appreciate Indonesia's feelings on the role of Singapore in Indonesian trade so that there will be less bewilderment about the motive for Indonesian economic confrontation. For decades Indonesian rubber and copra and other raw produce have been sold to the markets of the world through Singapore and in return rice, textiles and consumer goods have been imported into Indonesia, again through Singapore. This has been possible partly because of our commercial expertise and the banking and insurance facilities which exist in Singapore and partly because Indonesia has no port comparable in efficiency and ability to handle the world's shipping to our own port. Ever since Indonesia attained her independence in 1949, she had always been conscious of this dependence on our entrepot port to conduct her trade with the rest of the world. Because of maladministration, over-attention to political affairs and inattention to economic matters, Indonesia had no alternative but to tolerate Singapore's role as her banker and trade agent. Indonesian oil had been distributed throughout her archipelago by ships based in Singapore, a foreign port. This has always been regarded by the Indonesians as prejudicial to their own defence and security measures. The desire, therefore, by Indonesia not to rely on Singapore traders and Singapore based ships is therefore not an overnight decision but one which has been considered for a long time. As has been indicated by the Prime Minister this afternoon in his statement, Indonesian efforts to subvert Singapore began in 1960, long before the Tunku announced his support for the Malaysia Plan. In other words, let us not underestimate the political intention and ambitions of Indonesian leaders, The umbilical cord between Singapore and Indonesia had to be cut some day; confrontation against Malaysia precipitated the economic surgery. Quite obviously in this context, we ourselves must make our own readjustments. Fortunately the Government has, as early as 4 years ago, foreseen the difficulties which Singapore would face with each passing year if we made no efforts to diversify our economy. Singapore's trading economy could not grow if neighbouring independent countries were to take steps to trade directly with other parts of the world. Moreover, since our trading economy could not grow as fast as our increasing population, new avenues for productive activity had to be found. So positive plans for industrialisation in Singapore were laid down by the Government. The Economic Development Board was founded and plans to create industrial estates in different parts of Singapore were executed. It is our hope that in the next five years industrialisation will be on its way to fulfilment. But to enable industrialisation in Singapore to start and in order for us to maintain the tempo of industrialisation, it is essential that industrial peace be observed, for without industrial peace, factories will be working at half cock, or some of them may even close down as we have observed in the past few years. The Minister for Finance two days ago in answer to a question has so ably illustrated what irresponsibility in the trade union field could do to damage industrialisation. It is also essential that markets must be found for goods manufactured in Singapore. Fortunately, no one can be complacent by solely being dependent upon our home market. There is already the Malaysian Common Market which has been agreed to by the four territories of Malaysia. However, it is essential that, if our manufacturers are to prosper and the people to share in the prosperity, that Common Market must be extended. Exports towards overseas markets must eventually play a considerable part in preserving our prosperity and standard of living. Our economic tasks ahead are difficult but not impossible. So long as our entrepreneurs and workers can be inspired in the task of building up our economy and our Malaysian nation, the prospects are bright, notwithstanding Indonesian confrontation, and we all look forward to a new historical era in which true Malaysians can play a loyal part.

Order. I propose to suspend the sitting until 9.15 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 7.55 p.m. until 9.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.15 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Sir, the tone and tenor of the debate that has been set in the last week is a depressing reminder of the futility of these meetings when the purpose of the Opposition is not to debate, to criticise and to improve. Their purpose is to read out under cover of privilege in this Chamber long and dreary extracts repeating the Communist united front line, anti-Malaysia, and anti any policy or plan of action that in any way makes things difficult for the Communists to strengthen their ground. In moving this motion of thanks, I had set out in broad outline four main targets, industrialisation, housing and the re-building of the old city, education to meet the needs of an industrial society, and, last, raising of social standards, Most important of all, I had explained a new addition to the organisational structure of the Government, the Citizens' Consultative Committees. One would have expected the Opposition, if it were a democratic Opposition, anxious to play its role as constructive critic, to take the Government up on its main targets, to show, if they can, why these targets do not measure up to the economic and social problems before the country and how they can be improved. But no such debate has taken place. It is clear that what we are going to have, even more so than in the last Assembly, are long and windy, repetitious speeches all scripted beforehand and dutifully read out in this Chamber. They talk of the death of freedom, of the end of democratic rights, of merger and Malaysia being a sell-out, all as if the referendum never took place last year and as if they had won the last general elections. For it appears that, every evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, only they can speak for the masses. Sir, I have said in introducing the motion that we must always be prepared to face new situations and adapt and adjust the democratic system to meet the specific problems as they come up from time to time. Three-quarters of the time on the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and on the Budget Estimates were more properly within the province of our Parliament in Kuala Lumpur. But for various reasons they feel inhibited and they have remained silent in Kuala Lumpur although their parliamentary leader, the Member for Bukit Merah, has taken leave from this House to attend Parliament since the 11th of December. And it is his comrades here who have dressed in parliamentary privilege the ghost writings in Chinese of a hard-working but somewhat unimaginative group of aspiring Marxist-Leninists. By our next sitting I think we should have re-adjusted our Standing Orders to take into account this growing abuse of the legislative chamber. Sir, I have no desire to give a point-by-point refutation of their line of calumny. Suffice it to say that if we were able to survive their vicious campaign of lies, scare and slander which they have unleashed since June 1961, we can and will debunk all these dreary falsehoods, for finally it is on the record of our performance in the five years from now that the people will judge us. However, we should do well to always remember that if they, the Barisan Sosialis, were in charge of the country, it is very unlikely that we would be allowed, in the Opposition, to say the things of them that we have allowed them to say of us. It is also unlikely in that situation that either in the unions or in the civic organisations we would be allowed even a one-hundredth part of the opportunity that we are now giving them to organise and preach their gospel against the nation. Our failing, I fear, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not that we have stifled democratic rights and liberties, but that we have been too tolerant with a group of men who interpret tolerance as a weakness to be exploited and abused. We can all remember what happened throughout Malaya and Singapore in the few weeks immediately after the defeat of Japan and before the re-occupation by the British Forces. The Communists were in charge in some towns and districts. Sir, Members on the other side have been talking about the right to free and open trial. But the unreasoning, unceasing screech of hatred which they have preached leads us straight back to the summary methods of justice that the people's courts then enforced. They had little time and even less regard for the niceties of the rules of evidence and of trial by jury. We on this side must never forget that if ever we lose this fight, then we must be stupid to expect of them to concede to us what we have conceded to them even after their defeat. But it is worthwhile pointing out to them that whilst the democratic system concedes the rights of opposition to the new nation before it is formed, once it has been formed, to preach disloyalty and incite disaffection against Malaysia is treason and punishable as such. Sir, they may have taken their oath both here and in Parliament to defend the Constitution of Malaysia more out of perfunctory duty than out of any conviction. But let them know that the whole of the apparatus of the State will go into motion if they, instead of honouring this pledge, actively incite disaffection, The whole of their effort over the past ten days has been to cast doubts on Malaysia, weaken the people's resolve to defend it, and generally create disloyalty to the Government of Malaysia. Sir, one can more than guess at the motives of these speeches, when we find Radio Kalimantan Utara picking up with relish every falsehood on Malaysia, every exaggeration on the effects of Indonesian confrontation, that has been uttered in this House. Whatever they said their intentions were, the consistent use to which enemy propaganda has put their speeches can leave no doubt that they are, in fact, helping the confrontationists to inflict injury on Malaysia. Sir, the very wording of this motion, `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 ...' and so on, every phrase is cast in terms of villainy. To talk of Malaysia having been imposed upon the people - I presume the people of Singapore - after it has been endorsed both at the referendum and again at the general elections is not just to perpetrate a lie, but to actively help hostile forces around us to intervene against Malaysia. With the disclosure today that confrontation even for Singapore does not stop at a trade boycott but goes on to active sabotage which has cost up to date the lives of two innocent civilians, a new significance is given to the anti-Malaysia activities of the Opposition. Sir, the intelligence network shows that these activities of penetration and subversion have been going on for many months before Malaysia was even mooted. Reluctantly one is pushed to the conclusion that, quite unconnected with Malaysia, a scheme was launched at penetration and subversion which, if successful, must lead to the gradual absorption of Singapore and Malaya, and now Malaysia, by our bigger neighbour. The violence that has been undertaken was planned only after April this year, shortly before Malaysia, hut the cultural and ideological penetration had been mounted several years ago even before Malaysia was ever suggested. We must be blind if we fail to see the basic objective and the end result of all these Activities. The question I have asked the Opposition is: on whose side are they on? They have not answered. They have remained silent. They have never even admitted the existence of Malaysia. So how can they even admit that they are Malaysian? And how can they defend Malaysia, if they are not Malaysian? But let me give them this piece of advice: whatever their intentions, if by any overt act, by any open action, they help the enemy against Malaysia, then they must bear the full consequences of being treated as traitors to the nation. The fact that Indonesia is now prepared to use agents and fifth columnists to disrupt our economy puts a sombre hue on our responsibilities. We are now in the midst of, literally, a battle of life and death, a battle for survival, our survival as a separate entity, to live our lives in our own way in South-East Asia unmolested by bigger and more powerful neighbours. We have always feared that the temptation of the big to be bigger and to absorb the smaller would be too much to resist. But now we know for a fact that confrontation includes fifth columnists and saboteurs trained to wreck the economy of Singapore and, even more important, to weaken the will of the people of Singapore and of the other parts of Malaysia to resist absorption, for that is the alternative to Malaysia. Our chances of survival are ten times better in Malaysia than if we were by ourselves. Malaysia may have been followed by a trade boycott and a loss of 8.7 per cent of our national income. But this was not the logical consequence of Malaysia. It was the consequence of a conscious act of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia to inflict damage on all the parties in Malaysia, either by economic sanction even if it costs Indonesia four times our losses, or by military pressure along our borders and sabotage from within, if it appears to have a chance of success, then direct military action cannot altogether be ruled out. We must resolve to defend ourselves to the death, for death is preferable to conquest and absorption. When our neighbours, both friendly and unfriendly, understand this, then peace in South-East Asia is more likely to be preserved. Whatever the economic pressures, whatever the harassment by sabotage, whatever the psychological tensions, let no one mistake our right to be masters in our own house. We cannot afford to be befuddled or bemused into weakening in our resolve for Malaysia. What is at stake is not just 8.7 per cent of our national income but, literally, our survival as a separate people in this part of the world. When survival is at stake, those who help the enemy to weaken the nation will find to their cost that the nation is prepared to defend itself against the enemy without and also against the enemy within. I ask this House to reject this amendment as the line of treachery and treason. If ever the Communists succeed in weakening our resolve for Malaysia, then verily, first, Sarawak, then Sabah, then Singapore, and finally Malaysia itself, will be slowly absorbed into the Indonesian orbit. If this happens, then even the Barisan which has moved this amendment may look back to this era as a golden age compared to what is in store for them and indeed for all others in that situation.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, since over a week ago this House has witnessed the tactics exhibited by the Barisan Sosialis Members when this House debated matters which have been tabled. From their tactics, it is obvious that the seven Barisan Sosialis Members behave like agents of their masters who instruct them what to do, without taking into consideration the consequences of their actions. This is not surprising, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the Barisan Sosialis Members are still young and they think that this House is a place where they can indulge in games so that they can exhibit their bravery. All this, as I have said earlier, is the attitude of raw parish pump politicians who do not follow the trend of debates previously. Their speeches remind me of the writings of Mao Tse-tung, their big leader, in one of his articles entitled Tactics to Oppose Imperialist Japan. Inter alia, Mao Tse-tung said that the young people have a lot of ideas - good plans - but they cannot be trusted to implement state and world tasks, because they are unable to understand such tasks. I do not think the Barisan Members, who are raw, understand what they have said themselves. I do not think they understand the consequences and the dangers of their speeches which they merely read in this Chamber. After hearing their speeches, my conclusion is that generally their speeches do not indicate any sign of loyalty at all to this country. On the contrary, their speeches are of a nature to instigate the people to fight Malaysia, which has been acknowledged by the world. Are their speeches really concerned with how to improve this country? Are their speeches concerned with how to solve the unemployment problem as a result of economic confrontation launched by Indonesia? Do their speeches contain constructive suggestions on how we should provide more amenities and assistance for the benefit of the people of this country? Or what should be done by the Government to give facilities to the rural dwellers in this country? Or what should be done by all of us to defend ourselves from aggression and threat by Indonesia? Not a thing. The speeches by the Barisan Members, on the whole, indicate how Malaysia is suffering as a result of confrontation which is now being launched by Indonesia. Their speeches show that the people are against merger, and the people of this country will rise at any time in arms because they oppose Malaysia. Which people? Are they the people who have chosen Malaysia in the referendum? Are they the people who have cast their votes in the general elections in September last and who have reelected the P.A.P. Government to govern for a further five years? No, definitely no, Mr Deputy Speaker. The people referred to in their speeches are those anti-nationals and pro-Communists, whom they represent in this Chamber, and the people who comprise the minority and who do not wish to see this country prosper and live in peace and harmony. In fact, the speeches of the Barisan Sosialis are not directed at the people of Malaysia, but directed at the Communists in Indonesia and abroad. I am confident that what they have said in this Chamber will be broadcast by Radio Indonesia, Radio Kalimantan Utara, and Radio Peking. Do the speeches by the hon. Members condemn Indonesia for launching aggression in North Borneo? Do their speeches contain the incidents of intrusion of Indonesian war-planes over the Malaysian sky and Indonesian pirates who robbed the property of our fishermen in the Straits of Malacca and in international waters? Not a bit. On the contrary, their speeches indicate they are encouraging the incidents to continue. I feel such an attitude as exhibited by these hon. Members, sooner or later, will encourage Indonesia to commit aggression against Malaya and Singapore. One day we will witness Indonesian jet bombers flying over this Chamber. Confrontation has increased our responsibility even more, because more problems have been created. Plans which were to have been implemented by the Government for the betterment of the people cannot be put into effect now, as the Government are obliged to concentrate on their efforts to solve problems of unemployment as a result of Indonesian confrontation, with the encouragement of hon. Members opposite us. But, on the other hand, there is good in confrontation because it has caused the people in this country comprising many races to be even more united behind the Government. In the last general elections, the people voted the P.A.P. Government once again to govern the country. We are proud that the people have put their faith in us. I am happy to say in this Chamber that the trust placed in us will be honoured and, God willing, will not be betrayed forever. The faith and trust placed in us by the people will be reciprocated. I promise that the P.A.P. Government will never at any time misplace this trust. We will continue to strive for the benefit and improvement of the people in this country as a whole. What we hope from the people is their co-operation and understanding so that we can smash the anti-national and pro-Communist elements which are in our midst. We are proud. Mr Deputy Speaker, in this struggle to eliminate these anti-national elements, the people are solidly behind us. The Malaysia Plan was announced by the Malaysian Prime Minister, the Hon. Tunku Abdul Rahman, about two years ago. About six months later, that was on the 17th November, 1962, the New York Times published a letter signed by Dr Subandrio, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, who mentioned the plan to establish Malaysia. In addition to welcoming such a plan Dr Subandrio, who voiced the official stand of the Indonesian Government, said, inter alia, that "the Indonesian Government sends its good wishes to Malaysia because the object of Malaysia is the process of decolonisation of Malaya over Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore and that Malaysia will free the people of these three territories from the shackles and exploitation of colonialism." Not a word did the letter mention that Malaysia was a new form of neo-colonialism planned by the British and American imperialists and neo-colonialists. Tunku Abdul Rahman was praised for mooting such a plan. Furthermore, Dr Subandrio urged the people of Sarawak and Sabah to determine their own fate and choose whether they wished to join Malaysia or otherwise. The people of Sabah and Sarawak have made their decision through general elections in their respective countries to join Malaysia. Singapore through the referendum also decided for merger and Malaysia. All these means of getting the approval of the people have been carried out by the Governments of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore. In accordance with constitutional democratic practice, they voted of their own free will, without coercion, and by the secret ballot they chose Malaysia. What else do these anti-nationalist pro-Communists want? The people have made their decision clear that they desire Malaysia. But the anti-nationalist elements and pro-Communists refused to acknowledge the decision of the people. Then they started to spread wild charges that the elections and referendum were conducted as a sham and that the people were bluffed and frightened so that they were forced to choose Malaysia and merger. But, Mr Deputy Speaker we all know that the decision of the people has caused the anti-nationalist and pro-Communist elements, represented by the Barisan Sosialis in this Chamber, to suffer a severe thrashing because their leaders at that time made statements indicating that Malaysia could not be destroyed from within this country. Then they started their instigation from outside. They made contacts with Communists from outside. Their leaders, such as Lim Ching Siong, have stated openly in the newspaper Bintang Timor in Indonesia that the Barisan Sosialis preferred to merge with Indonesia and that Singapore would be better off by merging with Indonesia than with Malaysia. The Barisan Sosialis leaders and leaders of the Socialist Front in Malaya also made close contact with Communist leaders in Indonesia. Then they used Azahari, a bankrupt politician, to launch an armed revolution in Brunei. We all know that before the revolution was launched on the 8th of October last year, Azahari had several negotiations with the Barisan Sosialis leaders in Singapore. A few weeks before that, a number of Barisan Sosialis leaders went over to Borneo to persuade the people there to support the armed insurrection. Azahari launched his armed revolution which was crushed in a matter of a few days. He fled to Manila and subsequently to Indonesia. Agitation from outside against Malaysia continued. The P.K.I. launched a big campaign with the help of the Barisan Sosialis to oppose Malaysia. We still remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, how the Communists and their puppets, their lackeys, tried to evict Malaya from attending the Afro-Asian Solidarity Conference in Moshi. The Communists were afraid and worried because of the presence of the Malaysian delegation from Singapore who could expose their lie about Malaysia. The Communists in the conference tried to lobby the other Afro-Asian countries to agree to a resolution to send 20,000 volunteers to support the aggression perpetrated by Azahari in Borneo, but the Singapore and Malayan delegates headed by Mr Devan Nair - a sincere and true patriot, who at one time was involved in the M.C.P. struggle but who later left the M.C.P. because he was convinced that the struggle launched by the M.C.P. was not good for this country - were able to influence the other delegates in Moshi. Likewise, in the Afro-Asian Journalists Conference held in Jakarta not long ago, the Communist groups once again expressed strong opposition to Malaysia, but their efforts were futile, and they could not influence the other delegates from the Afro-Asian countries who attended that conference. Mr Deputy Speaker, the people who have really fought for Malaysia outside this country, with the result that the United Arab Republic, India, Burma and other countries gave their support to the establishment of Malaysia, are the leaders of the P.A.P. headed by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Do the Barisan Sosialis Members in this Chamber consider the U.A.R., India and Burma as neo-colonialist countries? If the Members opposite consider themselves anti-colonial, we are even more anti-colonial. But we are national patriots with undivided loyalty to this country, and we are prepared at any time to defend our country against aggression from any quarter. Where is the patriotism of the hon. Members opposite? Are they loyal to this country? No. Their loyalty is to Indonesia. They are agents of Communist Indonesia which has embarked on confrontation against Malaysia. They do not work for the interests of the people of this country, but for their foreign masters in Indonesia. In other words, they are agents of their foreign masters in Jakarta. They are agents of a country which is our enemy - a government which has embarked on aggression resulting in many Malaysian lives being lost. They represent the enemies in a place where they get facilities for education, and as Members of this Assembly, they receive an allowance of $500 per month. Mr Deputy Speaker, this country has fed them - sometimes they eat food more than three times a day; in Indonesia, if you get food once in three days you are lucky. But what has happened? They are the spokesmen of a country which is determined to smash us. I am ashamed to see their behaviour in this Chamber. I do not think any true Malaysian citizen will adopt such low tactics of the Barisan Sosialis Members opposite. They expect that if confrontation succeeds, they will get high places in this country; they hope that their defeated candidate in the last election in Rochore will be elected Prime Minister and that many of them will be Ministers. Let me emphasise here that if we are destroyed by Indonesia, they will not get a chance at all to hold such posts which they dream of. What will happen is that the aggressors from Indonesia will confiscate everything in this country and what the agents will get will be the residues from the hungry aggressors. Therefore, there is no use for them to shout in this Assembly that the P.A.P. Government are exploiting and suppressing Chinese education and culture, because they know very well the attitude of the Indonesian leaders towards the Chinese. Yesterday, my colleague, the Minister for Culture, stated in this Assembly that the utterances and behaviour of the Barisan Sosialis over the last few days will involve them in a very dangerous position. What they have done amounts to treason against the government and the nation, and according to the law, it is punishable by death. For that reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, their leaders like Messrs. Woodhull, James Puthucheary and Lim Shee Ping have announced publicly that they do not wish to associate themselves with the Barisan Sosialis activities because these actions are fraught with danger. Therefore, the necks of the Opposition Members in front of me are in the noose. People like Messrs. Woodhull, James Puthucheary and Lim Shee Ping are no political chickens. They know the consequence if they involve themselves in the activities of the Barisan Sosialis. They are more politically intelligent than these seven Barisan Sosialis Members. Well, there is still time. I advise them to retreat before they are swallowed. I wish to remind the Members opposite that the people in this country condemn their acts which involve treachery and treason in collaboration with foreign countries to smash Malaysia. They are fed up and they hate the tactics of the Barisan. The Barisan Members must consider carefully what they say and how they behave in this Assembly. They may be applauded by the Gallery but they are hated by members of the public. Their acts are bringing shame to the people of Malaysia. Let us take stock of the position. Refrain from carrying out treacherous acts against this country, because those who will bear the consequences will be the hon. Members themselves opposite. As we reminded them yesterday, there is still time for them to reconsider the situation. If they are lost at the end of the road, they should go back to the beginning of the road. Mr Deputy Speaker, today we have read in the newspapers that 37 saboteurs from Indonesia have been arrested. I feel that in the next few days the total will be increased. At least a further seven will be nabbed!

The Member for Paya Lebar is most eager to speak, but I think the Chair has given ample opportunity to the Opposition to speak. As he is the last speaker in the Opposition, I intend to give the Government benchers the opportunity to speak first and he will then be given plenty of time to speak later. Mr Yong Nyuk Lin.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion, standing in the name of the Prime Minister, expressing our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech on 29th November, 1963, and to reject the amendment proposed by the Member for Jurong which was supported by the Member for Paya Lebar. Although Singapore can reasonably be proud of its health and medical services, if judged in comparison with standards obtainable in countries of South Asia, yet we see no reason for complacency over this state of affairs, because we must always strive to raise the standards of public health and hygiene of our people to the highest possible pitch, so that ill-health and disease can be reduced to its lowest level. However, in attempting to provide better medical facilities for our people, we must ultimately face up with other problems, e.g. finance, shortage of qualified personnel like doctors, which is not peculiar to Singapore alone but is world wide in its applicability. Therefore, we, need to find new solutions to our problems by making greater efforts to recruit and train more para-medical and auxiliary staff like nurses (male and female), health inspectors, laboratory technicians, midwives and others, in order to provide a full and adequate service for our people. As is well known, our rate of population growth at nearly 4 per cent per annum is twice the average world rate. But our present infant mortality rate at 31 per thousand live births and crude death rate at under 6 per thousand are reasonably comparable to any of the advanced nations of the world today. In these circumstances, we must pay more attention to family planning for our mothers than hitherto. I wish in this respect to pay the highest tribute, Sir, to the gallant efforts of our dedicated voluntary workers in the Singapore Family Planning Association for their good work in the past and to assure them that our Ministry will spare no efforts henceforth to work more closely with them, in order to provide yet better facilities for the dissemination of information and advice to mothers at every one of our Maternal and Child Health Centres throughout Singapore. In the final analysis, how healthy a country's population is will largely be determined by the effectiveness of its public health measures. May I remind the House of the relevant part of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech on the subject of Public Health [Hansard, 29th November, 1963, col. 124]? I have mentioned it before, Sir, in the Budget debate, but I think it needs repetition. `On the Public Health side, the Ministry is planning a reorganisation of the City Cleansing services. A gradual run-down of transport equipment, expansion of urban and housing areas and the corresponding huge increase in the number of hawkers, inadequate methods of supervision resulting in lack of discipline in the work force, complicated by secret society elements in their midst, have brought about an increase in rubbish, flies and mosquitoes. All this can and will be put right. Reorganisation can succeed once these factors have been dealt with.' In his speech of 9th December, our Prime Minister, when elaborating on the fourth target of the Government for the next five years - that of raising social standards - said [Hansard, Vol. 22, No. 4, col 148]: `I wish to emphasise higher standards of public and social conduct. This can be brought about by a sustained process of education. It was inevitable that with new forms of popular and representative government, hawkers, squatters and other social problems increase. But slowly as social standards and civic consciousness correspondingly increase, hawkers for instance begin to understand that they must stay out of the main traffic routes and that they must for their own sake maintain certain standards of cleanliness and hygiene. Litter, rubbish, flies and mosquitoes are not only the job of the Health Ministry and the workers in the Cleansing Department, but the social responsibility of all.' Public health measures, Sir, can therefore only be effective if each and every one plays his part, and it is our hope that with patient education and time, we can make our people uphold higher standards of social responsibility in respect of public health than hitherto. Sir, I now wish to answer the irresponsible statements made by the Member for Jurong in his speech of 9th December pertaining to the Health Ministry. According to the transcript of Hansard, p. 18, para. 6, line 4 [col. 161], he said: `Diseases like malaria, long unheard of in Singapore, are once again making their reappearance.' The Member for Jurong does not know what he is talking about. Presence of mosquitoes alone does not signify incidence of malaria, although it is true that certain types of mosquitoes can cause malaria and spread this disease. May I enlighten the Member for Jurong that the World Health Organisation regards Singapore as "an area in which Malaria has been eradicated", unlike his homeland - Indonesia - and that my Ministry will continue to maintain its anti-malarial measures to the best of its ability to keep up this good record. The Member for Jurong again shows not only his utter ignorance of the subject of El Tor Cholera but also states falsehoods (typical of all Barisan Sosialis types) when he goes on further to say, according to the transcript of Hansard, page 19, first paragraph, line 9 [col. 162]: `With such a dangerous and infectious disease like cholera, the confirmed diagnosis of two cases is sufficient to warrant the description of the disease situation as epidemic. Yet the people were not informed of the seriousness of the situation until there were 10 confirmed cases.' Sir, ever since the first bacteriological confirmed case of El Tor Cholera was known on 13th November, 1963, the W.H.O. International Sanitary Regulations required public announcement of Singapore being declared a cholera infected port. This was done by Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 2774 of the same date and this news was published in all newspapers, including the Chinese newspapers, the following morning. With every confirmed case or discovered "carrier", there had not only been the usual follow-up of public health measures such as isolation of direct contacts, stoppage of food preparation by hawkers within 200 yards, sterilisation of wells, disinfection of houses, etc. but a daily bulletin was also issued giving details of the residence and area of every confirmed case and opening of new inoculation centres to suit the convenience of the public. 10.16 p.m.

Ever since the first confirmed case was discovered, the professional officers, i.e. qualified doctors of the Ministry, held daily meetings to assess the situation. Professor Lim Kok Ann of the Bacteriological Department of the University of Singapore was present at these early meetings. During the first few days it was the view of the professional officers that as more than 1.2 million have had inoculations only six months ago during the May outbreak, the number of cases did not justify a decision to launch another mass inoculation campaign until 19th November when there were five known confirmed cases and four symptomless "carriers". The decision was then arrived at, too, that El Tor Cholera had come to stay in Singapore in an endemic form and that anti-cholera inoculations alone would not be good enough and that adequate and effective Public Health measures must be maintained throughout the year. It was then decided that a second mass inoculation campaign should be organised with the opening of more than 30 centres throughout the island as from 25th November. I am pleased to say that up to date more than 700,000 have inoculated themselves at 33 free Government centres, and I hope that many more will take advantage of the free services offered by Government before the month-long mass inoculation campaign comes to an end, in three days' time. I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the Council of the Singapore Medical Association for their co-operation in recommending to their members to charge only a nominal fee of $1 when using free cholera vaccine from the Government during the Mass Inoculation Campaign. I want also to express my deepest gratitude to the doctors associated with 32 private dispensaries for coming forward to assist the Government during this period. I understand that many thousands have been so inoculated under the free Government vaccine scheme. It is my hope that this welcome co-operation from our private practitioners will be extended to all fields, in order that the best possible medical service may be placed at the disposal of our people in Singapore. Up to date there have been 24 confirmed cases and 13 symptomless carriers - the figure 13 is very symbolic - with two regrettable deaths. One was an 85-year old woman who was already in a state of collapse when admitted to Middleton Hospital and died within a few hours, and the other a 56-year old man who was an opium addict and had, in addition, pneumonia as well. If the Member for Jurong says that two confirmed cases of cholera means an epidemic, then I am afraid he has been wrongly advised by his Party doctors for not keeping abreast with latest medical knowledge, as not to be able to differentiate between classical or "Asiatic" cholera, which is a more virulent and explosive type of cholera, commonly known in India, from El Tor Cholera, which has now come to stay in Singapore. El Tor Cholera was first diagnosed in 1906 in Egypt from Mecca pilgrims. According to the World Health Organisation, 16th World Health Assembly held at Geneva in May this year, Report No. 127 -page 31, para. 18. `The Committee recalls that in 1957, at the time of its fifth session and for some decades before that time, all reported cases of the disease due to El Tor vibrios had been limited to the Celebes. [That is, Indonesia] It was on this basis that the Committee was of the opinion that this disease should not be included in the term cholera, a quarantinable disease under the International Sanitary Regulations. The 11th World Health Assembly endorsed this opinion.' It was only in May 1962 after hearing detailed reports of several outbreaks of the El Tor infection in Indonesia, Sarawak, Macao, Hong Kong, the Philippines and North Borneo, and having considered the views of the experts on these outbreaks, including the conclusions and recommendations of the Scientific Group on Cholera Research and the findings of the meeting in Manila, that El Tor Cholera became a notifiable and a quarantinable disease. This then is the situation in Singapore today. There is no cause for panic or alarm but of determination to raise the Public Health consciousness of everyone throughout the State of Singapore. In this respect, Sir, may I enlighten this House by quoting a further relevant extract from the W.H.O. Report again. I quote from page 37, para. 48 on Hongkong: `During the period 1 July 1961 to 30 June 1962, Hongkong in common with certain other countries in the region was infected with cholera El Tor. An account of the outbreak in Hongkong has been published as a White Paper and copies of this White Paper have already been forwarded to the Director General of WHO. From the experience gained of the epidemiology of cholera during the outbreak in Hongkong, it is suggested that Articles 60 to 69, of the International Sanitary Regulations should be reviewed. Despite the considerable powers conveyed by these articles, it has not proved possible to prevent the entry of Vibrio cholera infections into countries in the region despite rigid application of the quarantine measures allowed by the Regulations. The role of the contact-carrier in the dissemination of cholera is not fully understood, but there is evidence to support the view that the contact-carrier without clinical symptoms of the disease may be the agent of dissemination from country to country, particularly those contact-carriers moving by sea in small vessels over short distances which do not normally go through quarantine inspections. It is evident that the powers at present given under the Regulations are not wide enough to prevent the dissemination of cholera.' The existence of El Tor Cholera in Singapore today can be said to be similar to the unfortunate existence of Communists and Barisan Sosialis in the political field. Whereas the Barisan Sosialis can be likened to persons suffering from diarrhoea or dysentery or even confirmed cases of El Tor Cholera because they are open front apologists for Communism for all to see, the really dangerous people are the Communists who spread the doctrine of Communism, of hatred, evil and poison without disclosing who they are and what they are. It is these symptomless carriers like El Tor Cholera carriers, outwardly harmless and innocent but actually sinister and dangerous carriers of germs, disease and death, that we must slowly and patiently ferret out, isolate and quarantine, as it were, so that the rest of the people of Singapore may live in peace and happiness. Sir, the Member for Jurong has seen fit to say that "the manner in which the Government has handled the cholera epidemic is deplorable" (page 18 [col. 161] of the Transcript of Hansard). He even ended with the much stronger words that "the P.A.P. must be condemned for its criminal negligence in the handling of the cholera epidemic" (page 19 [col. 162]). As an elected Minister and charged by my Prime Minister with the responsibility of being in charge of the Ministry of Health I accept full responsibility for everything that is done or has failed to be done by my Ministry. I do not disappear and run into hiding when things happen or appear to go wrong like two of their so-called leaders - the Members for Nee Soon and Toa Payoh. Where are these so-called leaders? Where are they? Sir, I am not in the least disturbed by the strong language used by the Member for Jurong. It is for the people of Singapore and the responsible people of Singapore to pass judgment on me or my Party, which I am privileged to serve. But if there is to be any condemnation in this House, then I say we condemn the treacherous and treasonable Barisan Sosialis and ask them to return to their homeland Indonesia where they belong! Mr Bernard Rodrigues and Mr Kow Kee Seng stood up ---

Is the Member for Telok Blangah going to be long?

No, Mr Speaker. 15 minutes.

How long will the Member for Paya Lebar be? An hon. Member: Three hours.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I have been waiting since eight o'clock now. Three or four Ministers have already spoken.

I will then allow the Member for Paya Lebar to speak.

(In Mandarin): Thank you. Mr Speaker, for giving me a chance to speak. Mr Speaker, Sir, concerning the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and the debate thereon up till now, we have not seen and we have not heard what the P.A.P. Government have advanced or what measures they have given to us to understand in tackling the confrontation policy. What they have been doing is all the time blaming the Communists, the Barisan Sosialis. It is most regrettable that no one has taken down how many times they have used the phrases "Communists", "Barisan Communists" and so on. On matters that affect the livelihood of the people, the P.A.P. Members have never said anything. Instead they put all the blame on us. They blame Soekarno, Indonesia and the Barisan for the confrontation and its consequent sufferings. I will now refute the arguments by the Ministers and advance my reasons for doing so to show to the people of Singapore that we are not smearing and we are not slandering or talking without any reason or fact in support. Perhaps the P.A.P. Ministers may not want to admit what I am going to say, but the man in the street in Singapore knows what kind of attitude they have been adopting in this House. Firstly, I want to deal with the smears made by the Ministers of the P.A.P. in this House. First of all, the Member for Punggol asked us to express our stand. He was only taking the cue from the Prime Minister. He had nothing new to advance in this House. From what the Minister for Social Affairs has said in this House just now, I say there is no need to counter him in my reply because his speech is similar to that made by the Minister for Culture. So I will now first deal with the allegations of the Minister for Culture against us. On the 11th of December and yesterday he tried his best to attack us. He used a very simple weapon - the term "Communists". He applied this term to us, the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen. Playing on this term, he thought that he could bamboozle the people by his long and stinking speech, shouting and yelling at us. We were bored by his speech. I dare say that without the term "Communists", he would have had nothing to say. The only thing he could talk about was Communists, Communists, and Communism. His logic was also absurd and ridiculous. He tried his best to put the blame of Indonesian confrontation on the shoulders of the Barisan Sosialis. On the other hand, he tried to whitewash the sufferings and consequences brought about by Malaysia and the hatred of the people for Malaysia and the P.A.P. He even tried to make good use of the hatred of the people for the P.A.P. and for the sufferings and ill-consequences brought about by Malaysia. He even made use of this hatred for the P.A.P. to put the blame on us in order to achieve their purpose of isolating us. He seemed to think that by doing so he would be able to fix us, which is mere fantasy on his part. I would like to remind him of something, but unfortunately he is not here now. In the course of his speech, he forgot to hide his fox-tail. He made very serious mistakes. He admitted that there have been economic difficulties after the establishment of Malaysia. And in his defence of the establishment of Malaysia, he said that the purchasing power and the standard of living of the people have been raised. He painted a very rosy picture of Singapore. In doing so, he exposed the ulterior motives for bringing about Malaysia, and at the same time, he smeared all those Parties and people who did not agree with the P.A.P. In our speeches, we have refuted his specious arguments. I had thought of asking the Minister one question but I am unable to do so now as he is not here. But I would ask him not to waste his time by calling us "Communists". It is futile. In his speech, which was specious and incorrect, he harboured impure motives and evil thoughts. I say that the true reason for the economic difficulties is the nature of reactionary Malaysia which has obstructed the development of our national culture, education and progress. But the Minister for Culture tried to put the blame on others. Yet in the end, he could not explain away all these evil consequences of Malaysia.

On a point of order. I do not think we have a quorum. Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present, Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

We now have a quorum. Will the Member for Paya Lebar please continue?

(In Mandarin): The patriotism of the Barisan Sosialis and their anti-Malaysia stand are always a grave threat to the reactionary Government which have not been able to refute our arguments. That is why they have resorted to a slanderous campaign to distort our stand and to undermine us. That is why they have slandered us as agents of foreign powers. But their every attempt to slander us is not convincing to the people. And they have not been able to explain away their own arguments and who are really working for the foreign powers. The cunning and sinister attack by the Minister for Culture is clear to all. His childish argument cannot deceive people with political common sense. The Barisan Sosialis stand is for the people of our country and we place the interest of the people above everything else. What we have done in the past clearly shows that. The P.A.P. accuse us of being the so-called agents of foreign powers in order to divert the attention of the people from the grave economic problems of our country. Every one knows that if a country achieves its political independence without any economic freedom, this sort of independence is not complete in itself and there is a danger of the country being controlled and manipulated by other powers. South Vietnam and Thailand are some examples of countries which have achieved only political independence. We hope that this Government will not follow the line of these two countries and induce foreign capital to put up a facade of prosperity which will not help to solve the living problems of our people. Instead, they will bring hardship and disaster to our people. The inducement of foreign capital will only result in exploitation of our people. We cannot tolerate such a type of policy. The P.A.P. persistently carry on with this policy. They have unashamedly said that they work for the people, but do you think that the people cannot see through their policy? The Minister for Culture said that their loyalty is towards Malaysia. We believe that, but the P.A.P. are trying to curry favour with the reactionary cliques and their masters to sell out the interests of the people. All the new emerging forces have also made clear their stands, but these people have brought instability and chaos to South-East Asia. In order to shift their responsibility, the P.A.P. are trying to make the Barisan Sosialis a scapegoat, but the facts are irrefutable. They try to mix up socialism with Indonesia in order to divert the attention of the people, to confuse their vision and to make them forget the real crux of the problem - that the cause of our present difficulties has been brought about by the imperialists. The P.A.P. also say that the Barisan's demand for the abolition of the British military bases here will pave the way for invasion by another foreign power. Every one with any self-respect will know that the stationing of foreign troops here is an insult to our country. It implies that the colonialists want to maintain their exploitation by ruthless means to strangle our economy. All those who are loyal to our country will not tolerate the stationing of foreign troops here for the so-called safeguarding of our country. This act of betrayal is very clear to all. [Interruption] Do you dare to have an open argument with me at Hong Lim Park?

If we argue among ourselves, we will never be able to end this debate. Please carry on with the debate.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the financial policies and budgets of a government reflect its character and nature. A government of rogues will have a budget befitting its character. The P.A.P. which have betrayed the people, can only put up a Budget which will be beneficial to the foreigners. Therefore, the Minister for Culture should not level all sorts of accusations against us. Now, let me refute his challenge. He has brought our people to the brink of war with our neighbours. Malaysia, which is designed to serve the interests of the imperialists, has brought about the suppression and exploitation of our people, tension and instability in South-East Asia. We should condemn the Alliance Government and the P.A.P. for having brought about this disastrous outcome. The diplomatic break and the severance of trade between Malaysia and Indonesia is the result of their policy. Factories have closed down and unemployment has increased. We feel that, at the present juncture, the only way to solve our problems is to open negotiations to solve the differences peacefully. All those who shirk such responsibilities do not help to solve our problems. The Minister for Culture has challenged us to say whether we hope confrontation will succeed. His argument does not merit our rebuttal. We want to ask him on what foundation he has made this allegation. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the first place, we fully realise that there has been a loss in foreign exchange as a result of Malaysia. We also fully appreciate that Malaysia is to serve the interests of the colonialists. This appreciation should be accepted, as this is the whole crux of the matter. The Minister for Culture is afraid that the people of Singapore will see through Malaysia and his plot. So he has brought in other extraneous matters in his speech in order to blind the vision of the people of Singapore and to divert their attention from the crux of the matter. The P.A.P. are now trying to push the responsibility of an economic crisis over to this side of the House, namely, on the shoulders of the Barisan Sosialis. The Minister for Culture is afraid that we want to expose the whole matter, clearly and in detail, to the broad masses of the people. So he has brought in these extraneous matters in order to blind the vision of the people. And we know what he is up to. He is making this challenge in order to smear us as agents and collaborators of foreign powers so that he can push the whole matter on to us. The Minister for Culture has also attacked our amendment with a lot of intimidation as though the Opposition Members are not allowed by law in Singapore to air their views on the Government's policies. He says that we are pro-Indonesia, and so we should be charged with treason in court punishable by death or life imprisonment. Does he mean that we in the Opposition have no right to criticise the Government's policies in this Chamber? Everybody in Singapore knows that Malaysia is a new form of colonialism brought about by the colonialists in this part of the world. And now the P.A.P. are trying in every way to put through this neo-colonial plan. Who is the traitor? Who has sold out the interests of the people? Who is guilty of treason? It is not the Barisan Sosialis. In order to judge whether a person is guilty of treason or not, we must know whether the acts committed by him are in the interest of the people or against the interest of the people. You cannot judge whether a person is guilty of treason or not from the point of view of the imperialists and colonialists. If you do so, then you are a traitor and you are guilty of treason. If you disregard the interest of the people, then you are not a true patriot. Those who do not actually struggle for the genuine interest of the people are the traitors. So if the Minister for Culture says that anybody who votes for the amendment tabled by the Barisan Sosialis will be guilty of treason and perhaps be charged in court with treason and punished according to the law, I say that this is a grave threat to the rights of parliamentary democracy. We warn the Minister for Culture and the rest of them that if they should persist in their acts against the interest of the people and sell out their rights to a foreign power, then the people will one day inflict on them serious punishment for what they have done. History will prove that the people will punish the real traitors - namely, the P.A.P. - who have sold out the interest of the people to a foreign power. History will prove this to be so. We have dealt adequately with the speech of the Minister for Culture who barks like a dog at shadows. Now we shall deal with the Prime Minister. As I have already said, Mr Speaker, the Member for Punggol has more or less echoed the speech of the Prime Minister. But we will not deal with what he has said. We will go back to the root of the whole matter - namely, the speech of the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister made his speech on the 9th of December this year. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that he was incapable of saying anything new in his speech. He has repeated his old arguments; to put everything in a nutshell, he has been trying very hard to smear his political opponents and those who come out in defence of vernacular education and the labouring class. So I will touch on his main points and give him suitable replies. From his speech, one can notice several main features. Perhaps the Back-benchers of the Government may not understand; so I wish to draw their attention to these main features. In the first place, the Prime Minister tried very hard to please the Malaysian Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman. He attempted to compete for the Tunku's favour to oust the M.C.A. in the Federation of Malaya. In fact, the Prime Minister has said quite clearly that he wishes to oust the M.C.A. from the U.M.N.O./M.C.A./Alliance, so that the P.A.P. can replace the M.C.A. in the Alliance. The second point is that the Prime Minister tried to show that the P.A.P. really had the support of the people in the elections, thereby covering up the fact that they had resorted to filthy means in the general election to gain power. Thirdly, in his speech, it is clear that the determination of the P.A.P. is to destroy parliamentary democracy. In this attempt, he tries to put the blame for the grave consequences and ill-effects of confrontation on his political opponents and true patriots of the country. Fourthly, it is the intention of the Government to try to strangle Chinese education. We can see very clearly what action the Government have taken against Nanyang University, which is the seat of Chinese education. Fifthly, it was also the intention of the Prime Minister in his speech to indulge in a dangerous game by describing all those who come out in defence of Chinese education as Communists, thereby whipping up racial feelings. He tries to whip up racial feelings over educational issues. The so-called Citizenship Consultative Committee is a measure by which the P.A.P. desire to further control the daily lives and freedom of the people of Singapore. He is doing all these things in the name of Singapore. He has said that if in the town areas the election results show that the M.C.A. is no longer welcome and influential, then the U.M.N.O. in the Alliance should reappraise the situation with regard to the P.A.P. in Singapore. He was not specific; he was very vague, but one can read between the lines to find out his intentions. He wants to try to kick out the M.C.A. from the U.M.N.O./ M.C.A./M.I.C. Alliance and to replace them.

The Member is repeating what his other colleagues have said, that the Prime Minister is trying to be the Prime Minister of the Federation and that the P.A.P. are trying to take the place of the M.C.A. Can we get on to something else?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I shall go back to the main topic, but I have to reply to the smears made by the P.A.P. against the Barisan Sosialis. Since you rule that this is repetitious, I shall not dwell on it anymore. I am not going to say any more about the P.A.P.'s attempt to gain U.M.N.O.'s favour in the Federation of Malaya, but I personally feel that as far as we are concerned, we should be very frank in our political struggle. We should not try to be very vague and indulge in smearing others, particularly political opponents. We have to adopt a spirit of statesmanship in our political struggle. We cannot allow ourselves and others to indulge in dirty political games. Today, the Prime Minister hopes very much to kick out the M.C.A. so that there can be more co-operation between U.M.N.O. and the P.A.P. On the one hand, he tries to sour up the relationship between U.M.N.O. and the M.C.A., and, on the other hand, he tries very hard to please the Tunku and also his colleague, Tun Abdul Razak, with whom the P.A.P. are trying hard to curry favour. But it is impossible for the P.A.P. to kick out the M.C.A. from the U.M.N.O./M.C.A./M.I.C. Alliance.

The Member is back on the same theme. I have just ruled him out of order. Can he get on to some other subject?

(In Mandarin): This is very important, Mr Speaker, but I shall take your advice and forget about this. What I am going to say is of great importance. The Prime Minister has said unashamedly that the P.A.P. represent the majority. It seems that the P.A.P. represent the majority and that we, the Barisan, represent the minority, and we should be banned. The Barisan Sosialis should be banned and expelled from the Chamber, but it is futile for the P.A.P. to make use of some superficial figure to cover up the true facts of the situation. If you are not forgetful, Mr Speaker, you will remember that in the last general election in South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem claimed that he had a 99.8 per cent majority, and his wife also claimed that Ngo Dinh Diem was able to obtain a 99.9 per cent majority in the general election. The Prime Minister, who has not been able to obtain 99.9 per cent of the votes, compares himself with Ngo Dinh Nu and Ngo Dinh Diem. But what are the facts? The people in South Vietnam simply hate Ngo Dinh Diem and his regime like poison. Yet Ngo Dinh Diem's regime has the audacity to claim that they represent the majority of the people. Mr Speaker, we all condemn the so-called election that took place in South Vietnam. This is sufficient to show that majority representation and minority representation is not a criterion on which the true wishes of the people can be measured. In some countries such as South Vietnam, arrests are made of political opponents of the Party in power, persecution is resorted to, and all the state machinery is marshalled and made use of against the true patriots and the real statesmen in the country. In spite of all these repressive actions, the Party in power has the audacity to turn now and say that they represent the majority of the people. What a shame! In spite of what the P.A.P. have done, they can only obtain less than 50 per cent of the votes cast in the general election, to say nothing of their being able to obtain the majority support of the people. In spite of all this, they say unashamedly that they represent the real majority of the people. Mr Speaker, although we were defeated in the general election we have to draw your attention to the fact that the way in which the election was conducted was unfair ---

We are not discussing the last elections. Keep on to the Negara's speech. I had occasion to rule before that we have had enough of the elections. Go on to the Negara's speech.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I hope that you will bear with me because this is precisely the point mentioned in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. So we want to let the people know our views of the results of the general election, otherwise the people might be misled by the P.A.P. It is our responsibility, as Members of the Opposition, to clear up the position. We were able to poll 200,000 votes in the general election, and so we ask that our views be respected. In the Prime Minister's speech, we were further smeared by him. He said that we tried to pull down the pillars of parliamentary democracy. Now, this is a smear which we have to squash. It is not the Barisan Sosialis which desire to pull down the pillars of parliamentary democracy. In fact, it is the other way round. It is the P.A.P. which desire parliamentary democracy to fail in this part of the world. The P.A.P. are not prepared to face up to the consequences of their action in breaking up parliamentary democracy in this island, and so they try to put the blame on the Barisan Sosialis and make use of this as an excuse to further persecute them. Who have banned the rural organisations and hawkers associations? Who have resorted to violence to break up legitimate strikes? Who have assaulted non-P.A.P. election workers? Who have prohibited and denied the people freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of publication? Who have sent Special Branch men to Nanyang University to arrest students and undergraduates and assault some undergraduates? Who have exerted pressure on the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Singapore? And who have resorted to undemocratic means? Are these not facts enough to show that they try to break up parliamentary democracy? This is what the P.A.P. have done. Or can one say that it has been done by the Barisan Sosialis? In fact, their dirty game has been seen through by all concerned. As I have already said, in spite of all the futile means adopted by the P.A.P., they can only obtain less than 50 per cent of the votes. In spite of their persecution of us, we are able to get more than 20 per cent of the votes cast in the general election. This is a cause of great worry to the P.A.P. That is why, after realising that it is futile to resort to humbug and deceit to gain further support, they are resorting to further means by which they hope to crush their political opposition. The P.A.P. try to make use of legal means to further control and squash political opposition in Singapore. Now, this again is enough to show that it is the P.A.P. which desire to break up parliamentary democracy. Therefore, we have to appeal to al the people in Singapore who are politically conscious to pay attention to the damage that the P.A.P. have done to parliamentary democracy. The P.A.P. have been very sarcastic about those who fight for Chinese education. In his speech, the Prime Minister has disclosed his hatred of those Chinese-educated people and his intention to strangle Chinese education in Singapore. He smears those who light for Chinese education and the cause of Chinese education as traitors, pro-Communist and anti-national elements. He even smears the Management Committee of Nanyang University and tries to sour up the relationship between the teaching staff and the Management Committee of Nanyang University. The Prime Minister in his speech says that the appointment of members of the teaching staff is good for only one year. That is why they do not enjoy security in their appointments. That is why they are not daring enough to come forward to defend academic freedom. So he talks about security of tenure of appointment as a means by which he wishes to sour the relationship between the teaching staff of Nanyang University and the Management Committee of the same University. This again is enough to show that the P.A.P. and their oligarchy will not hesitate at anything to smear, to the fullest extent, Chinese education, Nanyang University and those who fight for the interests of Chinese education. The reactionary attitude of the P.A.P. in education has been seen through by the people in Singapore. So the responsibility of having put Chinese schools in a precarious position should be shifted from the P.A.P. shoulders to somebody else's shoulders. That is why the P.A.P. are putting on the shoulders of other people the responsibility of the failure of Chinese education in its growth. In fact, the P.A.P. wish very much to gain control of Nanyang University. This is a fact known to everybody. That is why they are making use of finances and economic aid against Nanyang University. They have refused to recognise the degrees and qualifications of Nanyang University. In spite of the Government's interference with academic freedom and autonomy in Nanyang University, Nanyang University shall stand unshaken, Nanyang University shall continue to safeguard the interests of true education. Nanyang University will not allow itself to be swallowed up by the P.A.P. Nanyang University will never allow itself to be made use of for the P.A.P.'s party interest. All the persecution that Nanyang University has suffered at the hands of the P.A.P. must receive our strongest protest and condemnation. We shall go further into this matter in my speech. Mr Speaker, the intention of the Government to set up the Citizenship Consultative Committee is a measure by which the Government desire to further control the freedom of speech of the people, and the movements of the people in their daily lives. This is a measure of a feudalistic nature. The real purpose is not to strengthen the relationship between the people and the Government. On the other hand, the real purpose is to further exploit the freedom and liberty of the people. This action of the P.A.P. has been exposed. By doing this, the P.A.P. hope to control the people through those so-called Citizens Consultative Committees by using them as their lackeys to get intelligence information through them, and disseminate their propaganda through them too, because they can be made use of to deal with and to control the people, and they will be making use of some nominal heads to manage these committees in order to achieve their purpose of doing harm to others in order to benefit themselves. So if the people suffer as a consequence of their rights being infringed, then the P.A.P. oligarchy can turn round and put the blame on those nominal heads. You can see the nature of P.A.P. oligarchy. This is their usual tactic - always claim the merit for themselves and blame others. These Citizens Consultative Committees will become the intelligence centre of the P.A.P. and will be used as an instrument to further the P.A.P.'s control over the people, and as a tool to restrict the rights and freedom of the people. They will thus be a very convenient piece of machinery. From the speeches made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education, we see that they have smeared the Chinese-educated and Chinese education, as well as those who are patriotic and sincere in their cause for national education. We can well understand the intrigues of the P.A.P. in smearing patriotic educationists and Nanyang University. They try to sour up the good relations between the Chinese, Malays, and other racial communities in order to create misunderstanding among these communities against us. So you can see how they manage to sour up the good relations between the Malay and Chinese communities. The Prime Minister has said that Nanyang University has been used to disseminate Communist doctrines, and the Minister for Education has mentioned Chinese chauvinism together with Communism as though the two words mean one and the same thing. He makes use of Chinese education as the object of his attack, accusing it of being the cause of trouble and disharmony. The attack on the so-called Chinese chauvinism and the blame on the so-called ignorant people have been made for obvious ulterior motives. If the P.A.P. oligarchy is like Don Quixote in its attitude, then its propaganda will be more glaringly exposed, and it will have to resort to more mean tactics with worse results. Here in Singapore we have a plural society of Chinese, Indians, Malays, and others, and we try to persuade all these different races to live peacefully and harmoniously. We should also try to educate those people receiving education in the different language media to live peacefully and harmoniously and to co-operate with and understand one another. How is the education policy of the P.A.P. going to achieve these objects? How is it going to succeed in uniting the different races? The P.A.P. have put Chinese education in a bad light before the racial communities, and in the end they think that Chinese education can be destroyed. This smear, the mean tactics and dirty propaganda will only serve as a warning to the racial communities, and it will only lead to a misunderstanding among the races and cause a split among them. Have the P.A.P. considered this possibility? I therefore say that this is a dangerous matter. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I have said just now is mainly directed at the Minister for Culture and the Prime Minister who have been accusing us of being anti-nationals and also smeared us with names. I say that the P.A.P. Government have not dealt properly with the question of confrontation and the sufferings that have been brought to the people. On the other hand, the P.A.P. Benchers have been trying to evade these questions. Taking the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara as a whole, we can divide it into four points. On the first point, we see that the speech praises the P.A.P.'s so-called achievements. It has ignored the serious and evil consequences that have been brought about by Malaysia and has forgotten the people's sufferings. It also tries to shift the blame for the sufferings of the people brought about by Malaysia and confrontation on to others and the Central Government. It also tries to explain away the P.A.P.'s inability to deal with the problem of the livelihood and living standards of the people and for their betterment. From this we can see what the P.A.P. are like. The people of Singapore can never forget what the P.A.P. have done to cause them to suffer. The P.A.P. Government have been collaborating with British colonialists and the Central Government to confiscate the property of trade unions and have arrested their leaders and also banned their organisations and increased their sufferings to further their own ends. The P.A.P.'s deceptions cannot prevail forever. They carried out a sham referendum on 1st September last year. This referendum, manipulated by them, cannot be conclusive. Do not think the people are fools. The people cannot tolerate this. The P.A.P. cannot shirk their responsibilities. Malaysia has brought a lot of suffering and difficulties to the people. The P.A.P. are making use of the bogey of Communism to curb the reactions of the people. They are thus taking action against the Barisan Sosialis and those who are with us. I wish to talk now about building construction. Do not think that by their propaganda on their so-called construction work they can fool the people. The P.A.P. are trying to put up a show when they say they are carrying out construction work and other building activities. It is actually a facade. It is a deception to cover up the difficulties which the people are suffering. Are not these sufferings caused by Malaysia? The Government's speeches are the same as those delivered previously. They are old speeches in a new bottle. Let me talk of the livelihood of the people as it existed before and the conditions prevailing after Malaysia. Many merchants have suffered in their business. Many workers have lost their jobs. Many industries have had to regulate the number of shifts for their workers as a result of the shortage of imported materials. Some of them have been asked to work only for a few days in a week. Some factories have had to close down entirely. The industries affected include those engaged in a rattan and sago industries. We can see this situation clearly if we go along the sea front and the Harbour Board. We can see from this situation the result which confrontation has brought about consequent upon Malaysia. Much as I would like to enumerate all these instances, I will not deal with them at length. Many factories have been closed down as a result of confrontation. Some of them are Loo Ee Toh, Hock Soon, Yan Chuan, Chew Leong, Ho Kah Heng, etc. They are too numerous to enumerate. Thus, as a result of confrontation which Malaysia has caused, people in all walks of life are suffering. This is unprecedented in the history of Singapore. Most of the workers, especially stevedores, are on the brink of starvation. Many workers were retrenched as a result of the closing down of their factories. There are only a few workers who are given partial work. Just look at the empty vessels in the harbour. Look at the number of workers waiting along the quay queueing up for jobs. We can see from all this that the situation is going from bad to worse. There are about 8,000 workers directly affected by confrontation. They are now unemployed. The total number of people who have lost their jobs as a result of confrontation may well be 15,000. These are workers in all kinds of industries and trades. Some workers have only been offered one day's work in a whole week. It is difficult for them to eke out a living like this for the whole month. What about the workers in other industries? For instance, what about those in the shoe-making industry? According to the Government, only 8,000 workers have been out of job. This statement is deceiving the people. They are minimising the difficulties and hardships suffered by the people as a result of Malaysia. According to the Minister, there are about 40.000 to 50,000 people unemployed. This is a very serious social problem. Every year there are more and more school-leavers. On top of this problem, Malaysia has brought more hardship and suffering to the people. They are living like ants in a hot pot. What are the Government going to do about this? This is a situation which the Minister for Labour has described as a paradise in South-East Asia. He says this kind of living is a paradise. Perhaps we may not want to take his words seriously, because such utterances have also been made by ex-colonialists. Even the Prime Minister has said that Singapore is a paradise in South-East Asia. Perhaps the Minister for Labour has avenues for the accumulation of wealth. He is riding in a big car ---

The Member is being repetitious. The Member for Jalan Kayu has attacked the Minister for Labour on the same line. It was mentioned that the Minister had a salary of $2,500. So the Member is out of order on two points. First, the Member is being repetitious. Secondly, the Member is about to indulge in a personal attack. Can we get on with this debate, if the Member has anything new to say? I do not want the Member to make any more references to the Minister for Labour.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has tried to cover up the truth. Instead of letting the people know the truth, he has described Singapore as a paradise in South-East Asia. I do not wish to indulge in personalities now. But we have the right and, indeed, it is our duty to expose the false picture the Minister has painted.

Order. I have ruled that the Member for Jalan Kayu has already replied on this point. The Member is being repetitious. Please get on to something else. I have made a ruling. I intend to stick by it. We can go on for hours if the Member is going to repeat the same argument. He has spent about half an hour on that point. I am not prepared to allow the Member to go on on that point. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): So talking about the life in paradise, except the Ministers who can enjoy life in paradise ---

Order. I do not want the Member to speak of the Ministers or the life of paradise that we live here. I have just told him that the Member for Jalan Kayu has spoken on this point. Though he was not spoken on it, it is repetitious. Please do not proceed on that line.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, since one of our colleagues has already touched on it, I will skip it. But I should explain that we have the duty to condemn the incorrect utterances made by the Ministers because the Minister for Culture has even dared to speak against our own people for the foreign countries. We know that in Brunei the oil there is controlled by the British and the people there are suffering in spite Brunei's rich natural resources. Yet the Ministers hope that our Parliamentarian in the Central Parliament would speak to defend the exploiters. What kind of representatives are you who dare to make speeches in defence of foreign exploiters? Is the Minister drawing $2,500 just to speak on behalf of the foreign powers? He has accused us, the Barisan Sosialis, of receiving $500 allowances. I ask particularly the Minister for Culture, why did he speak for the foreigners and not for our own people --- [Interruption]

Order. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): I was talking about the Minister for Labour. That is why I find it necessary to rebut the utterances made by him. At the same time, on the question of Malaysia, the P.A.P. Government have all along smeared us as being Communists, and because Indonesia is supposed to oppose Malaysia, so we must be opposing Malaysia. But the accusation will be exposed by the general masses of the people. They have challenged us to declare our stand. Our stand is that of patriotism. We are for the interests of all the people and our stand on Malaysia is based on this patriotism. Therefore, the Ministers' propaganda would in the end be met with bankruptcy. That is why, since they cannot succeed in their propaganda, they will have to change the tune of their speeches. Their lies one day will be exposed. The Minister for Labour has been putting forward his reasons which are absurd and childish. He says Indonesia is a sovereign country, the Barisan Sosialis is a political Party in Singapore. What strength have we to influence the policy of Indonesia? The Minister for Labour is futile in his attempts. His reasons are not worth our rebuttal. Let us hear what he says about Indonesia in order to understand the trade severance between Singapore and Indonesia. He says the Indonesian people have nothing to eat. They have no clothes to put on and have been eating the bark of trees and rats. These are common occurrences, he says. In Indonesia, he also says, the rupiah is not even worth a Japanese note. He also talks about the well-fed leaders who ignore the starvation of their subjects. We know the Minister has been attacking the Indonesian people and the policy of Indonesia. This is a gross interference in the internal affairs of Indonesia which will lead to their hostility. This is an insult to the respect, the dignity of the Indonesian people which will lead to adverse consequences - bad relationships between Indonesia and Singapore. The people in Singapore have asked for the restoration of trade relations between Indonesia and Singapore. We must not talk about their troubles. We must negotiate with them peacefully. But the Minister's attitude is not so. He gloats over the difficulties suffered by the Indonesian people. This will only make matters worse. This is not the way to bring about good relations between Indonesia and Singapore. The Prime Minister has said that we must resume relations between Indonesia and Singapore, but the Minister's speech will only result in a worsening of relations. As the Government of Singapore, we have the right to urge the Central Government to open negotiations with Indonesia, so the State Government has the night to urge the Central Government. It is our responsibility. Therefore, the Minister may attack Indonesia but he must also consider the people who are affected by the severance in trade. Factories have to be reopened and the workers have to get jobs. The Government must seek ways and means to improve the situation. It is useless and futile for the Minister to carry on abusing our neighbour. This will not help the matter very much. In the publications printed by the Ministry of Culture, the P.A.P. have admitted that the confrontation staged by the Indonesians has been brought about by Malaysia. Therefore, the Indonesian confrontation and the severance in trade between Indonesia and Singapore have been caused by the P.A.P.'s effort to bring about Malaysia. The Minister for Labour talks about the excess of population and other reactionary theories. Now, what is his motive?

Order.

(In Mandarin): If you are capable, let us have an open debate. Why should you repeat the speeches of the Prime Minister? Because of the tension brought about by Malaysia, the people are suffering a lot and they are miserable. The merchants have no business; the workers have no jobs and they have to face resistance from the people of Borneo. The Prime Minister has told us that Malaysia has brought peace and happiness to ten million people who will be able to lead a happy, prosperous and peaceful life. The present situation is a slap in the face of the reactionary clique. So they are now trying to shift the responsibility for the present difficulties and hardship on to others as they are not able to account for the present difficulties. Therefore, they have to find a way out to deceive the people. That is shirking their responsibility. They realize that they have collaborated with the British imperialists to sponsor Malaysia. The Prime Minister has given all sorts of reasons, such as that Indonesia has about 400,000 troops who are well armed, that Malaysia has very few troops and that the population of Indonesia is bigger than that of Malaysia. Now on the 9th of December, the Minister for Labour repeated the same argument. Mr Speaker, Sir, when one country threatens another country, the size of their respective populations need not be a deciding factor. 00.01 a.m., 19-12-63 For example, Japan with a population of 90 million people was able to conquer China with a population of nearly 500 million people, and Britain with a smaller population than India was able to conquer India. This was because they pursued aggressive policies. Britain was the oldest empire ---

Order. We are not speaking of Britain and Japan. The hon. Member needs only one example to make his point. I want to be fair to both sides of the House. He has been on the Floor for one and a half hours, and I think, in fairness to both sides, he should try to wind up his speech. We have been here from half-past two in the afternoon. I hope he will try his best. I want to be fair to both sides, but we cannot go on forever, otherwise the standard of debate in this House will deteriorate. I would ask him to try to wind up his speech.

(In Mandarin): All right, I will not touch on this any more. Let me touch on a graver problem. From the debate in the past three days, it seems that the P.A.P. have tried to shift their responsibility and that they dare not face up to the stark reality. We will prove that they have done bad things and that they dare not shoulder responsibility. I want to put forward these facts. After the P.A.P. came to power, what have they done? As far as I know, their first misdeed was to deprive Mr Tan Lark Sye of his citizenship - a man who has contributed a lot towards the building of Nanyang University. The leadership of the P.A.P. did not consider the adverse consequences of their ruthless measure in depriving him of his citizenship. They think that because they were elected in the last election, the people will support their misdeeds. So they think that they can do what they like now. Victory has gone to their heads. They have been arrogant. During the last election, the people who voted for them did not return them to power to deprive Mr Tan Lark Sye of his citizenship. If they persist in their barbaric misdeeds, I believe that those who supported them in the past will not tolerate them. They put the P.A.P. in power because they want them to do good things and not bad things. The P.A.P. have disregarded the liberty and other basic human rights of the people. They have collaborated with the Federation police to launch an attack on Nanyang University. Soon after depriving Mr Tan Lark Sye of his citizenship, the Federation police launched an attack against Nanyang University and arrested the students, in addition, they banned 7 trade unions in Singapore. The general strike for two days in protest against the Government action was broken up by the Government by repressive measures. In fact, this general protest strike was brought about by the repressive actions of the Government which forced the workers to go on strike. The workers had to take strike action in order to safeguard their own interests and the existence of the organisations.

The Member is talking about how this strike was caused. Are we going to have all this again? Six of his colleagues have spoken - they have all spoken on this strike - and if he goes on with this subject we will go on forever.

(In Mandarin): The development of my argument will be quite different from the other arguments.

I rule that the Member must not go on to the strike, so please accept my ruling. I do not care in what context he speaks. I have ruled that he is out of order in talking of this strike, because he is being repetitious. He has had the Floor for more than one and a half hours. If he is going to bring up fresh matters, I am prepared to hear him, but if he is going to talk of the strike of which we have heard so much, I think it is a waste of time.

(In Mandarin): So it is regrettable that when the reactionary Alliance in the Federation is making inroads into the liberties and freedom of the people of Singapore, the P.A.P. are trying to ignore these facts. Instead, the P.A.P. are assisting the Federation Government and its reactionary Alliance to take action against Nanyang University, against those who do not endorse their policies. These actions are only taken in the interests of Devan Nair and his trade union. They have forgotten entirely their promises made to the people of Singapore. They have promised the people of Singapore that if the Federation interfere with the fundamental rights of the people of Singapore, they will not compromise with the Federation of Malaya, and the Singapore Government will defend the rights of the people. This is what has been said by the Prime Minister. But when these things do happen, they resort to the cheap propaganda that it is due to the trouble created by the Communists that the Central Government have to take certain actions. So the P.A.P. have turned now to speak in defence of the Federation action, instead of fighting for the interests of the people in Singapore as they have promised. To put everything in a nutshell, the P.A.P. are trying to make use of their powers to ensure that their political position will be perpetuated. The P.A.P. have forgotten the promise made to the people to fight for their fundamental rights. They are now acting in collaboration and in collusion with the Federation Government against the interests of the people of Singapore. We must tell the leaders of the P.A.P. that in so doing they have been very foolish, and this has been too much on the part of the P.A.P. to have done so. Although we do not deny that the P.A.P. have a majority vote in this House, they cannot make use of this majority to trample over the fundamental rights of the people in Singapore, and the P.A.P. should never be allowed to make use of this majority in this House to destroy parliamentary democracy. As we have already said, in so far as Singapore's political control is in the hands of the Federation reactionary elements, then the fundamental rights of the people of Singapore will be destroyed and undermined. I lay all these facts before you to prove the truth of our warning that we gave quite a long time ago. The contempt that the P.A.P. have for parliamentary democracy and for the basic rights of the people can be seen clearly in recent developments and this contempt will give rise to widespread dissatisfaction among the people. There will come a day when the people will rise up to defend and fight for their own rights. In the struggle for their liberties and freedom and personal security, the workers, the under-graduates and other people have been branded Communists. This is the usual tactic which deserves no repetition. The people of Singapore will never endorse the policies of the P.A.P. Government which are detrimental to the people's interests. We want to ask a question, that is, whether the rights of the 60,000 workers in these two unions can be denied and ignored. Why should not a certain amount of respect be given to the rights of the workers and why should the rights of those arrested be denied? The Nanyang University problem is again a knotty question that worries the Government. In failing to solve this problem, they have taken repressive actions against certain Nanyang undergraduates, and in trying to destroy academic freedom they have arrested certain under-graduates. What is the ulterior motive behind all these repressive actions? Have they any conscience at all? We must point out that if parliamentary democracy is not respected, if the personal freedom and security of the people and human rights are not respected, then it is difficult to have peace and harmony in this country. The blame for disharmony and possible unrest in this country should be placed squarely on those responsible for the repressive actions which seek to break up parliamentary democracy. As the saying goes, there is no smoke without fire. If there is no action coming from the Federation against the interests of the people, and if the P.A.P. have not failed to defend the rights of the people in the face of Federation interference, then there will not have been so much trouble. So to ensure peace and harmony in Singapore, the people of Singapore should be given sufficient democracy and freedom to exercise their rights. It is only when the people have certain democratic rights, it is only when the democratic rights of the people have been given the minimum respect, that peace and harmony can ever exist in Singapore. It is most improper to give democratic rights only to a minority group of people to enable them to boss over the majority of the people. If this happens, then there will not be any peace in Singapore. The P.A.P. do not appreciate the truth of this thesis and pretend not to know about it. In fact, they try to put aside the indestructible truth of this thesis. It is our duty to present the true facts to the P.A.P. and to the people, so that all concerned will wake up one day to take part in the struggle to safeguard their basic rights. It is only when the people's rights are respected that there will be peace. Those who deliberately try to distort facts and put aside the truth of the situation should be exposed. Their true colours should be shown up. They should be dealt with. Then they will have to bow to the will of the people. The P.A.P. are now undermining the rights of the people. The Government have every intention to destroy the progressive forces in Singapore in order to consolidate their own reactionary forces in Singapore. These unreasonable actions of the Federation Alliance can only be frustrated by the strong will of the people. In order to safeguard parliamentary democracy and the fundamental rights of the people, we have to unite together. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 16th of September, 1963, the Federation of Malaysia was forced through as a result of collusion among the P.A.P., the Federation of Malaya, and the British. In this new Federation, although it appears that the British colonialists no longer hold the reins of government, in actual fact, the rights and powers are still controlled by the British through the Federation of Malaya.

Order. This again is mere repetition that the British are still in control. May I remind the Member for Paya Lebar that he has been on his feet for nearly two hours? I am not prepared to allow him to repeat himself. I must appeal to him once again not to repeat himself. To be fair to the others, I think he should wind up his speech is soon as possible.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, what I have been saying has some connection with what they have said and the arguments we have advanced in this House during the course of the debate in the last few days. I was trying to make the point whether our country, after Malaysia, is really an independent sovereign country. In order to do so, I will have to enumerate the existing facts for the people to judge.

I agree with the Member that it is relevant. I am not saying that it is irrelevant to the subject. What I am saying is this. This subject has been dragging on, from both sides of the House. It has been referred to time and again and I will not allow the hon. Member to repeat it. That is all.

(In Mandarin): So, superficially the golden colonial era has passed into the annals of history. But after the establishment of Malaysia, British influence and the same social structure still remain, although superficially the British are not in the ring. In fact, British military and economic rights still exist and they have not been disturbed. Her influence still exists to a very great extent in this ---

I rule the hon. Member out of order on this subject about the British. I think he should go on to something else. Perhaps there is this difficulty of language between us. For that reason, I have allowed him to go on a little more, but I must put a stop to this. I have ruled him three times out of order on the same point. I do not want to have to rule him out of order again. I must ask him to get on to something new.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, let me conclude briefly. I would like to enumerate a few facts to show that actually there has been no change at all after Malaysia. Economically speaking the British colonialist position is still consolidated and they still maintain their bases through the so-called Anglo-Malaysian Defence Treaty. Their influence and power have not been touched in the least. Even the Australian and the New Zealand armies are making use of our land as their bases. They are driving their military trucks on our roads. SEATO was not established to serve and maintain the interest of the people in this region. It is a military alliance of foreign countries. The British are clever in manipulating. Through the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Treaty, the British can still maintain their interests in South-East Asia. The Malaysian Government are serving the British by this treaty. The countries affected are still in a state of submission, economically and militarily. This does not help to maintain peace in this region, and it is not in our interest. Our stand on anti-colonialism is directed at getting rid of this position of subjection to the military might of a foreign power, and securing true peace, happiness and prosperity for the people in this region. I have already said that actually there has been no change in the situation after Malaysia. Only the economic situation will prove whether our country now is an independent sovereign country. Britain has still an economic hold on our rich resources, such as rubber, tin, palm oil and other products and they are still in control of communications, trade, import and export firms, banking and insurance which have always been monopolised by the British colonialists. The economic power structure is still in the hands of the British colonialists. Although independence has been achieved, yet the economic situation has not changed at all; the position is still the same. The plutocratic economic exploitation has not been got rid of yet. The livelihood and living conditions of our farmers and fishermen still remain the same. There has been no improvement at all. The Alliance Central Government in encouraging foreign monopolists and capitalists to come here and compete in this exploitation are still not checked. Although the investments by foreign capitalists and monopolists have contributed to the superficial prosperity, this is detrimental to an independent sovereign country because it will only make our country dependent on foreign economic support. Is this the kind of policy that should be pursued by an independent sovereign country? Opposition to colonialism means that we should get rid of foreign economic control over us so that we can develop our economy freely and achieve our own independent industrial economic policy to bring about a better livelihood for the people. Industrialisation carried out by foreign capitalists and monopolists will do no good to us because it will only mean their interference in our economic life. In order to promote a healthy growth of our economy, we have to improve our economic policy. As an independent sovereign country, there should be a manifestation of new life brought about by a new policy which can be distinguished from that used in the colonial past. But in this regard, the policy of the present Government has nothing to boast about and there is nothing of merit in it. Although we have a new Constitution which lays down and ensures freedom of speech and publication in the Assembly, what actually is the situation in our nation? The Government are making use of the P.P.S.O. and other emergency laws which were passed by the colonial Government. On the one hand, the Constitution provides us with our basic liberty and human rights; on the other hand, it has taken back all these rights. This is not compatible with the spirit of a new nation. All right-thinking people and political Parties must condemn and oppose this P.P.S.O. Only those who talk about democracy but who in actual fact have benefited from this P.P.S.O. will not oppose the P.P.S.O. After gaining independence the past regime of darkness has come to an end, but the suppression of the democratic movement has again been enacted. Trade union leaders and students have been arrested ---

The Member is being repetitious. Ten minutes ago I asked him not to be repetitious and he said he was going to conclude. That is why I allowed him to go on. But if he is going on and on, I must stop him from being repetitious. Can he let me know how long more he is going to take?

A few minutes more.

Very well.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, let me sum up my speech. Politically, there has been no change. Although we have a new nation, a new constitution, we have inherited things that were left by the colonial government in the past, including the laws. We wait to stress and reiterate our stand when we opposed Malaysia in the past. Before Malaysia and merger, our Party pointed out that if Malaysia were to be pushed through, it would bring suffering and disaster; if merger and Malaysia were to be forced through, it would only bring hardship, because the concept and scheme of Malaysia had been sponsored by British imperialism. Therefore, the P.A.P. have helped to impose Malaysia. What happens now? The things that have happened are the result of the imposition of Malaysia. Our prognosis has been correct, and recent happenings have proved this. The people have suffered as a result of merger and Malaysia and confrontation. I fully support the amendment tabled by the Member for Jurong. 00.35 a.m.

There are many ways of changing a ten-dollar note. I would choose to change it in five-dollar bills and one-dollar bills instead of half-cent coins. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to dwell on aspects of public health wherein reference has been made to labour. It is customary in many parts of the world to attribute blame for many things on workers. It appears to me that we in Singapore are no exception, as that is the only inference that I can draw from the remarks that inadequate methods of supervision resulting in indiscipline among public health workers together with the existence of secret society elements in their midst have contributed to an increase in rubbish, so that they cause a menace to health in Singapore. Being directly associated with the workers of Singapore, I wish to emphatically refute such allegations. The blame for the state of affairs in public health, particularly relating to the cleansing of the city, cannot be attributed either to the indiscipline of labour or its inefficiency. Let me first touch on the remarks about secret society elements in the midst of public health workers in Singapore. Whatever may be the shortcomings of the pro-national labour in Singapore. surely the House will appreciate that we differ at least in this respect from the anti-national unions of the S.A.T.U. group who have never hesitated to introduce such elements - I mean the secret society elements - to force workers into participating in anti-national political strikes. Anyone acquainted with workers in Singapore will recall that the 1961 strike of these workers, unlike the many strikes in the S.A.T.U. group, did not result in any free-for-all. Despite considerable delay in the implementation of the terms of agreement arising from this strike, public health workers have shown considerable restraint over the last two years even to the extent of agreeing to the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry to settle unresolved issues. All these can only speak well for the restraint and patience shown by cleansing and other public daily-rated workers, a situation hardly possible had it been true that secret society elements were working in their midst. Sir, many of the defects in this field of public health, particularly that relating to the cleansing of the city, must be squarely placed on the shoulders of the Member for Hong Lim who, during his short reign as Singapore's one and only Mayor, did lasting damage to our record as one of the cleanest and healthiest cities of Asia - nay, the world. With his advent, orders for the purchase of new vehicles for the cleansing and other public health work were cancelled; existing vehicles were deployed from other purposes, and even the incinerator was closed down. The consequence was that refuse had to be dumped in open spaces, even in the frontage of the labour lines and housing settlements, and this is still the situation in Singapore. Thus, by the dumping of refuse, delays in removal caused by the lack of necessary equipment and a host of many other things have contributed to this vicious cycle of disease - I mean refuse, flies and diseases. Sir, I say that the position is even worse today. About 29,000 houses have been built since 1959, many miles of new drains and roads constructed, new schools built for the increasing number of school-going children, large numbers of people, including room dwellers moving into separate houses and establishing separate households and a general expansion of social services in Singapore since 1959. It is all well known to the Members of this House, both the Opposition and the Government. The consequence of all this is that the amount of refuse has increased, and all this calls for a larger cleansing labour force and more and better equipment. What do we really have in their place? We have merely an additional 200 workers over and above the 1958 labour force. We have vehicles, thanks to the Member for Hong Lim, which operate 12 to 14 hours per day over considerable distances with frequent breakdowns, dust-bins despite the considerable public money spent by the then City Council are no longer adequate but usable. In some places dust-bins with their bottoms about to fall off are issued to cleansing workers for their work. Despite these handicaps and difficulties, I must say the workers of the cleansing section are doing a magnificent job. Sir, I regret that no recognition has been paid to these workers for their services under these handicaps. I, therefore, ask this House to judge the remarks regarding labour's contribution to the uncleanliness of the city in the light of what I have said. What the situation really calls for is to find ways and means of improving the cleanliness of the city, and I say the answer lies not in assigning blame to the workers, but in the provision of more vehicles for the transportation of refuse, a larger work force, and a trained set of frontline supervisors, not those who will brow-beat workers without regard to the difficult circumstances under which they are required to work. Nobody has thought fit to look into the methods nor the efficiency of those in charge of public health in Singapore. The recent Commission of Inquiry into the Public Daily-Rated Employees reveals a shocking state of affairs. The cross-examination of the Health Ministry by a genuine trade unionist, Mr C. V. Devan Nair, showed up a set of anti-labour officials in that Ministry who showed a greater knowledge of anti-labour theories than that of the requirements of public health. I hope that before making sweeping remarks about workers, the authorities concerned will take the trouble to study the shortcomings of those who are supposed to be in charge of public health. There are more flies, mosquitoes and rubbish today. Only the workers are responsible? That is rubbish! Only the officials in the Ministry of Health who have mismanaged public health and systematically misled their Ministers will dare say so. I appeal to the Government to take a fair and objective view of the situation in public. The workers may not be entirely innocent of the responsibility, but the major guilt lies elsewhere. It lies with those who have systematically mismanaged public health. It lies with the rat-racing, responsibility-dodging, union hating, and blame-throwing bunch of inefficient buffoons who staff the Ministry of Health. The Public Daily-Rated Employees Federation, which represents the Public Daily-Rated Employees in Singapore, have assured the National Trades Union Congress that they will give their full co-operation in improving public health in Singapore, but co-operation is not a one-way traffic. It is a two-way traffic. There must be mutual accommodation between workers and officials and mutual efforts towards improving public health in Singapore. May I warn the Barisan Sosialis in this House that our criticism of the Government is not an act of anti-national and Soekarno-loving inclination? This is democracy at work, and it is the only way to ensure that democracy does work. Mr Speaker, Sir, in his speech the Head of State has also stressed the importance of the Industrial Arbitration Court in bringing about stable industrial relations in Singapore. We in the N.T.U.C. fully endorse this hope of the Government. But it is necessary to point out that the Government's hopes and our hopes about industrial relations in Singapore may be defeated if shortcomings in the Industrial Relations Ordinance are not removed. For example, section 77 of the Ordinance provides penalties for employers who dismiss or victimise employees by reason of the circumstance that they join trade unions. But so far, these penalties have never been enforced. Why have they never been enforced? When trade unions break the law, they are hauled up quickly enough. Why is the law not quick enough to punish employers who offend against the law? In the last one year about 15 employers have violated section 77 of the I.R.O. All the facts have been given to the State Advocate-General. But to date not a single employer has been prosecuted Trade unions are, therefore, justified in expressing dissatisfaction with this state of affairs. What is the use of the law if it is not enforced? The Barisan Sosialis will say that the law is not enforced against employers because the Government is pro-employer. That is rubbish. No worker in Singapore will believe that the Government is pro-employer. What then has gone wrong? It is simply this: the machinery for the enforcement of the law has proved to be grossly inadequate. An employer sacks his employees because they have joined a trade union. The union, under the present regulations, must complain to the police. The police then send their reports to an over-worked S.A.G. The over-worked S.A.G. has no time to deal with these reports because he is deluged with other responsibilities. Now, why should the police have anything to do with industrial offences? Industrial offences are not criminal offences. Would it not be better for a legal officer to be attached to the Ministry of Labour, whose sole responsibility would be to take charge of the prosecution of industrial offences? Speed is essential for industrial justice. You cannot be slow in these matters without disillusioning workers about the rights conferred on them under the law. I suggest that if the Government really want to establish industrial justice, then the machinery for enforcing the law must be thoroughly overhauled. Let me give a recent example of how an employer deliberately violated section 77 of the I.R.O. and got away with it. The management of the American firm of Grant Advertising Incorporated dismissed all seven members of the Branch Committee soon after their employees joined a trade union. Complaints have been made, but to date nothing has happened, and the workers have become demoralised. If employers are allowed to get away with this kind of business, then constructive trade unionism becomes impossible. We in the National Trades Union Congress must insist that the law be enforced against Grant Advertising Incorporated, and that proceedings should be immediately instituted against the employers in accordance with section 77 of the I.R.O. I hope that the contentions of the trade unions will not fall on deaf ears and that the new Minister for Labour will take immediate steps to improve the machinery for the enforcement of the law. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Prime Minister's motion. 00.55 a.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, ever since the debate on the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara started and throughout the Budget debate last week, we have had the opportunity of listening to an exposition of the Communist cause, not from misguided pro-Communists of the Lee Siew Choh or the Sheng Nam Ching variety; they have vanished from the scene, washed away by the tide of history, but from a group of Communist front workers who are better trained, more well versed in Communism and more committed to the Communist struggle of setting up the dictatorship of the proletariat in this country. No doubt it was clear that every one of them in the Barisan Sosialis was parroting the old tune we had heard enough of before the elections. Neo-colonialism, phoney merger, sell-out merger, and others. There was nothing new for them to deliver, simply because the underground Communist Party of Malaya has nothing new to offer and obediently follows the tune set by the Partai Komunis Indonesia. But the strategy now that Malaysia is a fact seems to be to undermine the faith in and loyalty of the people towards Malaysia. They have said everything possible to do this, short of openly declaring, like the Indonesian leaders have done, that "Malaysia will be crushed". In their attempts to undermine and spread disloyalty and disaffection towards Malaysia, they are in actual fact acting as the fifth columnists and agents of the Indonesians. This blatant act of treachery and betrayal of the nation is being perpetrated at a time when the Indonesians are carrying out their policy of confrontation against Singapore and Malaysia. While the Indonesians are busy committing military action, economic boycott and generally harassing our nation, these fifth columnists are busy helping the Indonesians from within. Mr Speaker, Sir, last week when they were confronted with the question posed to them by the Minister for Culture as to whether they wanted Indonesian confrontation to fail or to succeed, they had no reply to offer. The Barisan Sosialis did not expect that they would be cornered and exposed so soon after the debate started. The Member for Thomson made feeble attempts to evade the question by saying that the Barisan wanted a peaceful settlement between Malaysia and Indonesia. The truth of the matter is that they are unable to give a clear-cut answer to that question without making a stand of their intentions. They are faced with a situation where they want to carry on with the Communist struggle against Malaysia and, at the same time, they do not want to be identified with the Indonesians. They have found themselves in a position where they are doing exactly what the Indonesians are doing. The Communists want to avoid being identified publicly with the Indonesians, although privately they know they have decided to be loyal to the P.K.I. line and accept Indonesian leadership in South-East Asia. They cannot, of course, publicly declare their loyalty to Indonesia. In order to remove this image of being the pawns of the Indonesians and the P.K.I. and to mislead the people here that they are not working for a foreign power, they have, in the last one week, gone out of their way to espouse the cause of the Chinese, Chinese education, Chinese language, Chinese patriots in China. They do all this to show that while they fully agree with what the Indonesians are doing against us, they are still Chinese at heart. Sir, in other words, they want to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. In their clumsy tactics, Sir, they have overlooked the important fact, i.e. the national language takes precedence over all the other languages, and that if they want Chinese to be used in the administration, then they should also put up the case for Malay as the national language. Mr Speaker, apart from their missing leader in this House, the rest of them here are very Chinese in their outlook. They may be loyal followers of D. N. Aidit, they may know the theories of Marx and Stalin, but I feel they know very little about the Malays and the thinking of the Malays. They are out of touch with the hopes and aspirations of the Malays. Have they ever wondered why the Malays who are economically the poorest community in Malaysia do not rally round the Communist Party or any Communist front Party in accordance with the Marxist theory that the Communist Party is the vanguard of the proletariat and peasantry? Do they understand the political problems faced by the people of Malaysia? Do they understand why all races in Malaysia reject Communism? One matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, which I wish to clear is the charge made by the Members in the Opposition that we deliberately raised the Communist bogey just to gain political advantage. Truly, Mr Speaker, this is a matter that I wish to dwell at some length in my speech. When the Barisan Sosialis say that we are bringing up the Communist bogey, they mean to say that there is no such thing as Communists in political Parties or non-political Parties in this country They mean that we are purposely trying to frighten the people with stories of spooks, ghosts and bogeys. Actually, Mr Speaker, Sir, a little while ago, the Member for Paya Lebar himself has said that the Minister for Culture has charged them with being Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, only fools will believe that the Communists do not exist in our society. Only the naive will think that the Communist threat has been eliminated. Only the politically uninitiated can be bamboozled by the Communists into believing that they, the Communists, are democrats who intend to work the parliamentary democratic system to better our society. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Emergency which lasted for twelve years, beginning from 1948 and which ended in 1960, is still fresh in our minds. The period from August 1945, when the war ended, to June 1948 is also fresh in our minds. The people of this country remember this period very vividly for the Hammer and Sickle emblems in the Red flags which fluttered over the Communist Party of Malaya Headquarters in Queen Street in Singapore and Foch Avenue in Kuala Lumpur, and over all its branches throughout Malaya. We remember the Communist-front organisations called the New Democratic Youth League, the Women's Democratic Federation, and the M.P.A.J.A. Ex-Comrades' Association. As a matter of fact, we still remember many names and many faces who proudly saluted the Communist flag with their fists clenched before their crowns. Mr Speaker, Sir, the armed insurrection started by the Communist Party of Malaya is over. The Communists decided to call it off after continuing with their atrocities against the people three years after Malaya achieved independence and became an independent and sovereign member of the United Nations. The Communist Party of Malaya was declared an illegal organisation since the Emergency started. The other Communist-front organisation I mentioned which flourished from 1945 to 1948 also vanished from the political scene. But what happened to the leaders of the Malayan Communist Party and all these organisations? Have they all been killed or have they all committed suicide in the jungles of Malaya? Have they renounced their Communist ideology of revolution and violence? Or have they become democrats? Mr Speaker, Sir, Communists and non-Communists know that the answer to all these questions is no. The aim of the Communists and Communist Parties the world over is the establishment of proletarian dictatorships where the Communist Party rules under a one-party system in which the democratic institutions, as we understand them, are abolished forever. Now the Communist Party of Malaya does not function in the open. On the contrary, it functions in the open as legally constituted organisations, be they political, social, cultural or literary in character, by infiltration of these legally constituted organisations. The Communist Party of Malaya functions in our society today as open-front organisations within the democratic system which permits their existence. In fact, Sir, they are free to flourish under the democratic system. The Communist Party of Malaya, like Communist Parties all over the world, has its open-front as well as its united front organisations, which they have organised. Lenin taught them this. Stalin too taught this. So also did Mao Tse-tung. They taught them how to carry on with the united front organisations. Aidit also believes in this. Mr Speaker, Sir, in their united front strategy, they invariably try to control the united front with non-Communists for their Communist ends, whether it be in the Old Boys' Association, trade unions, Students' Unions or political Parties. They still control these organisations. Mr David Marshall recently found it to his cost. He has accepted this fact. The coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948, when President Benes was betrayed, bears this out. Two years ago, the Communists in this country carried out these same tactics in the struggle of the people. But they failed. This is one example where they have failed and it has boomeranged against them. Therefore, Mr Speaker, it is sheer hypocrisy for pro-Communists and Communists to say that we are raising the Communist bogey when we try to expose them and their deceptive tactics. They are no ghosts nor spooks. These Communists are live men and women with eyes, ears and noses like you and me, Mr Speaker. They are full-blooded Communists in sheep's clothing. Naturally they do not go about advertising that they are Communists or Marxists. As a matter of fact, a Communist whose name the Prime Minister has referred to in his book The Battle for Merger once told me that under the present circumstances, the more reactionary a Communist appears to be, the better for the cause of Communism. The Communist is still at large outside prison gates today. When the Minister for Education a few days ago exposed Communist subversion in Chinese Secondary schools and in Nanyang University, the Barisan Sosialis Members loudly protested that he raised the Communist bogey. Let me ask them whether students who distribute Freedom News and other Communist literature are bogeys? Are under-graduates at Nanyang University, who write under the auspices of the Geographical Society, bogeys? Mr Speaker, Sir, Messrs. S. Wood-hull, Albert Lim Shee Ping and Puthucheary, were they ghosts when they were taken in in February? Neither was Lim Ching Siong a ghost. Nor is Chin Peng, the man who met the Tunku at Baling in 1955, a bogey. They are live Communists. So let not the Barisan men say again that we raise the Communist bogey when we expose them for being what they are. Mr Speaker, actually, since this session started 10 days ago, we have been able to identify these young and inexperienced Communist debaters with the greatest of ease; whereas old timers like S. T. Bani. Chan Sun Wing and Wong Soon Fong in those days were very careful to avoid using terms and cliches which Communists are trained to use. The present crowd of Barisan men have been using with gay abandon terms like "national bourgeoisie", "progressive forces" "feudal reactionary government", "revisionists", "reactionary clique", "inevitable collapse of capitalism", "anti- people", "foreign monopoly capitalists", etc. I have even heard one of them refer to the P.A.P. as "revisionists". Mr Speaker, Sir, last week in the debate in this House, one of the Barisan Opposition Members said that the Barisan Sosialis comprise patriots. He said that Tan Kah Kee was also a patriot. If Tan Kah Kee was a patriot, he was a Chinese patriot in China or a Communist patriot in China and not a Malaysian patriot. This is another reason why he went back to his country of origin. This is another instance of the dangerous line they are taking to show that they are not the stooges of the P.K.I. On Saturday the Member for Thomson tried to show that the P.A.P. have not done anything for the Malays in the field of education. Actually he has been repeatedly saying that the P.A.P. have not done anything at all for education for all the races. I marvel at his ability to ignore the facts when the facts stare at him in the face, and known to the people. 56 new schools, 464,000 children in schools, 35 integrated schools, more than 5,000 adults who are mainly teachers with certificates in the Malay language, two Malay secondary schools and 126 Malay secondary classes, 10-year education for every child in Singapore - with all these, he says the P.A.P. Government have not done anything. What sort of human beings are they who ignore these facts? Mr Speaker, Sir, we can ignore these unimportant things, but when people deliberately choose not to see concrete and rapid progress over 4� years, the like of which is unheard of anywhere in South-East Asia, then there must be something wrong with such people. Last week the Member for Thomson asked why the number of scholarships for Malays in the Polytechnic and the University of Singapore has decreased. I replied that it was not that the number had decreased, but that it had increased. I said that the number of Malay students were not enough to take advantage of these scholarships. However, one matter which I would like to ask is this: since when have the Barisan Sosialis shown interest in the welfare and education of the Malays? The truth of the matter is that because of the lunacy of the Communist Party of Malaya in their armed revolt, the hatred of the Malays towards the Communist Party and Communism could not be greater. Actually even today, Malays and other Malaysians are ready and prepared to take up arms to crush the Communists if they dare to start another armed rebellion in Malaysia. Mr Speaker, while Malaysia is being threatened externally, we are still allowing fifth columnists and traitors to attack us from inside. What is the Barisan Sosialis stand in this situation? What should be done to disloyal people like those in the Barisan Sosialis? Such as those people who are in front of us here? A week has passed since the Minister for Culture challenged them to state whether they wanted confrontation to succeed or fail. They have still not yet given a categorical answer. Mr Speaker, the amendment by the Barisan Sosialis, among others, says that as a result of Malaysia, the Government have caused great difficulties and hardships to the people in Singapore. We all know that confrontation was started by the Indonesians. Therefore, how is it that the Barisan Sosialis now say that the Government have caused hardship to the people? The people voted for merger and Malaysia in the referendum and again in the elections. The United Nations investigation team reported that the majority of the people of Sabah and Sarawak wanted to join Malaysia. Then what logic is it that makes the Barisan Sosialis say that the Government have helped to impose Malaysia? It is the people of Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak who wanted to join Malaysia. That is the crux of the matter, Mr Speaker, Sir. To end, before long these political opportunists who are prepared to be the stool pigeons of the P.K.I. will be exposed for what they are worth. Their loyalty is not to the people of this country, but to a foreign country, a country they have called their heartland. If so, then they have no place in our society. They should go and live there forever like Mr Tan Kah Kee.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to say a few words briefly in this Chamber. I wish to ask the Barisan Sosialis Members in this Chamber whether they oppose Malaysia. Malaysia has been established with the wishes of the people. Because the people were not deceived by the Barisan Sosialis or the Communist front in the referendum and in the recent general elections, it is clear proof that the people have no faith in the Barisan Sosialis. We see clearly how many of them have been elected by the people in this Chamber. The Barisan Sosialis are not yet aware that they represent the minority of the people in this Assembly. I wish to inform the Barisan Sosialis that if they consider this country as hell to them, they are free to go to any other country of their choice - Peking or Indonesia. I wish to ask them, if they are anti-Malaysia and do not support Malaysia, why should they live in Malaysia? If they consider this country is hell, they should leave it and go to any other country which they consider a paradise to live in. 1.15 a.m.

(In Mandarin): Since the 16th of September when Malaysia was established, the so-called anti-colonial and anti-Malaysia struggle was launched by the Communists. According to them, they have been pushing national revolution to a high peak. The Communist front and their spokesmen, including the Barisan Sosialis and the Socialist Front in Malaya, the S.U.P.P. in Sarawak and the University Students' Union and Barisan Assemblymen, especially the Member for Jurong, the Member for Thomson, the Member for Tampines and the Member for Paya Lebar, have been shouting anti-Malaysia, anti-colonial, anti-this and anti-that slogans to please their P.K.I. masters in Indonesia and to take orders from their foreign masters to carry out their anti-national activities ---

Order. We have had this for four days - "taking orders from their foreign masters". If the hon. Member is going to speak on this at a quarter past one in the morning, I am not going to allow him to repeat himself. So if he wants to speak, he should not repeat himself.

(In Mandarin): They are indulging in anti-national activities and they openly support the armed rebellion in Borneo and Brunei. They are opposed to national registration and they want to overthrow the Central Government. They are the representatives of the anti-national and Communist united front. They are not prepared to be loyal to Malaysia, in spite of the fact that they have sworn allegiance to Malaysia. The Malayan Communists have not abandoned their attempt to set up a Communist Malaya since the Emergency. If they cannot put their plan into practice, then they want to split Malaysia into so many parts in order that they can absorb these territories one by one. Their underground activities are still continuing and they have effective control over some organisations which openly carry out the instructions of the Communists. In the past two years, according to the documents revealed in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Students' Boycott, the Freedom News stated that the political situation in Singapore had all the necessary conditions for launching a new anti-colonial struggle to a new peak and that all the open front organisations and leaders should be educated in order to enhance the political consciousness of the people and to strengthen their anti-colonial fervour to end colonialism in Singapore. It also pointed out that in order to achieve real independence, they must, first of all, get rid of British imperialism which it was impossible to do by peaceful negotiation, and they must be prepared to continue with their national revolution. It also called upon the open front organisers to be the vanguard of the students, peasants and workers in the struggle, to concentrate their efforts to organise themselves, to receive and welcome their mission in the struggle. From this policy statement of the Malayan Communists, you can see that the open front organisations had been carrying out their activities according to the instructions of the Malayan Communists. They have concentrated their efforts in the Chinese Teachers' School Union and the Nanyang University Students' Union. Through these organisations, they have staged examination boycotts and the "liquidation" campaign in the University. They have also concentrated their efforts in trade unions - especially the S.A.T.U. - in rural areas, in the Country People's Association and Rural Dwellers' Association and the Barisan Sosialis is their main organ in the political field. Although they have been defeated by a force led by the P.A.P., but in view of the establishment of Malaysia, they will be more daring in carrying out their anti-national struggle.

Order. I propose to suspend this sitting for 15 minutes. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.25 a.m. until 1.40 a.m. Sitting resumed at 1.40 a.m.

Debate resumed.

We were debating the main Question and the amendment thereto. Mr Ho Cheng Choon had the Floor. 1.41 a.m.

(In Mandarin): The Barisan's Old Boys' Association did this and the boys opposite also did this. The speeches made by the Barisan Assemblymen in this House reflect their anti-national activities. They have said that we have been using the two words, "anti-nationalists" and "Communists', on them. Their speeches on the amendment only reflect their anti-national stand and go to prove that they are on the side of the Communists. The Barisan Members and their united front members are all in the same Communist united front. I would like to quote from some statements on the investigation of the Commission of Inquiry into the Students' Boycott which has exposed the activities of the students concerned. The Communists think that they can control Nanyang University. They make use of Nanyang University as a training ground for Communist cadres to carry out their anti-national activities. During University Week they carried out anti-national activities. On the 1st of December this year, there was a so-called academic forum, but in actual fact it was a political forum to carry out their anti-national activities. The speeches of the Barisan are the same in content, in that they accused the British imperialists of having brought about Malaysia and suppressing the people. In their speeches, they also defended Indonesia, saying that the Indonesian confrontation was justified as a means of self-defence. They put the blame for the formation of Malaysia and confrontation on the British and the Alliance, and they also condemned the national service registration as a means of suppressing the revolution in the Borneo territories. Therefore, they started the anti-national service registration struggle in order to overthrow the Central Government, to drive out the British imperialists and to establish an independent country without foreign troops, foreign exploitation and reactionary influence, so that the people can have their own freedom to live happily in Utopia. But if this objective of theirs cannot be realised, then they propose that the four territories of Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and Malaya should be independent countries by themselves. University Week was made use of to further the Communist anti-national activities and to promote the so-called University autonomy and freedom of academic exercise. The Nanyang University Students' Union made use of University Week for the purpose of disseminating Communist propaganda to further their anti-national activities and to recruit new Communist cadres to train students as future camp comrades. They allowed the students to stay in the University campus for several weeks under the pretext of preparing for University Week. In actual fact, the activities carried out in the University campus had nothing to do with University Week to be held in March. During their stay-in, they exhibited articles and pictures from Communist countries, praised the Red Army, issued anti-national pamphlets, and carried out all sorts of anti-Government and anti-State propaganda and other subversive activities. Their main purpose in the campus was for this. They said that one of the objectives of University Week was to welcome new students - the freshies - to get settled in the University and to know one another. By this means they intend to recruit new cadres. After training, these new cadres will become their new blood. This has been an open secret. On the question of whether the standard of Nanyang University should be raised, the Barisan Assemblymen have all claimed that because the standard has been raised, therefore, the lessons are tough. They do not want the standard of Nanyang University to be raised, because if it is to be done, the students have to spend more time on their studies than on Communist activities. If this is to be achieved, then the professors and lecturers would be very strict and have to spend more time on their lectures, and the students would have no facilities to carry on their non-academic activities. The students who belong to the united front, in the event of the standard of the University being raised, will not be able to carry on with their activities, as the curriculum will be very heavy. On the other hand, their examinations will be quite stiff, if a high standard is to be maintained. That again will be another cover by which the activities of the students and undergraduates can be restricted. That is why they do not want to have a high standard in the University of Nantah. Some of the Nanyang undergraduates make use of the typewriters in the University for the purpose of typing out Communist literature. They supply material typed on Nanyang University typewriters. These typists were closely associated with the Communist activists during their school days. So there are available facilities in Nanyang University for the fostering of Communist activities. The Communist united front workers are very active in Nanyang University. So there is no chance of anybody wishing to raise the academic standard of Nanyang University. The academic standard of Nanyang University is really deplorable. The University authorities desired to arrange the position of the students according to their examination results, but the united front workers opposed this move by the University authorities, because they did not want their front workers to be placed at the end of the list. As a result of certain pressure exerted by the united front workers, the Nanyang University authorities had to give way. These are facts which I mention to show that the Nanyang University students are under the control of the united front Communists. They are trying to make use of academic freedom to carry out their anti-national activities. They are closely related to other united front organisations of a Communist nature. They even go to the extent of misusing the students' union funds to finance their non-academic activities up to the amount of $5,000. The question by the Barisan Members has been raised in order to defend the activities of their friends in the united front in Nanyang University. It is our duty to expose their ulterior motive. The question of whether the standard of Nanyang University should be raised should be judged by the experts. 1.50 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Members on the Opposition benches have been making a hue and cry over Malaysia and confrontation for the past few days. They deliberately seem to ignore Malaysia and give prominence to the Indonesian confrontation. Their proposed amendment to the Prime Minister's motion to express thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's policy speech is ill-conceived and evil-minded. I wish to deal with a few points raised by them. First and foremost, they deplore the existence of Malaysia, and try to show to the outer world, more fittingly to their Indonesian counterparts, that there exists dissension among the people of Singapore with regard to Malaysia, and this bunch of disillusioned politicians are their leaders. If the cap fits them, let them wear it. Has the inception of Malaysia caused any difficulty in the normal way of living of the people of Singapore? In fact, it has opened a vast stretch of land from Malaya to Sabah, Sarawak and North Borneo for the benefit of the people of Singapore. Then why are these Barisan Assemblymen trying to distort the facts? Malaysia is not a dream land. Malaysia is in existence, as real as the Barisan themselves. Malaysia is a political and economic entity of 10 million people of Singapore, Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo. It is universally accepted. There could be nothing more serious than to undermine this fact. Malaysia is not an armed gang-up against any country - not in the least against the Indonesians. Then why this confrontation by the Indonesians? Dr Soekarno has repeatedly stated over Radio Jakarta that he will crush Malaysia. In other words, the confrontation will go on until Malaysia is crushed. Do the Barisan seriously advise us to give up Malaysia? If the Indonesians confront Malaysia, it is their business. But to defend Malaysia from any external threat or attack is the duty of all true Malaysians. But what are the Barisan trying to do? They want to subvert Malaysia in favour of Indonesia. They are not interested in the country in which they live. In actual fact, they follow the Indonesians. They admire Indonesia where there is no Parliament, no rule of law, no democracy, but guided democracy being steered at the whims and fancies of Dr Soekarno. There is no civil government but Army generals at the helm of the nation's administration. Perhaps all these impress them more than the peaceful and democratic way of life of the people of Malaysia. Perhaps Dr Soekarno is being considered by them as a big brother and liberator of the Barisan masses who are suffering in Malaysia due to the undemocratic imposition of Malaysia on them. That is what the first part of their amendment indicates. They say in their amendment --- "; 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 ---". Truly none other than the Barisan are discontented with Malaysia. But we Malaysians consider the Indonesians as good friends and big brothers too. But the confrontation is something the reality of which we cannot escape from. Sarawak and North Borneo are part and parcel of Malaysia, although they are far apart. Coming to the Indonesian confrontation, Sir, it seems that the Indonesians are very familiar with the word "confrontation". Immediately after the Second World War the Indonesians confronted the Dutch colonial masters with an army trained by the Japanese, because they found a die-hard colonialism in the imperialist Dutch who did not give in to their demand for independence. Well, that is all to their credit. Following their independence in 1949, there was rebellion in the Celebes Island. There was a second confrontation of Indonesians against their own people. There was the third confrontation for the annexation of West Irian. This time they received jet planes and warships from Russia which made them stronger still. Fortunately the world body moved in and the Indonesians were saved from a devastating war. The United Nations mediated in the peaceful transfer of West Irian from the Dutch to Indonesia. So the lessons of confrontation run all the time in their veins. Now they confront Malaysia! What next? Do the Indonesians have any ulterior motive to annex Malaysia with Indonesia? Sir, history has taught us that any dictatorial means of action employed by power-mad politicians and their armies has caused more harm to themselves than to the people intended. Germany's Hitler was an example of this. He had a powerful army. He went on annexing and annihilating country after country. First from Munich to Czechoslovakia, from the Sudetenland to Poland where he was finally caught between the cross-fire of big powers and perished. Sir, the Barisan's amendment, as it stands, undermines the integrity and freedom of the people of Malaysia. It would have been better for the Barisan to talk to the Indonesians and persuade them to stop talking about confrontation and conflagration and go to the conference table to talk things over. It is an ignominious act on the part of the Barisan Sosialis to ask their own Prime Minister to go on his knees before the Indonesians to talk things over, because the doors are closed on our faces by the Indonesian confrontation. We are an independent nation and a self-respecting people. We want peace more than war. We have seen the horrors of the Japanese war in Malaya during 1941. We know the dangers of nuclear war and radioactive fall-out. We know the devastating effects of the hydrogen bomb over Hiroshima. Therefore, we do not want war, we want peace. Nobody likes war. Even the Russians who are leading in the atomic bomb race dared not start a war over Cuba. Neither are the Americans, with their huge stockpile of nuclear war-heads, prepared to fight a war. Malaysia is not an exemption to this. Even a goat, if confronted with a lion, will put up a final fight before it succumbs. Therefore, I would advise the Barisan Members not to try to be scare-crows in this Assembly and be His Master's Voice of Radio Jakarta. It is quite logical for newly emerging independent countries to first set right their own economy. Perhaps the Indonesians are not quick-witted in this respect. Perhaps they have been absorbed in too many confrontations for too long. Now they realise the seriousness of their home economy and find a scapegoat in Malaysia for it. Dr Subandrio has said over Radio Jakarta even if Malaysia is settled he will not resume trade relations with Malaysia on the same basis as it was done before. In the past, Indonesian raw materials found their world market through the Singapore free port. Now Jakarta wants to come out as a free port and the marketing area for Indonesian goods. In such an event Malaysia cannot expect a big volume of trade with Indonesia even after confrontation is settled. The Government of Singapore is not minimising the seriousness of the Indonesian confrontation and the loss of trade. Our Prime Minister has openly admitted that the Indonesian trade embargo has caused us a loss of $8.7 million in national income. Our Minister for Finance has not concealed this in his Budget Estimates. On the other hand, provisions have been made for temporary relief measures for those workers and firms affected by the loss of Indonesian trade. This loss of trade will be made up eventually through the rapid industrialisation of this country, and the Jurong industrial development will play a big part in redeeming the national prestige and setting right our national economy and increasing the national income. Sir, I wish to tell the Barisan Members to correct themselves from the Indonesian illusion. Think and act for themselves as true Malaysians, and co-operate with the Singapore and Federal Governments by forwarding constructive criticism rather than bringing up a treacherous amendment such as this. Mr Speaker, Sir, I conclude my speech. 2.05 a.m.

(In Mandarin): [Break in translation] If you are really repentant, then we will not scold you any more. Mr Speaker, Sir, in another two weeks' time a new year will be ushered in, a year full of significance, because this is the year in which the people in Sarawak, Sabah, Singapore and Malaya have got rid of British colonialism and have formed themselves into a new nation. In the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, the Government has stepped up its effort to bring more happiness, peace and prosperity to the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the past era has ended and a new era has come, we must look back and look forward. Looking back over the past few years, we are overwhelmed with feelings. Under parliamentary democracy and in this august Chamber, things are the same but the people have changed. That shows that under a parliamentary democracy where the one-man-one-vote system is in existence, all those corrupt officials and all those who have exploited and oppressed the people have been discarded by the people. In every election these people will be swept away by the political tide. This includes the Ban-san Sosialis Members opposite. Therefore, today, in this House, we are not able to see the so-called Progressive Party, the Liberal Socialists, the Workers' Party and the Lim Yew Hock Party. All this political rubbish has been discarded by the people and has been driven from this House, this august Chamber. The Barisan Sosialis Members today have been elected through their deceitful and deceptive tactics. The P.A.P. are still able to command majority strength in this House. It is not, as alleged by the Barisan Sosialis, that we are able to form the Government ---

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we feel very cold. What I want to raise is a point of order. I would like to have your guidance. I feel that the speeches made by the Government Members have been repetitious. I do not know whether we can shorten the debate so that we can go home. It is getting very late now and we feel very cold.

It is ten past two. We have to be here at half-past two tomorrow afternoon. We do not mind about ourselves, but I think we have to think about our staff - our shorthand writers and interpreters. Hon. Members get up and speak for ten minutes, but our interpreters have to go on and on. I do not want to impose on any particular Member, but it is only the Government Members who will be speaking. I would ask them in the interests of all to be as brief as possible. I cannot stop them unless they are being repetitious. But I feel that after four days of debate, everything that can be said has been said. Madam Chan, please proceed.

(In Mandarin): If the Opposition want to indulge in personal attacks we are prepared to continue the debate in this tone. (In English): If you allow the Opposition Members to make personal attacks, then we will go on till six o'clock in the morning - only on personal attacks.

I am not prepared to hear personal attacks for one more second, and I certainly will not listen to personal attacks till six o'clock. All I am prepared to hear is the debate on the question. We will not have any personal attacks. The Lady is speaking and I hope that the Opposition will afford her the courtesy of letting her finish her speech in silence. She is the only Lady left here.

(In Mandarin): The Opposition had better sit outside if they do not want to listen. I feel that the people throughout the world realise this. If according to what the Barisan Members have said, it is possible to gain power through suppression, and all sorts of tactics, then I am afraid that it is only in a Communist country that one can gain power through suppressive and other tactics. In a democratic country, it is not possible to gain power through repressive means; otherwise there would not have been so many coup d'etat in so many countries in South-East Asia, for example, in South Vietnam. The Lim Yew Hock regime in Singapore would not have collapsed. The P.A.P. have been able to get the continuous support of a great majority of the people. There are several reasons for this. The first reason is that our stand is firm. We dare to practise what we believe. And we are dedicated to the cause of the people. The third factor is that the people have trust in us as a clean, efficient and honest government. Fourthly, we have been able to face the threat of the Communists and we have been able to help set up Malaysia, to bring about merger. Fifthly, the Government have carried out all their pledges contained in the Five-Year Plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, our splendid achievements in the past four years have been known to all. This cannot be effaced by what the Barisan have said. I would like to ask them whether there is any country in South-East Asia which could carry out such a big housing programme as we have done, at such a low cost. The living conditions of the people of Singapore compared with those of four years ago are very much better. We have been able to build houses surpassing our schedule. Provided the family has more than three members, in just a matter of two weeks it will be able to get allocation of a house. The back of the housing problem has been broken. At the moment, although there are several thousand people still on the waiting list for houses, the Government are continuing with the public housing programme in order to meet the needs of these people. Our Minister for National Development has said that we are trying to build 10,000 units every year in order to meet the needs of our people, but those despicable and ignominious Barisan Sosialis Members have been distorting the facts and misconstruing our intentions, alleging that the rentals of the houses built by the Housing Board are too high. The Government wanted to develop the Toa Payoh area but the Barisan Sosialis Member tried very hard to obstruct the Government's scheme and persuaded residents not to accept Government's compensation but to obstruct their scheme in every way possible. A member of the Barisan in the Toa Payoh area - he was also a resident there -very early had received compensation from the Government and had chosen for himself housing accommodation given by the Government. He was the first one to choose his own house and yet he asked the people there not to accept Government's alternative housing accommodation. Now these are the true colours of the Barisan Members. In spite of this, the Government intend to carry on with their Toa Payoh building programme. Mr Speaker, Sir, for the past four years the Government have dealt very well with the most important problem of the people, namely, the economic problem. The Government have a complete, comprehensive economic plan which is directed towards securing the happiness, prosperity, peaceful living and better future for the people. Even the Barisan Assemblymen cannot deny this. We have been able to rectify the bad economic situation left over by the Lim Yew Hock Government and have, in the end, accumulated a surplus instead. This has all been due to our integrity and to the efforts of our Government, its acumen, its intelligent leadership and its integrity and honesty. Therefore, in every field of work - building construction, roads, shipping, etc. - there have been great developments and achievements over the past few years. The economy of Singapore at present is more prosperous and is growing faster than ever. The people are enjoying better and more equal treatment. There is no distinction of classes: whether you are a merchant or a poor man, you can choose your way of life. Foreigners who come to Singapore describe Singapore as a paradise. This is not an exaggerated statement by them, because they have seen for themselves many countries in South-East Asia which are facing economic bankruptcy. They have also seen in these regions the prevalence of poverty, sickness, and other evils. Although there are poor families in Singapore, they can at least live a decent life. With gradual development, their living conditions are gradually improving. From our Budget Estimates and Development Estimates, we can see how we can achieve our objects in this respect. The Indonesian confrontation has not brought any increase of taxation on the people. Property tax rates for owner-occupied houses have been reduced from 36 per cent to 27 per cent per year. This is concrete evidence to prove that we have done something for the benefit of the poorer classes. Our economy is very sound. Our living conditions are improving day by day, and through the co-operation and unity of the people, we can achieve our objectives. Mr Speaker, Sir, all day long, the Barisan Assemblymen have been hurling abusive words at us. They have been indulging in this for more than two years. Their role should be to help the Government by advancing constructive criticisms for the betterment of the people. On the contrary, whatever they do and say is done with evil intentions, and the effect is only to worsen things. Without any rhyme or reason, they have incited the workers, misappropriated trade union funds and caused many workers to lose their jobs. After creating such chaos, they turn round and put the blame on the Government, accusing us of not being able to resolve the unemployment situation. [Interruption] If you are impatient, you can leave this Chamber now! Mr Speaker, Sir, the achievements of the Government over the past four years have been acknowledged by the people of the Federation of Malaya. On the rights of women, we have been able to provide better and fairer opportunities for them to enjoy equal rights as the men. This has brought a sense of dignity to women. Our women in the civil service are enjoying equal pay for equal work. The Government have built quite a good number of creches to enable mothers to leave their children there when they go out to work. In the coming years, women will be able to contribute their efforts and energy towards the building of a better socialist society. There is an old Chinese saying that if you are holding an important position you have a greater burden and task before you. We have fulfilled the task entrusted to us. The Barisan's attitude and actions in regard to Indonesian confrontation are despicable. They have sworn in this House to support Malaysia. But in the face of confrontation, they have forgotten their pledge. They have not dared to come forward. Instead they have been engaging themselves in anti-national activities and have tried to speak on behalf of Indonesia, trying to magnify the serious consequences of Indonesian confrontation. When we thoroughly expose them in this House, they turn round and say that they advocate a peaceful settlement with Indonesia and urge us to negotiate with Indonesia for a peaceful settlement. I ask them whether they are only paying lip-service. Even at the time when Singapore accepted the principle of Malaysia, the Barisan Sosialis had begun creating chaos and trouble everywhere. For about two or three years the Barisan Members have never ceased to instigate students and workers to go on strike and cause a chaotic situation in the State. They even went to the extent of lending their support to the Brunei rebels. Today they even have the effrontery to say in this House that they are advocating a peaceful solution to the problem. In actual fact, they are earnestly hoping and praying that the Indonesian army will march into Singapore. They are like Wu San Kwee of the Ming Dynasty of China. He let in the enemy armies into China. The Barisan's true colours have been thoroughly exposed in this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, after their great defeat and disaster at the general elections, the Barisan Sosialis have now turned round and accused the Government of having taken repressive action. In fact, the people have taught them a lesson by their defeat, at the general elections. The Barisan Sosialis talked eloquently, what with their propaganda tactics, at the general elections, but nevertheless their debased actions cost them their defeat. In the end the people were fed up with them. This is because even before they could form the government they were arrogant and unstable in their actions. They created fear and trouble everywhere. I would have thought that the Barisan Sosialis would have changed and mended their ways after their defeat. I would have thought that they would have discarded their past evil activities. In actual fact, we see that these people can never change. They have instead persisted in, and indeed stepped up, their usual activities. I would like to give a piece of advice to the Members of the Barisan Sosialis. If they do not want to hold back their horses on the brink of the precipice and go back, they will be discarded by the people in the end. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are filled with emotion when we look back over the last four years of our term of office. We have discovered some of our shortcomings. But the fact remains that we should be happy because Malaysia has been achieved. We can see for ourselves that the Common Market is now an accomplished fact. This is a great encouragement to the people in this area. History has also proved that the P.A.P. can keep the trust which the people have placed in them. The P.A.P. have ended colonialism in this part of the world. They have brought about reunification between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. In this way, we have been able to establish a society in which there is no exploitation of man by man. The aspirations of the people are now being realised through the enlightened leadership of the Malaysian Government. In spite of intimidation and pressure from many quarters, we are able to ensure that everybody within the territories of Malaysia will have a decent life. This is our objective. 2.40 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, and agreed to. Question put, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 27; Abstention, 1; Absent, 15. Noes Ayes A. Rahim Ishak Chia Thye Poh Buang Bin Omar Junid Chio Cheng Thun Chan Chee Seng Koo Young Chan Choy Siong,Madam Kow Kee Seng Chow Chiok Hock Ong Lian Teng Fong Sip Chee Poh Ber Liak Gonzales, R. A. Tan Cheng Tong Govindasamy, P. Ho Cheng Choon Jek Yeun Thong Abstention Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Barker, E. W. Lim Kim San Mahmud Awang Absent Ng Kah Ting Bani, S. T. Ng Yeow Chong Chan Sun Wing Ong Pang Boon Fong Kim Heng Othman Bin Wok Goh Keng Swee Rahamat Bin Kenap Ho See Beng Rajoo, S. Lee Kuan Yew Rodrigues, Bernard Lim Huan Boon Sia Kah Hui Lingam, S. V. Sim Boon Woo Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Teong Eng Siong Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi Toh Chin Chye Nair, Mrs. Devan Wee Toon Boon Ong Eng Guan Yong Nyuk Lin Rajaratnam. S. Wong Soon Fong Yaacob Bin Mohammad Al-Haj Amendment accordingly negatived. Original Question put.

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 27: Noes. 7; Abstention, 1; Absent, 15. Ayes Noes A. Rahim Ishak Chia Thye Poh Buang Bin Omar Junid Chio Cheng Thun Chan Chee Seng Koo Young Chan Choy Siong, Kow Kee Seng Madam Ong Lian Teng Chow Chiok Hock Poh Ber Liak Fong Sip Chee Tan Cheng Tong Gonzales, R. A. Govindasamy, P. Ho Cheng Choon Abstention Jek Yeun Thong Barker, E. W. Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Absent Lim Kim San Bani, S. T. Mahmud Awang Chan Sun Wing Ng Kah Ting Fong Kim Heng Ng Yeow Chong Goh Keng Swee Ong Pang Boon Ho See Beng Othman Bin Wok Lee Kuan Yew Rahamat Bin Kenap Lim Huan Boon Rajoo, S. Lingam, S. V. Rodrigues, Bernard Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Sia Kah Hui Ayes-cont. Absent-cont. Sim Boon Woo Mohd.Ariff Bin Suradi Teong Eng Siong Nair, Mrs. Devan Toh Chin Chye Ong Eng Guan Wee Toon Boon Rajaratnam, S Yong Nyuk Lin Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj. Motion accordingly agreed to. Resolved, 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.'.

Mr Deputy Prime Minister, will you move the motion which will be most welcome?

I am only too happy to oblige, Mr Speaker. I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes to Three o'clock a.m. (19th December, 1963). STATEMENT BY THE HONOURABLE THE MALAYSIAN PRIME MINISTER, TENGKU ABDUL RAHMAN PUTRA, IN THE DEWAN RA'AYAT (Cols 0965-0970)